subject | book bibliographic info |
---|---|
halakah | Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 61, 136, 138, 147, 185 Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 129, 138, 139, 140, 142, 147, 154, 159, 208, 212, 213 |
halakah, halakic | Faßbeck and Killebrew, Viewing Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology: VeHinnei Rachel - Essays in honor of Rachel Hachlili (2016) 49, 55, 82, 85, 417, 418 |
127 validated results for "halakah" |
---|
1. Septuagint, Tobit, 4.12 (10th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah Found in books: Allen and Doedens, Turmoil, Trauma and Tenacity in Early Jewish Literature (2022) 101; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 296 4.12 Beware, my son, of all immorality. First of all take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman, who is not of your fathers tribe; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land. |
2. Hebrew Bible, Song of Songs, 2.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 446; Lieber, A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (2014) 112, 253 2.4 הֱבִיאַנִי אֶל־בֵּית הַיָּיִן וְדִגְלוֹ עָלַי אַהֲבָה׃ 2.4 He hath brought me to the banqueting-house, And his banner over me is love. |
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.5, 4.2, 4.44, 5.12-5.13, 5.16, 5.28, 6.4-6.9, 6.18, 8.10, 9.10, 11.13-11.21, 13.1-13.2, 13.7, 17.8-17.12, 17.16-17.18, 18.11-18.12, 18.15-18.22, 19.17, 20.6, 22.1-22.3, 22.6, 22.9-22.11, 22.22-22.29, 23.4, 23.15, 24.1, 25.9, 27.8, 28.69, 29.13, 29.28, 30.12-30.14, 31.19, 31.22, 32.44, 32.47, 33.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Divorce, law/halakha • Father, precedes the mother, in the Halakha • Halakha, halakhic • Halakha, in the New Testament • Halakha/halakhic • Halakhah • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah, philosophical monotheism of • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Halakhic, character • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Midrash, halakhic • Miqsat Maºase ha-Torah (MMT, a.k.a. “Halakhic Letter”) • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • System, halakhic ~ • Yohanan, R., on teaching halakhah • aggadah, halakhah compared with • ancient Halakha • betrothal, rabbinic halakha • biblical texts, halakhah and • ethics, in Avot, exceeding formal halakha • false prophets, and halakhic authority • halakha, Babylonian • halakha, Dead Sea Scrolls • halakha, Judean • halakha, Palestinian • halakha, and Scripture • halakha, rejected • halakhah • halakhah and custom • halakhah, Midrash, halakhic • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, as a metaphor for God's rejection of Israel • halakhah, as a metaphor for Gods rejection of Israel • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, conflicting interpretations of • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, sanctions in • halakhah, “old” versus “new” traditions of • halakhic exegesis, prooftexts of • halakhic literature, early tannaitic • history of Halakha, • law, Jewish (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah), king and • law, Jewish (halakhah), of lost objects • monotheism, mythic, in Aggadah, ix, Halakhah • philosophical monotheism, in Halakhah • prophecy, halakhic model of • rabbinic literature, views on human cognition in halakhic law • taxonomy, taxonomy, Halakhah’s medium of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 52, 170; Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 9, 34, 116, 132, 197, 206; Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 201; DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 65, 81, 82, 103, 122, 185, 191, 192, 196, 199, 203, 223, 263, 264; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 161; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible (2014) 266, 273, 281, 282, 285, 298, 321, 354; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 50, 72, 73, 174; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 125; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 24, 81, 158, 159, 160, 211, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 223, 224, 236, 240, 267, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 323, 325, 332, 340, 341, 361, 371, 385, 443, 469, 489; Hasan Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity (2003) 69; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 71, 503; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48, 77, 90, 91, 143; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 318; Kosman, Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism (2012) 117; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 97, 98, 136, 185, 197; Neusner, The Perfect Torah (2003) 42; Piotrkowski, Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period (2019) 263; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 8, 75, 122, 125; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 208, 230; Ruzer, Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror (2020) 114; Salvesen et al., Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period (2020) 604, 635; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 9, 10, 11, 46, 49, 51, 54, 67, 75, 96, 98; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 53, 54, 58, 61, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 91, 94, 99, 101, 119, 122, 388, 426, 449; Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (2006) 142, 157; Zawanowska and Wilk, The Character of David in Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Warrior, Poet, Prophet and King (2022) 133 1.5 בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב הוֹאִיל מֹשֶׁה בֵּאֵר אֶת־הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת לֵאמֹר׃, 4.2 וְאֶתְכֶם לָקַח יְהוָה וַיּוֹצִא אֶתְכֶם מִכּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל מִמִּצְרָיִם לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם נַחֲלָה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃, 4.44 וְזֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר־שָׂם מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃, 5.12 שָׁמוֹר אֶת־יוֹם הַשַׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, 5.13 שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד וְעָשִׂיתָ כָּל־מְלַאכְתֶּךָ׃, 5.16 כַּבֵּד אֶת־אָבִיךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ׃, 5.28 וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי וַאֲדַבְּרָה אֵלֶיךָ אֵת כָּל־הַמִּצְוָה וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תְּלַמְּדֵם וְעָשׂוּ בָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לָהֶם לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃, 6.4 שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד׃, 6.5 וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶךָ׃, 6.6 וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם עַל־לְבָבֶךָ׃, 6.7 וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ׃, 6.8 וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת עַל־יָדֶךָ וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ׃, 6.9 וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל־מְזוּזֹת בֵּיתֶךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ׃, 6.18 וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וּבָאתָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ׃, 1.5 beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, took Moses upon him to expound this law, saying: 4.2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 4.44 And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel; 5.12 Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD thy God commanded thee. 5.13 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; 5.16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God commanded thee; that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee, upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 5.28 But as for thee, stand thou here by Me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandment, and the statutes, and the ordices, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.’, 6.4 HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE. 6.5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6.6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 6.7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 6.8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 6.9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates. 6.18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, 8.10 And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the LORD thy God for the good land which He hath given thee. 9.10 And the LORD delivered unto me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spoke with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. 11.13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, 11.14 that I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. 11.15 And I will give grass in thy fields for thy cattle, and thou shalt eat and be satisfied. 11.16 Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; 11.17 and the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit; and ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you. 11.18 Therefore shall ye lay up these My words in your heart and in your soul; and ye shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes. 11.19 And ye shall teach them your children, talking of them, when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 11.20 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates; 11.21 that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. 13.1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. 13.2 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams—and he give thee a sign or a wonder, " 13.7 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying: Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;", 17.8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose. 17.9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. 17.10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. 17.11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 17.12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel. 17.16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: ‘Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.’, 17.17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 17.18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites. 18.11 or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer. 18.12 For whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD; and because of these abominations the LORD thy God is driving them out from before thee. 18.15 A prophet will the LORD thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 18.16 according to all that thou didst desire of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying: ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.’, 18.17 And the LORD said unto me: ‘They have well said that which they have spoken. 18.18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 18.19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him. 18.20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’, 18.21 And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?’, 18.22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him. 19.17 then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days. 20.6 And what man is there that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not used the fruit thereof? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man use the fruit thereof. 22.1 Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother. 22.2 And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother require it, and thou shalt restore it to him. 22.3 And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself. 22.6 If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young; 22.9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seed; lest the fulness of the seed which thou hast sown be forfeited together with the increase of the vineyard. 22.10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 22.11 Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. , 22.22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel. 22.23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die: the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife; so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. 22.25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man take hold of her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die. 22.26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter. 22.27 For he found her in the field; the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 22.28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22.29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. 23.4 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever; 23.15 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from thee. 24.1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, 25.9 then shall his brother’s wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: ‘So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house.’, 27.8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.’, 28.69 These are the words of the covet which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covet which He made with them in Horeb. 29.13 Neither with you only do I make this covet and this oath; 29.28 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. 30.12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’, 30.13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’, 30.14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. 31.19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach thou it the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. 31.22 So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel. 32.44 And Moses came and spoke all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he, and Hoshea the son of Nun. 32.47 For it is no vain thing for you; because it is your life, and through this thing ye shall prolong your days upon the land, whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.’, 33.10 They shall teach Jacob Thine ordices, And Israel Thy law; They shall put incense before Thee, And whole burnt-offering upon Thine altar. |
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.2-12.3, 19.10-19.11, 19.15, 20.8-20.9, 20.15, 21.16, 21.29, 24.12, 31.13-31.17, 34.7, 34.15, 34.27, 34.31, 35.1, 35.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha, intensification • Halakhah • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Midrash, halakhic • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • System, halakhic ~ • biblical texts, halakhah and • halakah • halakha in Diaspora • halakhah • halakhah and custom • halakhah, Midrash, halakhic • halakhah, Sinaitic revelation and • halakhah, as modality of tradition • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah), king and Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green, A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner (2014) 257; Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 34, 53; Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 201, 202; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 115, 116; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible (2014) 298; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 72, 147, 169; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 129; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 18, 158, 159, 160, 215, 219, 348, 371, 455, 469, 489, 490, 507; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48, 143; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 62; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 75, 91; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 207, 209; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 96; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 244; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 47, 62, 114, 129, 169, 430; Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 140 12.2 כָּל־מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת׃, 12.3 וַיָּקָם פַּרְעֹה לַיְלָה הוּא וְכָל־עֲבָדָיו וְכָל־מִצְרַיִם וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה בְּמִצְרָיִם כִּי־אֵין בַּיִת אֲשֶׁר אֵין־שָׁם מֵת׃, 12.2 ’This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 12.3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying: In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’houses, a lamb for a household; 19.10 And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments, 19.11 and be ready against the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. 19.15 And he said unto the people: ‘Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.’, 20.8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 20.9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; 20.15 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off. 21.16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 21.29 But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 24.12 And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.’, 31.13 ’Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying: Verily ye shall keep My sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the LORD who sanctify you. 31.14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31.15 Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 31.16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covet. 31.17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased from work and rested.’, 34.7 keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.’, 34.15 lest thou make a covet with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee, and thou eat of their sacrifice; 34.27 And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covet with thee and with Israel.’, 34.31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him; and Moses spoke to them. 35.1 And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them: ‘These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. 35.3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.’ |
5. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.10, 1.26-1.27, 2.24, 9.1, 9.25, 17.1, 22.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakah • Halakha, in the New Testament • Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Qumran halakha • Sabbath, and Halakhah, did not prohibit sex on Sabbath • Sabbath, halakha • Sex, and Halakhah, did not prohibit sex on Sabbath • halakah • halakha, Dead Sea Scrolls • halakha, on gentiles • halakha, rabbinic • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, conflicting interpretations of • midrash halakhah • sugiah (Sugiot), Halakhic • – halakhic midrash • “priestly halakhah,” definition of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 56; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 13; Kattan Gribetz et al., Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context (2016) 138; Kosman, Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism (2012) 207; Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 156; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 117; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 81; Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 130; Salvesen et al., Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period (2020) 603; Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 61; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 108; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 84, 96, 128; Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (2006) 176; Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 213 1.10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 1.26 And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’, 1.27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 2.24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. 9.1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. 9.25 And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 17.1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: ‘I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted. 22.5 And Abraham said unto his young men: ‘Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship, and come back to you.’ |
6. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 6.2, 6.7, 7.11, 10.10, 11.2, 11.36, 13.46, 15.13, 15.16, 16.1, 18.6, 18.10, 18.17-18.18, 19.11-19.13, 19.17-19.19, 19.23-19.24, 20.10, 20.12, 20.14, 20.17, 20.19, 20.26, 21.21, 23.10-23.11, 23.38, 24.19-24.22, 25.4, 26.42, 26.45-26.46 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Baumgarten, Joseph, on sectarian halakhah in rabbinic literature • Damascus Document, halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakha • Halakha, association • Halakha, discourse • Halakha, halakhic • Halakha, intensification • Halakha, mixing • Halakha/halakhic • Halakhah • Halakhah, cultic ritual in, as pseudo-narrative • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah, philosophical monotheism of • Halakhah, theology of • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Israel, in Halakhic theology • Jubilees, Book of, halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Midrash Halakhah • Midrash, halakhic • Miqsat Maºase ha-Torah (MMT, a.k.a. “Halakhic Letter”), halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Rabbinic, halakhic discourse • Sabbath, halakha • Scripture, and Halakhah • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • Sinai, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • System, halakhic ~ • Temple Scroll, halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Torah, and halakha • ancient Halakha • halakha in Diaspora • halakha, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah • halakhah and custom • halakhah, Midrash, halakhic • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, and midrash halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, borders between “sectarian” and “nonsectarian,” • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, formation and perception of • halakhah, legal terminology of • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah), of oaths and vows • midrash halakhah • midrash, halakhic • monotheism, mythic, in Aggadah, ix, Halakhah • philosophical monotheism, in Halakhah • taxonomy, taxonomy, Halakhah’s medium of • “He did not create it a waste”, as Legal term in the Halakha Found in books: Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 209; Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 199; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible (2014) 281; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 72, 73; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 125, 132; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 95, 156, 157, 161, 162, 222, 242, 297, 351, 371; Hasan Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity (2003) 43; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 70; Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 137; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 192; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 239; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 270; Kosman, Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism (2012) 198; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 61, 62, 63, 68, 75, 76, 77, 81; Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 58; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 222, 228, 231; Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 32, 33, 34; Neusner, The Perfect Torah (2003) 42; Nihan and Frevel, Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (2013) 540; Piotrkowski, Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period (2019) 139, 263; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 75; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 57; Ruzer, Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror (2020) 114; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 13, 18, 67, 75, 76, 77, 79, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91, 100, 101; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 151, 245; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 48, 50, 62, 112, 119, 128 6.2 צַו אֶת־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת־בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה הִוא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה עַד־הַבֹּקֶר וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ׃, 6.7 וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אֹתָהּ בְּנֵי־אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֶל־פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃, 7.11 וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב לַיהוָה׃, 6.2 Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. 6.7 And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, in front of the altar. 7.11 And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which one may offer unto the LORD. 10.10 And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; 11.2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 11.36 Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be clean; but he who toucheth their carcass shall be unclean. 13.46 All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his dwelling be. 15.13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes; and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean. 15.16 And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. 16.1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the LORD, and died; 18.6 of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am the LORD. 18.10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for theirs is thine own nakedness. 18.17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are near kinswomen; it is lewdness. 18.18 And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime. 19.11 Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another. 19.12 And ye shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 19.13 Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him; the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. 19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 19.18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. 19.19 Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together. 19.23 And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you; it shall not be eaten. 19.24 And in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise unto the LORD. 20.10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 20.12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them. 20.14 And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 20.17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 20.19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister; for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity. 20.26 And ye shall be holy unto Me; for I the LORD am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be Mine. 21.21 no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire; he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 23.10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest. 23.11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you; on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 23.38 beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill-offerings, which ye give unto the LORD. 24.19 And if a man maim his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: 24.20 breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. 24.21 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and he that killeth a man shall be put to death. 24.22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am the LORD your God.’, 25.4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath unto the LORD; thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. 26.42 then will I remember My covet with Jacob, and also My covet with Isaac, and also My covet with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. 26.45 But I will for their sakes remember the covet of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD. 26.46 These are the statutes and ordices and laws, which the LORD made between Him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses. |
7. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 3.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 196; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 213 3.22 זִכְרוּ תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדִּי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתוֹ בְחֹרֵב עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים׃ 3.22 Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordices. |
8. Hebrew Bible, Nahum, 1.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • midrash halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156, 157; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 239 1.2 אֵל קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם יְהוָה נֹקֵם יְהוָה וּבַעַל חֵמָה נֹקֵם יְהוָה לְצָרָיו וְנוֹטֵר הוּא לְאֹיְבָיו׃ 1.2 The LORD is a jealous and avenging God, The LORD avengeth and is full of wrath; The LORD taketh vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserveth wrath for His enemies. |
9. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 1.16, 5.13, 6.24-6.26, 19.14, 19.18, 23.9, 27.2, 27.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakah • Halakha, intensification • Halakhah • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Miqsat Maºase ha-Torah (MMT, a.k.a. “Halakhic Letter”), halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Mishnah, halakhic texts of • aggadah, halakhah compared with • halakhah • halakhah and custom • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, terminology of Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 117; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible (2014) 298; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 72; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 213, 221, 222, 295; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 91; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 317; Lieber, A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (2014) 235; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 62; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 87; Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 136, 138; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 129; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 88 1.16 אֵלֶּה קריאי קְרוּאֵי הָעֵדָה נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם׃, 5.13 וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה׃, 6.24 יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ׃, 6.25 יָאֵר יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ׃, 6.26 יִשָּׂא יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם׃, 19.14 זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי־יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל כָּל־הַבָּא אֶל־הָאֹהֶל וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר בָּאֹהֶל יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃, 19.18 וְלָקַח אֵזוֹב וְטָבַל בַּמַּיִם אִישׁ טָהוֹר וְהִזָּה עַל־הָאֹהֶל וְעַל־כָּל־הַכֵּלִים וְעַל־הַנְּפָשׁוֹת אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ־שָׁם וְעַל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בַּעֶצֶם אוֹ בֶחָלָל אוֹ בַמֵּת אוֹ בַקָּבֶר׃, 23.9 כִּי־מֵרֹאשׁ צֻרִים אֶרְאֶנּוּ וּמִגְּבָעוֹת אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ הֶן־עָם לְבָדָד יִשְׁכֹּן וּבַגּוֹיִם לֹא יִתְחַשָּׁב׃, 27.2 וְנָתַתָּה מֵהוֹדְךָ עָלָיו לְמַעַן יִשְׁמְעוּ כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃, 27.11 וְאִם־אֵין אַחִים לְאָבִיו וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת־נַחֲלָתוֹ לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ וְהָיְתָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃ 1.16 These were the elect of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel. 5.13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act; 6.24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee; 6.25 The LORD make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; 6.26 The LORD lift up His countece upon thee, and give thee peace. 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. 19.18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave. 23.9 For from the top of the rocks I see him, And from the hills I behold him: Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, And shall not be reckoned among the nations. 27.2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, at the door of the tent of meeting, saying: 27.11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it. And it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.’ |
10. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 25.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Sinai, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • halakha, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, pre-exilic Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 79; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 80; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 58, 60 25.14 סוֹד יְהוָה לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם׃ 25.14 The counsel of the LORD is with them that fear Him; And His covet, to make them know it. |
11. Hebrew Bible, Zephaniah, 1.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah Found in books: Feldman, Goldman and Dimant, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible (2014) 273; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 152 1.6 וְאֶת־הַנְּסוֹגִים מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא־בִקְשׁוּ אֶת־יְהוָה וְלֹא דְרָשֻׁהוּ׃ 1.6 Them also that are turned back from following the LORD; And those that have not sought the LORD, nor inquired after Him. |
12. Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel, 7.14 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Tannaic halakha Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 290; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 591 7.14 אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְאָב וְהוּא יִהְיֶה־לִּי לְבֵן אֲשֶׁר בְּהַעֲוֺתוֹ וְהֹכַחְתִּיו בְּשֵׁבֶט אֲנָשִׁים וּבְנִגְעֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם׃ 7.14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with such plagues as befall the sons of Adam: |
13. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 2.3, 29.13, 40.3, 54.16 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • divine origins of halakhic law • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • history of Halakha, • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 194; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 56, 150; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 66; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48; Lieber, A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (2014) 253; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 42, 43, 44; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 38 2.3 וְהָלְכוּ עַמִּים רַבִּים וְאָמְרוּ לְכוּ וְנַעֲלֶה אֶל־הַר־יְהוָה אֶל־בֵּית אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב וְיֹרֵנוּ מִדְּרָכָיו וְנֵלְכָה בְּאֹרְחֹתָיו כִּי מִצִּיּוֹן תֵּצֵא תוֹרָה וּדְבַר־יְהוָה מִירוּשָׁלִָם׃, 29.13 וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי וְלִבּוֹ רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי וַתְּהִי יִרְאָתָם אֹתִי מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה׃, 40.3 קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר פַּנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה יַשְּׁרוּ בָּעֲרָבָה מְסִלָּה לֵאלֹהֵינוּ׃, 54.16 הן הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּרָאתִי חָרָשׁ נֹפֵחַ בְּאֵשׁ פֶּחָם וּמוֹצִיא כְלִי לְמַעֲשֵׂהוּ וְאָנֹכִי בָּרָאתִי מַשְׁחִית לְחַבֵּל׃ 2.3 And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; And He will teach us of His ways, And we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 29.13 And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me, But have removed their heart far from Me, And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote; 40.3 Hark! one calleth: ‘Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the LORD, make plain in the desert a highway for our God. 54.16 Behold, I have created the smith That bloweth the fire of coals, And bringeth forth a weapon for his work; And I have created the waster to destroy. |
14. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 7.9, 15.1, 17.21-17.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakha, halakhic • Halakhah, Sabbath halakhah • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah, theology of • Israel, in Halakhic theology • Scripture, and Halakhah • midrash halakhah • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 109, 110; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 129, 135; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 251; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 220; Ruzer, Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror (2020) 114 7.9 הֲגָנֹב רָצֹחַ וְנָאֹף וְהִשָּׁבֵעַ לַשֶּׁקֶר וְקַטֵּר לַבָּעַל וְהָלֹךְ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יְדַעְתֶּם׃, 15.1 וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי אִם־יַעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְפָנַי אֵין נַפְשִׁי אֶל־הָעָם הַזֶּה שַׁלַּח מֵעַל־פָּנַי וְיֵצֵאוּ׃, 17.21 כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה הִשָּׁמְרוּ בְּנַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם וְאַל־תִּשְׂאוּ מַשָּׂא בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַהֲבֵאתֶם בְּשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃, 17.22 וְלֹא־תוֹצִיאוּ מַשָּׂא מִבָּתֵּיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְכָל־מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶת־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם׃ 7.9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and offer unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye have not known, 15.1 Then said the LORD unto me: ‘Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind could not be toward this people; cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth. 17.21 thus saith the LORD: Take heed for the sake of your souls, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; 17.22 neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work; but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers; |
15. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 1.8 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 28, 50, 153, 213, 288; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 105 1.8 לֹא־יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה לְמַעַן תִּשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכָל־הַכָּתוּב בּוֹ כִּי־אָז תַּצְלִיחַ אֶת־דְּרָכֶךָ וְאָז תַּשְׂכִּיל׃ 1.8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then thou shalt make thy ways prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. |
16. Hebrew Bible, Lamentations, 1.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, theology of • Halakhic mashal, in Lamentations Rabbah • Israel, in Halakhic theology • Scripture, and Halakhah Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 220; Neusner, The Perfect Torah (2003) 177 1.1 יָדוֹ פָּרַשׂ צָר עַל כָּל־מַחֲמַדֶּיהָ כִּי־רָאֲתָה גוֹיִם בָּאוּ מִקְדָּשָׁהּ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָה לֹא־יָבֹאוּ בַקָּהָל לָךְ׃ 1.1 O how has the city that was once so populous remained lonely! She has become like a widow! She that was great among the nations, a princess among the provinces, has become tributary." |
17. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 4.6 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 63; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 79 4.6 וְכִלִּיתָ אֶת־אֵלֶּה וְשָׁכַבְתָּ עַל־צִדְּךָ הימוני הַיְמָנִי שֵׁנִית וְנָשָׂאתָ אֶת־עֲוֺן בֵּית־יְהוּדָה אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה נְתַתִּיו לָךְ׃ 4.6 And again, when thou hast accomplished these, thou shalt lie on thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; forty days, each day for a year, have I appointed it unto thee. |
18. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.10, 10.8, 12.11-12.12 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakhah • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Midrash halakhah • aggadah, halakhah compared with • false prophets, and halakhic authority • halakhah • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 142; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 177; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224; Lieber, A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (2014) 167; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 47; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 77; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 633; Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (2006) 213 7.10 Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ for it is not out of wisdom that thou inquirest concerning this. 10.8 He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him. 12.11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd. 12.12 And furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. |
19. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 7.6, 7.24, 9.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha, intensification • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • halakhah, ḥallah • midrash halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 20, 213; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 23; Lieber, A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (2014) 288; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 62; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 5 7.6 הוּא עֶזְרָא עָלָה מִבָּבֶל וְהוּא־סֹפֵר מָהִיר בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר־נָתַן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּיַד־יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו כֹּל בַּקָּשָׁתוֹ׃, 7.24 וּלְכֹם מְהוֹדְעִין דִּי כָל־כָּהֲנַיָּא וְלֵוָיֵא זַמָּרַיָּא תָרָעַיָּא נְתִינַיָּא וּפָלְחֵי בֵּית אֱלָהָא דְנָה מִנְדָּה בְלוֹ וַהֲלָךְ לָא שַׁלִּיט לְמִרְמֵא עֲלֵיהֹם׃, 9.2 כִּי־נָשְׂאוּ מִבְּנֹתֵיהֶם לָהֶם וְלִבְנֵיהֶם וְהִתְעָרְבוּ זֶרַע הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּעַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת וְיַד הַשָּׂרִים וְהַסְּגָנִים הָיְתָה בַּמַּעַל הַזֶּה רִאשׁוֹנָה׃ 7.6 this Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the LORD, the God of Israel, had given; and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him. 7.24 Also we announce to you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, the singers, porters, Nethinim, or servants of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, impost, or toll, upon them. 9.2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this faithlessness.’ |
20. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 8.8, 8.13-8.18 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • midrash halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 20, 197, 213, 215, 217, 306; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 23, 24 8.8 וַיִּקְרְאוּ בַסֵּפֶר בְּתוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים מְפֹרָשׁ וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא׃, 8.13 וּבַיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי נֶאֶסְפוּ רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת לְכָל־הָעָם הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם אֶל־עֶזְרָא הַסֹּפֵר וּלְהַשְׂכִּיל אֶל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה׃, 8.14 וַיִּמְצְאוּ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי׃, 8.15 וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל־עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי־זַיִת וַעֲלֵי־עֵץ שֶׁמֶן וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת כַּכָּתוּב׃, 8.16 וַיֵּצְאוּ הָעָם וַיָּבִיאוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם סֻכּוֹת אִישׁ עַל־גַּגּוֹ וּבְחַצְרֹתֵיהֶם וּבְחַצְרוֹת בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר אֶפְרָיִם׃, 8.17 וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כָל־הַקָּהָל הַשָּׁבִים מִן־הַשְּׁבִי סֻכּוֹת וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בַסֻּכּוֹת כִּי לֹא־עָשׂוּ מִימֵי יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן־נוּן כֵּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וַתְּהִי שִׂמְחָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד׃, 8.18 וַיִּקְרָא בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים יוֹם בְּיוֹם מִן־הַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד הַיּוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן וַיַּעֲשׂוּ־חָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עֲצֶרֶת כַּמִּשְׁפָּט׃ 8.8 And they read in the book, in the Law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. 8.13 And on the second day were gathered together the heads of fathers’houses of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to give attention to the words of the Law. 8.14 And they found written in the Law, how that the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month; 8.15 and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: ‘Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.’, 8.16 So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the broad place of the water gate, and in the broad place of the gate of Ephraim. 8.17 And all the congregation of them that were come back out of the captivity made booths, and dwelt in the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness. 8.18 Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the Law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; |
21. Anon., Jubilees, 1.1, 1.4, 1.14, 6.17-6.18, 6.22, 6.32-6.38, 33.13, 33.15-33.17, 33.19-33.20, 41.25-41.26, 50.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Jubilees, halakhic extensions in • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Rabbinic Halakhah • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • halakah • halakha, rabbinic vs. biblical law • halakhah • halakhah, Jubilees, halakhic extensions in • midrash halakhah Found in books: Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 169; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 116; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 74; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 130; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 22, 63, 158, 259, 418, 444; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 38, 251; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 178; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 83, 84, 97; Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 138, 139, 140 1.1 THIS is the history of the division of the days of the law and of the testimony, of the events of the years, of their (year) weeks, of their jubilees throughout all the years of the world, as the Lord spake to Moses on Mount Sinai when he went up to receive the tables of the law and of the commandment, according to the voice of God as He said unto him, "Go up to the top of the Mount.") And it came to pass in the first year of the A.M. (A.M. = Anno Mundi) exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the third month, on the sixteenth day of the month, that God spake to Moses, saying: 1.4 and the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a flaming fire on the top of the Mount. 1.14 and My sabbaths, and My holy place which I have hallowed for Myself in their midst, and My tabernacle, and My sanctuary, which I have hallowed for Myself in the midst of the land, that I should set My name upon it, and that it should dwell (there). 6.17 And this testimony is written concerning you that you should observe it continually, so that you should not eat on any day any blood of beasts or birds or cattle during all the days of the earth, 6.18 and the man who eateth the blood of beast or of cattle or of birds during all the days of the earth, he and his seed shall be rooted out of the land. 6.22 And He gave to Noah and his sons a sign that there should not again be a flood on the earth. 6.32 this feast is twofold and of a double nature: according to what is written and engraven concerning it celebrate it. 6.33 For I have written in the book of the first law, in that which I have written for thee, that thou shouldst celebrate it in its season, one day in the year, 6.34 and I explained to thee its sacrifices that the children of Israel should remember and should celebrate it throughout their generations in this month, one day in every year. 6.35 And on the new moon of the first month, and on the new moon of the fourth month, and on the new moon of the seventh month, and on the new moon of the tenth month are the days of remembrance, and the days of the seasons in the four divisions of the year. 6.36 These are written and ordained as a testimony for ever. 6.37 And Noah ordained them for himself as feasts for the generations for ever, so that they have become thereby a memorial unto him. 6.38 And on the new moon of the first month he was bidden to make for himself an ark, and on that (day) the earth became dry and he opened (the ark) and saw the earth. 8 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Râsû’ĕjâ, the daughter of Sûsân, the daughter of Elam,and she bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kâinâm. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for himself a city.And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe,the omens of the sun and moon and stars in all the signs of heaven.And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it.And in the thirtieth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Mêlkâ, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, ,and in the fourth year he begat a son, and called his name Shelah; for he said: "Truly I have been sent.",And in the fourth year he was born, and Shelah grew up and took to himself a wife, and her name was Mû’ak, the daughter of Kêsêd, his fathers brother,in the one and thirtieth jubilee, in the fifth week, in the first year thereof.And she bare him a son in the fifth year thereof, and he called his name Eber:and he took unto himself a wife, and her name was ’Azûrâd the daughter of Nêbrôd, in the thirty-second jubilee, in the seventh week, in the third year thereof.And in the sixth year thereof, she bare him a son, and he called his name Peleg;for in the days when he was born the children of Noah began to divide the earth amongst themselves: for this reason he called his name Peleg.And they divided (it) secretly amongst themselves, and told it to Noah.And it came to pass in the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee that they divided the earth into three parts, for Shem and Ham and Japheth, according to the inheritance of each, in the first year in the first week, when one of us, who had been sent, was with them.And he called his sons, and they drew nigh to him, they and their children, and he divided the earth into the lots, which his three sons were to take in possession,and they reached forth their hands, and took the writing out of the bosom of Noah, their father.And there came forth on the writing as Shems lot the middle of the earth which he should take as an inheritance for himself and for his sons for the generations of eternity, from the middle of the mountain range of Râfâ, from the mouth of the water from the river Tînâ.and his portion goeth towards the west through the midst of this river, and it extendeth till it reacheth the water of the abysses, out of which this river goeth forth,and poureth its waters into the sea Mê’at, and this river floweth into the great sea.And all that is towards the north is Japheths, and all that is towards the south belongeth to Shem.And it extendeth till it reacheth Kârâsô: this is in the bosom of the tongue which looketh towards the south.And his portion extendeth along the great sea, and it extendeth in a straight line till it reacheth the west of the tongue which looketh towards the south;for this sea is named the tongue of the Egyptian Sea.And it turneth from here towards the south towards the mouth of the great sea on the shore of (its) waters, and it extendeth to the west to ‘Afrâ,and it extendeth till it reacheth the waters of the river Gihon, and to the south of the waters of Gihon, to the banks of this river.And it extendeth towards the east, till it reacheth the Garden of Eden, to the south thereof, to the south and from the east of the whole land of Eden and of the whole cast, it turneth to the east, ,and proceedeth till it reacheth the east of the mountain named Râfâ, and it descendeth to the bank of the mouth of the river Tînâ.This portion came forth by lot for Shem and his sons, that they should possess it for ever unto his generations for evermore.And Noah rejoiced that this portion came forth for Shem and for his sons, and he remembered all that he had spoken with his mouth in prophecy; for he had said:Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, And may the Lord dwell in the dwelling of Shem.",And he knew that the Garden of Eden is the holy of holies, and the dwelling of the Lord, and Mount Sinai the centre of the desert, and Mount Zion--the centre of the navel of the earth: these three were created as holy places facing each other.And he blessed the God of gods, who had put the word of the Lord into his mouth, and the Lord for evermore.And he knew that a blessed portion and a blessing had come to Shem and his sons unto the generations for ever-,-the whole land of Eden and the whole land of the Red Sea, and the whole land of the east, and India, and on the Red Sea and the mountains thereof, and all the land of Bashan, and all the land of Lebanon and the islands of Kaftûr, and all the mountains of Sanîr and ’Amânâ,and the mountains of Asshur in the north, and all the land of Elam, Asshur, and Bâbêl, and Sûsân and Mâ‘ĕdâi and all the mountains of Ararat,and all the region beyond the sea, which is beyond the mountains of Asshur towards the north, a blessed and spacious land, and all that is in it is very good.And for Ham came forth the second portion, beyond the Gihon towards the south to the right of the Garden, and it extendeth towards the south,and it extendeth to all the mountains of fire, and it extendeth towards the west to the sea of ’Atêl and it extendeth towards the west till it reacheth the sea of Mâ’ûk --that (sea) into which everything which is not destroyed descendeth.And it goeth forth towards the north to the limits of Gâdîr, and it goeth forth to the coast of the waters of the sea to the waters of the great sea till it draweth near to the river Gihon, and goeth along the river Gihon till it reacheth the right of the Garden of Eden.And this is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion which he was to occupy for ever for himself and his sons unto their generations for ever.And it goeth forth towards the north to the limits of Gâdîr, and it goeth forth to the coast of the waters of the sea to the waters of the great sea till it draweth near to the river Gihon, and goeth along the river Gihon till it reacheth the right of the Garden of Eden.And it extendeth northerly to the north, and it extendeth to the mountains of Qêlt towards the north, and towards the sea of Mâ’ûk,and it goeth forth to the east of Gâdîr as far as the region of the waters of the sea.And it extendeth until it approacheth the west of Fârâ,and it returneth towards ’Afêrâg, and it extendeth easterly to the waters of the sea of Mê’at. And it extendeth to the region of the river Tînâ in a northeasterly direction until it approacheth the boundary of its waters towards the mountain Râfâ, and it turneth round towards the north.This is the land which came forth for Japheth and his sons as the portion of his inheritance which he should possess for himself and his sons, for their generations for ever;five great islands, and a great land in the north.But it is cold, and the land of Ham is hot,and the land of Shem is neither hot nor cold, but it is of blended cold and heat. 33.13 And do thou, Moses, command the children of Israel that they observe this word; for it (entaileth) a punishment of death; and it is unclean, and there is no atonement for ever to atone for the man who hath committed this, but he is to be put to death and slain, and stoned with stones, and rooted out from the midst of the people of our God. " 33.15 And let them not say: to Reuben was granted life and forgiveness after he had lain with his fathers concubine, and to her also though she had a husband, and her husband Jacob, his father, was still alive.", 33.16 For until that time there had not been revealed the ordice and judgment and law in its completeness for all, 33.17 but in thy days (it hath been revealed) as a law of seasons and of days, and an everlasting law for the everlasting generations. 33.19 And do thou, Moses, write (it) down for Israel that they may observe it, and do according to these words, and not commit a sin unto death; for the Lord our God is judge, who respecteth not persons and accepteth not gifts. 33.20 And tell them these words of the covet, that they may hear and observe, and be on their guard with respect to them, and not be destroyed and rooted out of the land; 41.25 and he began to lament and to supplicate before the Lord because of his transgression.<>br>And we told him in a dream that it was forgiven him because he supplicated earnestly, and lamented, and did not again commit it. 41.26 And he received forgiveness because he turned from his sin and from his ignorance, for he transgressed greatly before our God; 50.12 and a holy day: and a day of the holy kingdom for all Israel is this day among their days for ever. |
22. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 4, 4.15, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20-5.1, 5, 5.2, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.20-6.11, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.14, 6.18, 6.19, 7, 8, 9, 9.8, 10, 10.14, 10.15, 10.16, 10.17, 11, 11.17, 12, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.22, 13, 13.15, 13.16, 14, 14.12, 14.13, 15, 15.12, 16, 16.2, 16.3, 16.6, 16.7, 16.8, 16.9, 20.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Baumgarten, Joseph, on accurate understanding of history of halakhah • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakha, in the New Testament • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • New Testament, as source evidence for halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • Second Temple period, “old” halakhah stemming from time of • System, halakhic ~ • divine origins of halakhic law • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, genres of writing • halakhah, subjects susceptible to change in • halakhah, “old” versus “new” traditions of • history of Halakha, • midrash halakhah • “priestly halakhah,” definition of Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 26; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 26, 43, 51, 52, 58, 63, 64, 80, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 197, 214, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 241, 246, 247, 267, 352, 373, 444; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 13, 36, 37, 38, 239, 248; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 4, 24, 41, 42, 73, 74, 80, 81, 102, 108; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3, 46, 53, 69, 76, 84, 85, 284, 420 NA>Length: 1, dtype: string |
23. Dead Sea Scrolls, Pesher On Habakkuk, 11.6-11.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Damascus Document, halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Jubilees, Book of, halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Miqsat Maºase ha-Torah (MMT, a.k.a. “Halakhic Letter”), halakhic legal tradition expressed in • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • System, halakhic ~ • Temple Scroll, halakhic legal tradition expressed in Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 18; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 47 NA> |
24. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 4, 4.15, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20-5.1, 5, 5.2, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.20-6.11, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.14, 6.18, 6.19, 9, 9.8, 10, 10.14, 10.15, 10.16, 10.17, 11, 11.17, 12, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 13, 13.15, 13.16, 14, 14.12, 14.13, 15, 15.12, 16, 16.2, 16.3, 16.6, 16.7, 16.8, 16.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Baumgarten, Joseph, on accurate understanding of history of halakhah • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakha, in the New Testament • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • New Testament, as source evidence for halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • Second Temple period, “old” halakhah stemming from time of • System, halakhic ~ • divine origins of halakhic law • halakhah • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, genres of writing • halakhah, subjects susceptible to change in • halakhah, “old” versus “new” traditions of • history of Halakha, • “priestly halakhah,” definition of Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 26; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 26, 43, 51, 52, 58, 63, 64, 80, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 197, 214, 229, 230, 233, 235, 236, 237, 241, 246, 247, 267, 352, 373, 444; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 4, 24, 41, 42, 73, 74, 80, 81, 102, 108; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3, 46, 53, 69, 76, 84, 85, 284, 420 NA> |
25. Dead Sea Scrolls, 1Qha, 12.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • halakhah • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 185; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 6 NA> |
26. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.24, 1qs, 2, 2.18, 3.5, 3.21, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.20, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.15, 6.19, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15, 8.16, 9.6, 9.7, 9.10, 9.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakha/halakhic • Halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • New Testament, as source evidence for halakhah • Qumran halakha • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • divine origins of halakhic law • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, “old” versus “new” traditions of • midrash halakhah • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 193, 195, 199; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible (2014) 282, 350; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 80, 81, 146, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 164, 166, 197, 214, 224, 233, 235, 237, 238, 240; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 13; Piotrkowski, Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period (2019) 5; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 44, 55, 63, 64, 73, 102, 103; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 420, 426 NA>Length: 1, dtype: string |
27. Dead Sea Scrolls, Messianic Rule, 2.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 166; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 449 NA> |
28. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 53.7-53.8, 56.1, 56.7, 56.18, 57.17-57.19 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Divorce, law/halakha • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • System, halakhic ~ • false prophets, and halakhic authority • halakhah • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, genres of writing Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 26; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 81, 224, 292, 296, 297, 303; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 22, 48; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 53, 84 NA> |
29. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 9.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, theology of • Israel, in Halakhic theology • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Scripture, and Halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 213; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 220 9.11 וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל עָבְרוּ אֶת־תּוֹרָתֶךָ וְסוֹר לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמוֹעַ בְּקֹלֶךָ וַתִּתַּךְ עָלֵינוּ הָאָלָה וְהַשְּׁבֻעָה אֲשֶׁר כְּתוּבָה בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד־הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי חָטָאנוּ לוֹ׃ 9.11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy law, and have turned aside, so as not to hearken to Thy voice; and so there hath been poured out upon us the curse and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the servant of God; for we have sinned against Him. |
30. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 1.47-1.48, 1.62-1.63, 14.41 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakah • Halakha • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 185, 199; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 297; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 80, 81, 82; Nihan and Frevel, Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (2013) 487; Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 185 1.47 to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, 1.48 and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, 1.62 But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. 1.63 They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covet; and they did die. 14.41 And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise, |
31. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 6.5, 6.18-6.31, 7.1-7.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakah • Halakha • Halakha, intensification Found in books: Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 65, 67; Nihan and Frevel, Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (2013) 487; Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 185 6.5 The altar was covered with abominable offerings which were forbidden by the laws.", " 6.18 Eleazar, one of the scribes in high position, a man now advanced in age and of noble presence, was being forced to open his mouth to eat swines flesh.", " 6.19 But he, welcoming death with honor rather than life with pollution, went up to the the rack of his own accord, spitting out the flesh,", " 6.20 as men ought to go who have the courage to refuse things that it is not right to taste, even for the natural love of life.", " 6.21 Those who were in charge of that unlawful sacrifice took the man aside, because of their long acquaintance with him, and privately urged him to bring meat of his own providing, proper for him to use, and pretend that he was eating the flesh of the sacrificial meal which had been commanded by the king,", " 6.22 o that by doing this he might be saved from death, and be treated kindly on account of his old friendship with them.", " 6.23 But making a high resolve, worthy of his years and the dignity of his old age and the gray hairs which he had reached with distinction and his excellent life even from childhood, and moreover according to the holy God-given law, he declared himself quickly, telling them to send him to Hades.", " 6.24 Such pretense is not worthy of our time of life, he said, lest many of the young should suppose that Eleazar in his ninetieth year has gone over to an alien religion,", " 6.25 and through my pretense, for the sake of living a brief moment longer, they should be led astray because of me, while I defile and disgrace my old age.", " 6.26 For even if for the present I should avoid the punishment of men, yet whether I live or die I shall not escape the hands of the Almighty.", " 6.27 Therefore, by manfully giving up my life now, I will show myself worthy of my old age", " 6.28 and leave to the young a noble example of how to die a good death willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws.When he had said this, he went at once to the rack.", " 6.29 And those who a little before had acted toward him with good will now changed to ill will, because the words he had uttered were in their opinion sheer madness.", " 6.30 When he was about to die under the blows, he groaned aloud and said: It is clear to the Lord in his holy knowledge that, though I might have been saved from death, I am enduring terrible sufferings in my body under this beating, but in my soul I am glad to suffer these things because I fear him.", " 6.31 So in this way he died, leaving in his death an example of nobility and a memorial of courage, not only to the young but to the great body of his nation.", " 7.1 It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swines flesh.", " 7.2 One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers." |
32. Philo of Alexandria, On The Decalogue, 158 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 23, 444; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 136 158 And the fourth commandment, the one about the seventh day, we must not look upon in any other light than as a summary of all the laws relating to festivals, and of all the purificatory rites enjoined to be observed on each of them. But the service appointed for them was one of holy ablutions, and prayers deserving to be heard, and perfect sacrifices. |
33. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 4.149 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives Found in books: Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law (2003) 87; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 79 4.149 There is also this commandment ordained which is of great common utility, that, "Thou shalt not move thy neighbours landmarks which the former men have set Up."{35}{deuteronomy 19:14.} And this injunction is given, as it seems, not only with respect to inheritances, and to the boundaries of the land, in order to prohibit covetousness respecting them, but also as a guard to ancient customs; for customs are unwritten laws, being the doctrines of men of old, not engraved on pillars or written on paper which may be eaten by moths, but impressed in the souls of those living under the same constitution. |
34. Philo of Alexandria, On The Embassy To Gaius, 115 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives Found in books: Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law (2003) 87; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 79 115 for he regarded the Jews with most especial suspicion, as if they were the only persons who cherished wishes opposed to his, and who had been taught in a manner from their very swaddling-clothes by their parents, and teachers, and instructors, and even before that by their holy laws, and also by their unwritten maxims and customs, to believe that there was but one God, their Father and the Creator of the world; |
35. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 3.230, 3.257, 3.259, 3.277, 3.284-3.286, 4.196-4.198, 4.209, 4.212-4.213, 4.218, 4.223-4.224, 11.321-11.324, 13.66-13.67, 13.70, 13.171, 13.255, 13.288, 13.297-13.298, 15.259, 18.12-18.22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha/halakhic • Halakhah • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Qumran texts, Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) • Roman law,vs. rabbinic halakha • System, halakhic ~ • Tannaic halakha • Temple, law and cult integrated into halakhic system • ancient Halakha • halakha • halakha in Diaspora • halakha, vs. Roman law • halakhah • history of Halakha, Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 6, 71, 72; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 140; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 23, 24, 212, 217, 218, 224, 241, 247, 286, 295, 296, 305, 341, 385, 406, 444; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 330; Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 382, 384; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 30; Piotrkowski, Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period (2019) 72, 157, 343, 439; Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 247; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 24, 41, 42, 43, 51, 58, 65, 114, 163, 167, 540, 613 3.230 3. The sacrifices for sins are offered in the same manner as is the thank-offering. But those who are unable to purchase complete sacrifices, offer two pigeons, or turtle doves; the one of which is made a burnt-offering to God, the other they give as food to the priests. But we shall treat more accurately about the oblation of these creatures in our discourse concerning sacrifices. 3.257 The high priest also, of his own charges, offered a sacrifice, and that twice every day. It was made of flour mingled with oil, and gently baked by the fire; the quantity was one tenth deal of flour; he brought the half of it to the fire in the morning, and the other half at night. The account of these sacrifices I shall give more accurately hereafter; but I think I have premised what for the present may be sufficient concerning them. 3.259 2. He also determined concerning animals; which of them might be used for food, and which they were obliged to abstain from; which matters, when this work shall give me occasion, shall be further explained; and the causes shall be added by which he was moved to allot some of them to be our food, and enjoined us to abstain from others. 3.277 Nay, he did not think it proper for the high priest to marry even the widow of one that was dead, though he allowed that to the priests; but he permitted him only to marry a virgin, and to retain her. Whence it is that the high priest is not to come near to one that is dead, although the rest are not prohibited from coming near to their brethren, or parents, or children, when they are dead; 3.284 but if the expenses prove more than the fruits, the present possessor receives of the former owner the difference that was wanting, and leaves the land to him; and if the fruits received, and the expenses laid out, prove equal to one another, the present possessor relinquishes it to the former owners. 3.285 Moses would have the same law obtain as to those houses also which were sold in villages; but he made a different law for such as were sold in a city; for if he that sold it tendered the purchaser his money again within a year, he was forced to restore it; but in case a whole year had intervened, the purchaser was to enjoy what he had bought. 3.286 This was the constitution of the laws which Moses learned of God when the camp lay under Mount Sinai, and this he delivered in writing to the Hebrews. 4.196 4. Accordingly, I shall now first describe this form of government which was agreeable to the dignity and virtue of Moses; and shall thereby inform those that read these Antiquities, what our original settlements were, and shall then proceed to the remaining histories. Now those settlements are all still in writing, as he left them; and we shall add nothing by way of ornament, nor any thing besides what Moses left us; 4.197 only we shall so far innovate, as to digest the several kinds of laws into a regular system; for they were by him left in writing as they were accidentally scattered in their delivery, and as he upon inquiry had learned them of God. On which account I have thought it necessary to premise this observation beforehand, lest any of my own countrymen should blame me, as having been guilty of an offense herein. 4.198 Now part of our constitution will include the laws that belong to our political state. As for those laws which Moses left concerning our common conversation and intercourse one with another, I have reserved that for a discourse concerning our manner of life, and the occasions of those laws; which I propose to myself, with God’s assistance, to write, after I have finished the work I am now upon. 4.209 12. When the multitude are assembled together unto the holy city for sacrificing every seventh year, at the feast of tabernacles, let the high priest stand upon a high desk, whence he may be heard, and let him read the laws to all the people; and let neither the women nor the children be hindered from hearing, no, nor the servants neither; 4.212 13. Let every one commemorate before God the benefits which he bestowed upon them at their deliverance out of the land of Egypt, and this twice every day, both when the day begins and when the hour of sleep comes on, gratitude being in its own nature a just thing, and serving not only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future favors. 4.213 They are also to inscribe the principal blessings they have received from God upon their doors, and show the same remembrance of them upon their arms; as also they are to bear on their forehead and their arm those wonders which declare the power of God, and his good-will towards them, that God’s readiness to bless them may appear every where conspicuous about them. 4.218 But if these judges be unable to give a just sentence about the causes that come before them, (which case is not unfrequent in human affairs,) let them send the cause undetermined to the holy city, and there let the high priest, the prophet, and the sanhedrim, determine as it shall seem good to them. 4.223 17. Aristocracy, and the way of living under it, is the best constitution: and may you never have any inclination to any other form of government; and may you always love that form, and have the laws for your governors, and govern all your actions according to them; for you need no supreme governor but God. But if you shall desire a king, let him be one of your own nation; let him be always careful of justice and other virtues perpetually; 4.224 let him submit to the laws, and esteem God’s commands to be his highest wisdom; but let him do nothing without the high priest and the votes of the senators: let him not have a great number of wives, nor pursue after abundance of riches, nor a multitude of horses, whereby he may grow too proud to submit to the laws. And if he affect any such things, let him be restrained, lest he become so potent that his state be inconsistent with your welfare. 11.321 4. But Sanballat thought he had now gotten a proper opportunity to make his attempt, so he renounced Darius, and taking with him seven thousand of his own subjects, he came to Alexander; and finding him beginning the siege of Tyre, he said to him, that he delivered up to him these men, who came out of places under his dominion, and did gladly accept of him for his lord instead of Darius. 11.322 So when Alexander had received him kindly, Sanballat thereupon took courage, and spake to him about his present affair. He told him that he had a son-in-law, Manasseh, who was brother to the high priest Jaddua; and that there were many others of his own nation, now with him, that were desirous to have a temple in the places subject to him; 11.323 that it would be for the king’s advantage to have the strength of the Jews divided into two parts, lest when the nation is of one mind, and united, upon any attempt for innovation, it prove troublesome to kings, as it had formerly proved to the kings of Assyria. 11.324 Whereupon Alexander gave Sanballat leave so to do, who used the utmost diligence, and built the temple, and made Manasseh the priest, and deemed it a great reward that his daughter’s children should have that dignity; 13.66 where I found that the greatest part of your people had temples in an improper manner, and that on this account they bare ill-will one against another, which happens to the Egyptians by reason of the multitude of their temples, and the difference of opinions about divine worship. Now I found a very fit place in a castle that hath its name from the country Diana; this place is full of materials of several sorts, and replenished with sacred animals; 13.67 I desire therefore that you will grant me leave to purge this holy place, which belongs to no master, and is fallen down, and to build there a temple to Almighty God, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions, that may be for the benefit of thyself, and thy wife and children, that those Jews which dwell in Egypt may have a place whither they may come and meet together in mutual harmony one with another, and he subservient to thy advantages; 13.70 “King Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra to Onias, send greeting. We have read thy petition, wherein thou desirest leave to be given thee to purge that temple which is fallen down at Leontopolis, in the Nomus of Heliopolis, and which is named from the country Bubastis; on which account we cannot but wonder that it should be pleasing to God to have a temple erected in a place so unclean, and so full of sacred animals. 13.171 9. At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes. 13.255 However, it was not till the sixth month that he took Medaba, and that not without the greatest distress of his army. After this he took Samega, and the neighboring places; and besides these, Shechem and Gerizzim, and the nation of the Cutheans, 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. 13.297 but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. 13.298 And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. But about these two sects, and that of the Essenes, I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs. 15.259 10. But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife; if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away. 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; 18.13 and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. 18.14 They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; 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. 18.16 4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: 18.17 but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. 18.18 5. The doctrine of the Essenes is this: That all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; 18.19 and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to husbandry. 18.20 It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, 18.21 and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another. 18.22 They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the fruits of the ground; such as are good men and priests, who are to get their corn and their food ready for them. They none of them differ from others of the Essenes in their way of living, but do the most resemble those Dacae who are called Polistae dwellers in cities. |
36. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.32, 2.119-2.166, 7.423, 7.430 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakah • Halakha/halakhic • Halakhah • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Qumran texts, Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) • Rabbinic Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Sabbath, halakha • System, halakhic ~ • halakah, halakic • halakha in Diaspora • halakhah • history of Halakha, Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 148; Faßbeck and Killebrew, Viewing Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology: VeHinnei Rachel - Essays in honor of Rachel Hachlili (2016) 55; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 6; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 133; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 243, 373, 400; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 330; Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 382; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 79; Piotrkowski, Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period (2019) 162, 343, 388, 423; Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 138; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 24, 42, 50, 59, 60, 65, 114, 128, 420 " 1.32 οἱ δὲ καταφυγόντες πρὸς ̓Αντίοχον ἱκέτευσαν αὐτοῖς ἡγεμόσι χρώμενον εἰς τὴν ̓Ιουδαίαν ἐμβαλεῖν. πείθεται δ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὡρμημένος πάλαι, καὶ μετὰ πλείστης δυνάμεως αὐτὸς ὁρμήσας τήν τε πόλιν αἱρεῖ κατὰ κράτος καὶ πολὺ πλῆθος τῶν Πτολεμαίῳ προσεχόντων ἀναιρεῖ, ταῖς τε ἁρπαγαῖς ἀνέδην ἐπαφιεὶς τοὺς στρατιώτας αὐτὸς καὶ τὸν ναὸν ἐσύλησε καὶ τὸν ἐνδελεχισμὸν τῶν καθ ἡμέραν ἐναγισμῶν ἔπαυσεν ἐπ ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ.", 2.119 Τρία γὰρ παρὰ ̓Ιουδαίοις εἴδη φιλοσοφεῖται, καὶ τοῦ μὲν αἱρετισταὶ Φαρισαῖοι, τοῦ δὲ Σαδδουκαῖοι, τρίτον δέ, ὃ δὴ καὶ δοκεῖ σεμνότητα ἀσκεῖν, ̓Εσσηνοὶ καλοῦνται, ̓Ιουδαῖοι μὲν γένος ὄντες, φιλάλληλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλέον. 1.32 who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. 2.119 2. For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. 2.120 These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons’ children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. 2.121 They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man. 2.122 3. These men are despisers of riches, and so very communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there anyone to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order,—insomuch that among them all there is no appearance of poverty, or excess of riches, but every one’s possessions are intermingled with every other’s possessions; and so there is, as it were, one patrimony among all the brethren. 2.123 They think that oil is a defilement; and if anyone of them be anointed without his own approbation, it is wiped off his body; for they think to be sweaty is a good thing, as they do also to be clothed in white garments. They also have stewards appointed to take care of their common affairs, who every one of them have no separate business for any, but what is for the use of them all. 2.124 4. They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. 2.125 For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. 2.126 But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of garments, or of shoes, till they be first entirely torn to pieces or worn out by time. 2.127 Nor do they either buy or sell anything to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please. 2.128 5. And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. 2.129 After this every one of them are sent away by their curators, to exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great diligence till the fifth hour. After which they assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple, 2.130 and quietly set themselves down; upon which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them; 2.131 but a priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful for anyone to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside their white garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening; 2.132 then they return home to supper, after the same manner; and if there be any strangers there, they sit down with them. Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their house, but they give every one leave to speak in their turn; 2.133 which silence thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery; the cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise, and the same settled measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them, and that such as is abundantly sufficient for them. 2.134 6. And truly, as for other things, they do nothing but according to the injunctions of their curators; only these two things are done among them at everyone’s own free will, which are to assist those that want it, and to show mercy; for they are permitted of their own accord to afford succor to such as deserve it, when they stand in need of it, and to bestow food on those that are in distress; but they cannot give any thing to their kindred without the curators. 2.135 They dispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion. They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury for they say that he who cannot be believed without swearing by God is already condemned. 2.136 They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such roots and medicinal stones as may cure their distempers. 2.137 7. But now, if anyone hath a mind to come over to their sect, he is not immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living which they use, for a year, while he continues excluded; and they give him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white garment. 2.138 And when he hath given evidence, during that time, that he can observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living, and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to be worthy, they then admit him into their society. 2.139 And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths, that, in the first place, he will exercise piety towards God, and then that he will observe justice towards men, and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; 2.140 that he will ever show fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no one obtains the government without God’s assistance; and that if he be in authority, he will at no time whatever abuse his authority, nor endeavor to outshine his subjects either in his garments, or any other finery; 2.141 that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal anything from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life. 2.142 Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels or messengers. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves. 2.143 8. But for those that are caught in any heinous sins, they cast them out of their society; and he who is thus separated from them does often die after a miserable manner; for as he is bound by the oath he hath taken, and by the customs he hath been engaged in, he is not at liberty to partake of that food that he meets with elsewhere, but is forced to eat grass, and to famish his body with hunger, till he perish; 2.144 for which reason they receive many of them again when they are at their last gasp, out of compassion to them, as thinking the miseries they have endured till they came to the very brink of death to be a sufficient punishment for the sins they had been guilty of. 2.145 9. But in the judgments they exercise they are most accurate and just, nor do they pass sentence by the votes of a court that is fewer than a hundred. And as to what is once determined by that number, it is unalterable. What they most of all honor, after God himself, is the name of their legislator Moses, whom, if anyone blaspheme, he is punished capitally. 2.146 They also think it a good thing to obey their elders, and the major part. Accordingly, if ten of them be sitting together, no one of them will speak while the other nine are against it. 2.147 They also avoid spitting in the midst of them, or on the right side. Moreover, they are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they may not be obliged to kindle a fire on that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go to stool thereon. 2.148 Nay, on theother days they dig a small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the Divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit, 2.149 after which they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement to them. 2.150 10. Now after the time of their preparatory trial is over, they are parted into four classes; and so far are the juniors inferior to the seniors, that if the seniors should be touched by the juniors, they must wash themselves, as if they had intermixed themselves with the company of a foreigner. 2.151 They are long-lived also, insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also. They condemn the miseries of life, and are above pain, by the generosity of their mind. And as for death, if it will be for their glory, they esteem it better than living always; 2.152 and indeed our war with the Romans gave abundant evidence what great souls they had in their trials, wherein, although they were tortured and distorted, burnt and torn to pieces, and went through all kinds of instruments of torment, that they might be forced either to blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what was forbidden them, yet could they not be made to do either of them, no, nor once to flatter their tormentors, or to shed a tear; 2.153 but they smiled in their very pains, and laughed those to scorn who inflicted the torments upon them, and resigned up their souls with great alacrity, as expecting to receive them again. 2.154 11. For their doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue forever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; 2.155 but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward. And this is like the opinions of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitations beyond the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain or snow, or with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by the gentle breathing of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments. 2.156 And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demigods; and to the souls of the wicked, the region of the ungodly, in Hades, where their fables relate that certain persons, such as Sisyphus, and Tantalus, and Ixion, and Tityus, are punished; which is built on this first supposition, that souls are immortal; and thence are those exhortations to virtue, and dehortations from wickedness collected; 2.157 whereby good men are bettered in the conduct of their life by the hope they have of reward after their death; and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained, by the fear and expectation they are in, that although they should lie concealed in this life, they should suffer immortal punishment after their death. 2.158 These are the Divine doctrines of the Essenes about the soul, which lay an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste of their philosophy. 2.159 12. There are also those among them who undertake to foretell things to come, by reading the holy books, and using several sorts of purifications, and being perpetually conversant in the discourses of the prophets; and it is but seldom that they miss in their predictions. 2.160 13. Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. 2.161 However, they try their spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they do not marry out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity. Now the women go into the baths with some of their garments on, as the men do with somewhat girded about them. And these are the customs of this order of Essenes. 2.162 14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned: the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate or providence, and to God, 2.163 and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies,—but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. 2.164 But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; 2.165 and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. 2.166 Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. And this is what I had to say concerning the philosophic sects among the Jews. 7.423 Onias, the son of Simon, one of the Jewish high priests, fled from Antiochus the king of Syria, when he made war with the Jews, and came to Alexandria; and as Ptolemy received him very kindly, on account of his hatred to Antiochus, he assured him, that if he would comply with his proposal, he would bring all the Jews to his assistance; 7.430 but the entire temple was encompassed with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone. The king also gave him a large country for a revenue in money, that both the priests might have a plentiful provision made for them, and that God might have great abundance of what things were necessary for his worship. |
37. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 1.29-1.31, 1.41-1.42, 1.54, 2.164-2.165, 2.175-2.178, 2.184-2.188, 2.193-2.195 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • System, halakhic ~ • Tannaic halakha • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 223; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 24, 216, 217, 296, 341; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 43, 57, 63, 64 " 1.29 ἐπειδὴ συγχωροῦσιν ἅπαντες, ἐάσειν μοι δοκῶ. περὶ δὲ τῶν ἡμετέρων προγόνων ὅτι τὴν αὐτήν, ἐῶ γὰρ λέγειν εἰ καὶ πλείω τῶν εἰρημένων ἐποιήσαντο περὶ τὰς ἀναγραφὰς ἐπιμέλειαν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι καὶ τοῖς προφήταις τοῦτο προστάξαντες, καὶ ὡς μέχρι τῶν καθ ἡμᾶς χρόνων πεφύλακται μετὰ πολλῆς ἀκριβείας, εἰ δὲ δεῖ θρασύτερον εἰπεῖν καὶ φυλαχθήσεται, πειράσομαι συντόμως διδάσκειν.", 1.29 but now, as to our forefathers, that they took no less care about writing such records (for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of), and that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own times with the utmost accuracy; nay, if it be not too bold for me to say it, our history will be so written hereafter;—I shall endeavor briefly to inform you. 1.30 7. For our forefathers did not only appoint the best of these priests, and those that attended upon the divine worship, for that design from the beginning, but made provision that the stock of the priests should continue unmixed and pure; 1.31 for he who is partaker of the priesthood must propagate of a wife of the same nation, without having any regard to money, or any other dignities; but he is to make a scrutiny, and take his wife’s genealogy from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses to it; 1.41 It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; 1.42 and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. 1.54 Now, both these methods of knowledge I may very properly pretend to in the composition of both my works; for, as I said, I have translated the Antiquities out of our sacred books; which I easily could do, since I was a priest by my birth, and have studied that philosophy which is contained in those writings; 2.164 Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads:—Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; 2.165 but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a Theocracy, by ascribing the authority and the power to God, 2.175 for he did not suffer the guilt of ignorance to go on without punishment, but demonstrated the law to be the best and the most necessary instruction of all others, permitting the people to leave off their other employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law, and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice, or oftener, but every week; which thing all the other legislators seem to have neglected. 2.176 19. And indeed, the greatest part of mankind are so far from living according to their own laws, that they hardly know them; but when they have sinned they learn from others that they have transgressed the law. 2.177 Those also who are in the highest and principal posts of the government, confess they are not acquainted with those laws, and are obliged to take such persons for their assessors in public administrations as profess to have skill in those laws; 2.178 but for our people, if any body do but ask any one of them about our laws, he will more readily tell them all than he will tell his own name, and this in consequence of our having learned them immediately as soon as ever we became sensible of any thing, and of our having them, as it were engraven on our souls. Our transgressors of them are but few; and it is impossible, when any do offend, to escape punishment. 2.184 22. But while we are ourselves persuaded that our law was made agreeably to the will of God, it would be impious for us not to observe the same, for what is there in it that any body would change! and what can be invented that is better! or what can we take out of other people’s laws that will exceed it? Perhaps some would have the entire settlement of our government altered. 2.185 And where shall we find a better or more righteous constitution than ours, while this makes us esteem God to be the governor of the universe, and permits the priests in general to be the administrators of the principal affairs, and withal intrusts the government over the other priests to the chief high priest himself! 2.186 which priests our legislator, at their first appointment, did not advance to that dignity for their riches, or any abundance of other possessions, or any plenty they had as the gifts of fortune; but he intrusted the principal management of divine worship to those that exceeded others in an ability to persuade men, and in prudence of conduct. 2.187 These men had the main care of the law and of the other parts of the people’s conduct committed to them; for they were the priests who were ordained to be the inspectors of all, and the judges in doubtful cases, and the punishers of those that were condemned to suffer punishment. 2.188 23. What form of government then can be more holy than this! what more worthy kind of worship can be paid to God than we pay, where the entire body of the people are prepared for religion, where an extraordinary degree of care is required in the priests, and where the whole polity is so ordered as if it were a certain religious solemnity! 2.193 24. There ought also to be but one temple for one God; for likeness is the constant foundation of agreement. This temple ought to be common to all men, because he is the common God of all men. His priests are to be continually about his worship, over whom he that is the first by his birth is to be their ruler perpetually. 2.194 His business must be to offer sacrifices to God, together with those priests that are joined with him, to see that the laws be observed, to determine controversies, and to punish those that are convicted of injustice; while he that does not submit to him shall be subject to the same punishment, as if he had been guilty of impiety towards God himself. 2.195 When we offer sacrifices to him we do it not in order to surfeit ourselves, or to be drunken; for such excesses are against the will of God, and would be an occasion of injuries and of luxury: but by keeping ourselves sober, orderly, and ready for our other occupations, and being more temperate than others. |
38. Josephus Flavius, Life, 1-6, 9, 12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran texts, Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • System, halakhic ~ • Tannaic halakha Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 341; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 330; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 42, 48, 583 "καὶ διατρίψας παρ αὐτῷ ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τελειώσας εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑπέστρεφον. ἐννεακαιδέκατον δ ἔτος ἔχων ἠρξάμην τε πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν, ἣ παραπλήσιός ἐστι τῇ παρ ̔́Ελλησιν Στωϊκῇ λεγομένῃ.", "ἐμοὶ δ οὐ μόνον ἐξ ἱερέων ἐστὶν τὸ γένος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης ἐφημερίδος τῶν εἰκοσιτεσσάρων, πολλὴ δὲ κἀν τούτῳ διαφορά, καὶ τῶν ἐν ταύτῃ δὲ φυλῶν ἐκ τῆς ἀρίστης. ὑπάρχω δὲ καὶ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ γένους ἀπὸ τῆς μητρός: οἱ γὰρ ̓Ασαμωναίου παῖδες, ὧν ἔγγονος ἐκείνη, τοῦ ἔθνους ἡμῶν ἐπὶ μήκιστον χρόνον ἠρχιεράτευσαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν.", "ἐρῶ δὲ τὴν διαδοχήν: ὁ πρόπαππος ἡμῶν Σίμων ὁ Ψελλὸς ἐπικαλούμενος. οὗτος ἐγένετο καθ ὃν καιρὸν ἠρχιεράτευσεν Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως ὁ παῖς, ὃς πρῶτος ἀρχιερέων ̔Υρκανὸς ὠνομάσθη.", γίνονται δὲ τῷ Ψελλῷ Σίμωνι παῖδες ἐννέα: τούτων ἐστὶν Ματθίας ὁ ̓Ηφαίου λεγόμενος: οὗτος ἠγάγετο πρὸς γάμον θυγατέρα ̓Ιωνάθου ἀρχιερέως τοῦ πρώτου ἐκ τῶν ̓Ασαμωναίου παίδων γένους ἀρχιερατεύσαντος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Σίμωνος τἀρχιερέως, καὶ γίνεται παῖς αὐτῷ Ματθίας ὁ Κυρτὸς ἐπικληθεὶς ἄρχοντος ̔Υρκανοῦ τὸν πρῶτον ἐνιαυτόν. τούτου γίνεται ̓Ιώσηπος ἐνάτῳ ἔτει τῆς ̓Αλεξάνδρας ἀρχῆς, καὶ ̓Ιωσήπου Ματθίας βασιλεύοντος ̓Αρχελάου τὸ δέκατον, Ματθία δὲ ἐγὼ τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς Γαί̈ου Καίσαρος ἡγεμονίας. ἐμοὶ δὲ παῖδές εἰσιν τρεῖς, ̔Υρκανὸς μὲν ὁ πρεσβύτατος ἔτει τετάρτῳ τῆς Οὐεσπασιανοῦ Καίσαρος ἡγεμονίας, ἑβδόμῳ δὲ ̓Ιοῦστος, ἐνάτῳ δὲ ̓Αγρίππας. τὴν μὲν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν διαδοχήν, ὡς ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις ἀναγεγραμμένην εὗρον, οὕτως παρατίθεμαι τοῖς διαβάλλειν ἡμᾶς πειρωμένοις χαίρειν φράσας. "ἔτι δ ἀντίπαις ὢν περὶ τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατον ἔτος διὰ τὸ φιλογράμματον ὑπὸ πάντων ἐπῃνούμην συνιόντων ἀεὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν τῆς πόλεως πρώτων ὑπὲρ τοῦ παρ ἐμοῦ περὶ τῶν νομίμων ἀκριβέστερόν τι γνῶναι.", "̓Εμοὶ δὲ γένος ἐστὶν οὐκ ἄσημον, ἀλλ ἐξ ἱερέων ἄνωθεν καταβεβηκός. ὥσπερ δ ἡ παρ ἑκάστοις ἄλλη τίς ἐστιν εὐγενείας ὑπόθεσις, οὕτως παρ ἡμῖν ἡ τῆς ἱερωσύνης μετουσία τεκμήριόν ἐστιν γένους λαμπρότητος." NA>Length: 1, dtype: string |
39. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 1.1, 1.7, 2.1, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Amoraic midrash compilations, halakhic material in • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • aggada and halakha, address same social and cultural tensions • aggada and halakha, aggada suggests alternative halakha • halakha, study of Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 63, 130, 143, 161, 162, 190, 191; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 358; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 561, 599, 600; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years (2005) 478; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 284, 633 1.1 לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים אָסוּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶן, לְהַשְׁאִילָן וְלִשְׁאֹל מֵהֶן, לְהַלְוֹתָן וְלִלְוֹת מֵהֶן, לְפָרְעָן וְלִפָּרַע מֵהֶן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֵצֵר לוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּצֵר הוּא עַכְשָׁיו, שָׂמֵחַ הוּא לְאַחַר זְמָן: 1.7 אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם דֻּבִּין וַאֲרָיוֹת וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ נֵזֶק לָרַבִּים. אֵין בּוֹנִין עִמָּהֶם בָּסִילְקִי, גַּרְדּוֹם, וְאִצְטַדְיָא, וּבִימָה. אֲבָל בּוֹנִים עִמָּהֶם בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת וּבֵית מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת. הִגִּיעוּ לַכִּפָּה שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בָּהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אָסוּר לִבְנוֹת: 2.1 אֵין מַעֲמִידִין בְּהֵמָה בְּפֻנְדְּקָאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָרְבִיעָה. וְלֹא תִתְיַחֵד אִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וְלֹא יִתְיַחֵד אָדָם עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל שְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְיַלֵּד אֶת הַנָּכְרִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּיַלֶּדֶת בֵּן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲבָל נָכְרִית מְיַלֶּדֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָנִיק בְּנָהּ שֶׁל נָכְרִית, אֲבָל נָכְרִית מְנִיקָה בְנָהּ שֶׁל יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ: 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: 1.1 On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they the Rabbis said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently. 1.7 One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build. 2.1 One should not place animals in inns of non-Jews, because they are suspected of bestiality. A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of licentiousness; Nor should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding blood. A Jewish woman should not act as midwife to a non-Jewish woman, because she would be delivering a child for idolatry. But a non-Jewish woman may act as midwife to a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not suckle the child of a non-Jewish woman, But a non-Jewish woman may suckle the child of a Jewish woman in her premises. 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. |
40. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1-1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Sinai, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • System, halakhic ~ • aggada in Mishna, establishes authority of rabbis as interpreters of halakha • halakha, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as element of rabbinic curriculum • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, pre-exilic Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 203; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 214, 304; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 70, 516; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48, 80; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 57, 138; Zawanowska and Wilk, The Character of David in Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Warrior, Poet, Prophet and King (2022) 200 1.1 משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה: 1.2 שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק הָיָה מִשְּׁיָרֵי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עַל שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הָעוֹלָם עוֹמֵד, עַל הַתּוֹרָה וְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה וְעַל גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים: 1.4 יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה אוֹמֵר, יְהִי בֵיתְךָ בֵית וַעַד לַחֲכָמִים, וֶהֱוֵי מִתְאַבֵּק בַּעֲפַר רַגְלֵיהֶם, וֶהֱוֵי שׁוֹתֶה בְצָמָא אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם: 1.6 יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה וְנִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר, וֶהֱוֵי דָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת: 1.12 הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה: 1.1 Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in the administration of justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah. 1.2 Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly. He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety. 1.4 Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yoha a man of Jerusalem received the oral tradition from them i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst. 1.6 Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received the oral tradition from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor. 1.12 Hillel and Shammai received the oral tradition from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah. |
41. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 8.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Bavli, aggada integrated into halakhic context • Tannaic halakha • aggada in Bavli, integrated with halakhic context Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 567, 568; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 34 8.5 הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְנִי בְּכוֹר לֹא יִטֹּל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְנִי לֹא יִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו עַל פִּיו, רִבָּה לְאֶחָד וּמִעֵט לְאֶחָד וְהִשְׁוָה לָהֶן אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְאִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם יְרֻשָּׁה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. כָּתַב בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵשׁ בַּת, בִּתִּי תִירָשֵׁנִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֶּשׁ בֵּן, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אָמַר עַל מִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְעַל מִי שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ, אֵין דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. הַכּוֹתֵב אֶת נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת בָּנָיו, מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, אֲבָל אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיוּ בָנָיו נוֹהֲגִין כַּשּׁוּרָה, זָכוּר לְטוֹב. 8.5 If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said that it should be so “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end of his will that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Joha ben Baroka says: “If he said that so and so shall inherit from me of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.” |
42. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • ethics, in Avot, exceeding formal halakha Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 316, 348, 351, 353; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 589 4.3 שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל נָכְרִי, פָּטוּר. וְשֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם: 4.3 An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages. |
43. Mishnah, Berachot, 1.3, 3.4-3.5, 4.4, 5.1, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha, mixing • Halakhah, origins of • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Sabbath, halakha • System, halakhic ~ • Torah, and halakha • aggada and halakha, aggada suggests alternative halakha • aggada and halakha, aggada that transmits legal content • aggadic passages on legal biblical units, halakha derived from narrative biblical units • halakha in Diaspora • halakhah and custom • halakhah, as modality of tradition • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 142; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 123; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 483, 490, 596; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 77; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 75; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 75; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 245; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 55, 115, 118, 127, 128, 426, 449 1.3 בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בָּעֶרֶב כָּל אָדָם יַטּוּ וְיִקְרְאוּ, וּבַבֹּקֶר יַעַמְדוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כָּל אָדָם קוֹרֵא כְדַרְכּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם שׁוֹכְבִים, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אֲנִי הָיִיתִי בָא בַדֶּרֶךְ, וְהִטֵּתִי לִקְרוֹת, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְסִכַּנְתִּי בְעַצְמִי מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּדַי הָיִיתָ לָחוּב בְּעַצְמְךָ, שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל: 3.4 בַּעַל קֶרִי מְהַרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. וְעַל הַמָּזוֹן מְבָרֵךְ לְאַחֲרָיו, וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לְפָנָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְבָרֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם: 3.5 הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּתְּפִלָּה, וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁהוּא בַעַל קְרִי, לֹא יַפְסִיק, אֶלָּא יְקַצֵּר. יָרַד לִטְבֹּל, אִם יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת וְלִקְרוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָנֵץ הַחַמָּה, יַעֲלֶה וְיִתְכַּסֶּה וְיִקְרָא. וְאִם לָאו, יִתְכַּסֶּה בַמַּיִם וְיִקְרָא. אֲבָל לֹא יִתְכַּסֶּה, לֹא בַמַּיִם הָרָעִים וְלֹא בְמֵי הַמִּשְׁרָה, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּיל לְתוֹכָן מָיִם. וְכַמָּה יַרְחִיק מֵהֶם וּמִן הַצּוֹאָה, אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת: " 4.4 רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הָעוֹשֶׂה תְפִלָּתוֹ קֶבַע, אֵין תְּפִלָּתוֹ תַּחֲנוּנִים. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, הַמְהַלֵּךְ בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנָה, מִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה קְצָרָה. אוֹמֵר, הוֹשַׁע הַשֵּׁם אֶת עַמְּךָ אֶת שְׁאֵרִית יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּכָל פָּרָשַׁת הָעִבּוּר יִהְיוּ צָרְכֵיהֶם לְפָנֶיךָ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה:", 5.1 אֵין עוֹמְדִין לְהִתְפַּלֵּל אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ כֹּבֶד רֹאשׁ. חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ שׁוֹהִים שָׁעָה אַחַת וּמִתְפַּלְּלִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּכַוְּנוּ אֶת לִבָּם לַמָּקוֹם. אֲפִלּוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ שׁוֹאֵל בִּשְׁלוֹמוֹ, לֹא יְשִׁיבֶנּוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נָחָשׁ כָּרוּךְ עַל עֲקֵבוֹ, לֹא יַפְסִיק: 9.5 חַיָּב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְיָ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ. בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ, בִּשְׁנֵי יְצָרֶיךָ, בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב וּבְיֵצֶר רָע. וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשֶׁךָ. וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ, בְּכָל מָמוֹנֶךָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר בְּכָל מְאֹדֶךָ, בְּכָל מִדָּה וּמִדָּה שֶׁהוּא מוֹדֵד לְךָ הֱוֵי מוֹדֶה לוֹ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד. לֹא יָקֵל אָדָם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ כְּנֶגֶד שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח, שֶׁהוּא מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים. לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְהַר הַבַּיִת בְּמַקְלוֹ, וּבְמִנְעָלוֹ, וּבְפֻנְדָּתוֹ, וּבְאָבָק שֶׁעַל רַגְלָיו, וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קַפַּנְדַּרְיָא, וּרְקִיקָה מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. כָּל חוֹתְמֵי בְרָכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים מִן הָעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁקִּלְקְלוּ הַמִּינִין, וְאָמְרוּ, אֵין עוֹלָם אֶלָּא אֶחָד, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹמְרִים, מִן הָעוֹלָם וְעַד הָעוֹלָם. וְהִתְקִינוּ, שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם שׁוֹאֵל אֶת שְׁלוֹם חֲבֵרוֹ בַּשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (רות ב) וְהִנֵּה בֹעַז בָּא מִבֵּית לֶחֶם, וַיֹּאמֶר לַקּוֹצְרִים יְיָ עִמָּכֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, יְבָרֶכְךָ יְיָ. וְאוֹמֵר (שופטים ו) יְיָ עִמְּךָ גִּבּוֹר הֶחָיִל. וְאוֹמֵר (משלי כג) אַל תָּבוּז כִּי זָקְנָה אִמֶּךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קיט) עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַייָ הֵפֵרוּ תוֹרָתֶךָ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, הֵפֵרוּ תוֹרָתֶךָ עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַייָ: 1.3 Bet Shammai say: in the evening every man should recline and recite the Shema, and in the morning he should stand, as it says, “And when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). Bet Hillel say that every man should recite in his own way, as it says, “And when you walk by the way” (ibid). Why then is it said, “And when you lies down and when you get up?” At the time when people lie down and at the time when people rise up. Rabbi Tarfon said: I was once walking by the way and I reclined to recite the Shema according to the words of Bet Shammai, and I incurred danger from robbers. They said to him: you deserved to come to harm, because you acted against the words of Bet Hillel. 3.4 One who has had a seminal emission utters the words of the Shema in his heart and he doesn’t say a blessing, neither before nor after. Over food he says a blessing afterwards, but not the blessing before. Rabbi Judah says: he blesses both before them and after them. 3.5 If a man was standing saying the tefillah and he remembers that he is one who has had a seminal emission, he should not stop but he should abbreviate the blessings. If he went down to immerse, if he is able to come up and cover himself and recite the Shema before the rising of the sun, he should go up and cover himself and recite, but if not he should cover himself with the water and recite. He should not cover himself either with foul water or with steeping water until he pours fresh water into it. How far should he remove himself from it and from excrement? Four cubits. 4.4 Rabbi Eliezer says: if a man makes his prayers fixed, it is not true supplication. Rabbi Joshua says: if one is traveling in a dangerous place, he says a short prayer, saying: Save, O Lord, Your people the remt of Israel. In every time of crisis may their needs be before You. Blessed are You, O Lord, who hears prayer. 5.1 One should not stand up to say Tefillah except in a reverent state of mind. The pious men of old used to wait an hour before praying in order that they might direct their thoughts to God. Even if a king greets him while praying he should not answer him: even if a snake is wound round his heel he should not stop. 9.5 One must bless God for the evil in the same way as one blesses for the good, as it says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “With all your heart,” with your two impulses, the evil impulse as well as the good impulse. “With all your soul” even though he takes your soul life away from you. “With all your might” with all your money. Another explanation, “With all your might” whatever treatment he metes out to you. One should not show disrespect to the Eastern Gate, because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple Mount with a staff, or with shoes on, or with a wallet, or with dusty feet; nor should one make it a short cut, all the more spitting is forbidden. All the conclusions of blessings that were in the Temple they would say, “forever lit. as long as the world is.” When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2:. And it also says, “The Lord is with your, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: this means “They have violated your teaching It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.” |
44. Mishnah, Eduyot, 1.4-1.6, 1.12-1.14, 4.7, 5.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakhah/Halakhot • Neusner, Jacob, on halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • halakha k . . . • halakha, Dead Sea Scrolls • halakha, Judean • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, authority challenged in • halakhah, decision-making in • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, terminology of • halakhic literature, early tannaitic Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 249; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 447, 448, 449, 483; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 69; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 75, 79, 95; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 98; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 65; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 85, 615 1.4 וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין אֶת דִּבְרֵי שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל לְבַטָּלָה, לְלַמֵּד לַדּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם עוֹמֵד עַל דְּבָרָיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲבוֹת הָעוֹלָם לֹא עָמְדוּ עַל דִּבְרֵיהֶם: 1.5 וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן: 1.6 אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין לְבַטָּלָה. שֶׁאִם יֹאמַר הָאָדָם כָּךְ אֲנִי מְקֻבָּל, יֵאָמֵר לוֹ, כְּדִבְרֵי אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׁמָעְתָּ: 1.12 אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּנָּשֵׂא. מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּתְיַבֵּם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶלָּא בְּבָאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר בִּלְבָד. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַזֵּיתִים וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, לֹא דִבְּרוּ בַקָּצִיר אֶלָּא בַהֹוֶה. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמָּאי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְתִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְלֹא תִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הִתַּרְתֶּם אֶת הָעֶרְוָה הַחֲמוּרָה, לֹא תַתִּירוּ אֶת הַמָּמוֹן הַקָּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מָצִינוּ שֶׁאֵין הָאַחִים נִכְנָסִין לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וַהֲלֹא מִסֵּפֶר כְּתֻבָּתָהּ נִלְמֹד, שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לָהּ, שֶׁאִם תִּנָּשְׂאִי לְאַחֵר, תִּטְּלִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לִיךְ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי: 1.13 מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל. בַּת חוֹרִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל. לִבָּטֵל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מה), לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמָּאי: 1.14 כְּלִי חֶרֶס מַצִּיל עַל הַכֹּל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ מַצִּיל אֶלָּא עַל הָאֳכָלִין וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקִין וְעַל כְּלֵי חָרֶס. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מִפְּנֵי מָה. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא עַל גַּב עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְאֵין כְּלִי טָמֵא חוֹצֵץ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, וַהֲלֹא טִהַרְתֶּם אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְנוּ אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ, לְעַצְמוֹ טִהַרְנוּ. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְתָּ אֶת הַכְּלִי, טִהַרְתָּ לְךָ וָלוֹ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי: 4.7 הָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִינָר, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה, אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בְאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, פּוֹטֵר הוּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט יָשָׁן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. אֵיזֶהוּ גֵט יָשָׁן. כָּל שֶׁנִּתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ. הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְפֻנְדְּקִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. אֲבָל אִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין, אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַס בָּהּ: 5.7 בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר לִבְנוֹ, בְּנִי, חֲזֹר בְּךָ בְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אָמַר לוֹ, וְלָמָּה לֹא חָזַרְתָּ בָּךְ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים, וְהֵם שָׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים. אֲנִי עָמַדְתִּי בִשְׁמוּעָתִי, וְהֵם עָמְדוּ בִשְׁמוּעָתָן. אֲבָל אַתָּה שָׁמַעְתָּ מִפִּי הַיָּחִיד, וּמִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּין. מוּטָב לְהַנִּיחַ דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד, וְלֶאֱחֹז בְּדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. אָמַר לוֹ, אַבָּא, פְּקֹד עָלַי לַחֲבֵרֶיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי מַפְקִיד. אָמַר לוֹ, שֶׁמָּא עִילָה מָצָאתָ בִי. אָמַר לוֹ, לָאו. מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְקָרְבוּךָ וּמַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְרַחֲקוּךָ: 1.4 And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel for naught? To teach the following generations that a man should not always persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world did not persist in their opinion. 1.5 And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. 1.6 Rabbi Judah said: “If so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside? So that if a man shall say, ‘Thus have I received the tradition’, it may be said to him, ‘According to the refuted opinion of that individual did you hear it.’”, 1.12 These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died without children” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the levir). But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” But Beth Hillel says: “She may be married again but may not take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai said to them: “You have permitted the graver matter of a forbidden marriage, should you not permit the lighter matter of property?” Beth Hillel said to them: “We have found that brothers do not inherit on her statement.” Beth Shammai said to them: “Do we not infer it from her marriage document in which he writes to her ‘That if you be married to another you shall take what is written for you’?” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. 1.13 Whoever is half a slave and half a free man should work one day for his master and one day for himself, according to Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: “You have set matters in order with regards to his master, but you have not set matters in order with regards to himself. He is not able to marry a slave-woman, nor is he able to marry a woman who is free. Is he to refrain from marrying? How can he for is it not the case that the world was created in order for people to be fruitful and multiply? For it is said, “He did not create it to be a waste; but formed it for inhabitation” (Isaiah 45:18). But for the rightful ordering of the world his master is compelled to make him free, and he writes out a bond for half his value.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. 1.14 A vessel of earthenware can protect everything in it from contracting impurity, according to Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and other vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is itself impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen against impurity.” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him the ignoramus only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. 4.7 A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. One who divorces his wife and she afterwards spends a night with him at the same inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When does she require a second bill of divorcement? When she was divorced after marriage. But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not yet familiar with her. 5.7 At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard the contrary from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard my tradition from the mouth of a single individual and their tradition from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.” |
45. Mishnah, Gittin, 8.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, origins of • halakha, Dead Sea Scrolls • halakha, Judean • halakhic literature, early tannaitic Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 126; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 98 8.9 הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפֻנְדְּקִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. וּמוֹדִים בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַס בָּהּ. כְּנָסָהּ בְּגֵט קֵרֵחַ, תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָהּ: 8.9 A man divorces his wife and then stays with her over night in an inn: Bet Shammai says: she does not require from him a second get, But Beth Hillel say she does require a second get from him. When is this so? When she was divorced after marriage. And Beth Hillel agrees that if she is divorced after betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, because he would not yet take liberties with her. If a man marries a divorced woman through a “bald” get, she must leave both husbands and all the above-mentioned consequences apply to her. |
46. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.8, 2.1-2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Sabbath, halakha • aggadah, halakhah compared with • ancient Halakha • biblical texts, halakhah and • halakha, structure of meaning and community • halakhah • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, biblical exegesis and • halakhah, pre-exilic • halakhah, terminology of • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 247; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 169, 170; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 125, 140; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 21; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 497; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 80, 85, 86, 93, 95, 100, 190; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 164; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 4, 138, 517 1.8 הֶתֵּר נְדָרִים פּוֹרְחִין בָּאֲוִיר, וְאֵין לָהֶם עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹכוּ. הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, חֲגִיגוֹת וְהַמְּעִילוֹת, הֲרֵי הֵם כַּהֲרָרִים הַתְּלוּיִין בְּשַׂעֲרָה, שֶׁהֵן מִקְרָא מֻעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרֻבּוֹת. הַדִּינִין וְהָעֲבוֹדוֹת, הַטָּהֳרוֹת וְהַטֻּמְאוֹת וַעֲרָיוֹת, יֵשׁ לָהֶן עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹכוּ. הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תּוֹרָה: 2.1 אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בַּעֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בִּשְׁנַיִם. וְלֹא בַמֶּרְכָּבָה בְּיָחִיד, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה חָכָם וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ. כָּל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, רָאוּי לוֹ כְּאִלּוּ לֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּפָנִים, וּמַה לְּאָחוֹר. וְכָל שֶׁלֹּא חָס עַל כְּבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, רָאוּי לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם: 2.2 יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין: 1.8 The laws concerning the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nothing to rest on. The laws concerning Shabbat, hagigot, and trespassing are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many halakhot. The laws concerning civil cases and Temple worship, purity and impurity, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and they that are the essentials of the Torah. 2.1 They may not expound upon the subject of forbidden relations in the presence of three. Nor the work of creation in the presence of two. Nor the work of the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge. Whoever speculates upon four things, it would have been better had he not come into the world: what is above, what is beneath, what came before, and what came after. And whoever takes no thought for the honor of his creator, it would have been better had he not come into the world. 2.2 Yose ben Yoezer says that on a festival the laying of the hands on the head of a sacrifice may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former of each pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court. |
47. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakha, intensification • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 62; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 284, 592 2.7 הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְנָכְרִי, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַנָּכְרִי מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁסְּתָם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת נָכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, וּמַה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין, אֵין הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּחֻלִּין, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט: 2.7 If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat only its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters! |
48. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 1.5, 6.6, 7.1, 7.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Change, in custom and halakhah • Halakhah • Halakhah, origins of • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • System, halakhic ~ • halakha, Dead Sea Scrolls • halakha, Judean • halakhic literature, Palestinian • halakhic literature, early tannaitic • law, Jewish (halakhah), disgust and Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green, A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner (2014) 44; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 131; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 98, 99; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 136; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 25; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 31, 60 1.5 הָאוֹכֵל אֵצֶל חָמִיו בִּיהוּדָה שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ. אַחַת אַלְמְנַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַחַת אַלְמְנַת כֹּהֵן, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָנֶה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ גוֹבִין לַבְּתוּלָה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, וְלֹא מִחוּ בְיָדָם חֲכָמִים: 6.6 יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאַתָּה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הִשִּׂיא אֶת הַבַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ: 7.1 הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּהָנוֹת לוֹ, עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכֹהֶנֶת, שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה: 1.5 He who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without the presence of witnesses cannot raise a claim of non-virginity against his wife because he has been alone with her. It is the same whether the woman is an Israelite widow or a priestly widow her kethubah is a maneh. The court of the priests collected for a virgin four hundred zuz, and the sages did not protest. 6.6 If an orphan was given in marriage by her mother or her brothers with her consent and they gave her a dowry of a hundred, or fifty zuz, she may, when she reaches majority age, legally claim from them the amount that was due to her. Rabbi Judah says: if the father had given his first daughter in marriage, the second must receive as much as the first. The Sages say: sometimes a man is poor and becomes rich or rich and becomes poor. Rather the estate should evaluated and the appropriate amount given to her. 7.1 If a man forbade his wife by vow to have any benefit from him, for thirty days, he may appoint a provider, but if for a longer period he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. Rabbi Judah ruled: if he was an Israelite he may keep her as his wife, if the vow was for one month, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah if it was for two months. If he was a priest he may keep her as his wife, if the vow was for two months, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah if it was for three. 7.10 These are the ones who are forced to divorce their wives: one who is afflicted with boils, one who has a polypus, a gatherer of dog feces for the treatment of hides, a coppersmith or a tanner whether they were in such a condition before they married or whether they arose after they had married. And concerning all these Rabbi Meir said: although the man made a condition with her that she accept him despite these defects she may nevertheless say, “I thought I could accept him, but now I cannot accept him.” The Sages say: she must accept such a person against her will, the only exception being a man afflicted with boils, because she by her intercourse will enervate him. It once happened at Sidon that a tanner died, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. The Sages said: she may say, “I was able to accept your brother but I cannot accept you.” |
49. Mishnah, Keritot, 3.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, philosophical monotheism of • halakhah, as modality of tradition • monotheism, mythic, in Aggadah, ix, Halakhah • philosophical monotheism, in Halakhah • taxonomy, taxonomy, Halakhah’s medium of Found in books: Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 75; Neusner, The Perfect Torah (2003) 42 3.9 וְעוֹד שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בַּחוּץ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ. חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּם, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי בְאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַמְחוּיִין בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לֹא כָךְ שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹכֵל נוֹתָר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ. חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּן, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי בְאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַמְחוּיִים בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אִם הֲלָכָה, נְקַבֵּל. וְאִם לָדִין, יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לוֹ, הָשֵׁב. אָמַר לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִמְעִילָה שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כָּאוֹכֵל וְאֶת הַמְהַנֶּה כַּנֶּהֱנֶה, צֵרַף הַמְּעִילָה לִזְמָן מְרֻבֶּה, תֹּאמַר בְּנוֹתָר, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחַד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ: 3.9 Rabbi Akiba asked again: If a man slaughtered five sacrifices outside the Temple in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to a separate offering for each act or only to one for them all? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiba did not ask this, but rather concerning one who ate of notar (remt) from five sacrifices in one spell of unawareness what is the law? Is he liable only to one offering for all of them, or is he liable to one for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Akiba replied: if this is a received tradition we accept it; but if it is only a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He Rabbi Joshua said: rebut it. He replied: It is not so. For if you hold the view with regard to sacrilege, for in this case one who gives food to another is as guilty as the one who eats it himself, and the person who causes others to derive a benefit from them is as guilty as the person who himself made use of them; furthermore, small quantities are reckoned together in the case of sacrilege even after the lapse of a long period, can you say it in connection with notar (remt) where not one of these laws applies. |
50. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Change, in custom and halakhah • Divorce, law/halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 22; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 85, 388 1.1 הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית בְּשָׁלשׁ דְּרָכִים, וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים. נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר, וּבְבִיאָה. בְּכֶסֶף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִינָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה, אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּגֵט וּבְמִיתַת הַבָּעַל. הַיְבָמָה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בַּחֲלִיצָה וּבְמִיתַת הַיָּבָם: " 1.1 A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husbands death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death." |
51. Mishnah, Maaser Sheni, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Miqsat Maºase ha-Torah (MMT, a.k.a. “Halakhic Letter”), authenticity of • halakhah Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 81; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 153 4.3 בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר בְּסֶלַע וְאַחֵר אוֹמֵר בְּסֶלַע, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת קוֹדֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר בְּסֶלַע וְאַחֵר אוֹמֵר בְּסֶלַע וְאִסָּר, אֶת שֶׁל סֶלַע וְאִסָּר קוֹדֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹסִיף עַל הַקֶּרֶן. הַפּוֹדֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁלּוֹ, מוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֲמִשִּׁית, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וּבֵין שֶׁנִּתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה: 4.3 If the owner says, “With a sela I will redeem this maaser sheni and another person says “With a sela,” the owner has the first right, because he must add a fifth. If the owner says “With a sela” and another person says “With a sela and an issar,” the one who offered a sela and an issar has the first right, because he added to the principal. When one redeems his maaser sheni he must add a fifth, whether it is his own or it was given him as a gift. |
52. Mishnah, Menachot, 10.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • halakhah, priestly Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 251; Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 261 10.5 מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר, יוֹצְאִין וּמוֹצְאִין שׁוּק יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהוּא מָלֵא קֶמַח וְקָלִי, שֶׁלֹּא בִרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים. מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר, הֻתַּר הֶחָדָשׁ מִיָּד, וְהָרְחוֹקִים מֻתָּרִים מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הָנֵף כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וַהֲלֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה הוּא אָסוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. מִפְּנֵי מָה הָרְחוֹקִים מֻתָּרִים מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ: 10.5 After the omer was offered they used to go out and find the market of Jerusalem already full of flour and parched grain of the new produce; This was without the approval of the rabbis, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: it was with the approval of the rabbis. After the omer was offered the new grain was permitted immediately, but for those that lived far off it was permitted only after midday. After the Temple was destroyed Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai decreed that it should be forbidden throughout the day of the waving. Rabbi Judah said: is it not so forbidden by the law of the Torah, for it is said, “Until this very day?” Why was it permitted for those that lived far away from midday? Because they know that the court would not be negligent with it. |
53. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Tannaic halakha • halakah, halakic Found in books: Faßbeck and Killebrew, Viewing Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology: VeHinnei Rachel - Essays in honor of Rachel Hachlili (2016) 418; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 17 2.10 A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud combined: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: mud in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: mud into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure. |
54. Mishnah, Nedarim, 4.3, 9.5, 9.10, 11.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Divorce, law/halakha • Mishna, aggada and halakha in • Qumran halakha • Sabbath, halakha • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • aggada and halakha, aggada that transmits legal content • aggadic midrash, circulating independent of halakha • ancient Halakha • halakha • halakha, Palestinian • halakha, Targum • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition • study curriculum, halakha and aggada as subjects in Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 477, 482, 546; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 187; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 58; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 143; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 83; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 4, 88, 90, 196, 529 4.3 וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעַשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ. וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִנֵּי זָבִין, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ, הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא. אֲבָל מְלַמֵּד הוּא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו מִקְרָא, וְזָן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם. וְלֹא יָזוּן אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, זָן אֶת הַטְּמֵאָה, וְאֵינוֹ זָן אֶת הַטְּהוֹרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַה בֵּין טְמֵאָה לִטְהוֹרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן, שֶׁהַטְּהוֹרָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וּטְמֵאָה נַפְשָׁהּ וְגוּפָהּ לַשָּׁמָיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף הַטְּמֵאָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה, הֲרֵי הוּא מוֹכְרָהּ לְגוֹיִם אוֹ מַאֲכִילָהּ לִכְלָבִים: 9.5 פּוֹתְחִין לָאָדָם בִּכְתֻבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁנָּדַר מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲנָאָה וְהָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת דִּינָרִין, וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְחִיְּבוֹ לִתֵּן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ, רַבִּי, שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת דִּינָרִין הִנִּיחַ אַבָּא, וְנָטַל אָחִי אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת וַאֲנִי אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, לֹא דַיָּהּ שֶׁתִּטֹּל הִיא מָאתַיִם, וַאֲנִי מָאתָיִם. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲפִלּוּ אַתָּה מוֹכֵר שְׂעַר רֹאשְׁךָ, אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ, אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא כֵן, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר, וְהִתִּירָהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: 4.3 He may donate his terumah and his tithes with his consent. He may offer up for him the bird sacrifices of zavim and zavoth and the bird sacrifices of women after childbirth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. He may teach him midrash, halakhoth and aggadoth, but not Scripture, yet he may teach his sons and daughters Scripture And he may support his wife and children, even though he is liable for their maintece. But he may not feed his beasts, whether clean or unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may feed an unclean beast of his, but not a clean one. They said to him: what is the difference between an unclean and a clean beast? He replied to them, a clean beast, its life belongs to heaven, but its body is his own; but an unclean animal its body and life belongs to heaven. They said to him: The life of an unclean beast too belongs to heaven and the body is his own for if he wishes, he can sell it to a non-Jew or feed dogs with it. 9.5 They release a vow by reference to a wife’s kethubah. And it once happened that a man vowed not to benefit from his wife and her ketubah amounted to four hundred denarii. He went before Rabbi Akiva, who ordered him to pay her the ketubah in full. He said to him, “Rabbi! My father left eight hundred denarii, of which my brother took four hundred and I took four hundred. Isn’t it enough that she should receive two hundred and I two hundred?” Rabbi Akiva replied: even if you have to sell the hair of your head you must pay her her ketubah. He said to him, “Had I known that it is so, I would not have vowed.” And Rabbi Akiva released his vow. 9.10 “Konam if I marry that ugly woman,” and she turns out to be beautiful; “That black-skinned woman,” and she turns out to be light-skinned; “That short woman,” and she turns out to be tall, he is permitted to marry her, not because she was ugly, and became beautiful, or black and became light-skinned, short and grew tall, but because the vow was made in error. And thus it happened with one who vowed not to benefit from his sister’s daughter, and she was taken into Rabbi Ishmael’s house and they made her beautiful. Rabbi Ishmael said to him, “My son! Did you vow not to benefit from this one!” He said, “No,” and Rabbi Ishmael permitted her to him. In that hour Rabbi Ishmael wept and said, “The daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty disfigures them.” And when Rabbi Ishmael died, the daughters of Israel raised a lament, saying, “Daughters of Israel weep for Rabbi Ishmael.” And thus it is said too of Saul, “Daughters of Israel, weep for Saul” (II Samuel 1:24). 11.12 At first they would say that three women must be divorced and receive their ketubah: She who says: “I am defiled to you”; “Heaven is between me and you”; “I have been removed from the Jews.” But subsequently they changed the ruling to prevent her from setting her eye on another and spoiling herself to her husband: She who said, “I am defiled unto you” must bring proof. “Heaven is between me and you” they shall appease them by a request. “I have been removed from the Jews” he the husband must annul his portion, and she may have relations with him, and she shall be removed from other Jews. |
55. Mishnah, Niddah, 7.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • ancient Halakha Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 122; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 91 7.4 כָּל הַכְּתָמִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם, טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִן הַנִּמְצְאִים בַּחֲדָרִים וּבִסְבִיבוֹת בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת. בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם קוֹבְרִין שָׁם אֶת הַנְּפָלִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אֶלָּא מַשְׁלִיכִין, וְחַיָּה גוֹרַרְתָּן: 7.4 All bloodstains, wherever they are found are clean except those that are found in rooms or in a house for unclean women. A house for unclean Samaritan women conveys uncleanness by overshadowing because they bury miscarriages there. Rabbi Judah says: they did not bury them but threw them away and the wild beasts dragged them off. |
56. Mishnah, Orlah, 3.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 71; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 92, 93, 95 3.9 סְפֵק עָרְלָה, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶנּוּ לוֹקֵט. כֶּרֶם נָטוּעַ יָרָק, וְיָרָק נִמְכָּר חוּצָה לוֹ, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׁרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקֹט בַּיָּד. הֶחָדָשׁ, אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהָעָרְלָה, הֲלָכָה. וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: 3.9 Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase from a non-Israelite as long as he has not seen him gathering it. A vineyard planted with vegetables which are kilayim, and they the vegetables are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather them with one’s own hand. New produce is prohibited by the Torah in all places. And orlah is a halachah. And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes. |
57. Mishnah, Peah, 1.1, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • Sinai, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • halakha, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, pre-exilic Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 140; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 70; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 80, 100, 142, 190; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 99 1.1 אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שִׁעוּר. הַפֵּאָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּמֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כֻּלָּם: 2.6 מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁזָּרַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאָלוּ. אָמַר נַחוּם הַלַּבְלָר, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבִּי מְיָאשָׁא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מֵאַבָּא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגוֹת, שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, אִם עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת: 1.1 These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners of the field. First-fruits; The offerings brought on appearing at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is equal to them all. 2.6 It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field with two different kinds and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked about the law. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs of sage, who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs. |
58. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 2.9, 4.1-4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakha, association • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • halakhah, as modality of tradition • rulings, halakhic, acceptance of Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 140; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 251, 437, 498; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 76; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 86; Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 188 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: 4.2 וְעוֹד זֹאת הָיְתָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יְתֵרָה עַל יַבְנֶה, שֶׁכָּל עִיר שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה וְשׁוֹמַעַת וּקְרוֹבָה וִיכוֹלָה לָבֹא, תּוֹקְעִין. וּבְיַבְנֶה לֹא הָיוּ תוֹקְעִין אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין בִּלְבָד: 4.3 בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה הַלּוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שִׁבְעָה, וּבַמְּדִינָה יוֹם אֶחָד. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְהֵא לוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמְּדִינָה שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְשֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הָנֵף כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר: 4.4 בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מְקַבְּלִין עֵדוּת הַחֹדֶשׁ כָּל הַיּוֹם. פַּעַם אַחַת נִשְׁתַּהוּ הָעֵדִים מִלָּבֹא, וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ הַלְוִיִּם בַּשִּׁיר. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְקַבְּלִין אֶלָּא עַד הַמִּנְחָה. וְאִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה, נוֹהֲגִין אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וּלְמָחָר קֹדֶשׁ. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁיְּהוּ מְקַבְּלִין עֵדוּת הַחֹדֶשׁ כָּל הַיּוֹם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, וְעוֹד זֹאת הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין בְּכָל מָקוֹם, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעֵדִים הוֹלְכִין אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם הַוָּעַד: 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. 4.2 There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see Jerusalem and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow on Shabbat, whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only. 4.3 In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, He also decreed that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden to eat the new produce. 4.4 Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day. On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn. They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon sacrifice. If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day. After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day. Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly. |
59. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1.5, 2.1-2.3, 6.4, 10.1, 10.4, 11.1-11.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Mishna, aggada and halakha in • Tannaic literature, halakhic vs. aggadic exegesis • halakha, rabbinic vs. biblical law • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, decision-making in • halakhah, definition of • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, sanctions in • halakhic exegesis • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah), king and Found in books: Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 62; Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 121, 129, 130, 131, 132, 248; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible (2014) 285; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 81; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, 313, 324, 325, 493; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 475, 476; Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 384; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 78; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 178; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 207, 208, 218; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 67; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 32; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 33, 40 1.5 אֵין דָּנִין לֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט וְלֹא אֶת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר וְלֹא אֶת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין סַנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת לַשְּׁבָטִים, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בַּסְּפָר, וְלֹא שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתָּיִם: 2.1 כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ, מֵעִיד וּמְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, חוֹלֵץ וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמְיַבְּמִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל הוּא אֵינוֹ מְיַבֵּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה. מֵת לוֹ מֵת, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, אֶלָּא הֵן נִכְסִין וְהוּא נִגְלֶה, הֵן נִגְלִין וְהוּא נִכְסֶה, וְיוֹצֵא עִמָּהֶן עַד פֶּתַח הָעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא) וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְנַחֵם אֲחֵרִים, דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וְהַמְמֻנֶּה מְמַצְּעוֹ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְנַחֵם מֵאֲחֵרִים, כָּל הָעָם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אָנוּ כַפָּרָתְךָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן תִּתְבָּרְכוּ מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַסַּפְסָל: 2.2 הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא דָן וְלֹא דָנִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא מְיַבֵּם וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם רָצָה לַחֲלֹץ אוֹ לְיַבֵּם, זָכוּר לָטוֹב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין אַלְמָנָתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נוֹשֵׂא הַמֶּלֶךְ אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל שָׁאוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב יב) וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת בֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ וְאֶת נְשֵׁי אֲדֹנֶיךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ: 2.3 מֵת לוֹ מֵת, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח פַּלְטְרִין שֶׁלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם רוֹצֶה לָצֵאת אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, יוֹצֵא, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁיָּצָא אַחַר מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְנֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם ג) וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד הֹלֵךְ אַחֲרֵי הַמִּטָּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא הָיָה הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לְפַיֵּס אֶת הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַדַּרְגָּשׁ: " 6.4 בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ, הוֹפְכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. כָּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ, מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַקּוֹרָה מֻטָּה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין. וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם לָן, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל:", " 10.1 כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו:", 10.4 אַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אֵין לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יג) יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת ישְׁבֵי עִירָם. וְאֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִים עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מֵאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט, וְעַד שֶׁיֻּדַּח רֻבָּהּ, וְעַד שֶׁיַּדִּיחוּם אֲנָשִׁים. הִדִּיחוּהָ נָשִׁים וּקְטַנִּים אוֹ שֶׁהֻדַּח מִעוּטָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ חוּצָה לָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִיחִידִים. וּצְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּיְּחִידִים מִבַּמְּרֻבִּים, שֶׁהַיְּחִידִים בִּסְקִילָה, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם פָּלֵט. וְהַמְּרֻבִּים בְּסַיִף, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד: 11.1 אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, וּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, וְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן חַבּוּרָה. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּמְקַלֵּל מִבַּמַּכֶּה, שֶׁהַמְקַלֵּל לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, וְהַמַּכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה פָּטוּר. הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד) וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ. הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: " 11.2 זָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יז) כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט וְגוֹ. שְׁלֹשָׁה בָתֵּי דִינִין הָיוּ שָׁם, אֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית. בָּאִים לָזֶה שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, בָּאִין לָהֶם לְאוֹתָן שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ בָּאִים לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יוֹצֵאת תּוֹרָה לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה. חָזַר לְעִירוֹ וְשָׁנָה וְלִמֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לָמֵד, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹרֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת. תַּלְמִיד שֶׁהוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, פָּטוּר, נִמְצָא חֻמְרוֹ קֻלּוֹ:" 1.5 A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City of Jerusalem, or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim any city to be an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19 save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two. 2.1 The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed priest stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool. 2.2 The king can neither judge nor be judged, he cannot testify and others cannot testify against him. He may not perform halitzah, nor may others perform halitzah for his wife. He may not contract levirate marriage nor may his brothers contract levirate marriage with his wife. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wished to perform halitzah or to contract levirate marriage his memory is a blessing.” They said to him: “They should not listen to him.” may marry his widow. Rabbi Judah says: “The king may marry the widow of a king, for so have we found it with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says, “And I gave you my master’s house and my master’s wives into your embrace” (II Samuel 12:8). 2.3 If any of his near kin die he may not go out of the door of his palace. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wishes to follow the bier he may, since we have found that David followed the bier of Avner, as it says, “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31) They answered, “That was only to appease the people.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit on the floor and he sits on a couch. " 6.4 The place of stoning was twice a mans height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, so that he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled his duty; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done his duty; but if not, he the criminal was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are afterwards hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “On that occasion he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a cross- piece branching off at the top and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up thereby. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left hanging over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name of god; and so the name of Heaven God is profaned.", 10.1 All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers a charm over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”, 10.4 The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each offender. In this the penalty of individuals is severer than that of the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed. 11.1 The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely to the adultery of a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses his/her parents after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yoha ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt him. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt him. 11.2 An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court is strangled, for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement …you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the Temple court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They first went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he the rebellious elder stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If this first court had heard a ruling on the matter, they state it. If not, they go to the second court which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If this second court had heard a ruling on the matter they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision opposed to the court, he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency. |
60. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.4, 3.4, 6.2, 6.4, 7.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Divorce, law/halakha • Halacha • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • System, halakhic ~ • aggada in Mishna, establishes authority of rabbis as interpreters of halakha • halakha, Shammaite • halakhah • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, pre-exilic • halakhic thinking • rulings, halakhic, methods Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 57; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 116; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 372; Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period (2005) 459; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 486; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 81, 82; Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 26; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 96; Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 28, 53; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 14, 20, 53, 648 1.4 וְאֵלּוּ מִן הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַעֲלִיַּת חֲנַנְיָה בֶן חִזְקִיָּה בֶן גֻּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁעָלוּ לְבַקְּרוֹ. נִמְנוּ וְרַבּוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עַל בֵּית הִלֵּל, וּשְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים גָּזְרוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם: 3.4 מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי טְבֶרְיָא וְהֵבִיאוּ סִלּוֹן שֶׁל צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ אַמָּה שֶׁל חַמִּין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן חֲכָמִים, אִם בְּשַׁבָּת, כְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְשַׁבָּת, אֲסוּרִין בִּרְחִיצָה וּבִשְׁתִיָּה; בְּיוֹם טוֹב, כְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְיוֹם טוֹב, אֲסוּרִין בִּרְחִיצָה וּמֻתָּרִין בִּשְׁתִיָּה. מוּלְיָאר הַגָּרוּף, שׁוֹתִין הֵימֶנּוּ בְשַׁבָּת. אַנְטִיכִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגְּרוּפָה, אֵין שׁוֹתִין מִמֶּנָּה: 6.2 לֹא יֵצֵא הָאִישׁ בְּסַנְדָּל הַמְסֻמָּר, וְלֹא בְיָחִיד בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בְּרַגְלוֹ מַכָּה, וְלֹא בִתְפִלִּין, וְלֹא בְקָמֵעַ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמֻּמְחֶה, וְלֹא בְשִׁרְיוֹן, וְלֹא בְקַסְדָּא, וְלֹא בְמַגָּפָיִם. וְאִם יָצָא, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב חַטָּאת: 6.4 לֹא יֵצֵא הָאִישׁ לֹא בְסַיִף, וְלֹא בְקֶשֶׁת, וְלֹא בִתְרִיס, וְלֹא בְאַלָּה, וְלֹא בְרֹמַח. וְאִם יָצָא, חַיָּב חַטָּאת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תַּכְשִׁיטִין הֵן לוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָן אֶלָּא לִגְנַאי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ב) וְכִתְּתוּ חַרְבוֹתָם לְאִתִּים וַחֲנִיתוֹתֵיהֶם לְמַזְמֵרוֹת, לֹא יִשָּׂא גּוֹי אֶל גּוֹי חֶרֶב וְלֹא יִלְמְדוּ עוֹד מִלְחָמָה. בִּירִית, טְהוֹרָה, וְיוֹצְאִין בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת. כְּבָלִים, טְמֵאִין, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶם בְּשַׁבָּת: 7.2 אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת. הַזּוֹרֵעַ. וְהַחוֹרֵשׁ. וְהַקּוֹצֵר. וְהַמְעַמֵּר. הַדָּשׁ. וְהַזּוֹרֶה. הַבּוֹרֵר. הַטּוֹחֵן. וְהַמְרַקֵּד. וְהַלָּשׁ. וְהָאוֹפֶה. הַגּוֹזֵז אֶת הַצֶּמֶר. הַמְלַבְּנוֹ. וְהַמְנַפְּצוֹ. וְהַצּוֹבְעוֹ. וְהַטּוֹוֶה. וְהַמֵּסֵךְ. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה שְׁנֵי בָתֵּי נִירִין. וְהָאוֹרֵג שְׁנֵי חוּטִין. וְהַפּוֹצֵעַ שְׁנֵי חוּטִין. הַקּוֹשֵׁר. וְהַמַּתִּיר. וְהַתּוֹפֵר שְׁתֵּי תְפִירוֹת. הַקּוֹרֵעַ עַל מְנָת לִתְפֹּר שְׁתֵּי תְפִירוֹת. הַצָּד צְבִי. הַשּׁוֹחֲטוֹ. וְהַמַּפְשִׁיטוֹ. הַמּוֹלְחוֹ, וְהַמְעַבֵּד אֶת עוֹרוֹ. וְהַמּוֹחֲקוֹ. וְהַמְחַתְּכוֹ. הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. וְהַמּוֹחֵק עַל מְנָת לִכְתֹּב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. הַבּוֹנֶה. וְהַסּוֹתֵר. הַמְכַבֶּה. וְהַמַּבְעִיר. הַמַּכֶּה בַפַּטִּישׁ. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת: 1.4 And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Haiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures. 3.4 It once happened that the people of Tiberias conducted a pipe of cold water through an arm of the hot springs. The sages said to them: if this happened on the Shabbat, it is like hot water heated on the Shabbat, and is forbidden both for washing and for drinking; If on a festival, it is like water heated on a festival, which is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking. A miliarum which is cleared of its ashes--they may drink from it on Shabbat. An antiki even if its ashes have been cleared--they may not drink from it. 6.2 A man may not go out with a nail-studded sandal, Nor with a single sandal if he has no wound on his foot; Nor with tefillin, Nor with an amulet, if it is not from an expert; Nor with a breastplate, Nor with a helmet; Nor with iron boots. Yet if he goes out with these, he is not liable for a sin-offering. 6.4 A man may not go out with a sword, bow, shield, club, or spear, and if he does go out, he incurs a sin-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are ornaments for him. But the sages say, they are nothing but a disgrace, as it is said, “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4). A garter is clean, and they go out wearing it on Shabbat. Knee-bands are unclean, and they may not go out with them on Shabbat. 7.2 The primary labors are forty less one:sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, weaving, the making of two loops, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying and untying, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it of its hair, cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters over the erasure, building, tearing down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, and carrying out from one domain to another, These are the forty primary labors less one. |
61. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4, 5.1, 9.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakha, mixing • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Torah, and halakha • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 251; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 190; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 317; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 75; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 88, 292 3.4 אֵינָהּ מַסְפֶּקֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עַד שֶׁפָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת וְעֵינֶיהָ בּוֹלְטוֹת וְהִיא מִתְמַלֵּאת גִּידִין, וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים הוֹצִיאוּהָ הוֹצִיאוּהָ, שֶׁלֹּא תְטַמֵּא הָעֲזָרָה. אִם יֶשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת, הָיְתָה תוֹלָה לָהּ. יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁנָה אַחַת, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים. מִכָּאן אוֹמֵר בֶּן עַזַּאי, חַיָּב אָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, שֶׁאִם תִּשְׁתֶּה, תֵּדַע שֶׁהַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה לָהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ מְלַמְּדָהּ תִּפְלוּת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה בְקַב וְתִפְלוּת מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּפְרִישׁוּת. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה, וְרָשָׁע עָרוּם, וְאִשָּׁה פְרוּשָׁה, וּמַכּוֹת פְּרוּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְכַלֵּי עוֹלָם: 5.1 כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ, כָּךְ הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וּבָאוּ, וּבָאוּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל, כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) נִטְמְאָה, וְנִטְמָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּךְ הָיָה דוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה בֶן הַקַּצָּב. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה אִם נִטְמְאָה נִטְמָאָה, אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל: 9.15 מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי מֵאִיר, בָּטְלוּ מוֹשְׁלֵי מְשָׁלִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת בֶּן עַזַּאי, בָּטְלוּ הַשַּׁקְדָּנִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת בֶּן זוֹמָא, בָּטְלוּ הַדַּרְשָׁנִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, פָּסְקָה טוֹבָה מִן הָעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, בָּא גוֹבַי וְרַבּוּ צָרוֹת. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, פָּסַק הָעשֶׁר מִן הַחֲכָמִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בָּטַל כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא, בָּטְלוּ אַנְשֵׁי מַעֲשֶׂה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קַטְנוּתָא, פָּסְקוּ חֲסִידִים. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ קַטְנוּתָא, שֶׁהָיָה קַטְנוּתָן שֶׁל חֲסִידִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, בָּטַל זִיו הַחָכְמָה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן, בָּטַל כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה וּמֵתָה טָהֳרָה וּפְרִישׁוּת. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן פָּאבִי, בָּטַל זִיו הַכְּהֻנָּה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי, בָּטְלָה עֲנָוָה וְיִרְאַת חֵטְא. רַבִּי פִנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, בּוֹשׁוּ חֲבֵרִים וּבְנֵי חוֹרִין, וְחָפוּ רֹאשָׁם, וְנִדַּלְדְּלוּ אַנְשֵׁי מַעֲשֶׂה, וְגָבְרוּ בַעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ וּבַעֲלֵי לָשׁוֹן, וְאֵין דּוֹרֵשׁ וְאֵין מְבַקֵּשׁ, וְאֵין שׁוֹאֵל, עַל מִי לָנוּ לְהִשָּׁעֵן, עַל אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמָיִם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר, מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שָׁרוּ חַכִּימַיָּא לְמֶהֱוֵי כְסָפְרַיָּא, וְסָפְרַיָּא כְּחַזָּנָא, וְחַזָּנָא כְּעַמָּא דְאַרְעָא, וְעַמָּא דְאַרְעָא אָזְלָא וְדַלְדְּלָה, וְאֵין מְבַקֵּשׁ, עַל מִי יֵשׁ לְהִשָּׁעֵן, עַל אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמָיִם. בְּעִקְּבוֹת מְשִׁיחָא חֻצְפָּא יִסְגֵּא, וְיֹקֶר יַאֲמִיר, הַגֶּפֶן תִּתֵּן פִּרְיָהּ וְהַיַּיִן בְּיֹקֶר, וְהַמַּלְכוּת תֵּהָפֵךְ לְמִינוּת, וְאֵין תּוֹכֵחָה, בֵּית וַעַד יִהְיֶה לִזְנוּת, וְהַגָּלִיל יֶחֱרַב, וְהַגַּבְלָן יִשּׁוֹם, וְאַנְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל יְסוֹבְבוּ מֵעִיר לְעִיר וְלֹא יְחוֹנָּנוּ, וְחָכְמַת סוֹפְרִים תִּסְרַח, וְיִרְאֵי חֵטְא יִמָּאֲסוּ, וְהָאֱמֶת תְּהֵא נֶעְדֶּרֶת. נְעָרִים פְּנֵי זְקֵנִים יַלְבִּינוּ, זְקֵנִים יַעַמְדוּ מִפְּנֵי קְטַנִּים. (מיכה ז) בֵּן מְנַבֵּל אָב, בַּת קָמָה בְאִמָּהּ, כַּלָּה בַּחֲמֹתָהּ, אֹיְבֵי אִישׁ אַנְשֵׁי בֵיתוֹ. פְּנֵי הַדּוֹר כִּפְנֵי הַכֶּלֶב, הַבֵּן אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּיֵּשׁ מֵאָבִיו. וְעַל מִי יֵשׁ לָנוּ לְהִשָּׁעֵן, עַל אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמָיִם. רַבִּי פִנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר אוֹמֵר, זְרִיזוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי נְקִיּוּת, וּנְקִיּוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי טָהֳרָה, וְטָהֳרָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי פְרִישׁוּת, וּפְרִישׁוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי קְדֻשָּׁה, וּקְדֻשָּׁה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי עֲנָוָה, וַעֲנָוָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי יִרְאַת חֵטְא, וְיִרְאַת חֵטְא מְבִיאָה לִידֵי חֲסִידוּת, וַחֲסִידוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי תְחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים, וּתְחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים בָּא עַל יְדֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב, אָמֵן: 3.4 She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And those who see her exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it causes the water to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink the water of bitterness, she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world. 5.1 Just as the water checks her so the water checks him, as it is said, “And shall enter”, “And shall enter” (Numbers 5:22,. Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the lover, as it is said, “defiled … and is defiled” (Numbers 5:27, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Joshua said: thus Zechariah ben Hakatzav used to expound. Rabbi says: twice in the portion, “If she is defiled…defiled”--one referring to her being prohibited to the husband and the other to the paramour. 9.15 When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students of Torah ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place of scholars will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about begging from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.” |
62. Mishnah, Sukkah, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • discourse, halakhic Found in books: Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 11; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613 4.9 נִסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם כֵּיצַד. צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל זָהָב מַחֲזֶקֶת שְׁלשֶׁת לֻגִּים הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִן הַשִּׁלּוֹחַ. הִגִּיעוּ לְשַׁעַר הַמַּיִם, תָּקְעוּ וְהֵרִיעוּ וְתָקָעוּ. עָלָה בַכֶּבֶשׁ וּפָנָה לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ, שְׁנֵי סְפָלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף הָיוּ שָׁם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁל סִיד הָיוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ מֻשְׁחָרִין פְּנֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי הַיָּיִן. וּמְנֻקָּבִין כְּמִין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמִין דַּקִּין, אֶחָד מְעֻבֶּה וְאֶחָד דַּק, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כָּלִין בְּבַת אַחַת. מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מַיִם, מִזְרָחִי שֶׁל יָיִן. עֵרָה שֶׁל מַיִם לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל יַיִן, וְשֶׁל יַיִן לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל מַיִם, יָצָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּלֹג הָיָה מְנַסֵּךְ כָּל שְׁמֹנָה. וְלַמְנַסֵּךְ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, הַגְבַּהּ יָדֶךָ, שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת נִסֵּךְ אֶחָד עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, וּרְגָמוּהוּ כָל הָעָם בְּאֶתְרוֹגֵיהֶן: " 4.9 How was the water libation performed? A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a tekiah long blast, a teruah a staccato note and again a tekiah. The priest then went up the ascent of the altar and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says: they were of plaster but they looked silver because their surfaces were darkened from the wine. They had each a hole like a slender snout, one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time. The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If he poured the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To the priest who performed the libation they used to say, “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs." |
63. Mishnah, Yevamot, 4.13 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • halakhah • theology, God as actor within halakhic system Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 501; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 317 4.13 אֵיזֶהוּ מַמְזֵר, כָּל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא יָבֹא דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. וַהֲלָכָה כִדְבָרָיו. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁחַיָּבִים עָלָיו מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי, מָצָאתִי מְגִלַּת יֻחֲסִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְכָתוּב בָּהּ, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, לְקַיֵּם דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה, מֻתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. גֵּרְשָׁהּ וָמֵתָה, מֻתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וָמֵתָה, מֻתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. יְבִמְתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה, מֻתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. חָלַץ לָהּ וָמֵתָה, מֻתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ: 4.13 Who is a mamzer? The offspring of a union with any relative with whom cohabitation is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon the Yemenite says: The offspring of any union for which one is obligated kareth at the hands of heaven; and the halachah is like his words. Rabbi Joshua says: The offspring of any union for which one is obligated death at the hands of a court.Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll of genealogical records in Jerusalem, and it was written on it, “So-and-so is a mamzer having been born from an adulterous woman”, which confirms the view of Rabbi Joshua. If a man’s wife died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If he divorced her and then she died he is permitted to marry her sister. If she was married to another man and died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If a man’s sister-in-law died, he may marry her sister. If he performed for her halitzah and then she died, he is permitted to marry her sister. |
64. Mishnah, Toharot, 2.2, 4.7, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Tannaic halakha • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 389; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 94, 95; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 17, 124 2.2 רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הָאוֹכֵל אֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן, רִאשׁוֹן. אֹכֶל שֵׁנִי, שֵׁנִי. אֹכֶל שְׁלִישִׁי, שְׁלִישִׁי. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, הָאוֹכֵל אֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן וְאֹכֶל שֵׁנִי, שֵׁנִי. שְׁלִישִׁי, שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה, בְּחֻלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ לְטָהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה: 4.7 אֵלּוּ סְפֵקוֹת שֶׁטִּהֲרוּ חֲכָמִים. סְפֵק מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים לַמִּקְוֶה. סְפֵק טֻמְאָה צָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. סְפֵק מַשְׁקִין, לִטָּמֵא, טָמֵא, וּלְטַמֵּא, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק יָדַיִם, לִטָּמֵא וּלְטַמֵּא וְלִטַּהֵר, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. סְפֵק הַחֻלִּין. סְפֵק שְׁרָצִים. סְפֵק נְגָעִים. סְפֵק נְזִירוּת. סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת. וּסְפֵק קָרְבָּנוֹת: 4.11 סְפֵק יָדַיִם לִטָּמֵא וּלְטַמֵּא וְלִטָּהֵר, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, אָכַל אֳכָלִים טְמֵאִים, שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִים טְמֵאִים, בָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בְמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה לֻגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים, סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אַב הַטֻּמְאָה וְהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא: 2.2 Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; He who eats food with second degree uncleanness contracts second degree uncleanness; With third degree uncleanness contracts third degree uncleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first degree or with second degree uncleanness contracts second degree uncleanness; With third degree uncleanness, he contracts second degree uncleanness in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah. 4.7 These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh, A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water. A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean. A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean. A doubt that arose in a public domain; A doubt concerning an ordice of the scribes; A doubt concerning non-sacred food; A doubt concerning a sheretz; A doubt concerning negaim; A doubt concerning a nazirite vow; A doubt concerning a first-born; A doubt concerning sacrifices. 4.11 "If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean." "Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. "A condition of doubt concerning an ordice of the scribes": For instance, he is uncertain whether he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean. |
65. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.3-4.4, 4.6-4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halacha • Halakha, and community • Halakhah, origins of • Halakhah/Halakhot • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Sinai, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • System, halakhic ~ • Tannaic halakha • aggada in Mishna, establishes authority of rabbis as interpreters of halakha • authority, rabbinic constructions of,beyond halakhic • halakha, a halakha to Moses from Sinai • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, pre-exilic • history of Halakha, Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 140; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 74; Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period (2005) 450; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 79, 509, 512; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 76, 80, 82; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 58; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 9, 25, 50, 449, 583 " 4.3 בּוֹ בַיּוֹם אָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, מַה הֵן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. גָּזַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְגָזַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, עָלֶיךָ רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאַתָּה מַחְמִיר, שֶׁכָּל הַמַּחְמִיר, עָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי, אֲנִי לֹא שִׁנִּיתִי מִסֵּדֶר הַשָּׁנִים, טַרְפוֹן אָחִי שִׁנָּה, וְעָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה מִּצְרַיִם מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, בָּבֶל חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה בָּבֶל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם שֶׁהִיא קְרוֹבָה, עֲשָׂאוּהָ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, שֶׁהֵם קְרוֹבִים, נַעֲשִׂים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עֲלֵיהֶם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, הֲרֵי אַתָּה כִמְהַנָּן מָמוֹן, וְאֵין אַתָּה אֶלָּא כְמַפְסִיד נְפָשׁוֹת. קוֹבֵעַ אַתָּה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם מִלְּהוֹרִיד טַל וּמָטָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), הֲיִקְבַּע אָדָם אֱלֹהִים כִּי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים אֹתִי וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה קְבַעֲנוּךָ הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הֲרֵינִי כְמֵשִׁיב עַל טַרְפוֹן אָחִי, אֲבָל לֹא לְעִנְיַן דְּבָרָיו. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וּכְשֶׁבָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דֻּרְמַסְקִית אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּלוֹד, אָמַר לוֹ, מַה חִדּוּשׁ הָיָה לָכֶם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַיּוֹם. אָמַר לוֹ, נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. בָּכָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְאָמַר, סוֹד ה לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם (תהלים כה). צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶם, אַל תָּחֹשּׁוּ לְמִנְיַנְכֶם. מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ, וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ עַד הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁעַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית:", " 4.4 בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בָּא יְהוּדָה, גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי, וְעָמַד לִפְנֵיהֶן בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. אָמַר לָהֶם, מָה אֲנִי לָבֹא בַקָּהָל. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָסוּר אָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מֻתָּר אָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (דברים כג), לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי וְגוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְכִי עַמּוֹנִים וּמוֹאָבִים בִּמְקוֹמָן הֵן. כְּבָר עָלָה סַנְחֵרִיב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וּבִלְבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאֻמּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה י), וְאָסִיר גְּבוּלֹת עַמִּים וַעֲתוּדוֹתֵיהֶם שׁוֹשֵׂתִי וְאוֹרִיד כַּאבִּיר יוֹשְׁבִים. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (ירמיה מט), וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן אָשִׁיב אֶת שְׁבוּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, וּכְבָר חָזְרוּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (עמוס ט), וְשַׁבְתִּי אֶת שְׁבוּת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא שָׁבוּ. הִתִּירוּהוּ לָבֹא בַקָּהָל:", 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: 4.7 אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת הַנִּצּוֹק. אוֹמְרִים הַפְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, צְדוֹקִים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת אַמַּת הַמַּיִם הַבָּאָה מִבֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת. אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, חַיָּבִין. וְעַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, פְּטוּרִין. מָה אִם שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵינִי חַיָּב בָּהֶם מִצְוֹת, הֲרֵי אֲנִי חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. עַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב בָּהֶן מִצְוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁאֱהֵא חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם, לֹא. אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּשׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת, תֹּאמְרוּ בְּעַבְדִּי וּבַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם דָּעַת. שֶׁאִם אַקְנִיטֵם, יֵלֵךְ וְיַדְלִיק גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר וֶאֱהֵא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: " 4.8 אָמַר צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, קוֹבֵל אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם משֶׁה בַּגֵּט. אוֹמְרִים פְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ, צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִים אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם הַשֵּׁם בַּדַּף, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל מִלְמַעְלָן וְאֶת הַשֵּׁם מִלְּמַטָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ה) וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה מִי ה אֲשֶׁר אֶשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ לְשַׁלַּח אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁלָּקָה מַהוּ אוֹמֵר (שם ט), ה הַצַּדִּיק:" 4.3 On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from another new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from another act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covet, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Dont worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. 4.4 On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation" (Deuteronomy 23:4). R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: "In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants" (Isaiah 10:1. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, "But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon," (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned. Rabbi Joshua said to him: another verse says, "I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah" (Amos 9:14). Yet they have not yet returned. So they permitted him to enter the assembly. 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. " 4.7 The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another persons stack, should I be liable to make restitution?", 4.8 A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page of Torah? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, "And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? "The Lord is righteous" (Exodus 9:27). |
66. Mishnah, Zavim, 5.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha, and community • Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Tannaic halakha • halakhah, as modality of tradition • history of Halakha, Found in books: Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 389; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 94; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 20 5.12 אֵלּוּ פוֹסְלִים אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. הָאוֹכֵל אֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן, וְהָאוֹכֵל אֹכֶל שֵׁנִי, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין, וְהַבָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בְּמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, וְטָהוֹר שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל רֻבּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה לֻגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, וְהַסֵּפֶר, וְהַיָּדַיִם, וּטְבוּל יוֹם, וְהָאֳכָלִים וְהַכֵּלִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְמַשְׁקִים: 5.12 The following disqualify terumah:One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; And a scroll of Holy Scriptures, And unwashed hands; And one that has had immersion that same day; And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids. |
67. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 11.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakhah Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green, A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner (2014) 257; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 103 11.23 ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν 11.23 For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered toyou, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed tookbread. |
68. New Testament, Acts, 5.20, 15.5, 15.29, 21.18, 21.20, 21.23-21.26, 22.3, 26.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakha • Halakha, in the New Testament • Halakha, intensification • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • System, halakhic ~ • halakha in Diaspora • halakhah • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 264; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 400; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 67, 72, 74; Rowland, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (2009) 156; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 47, 98, 103, 104, 113, 549; Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (2003) 162 5.20 Πορεύεσθε καὶ σταθέντες λαλεῖτε ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῷ λαῷ πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης. 15.5 Ἐξανέστησαν δέ τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων πεπιστευκότες, λέγοντες ὅτι δεῖ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς παραγγέλλειν τε τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον Μωυσέως. 15.29 ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξετε. Ἔρρωσθε. 21.18 τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ εἰσῄει ὁ Παῦλος σὺν ἡμῖν πρὸς Ἰάκωβον, πάντες τε παρεγένοντο οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. 21.20 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεόν, εἶπάν τε αὐτῷ Θεωρεῖς, ἀδελφέ, πόσαι μυριάδες εἰσὶν ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τῶν πεπιστευκότων, καὶ πάντες ζηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου ὑπάρχουσιν·, 21.23 τοῦτο οὖν ποίησον ὅ σοι λέγομεν· εἰσὶν ἡμῖν ἄνδρες τέσσαρες εὐχὴν ἔχοντες ἀφʼ ἑαυτῶν. 21.24 τούτους παραλαβὼν ἁγνίσθητι σὺν αὐτοῖς καὶ δαπάνησον ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς ἵνα ξυρήσονται τὴν κεφαλήν, καὶ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ὧν κατήχηνται περὶ σοῦ οὐδὲν ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ στοιχεῖς καὶ αὐτὸς φυλάσσων τὸν νόμον. 21.25 περὶ δὲ τῶν πεπιστευκότων ἐθνῶν ἡμεῖς ἀπεστείλαμεν κρίναντες φυλάσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς τό τε εἰδωλόθυτον καὶ αἷμα καὶ πνικτὸν καὶ πορνείαν. 21.26 τότε ὁ Παῦλος παραλαβὼν τοὺς ἄνδρας τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγνισθεὶς εἰσῄει εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, διαγγέλλων τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ ἕως οὗ προσηνέχθη ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ἡ προσφορά. 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, 26.5 προγινώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν, ἐὰν θέλωσι μαρτυρεῖν, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος. 5.20 "Go stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.", 15.5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.", 15.29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.", 21.18 The day following, Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present. 21.20 They, when they heard it, glorified God. They said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law. 21.23 Therefore do what we tell you. We have four men who have a vow on them. 21.24 Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses for them, that they may shave their heads. Then all will know that there is no truth in the things that they have been informed about you, but that you yourself also walk keeping the law. 21.25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality.", 21.26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purified himself and went with them into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them. 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. 26.5 having known me from the first, if they are willing to testify, that after the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. |
69. New Testament, Galatians, 1.14, 2.1-2.10, 3.28 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakha, formulated in Greek • Halakha, in the New Testament • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah • history of Halakha, Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 6; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 67; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 81; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 27, 103, 346, 549; Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (2003) 160, 162 1.14 καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων. 2.1 Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα μετὰ Βαρνάβα, συνπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον· ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν·, 2.2 καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον. 2.3 ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι·, 2.4 διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν, 2.5 — οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 2.6 ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι — ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει — πρόσωπον ὁ θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει — ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο, 2.7 ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς, 2.8 ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, 2.9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάνης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν·, 2.10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. 3.28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. " 1.14 I advanced inthe Jews religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, beingmore exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.", 2.1 Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again toJerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. 2.2 I went up byrevelation, and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among theGentiles, but privately before those who were respected, for fear thatI might be running, or had run, in vain. 2.3 But not even Titus, whowas with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 2.4 Thiswas because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who stole in tospy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they mightbring us into bondage; 2.5 to whom we gave no place in the way ofsubjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel mightcontinue with you. " 2.6 But from those who were reputed to beimportant (whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; Goddoesnt show partiality to man) -- they, I say, who were respectedimparted nothing to me,", 2.7 but to the contrary, when they saw that Ihad been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcision, even asPeter with the gospel for the circumcision, 2.8 (for he who appointedPeter to the apostleship of the circumcision appointed me also to theGentiles); 2.9 and when they perceived the grace that was given tome, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars,gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should goto the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. 2.10 They only askedus to remember the poor -- which very thing I was also zealous to do. 3.28 There is neither Jewnor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither malenor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. |
70. New Testament, Philippians, 3.5-3.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakha, in the New Testament • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 174; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 67; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 549 3.5 περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος, ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμείν, Ἐβραῖος ἐξ Ἐβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, 3.6 κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος. 3.5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 3.6 concerning zeal, persecuting the assembly; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless. |
71. New Testament, Romans, 7.1-7.4, 10.12, 13.5 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • halakhah Found in books: Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 26, 174; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 82; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 94, 95, 388, 592; Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (2003) 160, 195 7.1 Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε, ἀδελφοί, γινώσκουσιν γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ, ὅτι ὁ νόμος κυριεύει τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐφʼ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ; 7.2 ἡ γὰρ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός. 7.3 ἄρα οὖν ζῶντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς μοιχαλὶς χρηματίσει ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, τοῦ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν μοιχαλίδα γενομένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ. 7.4 ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ χριστοῦ, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ, τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι ἵνα καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ θεῷ. 10.12 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος, ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κύριος πάντων, πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν·, 13.5 διὸ ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν, " 7.1 Or dont you know, brothers (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives?", 7.2 For the woman that has a husband is bound by law to the husband while he lives, but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law of the husband. 7.3 So then if, while the husband lives, she is joined to another man, she would be called an adulteress. But if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 7.4 Therefore, my brothers, you also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you would be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit to God. 10.12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him. " 13.5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake." |
72. New Testament, Luke, 5.28, 7.8, 10.25-10.36 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha • Halakha, halakhic • Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • halakhah Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green, A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner (2014) 232; Hasan Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity (2003) 43; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 243; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 72; Ruzer, Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror (2020) 114; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 169 5.28 καὶ καταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ. 7.8 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος, ἔχων ὑπʼ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 10.25 Καὶ ἰδοὺ νομικός τις ἀνέστη ἐκπειράζων αὐτὸν λέγων Διδάσκαλε, τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; 10.26 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν Ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τί γέγραπται; πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις; 10.27 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας σου καὶ ἐν ὅλη τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύι σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου, καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. 10.28 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Ὀρθῶς ἀπεκρίθης· τοῦτο ποίει καὶ ζήσῃ. 10.29 Ὁ δὲ θέλων δικαιῶσαι ἑυντὸν εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν Καὶ τίς ἐστίν μου πλησίον; 10.30 ὑπολαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Ἄνθρωπός τις κατέβαινεν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἰερειχὼ καὶ λῃσταῖς περιέπεσεν, οἳ καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτὸν καὶ πληγὰς ἐπιθέντες ἀπῆλθον ἀφέντες ἡμιθανῆ. 10.31 κατὰ συγκυρίαν δὲ ἱερεύς τις κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν·, 10.32 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λευείτης κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν. 10.33 Σαμαρείτης δέ τις ὁδεύων ἦλθεν κατʼ αὐτὸν καὶ ἰδὼν ἐσπλαγχνίσθη, 10.34 καὶ προσελθὼν κατέδησεν τὰ τραύματα αὐτοῦ ἐπιχέων ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον, ἐπιβιβάσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον κτῆνος ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς πανδοχεῖον καὶ ἐπεμελήθη αὐτοῦ. 10.35 καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον ἐκβαλὼν δύο δηνάρια ἔδωκεν τῷ πανδοχεῖ καὶ εἶπεν Ἐπιμελήθητι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὅτι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρχεσθαί με ἀποδώσω σοι. 10.36 τίς τούτων τῶν τριῶν πλησίον δοκεῖ σοι γεγονέναι τοῦ ἐμπεσόντος εἰς τοὺς λῃστάς; 5.28 He left everything, and rose up and followed him. 7.8 For I also am a man placed under authority, having under myself soldiers. I tell this one, Go! and he goes; and to another, Come! and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it.", 10.25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?", 10.26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?", 10.27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.", 10.28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.", 10.29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?", 10.30 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 10.31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 10.32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 10.33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 10.34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. " 10.35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.", 10.36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?" |
73. New Testament, Mark, 1.7, 3.1-3.6, 6.3, 7.1-7.23, 9.5, 10.1-10.12, 11.21, 12.18-12.34 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakah • Halakha, discourse • Halakha, halakhic • Halakha, in the New Testament • Halakhah • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • Rabbinic, halakhic discourse • System, halakhic ~ • Tannaic halakha • halakah • halakha, Dead Sea Scrolls • halakha, and Scripture • halakha, rabbinic • halakha, vs. Roman law • halakhah, as a metaphor for God's rejection of Israel • halakhah, as a metaphor for Gods rejection of Israel • halakhah, as modality of tradition • inheritance, rabbinic halakha • prophecy, halakhic model of Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green, A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner (2014) 246, 257; Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 170; DeJong, A Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18): The Origin, History, and Influence of the Mosaic Prophetic Succession (2022) 265; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 374, 494; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 66, 67, 68; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 48; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 80, 117; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 70, 77, 80, 81, 87, 90, 91; Ruzer, Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror (2020) 114; Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 147; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 17, 53, 76, 80, 96, 268, 388, 525, 526, 529, 540, 549, 555, 581, 583, 635; Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 208, 212, 213 1.7 καὶ ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων Ἔρχεται ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου ὀπίσω μου, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς κύψας λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ·, 3.1 Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς συναγωγήν, καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπος ἐξηραμμένην ἔχων τὴν χεῖρα·, 3.2 καὶ παρετήρουν αὐτὸν εἰ τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεύσει αὐτόν, ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ. 3.3 καὶ λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ τὴν χεῖρα ἔχοντι ξηράν Ἔγειρε εἰς τὸ μέσον. 3.4 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν ἀγαθοποιῆσαι ἢ κακοποιῆσαι, ψυχὴν σῶσαι ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι; οἱ δὲ ἐσιώπων. 3.5 καὶ περιβλεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μετʼ ὀργῆς, συνλυπούμενος ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου· καὶ ἐξέτεινεν, καὶ ἀπεκατεστάθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ. 3.6 Καὶ ἐξελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι εὐθὺς μετὰ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν συμβούλιον ἐδίδουν κατʼ αὐτοῦ ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν. 6.3 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆτος καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος; καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ ὧδε πρὸς ἡμᾶς; καὶ ἐσκανδαλίζοντο ἐν αὐτῷ. 7.1 Καὶ συνἄγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων, 7.2 καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους. 7.3 —οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.4 καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων. 7.5 —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ·, 7.7 μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων·, 7.8 ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 7.9 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε·, 7.10 Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω·, 7.11 ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12 οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13 ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.14 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 7.15 οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 1.7 He preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and loosen. 3.1 He entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had his hand withered. 3.2 They watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him. 3.3 He said to the man who had his hand withered, "Stand up.", 3.4 He said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to kill?" But they were silent. 3.5 When he had looked around at them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts, he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored as healthy as the other. 3.6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. 6.3 Isnt this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? Arent his sisters here with us?" They were offended at him. 7.1 Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2 Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. " 7.3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, dont eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders.", " 7.4 They dont eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.)", 7.5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why dont your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?", 7.6 He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. " 7.7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.", 7.8 "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.", 7.9 He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. " 7.10 For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.", 7.11 But you say, If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;", 7.12 then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.", 7.14 He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15 There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!", 7.17 When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18 He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Dont you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside cant defile him, 7.19 because it doesnt go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?", 7.20 He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21 For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 7.22 covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.", 9.5 Peter answered Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Lets make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.", 10.1 He arose from there and came into the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan. Multitudes came together to him again. As he usually did, he was again teaching them. 10.2 Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?", 10.3 He answered, "What did Moses command you?", 10.4 They said, "Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her.", 10.5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. " 10.6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.", 10.7 For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, " 10.8 and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.", 10.9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.", 10.10 In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter. 10.11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. 10.12 If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.", 11.21 Peter, remembering, said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered away.", 12.18 There came to him Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection. They asked him, saying, 12.19 "Teacher, Moses wrote to us, If a mans brother dies, and leaves a wife behind him, and leaves no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up offspring for his brother. 12.20 There were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and dying left no offspring. 12.21 The second took her, and died, leaving no children behind him. The third likewise; 12.22 and the seven took her and left no children. Last of all the woman also died. 12.23 In the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be of them? For the seven had her as a wife.", 12.24 Jesus answered them, "Isnt this because you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God? 12.25 For when they will rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. " 12.26 But about the dead, that they are raised; havent you read in the book of Moses, about the Bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?", 12.27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are therefore badly mistaken.", 12.28 One of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together. Knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the greatest of all?", 12.29 Jesus answered, "The greatest is, Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: " 12.30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment.", 12.31 The second is like this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.", 12.32 The scribe said to him, "Truly, teacher, you have said well that he is one, and there is none other but he, 12.33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.", 12.34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God."No one dared ask him any question after that. |
74. New Testament, Matthew, 2.13, 2.20, 5.21-5.48, 6.9-6.13, 15.1-15.20, 18.17, 22.23, 22.34, 23.2-23.33 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Divorce, law/halakha • Halakah • Halakha, discourse • Halakha, halakhic • Halakha, in the New Testament • Halakha, intensification • Halakha, mixing • Halakhah • Halakhah, origins of • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Matthew (Gospel writer and Gospel), abrogation of Halakhah in • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic, halakhic discourse • System, halakhic ~ • Tannaic halakha • Torah, and halakha • ancient Halakha • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah, conflicting interpretations of • history of Halakha, Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green, A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner (2014) 286; Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 58; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 121; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 374; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 72; Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 384; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 62, 72, 75, 90; Ruzer, Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror (2020) 114; Scales, Galilean Spaces of Identity: Judaism and Spatiality in Hasmonean and Herodian Galilee (2024) 147; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 17, 25, 68, 73, 76, 97, 98, 99, 101, 268, 292, 293, 517, 526, 635; Zawanowska and Wilk, The Character of David in Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Warrior, Poet, Prophet and King (2022) 215 2.13 Ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου φαίνεται κατʼ ὄναρ τῷ Ἰωσὴφ λέγων Ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ φεῦγε εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ ἴσθι ἐκεῖ ἕως ἂν εἴπω σοι· μέλλει γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ζητεῖν τὸ παιδίον τοῦ ἀπολέσαι αὐτό. 2.20 λέγων Ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ πορεύου εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ, τεθνήκασιν γὰρ οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου. 5.21 Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐ φονεύσεις· ὃς δʼ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. 5.22 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. 5.23 ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κἀκεῖ μνησθῇς ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, 5.24 ἄφες ἐκεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καὶ ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, καὶ τότε ἐλθὼν πρόσφερε τὸ δῶρόν σου. 5.25 ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχὺ ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, μή ποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ, καὶ ὁ κριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ·, 5.26 ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην. 5.27 Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Οὐ μοιχεύσεις. 5.28 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 5.29 εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν·, 5.30 καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου εἰς γέενναν ἀπέλθῃ. 5.31 Ἐρρέθη δέ Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 5.32 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται. 5.33 Πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 5.34 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μν̀ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ·, 5.35 μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ· μήτε εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως·, 5.36 μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 5.37 ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστίν. 5.38 Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. 5.39 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλʼ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα σου, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·, 5.40 καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον·, 5.41 καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετʼ αὐτοῦ δύο. 5.42 τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς. 5.43 Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου. 5.44 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς·, 5.45 ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. 5.46 ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; 5.47 καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; 5.48 Ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. 6.9 Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· Ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, 6.10 ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς·, 6.11 Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·, 6.12 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν·, 6.13 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. 15.1 Τότε προσέρχονται τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων Φαρισαῖοι καὶ γραμματεῖς λέγοντες, 15.2 Διὰ τί οἱ μαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσιν τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων; οὐ γὰρ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας ὅταν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν. 15.3 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Διὰ τί καὶ ὑμεῖς παραβαίνετε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν; 15.4 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω·, 15.5 ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Δῶρον ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 15.6 οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἠκυρώσατε τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν. 15.7 ὑποκριταί, καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν περὶ ὑμῶν Ἠσαίας λέγων, 15.8 Ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ·, 15.9 μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων. 15.10 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε·, 15.11 οὐ τὸ εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος τοῦτο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 15.12 Τότε προσελθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Οἶδας ὅτι οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον ἐσκανδαλίσθησαν; 15.13 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Πᾶσα φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ἐκριζωθήσεται. 15.14 ἄφετε αὐτούς· τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηγοί· τυφλὸς δὲ τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ, ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται. 15.15 Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ Φράσον ἡμῖν τὴν παραβολήν. 15.16 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ἀκμὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; 15.17 οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν χωρεῖ καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται; 15.18 τὰ δὲ ἐκπορευόμενα ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχεται, κἀκεῖνα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 15.19 ἐκ γὰρ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχονται διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, ψευδομαρτυρίαι, βλασφημίαι. 15.20 ταῦτά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ δὲ ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν φαγεῖν οὐ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 18.17 ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσῃ αὐτῶν, εἰπὸν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης. 22.23 Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Σαδδουκαῖοι, λέγοντες μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν, καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν, 22.34 Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ἐφίμωσεν τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. 23.2 Ἐπὶ τῆς Μωυσέως καθέδρας ἐκάθισαν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. 23.3 πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε, κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ ποιεῖτε, λέγουσιν γὰρ καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσιν. 23.4 δεσμεύουσιν δὲ φορτία βαρέα καὶ ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων, αὐτοὶ δὲ τῷ δακτύλῳ αὐτῶν οὐ θέλουσιν κινῆσαι αὐτά. 23.5 πάντα δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· πλατύνουσι γὰρ τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν καὶ μεγαλύνουσι τὰ κράσπεδα, 23.6 φιλοῦσι δὲ τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις καὶ τὰς πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς, 23.7 καὶ τοὺς ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς καὶ καλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων Ῥαββεί. 23.8 ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε Ῥαββεί, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε·, 23.9 καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος·, 23.10 μηδὲ κληθῆτε καθηγηταί, ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστὶν εἷς ὁ χριστός·, 23.11 ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος. 23.12 Ὅστις δὲ ὑψώσει ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ὅστις ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. 2.13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.", 2.20 "Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for those who sought the young childs life are dead.", 5.21 "You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, You shall not murder; and Whoever shall murder shall be in danger of the judgment. " 5.22 But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca! shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, You fool! shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.", 5.23 "If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you, 5.24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 5.25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him in the way; lest perhaps the prosecutor deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison. 5.26 Most assuredly I tell you, you shall by no means get out of there, until you have paid the last penny. 5.27 "You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery; 5.28 but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 5.29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. 5.30 If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not your whole body be thrown into Gehenna. 5.31 "It was also said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce, 5.32 but I tell you that whoever who puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery. 5.33 "Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows, " 5.34 but I tell you, dont swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God;", 5.35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. " 5.36 Neither shall you swear by your head, for you cant make one hair white or black.", " 5.37 But let your Yes be Yes and your No be no. Whatever is more than these is of the evil one.", 5.38 "You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. " 5.39 But I tell you, dont resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.", 5.40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 5.41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. " 5.42 Give to him who asks you, and dont turn away him who desires to borrow from you.", 5.43 "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. 5.44 But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, 5.45 that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. " 5.46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Dont even the tax collectors do the same?", " 5.47 If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Dont even the tax collectors do the same?", 5.48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. " 6.9 Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.", 6.10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. 6.11 Give us today our daily bread. 6.12 Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. " 6.13 Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. Amen.", 15.1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 15.2 "Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they dont wash their hands when they eat bread.", 15.3 He answered them, "Why do you also disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition? " 15.4 For God commanded, Honor your father and your mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.", 15.5 But you say, Whoever may tell his father or his mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have gotten from me is a gift devoted to God,", " 15.6 he shall not honor his father or mother. You have made the commandment of God void because of your tradition.", 15.7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, " 15.8 These people draw near to me with their mouth, And honor me with their lips; But their heart is far from me.", 15.9 And in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrine rules made by men.", 15.10 He summoned the multitude, and said to them, "Hear, and understand. 15.11 That which enters into the mouth doesnt defile the man; but that which proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.", 15.12 Then the disciples came, and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying?", 15.13 But he answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father didnt plant will be uprooted. 15.14 Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit.", 15.15 Peter answered him, "Explain the parable to us.", 15.16 So Jesus said, "Do you also still not understand? " 15.17 Dont you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly, and then out of the body?", 15.18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and they defile the man. 15.19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies. 15.20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands doesnt defile the man.", 18.17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector. 22.23 On that day Sadducees (those who say that there is no resurrection) came to him. They asked him, 22.34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 23.2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses seat. " 23.3 All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but dont do their works; for they say, and dont do.", " 23.4 For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on mens shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them.", 23.5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, 23.6 and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, " 23.7 the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called Rabbi, Rabbi by men.", " 23.8 But dont you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers.", 23.9 Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. 23.10 Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. 23.11 But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. 23.12 Whoever will exalt himself will be humbled, and whoever will humble himself will be exalted. 23.13 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows houses, and as a pretense you make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 23.14 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you dont enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter. 23.15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much of a son of Gehenna as yourselves. 23.16 "Woe to you, you blind guides, who say, Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated. 23.17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? " 23.18 Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a obligated.", 23.19 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 23.20 He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. 23.21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who is living in it. 23.22 He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it. 23.23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone. 23.24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel! 23.25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness. 23.26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside of it may become clean also. 23.27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead mens bones, and of all uncleanness. 23.28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 23.29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, " 23.30 and say, If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we wouldnt have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.", 23.31 Therefore you testify to yourselves that you are sons of those who killed the prophets. 23.32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 23.33 You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of Gehenna? |
75. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 4.6, 5.2, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha, intensification • halakha • halakha, rejected • halakha, study of • halakhah Found in books: Ben-Eliyahu, Identity and Territory: Jewish Perceptions of Space in Antiquity (2019) 88; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years (2005) 478; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 180; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 62; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 171; Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (2003) 145 NA> |
76. Tosefta, Bikkurim, 2.3-2.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • halakhah • halakhah, gender in • halakhah, totalizing tendency of • women, in halakhah Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 51, 57; Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 169 דרכים ששוה בהן לאנשים מטמא בלובן כאנשים נושא אבל לא נושא כאנשים ואין מתייחד עם הנשים כאנשים ואינו נתזן עם הבנות כאנשים ואין מטמא למתים כאנשים ועובר על בל תקיף ועובר על בל תשחית כאנשים וחייב בכל המצות האמורות בתורה כאנשים. דרכים ששוה לנשים מטמא באודם כנשים ואין מתייחד עם האנשים כנשים ואין זוקק ליבום כנשים ואין חולק עם הבנים כנשים ואין חולק בקדשי קדשים כנשים ופסול לכל עדות שבתורה כנשים ואם נבעל בעבירה פסול מן הכהונה כנשים. דרכים ששוה בהן לאנשים ולנשים חייבין על נזקו בין איש בין אשה ההורגו במזיד נהרג בשוגג גולה לערי מקלט אמו יושבת עליו בדם טוהר כאנשים וכנשים ומביאה עליו קרבן כאנשים וכנשים ונוחל בכל נחלות כאנשים וכנשים חולק בקדשי הגבול כאנשים וכנשים ואם אמר הריני נזיר שזה איש ואשה הרי זה נזיר. "דרכים שלא שוה בהן לא לאנשים ולא לנשים אין חייבין על חטאתו ואין שורפין על טומאתו ואין נערך לא כאנשים ולא כנשים אין נמכר לעבד עברי לא כאנשים ולא כנשים אם אמר הריני נזיר שאין זה איש ואשה הרי זה נזיר ר יוסי אומר אנדרוגינוס בריה לעצמו ולא יכלו חכמים להכריע עליו אם איש הוא אם אשה הוא אבל טומטום אינו כן אלא או ספק איש או ספק אשה.", כיצד מפרישין את הבכורים יורד אדם לתוך שדהו ורואה תאנה שבכרה אשכול שבכר קושרן במשיחה ואומר הרי אלו בכורים ר\\"ש אומר חוזר וקורא אותן בכורים מאחר שיתלשו מן הקרקע. NA> |
77. Tosefta, Berachot, 2.12-2.13, 6.25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • aggada in Tosefta, as framing halakha • ancient Halakha • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 523, 524; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 70; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 225; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 244; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 118, 119, 449 " 2.12 הזבין והזבות והנדות והיולדות מותרין לקרות בתורה ולשנות במשנה במדרש בהלכות ובאגדות ובעלי קריין אסורין בכולן ר יהודה אומר <אבל> שונה הוא בהלכות הרגילות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה.", 2.13 בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול הרי זה קורא את שמע ואינו משמיע לאזנו ואינו מברך לפניה ולא לאחריה דברי רבי מאיר וחכ\\"א קורא את שמע ומשמיע לאזנו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה אמר ר\ מאיר פעם אחת היינו יושבין לפני ר\ עקיבה בבית המדרש והיינו קורין את שמע ולא היינו משמיעים לאזנינו מפני קסדור אחד שהיה עומד על הפתח אמר לו אין שעת הסכנה ראיה. 6.25 ולא יעשה קפנדריא ורקיקה מק\\"ו שאין בו דרך בזיון אמרה תורה כך על אחת כמה וכמה וקל וחומר שיש בו דרך בזיון ר\ יהודה בר\ יוסי אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר כי אין לבא אל שער המלך בלבוש שק בא וראה על אחת כמה וכמה קלין וחמורין בדבר אם לפני מלך בשר ודם אין עושין כן לא כ\\"ש לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקב\\"ה. 2.12 Zavim, Zavot, Niddot, and women who gave birth are permitted to read the Torah and to learn Mishna, Midrash, laws, and Aggadot. And men who had a seminal emission (Baalei Keraim) are forbidden in all of them. Rebbi Yossi says, “He can learn the laws that he is familiar with, as long as he does not arrange the Mishna.”, 2.13 “A man who had a seminal emission (Baal Keri) who does not have water to dip in may read the Shema, but he may not read it loud enough so that he can hear himself talking with his own ear, and does not say the Beracha (blessing) not before it and not after it.” These are the words of Rebbi Meir. And the Chachamim (Sages) say, ”He may read the Shema and he may read it loud enough so that he can hear himself talking with his own ear, and he says the Beracha both before it and after it.” Rebbi Meir said, “One time we were sitting in the Bet Midrash (Study Hall) in front of Rebbi Akiva and we were reading the Shema, but we were not saying it loud enough to be able to hear ourselves, because of one inquisitor who was standing by the door.” They (i.e. Chachamim) said back to him, “The time of danger is not a proof.”, 6.25 Rebbi Yossi Ben Rebbi Yehudah says, “It says in the verse, ‘… because you cannot come into the gate of the king in sackcloth.’ (Esther 4:2) For sure there are many more Kal Vechomer (a derivation from minor to major) derivations in this case.” And spitting is forbidden on the Temple Mount from a Kal Vechomer. Even though a shoe has nothing disgraceful about it, and still the Torah says not to go with a shoe on to the Temple Mount, it is a Kal Vechomer to spitting which is disgraceful, that it should be for sure forbidden on the Temple Mount. |
78. Tosefta, Eduyot, 1.1, 1.4-1.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, pre-exilic Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 446, 447, 449; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 81; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 615 1.1 חמשה דברים היה ר\\"ע דורש כמין אגדה בחמשה דברים אדם זוכה לבן וחכמים אומרים עד הפרק זכה לו מיכן ואילך הוא זוכה לעצמו אמר ר\\"ע היכן מצינו שהיו חיגרין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפשטו ושהיו חרשין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפקחו ושהיו סומין עד הפרק כשהגיע הפרק נתפתחו והיאך זוכה לו עד אותה השעה אמרו לו כי מצינו שהיו פשוטים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחגרו ושהיו פקחין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחרשו ושהיו פתוחים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נסתמו הא אין זוכה לו אלא עד אותה השעה בלבד. האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים והיה שלום בינו לבינה שלום בעולם באתה ואמרה מת בעלי תנשא שלום בעולם ואמרה מת בעלי בין בוכה בין שאינה בוכה בין בגדיה קרועים בין שאין בגדיה קרועים נאמנת ר\ יהודה אומר לעולם אינה נאמנת אלא א\\"כ באתה בוכה ובגדיה קרועים אמרו לו א\\"כ זו שהיתה פקחת תנשא שלא היתה פקחת לא תנשא ב\\"ה אומרים לא שמענו אלא בבאה מן הקציר בלבד אמרו להן ב\\"ש והלא כל ימות השנה קציר יצא קציר שעורין בא קציר חטים יצא קציר חטים בא בציר יצא בציר נמצא כל ימות השנה קציר. אמרו להן ב\\"ה מצאנו שאין אחין נכנסים לנחלה על פיה אמרו להן ב\\"ש והלא מספר כתובתה נלמד שכתב לה לכשתנשאי לאחר תטלי מה שכתוב ליך בכתובתיך וצאי חזרו ב\\"ה להורות כדברי ב\\"ש. ששה דברים ר\\"ע מטמא וחכמים מטהרין השרץ והצפרדע ברשות הרבים וכן כזית מן המת וכזית מן הנבלה עצם מן המת ועצם מן הנבלה גוש מארץ טהור גוש מארץ הפרס גוש מארץ טהור גוש מארץ העמים שני שבילין אחד טמא ואחד טהור ר\\"ע מטמא וחכמים מטהרין. 1.1 When the Sages entered the Vineyard in Yavneh, they said, "In the future, there will come an hour when a person seeks a teaching from the teachings of the Torah and he will not find it, or in the teachings of the Scribes, and he will not find it." As it says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, etc. they will seek out the word of God and they will not find it (Amos 8)." The word of God refers to prophecy. The word of God refers to the End (of Days). The word of God, so that there shall not be one word of Torah similar to its fellow. They said, "Let us begin from Hillel and Shammai!"... |
79. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.9, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, pre-exilic • history of Halakha, Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green, A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner (2014) 246; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 451, 468; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 78, 79, 81, 188; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 60; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 38 NA> |
80. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.22 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) Found in books: Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 77; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 633 NA> |
81. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 1.3, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Change, in custom and halakhah • Divorce, law/halakha • halakhah • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, pre-exilic Found in books: Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 82; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 105; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 76; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 77 1.3 פקח שנשא חרשת או שוטה כתובתן מאתים מפני שרוצה להחזיק להם את הנכסים חרש ושוטה שנשאו פקחות אע\\"פ שחזר חרש ונתפקח שוטה ונשתפה אין להם כתובה רצו לקיים נותנין כתובה מנה עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל אע\\"פ שחזר העובד כוכבים ונתגייר עבד ונשתחרר אין להן כתובה רצו לקיים נותנין כתובה מנה. ישראל הבא על השפחה ועל בת עובד כוכבים אע\\"פ שחזרה שפחה ונשתחררה בת עובדי כוכבים ונתגיירה אין להם כתובה רצה לקיים נותן כתובה מנה. " 12.1 בראשונה כשהיתה כתובתה אצל אביה היתה קלה בעיניו להוציאה התקין שמעון בן שטח שתהא כתובתה אצל בעלה וכותב לה כל נכסים דאית לי אחראין וערבאין לכתובתיך דא. אין עושין כתובת אשה מן המטלטלין מפני תיקון העולם אמר ר יוסי וכי מה תקון העולם יש בזו אלא לפי שאין לה קצבה." 1.3 A typical man that married a deaf-mute or not sound of mind woman—their ketubah is 200 zuz since he wants to hold their property. A deaf-mute or not sound of mind man that marry a typical woman, even if the deaf-mute or not sound of mind man subsequently recover, they to not have a ketubah. If they want to uphold it, they give a ketubah of 100 zuz. A Gentile or a slave man that has sex with a Jewish woman, even if they subsequently convert or are freed, they do not have a ketubah. If they want to uphold it, they give a ketubah of 100 zuz. A Jewish man that has sex with a maidservant or Gentile woman, even if they subsequently convert or are freed, they do not have a ketubah. If he wants to uphold it, he gives a ketubah of 100 zuz. 12.1 Originally, when her ketubah was with her father, it was light in her husbands eyes to divorce her. Shimon ben Shatah decreed that her ketubah should be with her husband and that he should write for her "All of my property will be mortgaged or pledged for your ketubah". They do not make a wifes ketubah from moveable items i.e. they dont make moveable items the thing that she can collect from it, but rather real estate because of tikkun ha-olam. Said Rabbi Yose: What tikkun ha-olam is there in this!? It is because they the moveable items have no fixed value. |
82. Tosefta, Miqvaot, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 233 NA> |
83. Tosefta, Nazir, 5.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • halakhah, as modality of tradition • history of Halakha, Found in books: Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3 כל אלו שאמרו אין מתחיל לימנות עד שיטהר אם נטמא אין מביא קרבן טומאה כל אלו שאמרו מתחיל ומונה מיד אם נטמא מביא קרבן טומאה. NA> |
84. Tosefta, Niddah, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • halakhah • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 233 "נמצא על בית יד אונקלי שלה אם מגיע כנגד תורפה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה אמר ר אליעזר בר יוסי הלכה זו הוריתי ברומי לטומאה וכשבאתי אצל חברי אמרו לי יפה הורית." NA> |
85. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613 NA> |
86. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 4.1, 4.7-4.8, 7.1, 7.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, pre-exilic • history of Halakha, • midrash halakhah Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 202; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 218, 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 314, 325, 332, 452; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 78, 79, 81, 188; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 24; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3; Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (2006) 142 כהן גדול שהרג את הנפש מזיד נהרג ושוגג גולה עבר על מצות עשה ועל מצות לא תעשה ושאר כל המצות הרי הוא כהדיוט לכל דבר ולא חולץ ולא חולצין לאשתו ולא מיבם אבל מיבמין לאשתו עומד בשורה להתנחם הסגן מימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו וכל העם אומרין לו אנו כפרתך והוא אומר להן תתברכו מן השמים עומד בשורה לנחם את אחרים הסגן וכהן שעבר מגדולתו מימינו ואבל משמאלו ואין רואין אותו ערום ולא כשהוא מסתפר ולא בבית המרחץ שנאמר (ויקרא כא) והכהן הגדול מאחיו אשר יוצק על ראשו שיהיו אחיו הכהנים נוהגין בו גדולה ואם רצה שירחצו אחרים עמו הרשות בידו ר\\"י אומר אם רצה לנהוג בזיון בעצמו אין שומעין לו שנאמר (שם) וקדשתו על כרחו אמרו לו לר\ יהודה אינו אומר (שם) ומן המקדש לא יצא אלא בשעת עבודה בלבד והולך להברות את אחרים ואחרים באין להברותו. NA> |
87. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.7, 15.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Change, in custom and halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • halakhah • halakhah, gender in • halakhah, totalizing tendency of • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) • women, in halakhah Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 51; Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 168; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 52; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 31; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 14, 138 אר\\"ש בן אלעזר בא וראה עד היכן פרצה טהרה שלא גזרו הראשונים לומר לא יאכל טהור עם הנדה שהראשונים לא היו אוכלין עם הנדות אלא אמרו לא יאכל הזב עם הזבה מפני הרגל עבירה שבית שמאי אומרים לא יאכל זב פרוש עם זב עם הארץ וב\\"ה מתירין. "שברי ערבה לכסות בהן את החבית ושל זכוכית לצוק לתוכה מקפה ר יהודה אומר ובלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכתן שברי ערבה לצוק לתוכן מקפה ושל זכוכית לצוק לתוכן שמן לתינוק חבית שנתגלתה ואבטיח שניקר נוטלן ומניחן במקום המוצנע.", NA> |
88. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 443, 448, 467; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188 7.11 (דברים כ׳:ו׳) ומיה איש אשר נטע כרם ולא חללו ילך וישוב לביתו אחד הנוטע את הכרם ואחד חמשה אילני מאכל מחמשת המינין אפילו בחמש עיירות ה\\"ז חוזר ר\ אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אין לי במשמע אלא כרם. 7.11 A person might think: since the Academy of Shammai declares unclean that which the Academy of Hillel declares clean, one prohibits that which the other permits, how, then, can I learn Torah? This is way Torah repeats: "words...the words...these are the words..." All of the words have been given by a single Shepherd, one God fashioned them, one Provider gave them, Source of all deeds, blessed be God, has spoken them. So make for yourself a heart with many rooms, and bring into it the words of the Academy of Shammai and the words of the Academy of Hillel, the words of who declare unclean and those that declare clean. |
89. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.1, 3.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Mishna, aggada and halakha in • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • System, halakhic ~ • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, Second Temple period • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, pre-exilic Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 530; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 80, 82; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 50, 51, 613 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. 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. |
90. Tosefta, Yevamot, 2.4, 14.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Divorce, law/halakha • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Qumran halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, as modality of tradition • history of Halakha, Found in books: Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188, 192; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3, 81 יש חולצות או מתיבמות מתיבמות ולא חולצות חולצות ולא מתיבמות לא חולצות ולא מתיבמות העריות שאמרנו לא חולצות ולא מתיבמות מוסיף עליהן אשת סריס חמה ואשת אח מאם ואשת גר ואשת עבד משוחרר ואיילונית לא חולצות ולא מתיבמות החרשת והשוטה מתיבמות ולא חולצות איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה חולצות ולא מתיבמות עקרה וזקנה ושאר כל הנשים או חולצות או מתיבמות י\\"א או חולצין או מיבמין מיבמין ולא חולצין חולצין ולא מיבמין לא מיבמין ולא חולצין העריות שאמרנו לא מיבמין ולא חולצין מוסיף עליהן סריס חמה ואנדרוגינוס ואח מאם וגר ועבד משוחרר לא חולצין ולא מיבמין החרש והשוטה מיבמין ולא חולצין פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה סריס אדם וזקן חולצין ולא מיבמין ושאר כל אדם או חולצין או מיבמין. האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובאה ואמרה מת בעלי היא מותרת וצרתה אסורה ר\\"א אומר הואיל והותרו ליבמין הותרו לכל אדם. NA> |
91. Tosefta, Zevahim, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 69; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 72; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 127, 592 NA> |
92. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Jewish culture, halacha • Rabbinic Halakhah • halacha Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 135; Goldhill, The Christian Invention of Time: Temporality and the Literature of Late Antiquity (2022) 67 "כָּנַסְתִּי לִי גַּם כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (מלכים א י, כז): וַיִּתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת הַכֶּסֶף בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם כַּאֲבָנִים. אֶפְשָׁר כַּאֲבָנִים בַּדְּרָכִים וּבַחֲצֵרוֹת וְלֹא הָיוּ נִגְנָבוֹת, אֶלָּא הָיוּ גְדוֹלוֹת אַבְנֵי שְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת וְאַבְנֵי עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. תָּנָא אֲפִלּוּ מִשְׁקָלוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁל זָהָב הָיוּ, וְהָיוּ מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בִּכְלֵי מִשְׁקָלוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב קַנְטָרִין, וְכָל מִשְׁקָל וּמִשְׁקָל גָּדוֹל וְקָטָן שֶׁל זָהָב הָיוּ. וּסְגֻלַּת מְלָכִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים ב ט, כג): וְכָֹל מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ מְבַקְּשִׁים אֶת שְׁלֹמֹה. וְהַמְדִינוֹת, זוֹ מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא, שֶׁהָיְתָה מְדַיֶּנֶת עִמּוֹ בְּחָכְמָתָהּ וּבִשְׁאֵלוֹתֶיהָ וְלֹא יָכְלָה לְנַצְּחוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א י; דברי הימים ב ט): וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו לְנַסּוֹתוֹ בְּחִידוֹת וַיִּתֵּן לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת כָּל שְׁאֵלָתָהּ אֲשֶׁר שָׁאֲלָה. עָשִׂיתִי לִי שָׁרִים וְשָׁרוֹת. זַמָּרִין וְזַמָּרָתָא. וְתַעֲנֻגוֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם. דִּימוֹסִיּוֹת וּמֶרְחֲצָאוֹת. שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת. שֵׁידָא וְשֵׁידְתָּא דַּהֲווֹן אַזְיִין בְּהוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר נְחֶמְיָה וְכִי אֵין הַכָּתוּב מוֹדִיעֵנוּ אֶלָּא עָשְׁרוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה, הָא אֵין מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, הִגְדַּלְתִּי מַעֲשָׂי, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות לב, טז): וְהַלֻּחֹת מַעֲשֵׂה אֱלֹהִים הֵמָּה. בָּנִיתִי לִי בָּתִּים, אֵלּוּ בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת. נָטַעְתִּי לִי כְּרָמִים, אֵלּוּ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁהֵם יוֹשְׁבִין שׁוּרוֹת שׁוּרוֹת כְּכֶרֶם, כְּדִתְנַן זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּכֶרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה, וְכִי כֶּרֶם הָיָה, אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין שׁוּרוֹת שׁוּרוֹת כְּכֶרֶם. עָשִׂיתִי לִי גַּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים, אֵלּוּ מִשְׁנָיוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, כְּגוֹן מִשְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה וּמִשְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא רַבָּה וּמִשְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁל בַּר קַפָּרָא. וְנָטַעְתִּי בָהֶם עֵץ כָּל פֶּרִי, זֶה הַתַּלְמוּד שֶׁכָּלוּל בָּהֶם. עָשִׂיתִי לִי בְּרֵכוֹת מָיִם, רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה אָמַר אֵלּוּ הַדְּרָשׁוֹת. לְהַשְׁקוֹת מֵהֶן יַעַר צוֹמֵחַ עֵצִים, אֵלּוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁהֵם לְמֵדִים. רַבִּי נַחְמָן אָמַר זֶה הַתַּלְמוּד. לְהַשְׁקוֹת מֵהֶם יַעַר צוֹמֵחַ עֵצִים, אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁהֵם לְמֵדִים. קָנִיתִי לִי עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת, אֵלּוּ הָאֻמּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יואל ג, ב): וְגַם עַל הָעֲבָדִים וְעַל הַשְּׁפָחוֹת בַּיָּמִים הָהֵמָה אֶשְׁפֹּךְ אֶת רוּחִי, והאמות לעתיד לבוא יהיו עבדים לישראל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּישַׁעְיָה (ישעיה סא, ה): וְעָמְדוּ זָרִים וְרָעוּ צֹאנְכֶם וגו. וּבְנֵי בַיִת הָיָה לִי, זֶה רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ. גַּם מִקְנֶה בָקָר וָצֹאן, אֵלּוּ הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ויקרא א, ב): מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן תַּקְרִיבוּ. כָּנַסְתִּי לִי גַּם כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב, אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים יט, יא): הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב. וּסְגֻלַּת מְלָכִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ח, טו): בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלֹכוּ (משלי ח, טז): בִּי שָׂרִים יָשׂרוּ. וְהַמְּדִינוֹת, אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמְּדַיְּנִין בַּהֲלָכָה. עָשִׂיתִי לִי שָׁרִים וְשָׁרוֹת, אֵלּוּ הַתּוֹסֶפְתּוֹת משוררים זכרים משוררות נקבות. וְתַעֲנֻגּוֹת, אֵלּוּ הָאַגָּדוֹת, שֶׁהֵן עִנּוּגֵי שֶׁל מִקְרָא. שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת, דַּיָּנִין זְכָרִים וְדַיָּנוֹת נְקֵבוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי פָּתַר קְרָיָיה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ, הִגְדַּלְתִּי מַעֲשָׂי (במדבר טו, ב): כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אִשֶּׁה לַה. בָּנִיתִי לִי בָּתִּים (דברים ו, יא): וּבָתִּים מְלֵאִים כָּל טוּב. נָטַעְתִּי לִי כְּרָמִים (דברים ו, יא): כְּרָמִים וְזֵיתִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא נָטָעְתָּ. עָשִׂיתִי לִי גַּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים. אַדְרִיָּאנוֹס שְׁחִיק טְמַיָּא שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא, כְּתִיב בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים ח, ט): אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא בְמִסְכֵּנֻת וגו, יָכוֹל אַתְּ מַיְיתֵי לִי תְּלַת מִילִין דַּאֲנָא שָׁאֵיל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אִינוּן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ פִּלְפְּלִין וּפוּסְיָאנִין וּמְטַקְסָא. אַיְיתֵי פִּלְפְּלִין מִן נִצְחָנָה, וּפוּסְיָאנִין מִן צַיְידָן וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִן עַכְבְּרִין, וּמְטַקְסָא מִן גּוּשׁ חָלָב. עָשִׂיתִי לִי בְּרֵכוֹת מָיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ח, ז): אֶרֶץ נַחֲלֵי מָיִם. לְהַשְׁקוֹת מֵהֶם יַעַר צוֹמֵחַ עֵצִים, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי אֲפִלּוּ קָנִים שֶׁל חִצִּים לֹא חָסְרָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. קָנִיתִי עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת (שמות יב, לח): וְגַם עֵרֶב רַב וגו. וּבְנֵי בַיִת הָיָה לִי, אֵלּוּ הַגִּבְעוֹנִים שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חוֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְשׁוֹאֲבֵי מַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יהושע ט, כז): וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא חֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְשֹׁאֲבֵי מַיִם. גַּם מִקְנֶה בָקָר וָצֹאן הַרְבֵּה הָיָה לִי, (במדבר לב, א): וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה וגו. כָּנַסְתִּי לִי גַּם כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קה, לז): וַיּוֹצִיאֵם בְּכֶסֶף וְזָהָב. וּסְגֻלַּת מְלָכִים וְהַמְּדִינוֹת, זוֹ בִּזַּת עוֹג וּבִזַּת מִדְיָן. עָשִׂיתִי לִי שָׁרִים וְשָׁרוֹת, מְשׁוֹרְרִים זְכָרִים וּמְשׁוֹרְרוֹת נְקֵבוֹת. וְתַעֲנֻגּוֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם, זֶה עִנּוּגָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת, תַּפְנוּקִין וְתַפְנוּקְיָין." NA> |
93. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 33.3, 56.6, 57.4, 60.12 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Amoraic midrash compilations, halakhic material in • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah/halakhic • Rabbinic Halakhah • aggadah, halakhah compared with • aggadic passages on legal biblical units, halakha derived from narrative biblical units • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, refutation of opinions in • halakhah, sanctions in Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 245, 252, 254; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 62; Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 208; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 605, 606; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 5 " 33.3 טוֹב ה לַכֹּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו <>(תהלים קמה, ט)<>, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי טוֹב ה לַכֹּל, עַל הַכֹּל, שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשָׂיו. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל טוֹב ה לַכֹּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל הַכֹּל שֶׁהֵן מִדּוֹתָיו הוּא מְרַחֵם. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר טוֹב ה לַכֹּל, וּמֵרַחֲמָיו הוּא נוֹתֵן לִבְרִיּוֹתָיו. רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא וְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַב אַחָא לְמָחָר שְׁנַת בַּצֹּרֶת בָּאָה וְהַבְּרִיּוֹת מְרַחֲמִין אֵלּוּ עַל אֵלּוּ, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיהֶן רַחֲמִים. בְּיוֹמֵי דְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא הָיוּ צְרִיכִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְתַעֲנִית, אָתוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ אָמְרִין לֵיהּ רַבִּי גְּזָר תַּעֲנִיתָא, גָּזַר תַּעֲנִיתָא יוֹם קַדְמָאי יוֹם ב יוֹם ג וְלָא נְחַת מִטְרָא, עָאל וְדָרַשׁ לְהוֹן אֲמַר לְהוֹן בָּנַי הִתְמַלְּאוּ רַחֲמִים אֵלּוּ עַל אֵלּוּ וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיכֶם רַחֲמִים. עַד שֶׁהֵן מְחַלְּקִין צְדָקָה לַעֲנִיֵּיהֶם רָאוּ אָדָם אֶחָד נוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לִגְרוּשָׁתוֹ, אָתוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, רַבִּי מָה אֲנַן יָתְבִין הָכָא וַעֲבֵרְתָּא הָכָא. אֲמַר לָהֶן מָה רְאִיתֶם, אָמְרוּ לוֹ רָאִינוּ אָדָם פְּלוֹנִי נוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לִגְרוּשָׁתוֹ, שְׁלַח בַּתְרֵיהוֹן וְאַיְיתִינוֹן לְגוֹ צִבּוּרָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ מָה הִיא לָךְ זוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ גְּרוּשָׁתִי הִיא. אָמַר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה נָתַתָּ לָהּ מָעוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי רָאִיתִי אוֹתָהּ בְּצָרָה וְהִתְמַלֵּאתִי עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הִגְבִּיהַּ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וְאָמַר רִבּוֹן כָּל הָעוֹלָמִים מָה אִם זֶה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו מְזוֹנוֹת רָאָה אוֹתָהּ בְּצָרָה וְנִתְמַלֵּא עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים, אַתָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּךָ <>(תהלים קמה, ח)<>: חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, וְאָנוּ בְּנֵי יְדִידֶיךָ בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּתְמַלֵּא עָלֵינוּ רַחֲמִים, מִיָּד יָרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים וְנִתְרַוָּה הָעוֹלָם. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה יָתֵיב לָעֵי בְּאוֹרַיְתָא קַמֵּי כְּנִשְׁתָּא דְּבַבְלָאי בְּצִפּוֹרִין, עֲבַר חַד עֵגֶל קוֹדָמוֹי, אָזֵל לְמִתְנְכָסָה וְשָׁרֵי גָּעֵי כְּמֵימַר שֵׁיזִבְנִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אֲנִי יָכוֹל לְמֶעְבַּד לָךְ לְכָךְ נוֹצַרְתָּ, וְחָשַׁשׁ רַבִּי אֶת שִׁנָּיו שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין כָּל אוֹתָן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיָה חוֹשֵׁשׁ רַבִּי אֶת שִׁנָּיו, לֹא הִפִּילָה עֻבָּרָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלֹא נִצְטַעֲרוּ הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, בָּתַר יוֹמִין עֲבַר חַד שֶׁרֶץ קַמֵּי בְּרַתֵּיהּ וּבְעָא לְמִקְטְלָא, אֲמַר לָהּ בְּרַתִּי שַׁבְקֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה עִנְוָתָן סַגֵּי, וַהֲוָה אֲמַר כָּל מַה דְּיֹאמַר לִי בַּר נַשׁ אֲנָא עָבֵיד חוּץ מִמַּה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ בְּנֵי בְתֵירָא לִזְקֵנִי, שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִגְדֻלָּתָן וְהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתוֹ, וְאִין סָלֵיק רַב הוּנָא רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לְהָכָא, אֲנָא קָאֵים לִי מִן קֳדָמוֹהִי, לָמָּה דְּהוּא מִן יְהוּדָה וַאֲנָא מִן בִּנְיָמִין, וְהוּא מִן דִּכְרַיָא דִּיהוּדָה וַאֲנָא מִן נֻקְבְתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה וַהֲרֵי הוּא עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, נִתְכַּרְכְּמוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁנִּתְכַּרְכְּמוּ פָּנָיו אָמַר לוֹ אֲרוֹנוֹ הוּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ פּוֹק חֲזֵי מַאן בָּעֵי לָךְ לְבָרָא, נָפַק וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח בַּר נָשׁ, וְיָדַע דְּהוּא נָזוּף וְאֵין נְזִיפָה פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלשִׁים יוֹם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי אָבִין כָּל אוֹתָן שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה נָזוּף מֵרַבֵּנוּ, אַלֵּיף לְרַב בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ כָּל כְּלָלֵי דְאוֹרַיְתָא, וְאִלֵּין אִינוּן כְּלָלַיָיא דְאוֹרַיְתָא הִלְכְתָא דְּבַבְלָאֵי. לְסוֹף תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין אָתָא אֵלִיָּהוּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב בִּדְמוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה אֵצֶל רַבֵּנוּ וִיְהַב יְדֵיהּ עַל שִׁנֵּיהּ וְאִתְּסֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָתָא רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה לְגַבֵּי רַבֵּנוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה עֲבַדְתְּ בְּשִׁנָּךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִן עוֹנָתָא דִּיהַבְתְּ יְדָךְ עִלּוֹהִי אִתְנְשֵׁימַת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵית אֲנָא הֲוָה יָדַע מָה הוּא. כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמַע כֵּן שָׁרֵי נָהֵיג בֵּיהּ יְקָרָא, וְקָרַב תַּלְמִידִים וּמְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ מִלְּגַאו. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלִפְנִים מִמֶּנִּי, אָמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה מְתַנֵּי שִׁבְחֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אָמַר לֵיהּ אָדָם גָּדוֹל, אָדָם קָדוֹשׁ. חַד זְמַן חֲמִיתֵיהּ בֵּי בָנֵי וְלָא אִתְכְּנַע מִנֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא תַּלְמִידָךְ דַּהֲוַת מִשְׁתַּבַּח בֵּיהּ חֲמִיתֵּיהּ בֵּי בָנֵי וְלָא אִתְכְּנַע מִנָּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָמָּה לָא אִתְכְּנָעַת מִנֵּיהּ, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּא מִסְתַּכֵּל הָיִיתִי בְּאַגָּדַת תְּהִלִּים, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמַע כֵּן מְסַר לֵיהּ תְּרֵין תַּלְמִידוֹי וַהֲווֹ עָיְילִין עִמֵּיהּ לַאֲשׁוּנָה, דְּלָא יִשְׁהֵי וְתִזְעַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, טוֹב ה לַכֹּל וגו, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וגו, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמֵנִי אוֹי לָהֶם לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁהֵם הוֹפְכִים מִדַּת רַחֲמִים לְמִדַּת הַדִין, בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ה, מִדַּת רַחֲמִים, <>(שמות לד, ו)<>: ה ה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן, וּכְתִיב <>(בראשית ו, ה)<>: וַיַּרְא ה כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, <>(בראשית ו, ו)<>: וַיִּנָּחֶם ה כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם <>(בראשית ו, ז)<>: וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶמְחֶה וגו, אַשְׁרֵיהֶם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁהֵן הוֹפְכִים מִדַּת הַדִּין לְמִדַּת רַחֲמִים. בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֱלֹהִים הוּא מִדַּת הַדִּין <>(שמות כב, כז)<>: אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל, <>(שמות כב, ח)<>: עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר שְׁנֵיהֶם, וּכְתִיב <>(שמות ב, כד)<>: וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶת נַאֲקָתָם וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּרִיתוֹ וגו <>(בראשית ל, כב)<>: וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת רָחֵל וגו, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ, מַה זְּכִירָה נִזְכַּר לוֹ שֶׁזָּן וּפִרְנֵס אוֹתָם כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בַּתֵּבָה, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ, וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן מִזְּכוּת הַטְּהוֹרִים שֶׁהִכְנִיס עִמּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּנוֹ נִקְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(בראשית ח, כא)<>: וַיָּרַח ה אֶת רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא לְשֵׁם נַחַת הַתֵּבָה נִקְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(בראשית ח, ד)<>: וַתָּנַח הַתֵּבָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי וגו. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר <>(בראשית ח, כב)<>: לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ, מִכְּלַל שֶׁשָּׁבָתוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא שִׁמְשׁוּ מַזָּלוֹת כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן שִׁמְשׁוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹא הָיָה רִשּׁוּמָן נִכָּר.", 56.6 וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת <>(בראשית כב, י)<>, רַב בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּדָבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל, מִן הָכָא, וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין מִן הַהַגָּדָה אֲמַר לָךְ, חָזַר הוּא בֵּיהּ, וְאִין מִן אוּלְפָּן אֲמַר לָךְ, לֵית הוּא חָזַר בֵּיהּ, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי הָיוּ נְעוּצִים מִתְּחִלָּתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִים, תְּלוּשִׁין וּנְעָצָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים, דִּתְנַן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּמַגַּל יָד בְּמַגַּל קָצִיר וּבְצֹר וּבְקָנֶה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּקְרוּמִיּוֹת שֶׁל קָנֶה, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין מוֹהֲלִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֵין מְקַנְחִין בָּהּ אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְלֹא מְחַצִּין בָּהּ אֶת הַשִּׁנַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוּחַ רָעָה שׁוֹכֶנֶת עָלָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, נִתְיָרֵא מִן הַיִּסּוּרִין, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אֵין אַתָּה צָרִיךְ, כְּבָר נוֹלַד מִי שֶׁיְקַבְּלֵם, <>(בראשית כב, כא)<>: אֶת עוּץ בְּכֹרוֹ וְאֶת בּוּז אָחִיו, אִיּוֹב אֵימָתַי הָיָה, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֶת עוּץ בְּכֹרוֹ, וּכְתִיב <>(איוב א, א)<>: אִישׁ הָיָה בְּאֶרֶץ עוּץ אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ. רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר בִּימֵי יַעֲקֹב הָיָה, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא דִּינָה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אִיּוֹב הָיְתָה, דִּכְתִיב בְּאֵשֶׁת אִיּוֹב <>(איוב ב, י)<>: כְּדַבֵּר אַחַת הַנְּבָלוֹת, וּכְתִיב בְּדִינָה <>(בראשית לד, ז)<>: כִּי נְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר בִּימֵי שְׁבָטִים הָיָה הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב <>(איוב טו, יח)<>: אֲשֶׁר חֲכָמִים יַגִּידוּ וְלֹא כִחֲדוּ מֵאֲבוֹתָם, זֶה רְאוּבֵן וִיהוּדָה, וּמַה שָֹּׂכָר נָטְלוּ עַל כָּךְ <>(איוב טו, יט)<>: לָהֶם לְבַדָּם נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּא אָמַר בִּירִידָתָן לְמִצְרַיִם נוֹלַד וּבַעֲלִיָּתָן מֵת, אַתָּה מוֹצֵא עִקַּר שָׁנָיו שֶׁל אִיּוֹב לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא מָאתַיִם וְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, וְעָשׂוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם מָאתַיִם וְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וּבָא שָׂטָן לְקַטְרֵג וְגֵרָה אוֹתוֹ בְּאִיּוֹב. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַחָא אָמַר לְרוֹעֶה שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד וּמַבִּיט בְּצֹאנוֹ בָּא זְאֵב אֶחָד נִזְדַּוֵּג לוֹ, אָמַר תְּנוּ לוֹ תַּיִּשׁ אֶחָד שֶׁיִּתְגָּרֶה בּוֹ. וְרַבִּי חָמָא אָמַר לְאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּסְעוּדָה בָּא כֶּלֶב אֶחָד וְנִזְדַּוֵּג לוֹ, אָמַר תְּנוּ לוֹ כִּכָּר אֶחָד שֶׁיִּתְגָּרֶה בּוֹ, כָּךְ בָּא שָׂטָן לְקַטְרֵג גֵּרָה אוֹתוֹ בְּאִיּוֹב, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב <>(איוב טז, יא)<>: יַסְגִּירֵנִי אֵל אֶל עֲוִיל וְעַל יְדֵי רְשָׁעִים יִרְטֵנִי, וְהַלְוַאי בְּנֵי אָדָם צַדִּיקִים אֶלָּא בְּנֵי אָדָם רְשָׁעִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים הָיָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב <>(איוב כז, יב)<>: הֵן אַתֶּם כֻּלְּכֶם חֲזִיתֶם וְלָמָּה זֶּה הֶבֶל תֶּהְבָּלוּ, חֲזִיתֶם מַעֲשַׂי וּמַעֲשֵׂי דוֹרִי. חֲזִיתֶם מַעֲשַׂי, מִצְווֹת וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. מַעֲשֵׂה דוֹרִי, שֶׁהֵן מְבַקְּשִׁין לִתֵּן שָׂכָר לַזּוֹנוֹת מִן הַגְּרָנוֹת, וְאֵין דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים לִהְיוֹת נוֹתְנִין שָׂכָר לַזּוֹנוֹת מִן הַגְּרָנוֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב <>(הושע ט, א)<>: אָהַבְתָּ אֶתְנָן עַל כָּל גָּרְנוֹת דָּגָן. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר בִּימֵי כַּשְׂדִּים הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(איוב א, יז)<>: כַּשְׂדִּים שָׂמוּ שְׁלשָׁה רָאשִׁים. רַבִּי נָתָן אָמַר בִּימֵי מַלְכוּת שְׁבָא הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(איוב א, טו)<>: וַתִּפֹּל שְׁבָא וַתִּקָּחֵם. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אָמַר בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הָיָה, דִכְתִיב בֵּיהּ <>(אסתר ב, ב)<>: יְבַקְּשׁוּ לַמֶּלֶךְ נְעָרוֹת בְּתוּלוֹת טוֹבוֹת מַרְאֶה, וּכְתִיב <>(איוב מב, טו)<>: וְלֹא נִמְצָא נָשִׁים יָפוֹת כִּבְנוֹת אִיּוֹב. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אִיּוֹב לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא נִהְיָה, מַחְלְפֵיהּ שִׁיטָתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּתַמָּן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם הָיָה, וְהָכָא אָמַר אִיּוֹב לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא נִהְיָה. מַאי לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא נִהְיָה בַּיִּסּוּרִים שֶׁנִּכְתְּבוּ עָלָיו, וְלָמָּה נִכְתְּבוּ עָלָיו, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִלּוּ בָּאוּ עָלָיו הָיָה יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד בָּהֶן. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵעוֹלֵי גוֹלָה הָיָה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי הָיָה וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ בִּטְבֶרְיָה, לְפִיכָךְ הָיוּ לְמֵדִים מִמֶּנּוּ קְרִיעָה וּבִרְכַּת אֲבֵלִים הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב <>(איוב א, כ)<>: וַיָּקָם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע אֶת מְעִלוֹ, מִכָּאן שֶׁצָּרִיךְ אָדָם לִקְרֹעַ מְעֻמָּד. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים הָיָה, תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים צַדִּיק אֶחָד עָמַד לִי בְּאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְנָתַתִּי לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ וּפָטַרְתִּי, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה אִיּוֹב. <>(בראשית כב, כא)<>: אֶת עוּץ בְּכֹרוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר הוּא לָבָן הוּא קְמוּאֵל, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ קְמוּאֵל שֶׁקָּם כְּנֶגֶד אֻמָּתוֹ שֶׁל אֵל. <>(בראשית כב, כד)<>: וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ רְאוּמָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק כּוּלְּהוֹן לְשֵׁם מַרְדּוּת הֵן, טֶבַח טְבָחוּן, גַּחַם גְּמָחוּן, תַּחַשׁ תְּחָשׁוּן, מַעֲכָה מְעָכוּן. וַיֹּאמֶר אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ תֵּשֵׁב הַנַּעֲרָ אִתָּנוּ <>(בראשית כד, נה)<>, וּבְתוּאֵל הֵיכָן הוּא, בִּקֵּשׁ לְעַכֵּב וְנִגַּף בַּלַּיְלָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב <>(משלי יא, ה)<>: צִדְקַת תָּמִים תְּיַשֵּׁר דַּרְכּוֹ, צִדְקַת תָּמִים זֶה יִצְחָק, תְּיַשֵּׁר דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אֱלִיעֶזֶר. <>(משלי יד, לב)<>: וּבְּרָעָתוֹ יִדָחֶה רָשָׁע, זֶה בְּתוּאֵל שֶׁנִּגַּף בַּלַּיְלָה. תֵּשֵׁב הַנַּעֲרָ אִתָּנוּ יָמִים, אֵלּוּ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי אֶבְלוֹ. אוֹ עָשוֹר, אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לִבְתוּלָה לְפַרְנֵס אֶת עַצְמָהּ. <>(בראשית כד, נז)<>: וַיֹּאמְרוּ נִקְרָא לַנַּעֲרָ, מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין מַשִֹּׂיאִין אֶת הַיְתוֹמָה אֶלָּא עַל פִּיהָ. <>(בראשית כד, נח)<>: וַיִּקְרְאוּ לְרִבְקָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהּ, רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר מְרַמְזִים בָּהּ הֲתֵלְכִי הֲתֵלְכִי <>(בראשית כד, נח)<>: וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלֵךְ, הוֹלֶכֶת אֲנִי עַל כָּרְחֲכֶם שֶׁלֹא בְטוֹבַתְכֶם. 33.3 " 56.6 "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife (Gen. 22:10). Rav asked R. Hiyya the Elder: How do we know that ritual slaughtering must be with a movable object? From here: "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife" — he said: if he told you this from a Haggadah, he might retract; and if he stated it as a tradition, he cannot not retract from it, since Levi taught: If they sharp flints were attached to the ground or rocks from the very beginning, they are unfit; but if they had been originally detached but subsequently fixed in the ground, they are fit, since we learned: "If one slaughters with a hand-sickle, a harvest sickle, a flint, or a reed, the slaughtering is fit." Said Rabbi Yosei: Five things were said of a reed stalk: You may not slaughter, circumcise, cut meat, wipe your hands, nor pick your teeth with it, because an evil spirit rests upon it.", |
94. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 25.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah Found in books: Salvesen et al., Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period (2020) 370; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 127 מִי שָׁת בַּטֻּחוֹת חָכְמָה (איוב לח, לו), מַהוּ בַּטֻחוֹת, בַּטָּוָיָא, (איוב לח, לו): אוֹ מִי נָתַן לַשֶּׂכְוִי בִינָה, הֲדָא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּעֲרָבְיָא צָוְחִין לְתַרְנְגוֹלְתָּא שֶׂכְוִיא, הֲדָא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא כַּד אֶפְרוֹחֶיהָ דַּקִּיקִין הִיא מְכַנְשָׁא לְהוֹן וְיַהֲבַת לְהוֹן תְּחוֹת אֲגַפַּיָּא וּמְשַׁחֲנָה לְהוֹן וּמַעֲדַרְנָה קֳדָמֵיהוֹן, וְכַד אִינוּן רַבְיָה חַד מִנְהוֹן בָּעֵי לְמִקְרַב לְוָתֵיהּ וְהִיא נָקְרָה לֵיהּ בְּגוֹ רֵישֵׁיהּ, וַאֲמָרַת לֵיהּ זִיל עֲדוֹר בְּקוּקַלְתָּךְ, כָּךְ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה הָיָה הַמָּן יוֹרֵד וְהַבְּאֵר עוֹלֶה לָהֶן וְהַשְּׂלָיו מָצוּי לָהֶן, וְעַנְנֵי כָבוֹד מַקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָן, וְעַמּוּד עָנָן מַסִּיעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאָרֶץ אָמַר לָהֶם משֶׁה כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִכֶּם יִטְעוֹן מַכּוּשֵׁיהּ וְיִפּוֹק וְיִנְצוֹב לֵיהּ נְצִיבִין, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם. אַדְרִיָּנוּס שְׁחִיק טְמַיָּא הֲוָה עָבַר בְּאִלֵּין שְׁבִילַיָיא דִּטְבֶרְיָא וְחָמָא חַד גְּבַר סַב קָאֵים וְחָצֵיב חֲצוּבָן לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ סָבָא סָבָא אִי קָרַצְתְּ לָא חֲשַׁכְתְּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ קְרִיצַת וַחֲשִׁיכַת, וּמַה דְּהַנֵּי לְמָרֵי שְׁמַיָא עֲבֵיד, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּחַיֶּיךָ סָבָא בַּר כַּמָּה שְׁנִין אַתְּ יוֹמָא דֵין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר מְאָה שְׁנִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְאַתְּ בַּר מְאָה שְׁנִין וְקָאֵים וְחָצֵיב חֲצוּבִין לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, סָבַר דְּאַתְּ אָכֵיל מִנְּהוֹן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין זָכִית אֲכָלִית, וְאִם לָאו כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיָּגְעוּ לִי אֲבָהָתִי, כָּךְ אֲנִי יָגֵעַ לְבָנַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּחַיָּיךְ, אִם זָכִית אָכוֹל מִנְהוֹן תֶּהֱוֵה מוֹדַע לִי. לְסוֹף יוֹמִין עָבְדִין תְּאֵנַיָא, אֲמַר הָא עָנָתָה נוֹדַע לְמַלְכָּא, מָה עֲבַד מְלָא קַרְטְלָא תְּאֵינִין וְסָלַק וְקָם לֵיהּ עַל תְּרַע פָּלָטִין, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לוֹן עֲלוֹן קֳדָם מַלְכָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּעָל אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא סָבָא דַּעֲבַרְתְּ עָלַי וַאֲנָא חָצֵיב חֲצִיבִין לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, וַאֲמַרְתְּ לִי אִין זָכִית תֵּיכוֹל מִנְּהוֹן תְּהֵא מוֹדַע לִי, הָא זָכִיתִי וַאֲכֵילִית מִנְּהוֹן וְהֵילֵין תְּאֵינַיָא מִן פֵּרֵיהוֹן. אֲמַר אַדְרִיָּנוּס בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא קְלָווֹנִין אֲנָא תִּתְּנוּן סֵילוֹן דְּדַהֲבָא וִיתֵיב לֵיהּ, אֲמַר קְלַווֹנִין אֲנָא דִּתְפַנּוּן הָדֵין קַרְטַל דִּידֵיהּ וּתְמַלּוּן יָתֵיהּ דִּינָרִין. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ עַבְדוֹהִי כָּל הָדֵין מוֹקְרָא תְּיַקְרִינֵיהּ לְהָדֵין סָבָא דִּיהוּדָאֵי, אֲמַר לְהוֹן בָּרְיֵה אוֹקְרֵיא וַאֲנָא לָא אֲנָא מוֹקַר לֵיהּ. אִנְתְּתֵיהּ דִּמְגֵירָא הֲוַת בְּרַת פַּחִין, אָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ בַּר קַבָּלוּי חָמֵי דַּהֲדָא מַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, מָה עֲבַד מְלָא מַרְעֲלֵיהּ תֵּינִין וַאֲזַל וְקָם קֳדָם פָּלָטִין, אֲמָרוּן לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לוֹן שְׁמָעֵית דְּמַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, עָלוֹן וְאָמְרִין לְמַלְכָּא חַד סָבָא קָאֵים עַל תְּרַע פָּלָטִין טָעֵין מְלָא מַרְעֲלֵיהּ תֵּינִין, וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ אֲמַר לָן שְׁמָעֵית דְּמַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, אֲמַר קְלָווֹנִין אֲנָא דִּתְקִימוּן יָתֵיהּ קֳדָם תְּרַע פָּלָטִין וְכָל מַאן דְּעָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק יְהֵי טָרֵי עַל אַפֵּיהּ. בְּאַפְתֵּי רַמְשָׁא פַּנּוּן יָתֵיהּ וַאֲזַל לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְאִנְתְּתֵיהּ כְּכָל הָדֵין יְקָרָא אֲנָא שְׁלִים לָךְ, אֲמַרָה אָזֵיל גְּלוֹג לְאִמָּךְ דַּהֲווֹן אִינוּן תֵּינִין וְלָא הֲווֹן אֶתְרוֹגִין, דַּהֲווֹן בְּשִׁילָן וְלָא פְגִינָן. NA> |
95. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, nezikin4 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • halakha, rabbinic vs. biblical law • halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 178; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 67, 68 NA> |
96. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 48-49, 122, 135, 153-154, 157, 306, 313, 335, 351 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Rabbinic Halakhah • false prophets, and halakhic authority • halakha • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, as modality of tradition • halakhah, conflicting interpretations of • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • study curriculum, halakha and aggada as subjects in Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 54; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 202; Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 71, 73; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 21, 28, 29, 56, 215, 224, 292, 310, 312, 314, 332, 347, 371, 437, 441, 442, 468, 469, 498; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 72, 73, 118, 127, 546; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 90, 91, 192; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 47 48 (Devarim 11:22) "For if you 122 (Devarim 15:17) "Then you shall take the awl and place it": Whence is it derived that also valid for this purpose are thorn, glass, and reed haulm? From "then you shall 135 (Devarim 16:8) "and on the seventh day is a holding back ( 153 (Devarim 17:9) "And you shall come": to include the 157 (Devarim 17:15) " 306 R. Meir was wont to say: When Israel were meritorious, they bore witness over themselves, viz. (Joshua 24:22) "And Joshua said to the people: Bear witness over yourselves that you have chosen the L-rd to serve Him. And they said: We are witnesses." When they went astray, viz. (Hoshea 12:1) "Ephraim has surrounded Me with falsehood, and the house of Israel with deceit," the tribe of Judah and Benjamin testified against them, viz. (Isaiah 5:3-4) "And now, dweller of Jerusalem and man of Judah. What more could have been done for my vineyard that I did not do for it?" When the tribe of Judah went astray, viz. (Malachi 2:11) "Judah has been faithless, etc.", He had the prophets bear witness against them, viz. (II Kings 17:13) "The L-rd has borne witness against Israel and Judah by the prophets of every vision, etc." When they went astray with the prophets, viz. (II Chronicles 36:16) "And they mocked the messengers of G-d and despised His prophets," He had the heavens bear witness against them, viz. (Devarim 4:26, 30:19) "I call to bear witness against you this day, the heavens." When they went astray with the heavens, viz. (Jeremiah 7:17) "Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? (18) The children are gathering wood, and the gatherers are kindling the fire, and the women are kneading dough to make cakes for the queen of 313 (Devarim 32:10) "He found 335 (Devarim 32:46) "And he said to them: Put your hearts, etc.": We are hereby taught that ones eyes and heart and ears must be attuned to words of Torah. And thus is it written (Ezekiel 44:5) "And the L-rd said to me: Son of man, set your heart and see with your eyes, and hear with your ears all that I am saying to you about all the laws of the Temple … and set your heart to the entrance of the Temple and to all the exits of the sanctuary." Now does this not follow 351 (Devarim 33:10) "They shall teach Your judgments to Jacob": We are hereby taught that all rulings are by their mouths, as it is written ( |
97. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 7, 115, 134 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Rabbinic Halakhah • halakha, rabbinic • halakha, vs. Roman law • halakha,Geonic • halakhah • inheritance, rabbinic halakha Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 202; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 18, 483; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 317; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 80, 142 7 " (Ibid. 5:13) "and it be hidden from the eyes of her husband": but not if her husband see and make himself "unseeing." If her husband knows, he is not permitted to scheme and make her drink." "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": (Does this mean that) there were no witnesses to defiling, but there were witnesses for secreting, or that there were no witnesses to both defiling and secreting? If you say this (the latter), she is permitted to her husband. The former, then, is the case and not the latter. There are no witnesses to defiling, but there are witnesses to secreting. "and she had secreted herself": We have not been apprised of the (minimum) time of secreting; it is, therefore, written "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": the (minimum) time for defilement — for intercourse; for hearah (the initial stage) — for circling a palm tree. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Eliezer says: the (minimum) time for pouring a cup. R. Yehoshua says: for drinking it. Ben Azzai says: for frying an egg. R. Akiva says: for swallowing it. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: for swallowing three eggs, one after the other. "and there be no witness in her": Is Scripture speaking of two witnesses or of one? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:15) "There shall not arise one witness against a man for every transgression and for every sin." Why (emphasize) one? To serve as a prototype (binyan av), viz.: Wherever "witness" (alone) is mentioned, two are understood, unless Scripture specifies "one." "and she were not seized": to exclude one who was forced. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of "light" tumah (e.g. a widow (cohabiting) with a high-priest, where there is only a lav (transgression of a negative commandment), forced is equated with consenting, how much more so, in an instance of grave tumah, such as ours, where the penalty is death, forced should be equated with consenting; it is, therefore, written "and she were not seized." Or, I might think (that this halachah obtains both) with (the wife of) an Israelite or of a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "and she (the wife of an Israelite) were not seized" — to exclude (from being forbidden to her husband) the wife of a Cohein, (who is forbidden to him even if she were forced.) (Ibid. 14) "And there pass over him a spirit of rancor and he warn his wife": optional (i.e. "he may warm his wife.") These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: mandatory (i.e. "he must warn his wife.") R. Akiva says: Why is "venitmaah" ("and she be tamei") written three times, (5:14, 5:27, 5:29)? tumah vis-à-vis her husband, and vis-à-vis her cohabitor, and vis-à-vis (her eating) terumah (if she is the daughter of a Cohein). R. Yishmael says: If a divorcée, the "lighter," (in that she may return to her divorcer), is unfit (for marriage) to the priesthood, how much more so sotah, the "graver," (who may not return to her husband; and no verse is needed for this.) (Ibid. 5:14) "and she were defiled … and she were not defiled": What is the intent of this? If she were (positively) defiled, why does she drink? And if she were (positively) not defiled, why does he make her drink? Scripture hereby (by this ambiguity) comes to teach us that she drinks only in a case of doubt (as to whether or not) she were defiled. And from here you rule (accordingly) in the instance of (the tumah of sheretz) a creeping thing, viz.: If in an instance (that of sotah), where unwittingness is not equated with wittingness (to make her tamei) or forcing to consent, doubt is equated with certainty (to forbid her to her husband until she drinks and resolves the doubt), then in an instance where unwittingness (of contact) is equated with wittingness, and forcing with consent, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! And just as here (for tumah to obtain, the locus of the act is) a private domain, there, too, it must be a private domain. Just as here we are dealing with a subject (the woman) which has the intelligence to be questioned, there, too, (for tumah to obtain), we must be dealing with a subject (e.g. the carrier of the sheretz) which has the intelligence to be questioned — whence they ruled: In a case of doubt involving a subject which has the intelligence to be questioned — in the private domain, the ruling is tamei; in the public domain, the ruling is tahor (clean). (In a case of doubt involving a subject) which lacks the intelligence to be questioned, both in the public and in the private domain, the ruling is tahor.", , " (Bamidbar 5:12) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man, a man, if his wife go astray, and she be faithless to him": What is the intent of this section? From (Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a woman and he cohabit with her, etc.", we hear only that if he had two witnesses (to her adultery) and she had not been forewarned, that she leaves him by divorce. But if she were adulterous in the presence of only one witness or it is in doubt whether she had or had not been adulterous after having been secreted (with the one she had been forewarned against), we did not hear what is to be done with her. It is, therefore, written "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: "A man, a man, if his wife go astray, etc.", that (in the above instance) she must drink the bitter waters. This is the intent of this section. "A man, a man": to include the wife of a deaf mute, an imbecile, one who has gone abroad or been incarcerated, or a dullard — that beth-din forewarns her (if she is deporting herself immodestly) to the end of invalidating her kethubah (her marriage contract). I might think, even to the end of making her drink (the bitter waters); it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Ibid. 11) "Then the man shall bring his wife." R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from incarceration. Variantly: "A man, a man": to include a woman awaiting levirate marriage (yibum). "if his wife go astray": Scripture speaks of those who are fit to be "wives" — to exclude a widow married to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who has performed the chaliztah ceremony to break a levirate connection), who are married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a Nethinah (a descendent of the Geveonites) married to an Israelite, and a daughter of an Israelite married to a Nathin or a mamzer. And, according to Akavya b. Mehallalel, (to exclude) a woman who is a proselyte or a freed slave. They (the sages) said to him (Akavya): But there was a freed slave, Charkemis, in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon had her drink (the bitter waters)! He replied: They dissimulated their doing so — whereupon they excommunicated him and he died in his state of excommunication, and beth-din stoned his coffin. ("if his wife go astray,) and she is guilty of maal against him": ("maal") In the area of illicit relations or in the area of monetary (fraudulence)? (Ibid. 5:13) "And a man lie with her a lying of seed" indicates that maal here is in the area of illicit relations, and not in that of monetary (fraudulence). "and she is guilty of maal against him": "meilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu (and they lied) against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu maal (falsified) in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification (bemaalo maal) against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu, king of Judah, (II Chronicles 26:18) "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (maalta)," and (Vayikra 5:21) "and he (the denier) maala maal against the L-rd" — whence we see that "meilah" in all places is "lying."", , " "And a man lie with her a lying of seed": a man, and not a minor. "And a man lie with her": and not with her sister. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in a place where the forbidder (i.e. her husband, who forbids her to all men) does not forbid her all of his days, (for he can divorce her) — she forbids her forbidder (her husband) from living with her (if she secretes herself), then in a place where the forbidder (his wife) forbids her (sister to him) all of his days — how much more so should she forbid (to herself) her forbidder (if he cohabits with her sister)! It is, therefore, written ("and a man lie) with her," and not with her sister. Abba Chan says in the name of R. Eliezer: "with her": and not (if he lay with) with his mother-in-law; "with her": and not with one of the illicit relations. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one commits a (relatively) "light" act of forbidding, in that he does not forbid her all of his days — she forbids her forbidder, then if one commits a grave act of forbidding, in that he forbids her all of his days, how much more so should she forbid (to herself) her forbidder! It is, therefore, written "with her," and not with his mother-in-law; "with her," and not with one of the illicit relations.", 115 " (Bamidbar 15:37-38) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying … and they shall make for themselves tzitzith": Women, too, are included (in the mitzvah of tzitzith.) R. Shimon exempts women from tzitzith, it being a time-based (only in the daytime) positive commandment, from which women are exempt, this being the principle: R. Shimon said: Women are exempt from all time-based positive commandments. R. Yehudah b. Bava said: of a certainty, the sages exempted a womans veil from tzitzith, and they are required in a wrap only because sometimes her husband covers himself with it. "tzitzith": "tzitzith" is something which "protrudes" ("yotzeh") somewhat. And the elders of Beth Shammai and those of Beth Hillel have already entered the upper chamber of Yonathan b. Betheira and declared: Tzitzith have no prescribed size. And they declared, similarly: A lulav has no prescribed size. "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that one string suffices; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 22:12) "Fringes (shall you make for yourself.") How many fringes? Not fewer than three. These are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say: Three of wool and the fourth of tcheleth (blue linen). And the halachah is in accordance with Beth Shammai. When is this so (that a minimum size is required)? In the beginning (of its attachment). But for what is left over or lopped off any size (is sufficient). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that all of it shall be tzitzith; it is, therefore, written "fringes." If "fringes," I might think all of it shall be fringes. It is, therefore, written "tzitzith." How is this (to be implemented)? That its fringes protrude from the corner (of the garment), and tzitzith from the fringes. "in the corners of their garments": I might think, even garments that are three-cornered, five-cornered, six-cornered, seven-cornered, and eight-cornered; it is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid.) "on the four corners of your garment," to exclude the aforementioned. And whence is it derived that pillows and covers are (also) excluded (from tzitzith)? From (Ibid.) "wherewith you cover yourself." If from there, I would think that night-clothes are also included (as requiring tzitzith). It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night. And if it were intended both for day and night, it requires tzitzith. I might think that this excludes both the above and the garment of a blind man; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And it shall be for you for tzitzith" — in any event (i.e. to include a blind man). (Ibid. 38) "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner a strand of tcheleth": spun and doubled. This tells me only of the tcheleth, that it is to be spun and doubled. Whence do I derive (the same for) the white (i.e. the wool)? You derive it by induction, viz.: Since the Torah said: "place" tcheleth and "place" white, just as tcheleth is spun and doubled, so, white is spun and doubled. "and they shall place": on the place of the weaving (i.e. the corner of the garment), and not on the place of the "growing" (i.e. the strands at the corner of the garment). If he did place it on the site of the "growing," it is (nonetheless) kasher. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov includes it both on the "growing" and on the very edge of the garment, it being written "on the corners of their garments." "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner": What is the intent of this? From "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith, I might think that he should weave it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment; it is, therefore, written "and they shall place." How so? He ties it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment). (Ibid. 39) "And it shall be to you for tzitzith": The four tzitzith are mutually inclusive (i.e. in the absence of one there is no mitzvah), the four being one mitzvah. R. Yishmael says: They are four mitzvoth. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: Why is it called "tcheleth"? Because the Egyptians were "bereaved" ("nitkelu" like "tcheleth") of their first-born, viz. (Shemot 12:29) "And it was in the middle of the night, that the L-rd smote every first-born, etc." Variantly: Because the Egyptians were "destroyed" ("kalu") in the Red Sea. Why is it called "tzitzith"? Because the L-rd "looked" ("hetzith") over our fathers houses in Egypt, as it is written (Song of Songs 2:9) "The voice of My Beloved, behold, it is coming … My Beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart … Behold, He stands behind our wall, looking through the windows, peering through the lattices." R. Chanina b. Antignos says: One who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, what is said of him? (Zechariah 8:23) "In these days it will happen that ten men, of all the languages of the nations will take hold of the corner (i.e. of the tzitzith) of a Jewish man, saying Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you!" And one who nullifies the mitzvah of "the corner," what is said of him? (Iyyov 38:13) "to take hold of the corners of the earth and to shake the wicked from it!" R. Meir says: It is not written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And you shall see them" (the tzitzith), but "And you shall see Him." Scripture hereby apprises us that if one fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, it is reckoned unto him as if he beheld the face of the Shechinah. For tcheleth is reminiscent of (the color of) the sea; the sea, of the firmament; and the firmament, of the Throne of Glory, as it is written (Ezekiel 1:26) "And above the firmament that was over their heads … (28) the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the L-rd." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and you shall see and you shall remember": See this mitzvah and remember another mitzvah, (which is contingent upon it.) Which is that? The recitation of the Shema — But perhaps (the reference is to) one of all the other mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, written (in the section of tzitzith, Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d," which you find to be written only in (the section of) the recitation of the Shema. "and you shall remember": Remember (i.e. recite) the section with your mouth. I might think that the section "vehaya im shamoa" (Devarim 11:13-21) should precede all of the sections. — Would you say that? The section of Shema (Devarim 6:4-9), which contains acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which contains acceptance of the yoke of mitzvoth, and "vehaya im shamoa," which obtains both in the daytime and at night, should precede the section of tzitzith ("vayomer" Bamidbar 15:37-41), which obtains only in the daytime. And perhaps he should recite three (sections) in the evening as he does in the daytime. It is, therefore, written (of tzitzith Bamidbar 15:39) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The section of Shema, which contains (the mitzvah of) learning (Torah), should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which speaks only of teaching. And "vehaya im shamoa" should precede the section of tzitzith, which is only to do (i.e. the final stage). For thus was Torah given: to learn and to teach, to keep and to do: "And you shall see it, and you shall remember (all the mitzvoth of the L-rd, and you shall do them."): Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, (which is only a sign and a remembrance towards the doing of mitzvoth,) is accounted as one who has fulfilled all of the mitzvoth, how much more so (is this true of) one who (actively) performs (any one of) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! "And you shall not go astray after your hearts": This is heresy, as it is written (Koheleth 7:26) "And I find more bitter than death the woman (heresy), whose heart is snares and nets. Her hands are bonds. The good before G-d shall escape her." "and after your eyes": This is harlotry, as it is written (Judges 14:3) "Take her for me, for she is just in my eyes." "after which you go astray": This is idolatry, as it is written (Ibid. 8:33) "and they went astray after the baalim." R. Nathan says: that one not "drink" in this "cup" (i.e. his own wife), and cast his gaze at the "cup" of another. Variantly: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts and after your eyes": This teaches us that the eyes follow the heart. — But perhaps the heart follows the eyes! Would you say that? Are there not blind men who commit all the abominations in the world? What, then, is the intent of "And you shall not go astray after your hearts, etc."? That the eyes follow the heart. R. Yishmael says: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts": What is the intent of this? From (Koheleth 11:9) "Rejoice young man in your youth (… and walk in the ways of your heart"), (I would not know whether) in a way that is straight or in (any) way that you like; it is, therefore, written "And you shall not go astray after your hearts." (Ibid. 40) "So that you remember and you do (all of My mitzvoth): This equates remembering with doing. "and you shall be holy to your G-d": This refers to the holiness of all of the mitzvoth. You say the holiness of (all the) mitzvoth, but perhaps the holiness of tzitzith (is intended). — Would you say that? What is the (general) context? The holiness of all the mitzvoth. Rebbi says: The reference is to the holiness of tzitzith. You say the holiness of tzitzith, but perhaps the holiness of all the mitzvoth is intended. — (Vayikra 19:2) "Holy shall you be" already refers to the holiness of all the mitzvoth. How, then, am I to understand "and you shall be holy to your G-d"? As referring to the holiness of tzitzith — whence it is seen that tzitzith add holiness to Israel. (Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d, who took you out of the land of Egypt.": Why is this mentioned here? So that one not say: I will take imitation-dyed threads (and attach them to my garment) as tcheleth, and who will know the difference? If (within the framework of) the measure of punishment, the lesser measure (of the L-rd) — if one sins in secret, He exposes him in public, (as He did in Egypt), then, (within the framework of) the measure of good, the greater measure (of the L-rd) — how much more so (does this hold true)! Variantly: Why is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in connection with every mitzvah? An analogy: The son of a kings loved one was taken captive. When he (the king) redeems him, he redeems him not as a son, but as a servant, so that if he (the son) does not accept his decree, he can say to him "You are my servant!" When they enter the province, he (the king) says to him: Put on my sandals and carry my things before me to the bath-house. The son begins to object, whereupon the king presents him with his writ (of servitude) and says to him: "You are my servant!" Thus, when the Holy One Blessed be He redeemed the seed of His loved one, He did not redeem them as "sons," but as servants, so that if they reject His decree He says to them: "You are My servants!" When they went to the desert, He began to decree upon them some "light" mitzvoth and some formidable ones, such as Shabbath, illicit relations, tzitzith, and tefillin, and Israel began to object — whereupon He said to them: "You are My servants! On that condition I redeemed you; on condition that I decree and you fulfill!" "I am the L-rd your G-d": Why is this stated again? Is it not already written (Shemot 20:2) "I am the L-rd your G-d who took you out of the land of Egypt"? Why state it again? So that Israel not say: Why did the L-rd command us (to do mitzvoth)? Is it not so that we do them and receive reward? We shall not do them and we shall not receive reward! As Israel said (Ezekiel 20:1) "There came to me (Ezekiel) men of the elders of Israel to make inquiry of the L-rd, and they sat before me." They said to him: A servant whose Master has sold him, does he not leave His domain? Ezekiel: Yes. They: Since the L-rd has sold us to the nations, we have left His domain. Ezekiel: A servant whose Master has sold him in order to return, does he leave His domain? (Ibid. 32-33) "And what enters your minds, it shall not be, your saying: We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone. As I live, says the L-rd G-d. I swear to you that I will rule over you with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath!" "with a strong hand": pestilence, as it is written (in that regard, Shemot 9:3) "Behold, the hand of the L-rd is in your cattle, etc." "with an outstretched arm": the sword, as it is written (I Chronicles 21:16) "with his (the angels) sword drawn in his hand, stretched over Jerusalem." "and with outpoured wrath": famine. After I bring these three calamities upon you, one after the other, I will rule over you perforce!", , " R. Nathan said: There is no mitzvah in the Torah whose reward is not "at its side." Go and learn this from the mitzvah of tzitzith. There was once a certain man who was particularly diligent in the mitzvah of tzitzith. Once, hearing of a ("famed") harlot in the cities of the sea, who took four hundred gold coins as her hire, he sent her that sum, and she set a time for him. When the appointed time came, he went there and sat at the door of her house. Her maid-servant went in and said to her: That man whom you appointed a time for is sitting at the door of the house. The harlot: Let him come in. When he came in, she spread seven beds for him, six of silver and one of gold, and she was on the uppermost. Between each one was a silver ladder, and the uppermost, of gold. When he came to the act, his four tzitzith came and struck him across his face. They seemed to him like four men. He immediately left off and sat upon the ground. She, too, left off and sat upon the ground. She said to him "Gapa of Rome (an idolatrous oath), I shall not let you go until you tell me what blemish you have seen in me!" He: I swear, I have seen no blemish in you. There is no beauty like yours in all the world, but there is one mitzvah (tzitzith) concerning which it is written two times (Bamidbar 15:41) "I am the L-rd your G-d." "I am the L-rd your G-d" — I am destined to reward; "I am the L-rd your G-d" — I am destined to punish. And now they appeared to me as four witnesses (testifying to the above). At this, she said: I swear that I will not let you go until you write for me your name, the name of your city, and the name of the place where you study Torah. He wrote for her his name, the name of his city, the name of his master, and the name of the place where he studied Torah — whereupon she arose and divided all of her wealth: a third to the authorities (for permission to convert), a third to the poor, and a third which she took with her, in addition to those spreads. When she came to R. Meirs house of study, she said to him: My master, convert me. R. Meir: Is it possible that you have "cast your eyes" upon one of my disciples! At this, she took out the note that she had with her, and he said to her: "Go and claim your purchase!" Those spreads which she had spread for him unlawfully, she now spread for him lawfully, This was her reward in this world. As to the world to come, I do not know how much.", 134 " (Bamidbar 27:8) "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying": This tells us only of the immediate situation (i.e. that of Tzelafchads daughters). Whence do we derive (the same for) future generations? From "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: A man, if he die, and he have no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter." Rebbi says: In all instances (of inheritance) the term "giving" is used, but in this instance "passing" is the term employed. For only a daughter can "pass" an inheritance (from one tribe to another), her son and her husband inheriting her (i.e. what she has inherited from her father, who may be of a different tribe.) Whence is it derived that the father (of the deceased) precedes his brothers (i.e. the brothers of the deceased) in the inheritance? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It is written "then you shall pass over his inheritance to his daughter." Because of a daughter you pass over an inheritance from the father, and not because of the brothers. And whence is it derived that a father inherits (his son)? It follows, a fortiori, viz.: If the fathers brothers who come (to inherit) only by power of the father, inherit him, then the father (himself), whose brothers come (to inherit) only by his power, how much more so should he inherit (his son)? And whence is it derived that the sons daughter stands in place of the son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the daughters of Tzelafchad, who inherited only for a particular time (i.e. an exception was made in their case, for the land was apportioned only to those who had left Egypt and had died), how much more so (is this to obtain) for the succeeding generations! Whence is it derived that females stand in the place of males (in all the "inheritances" of the Torah)? It follows (inductively), viz.: Since sons inherit and the brothers of the (deceased) father inherit, then just as with sons, females are equated with males, so, with all inheritors, females are equated with males. And just as with sons, males take precedence to females, so, with all inheritors, males take precedence to females. And just as with redeemers (of land) sons are equated with their fathers, (viz. Vayikra 25:49), so, with all inheritors, sons are equated with their fathers. And whence is it derived that a daughter inherits (her mothers possessions)? It is written (Bamidbar 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc." This tells me only of a daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) a son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a daughter, whose power (of inheritance) is attenuated where there is a son, inherits (her mother), how much more so, a son! And whence is it derived that a man inherits his wife? From (Ibid. 27:11) "… and he shall inherit (lit.) her." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc.", and (Ibid. 7) "And an inheritance of the children of Israel shall not go around from tribe to tribe," and (Joshua 24:33) "And Elazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him on the hill of Pinchas, his son … in the mountain of Ephraim." Now whence did Pinchas have (land) in the mountain of Ephraim? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Ephraim, who died and whom he inherited. Similarly, (I Chronicles 2:22) "And Seguv begot Yair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilad." Now whence did Yair have (land) in the land of Gilad? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Menasheh, who died and whom he inherited.", , " (Bamidbar 27:11) "And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his flesh who is near to him": The "nearest" takes precedence in the inheritance. "of his family": his fathers family or his mothers family? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 1:2) "by their families, by their fathers house" — the families are according to the fathers. "and he shall inherit her": (as above). "and it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment." The Torah hereby authorizes the sages to adjudicate the matter (i.e. to decide who is the "nearest.") "then you shall give his inheritance to his flesh who is near to him of his family": Whoever is closest in "flesh" takes precedence in inheritance.", , " (Devarim 3:23) "And I supplicated (vaethcha) the L-rd": "Vaethcha" is a term of entreaty. "at that time to say": Let "to say" not be written. The intent is: Make it known to me whether I will enter the land or not. "Adonai": the L-rd (adon) of all who enter the world. "Elokim": With (the attribute of) justice did You create the world. "You have begun": You have begun to open the door for Your servant, in my entering the inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad. Variantly: You have profaned (i.e. broken) Your oath. You wrote in Your Torah (Shemot 22:19) "He who sacrifices to a god shall be condemned." Yet your children served idolatry and I sought mercy from You, and You forgave them. (Devarim, Ibid.) "to show Your servant": miracles and mighty acts, viz. (Shemot 3:3) "I shall turn aside and I shall see, etc." (Devarim, Ibid.) "Your greatness": This is the attribute of Your goodness, as it is written (Bamidbar 14:17) "And now, let the power of the L-rd be made great." (Devarim, Ibid.) "And Your (mighty) hand": This is Your right hand, which is stretched out to all who enter the world, viz. (Shemot 15:6) "Your right hand, O L-rd, is exalted in power," and (Psalms 44:4) "Your right hand, and Your arm, and the light of Your countece." (Devarim, Ibid.) "mighty": For You subdue with mercy the attribute of justice, viz. (Michah 7:18) "Who is a G-d like You, forgiving transgression and passing by offense," (19) "He will return and be merciful to us, He will subdue our transgressions," (20) "You will give truth to Yaakov," and (Isaiah 45:23) "I have sworn by Me: From My mouth has gone forth righteousness, a word that will not turn back." (Devarim, Ibid.) "Who is mighty in heaven and earth": The attribute of flesh and blood — He who is greater than his neighbor nullifies his neighbors decree. But You — who can overrule You? And thus is it written (Iyyov 23:13) "And He is One, and who can turn Him back?" R. Yehudah b. Bava says: Not as the measure of the Holy One Blessed be He is the measure of flesh and blood. The measure of flesh and blood: A man registered in the royal codex — even if he gives great sums, he cannot extricate himself from it. But You say: Repent, and I will accept, as it is written (Isaiah 44:22) "I have wiped away your offenses like a cloud, your sins, like a mist." Variantly: "Who is G-d in heaven and earth, etc." — But perhaps, outside of heaven and earth, there is! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 4:39) "And you shall know this day and you shall return it to your heart … there is no other" — anywhere! (Ibid.) "who can do as Your deeds and as Your (acts of) strength": "as Your deeds" — in Egypt. "as Your strength" — at the (splitting of the) sea. Variantly: "as Your deeds" — at the sea. "as Your strength" — at the streams of Arnon. (Ibid. 25) "Let me pass over na and see"." "Na" is a term of imploration. "the good land across the Jordan": As per R. Yehudah: The land of Canaan is "good," and not the inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad. "this good mountain": Jerusalem. "and the Levanon": the Temple, viz. (Zechariah 11:1) "Open your doors, O Levanon!" and (Isaiah 10:34) "And the Levanon shall fall by a mighty one (Nevuchadnezzar)." Others say: "Levanon" — these are its (Israels) kings, as in (Ezekiel 17:3) "He came to the Levanon and he took its kings," and (II Chronicles 25:18) "The thistle (i.e. the king) etc."", , " (Bamidbar 27:6- 7) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Rightly do the daughters of Tzelafchad speak": The daughters of Tzelafchad have claimed well, for thus is this section written before Me on high. Happy is the man whose words the L-rd acknowledges. Similarly, (Ibid. 36:5) "Rightly does the tribe of the sons of Joseph speak." Similarly, (Ibid. 14:20) "And the L-rd said: I have forgiven according to your words." The peoples of the world are destined to say this: "Happy is the man whose words the L-rd acknowledges." "Given shall be given to them the holding of an inheritance": This is the inheritance of their father. "in the midst of the brothers of their father": This is the inheritance of the father of their father "and you shall pass over the inheritance of their father to them": This is the portion of the first-born — whence we are apprised that the daughters of Tzelafchad took three portions: that of their father, that of their fathers father, and the double portion of the first-born. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Also that of their fathers brothers, it being written "Given shall be given to them."", , " (Bamidbar 27:12) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Go up to this Mount Avarim": This is the inheritance of the children of Reuven. When Moses entered the (prospective) inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, thinking "It seems to me that He has revoked His decree" (against my entering Eretz Yisrael) — whereupon he poured out supplication before the King. An analogy: A king decreed against his son that he not enter the doors of his palace. He came to the gate and left it behind him; to the storage room, and left it behind him. As he was about to enter the inner chamber, he said to him "My son, from here on, you are forbidden." Likewise, when Moses entered the inheritance of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven, he rejoiced, thinking "It seems to me that He has revoked His decree," whereupon he began to pour out supplication before the L-rd. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Moses, the great sage, the father of the sages and the father of the prophets, even though he knew that a decree had gone forth against him, did not keep himself from supplication, how much more so should this hold true for other men!", |
98. Mishna, Challah, 4.8, 4.11 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • borders, halakhic • halakha in Diaspora Found in books: Ben-Eliyahu, Identity and Territory: Jewish Perceptions of Space in Antiquity (2019) 96, 105; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 4.8 רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחַלָּה. מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַד כְּזִיב, חַלָּה אֶחָת. מִכְּזִיב וְעַד הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר. מִן הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה וְלִפְנִים, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר. וּטְבוּל יוֹם אוֹכְלָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה. וַאֲסוּרָה לַזָּבִים וְלַזָּבוֹת לַנִּדָּה וְלַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְנִתֶּנֶת לְכָל כֹּהֵן: 4.11 בֶּן אַנְטִינוֹס הֶעֱלָה בְכוֹרוֹת מִבָּבֶל, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. יוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן הֵבִיא בִכּוּרֵי יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אַף הוּא הֶעֱלָה אֶת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח קָטָן בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהֶחֱזִירוּהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא יִקָּבַע הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה. אֲרִיסְטוֹן הֵבִיא בִכּוּרָיו מֵאַפַּמְיָא, וְקִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, הַקּוֹנֶה בְסוּרְיָא, כְּקוֹנֶה בְּפַרְוָר שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלָיִם: 4.8 Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to liability to hallah:From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion. From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure. From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure. And a priest who has immersed himself during the day and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth; It may be eaten with a non-priest at the same table; And it may be given to any priest. 4.11 Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him. Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him. He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation. Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys a field in Syria is as one who buys a field in the outskirts of Jerusalem. |
99. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 6a (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Change, in custom and halakhah • Rabbinic Halakhah Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 63, 69, 125; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 181 NA> |
100. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 18a, 27b, 31b, 35a, 36b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Amoraic midrash compilations, halakhic material in • aggada and halakha, address same social and cultural tensions • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) • mamzerim (halakhic bastards) • mamzerim (halakhic “bastards”) Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 562, 600; Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 40, 169; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 40, 169; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 77 18a הוגה את השם באותיותיו והיכי עביד הכי והתנן אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר אין תורה מן השמים ואין תחיית המתים מן התורה אבא שאול אומר אף ההוגה את השם באותיותיו,להתלמד עבד כדתניא (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות,אלא מאי טעמא אענש משום הוגה את השם בפרהסיא דהוי ועל אשתו להריגה דלא מיחה ביה מכאן אמרו כל מי שיש בידו למחות ואינו מוחה נענש עליו,ועל בתו לישב בקובה של זונות דאמר ר\ יוחנן פעם אחת היתה בתו מהלכת לפני גדולי רומי אמרו כמה נאות פסיעותיה של ריבה זו מיד דקדקה בפסיעותיה והיינו דאמר ר\ שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב (תהלים מט, ו) עון עקבי יסבני עונות שאדם דש בעקביו בעולם הזה מסובין לו ליום הדין,בשעה שיצאו שלשתן צדקו עליהם את הדין הוא אמר (דברים לב, ד) הצור תמים פעלו וגו\ ואשתו אמרה (דברים לב, ד) אל אמונה ואין עול בתו אמרה (ירמיהו לב, יט) גדול העצה ורב העליליה אשר עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי וגו\ אמר רבי כמה גדולים צדיקים הללו שנזדמנו להן שלש מקראות של צדוק הדין בשעת צדוק הדין,תנו רבנן כשחלה רבי יוסי בן קיסמא הלך רבי חנינא בן תרדיון לבקרו אמר לו חנינא אחי (אחי) אי אתה יודע שאומה זו מן השמים המליכוה שהחריבה את ביתו ושרפה את היכלו והרגה את חסידיו ואבדה את טוביו ועדיין היא קיימת ואני שמעתי עליך שאתה יושב ועוסק בתורה ומקהיל קהלות ברבים וספר מונח לך בחיקך,אמר לו מן השמים ירחמו אמר לו אני אומר לך דברים של טעם ואתה אומר לי מן השמים ירחמו תמה אני אם לא ישרפו אותך ואת ספר תורה באש אמר לו רבי מה אני לחיי העולם הבא,אמר לו כלום מעשה בא לידך אמר לו מעות של פורים נתחלפו לי במעות של צדקה וחלקתים לעניים אמר לו אם כן מחלקך יהי חלקי ומגורלך יהי גורלי,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שנפטר רבי יוסי בן קיסמא והלכו כל גדולי רומי לקברו והספידוהו הספד גדול ובחזרתן מצאוהו לרבי חנינא בן תרדיון שהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה ומקהיל קהלות ברבים וס"ת מונח לו בחיקו,הביאוהו וכרכוהו בס"ת והקיפוהו בחבילי זמורות והציתו בהן את האור והביאו ספוגין של צמר ושראום במים והניחום על לבו כדי שלא תצא נשמתו מהרה אמרה לו בתו אבא אראך בכך אמר לה אילמלי אני נשרפתי לבדי היה הדבר קשה לי עכשיו שאני נשרף וס"ת עמי מי שמבקש עלבונה של ס"ת הוא יבקש עלבוני,אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי מה אתה רואה אמר להן גליון נשרפין ואותיות פורחות אף אתה פתח פיך ותכנס בך האש אמר להן מוטב שיטלנה מי שנתנה ואל יחבל הוא בעצמו,אמר לו קלצטונירי רבי אם אני מרבה בשלהבת ונוטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבך אתה מביאני לחיי העולם הבא אמר לו הן השבע לי נשבע לו מיד הרבה בשלהבת ונטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבו יצאה נשמתו במהרה אף הוא קפץ ונפל לתוך האור,יצאה בת קול ואמרה רבי חנינא בן תרדיון וקלצטונירי מזומנין הן לחיי העולם הבא בכה רבי ואמר יש קונה עולמו בשעה אחת ויש קונה עולמו בכמה שנים,ברוריא דביתהו דר\ מאיר ברתיה דר\ חנינא בן תרדיון הואי אמרה לו זילא בי מלתא דיתבא אחתאי בקובה של זונות שקל תרקבא דדינרי ואזל אמר אי לא איתעביד בה איסורא מיתעביד ניסא אי עבדה איסורא לא איתעביד לה ניסא,אזל נקט נפשיה כחד פרשא אמר לה השמיעני לי אמרה ליה דשתנא אנא אמר לה מתרחנא מרתח אמרה לו נפישין טובא (ואיכא טובא הכא) דשפירן מינאי אמר ש"מ לא עבדה איסורא כל דאתי אמרה ליה הכי,אזל לגבי שומר דידה א"ל הבה ניהלה אמר ליה מיסתפינא ממלכותא אמר ליה שקול תרקבא דדינרא פלגא פלח ופלגא להוי לך א"ל וכי שלמי מאי איעביד א"ל אימא אלהא דמאיר ענני ומתצלת א"ל 27b סבר שיולי משאיל לו כי היכי דמשאיל לו משאיל לאיניש אחרינא ואתא ההוא גברא לאורועי נפשיה,אמר רבא א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר רב חסדא אמר ר\ יוחנן ספק חי ספק מת אין מתרפאין מהן ודאי מת מתרפאין מהן,מת האיכא חיי שעה לחיי שעה לא חיישינן,ומנא תימרא דלחיי שעה לא חיישינן דכתיב (מלכים ב ז, ד) אם אמרנו נבוא העיר והרעב בעיר ומתנו שם והאיכא חיי שעה אלא לאו לחיי שעה לא חיישינן,מיתיבי לא ישא ויתן אדם עם המינין ואין מתרפאין מהן אפילו לחיי שעה,מעשה בבן דמא בן אחותו של ר\ ישמעאל שהכישו נחש ובא יעקב איש כפר סכניא לרפאותו ולא הניחו ר\ ישמעאל וא"ל ר\ ישמעאל אחי הנח לו וארפא ממנו ואני אביא מקרא מן התורה שהוא מותר ולא הספיק לגמור את הדבר עד שיצתה נשמתו ומת,קרא עליו ר\ ישמעאל אשריך בן דמא שגופך טהור ויצתה נשמתך בטהרה ולא עברת על דברי חביריך שהיו אומרים (קהלת י, ח) ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש,שאני מינות דמשכא דאתי למימשך בתרייהו,אמר מר לא עברת על דברי חביריך שהיו אומרים ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש איהו נמי חויא טרקיה חויא דרבנן דלית ליה אסותא כלל,ומאי ה"ל למימר (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,ור\ ישמעאל הני מילי בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא לא דתניא היה רבי ישמעאל אומר מנין שאם אומרים לו לאדם עבוד עבודת כוכבים ואל תהרג שיעבוד ואל יהרג ת"ל וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם יכול אפילו בפרהסיא ת"ל (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מכה שמחללין עליה את השבת אין מתרפאין מהן ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר"י כל, 31b השולח חבית של יין ביד כותי ושל ציר ושל מורייס ביד עובד כוכבים אם מכיר חותמו וסתמו מותר אם לאו אסור,אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא כאן בעיר כאן בדרך,מתקיף לה רבי ירמיה מידי הנך דעיר לא בדרך אתו אלא אמר רבי ירמיה בין הגיתות שנינו כיון דכולי עלמא אפכי מירתת אמר השתא אי חזי לי מפסדו לי,אתמר מפני מה אסרו שכר של עובדי כוכבים רמי בר חמא אמר רבי יצחק משום חתנות רב נחמן אמר משום גילוי,אגילוי דמאי אילימא גילוי דנזייתא אנן נמי מגלינן ואלא דחביתא אנן נמי מגלינן לא צריכא באתרא דמצלו מיא,אלא מעתה ישן תשתרי דא"ר ישן מותר אין מניחו ליישן החמיץ מותר אין מניחו להחמיץ גזירה ישן אטו חדש,רב פפא מפיקין ליה לאבבא דחנותא ושתי רב אחאי מייתו ליה לביתיה ושתי ותרוייהו משום חתנות רב אחאי עביד הרחקה יתירתא,רב שמואל בר ביסנא איקלע למרגואן אייתו ליה חמרא ולא אשתי אייתו ליה שיכרא ולא אשתי בשלמא חמרא משום שימצא שיכרא משום מאי משום שימצא דשימצא,אמר רב האי שיכרא דארמאה שרי וחייא ברי לא נישתי מיניה מה נפשך אי שרי לכולי עלמא שרי אי אסיר לכולי עלמא אסיר,אלא רב סבר משום גילויא ואזיל מרורא דכשותא וקלי ליה זיהריה ודלקי מלקי ליה טפי וחייא ברי הואיל ולקי לא נישתי מיניה,אמר שמואל כל השרצים יש להן ארס של נחש ממית של שרצים אינו ממית אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא ואימא לך מילתא מעלייתא דהוה אמר רב אבוך הכי אמר אבוך הני ארמאי זוקאני דהוו שתו גילויא ולא מתו איידי דאכלי שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו,אמר רב יוסף, 35a מכלל דאיסורי הנאה שרו פרשייהו,ומדקא"ל מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבת עגלי עבודת כוכבים וקא מהדר ליה א"כ למה לא אסרוה בהנאה מכלל דעבודת כוכבים אסור פרשייהו,ולהדר ליה משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,דהא מורייס לרבנן דלא אסרוהו בהנאה מ"ט לאו משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,אמרי הכא כיון דאוקמיה קא מוקים חשיב ליה כמאן דאיתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה:השיאו לדבר אחר וכו\: מאי (שיר השירים א, ב) כי טובים דודיך מיין כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרה כנסת ישראל לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע עריבים עלי דברי דודיך יותר מיינה של תורה,מ"ש האי קרא דשייליה אר"ש בן פזי ואיתימא ר"ש בר אמי מרישיה דקרא קא"ל (שיר השירים א, ב) ישקני מנשיקות פיהו אמר ליה ישמעאל אחי חשוק שפתותיך זו בזו ואל תבהל להשיב,מ"ט אמר עולא ואיתימא רב שמואל בר אבא גזרה חדשה היא ואין מפקפקין בה מאי גזירתא אר"ש בן פזי אמר ריב"ל משום ניקור,ולימא ליה משום ניקור כדעולא דאמר עולא כי גזרי גזירתא במערבא לא מגלו טעמא עד תריסר ירחי שתא דלמא איכא איניש דלא ס"ל ואתי לזלזולי בה,מגדף בה ר\ ירמיה אלא מעתה יבשה תשתרי ישן תשתרי דא"ר חנינא יבש מותר אין מניחו ליבש ישן מותר אין מניחו לישן,א"ר חנינא לפי שא"א לה בלא צחצוחי חלב ושמואל אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בעור קיבת נבילה,הא קיבה גופא שריא ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן קיבת העובד כוכבים ושל נבילה הרי זו אסורה,והוינן בה אטו דעובד כוכבים לאו נבלה היא,ואמר שמואל חדא קתני קיבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה אסורה,ל"ק, 36b (מלאכי ג, ט) במארה אתם נארים ואותי אתם קובעים הגוי כולו אי איכא גוי כולו אין אי לא לא,גופא אמר באלי אמר אבימי נותאה משמיה דרב פיתן ושמנן יינן ובנותיהן כולן משמונה עשר דבר הן בנותיהן מאי היא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גזרו על בנותיהן נידות מעריסותן,וגניבא משמיה דרב אמר כולן משום עבודת כוכבים גזרו בהן דכי אתא רב אחא בר אדא א"ר יצחק גזרו על פיתן משום שמנן מאי אולמיה דשמן מפת,אלא על פיתן ושמנן משום יינן ועל יינן משום בנותיהן ועל בנותיהן משום דבר אחר ועל דבר אחר משום ד"א,בנותיהן דאורייתא היא דכתיב (דברים ז, ג) לא תתחתן בם דאורייתא ז\ אומות אבל שאר עובדי כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו וגזור אפילו דשאר עובדי כוכבים,ולר"ש בן יוחי דאמר (דברים ז, ד) כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי לרבות כל המסירות מאי איכא למימר אלא דאורייתא אישות דרך חתנות ואתו אינהו גזור אפילו דרך זנות,זנות נמי בבית דינו של שם גזרו דכתיב (בראשית לח, כד) ויאמר יהודה הוציאוה ותשרף,אלא דאורייתא עובד כוכבים הבא על בת ישראל דמשכה בתריה אבל ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו גזור אפי\ ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים,ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים הלכה למשה מסיני היא דאמר מר הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו,א"ל דאורייתא בפרהסיא וכמעשה שהיה ואתו אינהו גזור אפילו בצינעא בצינעא נמי בית דינו של חשמונאי גזרו,דכי אתא רב דימי אמר ב"ד של חשמונאי גזרו ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים חייב משום נשג"א,כי אתא רבין אמר משום נשג"ז,כי גזרו בית דינו של חשמונאי ביאה אבל ייחוד לא ואתו אינהו גזור אפי\ ייחוד ייחוד נמי בית דינו של דוד גזרו,דאמר רב יהודה באותה שעה גזרו על ייחוד אמרי התם ייחוד דבת ישראל אבל ייחוד דעובדת כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו גזרו אפי\ אייחוד דעובדת כוכבים,ייחוד דבת ישראל דאורייתא היא דאמר ר\ יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק רמז לייחוד מן התורה מנין שנאמר (דברים יג, ז) כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך וכי בן אם מסית בן אב אינו מסית,אלא בן מתייחד עם אמו ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה,ייחוד דאורייתא דאשת איש ואתא דוד וגזר אפי\ אייחוד דפנויה ואתו תלמידי בית שמאי ובית הלל גזור אפי\ אייחוד דעובדת כוכבים,מאי על ד"א משום ד"א אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גזרו על תינוק עובד כוכבים שיטמא בזיבה שלא יהא תינוק ישראל רגיל אצלו במשכב זכור,דא"ר זירא צער גדול היה לי אצל ר\ אסי ור\ אסי אצל ר\ יוחנן ור\ יוחנן אצל ר\ ינאי ור\ ינאי אצל רבי נתן בן עמרם ור"נ בן עמרם אצל רבי תינוק עובד כוכבים מאימתי מטמא בזיבה ואמר לי בן יומו וכשבאתי אצל ר\ חייא אמר לי בן ט\ שנים ויום אחד,וכשבאתי והרציתי דברי לפני רבי אמר לי הנח דברי ואחוז דברי רבי חייא דאמר תינוק עובד כוכבים אימתי מטמא בזיבה בן תשע שנים ויום אחד, 18a pronounce the ineffable name of God with all of its letters, i.e. as it is spelled. The Gemara asks: And how could he do that? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Sanhedrin 90a): These are the people who have no share in the World-to-Come: One who says that the Torah is not from Heaven or that there is no source from the Torah for the resurrection of the dead. Abba Shaul says: Also one who pronounces the ineffable name as it is written, with all of its letters, has no share in the World-to-Come.The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon did it to teach himself, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against sorcery: “You shall not learn to do” (Deuteronomy 18:9); this indicates: But you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, certain prohibitions do not apply when one is acting only in order to acquire knowledge of the subject.The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the reason that he was punished? The Gemara answers: He was punished because he would pronounce the ineffable name of God in public, instead of privately. And his wife was condemned to execution by decapitation because she did not protest his doing so. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who has the capability to protest effectively the sinful conduct of another and does not protest is punished for that person’s sin.The Gemara asks: And why was his daughter condemned to sit in a brothel? As Rabbi Yoḥa says: Once, the daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon was walking before the nobles of Rome, and they said to each other: How pleasant are the steps of this young woman. Upon hearing this, she immediately took care to keep walking in such a fashion that her steps would continue to be pleasing to them. And this is the same as that which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The iniquity of my heel encircles me” (Psalms 49:6)? It means that the sins that a person tramples with one’s heel in this world, i.e. dismisses and pays no attention to them as they seem to lack importance, e.g. the way that one walks, come and encircle him on the Day of Judgment.,The Gemara relates: When the three of them went out after being sentenced, they accepted the justice of God’s judgment. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said: “The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4). And his wife said the continuation of the verse: “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity.” His daughter said: “Great in counsel, and mighty in work; whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways” (Jeremiah 32:19). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: How great are these righteous people, that these three verses, which speak of the acceptance of God’s judgment, occurred to them at the time of accepting the righteousness of His judgment.,§ The Sages taught: When Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma fell ill, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon went to visit him. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: Ḥanina my brother, do you not know that this nation has been given reign by a decree from Heaven? The proof is that Rome has destroyed God’s Temple, and burned His Sanctuary, and killed His pious ones, and destroyed His best ones, and it still exists. Evidently, all of this is by Divine decree. And yet I heard about you that you sit and engage in Torah study, and convene assemblies in public, and have a Torah scroll placed in your lap, thereby demonstrating complete disregard for the decrees issued by the Romans.Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: Heaven will have mercy and protect me. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: I am saying reasonable matters to you, and you say to me: Heaven will have mercy? I wonder if the Romans will not burn both you and your Torah scroll by fire. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: My teacher, what will become of me? Am I destined for life in the World-to-Come?,Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: Did any special incident occur to you which might serve as an indication? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: I confused my own coins that I needed for the festivities of Purim with coins of charity, and I distributed them all to the poor at my own expense. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: If that is so, may my portion be of your portion, and may my lot be of your lot.,The Sages said: Not even a few days passed before Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma died of his illness, and all of the Roman notables went to bury him, and they eulogized him with a great eulogy. And upon their return, they found Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon, who was sitting and engaging in Torah study and convening assemblies in public, with a Torah scroll placed in his lap.,They brought him to be sentenced, and wrapped him in the Torah scroll, and encircled him with bundles of branches, and they set fire to it. And they brought tufts of wool and soaked them in water, and placed them on his heart, so that his soul should not leave his body quickly, but he would die slowly and painfully. His daughter said to him: Father, must I see you like this? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to her: If I alone were being burned, it would be difficult for me, but now that I am burning along with a Torah scroll, He who will seek retribution for the insult accorded to the Torah scroll will also seek retribution for the insult accorded to me.,His students said to him: Our teacher, what do you see? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to them: I see the parchment burning, but its letters are flying to the heavens. They said to him: You too should open your mouth and the fire will enter you, and you will die quickly. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to them: It is preferable that He who gave me my soul should take it away, and one should not harm oneself to speed his death.The executioner kaltzatoniri said to him: My teacher, if I increase the flame and take off the tufts of wool from your heart, so that you will die sooner and suffer less, will you bring me to the life of the World-to-Come? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to the executioner: Yes. The executioner said: Take an oath for me, that what you say is true. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon took the oath for him, and the executioner immediately increased the flame and took off the tufts of wool from his heart, causing his soul to leave his body quickly. The executioner too leaped and fell into the fire and died.A Divine Voice emerged and said: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon and the executioner are destined for the life of the World-to-Come. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wept and said: There is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come in one moment, such as the executioner, and there is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come only after many years of toil, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon.§ The Gemara relates: Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir, was a daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon. She said to Rabbi Meir: It is a disrespectful matter for me that my sister is sitting in a brothel; you must do something to save her. Rabbi Meir took a vessel tarkeva full of dinars and went. He said to himself: If no transgression was committed with her, a miracle will be performed for her; if she committed a transgression, no miracle will be performed for her.,Rabbi Meir went and dressed as a Roman knight, and said to her: Accede to my wishes, i.e. engage in intercourse with me. She said to him: I am menstruating dashtana and cannot. He said to her: I will wait. She said to him: There are many women in the brothel, and there are many women here who are more beautiful than I. He said to himself: I can conclude from her responses that she did not commit a transgression, as she presumably said this to all who come.,Rabbi Meir went over to her guard, and said to him: Give her to me. The guard said to him: I fear that if I do so, I will be punished by the government. Rabbi Meir said to him: Take this vessel full of dinars; give half to the government as a bribe, and half will be for you. The guard said to him: But when the money is finished, what shall I do? Rabbi Meir said to him: Say: God of Meir answer me! And you will be saved. The guard said to him: 27b The Gemara explains the rationale for this leniency: The gentile thinks to himself that the Jew is asking him for his opinion, and just as he is asking him, he will also ask other people. And the gentile further reasons that if the Jew understands that the gentile provided him with bad advice, that man, i.e. the gentile, will bring harm to himself by damaging his own reputation. It is therefore assumed that the gentile will provide good advice in order to avoid sullying his reputation.§ The Gemara analyzes a situation in which one may receive medical attention from gentiles. Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥa says, and some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: If there is uncertainty as to whether a patient will live through his ailment or die from it, the patient may not be treated by gentile doctors, due to the concern that a gentile doctor may kill him. But if it is certain that he will die from his affliction if he does not receive medical attention, the patient is treated by them, as it is possible that a gentile physician will save him.The Gemara challenges: Even if it is certain that the patient will die if he is not treated, nevertheless, there is value in temporal life, i.e. it is preferable for the Jew to live as long as his ailment permits rather than risking a premature death at the hands of a gentile physician. The Gemara explains: We are not concerned with the value of temporal life when there is a possibility of permanent recovery, and therefore it is preferable to receive medical attention from a gentile despite the risk involved.The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we are not concerned with the value of temporal life? As it is written with regard to the discussion held by four lepers left outside a besieged city: “If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit still here, we also die. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (IIKings 7:4). The starving lepers decided to risk premature death rather than waiting to die of starvation. The Gemara asks rhetorically: But isn’t there temporal life to be lost, in which case it would be preferable for the lepers to remain in their current location? Rather, is it not apparent that we are not concerned with the value of temporal life?,The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A person may not engage in dealings with heretics, and one may not be treated by them even in a case where it is clear that without medical attention one will experience only temporal life.,The baraita relates an incident illustrating this point. There was an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, in which a snake bit him. And following the attack, Ya’akov of the village of Sekhanya, who was a heretic, a disciple of Jesus the Nazarene, came to treat him, but Rabbi Yishmael did not let him do so. And ben Dama said to him: Rabbi Yishmael, my brother, let him treat me, and I will be healed by him. And I will cite a verse from the Torah to prove that accepting medical treatment from a heretic is permitted in this situation. But ben Dama did not manage to complete the statement before his soul departed from his body and he died.,Rabbi Yishmael recited with regard to him: Fortunate are you, ben Dama, as your body is pure and your soul departed in purity, and you did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: “And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him” (Ecclesiastes 10:8), i.e. one is punished for ignoring an ordice of the Sages. This incident indicates that it is not permitted for one to accept medical treatment from a heretic even if it is clear that without it he will live only a short while.The Gemara explains: Heresy is different, as it is enticing. In other words, it is prohibited to accept medical treatment from a heretic, as one might come to be drawn after his heresy. By contrast, receiving medical attention from a gentile is permitted if it is certain that one will die if he is not treated.The Master said above: You did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: “And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.” The Gemara asks: But ben Dama was also bitten by a snake, even before this declaration of Rabbi Yishmael, so how can he be considered fortunate? The Gemara explains: The snake mentioned in the curse of the Sages is different, as it has no remedy whatsoever. Although ben Dama was bitten by a snake, he could have been healed.The Gemara asks: And what would ben Dama have said? What verse did he intend to cite as proof that it was permitted for him to be healed by a heretic? The verse: “You shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordices, which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). This teaches that one should live by God’s mitzvot, and not that he should die by them. This verse serves as a source for the halakha that one may violate a prohibition in order to save a life.And why does Rabbi Yishmael disagree with ben Dama? He maintains that this matter applies only in private, but in public one may not transgress a prohibition even to save a life. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael would say: From where is it derived that if oppressors say to a person: Worship an idol and you will not be killed, that one should worship the idol and not be killed? The verse states: “He shall live by them,” and not that he should die by them. One might have thought that this applies even in public. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32).§ The Gemara examines various circumstances in which one is permitted to receive treatment from a gentile. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: With regard to any injury for which Shabbat is desecrated, one may not be treated by gentiles. And there are those who say that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: With regard to any, 31b from the following baraita: With regard to one who sends a barrel of wine in the hands of a Samaritan, or a barrel of fish brine or a barrel of fish stew in the hands of a gentile, if he recognizes his seal and his manner of closing the barrel, it is permitted; if he does not recognize them, it is prohibited. Apparently, a sealed barrel is permitted only when it is recognizable.Rabbi Zeira said that this is not difficult. Here, the first baraita is referring to barrels located in a city; there, the second baraita is referring to barrels that the Samaritan carries on the road. Sealed barrels are permitted in a city because the Samaritan is careful to ensure that gentiles do not touch them in front of anyone, so that he does not forfeit the business of Jews. While traveling he is not concerned, as he assumes that no one will discover that the gentile came into contact with the wine.Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this: Didn’t these barrels located in the city come by the road as well? Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: We learned the baraita that permits sealed barrels only in reference to those that are located between the winepresses. Since everyone is found there, the Samaritan is apprehensive, as he says to himself: Now, if someone sees me allowing a gentile to handle the wine they will cause me to lose my profit, as Jews will not purchase it.It was stated: For what reason did the Sages prohibit the beer of gentiles? Rami bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is due to the concern that Jews will befriend gentiles while drinking with them, which might lead to marriage with gentiles. Rav Naḥman said: It is due to the concern of exposure.,The Gemara asks: With regard to what form of exposure is there a concern? If we say that the concern is with regard to exposure of the vat, we too expose the vat, and there is no reason to prohibit gentiles’ beer more than that of Jews. And if you say: Rather, the concern is for exposure of the barrel, we also expose barrels. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to prohibit the beer in a place where the water used to brew it is allowed to settle.,The Gemara asks: If that is so, aged beer should be permitted, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A substance that might contain exposed water but has aged is permitted, since the poison does not allow it to age, as it goes bad before it grows old. Similarly, if it soured it is permitted, because the poison impairs the taste but does not allow it to sour. Why, then, is all beer prohibited? The Gemara answers: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree with regard to aged beer due to the concern with regard to new beer.§ The Gemara cites the opinions of various Sages with regard to beer. Rav Pappa had them bring out the beer belonging to gentiles from the store to the entrance of the store, and he would drink it outside the store. Rav Aḥai had them bring the beer to his house, and he would drink it there. And both of them drank the beer away from the presence of gentiles due to concern about marriage with gentiles. The Gemara notes that Rav Aḥai established an extreme preventive measure for himself beyond what is required by halakha.The Gemara relates that Rav Shmuel bar Bisna happened to come to Marguan, and they brought him wine but he did not drink it. Next they brought him beer but he did not drink it. The Gemara asks: Granted, he did not drink the wine due to the trace shimtza of libations, but due to what reason did he refrain from drinking beer? It was due to concern for the trace of a trace, i.e. he did not drink beer due to concern about drinking wine.Rav says: This Aramean beer is permitted, but my son Ḥiyya does not drink from it. The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at this matter, Rav’s statement is difficult: If the beer is permitted, then it is permitted to everyone, and there is no reason for his son to refrain from drinking it. And if it is prohibited, it is prohibited to everyone, and why would Rav say it is permitted?The Gemara explains: Rather, Rav holds that the prohibition is due to exposure, but the bitterness of the hops in the beer goes and impairs the snake’s venom, so that it is safe for an average person to drink. But a person of weak constitution is weakened further by the impaired venom, and Rav was saying: In the case of my son Ḥiyya, since he is weak, he does not drink from it.,Shmuel says: All creeping animals possess venom; that of a snake kills, whereas the venom of other creeping animals does not kill. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of a lion! Come and I will say to you a superior matter that your father, Rav, said. This is what your father said: These Arameans are swollen zukanei because they drink exposed liquids, but they did not die from doing so since they eat repugt creatures and creeping animals, which heat their bodies and thereby render them less susceptible to the venom.Rav Yosef says:, 35a One can learn by inference from here that with regard to animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, their excrement, which is the content of their stomach, is permitted. Although deriving benefit from both a burnt-offering and an unslaughtered animal carcass is prohibited, the excrement of each is permitted. Similarly, although deriving benefit from an ox that is to be stoned is prohibited, its excrement is permitted.And from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael: Cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it with the stomach contents of calves used for idol worship, and that Rabbi Yishmael responded to him: If that is so, why didn’t the Sages prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese, one may learn by inference that with regard to animals of idol worship, their excrement is prohibited. Since the cheese formed with the stomach contents of an animal of idol worship is prohibited, it is evident that the excrement formed in the stomach of such an animal is also prohibited.The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael’s final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: But let him respond to Rabbi Yishmael’s query by explaining that the Sages did not prohibit deriving benefit from cheese curdled in the stomach contents of an animal used for idolatry because there is no substantive prohibited entity in such cheese.The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn’t the halakha with regard to fish stew, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, an application of this rationale, as they did not prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew prepared by a gentile? What is the reason for this leniency? Is it not because there is no substantive prohibited entity in it? Although fish stew may contain the wine of a gentile, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited because the wine is not discernible. Why didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity?The Gemara rejects this possibility: The Sages say in response that here, with regard to cheese, since the rennet curdles it, it is considered like an item that contains a substantive prohibited entity. Although the prohibited rennet is not discernible in the cheese, it is nevertheless considered a substantive prohibited entity because it is essential to the formation of the cheese.§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua diverted Rabbi Yishmael’s attention to another matter, and began discussing the verse: “For your love is better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the verse: “For your love dodekha is better than wine”? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the statements of Your beloved ones dodekha, i.e. the Sages, are more pleasant to me than the wine of the written Torah itself.The Gemara asks: What is different about this verse that led Rabbi Yehoshua to ask Rabbi Yishmael a question specifically with regard to it? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, and some say Rabbi Shimon bar Ami said: He chose that verse because he sought to tell him a message that can be derived from the beginning of the verse: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” (Song of Songs 1:2). In essence, Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yishmael, my brother, press your lips one to the other, and do not be so hasty to retort, i.e. do not persist in your questioning.The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua instructed Rabbi Yishmael not to question him further? Ulla says, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Abba says: The ordice prohibiting the cheese of gentiles was a new decree, and therefore one does not scrutinize its origins. The Gemara asks: What was, in fact, the reason for the Sages’ decree prohibiting the cheese of gentiles? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It was due to the concern for puncturing, i.e. the concern that a snake might have deposited its venom in the cheese, as gentiles are not assumed to be careful about this.The Gemara comments: But if so, let Rabbi Yehoshua simply say to Rabbi Yishmael: It is prohibited due to the concern for puncturing. Why did he choose to avoid answering? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua reasoned in accordance with a statement of Ulla, as Ulla said: When the Sages decreed a decree in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not reveal the reason behind it until twelve months of the year had passed, lest there be a person who does not agree with it and will come to treat it with contempt.,Rabbi Yirmeya would ridicule megaddef Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s explanation that the prohibition was due to the concern for puncturing: If that is so, dry cheese should be permitted, and likewise aged cheese should be permitted, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to exposure, a dry substance is permitted even if it was originally in the form of an uncovered liquid, because a snake’s venom does not let it dry, i.e. congeal. And an aged liquid is permitted, as a snake’s venom does not let it age, as it causes it to spoil instead.The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The cheese is prohibited because it is not possible for it to have been made without containing particles of non-kosher milk. And Shmuel says: The cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with the skin of the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass.,The Gemara comments: Shmuel’s statement indicates that only the skin of the animal’s stomach is prohibited, whereas the contents of the stomach, i.e. the rennet itself, is permitted. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥullin 116a): With regard to the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile and the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, each of these is prohibited.,And we discussed it and asked: Why does the mishna mention both an animal slaughtered by a gentile and an unslaughtered animal carcass? Is that to say that an animal slaughtered by a gentile is not classified as an animal carcass? By mentioning each of these separately, the mishna indicates that generally they are subject to different halakhot. This is difficult, as an animal slaughtered by a gentile has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered animal carcass.And in answer to this difficulty, Shmuel says: The mishna is in fact teaching a single halakha, which is that the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile are considered to be like the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass and are therefore prohibited. Earlier, Shmuel asserted that only the physical skin of an animal’s stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in Ḥullin, Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited.The Gemara explains that this is not difficult:, 36b It is the verse: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9). This teaches that if there is the acceptance of the whole nation, yes, an ordice may be instituted, but if not, no, the ordice may not be instituted.§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara asks: With regard to their daughters, what is the decree? Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon their daughters that they should be classified as menstruating women from the time they are in their cradle, i.e. they decreed that from when they are young, gentile women are always considered to be menstruating.The Gemara presents another opinion. And Geneiva says in the name of Rav: Gentiles’ bread, oil, wine, and daughters were all decreed upon due to the concern that Jews might participate in idol worship with gentiles as a result of intermingling with them. As, when Rav Aḥa bar Adda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They decreed a prohibition upon their bread due to their oil. The Gemara asks: In what way is the prohibition with regard to oil stronger than the prohibition with regard to bread? That is, why does the primary concern relate to the oil of gentiles rather than their bread?The Gemara offers a different interpretation: Rather, they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued the decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that this leads to familiarity, and Jews will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else, which will be explained by the Gemara.It was stated that the prohibition against marrying the daughters of gentiles was decreed on account of idolatry. The Gemara raises an objection: But the prohibition against marrying their daughters is prescribed by Torah law, as it is written: “Neither shall you make marriages with them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). The Gemara explains: By Torah law intermarriage is prohibited only with the seven Canaanite nations, but intermarriage with the other nations of the world is not prohibited, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that intermarriage is prohibited even with the other nations.,The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that the subsequent verse: “For he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:4) serves to include all who turn away one’s son from God, i.e. all gentiles, what is there to say? Rather, by Torah law only sexual relations by way of marriage are prohibited, and they came and decreed that sexual relations are prohibited even by way of licentiousness.,The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: “It was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.The Gemara explains: Rather, the prohibition prescribed by Torah law applies to the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, as she is drawn after him toward idolatry, but the case of a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is not included in the prohibition by Torah law. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even to a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman.,The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordice. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Pinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Numbers 25:6–8).He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited.As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman nidda, maidservant shifḥa, gentile goya, and married woman eshet ish. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women.And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He bears liability for four prohibitions represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin, which stands for: Menstruating woman nidda, maidservant shifḥa, gentile goya, and prostitute zona. In any case, it is apparent that this decree was in force before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.The Gemara answers: When the court of the Hasmoneans decreed, they prohibited only sexual intercourse, but with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman, no, they did not prohibit that. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that even seclusion with a gentile woman is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection: Seclusion was also prohibited earlier, as the court of King David decreed that with regard to this matter.As Rav Yehuda says: At that time, after the incident involving Amnon and Tamar (see IISamuel 13:1–19), they decreed with regard to seclusion. The Sages said in response to the objection: There, in David’s court, seclusion with a Jewish woman was prohibited, but seclusion with a gentile woman was not prohibited. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.,The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: Seclusion with a Jewish woman is prohibited by Torah law, as Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). And does only a half brother who is the son of a mother entice one to sin, whereas the son of a father does not entice?,Rather, there is a greater concern that a maternal half brother might entice one to sin, as a son secludes himself with his mother, and no other may seclude himself with any of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah. Since an individual and his maternal half brother both seclude themselves with their shared mother, they are frequently together in private, and this facilitates enticement. In any case, it is clear that the prohibition against seclusion with a Jewish woman preceded King David.The Gemara explains: The prohibition against seclusion prescribed by Torah law applies specifically to a married woman, and David came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with an unmarried woman. And later the students of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel came and decreed even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.,§ It was stated above that they issued a decree prohibiting the daughters of gentiles due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon a male gentile child that he imparts ritual impurity as though he were a Jew who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge ziva, so that a Jewish child will not become familiar with him, leading to homosexual intercourse. The Sages employed a euphemism when referring to this decree.As Rabbi Zeira says: I had great trouble with Rabbi Asi when I asked him the following question, and likewise Rabbi Asi experienced trouble with Rabbi Yoḥa when he posed it to him. And Rabbi Yoḥa had trouble with Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Yannai had trouble with Rabbi Natan ben Amram, and Rabbi Natan ben Amram had trouble with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The inquiry was as follows: With regard to a male gentile child, from when, i.e. from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old. And when I came to Rabbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: From when he is nine years and one day old.,And when I came back and relayed Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said to me: Discard my statement, and grasp the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who says: From when does a gentile child impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? From when he is nine years and one day old., |
101. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 59a, 59b, 84a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah, of the Messianic era • Halakhah/Halakhot • halakhah, gender in • halakhah, totalizing tendency of • law, Jewish (halakhah), authority and • women, in halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 430, 446; Kosman, Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism (2012) 141; Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 167, 168, 169; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 198, 199 59a נוח לו לאדם שיבא על ספק אשת איש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנ"ל מדדרש רבא דדרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים לה, טו) ובצלעי שמחו ונאספו קרעו ולא דמו אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע גלוי וידוע לפניך שאם היו מקרעים בשרי לא היה דמי שותת לארץ,ולא עוד אלא אפילו בשעה שעוסקין בנגעים ואהלות אומרים לי דוד הבא על אשת איש מיתתו במה ואני אומר להם מיתתו בחנק ויש לו חלק לעוה"ב אבל המלבין את פני חבירו ברבים אין לו חלק לעוה"ב,(ואמר) מר זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא ואמרי לה א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לכבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנ"ל מתמר דכתיב (בראשית לח, כה) היא מוצאת והיא שלחה אל חמיה,אמר רב חננא בריה דרב אידי מאי דכתיב (ויקרא כה, יז) ולא תונו איש את עמיתו עם שאתך בתורה ובמצות אל תונהו אמר רב לעולם יהא אדם זהיר באונאת אשתו שמתוך שדמעתה מצויה אונאתה קרובה,א"ר אלעזר מיום שנחרב בית המקדש ננעלו שערי תפלה שנאמר (איכה ג, ח) גם כי אזעק ואשוע שתם תפלתי ואע"פ ששערי תפלה ננעלו שערי דמעות לא ננעלו שנאמר (תהלים לט, יג) שמעה תפלתי ה\ ושועתי האזינה אל דמעתי אל תחרש,ואמר רב כל ההולך בעצת אשתו נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (מלכים א כא, כה) רק לא היה כאחאב וגו\ א"ל רב פפא לאביי והא אמרי אינשי איתתך גוצא גחין ותלחוש לה לא קשיא הא במילי דעלמא והא במילי דביתא לישנא אחרינא הא במילי דשמיא והא במילי דעלמא,אמר רב חסדא כל השערים ננעלים חוץ משערי אונאה שנאמר (עמוס ז, ז) הנה ה\ נצב על חומת אנך ובידו אנך א"ר אלעזר הכל נפרע בידי שליח חוץ מאונאה שנאמר ובידו אנך,א"ר אבהו ג\ אין הפרגוד ננעל בפניהם אונאה וגזל וע"ז אונאה דכתיב ובידו אנך גזל דכתיב (ירמיהו ו, ז) חמס ושוד ישמע בה על פני תמיד ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו סה, ג) העם המכעיסים אותי על פני תמיד וגו\,אמר רב יהודה לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בתבואה בתוך ביתו שאין מריבה מצויה בתוך ביתו של אדם אלא על עסקי תבואה שנאמר (תהלים קמז, יד) השם גבולך שלום חלב חטים ישביעך אמר רב פפא היינו דאמרי אינשי כמשלם שערי מכדא נקיש ואתי תיגרא בביתא,ואמר רב חיננא בר פפא לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בתבואה בתוך ביתו שלא נקראו ישראל דלים אלא על עסקי תבואה שנאמר (שופטים ו, ג) והיה אם זרע ישראל וגו\ וכתיב (שופטים ו, ד) ויחנו עליהם וגו\ וכתיב (שופטים ו, ו) וידל ישראל מאד מפני מדין,(וא"ר) חלבו לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בכבוד אשתו שאין ברכה מצויה בתוך ביתו של אדם אלא בשביל אשתו שנאמר (בראשית יב, טז) ולאברם הטיב בעבורה והיינו דאמר להו רבא לבני מחוזא אוקירו לנשייכו כי היכי דתתעתרו,תנן התם חתכו חוליות ונתן חול בין חוליא לחוליא ר"א מטהר וחכמים מטמאין 59b וזה הוא תנור של עכנאי מאי עכנאי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שהקיפו דברים כעכנא זו וטמאוהו תנא באותו היום השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו,אמר להם אם הלכה כמותי חרוב זה יוכיח נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה ואמרי לה ארבע מאות אמה אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי אמת המים יוכיחו חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים,חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול גער בהם רבי יהושע אמר להם אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה אתם מה טיבכם לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של ר"א ועדיין מטין ועומדין,חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי מן השמים יוכיחו יצאתה בת קול ואמרה מה לכם אצל ר"א שהלכה כמותו בכ"מ,עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר (דברים ל, יב) לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות אשכחיה רבי נתן לאליהו א"ל מאי עביד קוב"ה בההיא שעתא א"ל קא חייך ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני,אמרו אותו היום הביאו כל טהרות שטיהר ר"א ושרפום באש ונמנו עליו וברכוהו ואמרו מי ילך ויודיעו אמר להם ר"ע אני אלך שמא ילך אדם שאינו הגון ויודיעו ונמצא מחריב את כל העולם כולו,מה עשה ר"ע לבש שחורים ונתעטף שחורים וישב לפניו ברחוק ארבע אמות אמר לו ר"א עקיבא מה יום מיומים אמר לו רבי כמדומה לי שחבירים בדילים ממך אף הוא קרע בגדיו וחלץ מנעליו ונשמט וישב על גבי קרקע,זלגו עיניו דמעות לקה העולם שליש בזיתים ושליש בחטים ושליש בשעורים ויש אומרים אף בצק שבידי אשה טפח תנא אך גדול היה באותו היום שבכל מקום שנתן בו עיניו ר"א נשרף,ואף ר"ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו אמר כמדומה לי שאין זה אלא בשביל ר"א בן הורקנוס עמד על רגליו ואמר רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא עשיתי אלא לכבודך שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל נח הים מזעפו,אימא שלום דביתהו דר"א אחתיה דר"ג הואי מההוא מעשה ואילך לא הוה שבקה ליה לר"א למיפל על אפיה ההוא יומא ריש ירחא הוה ואיחלף לה בין מלא לחסר איכא דאמרי אתא עניא וקאי אבבא אפיקא ליה ריפתא,אשכחתיה דנפל על אנפיה אמרה ליה קום קטלית לאחי אדהכי נפק שיפורא מבית רבן גמליאל דשכיב אמר לה מנא ידעת אמרה ליה כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא כל השערים ננעלים חוץ משערי אונאה,תנו רבנן המאנה את הגר עובר בשלשה לאוין והלוחצו עובר בשנים,מאי שנא מאנה דכתיבי שלשה לאוין (שמות כב, כ) וגר לא תונה (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם לא תונו אותו (ויקרא כה, יז) ולא תונו איש את עמיתו וגר בכלל עמיתו הוא לוחצו נמי שלשה כתיבי (שמות כב, כ) ולא תלחצנו (שמות כג, ט) וגר לא תלחץ (שמות כב, כד) ולא תהיה לו כנושה וגר בכלל הוא אלא אחד זה ואחד זה בשלשה,תניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר מפני מה הזהירה תורה בל"ו מקומות ואמרי לה במ"ו מקומות בגר מפני שסורו רע,מאי דכתיב וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים (תנינא) רבי נתן אומר מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך והיינו דאמרי אינשי דזקיף ליה זקיפא בדיותקיה לא נימא ליה לחבריה זקיף ביניתא:מתני׳ אין מערבין פירות בפירות אפי\ חדשים בחדשים, 84a כי האי מעשה לידיה פגע ביה אליהו,אמר ליה עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלהינו להריגה אמר ליה מאי אעביד הרמנא דמלכא הוא אמר ליה אבוך ערק לאסיא את ערוק ללודקיא,כי הוו מקלעי ר\ ישמעאל ברבי יוסי ור\ אלעזר בר\ שמעון בהדי הדדי הוה עייל בקרא דתורי בינייהו ולא הוה נגעה בהו,אמרה להו ההיא מטרוניתא בניכם אינם שלכם אמרו לה שלהן גדול משלנו כל שכן איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה (שופטים ח, כא) כי כאיש גבורתו איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה אהבה דוחקת את הבשר,ולמה להו לאהדורי לה והא כתיב (משלי כו, ד) אל תען כסיל כאולתו שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם,א"ר יוחנן איבריה דר\ ישמעאל בר\ יוסי כחמת בת תשע קבין אמר רב פפא איבריה דרבי יוחנן כחמת בת חמשת קבין ואמרי לה בת שלשת קבין דרב פפא גופיה כי דקורי דהרפנאי,אמר רבי יוחנן אנא אישתיירי משפירי ירושלים האי מאן דבעי מחזי שופריה דרבי יוחנן נייתי כסא דכספא מבי סלקי ונמלייה פרצידיא דרומנא סומקא ונהדר ליה כלילא דוורדא סומקא לפומיה ונותביה בין שמשא לטולא ההוא זהרורי מעין שופריה דר\ יוחנן,איני והאמר מר שופריה דרב כהנא מעין שופריה דרבי אבהו שופריה דר\ אבהו מעין שופריה דיעקב אבינו שופריה דיעקב אבינו מעין שופריה דאדם הראשון ואילו ר\ יוחנן לא קא חשיב ליה שאני ר\ יוחנן דהדרת פנים לא הויא ליה,ר\ יוחנן הוה אזיל ויתיב אשערי טבילה אמר כי סלקן בנות ישראל מטבילת מצוה לפגעו בי כי היכי דלהוו להו בני שפירי כוותי גמירי אורייתא כוותי,אמרו ליה רבנן לא מסתפי מר מעינא בישא אמר להו אנא מזרעא דיוסף קאתינא דלא שלטא ביה עינא בישא דכתיב (בראשית מט, כב) בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין ואמר ר\ אבהו אל תקרי עלי עין אלא עולי עין,ר\ יוסי בר חנינא אמר מהכא (בראשית מח, טז) וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ מה דגים שבים מים מכסים אותם ואין העין שולטת בהן אף זרעו של יוסף אין העין שולטת בהן,יומא חד הוה קא סחי ר\ יוחנן בירדנא חזייה ריש לקיש ושוור לירדנא אבתריה אמר ליה חילך לאורייתא אמר ליה שופרך לנשי א"ל אי הדרת בך יהיבנא לך אחותי דשפירא מינאי קביל עליה בעי למיהדר לאתויי מאניה ולא מצי הדר,אקרייה ואתנייה ושוייה גברא רבא יומא חד הוו מפלגי בי מדרשא הסייף והסכין והפגיון והרומח ומגל יד ומגל קציר מאימתי מקבלין טומאה משעת גמר מלאכתן,ומאימתי גמר מלאכתן רבי יוחנן אמר משיצרפם בכבשן ריש לקיש אמר משיצחצחן במים א"ל לסטאה בלסטיותיה ידע אמר ליה ומאי אהנת לי התם רבי קרו לי הכא רבי קרו לי אמר ליה אהנאי לך דאקרבינך תחת כנפי השכינה,חלש דעתיה דרבי יוחנן חלש ריש לקיש אתאי אחתיה קא בכיא אמרה ליה עשה בשביל בני אמר לה (ירמיהו מט, יא) עזבה יתומיך אני אחיה עשה בשביל אלמנותי אמר לה (ירמיהו מט, יא) ואלמנותיך עלי תבטחו,נח נפשיה דר\ שמעון בן לקיש והוה קא מצטער ר\ יוחנן בתריה טובא אמרו רבנן מאן ליזיל ליתביה לדעתיה ניזיל רבי אלעזר בן פדת דמחדדין שמעתתיה,אזל יתיב קמיה כל מילתא דהוה אמר רבי יוחנן אמר ליה תניא דמסייעא לך אמר את כבר לקישא בר לקישא כי הוה אמינא מילתא הוה מקשי לי עשרין וארבע קושייתא ומפריקנא ליה עשרין וארבעה פרוקי וממילא רווחא שמעתא ואת אמרת תניא דמסייע לך אטו לא ידענא דשפיר קאמינא,הוה קא אזיל וקרע מאניה וקא בכי ואמר היכא את בר לקישא היכא את בר לקישא והוה קא צוח עד דשף דעתיה מיניה בעו רבנן רחמי עליה ונח נפשיה, 59a It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is from that which Rava interpreted, as Rava interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when I limped they rejoiced and gathered…they tore and did not cease damu” (Psalms 35:15)? The term “damu” can also be understood as a reference to blood. Concerning the fasting he undertook to atone for his sin with Bathsheba (see IISamuel, chapters 11–12), David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that if my tormenters were to tear my flesh, my blood dami would not flow to the ground, due to excessive fasting.And moreover, they torment me to the extent that even at the time when they are engaged in the public study of the halakhot of leprous sores and tents in which there is a corpse, i.e. halakhic matters that have no connection to my sin, they say to me: David, one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, his death is effected with what form of execution? And I say to them: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman before witnesses and with forewarning, his death is by strangulation, but he still has a share in the World-to-Come. But one who humiliates another in public has no share in the World-to-Come. The transgression of you, who humiliate me, is more severe than my transgression.And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregt with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregt by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25).§ Rav Ḥina, son of Rav Idi, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague amito” (Leviticus 25:17)? The word amito is interpreted as a contraction of im ito, meaning: One who is with him. With one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvot, you shall not mistreat him. Rav says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since her tear is easily elicited, punishment for her mistreatment is immediate.,Rabbi Elazar says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed the gates of prayer were locked, and prayer is not accepted as it once was, as it is stated in lament of the Temple’s destruction: “Though I plead and call out, He shuts out my prayer” (Lamentations 3:8). Yet, despite the fact that the gates of prayer were locked with the destruction of the Temple, the gates of tears were not locked, and one who cries before God may rest assured that his prayers will be answered, as it is stated: “Hear my prayer, Lord, and give ear to my pleading, keep not silence at my tears” (Psalms 39:13).And Rav says: Nevertheless, anyone who follows the counsel of his wife descends into Gehenna, as it is stated: “But there was none like Ahab, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife incited” (IKings 21:25). Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But don’t people say a popular proverb: If your wife is short, stoop and whisper to her and consult with her? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rav instructs that one not follow her counsel in general matters; and that proverb instructs that one follow her counsel in household matters. The Gemara presents another version of this distinction: This statement of Rav maintains that one should not follow her counsel in divine matters; and that proverb maintains that one should follow her counsel in general matters.,Rav Ḥisda says: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment, as it is stated: “And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall built with a plumb line, and a plumb line in His hand” (Amos 7:7). God stands with the scales of justice in His hand to determine if one has been subjected to injustice. Rabbi Elazar says: In response to all transgressions, God punishes the perpetrator by means of an agent, except for mistreatment ona’a, as it is stated: “And a plumb line anakh in His hand.” The term for mistreatment and the term for plumb line are spelled in a similar manner, indicating that God Himself inflicts retribution.Rabbi Abbahu says: There are three sins before whose transgressors the curtain hapargod between the world and the Divine Presence is not locked; their sins reach the Divine Presence. They are: Verbal mistreatment, robbery, and idol worship. Mistreatment, as it is stated: “And a plumb line in His hand”; robbery, as it is stated: “Violence and robbery are heard in her, they are before Me continually” (Jeremiah 6:7); idol worship, as it is stated: “A people that angers Me before Me continually; that sacrifice in gardens, and burn incense upon bricks” (Isaiah 65:3).Apropos the topic of how man should approach his household, Rav Yehuda says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as discord is found in a person’s house only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “He makes your borders peace; He gives you plenty with the finest wheat” (Psalms 147:14). If there is the finest wheat in your house, there will be peace there. Rav Pappa said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: When the barley is emptied from the jug, quarrel knocks and enters the house.,And Rav Ḥina bar Pappa says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as the Jewish people were characterized as poor only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “And it was, if Israel sowed, and Midian and the children of the east ascended” (Judges 6:3); and it is written: “And they encamped against them and they destroyed the crops of the land” (Judges 6:4); and it is further written: “And Israel was greatly impoverished due to Midian” (Judges 6:6).And Rabbi Ḥelbo says: A person must always be careful about sustaining the honor of his wife, as blessing is found in a person’s house only because of his wife, as it is stated in allusion to this: “And he dealt well with Abram for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen” (Genesis 12:16). And that is what Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza, where he lived: Honor your wives, so that you will become rich.,§ Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 5:10): If one cut an earthenware oven widthwise into segments, and placed sand between each and every segment, Rabbi Eliezer deems it ritually pure. Because of the sand, its legal status is not that of a complete vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure, as it is functionally a complete oven. 59b And this is known as the oven of akhnai. The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of akhnai, a snake, in this context? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is characterized in that manner due to the fact that the Rabbis surrounded it with their statements like this snake, which often forms a coil when at rest, and deemed it impure. The Sages taught: On that day, when they discussed this matter, Rabbi Eliezer answered all possible answers in the world to support his opinion, but the Rabbis did not accept his explanations from him.,After failing to convince the Rabbis logically, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, this carob tree will prove it. The carob tree was uprooted from its place one hundred cubits, and some say four hundred cubits. The Rabbis said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from the carob tree. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the stream will prove it. The water in the stream turned backward and began flowing in the opposite direction. They said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from a stream.,Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the walls of the study hall will prove it. The walls of the study hall leaned inward and began to fall. Rabbi Yehoshua scolded the walls and said to them: If Torah scholars are contending with each other in matters of halakha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute? The Gemara relates: The walls did not fall because of the deference due Rabbi Yehoshua, but they did not straighten because of the deference due Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning.,Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.,The Sages said: On that day, the Sages brought all the ritually pure items deemed pure by the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the oven and burned them in fire, and the Sages reached a consensus in his regard and ostracized him. And the Sages said: Who will go and inform him of his ostracism? Rabbi Akiva, his beloved disciple, said to them: I will go, lest an unseemly person go and inform him in a callous and offensive manner, and he would thereby destroy the entire world.,What did Rabbi Akiva do? He wore black and wrapped himself in black, as an expression of mourning and pain, and sat before Rabbi Eliezer at a distance of four cubits, which is the distance that one must maintain from an ostracized individual. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, what is different about today from other days, that you comport yourself in this manner? Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, it appears to me that your colleagues are distancing themselves from you. He employed euphemism, as actually they distanced Rabbi Eliezer from them. Rabbi Eliezer too, rent his garments and removed his shoes, as is the custom of an ostracized person, and he dropped from his seat and sat upon the ground.,The Gemara relates: His eyes shed tears, and as a result the entire world was afflicted: One-third of its olives were afflicted, and one-third of its wheat, and one-third of its barley. And some say that even dough kneaded in a woman’s hands spoiled. The Sages taught: There was great anger on that day, as any place that Rabbi Eliezer fixed his gaze was burned.,And even Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin at Yavne, the head of the Sages who were responsible for the decision to ostracize Rabbi Eliezer, was coming on a boat at the time, and a large wave swelled over him and threatened to drown him. Rabban Gamliel said: It seems to me that this is only for the sake of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, as God punishes those who mistreat others. Rabban Gamliel stood on his feet and said: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that neither was it for my honor that I acted when ostracizing him, nor was it for the honor of the house of my father that I acted; rather, it was for Your honor, so that disputes will not proliferate in Israel. In response, the sea calmed from its raging.,The Gemara further relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was the sister of Rabban Gamliel. From that incident forward, she would not allow Rabbi Eliezer to lower his head and recite the taḥanun prayer, which includes supplication and entreaties. She feared that were her husband to bemoan his fate and pray at that moment, her brother would be punished. A certain day was around the day of the New Moon, and she inadvertently substituted a full thirty-day month for a deficient twenty-nine-day month, i.e. she thought that it was the New Moon, when one does not lower his head in supplication, but it was not. Some say that a pauper came and stood at the door, and she took bread out to him. The result was that she left her husband momentarily unsupervised.When she returned, she found him and saw that he had lowered his head in prayer. She said to him: Arise, you already killed my brother. Meanwhile, the sound of a shofar emerged from the house of Rabban Gamliel to announce that the Nasi had died. Rabbi Eliezer said to her: From where did you know that your brother would die? She said to him: This is the tradition that I received from the house of the father of my father: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment.,§ The Sages taught: One who verbally mistreats the convert violates three prohibitions, and one who oppresses him in other ways violates two.,The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to verbal mistreatment, that three prohibitions are written concerning it: “And you shall neither mistreat a convert” (Exodus 22:20); “And when a convert lives in your land, you shall not mistreat him” (Leviticus 19:33); “And you shall not mistreat, each man his colleague” (Leviticus 25:17), and a convert is included in the category of colleague? With regard to one who also oppresses a convert as well, three prohibitions are written: “And you shall neither mistreat a convert, nor oppress him” (Exodus 22:20); “And you shall not oppress a convert (Exodus 23:9); “And you shall not be to him like a creditor” (Exodus 22:24). This last prohibition is a general prohibition, in which converts are included. Consequently, it is not correct that one who oppresses a convert violates only two prohibitions. Rather, both this one, who verbally mistreats a convert, and that one, who oppresses him, violate three prohibitions.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: For what reason did the Torah issue warnings in thirty-six places, and some say in forty-six places, with regard to causing any distress to a convert? It is due to the fact that a convert’s inclination is evil, i.e. he is prone to return to his previous way of living.What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat a convert nor oppress him, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:20)? We learned in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: A defect that is in you, do not mention it in another. Since the Jewish people were themselves strangers, they are not in a position to demean a convert because he is a stranger in their midst. And this explains the adage that people say: One who has a person hanged in his family bidyotkei, does not say to another member of his household: Hang a fish for me, as the mention of hanging is demeaning for that family. 84a Elijah the prophet encountered him,and said to him: Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to be sentenced to execution? Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to Elijah: What should I do? It is the king’s edict that I must obey. Elijah said to him: Faced with this choice, your father fled to Asia. You should flee to Laodicea rather than accept this appointment.§ With regard to these Sages, the Gemara adds: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would meet each other, it was possible for a pair of oxen to enter and fit between them, under their bellies, without touching them, due to their excessive obesity.A certain Roman noblewoman matronita once said to them: Your children are not really your own, as due to your obesity it is impossible that you engaged in intercourse with your wives. They said to her: Theirs, i.e. our wives’ bellies, are larger than ours. She said to them: All the more so you could not have had intercourse. There are those who say that this is what they said to her: “For as the man is, so is his strength” (Judges 8:21), i.e. our sexual organs are proportionate to our bellies. There are those who say that this is what they said to her: Love compresses the flesh.,The Gemara asks: And why did they respond to her audacious and foolish question? After all, it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4). The Gemara answers: They answered her in order not to cast aspersions on the lineage of their children.,The Gemara continues discussing the bodies of these Sages: Rabbi Yoḥa said: The organ of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was the size of a jug of nine kav. Rav Pappa said: The organ of Rabbi Yoḥa was the size of a jug of five kav, and some say it was the size of a jug of three kav. Rav Pappa himself had a belly like the baskets dikurei made in Harpanya.,With regard to Rabbi Yoḥa’s physical features, the Gemara adds that Rabbi Yoḥa said: I alone remain of the beautiful people of Jerusalem. The Gemara continues: One who wishes to see something resembling the beauty of Rabbi Yoḥa should bring a new, shiny silver goblet from the smithy and fill it with red pomegranate seeds partzidaya and place a diadem of red roses upon the lip of the goblet, and position it between the sunlight and shade. That luster is a semblance of Rabbi Yoḥa’s beauty.,The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was Rabbi Yoḥa so beautiful? But doesn’t the Master say: The beauty of Rav Kahana is a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu; the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu is a semblance of the beauty of Jacob, our forefather; and the beauty of Jacob, our forefather, is a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first man, who was created in the image of God. And yet Rabbi Yoḥa is not included in this list. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥa is different from these other men, as he did not have a beauty of countece, i.e. he did not have a beard.The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yoḥa’s beauty. Rabbi Yoḥa would go and sit by the entrance to the ritual bath. He said to himself: When Jewish women come up from their immersion for the sake of a mitzva, after their menstruation, they should encounter me first, so that they have beautiful children like me, and sons learned in Torah like me. This is based on the idea that the image upon which a woman meditates during intercourse affects the child she conceives.The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yoḥa: Isn’t the Master worried about being harmed by the evil eye by displaying yourself in this manner? Rabbi Yoḥa said to them: I come from the offspring of Joseph, over whom the evil eye does not have dominion, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain alei ayin” (Genesis 49:22); and Rabbi Abbahu says: Do not read the verse as saying: “By a fountain alei ayin”; rather, read it as: Those who rise above the evil eye olei ayin. Joseph’s descendants are not susceptible to the influence of the evil eye.Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that this idea is derived from here: “And let them grow veyidgu into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). Just as with regard to fish dagim in the sea, the water covers them and the evil eye therefore has no dominion over them, as they are not seen, so too, with regard to the offspring of Joseph, the evil eye has no dominion over them.,The Gemara relates: One day, Rabbi Yoḥa was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study. Reish Lakish said to him: Your beauty is fit for women. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: If you return to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am. Reish Lakish accepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish wanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return, as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself.Rabbi Yoḥa taught Reish Lakish Bible, and taught him Mishna, and turned him into a great man. Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation. One day the Sages of the study hall were engaging in a dispute concerning the following baraita: With regard to the sword, the knife, the dagger vehapigyon, the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The baraita answers: It is from the time of the completion of their manufacture, which is the halakha with regard to metal vessels in general.These Sages inquired: And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥa says: It is from when one fires these items in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: It is from when one scours them in water, after they have been fired in the furnace. Rabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: A bandit knows about his banditry, i.e. you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: What benefit did you provide me by bringing me close to Torah? There, among the bandits, they called me: Leader of the bandits, and here, too, they call me: Leader of the bandits. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close to God, under the wings of the Divine Presence.,As a result of the quarrel, Rabbi Yoḥa was offended, which in turn affected Reish Lakish, who fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥa’s sister, who was Reish Lakish’s wife, came crying to Rabbi Yoḥa, begging that he pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery. She said to him: Do this for the sake of my children, so that they should have a father. Rabbi Yoḥa said to her the verse: “Leave your fatherless children, I will rear them” (Jeremiah 49:11), i.e. I will take care of them. She said to him: Do so for the sake of my widowhood. He said to her the rest of the verse: “And let your widows trust in Me.”,Ultimately, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish, died. Rabbi Yoḥa was sorely pained over losing him. The Rabbis said: Who will go to calm Rabbi Yoḥa’s mind and comfort him over his loss? They said: Let Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat go, as his statements are sharp, i.e. he is clever and will be able to serve as a substitute for Reish Lakish.Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat went and sat before Rabbi Yoḥa. With regard to every matter that Rabbi Yoḥa would say, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would say to him: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Are you comparable to the son of Lakish? In my discussions with the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me in an attempt to disprove my claim, and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the halakha by itself would become broadened and clarified. And yet you say to me: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Do I not know that what I say is good? Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not.Rabbi Yoḥa went around, rending his clothing, weeping and saying: Where are you, son of Lakish? Where are you, son of Lakish? Rabbi Yoḥa screamed until his mind was taken from him, i.e. he went insane. The Rabbis prayed and requested for God to have mercy on him and take his soul, and Rabbi Yoḥa died., |
102. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, 38a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • ethics, in Avot, exceeding formal halakha Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 349, 356; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 589 38a דאם כן נכתוב קרא להאי רעהו גבי מועד:שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור: אמרי ממה נפשך אי רעהו דוקא דכנעני כי נגח דישראל נמי ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני נחייב,א"ר אבהו אמר קרא (חבקוק ג, ו) עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח כיון שלא קיימו עמד והתיר ממונן לישראל,רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא (דברים לג, ב) הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונם לישראל,תניא נמי הכי שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור שור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם שנאמר עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ואומר הופיע מהר פארן,מאי ואומר,וכי תימא האי עמד וימודד ארץ מבעי\ ליה לכדרב מתנה וכדרב יוסף ת"ש הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונן לישראל מאי דרב מתנה דא"ר מתנה עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו\ מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שנצטוו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והגלה אותם מעל אדמתם,ומאי משמע דהאי ויתר לישנא דאגלויי הוא כתיב הכא ויתר גוים וכתיב התם (ויקרא יא, כא) לנתר בהן על הארץ ומתרגם לקפצא בהון על ארעא,מאי דרב יוסף דא"ר יוסף עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו\ מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והתירן להם,איתגורי אתגר א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר אמר מר בריה דרבנא לומר שאפילו מקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהן שכר,ולא והתניא ר"מ אומר מנין שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים ולוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא אדם הא למדת שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול,אמרי אין מקבלים עליהן שכר כמצווה ועושה אלא כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה דא"ר חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה:ת"ר וכבר שלחה מלכות רומי שני סרדיוטות אצל חכמי ישראל למדונו תורתכם קראו ושנו ושלשו בשעת פטירתן אמרו להם דקדקנו בכל תורתכם ואמת הוא חוץ מדבר זה שאתם אומרים שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם,ממ"נ אי רעהו דוקא אפילו דכנעני כי נגח דישראל ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני לחייב ודבר זה אין אנו מודיעים אותו למלכות,רב שמואל בר יהודה שכיבא ליה ברתא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא קום ניזל נינחמיה אמר להו מאי אית לי גבי נחמתא דבבלאי דגידופא הוא דאמרי מאי אפשר למיעבד הא אפשר למיעבד עבדי,אזל הוא לחודאי גביה א"ל (דברים ב, ב) ויאמר ה\ (אל משה) אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה וכי מה עלה על דעתו של משה לעשות מלחמה שלא ברשות אלא נשא משה ק"ו בעצמו אמר ומה מדינים שלא באו אלא לעזור את מואב אמרה תורה (במדבר כה, יז) צרור את המדינים והכיתם אותם 38a Because if so, if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, let the verse write this phrase: “of another,” with regard to the case of a forewarned ox. One could then infer that the owner is exempt from liability in the case of an innocuous ox as well, as the liability with regard to an innocuous ox is less severe than with regard to a forewarned ox. The stating of this exemption specifically in the context of an innocuous ox indicates that the exemption is only concerning the leniency stated in the verse, that if the gored ox belongs to another person, the owner of the belligerent ox is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.§ The mishna teaches: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability; whereas if a gentile’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. The Sages said: This statement is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, when a gentile’s ox gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, then even when a Jew’s ox gores that of a gentile the owner of the belligerent ox should be liable.,Rabbi Abbahu said that the reason for this ruling is that the verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble vayyatter” (Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves to fulfill, and since they did not fulfill them, He arose and permitted vehittir their money to the Jewish people, so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to gentiles.Rabbi Yoḥa said that the source for this halakha is from here: It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: “The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; He appeared from Mount Paran” (Deuteronomy 33:2), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: From the time God came from Mount Paran, when giving the Torah, the money of the gentile nations appeared, i.e. it was revealed and granted to the Jewish people.,This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability. By contrast, with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the belligerent ox pays the full cost of the damage, as it is stated: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.” And another verse states: “He appeared from Mount Paran.”,The Gemara asks: What is the reason the baraita adds: And another verse states, indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?The Gemara explains that this is how the baraita is to be understood: And if you would say that this verse: “He stood and shook the earth” is necessary to express that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef derived from the verse, come and hear another source: “He appeared from Mount Paran,” meaning: From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana’s exposition? It is as Rav Mattana says: “He stood and shook the earth.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah were commanded but did not fulfill, and He arose and exiled them from their land on account of their transgressions.And from where may it be inferred that this term vayyatter is a term of exile? It is written here: “And made the nations tremble vayyatter” (Habakkuk 3:6), and it is written there: “Lenatter upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:21), which is translated into Aramaic as: “To leap upon the earth.” Apparently, the root nun, tav, reish, common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another.What is Rav Yosef’s exposition? It is as Rav Yosef says: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves and did not fulfill, so He arose and permitted their prohibitions to them.,The Gemara asks: Did they thereby profit, in that their prohibitions became permitted to them? If so, we have found a transgressor who is rewarded. Mar, son of Rabbana, says: This is not to say that for them to transgress their mitzvot is no longer a sin; rather, it is to say that even if they fulfill them, they do not receive reward for fulfilling them.,The Gemara asks: But do they not receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah is considered like a High Priest? The verse states with regard to the mitzvot: “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Which if priests and Levites and Israelites do, they shall live by them, but rather: A person, indicating that all people are included. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.,The Sages said in response: Rav Yosef meant that they do not receive the reward as does one who is commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it, but as does one who is not commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it anyway. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who is commanded and performs a mitzva is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it.The Sages taught the following story in the context of the aforementioned halakha: And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials sardeyotot to the Sages of Israel, and ordered them in the name of the king: Teach us your Torah. The officials read the Torah, and repeated it, and repeated it again, reading it for the third time. At the time of their departure, they said to the Sages: We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this one matter that you state, i.e. that with regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt from liability, whereas with regard to the ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.,The officials’ reasoning was that this halakha is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, that the owners of both oxen must both be Jewish, then even when the ox of a gentile gores the ox of a Jew the owner of the ox should be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, and the oxen of all are included, then even when the ox of a Jew gores the ox of a gentile the owner should be liable. They added: But we will not inform this matter to the kingdom; having acknowledged that the entire Torah is true, we will not reveal this ruling, as it will displease the kingdom.§ Incidentally, it is related that the daughter of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda died. The Sages said to Ulla: Arise; let us go console him. Ulla said to them: What business do I have with the consolation of Babylonians, which is actually heresy? As, they say while consoling mourners: What can be done? This seems to suggest that if it were possible to do something, acting against the Almighty’s decree, they would do so, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.Ulla therefore went to console Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda by himself, and said to him: The verse states: “And the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” (Deuteronomy 2:9). What entered Moses’s mind, that God had to warn him not to undertake a particular action? Did it enter his mind to wage war with the Moabites without permission? Rather, Moses reasoned an a fortiori inference by himself, saying: And if with regard to the Midianites, who came only to help the Moabites harm the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 22), the Torah said: “Harass the Midianites and smite them” (Numbers 25:17), |
103. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 5a, 6a, 8a, 8b, 10a, 12b, 19a, 22a, 31a, 33b, 58a, 62a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Akiba, R./Aqiba, R., in halakhic tales • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Change, in custom and halakhah • Halakhah, “four cubits of halakhah” • Neusner, Jacob, on halakhah • Rabbinic Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • aggadah, halakhah compared with • biblical texts, halakhah and • halakah, halakic • halakha in Diaspora • halakha k . . . • halakha, and Scripture • halakha, study of • halakhah and custom • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, as a means of binding God to Israel • halakhah, as a metaphor for God's rejection of Israel • halakhah, as a metaphor for Gods rejection of Israel • halakhah, authority challenged in • halakhah, decision-making in • halakhah, definition of • halakhah, halitzah (drawing of the shoe) • halakhah, legal requirements of • halakhah, refutation of opinions in • halakhah, terminology of • halakhah, value of • halakhah, Ḥaliṣah (drawing of the shoe) • halakhic exegesis • halakhic exegesis, prooftexts of • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) • mamzerim (halakhic bastards) • mamzerim (halakhic “bastards”) • prayer, halakhic and aggadic discussions Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 32, 184; Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 125, 204, 205, 206, 207, 248, 249, 250; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 125, 132; Faßbeck and Killebrew, Viewing Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology: VeHinnei Rachel - Essays in honor of Rachel Hachlili (2016) 82; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 118, 585; Kosman, Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism (2012) 140; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years (2005) 478; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 218; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 72, 89; Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 40; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 40; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 229, 244; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 29, 112, 124, 127, 426, 650 5a אם תלמיד חכם הוא אין צריך אמר אביי אף תלמיד חכם מיבעי ליה למימר חד פסוקא דרחמי כגון (תהלים לא, ו) בידך אפקיד רוחי פדיתה אותי ה\ אל אמת:א"ר לוי בר חמא אמר ר"ש בן לקיש לעולם ירגיז אדם יצר טוב על יצר הרע שנא\ (תהלים ד, ה) רגזו ואל תחטאו. אם נצחו מוטב ואם לאו יעסוק בתורה שנאמר אמרו בלבבכם אם נצחו מוטב ואם לאו יקרא קריאת שמע שנאמר על משכבכם אם נצחו מוטב ואם לאו יזכור לו יום המיתה שנאמר ודומו סלה.וא"ר לוי בר חמא אמר ר\ שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב (שמות כד, יב) ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם לוחות אלו עשרת הדברות תורה זה מקרא והמצוה זו משנה אשר כתבתי אלו נביאים וכתובים להורותם זה גמרא מלמד שכולם נתנו למשה מסיני:א"ר יצחק כל הקורא ק"ש על מטתו כאלו אוחז חרב של שתי פיות בידו שנאמר (תהלים קמט, ו) רוממות אל בגרונם וחרב פיפיות בידם מאי משמע אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי מרישא דענינא דכתיב (תהלים קמט, ה) יעלזו חסידים בכבוד ירננו על משכבותם וכתיב בתריה רוממות אל בגרונם וחרב פיפיות בידם.ואמר רבי יצחק כל הקורא קריאת שמע על מטתו מזיקין בדילין הימנו שנאמר (איוב ה, ז) ובני רשף יגביהו עוף ואין עוף אלא תורה שנאמר (משלי כג, ה) התעיף עיניך בו ואיננו ואין רשף אלא מזיקין שנאמר (דברים לב, כד) מזי רעב ולחומי רשף וקטב מרירי.אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש כל העוסק בתורה יסורין בדילין הימנו שנאמר ובני רשף יגביהו עוף ואין עוף אלא תורה שנאמר התעיף עיניך בו ואיננו ואין רשף אלא יסורין שנאמר מזי רעב ולחומי רשף,אמר ליה רבי יוחנן הא אפילו תינוקות של בית רבן יודעין אותו שנאמר (שמות טו, כו) ויאמר אם שמוע תשמע לקול ה\ אלהיך והישר בעיניו תעשה והאזנת למצותיו ושמרת כל חקיו כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך כי אני ה\ רופאך אלא כל שאפשר לו לעסוק בתורה ואינו עוסק הקב"ה מביא עליו יסורין מכוערין ועוכרין אותו שנא\ (תהלים לט, ג) נאלמתי דומיה החשיתי מטוב וכאבי נעכר ואין טוב אלא תורה שנאמר (משלי ד, ב) כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו.אמר רבי זירא ואיתימא רבי חנינא בר פפא בא וראה שלא כמדת הקב"ה מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם אדם מוכר חפץ לחבירו מוכר עצב ולוקח שמח אבל הקב"ה אינו כן נתן להם תורה לישראל ושמח שנא\ כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו.אמר רבא ואיתימא רב חסדא אם רואה אדם שיסורין באין עליו יפשפש במעשיו שנא\ (איכה ג, מ) נחפשה דרכינו ונחקורה ונשובה עד ה\ פשפש ולא מצא יתלה בבטול תורה שנאמר (תהלים צד, יב) אשרי הגבר אשר תיסרנו יה ומתורתך תלמדנו,ואם תלה ולא מצא בידוע שיסורין של אהבה הם שנאמר (משלי ג, יב) כי את אשר יאהב ה\ יוכיח.אמר רבא אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא כל שהקב"ה חפץ בו מדכאו ביסורין שנאמר (ישעיהו נג, י) וה\ חפץ דכאו החלי,יכול אפילו לא קבלם מאהבה תלמוד לומר (ישעיהו נג, י) אם תשים אשם נפשו מה אשם לדעת אף יסורין לדעת,ואם קבלם מה שכרו (ישעיהו נג, י) יראה זרע יאריך ימים ולא עוד אלא שתלמודו מתקיים בידו שנא\ (ישעיהו נג, י) וחפץ ה\ בידו יצלח,פליגי בה רבי יעקב בר אידי ורבי אחא בר חנינא חד אמר אלו הם יסורין של אהבה כל שאין בהן בטול תורה שנאמר (תהלים צד, יב) אשרי הגבר אשר תיסרנו יה ומתורתך תלמדנו,וחד אמר אלו הם יסורין של אהבה כל שאין בהן בטול תפלה שנאמר (תהלים סו, כ) ברוך אלהים אשר לא הסיר תפלתי וחסדו מאתי,אמר להו רבי אבא בריה דר\ חייא בר אבא הכי אמר ר\ חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אלו ואלו יסורין של אהבה הן שנאמר כי את אשר יאהב ה\ יוכיח,אלא מה ת"ל (תהלים צד, יב) ומתורתך תלמדנו אל תקרי תלמדנו אלא תלמדנו דבר זה מתורתך תלמדנו,ק"ו משן ועין מה שן ועין שהן אחד מאבריו של אדם עבד יוצא בהן לחרות יסורין שממרקין כל גופו של אדם על אחת כמה וכמה,והיינו דרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר רשב"ל נאמר ברית במלח ונאמר ברית ביסורין נאמר ברית במלח דכתיב (ויקרא ב, יג) ולא תשבית מלח ברית ונאמר ברית ביסורין דכתיב (דברים כח, סט) אלה דברי הברית מה ברית האמור במלח מלח ממתקת את הבשר אף ברית האמור ביסורין יסורין ממרקין כל עונותיו של אדם:תניא רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אומר שלש מתנות טובות נתן הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל וכולן לא נתנן אלא ע"י יסורין אלו הן תורה וארץ ישראל והעולם הבא,תורה מנין שנאמר אשרי הגבר אשר תיסרנו יה ומתורתך תלמדנו,ארץ ישראל דכתיב (דברים ח, ה) כי כאשר ייסר איש את בנו ה\ אלהיך מיסרך וכתיב בתריה כי ה\ אלהיך מביאך אל ארץ טובה,העולם הבא דכתיב (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור ודרך חיים תוכחות מוסר.תני תנא קמיה דר\ יוחנן כל העוסק בתורה ובגמילות חסדים, 6a אמר ר\ יוסי ברבי חנינא זוכה לברכות הללו שנאמר (ישעיהו מח, יח) לוא הקשבת למצותי ויהי כנהר שלומך וצדקתך כגלי הים ויהי כחול זרעך וצאצאי מעיך וגו\:תניא אבא בנימין אומר אלמלי נתנה רשות לעין לראות אין כל בריה יכולה לעמוד מפני המזיקין,אמר אביי אינהו נפישי מינן וקיימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא,אמר רב הונא כל חד וחד מינן אלפא משמאליה ורבבתא מימיניה,אמר רבא האי דוחקא דהוי בכלה מנייהו הוי הני ברכי דשלהי מנייהו הני מאני דרבנן דבלו מחופיא דידהו הני כרעי דמנקפן מנייהו,האי מאן דבעי למידע להו לייתי קיטמא נהילא ונהדר אפורייה ובצפרא חזי כי כרעי דתרנגולא האי מאן דבעי למחזינהו ליתי שלייתא דשונרתא אוכמתא בת אוכמתא בוכרתא בת בוכרתא ולקליה בנורא ולשחקיה ולימלי עיניה מניה וחזי להו ולשדייה בגובתא דפרזלא ולחתמי\ בגושפנקא דפרזלא דילמא גנבי מניה ולחתום פומיה כי היכי דלא ליתזק רב ביבי בר אביי עבד הכי חזא ואתזק בעו רבנן רחמי עליה ואתסי:תניא אבא בנימין אומר אין תפלה של אדם נשמעת אלא בבית הכנסת שנאמר (מלכים א ח, כח) לשמוע אל הרנה ואל התפלה במקום רנה שם תהא תפלה,אמר רבין בר רב אדא א"ר יצחק מנין שהקב"ה מצוי בבית הכנסת שנאמר (תהלים פב, א) אלהים נצב בעדת אל,ומנין לעשרה שמתפללין ששכינה עמהם שנאמר אלהים נצב בעדת אל,ומנין לשלשה שיושבין בדין ששכינה עמהם שנאמר (תהלים פב, א) בקרב אלהים ישפוט,ומנין לשנים שיושבים ועוסקין בתורה ששכינה עמהם שנאמר (מלאכי ג, טז) אז נדברו יראי ה\ איש אל רעהו ויקשב ה\ וגו\,מאי (מלאכי ג, טז) ולחושבי שמו אמר רב אשי חשב אדם לעשות מצוה ונאנס ולא עשאה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה,ומנין שאפילו אחד שיושב ועוסק בתורה ששכינה עמו שנאמר (שמות כ, כד) בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך וברכתיך,וכי מאחר דאפילו חד תרי מבעיא תרי מכתבן מלייהו בספר הזכרונות חד לא מכתבן מליה בספר הזכרונות,וכי מאחר דאפי\ תרי תלתא מבעיא מהו דתימא דינא שלמא בעלמא הוא ולא אתיא שכינה קמ"ל דדינא נמי היינו תורה,וכי מאחר דאפי\ תלתא עשרה מבעיא עשרה קדמה שכינה ואתיא תלתא עד דיתבי:א"ר אבין בר רב אדא א"ר יצחק מנין שהקב"ה מניח תפילין שנאמר (ישעיהו סב, ח) נשבע ה\ בימינו ובזרוע עוזו,בימינו זו תורה שנאמר (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו ובזרוע עוזו אלו תפילין שנאמר (תהלים כט, יא) ה\ עוז לעמו יתן,ומנין שהתפילין עוז הם לישראל דכתי\ (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה\ נקרא עליך ויראו ממך ותניא ר\ אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפילין שבראש,א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב חייא בר אבין הני תפילין דמרי עלמא מה כתיב בהו א"ל (דברי הימים א יז, כא) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ,ומי משתבח קוב"ה בשבחייהו דישראל אין דכתיב (דברים כו, יז) את ה\ האמרת היום (וכתיב) וה\ האמירך היום אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם,אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם שנאמר (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה\ אלהינו ה\ אחד ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם שנאמר ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי תינח בחד ביתא בשאר בתי מאי,א"ל (דברים ד, ז) כי מי גוי גדול ומי גוי גדול (דברים לג, כט) אשריך ישראל (דברים ד, לד) או הנסה אלהים (דברים כו, יט)ולתתך עליון,אי הכי נפישי להו טובי בתי אלא כי מי גוי גדול ומי גוי גדול דדמיין להדדי בחד ביתא אשריך ישראל ומי כעמך ישראל בחד ביתא או הנסה אלהים בחד ביתא ולתתך עליון בחד ביתא, 8a מאי דכתיב (תהלים סט, יד) ואני תפלתי לך ה\ עת רצון אימתי עת רצון בשעה שהצבור מתפללין.ר\ יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר מהכא (ישעיהו מט, ח) כה אמר ה\ בעת רצון עניתיך,ר\ אחא ברבי חנינא אמר מהכא (איוב לו, ה) הן אל כביר ולא ימאס וכתיב (תהלים נה, יט) פדה בשלום נפשי מקרב לי כי ברבים היו עמדי,תניא נמי הכי רבי נתן אומר מנין שאין הקב"ה מואס בתפלתן של רבים שנאמר הן אל כביר ולא ימאס וכתיב פדה בשלום נפשי מקרב לי וגו\ אמר הקב"ה כל העוסק בתורה ובגמילות חסדים ומתפלל עם הצבור מעלה אני עליו כאילו פדאני לי ולבני מבין אומות העולם,אמר ר"ל כל מי שיש לו בית הכנסת בעירו ואינו נכנס שם להתפלל נקרא שכן רע שנאמר (ירמיהו יב, יד) כה אמר ה\ על כל שכני הרעים הנוגעים בנחלה אשר הנחלתי את עמי את ישראל ולא עוד אלא שגורם גלות לו ולבניו שנא\ (ירמיהו יב, יד) הנני נותשם מעל אדמתם ואת בית יהודה אתוש מתוכם.אמרו ליה לר\ יוחנן איכא סבי בבבל תמה ואמר (דברים יא, כא) למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם על האדמה כתיב אבל בחוצה לארץ לא כיון דאמרי ליה מקדמי ומחשכי לבי כנישתא אמר היינו דאהני להו,כדאמר ר\ יהושע בן לוי לבניה קדימו וחשיכו ועיילו לבי כנישתא כי היכי דתורכו חיי א"ר אחא ברבי חנינא מאי קרא (משלי ח, לד) אשרי אדם שומע לי לשקד על דלתותי יום יום לשמור מזוזת פתחי וכתיב בתריה כי מוצאי מצא חיים.אמר רב חסדא לעולם יכנס אדם שני פתחים בבית הכנסת שני פתחים סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שיעור שני פתחים ואחר כך יתפלל:(תהלים לב, ו) על זאת יתפלל כל חסיד אליך לעת מצא אמר ר\ חנינא לעת מצא זו אשה שנא\ (משלי יח, כב) מצא אשה מצא טוב,במערבא כי נסיב אינש אתתא אמרי ליה הכי מצא או מוצא מצא דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה\ מוצא דכתיב (קהלת ז, כו) ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה וגו\,ר\ נתן אומר לעת מצא זו תורה שנאמר (משלי ח, לה) כי מוצאי מצא חיים וגו\,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לעת מצא זו מיתה שנא\ (תהלים סח, כא) למות תוצאות,תניא נמי הכי תשע מאות ושלשה מיני מיתה נבראו בעולם שנאמר למות תוצאות תוצאות בגימטריא הכי הוו קשה שבכלן אסכרא ניחא שבכלן נשיקה אסכרא דמיא כחיזרא בגבבא דעמרא דלאחורי נשרא ואיכא דאמרי כפיטורי בפי ושט נשיקה דמיא כמשחל בניתא מחלבא,ר\ יוחנן אמר לעת מצא זו קבורה א"ר חנינא מאי קרא (איוב ג, כב) השמחים אלי גיל ישישו כי ימצאו קבר אמר רבה בר רב שילא היינו דאמרי אינשי ליבעי אינש רחמי אפילו עד זיבולא בתרייתא שלמא,מר זוטרא אמר לעת מצא זה בית הכסא אמרי במערבא הא דמר זוטרא עדיפא מכלהו.אמר ליה רבא לרפרם בר פפא לימא לן מר מהני מילי מעלייתא דאמרת משמיה דרב חסדא במילי דבי כנישתא,אמר ליה הכי אמר רב חסדא מאי דכתי\ (תהלים פז, ב) אוהב ה\ שערי ציון מכל משכנות יעקב אוהב ה\ שערים המצויינים בהלכה יותר מבתי כנסיות ומבתי מדרשות,והיינו דאמר ר\ חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד.ואמר אביי מריש הוה גריסנא בגו ביתא ומצלינא בבי כנישתא כיון דשמענא להא דאמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד לא הוה מצלינא אלא היכא דגריסנא.רבי אמי ורבי אסי אף על גב דהוו להו תליסר בי כנישתא בטבריא לא מצלו אלא ביני עמודי היכא דהוו גרסי:ואמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא גדול הנהנה מיגיעו יותר מירא שמים דאילו גבי ירא שמים כתיב (תהלים קיב, א) אשרי איש ירא את ה\ ואילו גבי נהנה מיגיעו כתיב (תהלים קכח, ב) יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך אשריך בעולם הזה וטוב לך לעולם הבא ולגבי ירא שמים וטוב לך לא כתיב ביה:ואמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא לעולם ידור אדם במקום רבו שכל זמן ששמעי בן גרא קיים לא נשא שלמה את בת פרעה,והתניא אל ידור,לא קשיא הא דכייף ליה הא דלא כייף ליה:אמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רבי מנחם אמר ר\ אמי מאי דכתי\ (ישעיהו א, כח) ועוזבי ה\ יכלו זה המניח ס"ת ויוצא,רבי אבהו נפיק בין גברא לגברא.בעי רב פפא בין פסוקא לפסוקא מהו,תיקו,רב ששת מהדר אפיה וגריס אמר אנן בדידן ואינהו בדידהו:אמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רבי אמי לעולם ישלים אדם פרשיותיו עם הצבור שנים מקרא ואחד תרגום, 8b ואפילו (במדבר לב) עטרות ודיבון שכל המשלים פרשיותיו עם הצבור מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,רב ביבי בר אביי סבר לאשלומינהו לפרשייתא דכולא שתא במעלי יומא דכפורי תנא ליה חייא בר רב מדפתי כתיב (ויקרא כג) ועניתם את נפשתיכם בתשעה לחדש בערב,וכי בתשעה מתענין והלא בעשרה מתענין אלא לומר לך כל האוכל ושותה בתשיעי מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו מתענה תשיעי ועשירי.סבר לאקדומינהו אמר ליה ההוא סבא תנינא ובלבד שלא יקדים ושלא יאחר,כדאמר להו ר\ יהושע בן לוי לבניה אשלימו פרשיותייכו עם הצבור שנים מקרא ואחד תרגום,והזהרו בורידין כרבי יהודה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר עד שישחוט את הורידין,והזהרו בזקן ששכח תלמודו מחמת אונסו דאמרינן לוחות ושברי לוחות מונחות בארון,אמר להו רבא לבניה כשאתם חותכין בשר אל תחתכו על גב היד איכא דאמרי משום סכנה ואיכא דאמרי משום קלקול סעודה,ואל תשבו על מטת ארמית ואל תעברו אחורי בית הכנסת בשעה שהצבור מתפללין. ואל תשבו על מטת ארמית. איכא דאמרי לא תגנו בלא ק"ש ואיכא דאמרי דלא תנסבו גיורתא וא"ד ארמית ממש,ומשום מעשה דרב פפא דרב פפא אזל לגבי ארמית הוציאה לו מטה אמרה לו שב אמר לה איני יושב עד שתגביהי את המטה הגביהה את המטה ומצאו שם תינוק מת מכאן אמרו חכמים אסור לישב על מטת ארמית,ואל תעברו אחורי בית הכנסת בשעה שהצבור מתפללין מסייע ליה לרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר\ יהושע בן לוי אסור לו לאדם שיעבור אחורי בית הכנסת בשעה שהצבור מתפללין,אמר אביי ולא אמרן אלא דליכא פתחא אחרינא אבל איכא פתחא אחרינא לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דליכא בי כנישתא אחרינא אבל איכא בי כנישתא אחרינא לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דלא דרי טונא ולא רהיט ולא מנח תפילין אבל איכא חד מהנך לית לן בה:תניא אמר ר"ע בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את המדיים כשחותכין את הבשר אין חותכין אלא על גבי השולחן כשנושקין אין נושקין אלא על גב היד וכשיועצין אין יועצין אלא בשדה,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מאי קראה (בראשית לא) וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל צאנו:תניא אמר רבן גמליאל בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את הפרסיים הן צנועין באכילתן וצנועין בבית הכסא וצנועין בדבר אחר:(ישעיהו יג) אני צויתי למקודשי תני רב יוסף אלו הפרסיים המקודשין ומזומנין לגיהנם:רבן גמליאל אומר וכו\: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ג,תניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר פעמים שאדם קורא ק"ש שתי פעמים בלילה אחת קודם שיעלה עמוד השחר ואחת לאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר ויוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה.הא גופא קשיא אמרת פעמים שאדם קורא קרית שמע שתי פעמים בלילה אלמא לאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר ליליא הוא והדר תני יוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה אלמא יממא הוא,לא לעולם ליליא הוא והא דקרי ליה יום דאיכא אינשי דקיימי בההיא שעתא,אמר רב אחא בר חנינא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי הלכה כרבי שמעון בן יוחי,איכא דמתני להא דרב אחא בר חנינא אהא דתניא רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר משום ר\ עקיבא פעמים שאדם קורא ק"ש שתי פעמים ביום אחת קודם הנץ החמה ואחת לאחר הנץ החמה ויוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה,הא גופא קשיא אמרת פעמים שאדם קורא קרית שמע שתי פעמים ביום אלמא קודם הנץ החמה יממא הוא והדר תני יוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה אלמא ליליא הוא, 10a כל פרשה שהיתה חביבה על דוד פתח בה באשרי וסיים בה באשרי פתח באשרי דכתיב (תהלים א, א) אשרי האיש וסיים באשרי דכתיב (תהלים ב, יב) אשרי כל חוסי בו:הנהו בריוני דהוו בשבבותיה דר"מ והוו קא מצערו ליה טובא הוה קא בעי ר\ מאיר רחמי עלויהו כי היכי דלימותו אמרה לי\ ברוריא דביתהו מאי דעתך משום דכתיב (תהלים קד, לה) יתמו חטאים מי כתיב חוטאים חטאים כתיב,ועוד שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ורשעים עוד אינם כיון דיתמו חטאים ורשעים עוד אינם אלא בעי רחמי עלויהו דלהדרו בתשובה ורשעים עוד אינם,בעא רחמי עלויהו והדרו בתשובה:אמר לה ההוא צדוקי לברוריא כתיב (ישעיהו נד, א) רני עקרה לא ילדה משום דלא ילדה רני,אמרה ליה שטיא שפיל לסיפיה דקרא דכתיב כי רבים בני שוממה מבני בעולה אמר ה\,אלא מאי עקרה לא ילדה רני כנסת ישראל שדומה לאשה עקרה שלא ילדה בנים לגיהנם כותייכו:א"ל ההוא צדוקי לר\ אבהו כתיב (תהלים ג, א) מזמור לדוד בברחו מפני אבשלום בנו וכתיב (תהלים נז, א) לדוד מכתם בברחו מפני שאול במערה הי מעשה הוה ברישא מכדי מעשה שאול הוה ברישא לכתוב ברישא,אמר ליה אתון דלא דרשיתון סמוכין קשיא לכו אנן דדרשינן סמוכים לא קשיא לן,דא"ר יוחנן סמוכין מן התורה מנין שנא\ (תהלים קיא, ח) סמוכים לעד לעולם עשוים באמת וישר,למה נסמכה פרשת אבשלום לפרשת גוג ומגוג שאם יאמר לך אדם כלום יש עבד שמורד ברבו אף אתה אמור לו כלום יש בן שמורד באביו אלא הוה הכא נמי הוה:אמר ר\ יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי מאי דכתיב (משלי לא, כו) פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה כנגד מי אמר שלמה מקרא זה לא אמרו אלא כנגד דוד אביו שדר בחמשה עולמים ואמר שירה,דר במעי אמו ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קג, א) ברכי נפשי את ה\ וכל קרבי את שם קדשו,יצא לאויר העולם ונסתכל בכוכבים ומזלות ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קג, כ) ברכו ה\ מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו ברכו ה\ כל צבאיו וגו\,ינק משדי אמו ונסתכל בדדיה ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קג, ב) ברכי נפשי את ה\ ואל תשכחי כל גמוליו,מאי כל גמוליו אמר ר\ אבהו שעשה לה דדים במקום בינה,טעמא מאי אמר (רבי) יהודה כדי שלא יסתכל במקום ערוה רב מתנא אמר כדי שלא יינק ממקום הטנופת,ראה במפלתן של רשעים ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קד, לה) יתמו חטאים מן הארץ ורשעים עוד אינם ברכי נפשי את ה\ הללויה,נסתכל ביום המיתה ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קד, א) ברכי נפשי את ה\ ה\ אלהי גדלת מאד הוד והדר לבשת,מאי משמע דעל יום המיתה נאמר אמר רבה בר רב שילא מסיפא דעניינא דכתיב (תהלים קד, כט) תסתיר פניך יבהלון תוסף רוחם יגועון וגו\,רב שימי בר עוקבא ואמרי לה מר עוקבא הוה שכיח קמיה דר\ שמעון בן פזי והוה מסדר אגדתא קמיה דר\ יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה מאי דכתיב (תהלים קג, א) ברכי נפשי את ה\ וכל קרבי את שם קדשו אמר ליה בא וראה שלא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם צר צורה על גבי הכותל ואינו יכול להטיל בה רוח ונשמה קרבים ובני מעים והקב"ה אינו כן צר צורה בתוך צורה ומטיל בה רוח ונשמה קרבים ובני מעים והיינו דאמרה חנה (שמואל א ב, ב) אין קדוש כה\ כי אין בלתך ואין צור כאלהינו.מאי אין צור כאלהינו אין צייר כאלהינו,מאי כי אין בלתך אמר ר\ יהודה בר מנסיא אל תקרי כי אין בלתך אלא אין לבלותך שלא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם מעשה ידיו מבלין אותו והקב"ה מבלה מעשיו,א"ל אנא הכי קא אמינא לך הני חמשה ברכי נפשי כנגד מי אמרן דוד לא אמרן אלא כנגד הקב"ה וכנגד נשמה,מה הקב"ה מלא כל העולם אף נשמה מלאה את כל הגוף מה הקדוש ברוך הוא רואה ואינו נראה אף נשמה רואה ואינה נראית מה הקב"ה זן את כל העולם כלו אף נשמה זנה את כל הגוף מה הקב"ה טהור אף נשמה טהורה מה הקב"ה יושב בחדרי חדרים אף נשמה יושבת בחדרי חדרים יבא מי שיש בו חמשה דברים הללו וישבח למי שיש בו חמשה דברים הללו:אמר רב המנונא מאי דכתיב (קהלת ח, א) מי כהחכם ומי יודע פשר דבר מי כהקדוש ברוך הוא שיודע לעשות פשרה בין שני צדיקים בין חזקיהו לישעיהו חזקיהו אמר ליתי ישעיהו גבאי דהכי אשכחן באליהו דאזל לגבי אחאב (שנאמר (מלכים א יח, ב) וילך אליהו להראות אל אחאב) ישעיהו אמר ליתי חזקיהו גבאי דהכי אשכחן ביהורם בן אחאב דאזל לגבי אלישע,מה עשה הקב"ה הביא יסורים על חזקיהו ואמר לו לישעיהו לך ובקר את החולה שנאמר (מלכים ב כ, א) בימים ההם חלה חזקיהו למות ויבא אליו ישעיהו בן אמוץ הנביא ויאמר אליו כה אמר ה\ (צבאות) צו לביתך כי מת אתה ולא תחיה וגו\ מאי כי מת אתה ולא תחיה מת אתה בעולם הזה ולא תחיה לעולם הבא,אמר ליה מאי כולי האי אמר ליה משום דלא עסקת בפריה ורביה א"ל משום דחזאי לי ברוח הקדש דנפקי מינאי בנין דלא מעלו,א"ל בהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך מאי דמפקדת איבעי לך למעבד ומה דניחא קמיה קודשא בריך הוא לעביד,אמר ליה השתא הב לי ברתך אפשר דגרמא זכותא דידי ודידך ונפקי מנאי בנין דמעלו א"ל כבר נגזרה עליך גזירה א"ל בן אמוץ כלה נבואתך וצא,כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא אפי\ חרב חדה מונחת על צוארו של אדם אל ימנע עצמו מן הרחמים,אתמר נמי רבי יוחנן ורבי (אליעזר) דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו חרב חדה מונחת על צוארו של אדם אל ימנע עצמו מן הרחמים שנא\ (איוב יג, טו) הן יקטלני לו איחל 12b רב ששת כי כרע כרע כחיזרא כי קא זקיף זקיף כחיויא:ואמר רבה בר חיננא סבא משמיה דרב כל השנה כולה אדם מתפלל האל הקדוש מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט חוץ מעשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ויום הכפורים שמתפלל המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט,ורבי אלעזר אמר אפילו אמר האל הקדוש יצא שנאמר (ישעיהו ה, טז) ויגבה ה\ צבאות במשפט והאל הקדוש נקדש בצדקה אימתי ויגבה ה\ צבאות במשפט אלו עשרה ימים שמר"ה ועד יוה"כ וקאמר האל הקדוש,מאי הוה עלה,אמר רב יוסף האל הקדוש ומלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט רבה אמר המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט והלכתא כרבה:ואמר רבה בר חיננא סבא משמיה דרב כל שאפשר לו לבקש רחמים על חבירו ואינו מבקש נקרא חוטא שנאמר (שמואל א יב, כג) גם אנכי חלילה לי מחטא לה\ מחדול להתפלל בעדכם,אמר רבא אם ת"ח הוא צריך שיחלה עצמו עליו,מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב (שמואל א כב, ח) ואין חולה מכם עלי (ואין) ו גולה את אזני דילמא מלך שאני אלא מהכא (תהלים לה, יג) ואני בחלותם לבושי וגו\:ואמר רבה בר חיננא סבא משמיה דרב כל העושה דבר עבירה ומתבייש בו מוחלין לו על כל עונותיו שנאמר (יחזקאל טז, סג) למען תזכרי ובשת ולא יהיה לך עוד פתחון פה מפני כלמתך בכפרי לך לכל אשר עשית נאם ה\ אלהים,דילמא צבור שאני אלא מהכא (שמואל א כח, טו) ויאמר שמואל אל שאול למה הרגזתני להעלות אותי ויאמר שאול צר לי מאד ופלשתים נלחמים בי וה\ סר מעלי ולא ענני עוד גם ביד הנביאים גם בחלומות ואקראה לך להודיעני מה אעשה ואילו אורים ותומים לא קאמר,משום דקטליה לנוב עיר הכהנים,ומנין דאחילו ליה מן שמיא שנא\ (שמואל א כח, יט) (ויאמר שמואל אל שאול) ו מחר אתה ובניך עמי וא"ר יוחנן עמי במחיצתי,ורבנן אמרי מהכא (שמואל ב כא, ו) והוקענום לה\ בגבעת שאול בחיר ה\ יצתה בת קול ואמרה בחיר ה\,אמר ר\ אבהו בן זוטרתי אמר רב יהודה בר זבידא בקשו לקבוע פרשת בלק בקריאת שמע ומפני מה לא קבעוה משום טורח צבור,מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב בה (במדבר כג, כב) אל מוציאם ממצרים לימא פרשת רבית ופרשת משקלות דכתיב בהן יציאת מצרים,אלא אמר ר\ יוסי בר אבין משום דכתיב בה האי קרא (במדבר כד, ט) כרע שכב כארי וכלביא מי יקימנו,ולימא האי פסוקא ותו לא,גמירי כל פרשה דפסקה משה רבינו פסקינן דלא פסקה משה רבינו לא פסקינן,פרשת ציצית מפני מה קבעוה,א"ר יהודה בר חביבא מפני שיש בה חמשה דברים מצות ציצית יציאת מצרים עול מצות ודעת מינים הרהור עבירה והרהור ע"ז,בשלמא הני תלת מפרשן עול מצות דכתיב (במדבר טו, לט) וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה\ ציצית דכתיב ועשו להם ציצית וגו\ יציאת מצרים דכתיב אשר הוצאתי וגו\ אלא דעת מינים הרהור עבירה והרהור ע"ז מנלן,דתניא אחרי לבבכם זו מינות וכן הוא אומר (תהלים יד, א) אמר נבל בלבו אין אלהים אחרי עיניכם זה הרהור עבירה שנאמר (שופטים יד, ג) ויאמר שמשון אל אביו אותה קח לי כי היא ישרה בעיני אתם זונים זה הרהור ע"ז וכן הוא אומר (שופטים ח, לג) ויזנו אחרי הבעלים:מתני׳ מזכירין יציאת מצרים בלילות א"ר אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא זכיתי שתאמר יציאת מצרים בלילות עד שדרשה בן זומא,שנא\ (דברים טז, ג) למען תזכור את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך ימי חייך הימים כל ימי חייך הלילות, וחכ"א ימי חייך העוה"ז כל להביא לימות המשיח:גמ׳ תניא אמר להם בן זומא לחכמים וכי מזכירין יציאת מצרים לימות המשיח והלא כבר נאמר (ירמיהו כג, ז) הנה ימים באים נאם ה\ ולא יאמרו עוד חי ה\ אשר העלה את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים כי אם חי ה\ אשר העלה ואשר הביא את זרע בית ישראל מארץ צפונה ומכל הארצות אשר הדחתים שם,אמרו לו לא שתעקר יציאת מצרים ממקומה אלא שתהא שעבוד מלכיות עיקר ויציאת מצרים טפל לו,כיוצא בו אתה אומר (בראשית לה, י) לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך, 19a ואי ס"ד דלא ידעי כי אמר להו מאי הוי אלא מאי דידעי למה לי\ למימר להו לאחזוקי ליה טיבותא למשה,אמר רבי יצחק כל המספר אחרי המת כאלו מספר אחרי האבן איכא דאמרי דלא ידעי ואיכא דאמרי דידעי ולא איכפת להו,איני והא אמר רב פפא חד אישתעי מילתא בתריה דמר שמואל ונפל קניא מטללא ובזעא לארנקא דמוחיה,שאני צורבא מרבנן דקודשא בריך הוא תבע ביקריה,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל המספר אחר מטתן של תלמידי חכמים נופל בגיהנם שנא\ (תהלים קכה, ה) והמטים עקלקלותם יוליכם ה\ את פועלי האון שלום על ישראל אפילו בשעה ששלום על ישראל יוליכם ה\ את פועלי האון,תנא דבי ר\ ישמעאל אם ראית תלמיד חכם שעבר עבירה בלילה אל תהרהר אחריו ביום שמא עשה תשובה שמא סלקא דעתך אלא ודאי עשה תשובה והני מילי בדברים שבגופו אבל בממונא עד דמהדר למריה:ואמר ר\ יהושע בן לוי בכ"ד מקומות בית דין מנדי\ על כבוד הרב וכולן שנינו במשנתנו אמר ליה ר\ אלעזר היכא אמר ליה לכי תשכח,נפק דק ואשכח תלת המזלזל בנטילת ידים והמספר אחר מטתן של תלמידי חכמי\ והמגיס דעתו כלפי מעלה,המספר אחר מטתן של תלמידי חכמים מאי היא דתנן הוא היה אומר אין משקין לא את הגיורת ולא את המשוחררת וחכמים אומרים משקין ואמרו לו מעשה בכרכמית שפחה משוחררת בירושלים והשקוה שמעיה ואבטליון ואמר להם דוגמא השקוה ונדוהו ומת בנדויו וסקלו בית דין את ארונו,והמזלזל בנטילת ידים מאי היא דתנן א"ר יהודה חס ושלום שעקביא בן מהללאל נתנדה שאין עזרה ננעלת על כל אדם בישראל בחכמה ובטהרה וביראת חטא כעקביא בן מהללאל אלא את מי נדו את אלעזר בן חנוך שפקפק בנטילת ידים וכשמת שלחו בית דין והניחו אבן גדולה על ארונו ללמדך שכל המתנדה ומת בנדויו ב"ד סוקלין את ארונו,המגיס דעתו כלפי מעלה מאי היא דתנן שלח לו שמעון בן שטח לחוני המעגל צריך אתה להתנדות ואלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נדוי אבל מה אעשה שאתה מתחטא לפני המקום ועושה לך רצונך כבן שמתחטא לפני אביו ועושה לו רצונו ועליך הכתוב אומר (משלי כג, כה) ישמח אביך ואמך ותגל יולדתך,ותו ליכא והא איכא דתני רב יוסף תודוס איש רומי הנהיג את בני רומי להאכילן גדיים מקולסין בלילי פסחים שלח ליה שמעון בן שטח אלמלא תודוס אתה גוזרני עליך נדוי שאתה מאכיל את ישראל קדשים בחוץ,במשנתנו קאמרינן והא ברייתא היא,ובמתני\ ליכא והא איכא הא דתנן חתכו חוליות ונתן חול בין חוליא לחוליא ר\ אליעזר מטהר וחכמים מטמאים וזהו תנורו של עכנאי,מאי עכנאי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מלמד שהקיפוהו הלכות כעכנאי זה וטמאוהו,ותניא אותו היום הביאו כל טהרות שטיהר ר"א ושרפום לפניו ולבסוף ברכוהו,אפילו הכי נדוי במתני\ לא תנן אלא בכ"ד מקומות היכא משכחת לה ר\ יהושע בן לוי מדמה מילתא למילתא ור\ אלעזר לא מדמה מילתא למילתא: נושאי המטה וחלופיהן: ת"ר אין מוציאין את המת סמוך לק"ש ואם התחילו אין מפסיקין איני והא רב יוסף אפקוהו סמוך לק"ש אדם חשוב שאני:שלפני המטה ושלאחר המטה: ת"ר העוסקים בהספד בזמן שהמת מוטל לפניהם נשמטין אחד אחד וקורין אין המת מוטל לפניהם הן יושבין וקורין והוא יושב ודומם הם עומדים ומתפללין והוא עומד ומצדיק עליו את הדין ואומר רבון העולמים הרבה חטאתי לפניך ולא נפרעת ממני אחד מני אלף יהי רצון מלפניך ה\ אלהינו שתגדור פרצותינו ופרצות כל עמך בית ישראל ברחמים,אמר אביי לא מבעי ליה לאינש למימר הכי דארשב"ל וכן תנא משמיה דרבי יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן,ואמר רב יוסף מאי קראה שנאמר (ישעיהו א, ט) כמעט כסדום היינו מאי אהדר להו נביא שמעו דבר ה\ קציני סדום:קברו את המת וחזרו וכו\: אם יכולים להתחיל ולגמור את כולה אין אבל פרק אחד או פסוק אחד לא ורמינהו קברו את המת וחזרו אם יכולין להתחיל ולגמור אפילו פרק אחד או פסוק אחד,הכי נמי קאמר אם יכולין להתחיל ולגמור אפי\ פרק אחד או אפילו פסוק אחד עד שלא יגיעו לשורה יתחילו ואם לאו לא יתחילו, 22a משמשת וראתה נדה אינה צריכה טבילה אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב לא תימא מברך אלא מהרהר,ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה הרהור והתניא בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול קורא קריאת שמע ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ואוכל פתו ומברך לאחריה ואינו מברך לפניה אבל מהרהר בלבו ואינו מוציא בשפתיו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך מוציא בשפתיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק עשאן ר\ יהודה כהלכות דרך ארץ,דתניא (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה\ אלהיך בחורב מה להלן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע,מכאן אמרו הזבים והמצורעים ובאין על נדות מותרים לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים לשנות במשנה וגמרא ובהלכות ובאגדות אבל בעלי קריין אסורים,רבי יוסי אומר שונה הוא ברגיליות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר מציע הוא את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא רבי נתן בן אבישלום אומר אף מציע את הגמרא ובלבד שלא יאמר אזכרות שבו רבי יוחנן הסנדלר תלמידו של רבי עקיבא משום ר"ע אומר לא יכנס למדרש כל עיקר ואמרי לה לא יכנס לבית המדרש כל עיקר ר\ יהודה אומר שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ,מעשה ברבי יהודה שראה קרי והיה מהלך על גב הנהר אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו שנה לנו פרק אחד בהלכות דרך ארץ ירד וטבל ושנה להם אמרו לו לא כך למדתנו רבינו שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ אמר להם אע"פ שמיקל אני על אחרים מחמיר אני על עצמי:תניא ר\ יהודה בן בתירא היה אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה מעשה בתלמיד אחד שהיה מגמגם למעלה מרבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר ליה בני פתח פיך ויאירו דבריך שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה\ מה אש אינו מקבל טומאה אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה,אמר מר מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא מסייע ליה לרבי אלעאי דאמר רבי אלעאי אמר ר\ אחא בר יעקב משום רבינו הלכה מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא כתנאי מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל זה וזה אסור ואמרי לה זה וזה מותר,מ"ד זה וזה אסור כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר מ"ד זה וזה מותר כרבי יהודה בן בתירא,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק נהוג עלמא כהני תלת סבי כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בד"ת,כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז דתניא רבי אלעאי אומר ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ,כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כדכתיב (דברים כב, ט) (כרמך) לא תזרע כרמך כלאים רבי יאשיה אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד,כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בדברי תורה דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה,כי אתא זעירי אמר בטלוה לטבילותא ואמרי לה בטלוה לנטילותא מאן דאמר בטלוה לטבילותא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא מאן דאמר בטלוה לנטילותא כי הא דרב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא:תנו רבנן בעל קרי שנתנו עליו תשעה קבין מים טהור נחום איש גם זו לחשה לרבי עקיבא ורבי עקיבא לחשה לבן עזאי ובן עזאי יצא ושנאה לתלמידיו בשוק פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד תני שנאה וחד תני לחשה,מאן דתני שנאה משום בטול תורה ומשום בטול פריה ורביה ומאן דתני לחשה שלא יהו תלמידי חכמים מצויים אצל נשותיהם כתרנגולים,אמר רבי ינאי שמעתי שמקילין בה ושמעתי שמחמירין בה וכל המחמיר בה על עצמו מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,אמר ריב"ל מה טיבן של טובלי שחרין מה טיבן הא איהו דאמר בעל קרי אסור בדברי תורה הכי קאמר מה טיבן בארבעים סאה אפשר בתשעה קבין מה טיבן בטבילה אפשר בנתינה,אמר רבי חנינא גדר גדול גדרו בה דתניא מעשה באחד שתבע אשה לדבר עבירה אמרה לו ריקא יש לך ארבעים סאה שאתה טובל בהן מיד פירש,אמר להו רב הונא לרבנן רבותי מפני מה אתם מזלזלין בטבילה זו אי משום צינה אפשר במרחצאות,אמר ליה רב חסדא וכי יש טבילה בחמין אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה קאי כוותך,רבי זירא הוה יתיב באגנא דמיא בי מסותא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל ואייתי לי תשעה קבין ושדי עלואי אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא למה ליה למר כולי האי והא יתיב בגווייהו אמר ליה כארבעים סאה מה ארבעים סאה בטבילה ולא בנתינה אף תשעה קבין בנתינה ולא בטבילה,רב נחמן תקן חצבא בת תשעה קבין כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי עקיבא ורבי יהודה גלוסטרא אמרו לא שנו אלא לחולה לאונסו אבל לחולה המרגיל ארבעים סאה,אמר רב יוסף אתבר חצביה דרב נחמן כי אתא רבין אמר באושא הוה עובדא, 31a אייתי כסא דמוקרא בת ארבע מאה זוזי ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו,רב אשי עבד הלולא לבריה חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קא בדחי טובא אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו,אמרו ליה רבנן לרב המנונא זוטי בהלולא דמר בריה דרבינא לישרי לן מר אמר להו ווי לן דמיתנן ווי לן דמיתנן אמרי ליה אנן מה נעני בתרך א"ל הי תורה והי מצוה דמגנו עלן,א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה שנאמר (תהלים קכו, ב) אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה אימתי בזמן שיאמרו בגוים הגדיל ה\ לעשות עם אלה אמרו עליו על ר"ל שמימיו לא מלא שחוק פיו בעוה"ז מכי שמעה מר\ יוחנן רביה:ת"ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך דין ולא מתוך דבר הלכה אלא מתוך הלכה פסוקה,והיכי דמי הלכה פסוקה,אמר אביי כי הא דר\ זירא דאמר ר\ זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טיפת דם כחרדל יושבת עליה שבעה נקיים,רבא אמר כי הא דרב הושעיא דאמר רב הושעיא מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר,ואב"א כי הא דרב הונא דא"ר הונא א"ר זעירא המקיז דם בבהמת קדשים אסור בהנאה ומועלין בו,רבנן עבדי כמתניתין רב אשי עביד כברייתא.ת"ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה,וכן לא יפטר אדם מחברו לא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שכן מצינו בנביאים הראשונים שסיימו דבריהם בדברי שבח ותנחומים,וכן תנא מרי בר בריה דרב הונא בריה דר\ ירמיה בר אבא אל יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרהו,כי הא דרב כהנא אלוייה לרב שימי בר אשי מפום נהרא עד בי צניתא דבבל כי מטא להתם א"ל מר ודאי דאמרי אינשי הני צניתא דבבל איתנהו מאדם הראשון ועד השתא,א"ל אדכרתן מילתא דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר ר\ יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ב, ו) בארץ אשר לא עבר בה איש ולא ישב אדם שם וכי מאחר דלא עבר היאך ישב אלא לומר לך כל ארץ שגזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב נתישבה וכל ארץ שלא גזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב לא נתישבה,רב מרדכי אלוייה לרב שימי בר אשי מהגרוניא ועד בי כיפי ואמרי לה עד בי דורא:ת"ר המתפלל צריך שיכוין את לבו לשמים אבא שאול אומר סימן לדבר (תהלים י, יז) תכין לבם תקשיב אזנך,תניא א"ר יהודה כך היה מנהגו של ר"ע כשהיה מתפלל עם הצבור היה מקצר ועולה מפני טורח צבור וכשהיה מתפלל בינו לבין עצמו אדם מניחו בזוית זו ומוצאו בזוית אחרת וכל כך למה מפני כריעות והשתחויות:א"ר חייא בר אבא לעולם יתפלל אדם בבית שיש בו חלונות שנאמר (דניאל ו, יא) וכוין פתיחן ליה וגו\,יכול יתפלל אדם כל היום כלו כבר מפורש על ידי דניאל (דניאל ו, יא) וזמנין תלתא וגו\,יכול משבא לגולה הוחלה כבר נאמר (דניאל ו, יא) די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא,יכול יתפלל אדם לכל רוח שירצה ת"ל (דניאל ו, יא) (לקבל) נגד ירושלם,יכול יהא כוללן בבת אחת כבר מפורש ע"י דוד דכתיב (תהלים נה, יח) ערב ובקר וצהרים וגו\,יכול ישמיע קולו בתפלתו כבר מפורש על ידי חנה שנאמר (שמואל א א, יג) וקולה לא ישמע,יכול ישאל אדם צרכיו ואח"כ יתפלל כבר מפורש על ידי שלמה שנאמר (מלכים א ח, כח) לשמוע אל הרנה ואל התפלה רנה זו תפלה תפלה זו בקשה אין אומר דבר (בקשה) אחר אמת ויציב אבל אחר התפלה אפי\ כסדר וידוי של יה"כ אומר איתמר,נמי אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב אע"פ שאמרו שואל אדם צרכיו בשומע תפלה אם בא לומר אחר תפלתו אפילו כסדר יום הכפורים אומר: אמר רב המנונא כמה הלכתא גברוותא איכא למשמע מהני קראי דחנה (שמואל א א, יג) וחנה היא מדברת על לבה מכאן למתפלל צריך שיכוין לבו רק שפתיה נעות מכאן למתפלל שיחתוך בשפתיו וקולה לא ישמע מכאן שאסור להגביה קולו בתפלתו ויחשבה עלי לשכורה מכאן ששכור אסור להתפלל,ויאמר אליה עלי עד מתי תשתכרין וגו\ א"ר אלעזר מכאן לרואה בחברו, 33b אמר ליה רבינא לרבא הלכתא מאי אמר ליה כי קידוש מה קידוש אף על גב דמקדש בצלותא מקדש אכסא אף הבדלה נמי אע"ג דמבדיל בצלותא מבדיל אכסא:ר\ אליעזר אומר בהודאה:ר\ זירא הוה רכיב חמרא הוה קא שקיל ואזיל ר\ חייא בר אבין בתריה אמר ליה ודאי דאמריתו משמיה דר\ יוחנן הלכה כר\ אליעזר ביום טוב שחל להיות אחר השבת אמר ליה אין,הלכה מכלל דפליגי,ולא פליגי והא פליגי רבנן,אימר דפליגי רבנן בשאר ימות השנה ביום טוב שחל להיות אחר השבת מי פליגי,והא פליג ר\ עקיבא,אטו כל השנה כולה מי עבדינן כר\ עקיבא דהשתא ניקו ונעביד כוותיה כל השנה כולה מאי טעמא לא עבדינן כרבי עקיבא דתמני סרי תקון תשסרי לא תקון הכא נמי שב תקון תמני לא תקון,אמר ליה לאו הלכה אתמר אלא מטין אתמר,דאתמר ר\ יצחק בר אבדימי אמר משום רבינו הלכה ואמרי לה מטין,ר\ יוחנן אמר מודים ור\ חייא בר אבא אמר נראין,אמר ר\ זירא נקוט דרבי חייא בר אבא בידך דדייק וגמר שמעתא מפומא דמרה שפיר כרחבא דפומבדיתא,דאמר רחבא אמר ר\ יהודה הר הבית סטיו כפול היה והיה סטיו לפנים מסטיו,אמר רב יוסף אנא לא האי ידענא ולא האי ידענא אלא מדרב ושמואל ידענא דתקינו לן מרגניתא בבבל,ותודיענו ה\ אלהינו את משפטי צדקך ותלמדנו לעשות חקי רצונך ותנחילנו זמני ששון וחגי נדבה ותורישנו קדושת שבת וכבוד מועד וחגיגת הרגל בין קדושת שבת לקדושת יום טוב הבדלת ואת יום השביעי מששת ימי המעשה קדשת הבדלת וקדשת את עמך ישראל בקדושתך ותתן לנו וכו\:מתני׳ האומר על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך ועל טוב יזכר שמך מודים מודים משתקין אותו:גמ׳ בשלמא מודים מודים משתקין אותו משום דמיחזי כשתי רשויות ועל טוב יזכר שמך נמי משמע על הטובה ולא על הרעה ותנן חייב אדם לברך על הרעה כשם שמברך על הטובה אלא על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך מ"ט,פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד אמר מפני שמטיל קנאה במעשה בראשית וחד אמר מפני שעושה מדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא רחמים ואינן אלא גזרות,ההוא דנחית קמיה דרבה ואמר אתה חסת על קן צפור אתה חוס ורחם עלינו אמר רבה כמה ידע האי צורבא מרבנן לרצויי למריה א"ל אביי והא משתקין אותו תנן,ורבה נמי לחדודי לאביי הוא דבעי,ההוא דנחית קמיה דר\ חנינא אמר האל הגדול הגבור והנורא והאדיר והעזוז והיראוי החזק והאמיץ והודאי והנכבד,המתין לו עד דסיים כי סיים א"ל סיימתינהו לכולהו שבחי דמרך למה לי כולי האי אנן הני תלת דאמרינן אי לאו דאמרינהו משה רבינו באורייתא ואתו אנשי כנסת הגדולה ותקנינהו בתפלה לא הוינן יכולין למימר להו ואת אמרת כולי האי ואזלת משל למלך בשר ודם שהיו לו אלף אלפים דינרי זהב והיו מקלסין אותו בשל כסף והלא גנאי הוא לו:ואמר רבי חנינא הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים שנאמר (דברים י, יב) ועתה ישראל מה ה\ אלהיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה,אטו יראת שמים מילתא זוטרתא היא והא"ר חנינא משום ר\ שמעון בן יוחי אין לו להקב"ה בבית גנזיו אלא אוצר של יראת שמים שנאמר (ישעיהו לג, ו) יראת ה\ היא אוצרו,אין לגבי משה מילתא זוטרתא היא דאמר ר\ חנינא משל לאדם שמבקשים ממנו כלי גדול ויש לו דומה עליו ככלי קטן קטן ואין לו דומה עליו ככלי גדול:מודים מודים משתקין אותו:אמר ר\ זירא כל האומר שמע שמע כאומר מודים מודים דמי,מיתיבי הקורא את שמע וכופלה הרי זה מגונה מגונה הוא דהוי שתוקי לא משתקינן ליה,לא קשיא הא דאמר מילתא מילתא ותני לה והא דאמר פסוקא פסוקא ותני ליה,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ודילמא מעיקרא לא כוון דעתיה ולבסוף כוון דעתיה,אמר ליה, 58a אמר רבי ירמיה בן אלעזר נתקללה בבל נתקללו שכניה נתקללה שומרון נתברכו שכניה נתקללה בבל נתקללו שכניה דכתיב (ישעיהו יד, כג) ושמתיה למורש קפוד ואגמי מים נתקללה שומרון נתברכו שכניה דכתיב (מיכה א, ו) ושמתי שומרון לעי השדה למטעי כרם וגו\,ואמר רב המנונא הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים אוכלוסי עובדי כוכבים אומר (ירמיהו נ, יב) בושה אמכם וגו\,ת"ר הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים שאין דעתם דומה זה לזה ואין פרצופיהן דומים זה לזה בן זומא ראה אוכלוסא על גב מעלה בהר הבית אמר ברוך חכם הרזים וברוך שברא כל אלו לשמשני,הוא היה אומר כמה יגיעות יגע אדם הראשון עד שמצא פת לאכול חרש וזרע וקצר ועמר ודש וזרה וברר וטחן והרקיד ולש ואפה ואח"כ אכל ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו מתוקנין לפני וכמה יגיעות יגע אדם הראשון עד שמצא בגד ללבוש גזז ולבן ונפץ וטוה וארג ואחר כך מצא בגד ללבוש ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו מתוקנים לפני כל אומות שוקדות ובאות לפתח ביתי ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו לפני,הוא היה אומר אורח טוב מהו אומר כמה טרחות טרח בעל הבית בשבילי כמה בשר הביא לפני כמה יין הביא לפני כמה גלוסקאות הביא לפני וכל מה שטרח לא טרח אלא בשבילי אבל אורח רע מהו אומר מה טורח טרח בעל הבית זה פת אחת אכלתי חתיכה אחת אכלתי כוס אחד שתיתי כל טורח שטרח בעל הבית זה לא טרח אלא בשביל אשתו ובניו,על אורח טוב מהו אומר (איוב לו, כד) זכור כי תשגיא פעלו אשר שוררו אנשים על אורח רע כתיב (איוב לז, כד) לכן יראוהו אנשים וגו\,(שמואל א יז, יב) והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים אמר רבא ואיתימא רב זביד ואיתימא רב אושעיא זה ישי אבי דוד שיצא באוכלוסא ונכנס באוכלוסא ודרש באוכלוסא אמר עולא נקיטינן אין אוכלוסא בבבל תנא אין אוכלוסא פחותה מששים רבוא,ת"ר הרואה חכמי ישראל אומר ברוך שחלק מחכמתו ליראיו חכמי עובדי כוכבים אומר ברוך שנתן מחכמתו לבריותיו הרואה מלכי ישראל אומר ברוך שחלק מכבודו ליראיו מלכי עובדי כוכבים אומר ברוך שנתן מכבודו לבריותיו,א"ר יוחנן לעולם ישתדל אדם לרוץ לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אלא אפי\ לקראת מלכי עובדי כוכבים שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עובדי כוכבים,רב ששת סגי נהור הוה הוו קאזלי כולי עלמא לקבולי אפי מלכא וקם אזל בהדייהו רב ששת אשכחיה ההוא צדוקי אמר ליה חצבי לנהרא כגני לייא אמר ליה תא חזי דידענא טפי מינך חלף גונדא קמייתא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי אתא מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קאתי חלף גונדא תניינא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי השתא קא אתי מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קא אתי מלכא חליף תליתאי כי קא שתקא אמר ליה רב ששת ודאי השתא אתי מלכא,אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי מנא לך הא אמר ליה דמלכותא דארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא דכתיב (מלכים א יט, יא) צא ועמדת בהר לפני ה\ והנה ה\ עובר ורוח גדולה וחזק מפרק הרים ומשבר סלעים לפני ה\ לא ברוח ה\ ואחר הרוח רעש לא ברעש ה\ ואחר הרעש אש לא באש ה\ ואחר האש קול דממה דקה,כי אתא מלכא פתח רב ששת וקא מברך ליה אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי למאן דלא חזית ליה קא מברכת ומאי הוי עליה דההוא צדוקי איכא דאמרי חברוהי כחלינהו לעיניה ואיכא דאמרי רב ששת נתן עיניו בו ונעשה גל של עצמות,ר\ שילא נגדיה לההוא גברא דבעל מצרית אזל אכל ביה קורצי בי מלכא אמר איכא חד גברא ביהודאי דקא דיין דינא בלא הרמנא דמלכא שדר עליה פריסתקא כי אתא אמרי ליה מה טעמא נגדתיה להאי אמר להו דבא על חמרתא אמרי ליה אית לך סהדי אמר להו אין אתא אליהו אדמי ליה כאיניש ואסהיד אמרי ליה אי הכי בר קטלא הוא אמר להו אנן מיומא דגלינן מארעין לית לן רשותא למקטל אתון מאי דבעיתון עבידו ביה,עד דמעייני ביה בדינא פתח ר\ שילא ואמר (דברי הימים א כט, יא) לך ה\ הגדולה והגבורה וגו\ אמרי ליה מאי קאמרת אמר להו הכי קאמינא בריך רחמנא דיהיב מלכותא בארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא ויהב לכו שולטנא ורחמי דינא אמרו חביבא עליה יקרא דמלכותא כולי האי יהבי ליה קולפא אמרו ליה דון דינא,כי הוה נפיק אמר ליה ההוא גברא עביד רחמנא ניסא לשקרי הכי אמר ליה רשע לאו חמרי איקרו דכתיב (יחזקאל כג, כ) אשר בשר חמורים בשרם חזייה דקאזיל למימרא להו דקרינהו חמרי אמר האי רודף הוא והתורה אמרה אם בא להרגך השכם להרגו מחייה בקולפא וקטליה,אמר הואיל ואתעביד לי ניסא בהאי קרא דרשינא ליה לך ה\ הגדולה זו מעשה בראשית וכן הוא אומר (איוב ט, י) עושה גדולות עד אין חקר והגבורה זו יציאת מצרים שנאמר (שמות יד, לא) וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה וגו\ והתפארת זו חמה ולבנה שיעמדו לו ליהושע שנאמר (יהושע י, יג) וידום השמש וירח עמד וגו\ והנצח זו מפלתה של רומי וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו סג, ג) ויז נצחם על בגדי וגו\ וההוד זו מלחמת נחלי ארנון שנאמר (במדבר כא, יד) על כן יאמר בספר מלחמות ה\ את והב בסופה וגו\ כי כל בשמים ובארץ זו מלחמת סיסרא שנאמר (שופטים ה, כ) מן שמים נלחמו הכוכבים ממסלותם וגו\ לך ה\ הממלכה זו מלחמת עמלק וכן הוא אומר (שמות יז, טז) כי יד על כס יה והמתנשא זו מלחמת גוג ומגוג וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל לח, ג) הנני אליך גוג נשיא ראש משך ותובל לכל לראש אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר ר\ יוחנן אפילו ריש גרגיתא מן שמיא מנו ליה,במתניתא תנא משמיה דרבי עקיבא לך ה\ הגדולה זו קריעת ים סוף והגבורה זו מכת בכורות והתפארת זו מתן תורה והנצח זו ירושלים וההוד זו בית המקדש: 62a תניא אמר רבי עקיבא פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר ר\ יהושע לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג\ דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר ליה בן עזאי עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך א"ל תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,תניא בן עזאי אומר פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר רבי עקיבא לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג\ דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר לו ר\ יהודה עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,רב כהנא על גנא תותיה פורייה דרב שמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו אמר ליה דמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילא א"ל כהנא הכא את פוק דלאו אורח ארעא אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,מפני מה אין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר רבא מפני שהתורה ניתנה בימין שנאמר (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו רבה בר בר חנה אמר מפני שהיא קרובה לפה ור\ שמעון בן לקיש אמר מפני שקושר בה תפילין רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה,כתנאי רבי אליעזר אומר מפני שאוכל בה ר\ יהושע אומר מפני שכותב בה ר\ עקיבא אומר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה,א"ר תנחום בר חנילאי כל הצנוע בבית הכסא נצול משלשה דברים מן הנחשים ומן העקרבים ומן המזיקין ויש אומרים אף חלומותיו מיושבים עליו,ההוא בית הכסא דהוה בטבריא כי הוו עיילי ביה בי תרי אפי\ ביממא מתזקי רבי אמי ורבי אסי הוו עיילי ביה חד וחד לחודיה ולא מתזקי אמרי להו רבנן לא מסתפיתו אמרי להו אנן קבלה גמירינן קבלה דבית הכסא צניעותא ושתיקותא קבלה דיסורי שתיקותא ומבעי רחמי,אביי מרביא ליה אמיה אמרא למיעל בהדיה לבית הכסא ולרביא ליה גדיא שעיר בשעיר מיחלף,רבא מקמי דהוי רישא מקרקשא ליה בת רב חסדא אמגוזא בלקנא בתר דמלך עבדא ליה כוותא ומנחא ליה ידא ארישיה,אמר עולא אחורי הגדר נפנה מיד ובבקעה כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע איסי בר נתן מתני הכי אחורי הגדר כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע ובבקעה כל זמן שאין חברו רואהו,מיתיבי יוצאין מפתח בית הבד ונפנין לאחורי הגדר והן טהורין,בטהרות הקלו,ת"ש כמה ירחקו ויהיו טהורין כדי שיהא רואהו שאני אוכלי טהרות דאקילו בהו רבנן,רב אשי אמר מאי כל זמן שאין חברו רואה דקאמר איסי בר נתן כל זמן שאין חברו רואה את פרועו אבל לדידיה חזי ליה,ההוא ספדנא דנחית קמיה דרב נחמן אמר האי צנוע באורחותיו הוה א"ל רב נחמן את עיילת בהדיה לבית הכסא וידעת אי צנוע אי לא דתניא אין קורין צנוע אלא למי שצנוע בבית הכסא,ורב נחמן מאי נפקא ליה מיניה משום דתניא כשם שנפרעין מן המתים כך נפרעין מן הספדנין ומן העונין אחריהן,תנו רבנן איזהו צנוע זה הנפנה בלילה במקום שנפנה ביום,איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק ותו רבא ביממא הוה אזיל עד מיל ובליליא א"ל לשמעיה פנו לי דוכתא ברחובה דמתא וכן אמר ליה רבי זירא לשמעיה חזי מאן דאיכא אחורי בית חבריא דבעינא למפני לא תימא במקום אלא אימא כדרך שנפנה ביום,רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא במקום לא נצרכה אלא לקרן זוית,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק,תניא נמי הכי בן עזאי אומר השכם וצא הערב וצא כדי שלא תתרחק משמש ושב ואל תשב ותמשמש שכל היושב וממשמש אפי\ עושין כשפים באספמיא באין עליו,ואי אנשי ויתיב ואח"כ משמש מאי תקנתיה כי קאי לימא הכי לא לי לא לי לא תחים ולא תחתים לא הני ולא מהני לא חרשי דחרשא ולא חרשי דחרשתא, 5a If one is a Torah scholar, he need not recite Shema on his bed since he is always engaged in the study of Torah and will likely fall asleep engrossed in matters of Torah. Abaye said: Even a Torah scholar must recite at least one verse of prayer, such as: “Into Your hand I trust my spirit; You have redeemed me, Lord, God of truth” (Psalms 31:6).Incidental to the verse, “Tremble, and do not sin,” the Gemara mentions that Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One should always incite his good inclination against his evil inclination, i.e. that one must constantly struggle so that his evil inclination does not lead him to transgression, as it is stated: "Tremble, and do not sin."rIf one succeeds and subdues his evil inclination, excellent, but if he does not succeed in subduing it, he should study Torah, as alluded to in the verse: “Say to your heart.” rIf he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should recite Shema, which contains the acceptance of the yoke of God, and the concept of reward and punishment, as it is stated in the verse: “Upon your bed,” which alludes to Shema, where it says: “When you lie down.” rIf he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should remind himself of the day of death, whose silence is alluded to in the continuation of the verse: “And be still, Selah.”,And Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: God said to Moses, “Ascend to me on the mountain and be there, and I will give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the mitzva that I have written that you may teach them” (Exodus 24:12), meaning that God revealed to Moses not only the Written Torah, but all of Torah, as it would be transmitted through the generations. rThe “tablets” are the ten commandments that were written on the tablets of the Covet, rthe “Torah” is the five books of Moses. rThe “mitzva” is the Mishna, which includes explanations for the mitzvot and how they are to be performed. r“That I have written” refers to the Prophets and Writings, written with divine inspiration. r“That you may teach them” refers to the Talmud, which explains the Mishna. rThese explanations are the foundation for the rulings of practical halakha. This verse teaches that all aspects of Torah were given to Moses from Sinai.,The Gemara continues its treatment of the recitation of Shema upon one’s bed. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema on his bed, it is as if he holds a double-edged sword, guarding him from all evil, as it is stated: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands” (Psalms 149:6). The Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that this verse from Psalms refers to the recitation of Shema? Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: We derive it from the preceding verse, as it is written: “Let the pious exult in glory; let them joyously sing upon their beds.” The praise of God from one’s bed is the recitation of Shema. And it is written thereafter: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands.”,And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema upon his bed, demons stay away from him. This is alluded to, as it is stated: “But man is born into trouble, and the sparks reshef fly uf upward” (Job 5:7). The verse is explained: The word fly uf means nothing other than Torah, as Torah is difficult to grasp and easy to lose, like something that floats away, as it is stated: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone; for riches certainly make themselves wings, like an eagle that flies into the heavens” (Proverbs 23:5). The word “sparks” means nothing other than demons, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks reshef and bitter destruction ketev meriri, and the teeth of beasts I will send upon them, with the venom of crawling things of the dust” (Deuteronomy 32:24). Here we see reshef listed along with ketev meriri, both of which are understood by the Sages to be names of demons.Regarding this unclear verse, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one engages in Torah study, suffering stays away from him, as it is stated: “And the sparks fly upward.” And fly means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone; and sparks means nothing other than suffering, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks,” equating devouring sparks with wasting hunger, as both are types of suffering. From here, we derive that through Torah, fly, one is able to distance himself, upward, from suffering, sparks.Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Even schoolchildren, who learn only the Written Torah, know this concept as it is stated: “And He said you shall surely hear the voice of the Lord your God, and what is upright in His eyes you shall do and you shall listen to His mitzvot and guard His statutes; any disease that I have placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you for I am the Lord your healer” (Exodus 15:26). Rather, one must interpret the verse: Anyone who is able to engage in Torah study yet does not engage in that study, not only does the Holy One, Blessed be He, fail to protect him, but He brings upon him hideous afflictions, that embarrass him and trouble him, as it is stated: “I was mute with silence; I was silent from good, and my pain was strong” (Psalms 39:3). The word good means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it” (Proverbs 4:2). The verse should be understood: “I have been silent from the study of Torah, and my pain was strong.”,With regard to the verse: “For I have given you a good portion,” Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa, said: Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood. It is characteristic of flesh and blood that when one sells an object to another person, the seller grieves the loss of his possession and the buyer rejoices. With regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, however, this is not so. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it.” A good portion is understood as a good purchase; although God sold Torah to Israel, He rejoices in the sale and praises the object before its new owner (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto).Previously, the Gemara discussed suffering that results from one’s transgressions. The Gemara shifts the focus and discusses suffering that does not result from one’s transgressions and the suffering of the righteous. Rava, and some say Rav Ḥisda, said: If a person sees that suffering has befallen him, he should examine his actions. Generally, suffering comes about as punishment for one’s transgressions, as it is stated: “We will search and examine our ways, and return to God” (Lamentations 3:40). If he examined his ways and found no transgression for which that suffering is appropriate, he may attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah. God punishes an individual for dereliction in the study of Torah in order to emphasize the gravity of the issue, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You punish, Lord, and teach out of Your law” (Psalms 94:12). This verse teaches us that his suffering will cause him to return to Your law.And if he did attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah, and did not find this to be so, he may be confident that these are afflictions of love, as it is stated: “For whom the Lord loves, He rebukes, as does a father the son in whom he delights” (Proverbs 3:12).So too, Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: Anyone in whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights, He oppresses him with suffering, as it is stated: “Yet in whom the Lord delights, He oppresses him with disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in guilt, that he might see his children, lengthen his days, and that the desire of the Lord might prosper by his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness.I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.” Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly.,And if one accepts that suffering with love, what is his reward? As the second part of the verse states: “That he might see his children, lengthen his days.” Moreover, in addition to these earthly rewards, his Torah study will endure and his Torah study will be successful, as it is stated: “The purpose of the Lord,” the Torah, the revelation of God’s will, “might prosper by his hand.”,With regard to the acceptance of affliction with love and what exactly this entails, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina disagree. One of them said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the study of Torah, i.e. any which do not afflict his body to the extent that he is unable to study Torah, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, and teach from Your Torah.” Afflictions of love are when You “teach from Your Torah.”,And one said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, as it is stated: “Blessed is God Who did not turn away my prayer” (Psalms 66:20). Despite his suffering, the afflicted is still capable of praying to God.Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: My father, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that Rabbi Yoḥa said as follows: Both, even afflictions that cause dereliction in the study of Torah and those that cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, are afflictions of love, as with regard to one who suffers without transgression it is stated: “For whom He loves, He rebukes,” and inability to study Torah and to pray are among his afflictions.What then, is the meaning when the verse states: “And teach him from Your Torah”? Do not read and teach to mean and teach him, rather, and teach us. You teach us the value of this affliction from Your Torah.,This is taught through an a fortiori inference from the law concerning the tooth and eye of a slave: The tooth and eye are each a single limb of a person and if his master damages either, the slave thereby obtains his freedom; suffering that cleanses a person’s entire body all the more so that one attains freedom, atonement, from his sins.And that is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The word covet is used with regard to salt, and the word covet is used with regard to afflictions. The word covet is used with regard to salt, as it is written: “The salt of the covet with your God should not be excluded from your meal-offering; with all your sacrifices you must offer salt” (Leviticus 2:13). And the word covet is used with regard to afflictions, as it is written: “These are the words of the covet” (Deuteronomy 28:69). Just as, in the covet mentioned with regard to salt, the salt sweetens the taste of the meat and renders it edible, so too in the covet mentioned with regard to suffering, the suffering cleanses a person’s transgressions, purifying him for a more sublime existence.Additionally, it was taught in a baraita with regard to affliction: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, all of which were given only by means of suffering, which purified Israel so that they may merit to receive them. These gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come.,From where is it derived that Torah is only acquired by means of suffering? As it is said: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord,” after which it is said: “And teach from Your Torah.”,Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: “As a man rebukes his son, so the Lord your God rebukes you” (Deuteronomy 8:5), and it is written thereafter: “For the Lord your God will bring you to a good land.”,The World-to-Come, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, the Torah is light, and the reproofs of instruction are the way of life” (Proverbs 6:23). One may arrive at the lamp of mitzva and the light of Torah that exists in the World-to-Come only by means of the reproofs of instruction in this world.A tanna taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥa: If one engages in Torah and acts of charity, 6a In terms of this reward, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: One who waits in the synagogue for the other to finish his prayer merits the following blessings, as it is stated: “If only you had listened to My mitzvot then your peace would be as a river, and your righteousness as the waves of the sea. Your seed would be as the sand, and the offspring of your body like the grains thereof; his name would be neither cut off nor destroyed from before Me” (Isaiah 48:18–19). The explanation of this passage is based on the etymological similarity between the word mitzva and the word tzevet, which means group. If he keeps the other person company and does not abandon him after his prayer, all of the blessings that appear later in the verse will be fulfilled in him (Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona).In another baraita it was taught that Abba Binyamin says: If the eye was given permission to see, no creature would be able to withstand the abundance and ubiquity of the demons and continue to live unaffected by them.Similarly, Abaye said: They are more numerous than we are and they stand over us like mounds of earth surrounding a pit.,Rav Huna said: Each and every one of us has a thousand demons to his left and ten thousand to his right. God protects man from these demons, as it says in the verse: “A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; they will not approach you” (Psalms 91:7).Summarizing the effects of the demons, Rava said: rThe crowding at the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, is from the demons;rthose knees that are fatigued even though one did not exert himself is from the demons; rthose clothes of the Sages that wear out, despite the fact that they do not engage in physical labor, is from friction with the demons; rthose feet that are in pain is from the demons.One who seeks to know that the demons exist should place fine ashes around his bed, and in the morning the demons’ footprints appear like chickens’ footprints, in the ash. One who seeks to see them should take the afterbirth of a firstborn female black cat, born to a firstborn female black cat, burn it in the fire, grind it and place it in his eyes, and he will see them. He must then place the ashes in an iron tube sealed with an iron seal gushpanka lest the demons steal it from him, and then seal the opening so he will not be harmed. Rav Beivai bar Abaye performed this procedure, saw the demons, and was harmed. The Sages prayed for mercy on his behalf and he was healed.,It was taught in a baraita that Abba Binyamin said: One’s prayer is only fully heard in a synagogue, as it is stated with regard to King Solomon’s prayer in the Temple: “Yet have You turned toward the prayer of Your servant and to his supplication, Lord my God, to listen to the song and the prayer which Your servant prays before You on this day” (I Kings 8:28). The following verse concludes: “To hear the prayer Your servant directs toward this place” (I Kings 8:29). We see that one’s prayer is heard specifically in the Temple, of which the synagogue is a microcosm (Rav Yoshiyahu Pinto). It may be inferred that in a place of song, a synagogue where God’s praises are sung, there prayer should be.,In explaining Abba Binyamin’s statement, Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is located in a synagogue? As it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1). The congregation of God is the place where people congregate to sing God’s praises, and God is located among His congregation.And from where is it derived that ten people who pray, the Divine Presence is with them? As it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God,” and the minimum number of people that constitute a congregation is a quorum of ten.From where is it derived that three who sit in judgment, the Divine Presence is with them? It is derived from this same verse, as it is stated: “In the midst of the judges He judges,” and the minimum number of judges that comprises a court is three.From where is it derived that two who sit and engage in Torah study, the Divine Presence is with them? As it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). The Divine Presence listens to any two God-fearing individuals who speak with each other.With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase, “And that think upon His name”? Rav Ashi said: If a person intended to perform a mitzva, but due to circumstances beyond his control, he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzva, as he is among those that think upon His name.The Gemara returns to Ravin bar Rav Adda’s statement: And from where is it derived that when even one who sits and engages in Torah study, the Divine Presence is with him? As it is stated: “In every place where I cause My Name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21); God blesses even a single person who mentions God’s name, a reference to Torah study (Iyyun Ya’akov).The Gemara asks: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon one who engages in Torah study, was it necessary to say that the Divine Presence rests upon two who study Torah together? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them. Two people, their words of Torah are written in the book of remembrance, as it is stated: “And a book of remembrance was written”; however a single individual’s words of Torah are not written in a book of remembrance.,The Gemara continues: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon two who engage in Torah study, is it necessary to mention three? The Gemara answers: Here too, a special verse is necessary lest you say that judgment is merely to keep the peace among the citizenry, and the Divine Presence does not come and rest upon those who sit in judgment as they are not engaged in Torah study. Ravin bar Rav Adda teaches us that sitting in judgment is also Torah.,The Gemara asks: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon three, is it necessary to mention ten? The Gemara answers: The Divine Presence arrives before a group of ten, as the verse: “God stands in the congregation of God,” indicates that when the ten individuals who comprise a congregation arrive, the Divine Presence is already there. For a group of three judges, however, the Divine Presence does not arrive until they sit and begin their deliberations, as in the midst of the judges He judges. God aids them in their judgment, but does not arrive before them.The Gemara cites another aggadic statement: Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, wears phylacteries? As it is stated: “The Lord has sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength” (Isaiah 62:8). Since it is customary to swear upon holy objects, it is understood that His right hand and the arm of His strength are the holy objects upon which God swore.Specifically, “His right hand” refers to the Torah, as it is stated in describing the giving of the Torah: “From His right hand, a fiery law for His people” (Deuteronomy 33:2). “The arm of His strength,” His left hand, refers to phylacteries, as it is stated: “The Lord gave strength to His nation” (Psalms 29:11), in the form of the mitzva of phylacteries.The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that phylacteries provide strength for Israel? As it is written: “And all the nations of the land shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you, and they will fear you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written in fulfillment of the verse: “That the name of the Lord is called upon you.”,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: What is written in the phylacteries of the Master of the world? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin replied: It is written: “Who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” (I Chronicles 17:21). God’s phylacteries serve to connect Him, in a sense, to the world, the essence of which is Israel.Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continues: Is the Holy One, Blessed be He, glorified through the glory of Israel? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin answered: Yes, as indicated by the juxtaposition of two verses; as it is stated: “You have affirmed, this day, that the Lord is your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His laws and commandments, and listen to His voice.” And the subsequent verse states: “And the Lord has affirmed, this day, that you are His treasure, as He spoke to you, to keep His commandments” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18). From these two verses it is derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: You have made Me a single entity ḥativa in the world, as you singled Me out as separate and unique. And because of this, I will make you a single entity in the world, and you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God.You have made Me a single entity in the world, as it is stated that Israel declares God’s oneness by saying: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And because of this, I will make you a single entity in the world, unique and elevated with the utterance: “Who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” Consequently, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is glorified through the glory of Israel whose praises are written in God’s phylacteries.Rav Aḥa, son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: It works out well with regard to the contents of one of the four compartments of God’s phylacteries of the head. However, all four compartments of Israel’s phylacteries of the head contain portions of the Torah that praise God. What portions in praise of Israel are written in the rest of the compartments of God’s phylacteries of the head?Rav Ashi said to him: In those three compartments it is written: “For who is a great nation, to whom God is close, like the Lord our God whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7); “And who is a great nation, who has righteous statutes and laws, like this entire Torah which I set before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:8); “Happy are you, Israel, who is like you? A people saved by the Lord, the shield of your help, and that is the sword of your excellence. And your enemies shall dwindle away before you, and you shall tread upon their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29); “Or has God attempted to go and take for Himself a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs and by wonders” (Deuteronomy 4:34); “And to elevate you above all nations that He has made, in praise, in name and in glory; that you may be a holy people to the Lord, your God, as He has spoken” (Deuteronomy 26:19).Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, raises an objection: If all of these verses are included in God’s phylacteries of the head, there are too many compartments as more than four verses of praise were listed. Rather, the portions in God’s phylacteries must be arranged as follows: The verses “For who is a great nation” and “And who is a great nation” are included in one compartment, as they are similar. “Happy are you, Israel” and "Who is like your people, Israel" are in one compartment. “Or has God attempted” is in one compartment and “And to elevate you” is in one compartment, 8a What is the meaning of that which is written: “But as for me, let my prayer be unto You, Lord, in a time of favor; O God, in the abundance of Your mercy, answer me with the truth of Your salvation” (Psalms 69:14)? It appears that the individual is praying that his prayers will coincide with a special time of Divine favor. When is a time of favor? It is at the time when the congregation is praying. It is beneficial to pray together with the congregation, for God does not fail to respond to the entreaties of the congregation.Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the unique quality of communal prayer is derived from here: “Thus said the Lord, in a time of acceptance I have answered you and on a day of salvation I have aided you” (Isaiah 49:8).Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that it is derived from here: “Behold, God is mighty, He despises no one” (Job 36:5). He adopts an alternative reading of the verse: “Behold, God will not despise” the prayer of “the mighty,” i.e. the community. And it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me. God shall hear and answer them…” (Psalms 55:19–20). This verse teaches that the prayer was answered because there were many with me when it was offered.That last proof was also taught in a baraita. Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not despise the prayer of the masses? As it is stated: “Behold, God does not despise the mighty,” and it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me.” Rabbi Natan interprets this not as David speaking about himself, but as God speaking to Israel. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Anyone who engages in Torah study, which is called peace in the verse: “All its ways are peace” (Proverbs 3:17); and in acts of kindness, and prays with the congregation, I ascribe to him credit as if he redeemed Me and My children from among the nations of the world.,Continuing to extol communal prayer, Reish Lakish said: One who has a synagogue nearby in his city but does not enter to pray there is called an evil neighbor, as it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: As for all My evil neighbors who touch My inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit, behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them” (Jeremiah 12:14). One who only touches, but does not enter the place of prayer, My inheritance, is considered an evil neighbor. And furthermore, he is punished in that he causes himself and his children to go into exile, as it is stated: “Behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them.”,The Gemara relates that when the Sages told Rabbi Yoḥa that there are elders in Babylonia, he was confounded and said: It is written: “So that your days will be lengthened and the days of your children upon the land the Lord swore to your forefathers to give to them like the days of heaven on the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21); lengthened in Eretz Yisrael but not outside of the Land. Why then, do the residents of Babylonia live long lives? When they told him that the people in Babylonia go early in the morning and go late in the evening to the synagogue, he said: That is what was effective for them in extending their lives.As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to his sons: Go early and go late and enter the synagogue, so that your lives will be extended. And Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Upon what verse is this based? As it is stated: “Happy is the man who listens to Me, watching daily at My gates, guarding at My door posts” (Proverbs 8:34). And the reward for doing so is written thereafter: “For whoso finds Me finds life and obtains the favor of the Lord” (Proverbs 8:35).Based on this verse, Rav Ḥisda said: A person should always enter two doorways into the synagogue. This statement is unclear. Immediately, the Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that Rav Ḥisda meant that one should enter two doorways literally? What if a synagogue only has a single doorway? Rather, emend his statement and say that Rav Ḥisda meant that one should enter a distance of two doorways into the synagogue and then pray. In entering a distance of two doorways, one fulfills the verse: Guarding at My door posts, in the plural.Having mentioned the verse, “For whoso finds Me finds life,” the Gemara seeks to clarify its meaning. It is said, “For this, let every pious man pray to You in the time of finding, that the overflowing waters may not reach him” (Psalms 32:6). With regard to the phrase, the time of finding, Rabbi Ḥanina said: The time of finding refers to the time one must find a wife, that one should pray to find a suitable woman to marry. As it is said: “He who finds matza a wife finds matza good and obtains favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22).In Eretz Yisrael, the custom was that when a man married a woman, they would ask him: Matza or motzeh? In other words, they would ask the groom whether the appropriate passage for his wife is the above verse from Proverbs that begins with the word matza, as it is written: “He who finds a wife finds good and obtains favor from the Lord” or whether the more appropriate verse is the one beginning with the word motzeh, as it is written: “And I find motzeh the woman more bitter than death” (Ecclesiastes 7:26).Rabbi Natan says: The time of finding refers to the time of finding Torah, as it is stated in a verse referring to Torah: “He who finds Me finds life.” The Torah is the object most sought.Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The time of finding refers to death. One should pray that when death comes, he will leave the world peacefully, as it is stated: “Issues totzaot of death” (Psalms 68:21). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement is based on the etymological similarity between totzaot and matza, finding.It was also taught in a baraita: Nine hundred and three types of death were created in the world, as it is stated: “Issues totzaot of death,” and that, 903, is the numerical value gimatriya of totzaot. The Gemara explains that the most difficult of all these types of death is croup askara, while the easiest is the kiss of death. Croup is like a thorn entangled in a wool fleece, which, when pulled out backwards, tears the wool. Some say that croup is like ropes at the entrance to the esophagus, which would be nearly impossible to insert and excruciating to remove. The kiss of death is like drawing a hair from milk. One should pray that he does not die a painful death.Rabbi Yoḥa said: The time of finding refers to a respectful burial, for which one should pray. Supporting Rabbi Yoḥa’s interpretation, Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the verse that teaches that the time of finding refers to burial? “Who rejoice in exultation and are glad when they can find a grave” (Job 3:22), as there are situations in which one is relieved when his body finds a grave in which to rest. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said, that is the meaning of the folk saying: A person should even pray for mercy until the final shovelful of dirt is thrown upon his grave.Mar Zutra said: The time of finding refers to finding a lavatory. As most places did not have a sewage system, one was forced to relieve himself outside the city. Because of this unpleasantness, finding a suitable location was called by Mar Zutra, the time of finding. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: This explanation of Mar Zutra is preferable to all of them, as the term motza is explicitly associated in the Bible (see II Kings 10:27) with the lavatory (Rabbi Abraham Moshe Horovitz).Returning to the tractate’s central topic, Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master say to us some of those outstanding statements that you said in the name of Rav Ḥisda with regard to matters of the synagogue.,Rafram said to him, Rav Ḥisda said as follows: What is the meaning of the verse: “The Lord loves the gates of Zion Tziyyon more than all the dwellings of Jacob” (Psalms 87:2)? This means that the Lord loves the gates distinguished metzuyanim through the study of halakha as they are the gates of Zion, the outstanding gates, more than the synagogues and study halls. Although those places are the most outstanding of the dwellings of Jacob, they are not engaged in the study of halakha.And this concept, that halakha is the most sublime pursuit, is expressed in that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple, where the Divine Presence rested in this world, was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world where he reveals His presence exclusively; only the four cubits where the study of halakha is undertaken.,This statement has practical ramifications. Abaye said: At first I studied in the house and prayed in the synagogue. Once I heard what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world, only the four cubits of halakha alone, from which I understood the significance of the four cubits of halakha, and I pray only where I study.,Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, despite the fact that they had thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, they would only pray between the pillars where they studied.,And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One who benefits from his hard labor is greater than a God-fearing person, i.e. one who is so enthralled by his fear of God that he sits idly by and does not work. As with regard to a God-fearing person, it is written: “Happy is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly desires His mitzvot” (Psalms 112:1), while with regard to one who benefits from his hard work, it is written: “By the labor of your hands you will live; you are happy and it is good for you” (Psalms 128:2). The Gemara explains this verse to mean that you are happy in this world, and it is good for you in the World-to-Come. And regarding a God-fearing person, happy is the man, is written about him but and it is good for you, is not written about him.,And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One should always live in the place where his teacher lives; thereby he will avoid sin. For as long as Shimi ben Gera, who according to tradition was a great Torah scholar and teacher of Solomon (see Gittin 59a), was alive, Solomon did not marry Pharaoh’s daughter. Immediately after the Bible relates the death of Shimi (I Kings, end of ch. 2), Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter is recorded (beginning of ch. 3).The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one should not live where his teacher lives?The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, which says that one should live where his teacher lives, is referring to a case where he is acquiescent to his teacher and will heed his teaching and instruction. While this baraita, which says that one should not live where his teacher lives, is referring to a case where he is not acquiescent to him and that will lead them to quarrel.The Gemara again returns to the topic of the synagogue. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Menaḥem said that Rabbi Ami said: What is the practical halakhic meaning of that which is written: “They who forsake the Lord will perish” (Isaiah 1:28)? This verse refers to one who abandons the Torah scroll when it was taken out to be read and leaves the synagogue, as it appears that he is fleeing from God.Practically speaking, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Abbahu would go out between one person who read the Torah and the next person who did so. Since the scroll was closed between readers, it was not considered to be a show of contempt.Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the ruling with regard to leaving between one verse and the next verse? Is one permitted to leave during a break in the Torah reading while the verse was translated into Aramaic?An answer to this question was not found, so the dilemma stands unresolved.The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet would turn his face away from the Torah while it was being read and study. Explaining this practice, he said: We are engaged in ours, the study of the Oral Torah and they are engaged in theirs, listening to the Written Torah. Since Rav Sheshet was engaged in Torah study, he is not considered one who forsakes the Lord.Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Ami said: A person should always complete his Torah portions with the congregation. The congregation reads a particular Torah portion every Shabbat, and during the week prior to each Shabbat, one is required to read the Bible text of the weekly portion twice and the translation once., 8b This applies to every verse, even a verse like: “Atarot and Divon and Yazer and Nimra and Ḥeshbon and Elaleh and Sevam and Nevo and Beon” (Numbers 32:3). While that verse is comprised entirely of names of places that are identical in Hebrew and Aramaic, one is nevertheless required to read the verse twice and its translation once, as one who completes his Torah portions with the congregation is rewarded that his days and years are extended.,Rav Beivai bar Abaye thought to finish all the Torah portions of the entire year, which he had been unable to complete at their appointed time, on the eve of Yom Kippur when he would have time to do so. But Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught him: It is written with regard to Yom Kippur: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32).The Gemara wonders: And does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei, as the Torah says at the beginning of that portion: “However, on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement; there shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 23:27)? Rather, this verse comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth day of Tishrei in preparation for the fast the next day, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei. Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti cited this verse to Rav Beivai bar Abaye to teach him that Yom Kippur eve is dedicated to eating and drinking, not to completing the Torah portions one may have missed throughout the year.When Rav Beivai heard this, he thought to read the Torah portions earlier, before they were to be read by the community. A certain unnamed elder told him, we learned: As long as one does not read the Torah portions earlier or later than the congregation. One must read them together with the congregation.As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi told his sons: Complete your portions with the congregation, the Bible text twice and the translation once.,He also advised them: Be careful with the jugular veins, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna with regard to the laws of ritual slaughter: Rabbi Yehuda said: Cutting the trachea and esophagus in the ritual slaughter of a bird does not render the bird kosher until he slaughters the jugular veins as well. While this is not halakhically required, it is appropriate to do so to prevent significant amounts of blood from remaining in the bird.Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi further advised: And be careful to continue to respect an elder who has forgotten his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control. Even though he is no longer a Torah scholar, he must still be respected for the Torah that he once possessed. As we say: Both the tablets of the Covet and the broken tablets are placed in the Ark of the Covet in the Temple. Even though the first tablets were broken, their sanctity obligates one not to treat them with contempt. An elder who forgot the Torah knowledge he once possessed is likened to these broken tablets.Rava said to his sons three bits of advice: When you cut meat, do not cut it on your hand. The Gemara offers two explanations for this. Some say: Due to the danger that one might accidentally cut his hand, and some say: Due to the fact that it could ruin the meal, as even if one only cut himself slightly, that small amount of blood could still spoil the meat and render it repulsive to eat.And Rava also advised: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman, and do not pass by a synagogue when the community is praying. The Gemara explains: Some say: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman means one should not go to sleep without reciting Shema, as by doing so, it is tantamount to sleeping in the bed of a non-Jew, as his conduct is unbecoming a Jew. Others say: This means that one should not marry a woman who converted, and it is better to marry a woman who was born Jewish. And some say: It literally means that one should not sit on the bed of an Aramean, i.e. a non-Jewish woman.,This bit of advice was due to an incident involving Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa went to visit an Aramean woman. She took out a bed and she said to him: Sit. He said to her: I will not sit until you lift the sheets covering the bed. She did so and they found a dead baby there. Had Rav Pappa sat upon the bed, he would have been blamed for killing the baby. From that incident, the Sages said: One is prohibited from sitting on the bed of an Aramean woman.,And Rava’s third bit of advice was, do not pass behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying. This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One is prohibited from passing behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying because they will suspect that he does not want to pray, and it is a show of contempt for the synagogue.Abaye introduced several caveats to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement and said: rWe only said this prohibition if there is no other entrance to the synagogue, but if there is another entrance, since it is possible that he will simply use the second entrance, they will not suspect him, and the prohibition does not apply. rAnd we only said this prohibition if there is no other synagogue in the city, but if there is another synagogue, the prohibition does not apply. rAnd we only said this prohibition when he is not carrying a burden, and not running, and not wearing phylacteries. But if one of those factors applies, the prohibition does not apply. If he is carrying a burden or running, clearly he is occupied with his work. If he is wearing phylacteries, it is evident that he is a God-fearing individual and they will not suspect him.The Gemara cites a statement from a baraita, along the lines of Rava’s advice to refrain from cutting meat on one’s hands: Rabbi Akiva said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Medes, and we should learn from their practices. When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table and not on their hands; when they kiss, either as a show of affection or honor, they kiss only the back of the hand and do not give the person being kissed an unpleasant feeling; and when they hold counsel, they only hold counsel in the field so others will not hear their secrets.Rav Adda bar Ahava said: From what verse is this derived? From the verse, “And Jacob sent and he called Rachel and Leah to the field to his flock” (Genesis 31:4); it was only there in the field that he held counsel with them.It was taught in a baraita, Rabban Gamliel said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Persians: They are a modest people; they are modest in their eating, they are modest in the lavatory, and they are modest in another matter, i.e. sexual relations.While they have been praised here regarding certain specific aspects of their conduct, the Gemara proceeds to offer another perspective on the Persians based on a verse describing the destruction of Babylonia at the hands of the Persian and Medean armies: “I have commanded My consecrated ones; I have also called My mighty ones for My anger, even My proudly exulting ones” (Isaiah 13:3). Rav Yosef taught a baraita: These are the Persians who are consecrated and designated for Gehenna, for they have been sent by God to carry out his mission of anger, and they will be sent to Gehenna.The Gemara returns to explain the mishna, in which we learned that Rabban Gamliel says: One may recite Shema until dawn. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.,It was taught in a baraita: Based on Rabban Gamliel’s ruling, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: At times, one recites Shema twice at night, once just before dawn and once just after dawn, and he thereby fulfills his obligation to recite Shema, one of the day and one of the night. According to Rabban Gamliel, the Shema that he recited before dawn fulfills his evening obligation and the Shema that he recited after dawn fulfills his morning obligation.This Tosefta is self-contradictory. Initially, you said: At times one recites Shema twice at night. Apparently, the time just after dawn is still night. And then you taught: He thereby fulfills his obligation to recite Shema one of the day and one of the night. Apparently, the time in question is considered day, as otherwise, he would not have fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema during the day. There is an internal contradiction with regard to the status of the time just after dawn. Is it considered day or night?The Gemara answers: No, there is no contradiction. Actually, the time just after dawn, when it is still dark, is considered night and the fact that it is referred to here as day is because there are people who rise from their sleep at that time and, if the need arises, it can be characterized as bekumekha, when you rise, despite the fact that it is still night.Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai.,Some teach this statement of Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in which he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, with regard to this halakha, which is stylistically similar to the previous halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: At times, one recites Shema twice during the day, once just before sunrise and once just after sunrise, and he thereby fulfills his dual obligation to recite Shema: One, that he recites after sunrise, Shema of the day, and one, that he recites before sunrise, Shema of the night.,This baraita is self-contradictory. Initially, you said: “At times one recites Shema twice during the day.” Apparently, the time just before sunrise is considered day. And then you taught: “He thereby fulfills his dual obligation to recite Shema, one of the day and one of the night.” Apparently, the time in question is considered night, as otherwise, he could not thereby fulfill his obligation to recite Shema during the night. 10a Every chapter that was dear to David, he began with “happy is” and concluded with “happy is.” He opened with “happy is,” as it is written: “Happy is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked or stood in the way of sinners or sat in the dwelling place of the scornful” (Psalms 1:1). And he concluded with “happy,” as it is written at the end of the chapter: “Pay homage in purity, lest He be angry, and you perish on the way when His anger is kindled suddenly. Happy are those who take refuge in Him” (Psalms 2:12). We see that these two chapters actually constitute a single chapter.With regard to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, that David did not say Halleluya until he saw the downfall of the wicked, the Gemara relates: There were these hooligans in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who caused him a great deal of anguish. Rabbi Meir prayed for God to have mercy on them, that they should die. Rabbi Meir’s wife, Berurya, said to him: What is your thinking? On what basis do you pray for the death of these hooligans? Do you base yourself on the verse, as it is written: “Let sins cease from the land” (Psalms 104:35), which you interpret to mean that the world would be better if the wicked were destroyed? But is it written, let sinners cease?” Let sins cease, is written. One should pray for an end to their transgressions, not for the demise of the transgressors themselves.Moreover, go to the end of the verse, where it says: “And the wicked will be no more.” If, as you suggest, transgressions shall cease refers to the demise of the evildoers, how is it possible that the wicked will be no more, i.e. that they will no longer be evil? Rather, pray for God to have mercy on them, that they should repent, as if they repent, then the wicked will be no more, as they will have repented.Rabbi Meir saw that Berurya was correct and he prayed for God to have mercy on them, and they repented.,The Gemara relates an additional example of Berurya’s incisive insight: A certain heretic said to Berurya: It is written: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth, open forth in song and cry, you did not travail, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, said the Lord” (Isaiah 54:1). Because she has not given birth, she should sing and rejoice?Berurya responded to this heretic’s mockery and said: Fool! Go to the end of the verse, where it is written: “For the children of the desolate shall be more numerous than the children of the married wife, said the Lord.”,Rather, what is the meaning of: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth”? It means: Sing congregation of Israel, which is like a barren woman who did not give birth to children who are destined for Gehenna like you.,In explaining passages from Psalms, the Gemara relates another instance of a response to the question of a heretic: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu, it is written: “A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son, Absalom” (Psalms 3:1), and similarly it is said: “To the chief musician, al tashḥet, a mikhtam of David when fleeing from Saul into the cave” (Psalms 57:1). Which event was first? Since the event with Saul was first, it would have been appropriate to write it first.,Rabbi Abbahu said to him: For you, who do not employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, it is difficult. But for us, who employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, it is not difficult, as the Sages commonly homiletically infer laws and moral lessons from the juxtaposition of two verses.Regarding the juxtaposition of verses, Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where in the Bible is it derived that one may draw homiletical inferences from the juxtaposition of verses? As it is said: “The works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. Adjoined forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness” (Psalms 111:7–8). Conclude from here that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God’s commandments. Accordingly, David’s fleeing from Absalom is situated where it is in order to juxtapose it to the next chapter, which mentions the war of Gog and Magog; the second chapter of Psalms opens: “Why are the nations in an uproar?”,Why was the chapter of Absalom juxtaposed with the chapter of Gog and Magog? They are juxtaposed so that if a person should say to you, expressing doubt with regard to the prophecy of the war of Gog and Magog “against the Lord and against His anointed”: Is there a slave who rebels against his master? Is there someone capable of rebelling against God? You too say to him: Is there a son who rebels against his father and severs the relationship with the one who brought him into the world and raised him? Yet, nevertheless, there was such a son, Absalom, and so too there can be a situation where people will seek to rebel against God.Rabbi Yoḥa said explanations of other verses in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of loving-kindness is on her tongue” (Proverbs 31:26)? The Sages explain that this chapter discusses the wisdom of Torah and those who engage in its study, so with reference to whom did Solomon say this verse? He said this verse about none other than his father, David, who was the clearest example of one who opens his mouth in wisdom, and who resided in five worlds or stages of life and his soul said a song of praise corresponding to each of them. Five times David said: “Bless the Lord, O my soul,” each corresponding to a different stage of life.He resided in his mother’s womb, his first world, and said a song of praise of the pregcy, as it is stated: “of David. Bless the Lord, O my soul and all that is within me bless His holy name” (Psalms 103:1), in which he thanks God for creating all that is within his mother, i.e. her womb.He emerged into the atmosphere of the world, his second world, looked upon the stars and constellations and said a song of praise of God for the entirety of creation, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, His angels, mighty in strength, that fulfill His word, listening to the voice of His word. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants, that do His will. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all places of His kingship, bless my soul, Lord” (Psalms 103:20–23). David saw the grandeur of all creation and recognized that they are mere servants, carrying out the will of their Creator (Ma’ayan HaBerakhot).He nursed from his mother’s breast, his third world, and he looked upon her bosom and said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and do not forget all His benefits gemulav” (Psalms 103:2). The etymological association is between gemulav and gemulei meḥalav, which means weaned from milk (Isaiah 28:9).We still must understand, however, what is meant by all His benefits? What in particular is praiseworthy in what God provided, beyond merely providing for the infant? Rabbi Abbahu said: In contrast with most other animals, God placed her breasts near her heart, the place that is the source of understanding.,What is the reason that God did this? Rav Yehuda said: So that the nursing child would not look upon the place of his mother’s nakedness. Rav Mattana said: So that the child would not nurse from a place of uncleanliness.,He witnessed in both vision and reality the downfall of the wicked and he said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Let sinners cease from the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul, Halleluya” (Psalms 104:35).The fifth world was when David looked upon the day of death and said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. Lord my God, You are very great; You are clothed in glory and majesty” (Psalms 104:1); for even death is a time of transcendence for the righteous.The connection between this final praise and the day of death is unclear. The Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that this verse was stated with regard to the day of death? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: We can derive this from the verses at the end of the matter, where it is written: “You hide Your face, they vanish; You gather Your breath, they perish and return to the dust” (Psalms 104:29).Other interpretations of this verse exist. The Gemara relates how Rav Shimi bar Ukva, and some say Mar Ukva, would regularly study before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, who was well versed in aggada and would arrange the aggada before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. rOnce, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said to him: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Bless the Lord, my soul, and all that is within me bless His Holy name”? rRav Shimi bar Ukva said to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood, as this verse praises the formation of man in his mother’s womb. The attribute of flesh and blood is such that he shapes a form on the wall for all to see, yet he cannot instill it with a spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. While the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not so, as God shapes one form within another form, a child in its mother’s womb, and instills it with spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. And this is the explanation of what Hannah said with regard to the birth of Samuel: “There is none holy like the Lord, for there is none like You, and there is no Rock like our God” (I Samuel 2:2).What is the meaning of there is no rock tzur like our God? There is no artist tzayyar like our God.,The Gemara continues to interpret the rest of that verse homiletically: What is the meaning of “there is none like You”? Rabbi Yehuda ben Menasya said: Do not read the verse to mean “there is none like You biltekha”; rather, read it to mean “none can outlast You levalotkha,” as the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood: The attribute of flesh and blood is such that his creations outlast him, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, outlasts His actions.,This did not satisfy Rav Shimi bar Ukva, who said to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: I meant to say to you as follows: Corresponding to whom did David say these five instance of “Bless the Lord, O my soul”? He answered him: He said them about none other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, and corresponding to the soul, as the verse refers to the relationship between man’s soul and God. The five instances of “Bless the Lord, O my soul” correspond to the five parallels between the soul in man’s body and God’s power in His world.Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, fills the entire world, so too the soul fills the entire body. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, sees but is not seen, so too does the soul see, but is not seen. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, sustains the entire world, so too the soul sustains the entire body. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, is pure, so too is the soul pure. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, resides in a chamber within a chamber, in His inner sanctum, so too the soul resides in a chamber within a chamber, in the innermost recesses of the body. rTherefore, that which has these five characteristics, the soul, should come and praise He Who has these five characteristics.,With regard to redemption and prayer, the Gemara tells the story of Hezekiah’s illness, his prayer to God, and subsequent recuperation. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the meaning of that which is written praising the Holy One, Blessed be He: “Who is like the wise man, and who knows the interpretation pesher of the matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:1)? This verse means: Who is like the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who knows how to effect compromise peshara between two righteous individuals, between Hezekiah, the king of Judea, and Isaiah the prophet. They disagreed over which of them should visit the other. Hezekiah said: Let Isaiah come to me, as that is what we find with regard to Elijah the prophet, who went to Ahab, the king of Israel, as it is stated: “And Elijah went to appear to Ahab” (I Kings 18:2). This proves that it is the prophet who must seek out the king. And Isaiah said: Let Hezekiah come to me, as that is what we find with regard to Yehoram ben Ahab, king of Israel, who went to Elisha the prophet, as it is stated: “So the king of Israel, Jehosaphat and the king of Edom went down to him” (II Kings 3:12).What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do to effect compromise between Hezekiah and Isaiah? He brought the suffering of illness upon Hezekiah and told Isaiah: Go and visit the sick. Isaiah did as God instructed, as it is stated: “In those days Hezekiah became deathly ill, and Isaiah ben Amoz the prophet came and said to him: Thus says the Lord of Hosts: Set your house in order, for you will die and you will not live” (Isaiah 38:1). This seems redundant; what is the meaning of you will die and you will not live? This repetition means: You will die in this world, and you will not live, you will have no share, in the World-to-Come.,Hezekiah said to him: What is all of this? For what transgression am I being punished? rIsaiah said to him: Because you did not marry and engage in procreation. rHezekiah apologized and said: I had no children because I envisaged through divine inspiration that the children that emerge from me will not be virtuous. Hezekiah meant that he had seen that his children were destined to be evil. In fact, his son Menashe sinned extensively, and he thought it preferable to have no children at all.Isaiah said to him: Why do you involve yourself with the secrets of the Holy One, Blessed be He? That which you have been commanded, the mitzva of procreation, you are required to perform, and that which is acceptable in the eyes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, let Him perform, as He has so decided.Hezekiah said to Isaiah: Now give me your daughter as my wife; perhaps my merit and your merit will cause virtuous children to emerge from me. rIsaiah said to him: The decree has already been decreed against you and this judgment cannot be changed. rHezekiah said to him: Son of Amoz, cease your prophecy and leave. As long as the prophet spoke as God’s emissary, Hezekiah was obligated to listen to him. He was not, however, obligated to accept Isaiah’s personal opinion that there was no possibility for mercy and healing.Hezekiah continued: I have received a tradition from the house of my father’s father, from King David, the founding father of the dynasty of kings of Judea: Even if a sharp sword rests upon a person’s neck, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy. One may still hold out hope that his prayers will be answered, as was David himself when he saw the Angel of Destruction, but nonetheless prayed for mercy and his prayers were answered.With regard to the fact that one should not despair of God’s mercy, the Gemara cites that it was also said that Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Eliezer both said: Even if a sharp sword is resting upon a person’s neck, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy, as it is stated in the words of Job: “Though He slay me, I will trust in Him” (Job 13:15). Even though God is about to take his life, he still prays for God’s mercy. 12b With regard to bowing, the Gemara relates: When Rav Sheshet bowed he bowed all at once, like a cane, without delay. When he stood upright he stood upright like a snake, lifting himself slowly, demonstrating that the awe of God was upon him in the manner that he bowed and stood upright (HaBoneh).And, with regard to the formulation of the blessings, Rabba bar Ḥina Sava said in the name of Rav: Throughout the year a person prays and concludes the third blessing of the Amida prayer with: The holy God, and concludes the blessing regarding the restoration of justice to Israel with: King who loves righteousness and justice, with the exception of the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, the Ten Days of Atonement. These days are comprised of Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, and the seven days in between, when one emphasizes God’s sovereignty, and so when he prays he concludes these blessings with: The holy King and: The King of justice, i.e. the King who reveals Himself through justice.In contrast, Rabbi Elazar said that one need not be exacting, and even if he said: The holy God during those ten days, he fulfilled his obligation, as it is stated: “And the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice, and the holy God is sanctified through righteousness” (Isaiah 5:16). The Gemara explains: When is it appropriate to describe God with terms like: And the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice? It is appropriate when God reveals Himself through justice, during the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, yet the verse says: The holy God. This appellation sufficiently underscores God’s transcendence, and there is no need to change the standard formula.The Gemara asks: What is the conclusion that was reached about this halakha?Here, too, opinions differ: Rav Yosef said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: There is no need to change the standard formula: The holy God and: King Who loves righteousness and justice. Rabba said in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The holy King and: The King of justice. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba.,And Rabba bar Ḥina Sava said in the name of Rav: Anyone who can ask for mercy on behalf of another, and does not ask is called a sinner, as it is stated following Samuel’s rebuke of the people: “As for me, far be it from me that I should transgress against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you, but I will teach you the good and the right way” (I Samuel 12:23). Had Samuel refrained from prayer, he would have committed a sin.Rava said: If the one in need of mercy is a Torah scholar, it is insufficient to merely pray on his behalf. Rather, one must make himself ill worrying about him.,The Gemara seeks to clarify the source of this halakha. What is the reason that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need of mercy? If you say that it is because of what Saul said to his men, as it is written: “And there is none of you that is ill over me or tells unto me” (I Samuel 22:8), meaning that because Saul was a Torah scholar, it would have been appropriate for people to make themselves ill worrying about him; this is not an absolute proof. Perhaps a king is different, and excessive worry is appropriate in that case. Rather, proof that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need for mercy is from here: When David speaks of his enemies, Doeg and Ahitophel, who were Torah scholars, he says: “But for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth, I afflicted my soul with fasting” (Psalms 35:13). One must be concerned to the extent that he dresses in sackcloth and fasts for the recovery of a Torah scholar.And Rabba bar Ḥina Sava said in the name of Rav: One who commits an act of transgression and is ashamed of it, all of his transgressions are forgiven. Shame is a sign that one truly despises his transgressions and that shame has the power to atone for his actions (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto), as it is stated: “In order that you remember, and be embarrassed, and never open your mouth anymore, because of your shame, when I have forgiven you for all that you have done, said the Lord, God” (Ezekiel 16:63).However this proof is rejected: Perhaps a community is different, as a community is forgiven more easily than an individual. Rather, proof that an individual ashamed of his actions is forgiven for his transgressions is cited from here, when King Saul consulted Samuel by means of a necromancer before his final war with the Philistines: “And Samuel said to Saul, why have you angered me to bring me up? And Saul said, I am very pained, and the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has removed Himself from me and answers me no more, neither by the hands of the prophets nor by dreams. And I call to you to tell me what to do” (I Samuel 28:15). Saul says that he consulted prophets and dreams, but he did not say that he consulted the Urim VeTummim.,The reason for this is because he killed all the residents of Nov, the city of priests, and because of this transgression Saul was ashamed to consult the Urim VeTummim, which was accomplished by means of a priest.The Gemara concludes: And from where is it derived that Saul was pardoned by God in the heavens for his transgressions? As it is stated: “And Samuel said to Saul: Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me” (I Samuel 28:19). And Rabbi Yoḥa said: With me does not only mean that they will die, but also means, in a statement that contains an aspect of consolation, that they will be in my company among the righteous in heaven, as Saul was pardoned for his transgressions.And the Rabbis say that proof that Saul was pardoned is derived from here, from what the Gibeonites said to David: “Let seven men of his sons be given to us and we will hang them up unto the Lord in the Giva of Saul, the chosen of the Lord” (II Samuel 21:6). Certainly the Gibeonites, who were furious at Saul, would not refer to him as the chosen of the Lord. Therefore, this phrase must be understood as having been spoken by a Divine Voice that emerged and said the chosen of the Lord, because Saul had been pardoned for his transgressions and included among the completely righteous.rThe Gemara returns to the primary focus of the chapter, the recitation of Shema.Rabbi Abbahu ben Zutarti said that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevida said: The Sages sought to establish the blessings of Balaam that appear in the Torah portion of Balak, as part of the twice-daily recitation of Shema. And why did they not establish it there? Because extending Shema would place an encumbrance on the congregation, from which the Sages sought to refrain.The Gemara seeks: Why did the Sages seek to add the blessings of Balaam in the first place? If you say that they did so because the exodus from Egypt is mentioned, as it is written therein: “God, who brought them forth out of Egypt, is like the horns of the wild ram” (Numbers 23:22), certainly mention of the Exodus is not unique to this Torah portion. Many other portions mention the exodus as well. Let us say the portion of usury (Leviticus 25:35–38) or the portion of weights (Leviticus 19:35–37), as the exodus from Egypt is written therein as well. In addition, they are brief and would not constitute an encumbrance on the congregation.Rather, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: The reason the Sages sought to establish the portion of Balak as part of the recitation of Shema is because it is written therein: “He couched, He lay down like a lion and a lioness; who shall rouse Him? Those who bless You are blessed and those who curse You are cursed” (Numbers 24:9). This is reminiscent of what is said in Shema: When you lie down, and when you rise.On this, the Gemara asks: And if it is important to include this as part of Shema because of this single verse, then let us say this verse and nothing more.,The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to do this, as they learned through tradition that any portion that Moses, our teacher, divided, we too divide and read separately. However, a portion that Moses, our teacher, did not divide, we do not divide and read separately. And, as stated above, the Sages did not wish to institute the recitation of the entire portion of Balak to avoid placing an encumbrance on the congregation.The Gemara continues: Why was the portion of ritual fringes established as part of the recitation of Shema when its content is unrelated to that of the preceding portions?Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said: The portion of ritual fringes was added because it includes five elements including the primary reason for its inclusion, the exodus from Egypt (Melo HaRo’im): The mitzva of ritual fringes, mention of the exodus from Egypt, the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot, admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of the transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry.,The Gemara clarifies: Granted, these three are mentioned explicitly: The yoke of mitzvot is mentioned in the portion of ritual fringes, as it is written: “And you shall look upon them and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord and you shall do them” (Numbers 15:39). Ritual fringes are mentioned explicitly, as it is written: “And they will make for themselves ritual fringes” (Numbers 15:38). The exodus from Egypt is also mentioned explicitly, as it is written: “I am the Lord, your God, who took you out from the Land of Egypt” (Numbers 15:41). But where do we derive the other elements mentioned above: Admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry?,In response, the Gemara cites a baraita where these elements were derived from allusions in the verse, “You shall stray neither after your hearts nor after your eyes, after which you would lust” (Numbers 15:39). As it was taught: “After your hearts” refers to following opinions of heresy that may arise in one’s heart. The Gemara offers a proof, as it is stated: “The fool said in his heart: ‘There is no God’; they have been corrupt, they have acted abominably; there is none who does good” (Psalms 14:1). The phrase: “After your eyes,” in this verse refers to following thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, that a person might see and desire, as it is stated: “And Samson said to his father, ‘That one take for me, for she is upright in my eyes’” (Judges 14:3). The passage: “You shall stray after” refers to promiscuity, which in the parlance of the prophets is a metaphor for idol worship, as it is stated: “The children of Israel again went astray after the Be’alim” (Judges 8:33). 19a And if it should enter your mind that the dead do not know, then what of it if he tells them? The Gemara rejects this: Rather what will you say, that they know? Then why does he need to tell them? The Gemara replies: This is not difficult, as he is telling them so that they will give credit to Moses.,On this subject, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who speaks negatively after the deceased it is as if he speaks after the stone. The Gemara offers two interpretations of this: Some say this is because the dead do not know, and some say that they know, but they do not care that they are spoken of in such a manner.The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Pappa say: There was once someone who spoke disparagingly after the death of Mar Shmuel and a reed fell from the ceiling, fracturing his skull? Obviously, the dead care when people speak ill of them.The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof that the dead care. Rather, a Torah scholar is different, as God Himself demands that his honor be upheld.Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said similarly: One who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars and maligns them after their death will fall in Gehenna, as it is stated: “But those who turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity; peace be upon Israel” (Psalms 125:5). Even if he speaks ill of them when there is peace upon Israel, after death, when they are no longer able to fight those denouncing them (Tosafot); nevertheless the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity, to Gehenna.On a similar note, it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: If you saw a Torah scholar transgress a prohibition at night, do not think badly of him during the day; perhaps he has repented in the meantime. The Gemara challenges this: Does it enter your mind that only perhaps he has repented? Shouldn’t he be given the benefit of the doubt? Rather, he has certainly repented. The Gemara notes: The idea that one must always give a Torah scholar the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has repented refers specifically to matters affecting himself, but, if one witnesses a Torah scholar committing a transgression involving the property of another, one is not required to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rather, he should not assume that he has repented until he sees him return the money to its owner.,Since matters relating to the respect due Torah scholars were raised, the Gemara continues, citing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said: There are twenty-four places in which the court ostracizes over matters of respect due the rabbi, and we learned them all in our Mishna. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Where are those cases to be found? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When you look, you will find them.He went out, analyzed, and found three examples: One who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands, one who speaks disparagingly after the bier of Torah scholars, and one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven. The Gemara cites sources for each of these cases.What is the source for one who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel would say: In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court does not administer the bitter water potion of a sota to a convert or an emancipated maidservant. And the Rabbis say: The court administers the bitter water potion to them. And the Rabbis said to him as proof: There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel said to the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant to drink the potion because she was like them dugma. And since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, he was ostracized and died while he was still under the ban of ostracism. And in accordance with the halakha with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court stoned his coffin. Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism.And what is the source for one who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands? We learned later in the same mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: That story related with regard to the ostracism of Akavya ben Mahalalel is completely untrue; God forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was ostracized, as the Temple courtyard is not closed on any Jew, meaning that even when all of Israel made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when each of the three groups that gathered to offer the Paschal lamb filled the courtyard, leading the Temple administration to close the courtyard, there was no one there as perfect in wisdom, purity and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rather, whom did they excommunicate? Elazar ben Ḥanokh, because he doubted and demeaned the rabbinic ordice of washing of the hands. And when he died, the court sent instructions and they placed a large rock upon his coffin in order to teach you that one who is ostracized and dies in a state of ostracism, the court stones his coffin, as if symbolically stoning him. Apparently, one who makes light of the ritual of washing of the hands is sentenced to ostracism.What is the source for the third case, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven? The mishna relates that Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, the circle-drawer, drew a circle and stood inside it, and said that he would not leave the circle until it rained, and he went so far as to make demands in terms of the manner in which he wanted the rain to fall. After it rained, Shimon ben Shataḥ, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, relayed to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Actually, you should be ostracized for what you said, and if you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, but what can I do? You nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, the rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25). Apparently, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven would ordinarily merit excommunication.The Gemara challenges this: And are there no more cases of excommunication or threats of excommunication? Surely there are additional cases like the one in the baraita taught by Rav Yosef: It is told that Theodosius of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids, young goats roasted with their entrails over their heads, as was the custom when roasting the Paschal lamb, on the eve of Passover, as they did in the Temple. Shimon ben Shataḥ sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may only be eaten in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple.The Gemara responds: This case should not be included, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that there were twenty-four cases in our Mishna, and this is merely a baraita.,The Gemara asks: And are there none in the Mishna? Isn’t there that which we learned in the mishna: One who cut an earthenware oven horizontally into ring-shaped pieces and put sand between the pieces, Rabbi Eliezer deems the oven ritually pure, i.e. it is no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. He holds that, although the fragments of the oven were pieced together, it is not considered an intact vessel but, rather, as a collection of fragments, and a broken earthenware vessel cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure. Since the oven continues to serve its original function, it is still considered a single entity and a whole vessel despite the sand put between the pieces. And this is called the oven of akhnai, snake.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oven of the snake? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is called snake to teach that the Rabbis surrounded Rabbi Eliezer with halakhot and proofs like a snake surrounds its prey, and declared the oven and its contents ritually impure.,And it was taught in a baraita: On that day, they gathered all of the ritually pure food items that had come into contact with the oven that Rabbi Eliezer had declared ritually pure, and burned them before him, and because he did not accept the decision of the majority, in the end they “blessed,” a euphemism for ostracized, him. This is another case that ended in ostracism.The Gemara answers: Even so, we did not learn the ruling with regard to his ostracism in the mishna. The Gemara asks: Then where do you find the twenty-four places mentioned in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi likens one matter to another similar matter. Whenever he would encounter a case in a mishna where one of the Sages expressed himself inappropriately in reference to other Sages, he concluded that they should have been excommunicated. Rabbi Elazar does not liken one matter to another similar matter, and therefore located only three explicit cases of ostracism.We learned in the mishna that the pallbearers and their replacements are exempt from the recitation of Shema. On this subject, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The deceased may not be taken out to be buried adjacent to the time for the recitation of Shema, but should be buried later. And if they already started to take him out, they need not stop in order to recite Shema. The Gemara challenges: Is that so? Didn’t they take Rav Yosef out to be buried adjacent to the time for the recitation of Shema? The Gemara resolves this contradiction: The case of an important person is different, and they are more lenient in order to honor him at his burial.In the mishna, we learned the halakha with regard to the pallbearers and their obligation to recite Shema, and a distinction was made between those who are before the bier and those after the bier. Our Rabbis taught in a baraita: Those involved in eulogy must slip away from the eulogy one by one while the deceased is laid out before them and recite Shema elsewhere. And if the deceased is not laid out before them, the eulogizers must sit and recite Shema while the bereaved sits silently. They stand and pray and he stands and justifies God’s judgment, saying: Master of the Universe, I have sinned greatly against You, and You have not collected even one one-thousandth of my debt. May it be Your will, Lord our God, to mercifully repair the breaches in our fence and the breaches of Your nation, the House of Israel.,Abaye said: A person should not say that, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and it was also taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One must never open his mouth to the Satan, i.e. one must not leave room for or raise the possibility of disaster or evil. This formula, which states that the entire debt owed due to his transgressions has not been collected, raises the possibility that further payment will be exacted from him.And Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? As it is stated: “We should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9), after which what did the prophet reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10).We learned in the mishna that, in a case when they buried the deceased and returned, if they have sufficient time to begin to recite Shema and conclude before they arrive at the row formed by those who came to console the bereaved, they should begin. Here, the Gemara clarifies: This is the case only if they can begin and complete recitation of Shema in its entirety. However, if they can only complete one chapter or one verse, they should not stop to do so. The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which we learned in the baraita: After they buried the deceased and returned, if they can begin the recitation of Shema and finish even a single chapter or verse, they should begin.The Gemara responds: That is also what the tanna of the mishna said and this is the conclusion drawn from his statement: If one can begin and conclude even one chapter or one verse before they arrive at the row of consolers, they should begin. And if not, they should not begin., 22a that a woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrual blood is not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone, with no concurrent impurity, is required to do so? If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: Do not say that one recites a blessing orally, but rather he means that one contemplates those blessings in his heart.The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that there is validity to contemplating in his heart? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerse and purify himself recites Shema and neither recites the blessings of Shema beforehand nor thereafter? And when he eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter, Grace after Meals, but does not recite the blessing: Who brings forth bread from the earth, beforehand. However, in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, he contemplates it in his heart rather than utter it with his lips, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he utters all of the blessings with his lips. Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited.Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. Rabbi Yehuda rendered the blessings like Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission.As it was taught in a baraita: It is written: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” (Deuteronomy 4:9), and it is written thereafter: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10). Just as below, the Revelation at Sinai was in reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here, in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling.,From here the Sages stated: Zavim, lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women, despite their severe impurity, are permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and halakhot and aggada. However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibited from doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. Rabbi Yosei says: One who experiences a seminal emission studies mishnayot that he is accustomed to study, as long as he does not expound upon a new mishna to study it in depth. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara, which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. Rabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utter the mentions of God’s name therein. Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva’s student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One who experiences a seminal emission may not enter into homiletic interpretation midrash of verses at all. Some say that he says: He may not enter the study hall beit hamidrash at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may study only Hilkhot Derekh Eretz. In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, and therefore one may utter them orally.The Gemara relates an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda himself, who experienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbank with his disciples. His disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. He descended and immersed himself in the river and taught them Hilkhot Derekh Eretz. They said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study Hilkhot Derekh Eretz? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others, and allow them to study it without immersion, I am stringent with myself.,Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure and therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this halakha in practice. The Gemara relates an incident involving a student who was reciting mishnayot and baraitot hesitantly before the study hall of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure.,In this baraita the Master said that one who is impure because of a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara. The Gemara notes: This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi El’ai, as Rabbi El’ai said that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: The halakha is that one who experienced a seminal emission may expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara. This dispute is parallel a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Both this and that are prohibited. And some say that he said: Both this and that are permitted.,Comparing these opinions: The one who said that both this and that are prohibited holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler; the one who said that both this and that are permitted holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.,Summarizing the halakha, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The universally accepted practice is in accordance with the opinions of these three elders: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi El’ai with regard to the halakhot of the first shearing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to the laws of prohibited diverse kinds, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah.,The Gemara elaborates: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi El’ai with regard to the first shearing, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi El’ai says: The obligation to set aside the first shearing from the sheep for the priest is only practiced in Eretz Yisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice.In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9). Rabbi Yoshiya says: This means that one who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion, meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure.,And the Gemara relates: When Ze’iri came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he succinctly capsulated this halakha and said: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say that he said: They abolished ritual washing of the hands. The Gemara explains: The one who says that they abolished immersion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. And the one who says that they abolished washing of the hands holds in accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one who goes out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.,The Sages taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, that is sufficient to render him ritually pure and he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: Naḥum of Gam Zo whispered this halakha to Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it to his student ben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his students publicly in the marketplace. Two amora’im in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreed as to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. One taught: Ben Azzai taught it to his students in the market. And the other taught: Ben Azzai also whispered it to his students.The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. The Sage who taught that ben Azzai taught the law openly in the market held that the leniency was due to concern that the halakhot requiring ritual immersion would promote dereliction in the study of Torah. The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was also due to concern that the halakhot requiring ritual immersion would promote the suspension of procreation, as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. And the Sage, who taught that ben Azzai only whispered this halakha to his students, held that he did so in order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters. If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.With regard to this ritual immersion, Rabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it. The halakha in this matter was never conclusively established and anyone who accepts upon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning? The Gemara retorts: How can one ask what is their essence? Isn’t he the one who said that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah and is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, this is what he meant to say: What is the essence of immersion in a ritual bath of forty se’a of water when it is possible to purify oneself with nine kav? Furthermore, what is the essence of immersion when it is also possible to purify oneself by pouring water?Regarding this, Rabbi Ḥanina said: They established a massive fence protecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty se’a of water. As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one who solicited a woman to commit a sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty se’a in which to immerse and purify yourself afterwards? He immediately desisted. The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression.Rav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is because it is difficult for you to immerse in the cold waters of the ritual bath, it is possible to purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated bathhouses, which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case.Rabbi Ḥisda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water? Rav Huna said to him: Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and Rav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with your opinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine kav of water and pour it over me so that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Why does my master require all of this? Aren’t you seated in at least nine kav of water in the tub. He said to him: The law of nine kav parallels the law of forty se’a, in that their halakhot are exclusive. Just as forty se’a can only purify an individual through immersion and not through pouring, so too nine kav can only purify one who experienced a seminal emission through pouring and not through immersion.,The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman prepared a jug with a capacity of nine kav so that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said: The halakha that one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine kav was only taught for a sick person who experienced the emission involuntarily. However, a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in forty se’a.,Rav Yosef said: In that case, Rav Naḥman’s jug is broken, meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: In Usha there was an incident, 31a He brought a valuable cup worth four hundred zuz and broke it before them and they became sad.,The Gemara also relates: Rav Ashi made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a cup of extremely valuable white glass and broke it before them, and they became sad.,Similarly, the Gemara relates: The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna Zuti at the wedding feast of Mar, son of Ravina: Let the Master sing for us. Since he believed that the merriment had become excessive, he said to them, singing: Woe unto us, for we shall die, woe unto us, for we shall die. They said to him: What shall we respond after you? What is the chorus of the song? He said to them, you should respond: Where is Torah and where is mitzva that protect us?,In a similar vein, Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is forbidden to fill his mouth with mirth in this world, as long as we are in exile (ge’onim), as it is stated: “When the Lord returns the captivity of Zion we will be as dreamers” (Psalms 126:1). Only “then will our mouths fill with laughter and our lips with song” (Psalms 126:2). When will that joyous era arrive? When “they will say among nations, the Lord has done great things with these” (Psalms 126:2). They said about Reish Lakish that throughout his life he did not fill his mouth with laughter in this world once he heard this statement from his teacher, Rabbi Yoḥa.,We learned in the mishna that it is appropriate to stand and begin to pray from an atmosphere of gravity. Regarding this, the Sages taught: One may neither stand and begin to pray, directly from involvement in judgment nor directly from deliberation over the ruling in a matter of halakha, as his preoccupation with the judgment or the halakhic ruling will distract him from prayer. Rather it is appropriate to pray directly from involvement in the study of a universally accepted conclusive halakha that leaves no room for further deliberation and will not distract him during prayer.And the Gemara asks: What is an example of a conclusive halakha?,The Gemara offers several examples: Abaye said: One like this halakha of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel were stringent with themselves; to the extent that even if they see a drop of blood corresponding to the size of a mustard seed she sits seven clean days for it. By Torah law, a woman who witnesses the emission of blood during the eleven days following her fixed menstrual period is not considered a menstruating woman; rather she immerses herself and is purified the next day. However, the women of Israel accepted the stringency upon themselves that if they see any blood whatsoever, they act as it if were the blood of a zava, which obligates her to count seven more clean days before becoming ritually pure (see Leviticus 15:25).Citing an additional example of a conclusive halakha, Rava said: One like this halakha of Rav Hoshaya, as Rav Hoshaya said: A person may employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain and bring it into the courtyard in its chaff so that his animal will eat from it, and the grain is exempt from tithes. Halakha dictates that one is obligated to tithe grain that has been threshed and piled, regardless of the ultimate purpose for which the grain was intended. By Torah law, one is exempt from tithing grain that was not threshed and is therefore still in its chaff. By rabbinic law, one is prohibited from eating this grain in the framework of a meal. Feeding animals is permitted without first tithing that grain.And if you wish, say instead yet another example of a conclusive halakha, which is the recommended prelude to prayer. One like this halakha of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rabbi Zeira said: One who lets blood from a consecrated animal that was consecrated as a sacrifice; deriving benefit from that blood is prohibited. Although blood of an offering that was sprinkled on the altar is not considered Temple property, nevertheless, deriving benefit from the blood of a living, consecrated animal is considered prohibited use of Temple property. In so doing, one misuses property consecrated to the Temple, and as in any other case of misusing Temple property, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering.It is related that the Sages acted in accordance with the opinion of our mishna and rose to pray from an atmosphere of gravity; Rav Ashi acted in accordance with the opinion of the baraita and preceded his prayer with a conclusive halakha.On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, the Sages taught: One may neither stand to pray from an atmosphere of sorrow nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva.,Similarly, a person should neither take leave of another from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha. As we found in the books of the Bible dealing with the early prophets, that they would conclude their talks with words of praise and consolation.,And so Mari, the grandson of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, taught in a baraita: One should only take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha, so that, consequently, he will remember him; whenever he recalls the one from whom he took leave, he will think well of him because of the new halakha that he taught him (Eliyahu Zuta).As in the incident related by the Gemara that Rav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi from the town of Pum Nahara to the palm grove in Babylonia. When he arrived there, Rav Kahana said to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: Master, what is meant by that which people say: These palm trees of Babylonia have been in this place from the time of Adam the first man until now?,Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: You reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In a land through which no man has passed and where no person adam has settled” (Jeremiah 2:6)? This verse is difficult; since it is a land through which no person has passed, how could anyone have settled there permanently? The statement that “no person has settled there” is redundant. Rather, this verse comes to teach that every land through which Adam the first man passed and decreed that it would be settled was settled, and every land through which Adam passed and decreed that it would not be settled was not settled. Based on this, what people say is true, and the palm trees of Babylonia are from the time of Adam, meaning that from the time of Adam this land was decreed to be suitable for growing palm trees (Me’iri). The Gemara cited an example of how one who parts from another with Torah learns something new.Having mentioned the mitzva for a student to accompany his Rabbi, the Gemara relates that Rav Mordekhai accompanied his mentor, Rav Shimi bar Ashi, a great distance, from the city of Hagronya to Bei Keifei; and some say that he accompanied from Hagronya to Bei Dura.,Returning to the topic of preparation for prayer, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who prays must focus his heart toward Heaven. Abba Shaul says: An indication of the importance of this matter is stated in the verse: “The desire of the humble You have heard, Lord; direct their hearts, Your ear will listen” (Psalms 10:17). In other words, if one focuses his heart in prayer as a result of God directing his heart, his prayer will be accepted as God’s ear will listen.With regard to one’s intent during prayer, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: This was the custom of Rabbi Akiva, when he would pray with the congregation he would shorten his prayer and go up, due to his desire to avoid being an encumbrance on the congregation by making them wait for him to finish his prayer. But when he prayed by himself he would extend his prayers to an extent that a person would leave Rabbi Akiva alone in one corner of the study hall and later find him still praying in another corner. And why would Rabbi Akiva move about so much? Because of his bows and prostrations. Rabbi Akiva’s enthusiasm in prayer was so great, that as a result of his bows and prostrations, he would unwittingly move from one corner to the other (Rav Hai Gaon).Many halakhot are derived from evoking the prayers of biblical characters. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: One should always pray in a house with windows, as it is stated regarding Daniel: “And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went to his house. In his attic there were open windows facing Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he had done before” (Daniel 6:11).In the Tosefta, additional halakhot were derived from Daniel’s prayer. I might have thought that one could pray as many times as he wishes throughout the entire day; it has already been articulated by Daniel, with regard to whom it is stated: “And three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed.” This teaches that there are fixed prayers.I might have thought that this practice of fixed prayer began only when he came to the Babylonian exile; it was stated: “Just as he had done before.”,Further, I might have thought that one may pray facing any direction he wishes; the verse states: The appropriate direction for prayer is “facing Jerusalem.”,Daniel does not describe how these three prayers are distributed during the day. I might have thought that one may include all three prayers at one time; it has already been articulated by David that one may not do so, as it is written: “Evening and morning and noon, I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18).Furthermore, I might have thought that one may make his voice heard in his Amida prayer; it has already been articulated by Hannah in her prayer, as it is stated: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13).Halakhot regarding the order of the prayers were also learned from the prayers of biblical characters. I might have thought that one should request his own needs first, and afterwards recite prayers of thanksgiving and praise; it has already been articulated by Solomon that this is not so, as in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Holy Temple it is stated: “To hear the song and the prayer that Your servant prays before You today” (I Kings 8:28). In this verse, song is prayer in the sense of thanks and praise, and prayer is one’s request of his personal needs. Therefore, one who is praying does not speak matters of request after he began to recite emet veyatziv prior to the Amida prayer, which is the essence of prayer. Rather, he begins with praise in the first three blessings of the Amida prayer, and only thereafter does he include requests for his needs. But after the Amida prayer there is no limit. If he desires to recite even the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite it.This was also stated by an amora; Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Although the Sages said that one requests his personal needs in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, that is with regard to one who wishes to do so as part of the Amida prayer. If he comes to add and recite additional requests after completing his Amida prayer, even if his personal requests are the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite them.Rav Hamnuna said: How many significant halakhot can be derived from these verses of the prayer of Hannah? As it says: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard, so Eli thought her to be drunk” (I Samuel 1:13). The Gemara elaborates: From that which is stated here: “And Hannah spoke in her heart,” the halakha that one who prays must focus his heart on his prayer is derived. And from that which is stated here: “Only her lips moved,” the halakha that one who prays must enunciate the words with his lips, not only contemplate them in his heart, is derived. From that which is written here: “And her voice could not be heard,” the halakha that one is forbidden to raise his voice in his Amida prayer as it must be recited silently. From the continuation of the verse here: “So Eli thought her to be drunk,” the halakha that a drunk person is forbidden to pray. That is why he rebuked her.On the subject of Eli’s rebuke of Hannah, as it is stated: “And Eli said to her: How long will you remain drunk? Remove your wine from yourself” (I Samuel 1:14); Rabbi Elazar said: From here the halakha that one who sees in another, 33b There are conflicting opinions with regard to reciting havdala over the cup of wine after reciting it in the Amida prayer. One opinion holds that it is appropriate to recite havdala a second time, while the other holds that it is prohibited. Ravina said to Rava: What is the halakha? Rava said to him: The halakha in the case of havdala is like the halakha in the case of kiddush. Just as in the case of kiddush, although one recited kiddush in the Amida prayer he must, nevertheless, recite kiddush again over the cup of wine, so too with havdala, although one recited havdala in the Amida prayer he must recite havdala again over the cup of wine.The mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving.,The Gemara cites the conclusion with regard to this halakha by relating a story: Rabbi Zeira was riding a donkey while Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin was coming and walking after him. He said to him: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of a Festival that occurs directly after Shabbat? Since in that case, one cannot recite havdala in the blessing of Who graciously grants knowledge, as it is not included in the Amida prayer on the Festival, there is no alternative but to adopt Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling. He said to him: Yes.,The Gemara wonders: Saying that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, indicates that his peers dispute his opinion. Where do we find that dispute?The Gemara rejects this: And don’t they dispute his opinion? Don’t the Rabbis dispute his opinion, as, in their opinion the blessing of havdala is recited in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge?The Gemara replies: Say that the Rabbis dispute Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion during the rest of the days of the year, when the option to recite havdala in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge exists, but in the case of a Festival that occurs directly after Shabbat, do they dispute his opinion? The Rabbis would agree with him in that case.The Gemara continues: Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva dispute his opinion? He holds that havdala is recited as an independent fourth blessing, in which case there is a dispute.The Gemara responds: Is that to say that throughout the entire year we act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter, so that now, on a Festival that occurs directly after Shabbat, we will stand and act in accordance with his opinion? What is the reason that throughout the whole, entire year, we do not act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? Because the Sages instituted eighteen blessings, they did not institute nineteen blessings. Here, too, the Sages instituted seven blessings, they did not institute eight blessings. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is not taken into consideration in this case.In response to these questions, Rabbi Zeira said to him that it was not that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that was stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa, from which one could infer that there was in fact a dispute; rather it was that one is inclined to favor the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that was stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa.As indeed it was stated that there is a dispute among the Sages in this matter. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And some say this statement: One is inclined to favor the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.Rabbi Yoḥa said that there is no dispute here, and the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that it was established that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion appears to be correct.With regard to this difference of opinion Rabbi Zeira said: Take this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in your hand, as he is scrupulous and he learned the halakha well from the mouth of its originator, like the Sage Raḥava from the city Pumbedita. Raḥava was famous for the precision with which he would transmit material that he learned from his teacher.The Gemara cites an example: Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double stav, and there was a stav within a stav. Here Raḥava used his Rabbi’s language in describing the structure of the Temple and the rows of columns it contained, a row within a row; but he did not employ the common term itzteba, portico, but rather stav, as he heard it from his Rabbi.Rav Yosef said the conclusive halakha on this topic: I don’t know this and I don’t know that, but I do know from the statements of Rav and Shmuel they have instituted a pearl for us in Babylonia. They established a version that combines the first blessing of the Festival with the formula of havdala, parallel to the opinion of the Rabbis who include havdala in the first blessing that follows the first three blessings. They instituted to recite:You have made known to us, Lord our God, Your righteous laws, rand taught us to perform Your will’s decrees. rYou have given us as our heritage seasons of joy and Festivals of voluntary offerings. rYou have given us as our heritage the holiness of Shabbat, the glory of the festival and the festive offerings of the Pilgrim Festivals. rYou have distinguished between the holiness of Shabbat and the holiness of the Festival, rand have made the seventh day holy over the six days of work. rYou have distinguished and sanctified Your people Israel with Your holiness, rAnd You have given us, etc., 62a It was taught in a baraita in tractate Derekh Eretz that Rabbi Akiva said: I once entered the bathroom after my teacher Rabbi Yehoshua, and I learned three things from observing his behavior: I learned that one should not defecate while facing east and west, but rather while facing north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself while standing, but while sitting, in the interest of modesty; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right hand, but with his left. Ben Azzai, a student of Rabbi Akiva, said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent that you observed that much? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn.,Similarly, we learned in a baraita: Ben Azzai said: I once entered a bathroom after Rabbi Akiva, and I learned three things from observing his behavior: I learned that one should not defecate while facing east and west, but rather while facing north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself while standing, but while sitting; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right hand, but with his left. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn.,On a similar note, the Gemara relates that Rav Kahana entered and lay beneath Rav’s bed. He heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and seeing to his needs, i.e. having relations with her. Rav Kahana said to Rav: The mouth of Abba, Rav, is like one whom has never eaten a cooked dish, i.e. his behavior was lustful. Rav said to him: Kahana, you are here? Leave, as this is an undesirable mode of behavior. Rav Kahana said to him: It is Torah, and I must learn.,The Gemara asks: Why must one not wipe himself with his right hand, but with his left? Rava said: Because the Torah was given with the right hand, as it is stated: “At His right hand was a fiery law unto them” (Deuteronomy 33:2). Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Because the right hand is close to the mouth, i.e. people eat with the right hand. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Because one ties the phylacteries onto his left hand with his right hand. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because one points to the cantillation notes of the Torah with his right hand.The Gemara notes that this is parallel to a tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Eliezer says: One is forbidden to wipe himself with his right hand because he eats with it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Because he writes with it. Rabbi Akiva says: Because he points to the notes of the Torah with it.,Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai said: Anyone who is modest in the bathroom will be saved from three things: From snakes, from scorpions and from demons. And some say that even his dreams will be settling for him.,The Gemara relates: There was a particular bathroom in the city of Tiberias, where, when two would enter it, even during the day, they would be harmed by demons. When Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would each enter alone, they were not harmed. The Sages said to them: Aren’t you afraid? Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi said to them: We have learned through tradition: The tradition to avoid danger in the bathroom is to conduct oneself with modesty and silence. The tradition to end suffering is with silence and prayer.,Because fear of demons in bathrooms was pervasive, the Gemara relates: Abaye’s mother raised a lamb to accompany him to the bathroom. The Gemara objects: She should have raised a goat for him. The Gemara responds: A goat could be interchanged with a goat-demon. Since both the demon and the goat are called sa’ir, they were afraid to bring a goat to a place frequented by demons.Before Rava became the head of the yeshiva, his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, would rattle a nut in a copper vessel for him. This was in order to fend off demons when he was in the bathroom. After he was chosen to preside as head of the yeshiva, he required an additional degree of protection, so she constructed a window for him, opposite where he would defecate, and placed her hand upon his head.,With regard to where one may or may not go to defecate, Ulla said: Behind a fence, one need not distance himself from people and may defecate immediately. In a valley or open field, one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind, no one will hear him. Isi bar Natan taught as follows: Behind a fence one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind another does not hear him, and in a valley, one must distance himself sufficiently so that no one can see him.,The Gemara raises an objection based on what we learned in a mishna in Teharot: Physical laborers, who usually fall into the category of am ha’aretz and are not generally cautious with regard to the laws of ritual purity, exit from the entrance of the olive press, defecate behind the fence, and are ritually pure. There is no reason to be concerned that they might become impure in the interim. This indicates that a greater distance is unnecessary.The Gemara responds: With regard to the laws of ritual purity, they were lenient. To ensure maintece of purity, they were lenient and did not require a greater distance.Come and hear from what we learned: How far may workers distance themselves, and the fruit and oil will remain pure? They may distance themselves only so far that he still sees him. This contradicts the opinion of Isi bar Natan, who required them to distance themselves sufficiently that they may not be seen. The Gemara responds: Those who eat in purity are different, as the Sages were lenient with them.,Rav Ashi said: What is the meaning of: So long as another does not see him, which was the standard that Isi bar Natan said? Sufficient that another person cannot see his nakedness, although he does see him.,The Gemara relates: There was a particular eulogizer who went to eulogize an important person in the presence of Rav Naḥman. of the deceased, he said: This man was modest in his ways. Rav Naḥman said to him: Did you go to the bathroom with him and know whether or not he was modest? As we learned in a baraita: One can only describe as modest one who is modest even in the bathroom, when no one else is there.The Gemara asks: And what difference did it make to Rav Naḥman, that he was so insistent upon the details of whether or not this man was modest? The Gemara answers: Because it was taught in a baraita: Just as the deceased are punished, so too are the eulogizers and those who answer after them.The deceased are punished for transgressions committed in their lifetimes. The eulogizers and those who answer are punished for accepting the attribution of virtues that the deceased did not possess.The Sages taught in a baraita: Who is a modest person? One who defecates at night where he defecates during the day, i.e. who distances himself at night, in order to relieve himself, no less than he distances himself during the day.The Gemara challenges: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: One must always accustom himself to defecate in the morning and at night, when it is dark, so that he will not need to distance himself? Moreover, during the day, Rava would go up to a mil outside the city, and at night he would tell his servant: Clear a place for me in the city street. And so too, Rabbi Zeira told his servant: See who is behind the study hall, as I need to defecate. These Sages did not defecate at night in the same place where they defecated during the day. Rather, emend the statement and say as follows: In the manner that one defecates during the day, i.e. he should conduct himself at night with the same degree of modesty with which he removes his clothing when defecating during the day.Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the text can remain as it was: Where he defecates during the day, it was only necessary in the case of a corner, where one may conceal himself. In the interest of modesty, he should go around the corner at night, just as he does during the day.The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One must always accustom himself to defecate early in the morning and late at night so that he will not need to distance himself.,That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Ben Azzai said: Rise early in the morning and go defecate, wait for evening and go defecate, so that you will not need to distance yourself. He also said: Touch around the anus first to assist in the opening of orifices and then sit; do not sit and then touch, for anyone who sits and then touches, even if sorcery is performed in a distant place like Aspamia, the sorcery will come upon him.,The Gemara says: And if one forgets and sits and then touches, what is his remedy? When he stands, he should recite the following incantation: Not for me, not for me, neither taḥim nor taḥtim, types of sorcery, neither these nor from these, neither the sorcery of a sorcerer nor the sorcery of a sorceress., |
104. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b, 64b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Bavli, aggada integrated into halakhic context • Halakha/halakhic • Halakhah/Halakhot • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • aggada in Bavli, integrated with halakhic context Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 360, 430, 445; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 569, 570; Piotrkowski, Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period (2019) 142 13b ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר\ מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר\ יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו,מתני׳ הקורה שאמרו רחבה כדי לקבל אריח ואריח חצי לבנה של שלשה טפחים דייה לקורה שתהא רחבה טפח כדי לקבל אריח לרחבו,רחבה כדי לקבל אריח ובריאה כדי לקבל אריח רבי יהודה אומר רחבה אף על פי שאין בריאה היתה של קש ושל קנים רואין אותה כאילו היא של מתכת,עקומה רואין אותה כאילו היא פשוטה עגולה רואין אותה כאילו היא מרובעת כל שיש בהיקיפו שלשה טפחים יש בו רוחב טפח: 64b בעל בנכסי אשתו,רבא אמר אפילו עבד עיסקא ורווח רב פפא אמר אפי\ מצא מציאה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אפילו כתב בהו תפילין,ואמר רב חנין ואיתימא ר\ חנינא מאי קראה דכתיב (במדבר כא, ב) וידר ישראל נדר וגו\,אמר רמי בר אבא דרך מיל ושינה כל שהוא מפיגין את היין אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה כדי רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן שדרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו,ודרך מיל מפיגה היין והתניא מעשה בר"ג שהיה רוכב על החמור והיה מהלך מעכו לכזיב והיה רבי אילעאי מהלך אחריו מצא גלוסקין בדרך אמר לו אילעאי טול גלוסקין מן הדרך מצא נכרי אחד אמר לו מבגאי טול גלוסקין הללו מאילעאי,ניטפל לו ר\ אילעאי אמר לו מהיכן אתה אמר לו מעיירות של בורגנין ומה שמך מבגאי שמני כלום היכירך רבן גמליאל מעולם אמר לו לאו,באותה שעה למדנו שכוון רבן גמליאל ברוח הקודש ושלשה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שאין מעבירין על האוכלין,ולמדנו שהולכין אחרי רוב עוברי דרכים ולמדנו שחמצו של נכרי אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה,כיון שהגיע לכזיב בא אחד לישאל על נדרו אמר לזה שעמו כלום שתינו רביעית יין האיטלקי אמר לו הן אם כן יטייל אחרינו עד שיפיג יינינו,וטייל אחריהן ג\ מילין עד שהגיע לסולמא של צור כיון שהגיע לסולמא דצור ירד ר"ג מן החמור ונתעטף וישב והתיר לו נדרו,והרבה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שרביעית יין האיטלקי משכר ולמדנו שיכור אל יורה ולמדנו שדרך מפיגה את היין ולמדנו שאין מפירין נדרים לא רכוב ולא מהלך ולא עומד אלא יושב,קתני מיהת שלשה מילין שאני יין האיטלקי דמשכר טפי,והאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן דרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו,רכוב שאני השתא דאתית להכי לרמי בר אבא נמי לא קשיא רכוב שאני,איני והאמר רב נחמן מפירין נדרים בין מהלך בין עומד ובין רכוב,תנאי היא דאיכא למאן דאמר פותחין בחרטה,ואיכא למאן דאמר אין פותחין בחרטה,דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי פתח ליה רבן גמליאל לההוא גברא (משלי יב, יח) יש בוטה כמדקרות חרב ולשון חכמים מרפא כל הבוטה ראוי לדוקרו בחרב אלא שלשון חכמים מרפא,אמר מר ואין מעבירין על האוכלין אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי לא שנו אלא בדורות הראשונים שאין בנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים אבל בדורות האחרונים שבנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים מעבירין,תנא שלימין מעבירין פתיתין אין מעבירין אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ואפתיתין לא עבדן והכתיב (יחזקאל יג, יט) ותחללנה אותי אל עמי בשעלי שעורים ובפתותי לחם דשקלי באגרייהו,אמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, 13b but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates meir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens manhir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e. I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.,It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.,The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin. 64b a husband who acquired rights to his wife’s property that she had brought into the marriage as her dowry should use part of the profits for the acquisition of a Torah scroll.Rava said: Even if he entered into a business venture and made a large profit, he should act in a similar manner. Rav Pappa said: Even if he found a lost article, he should do the same. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He need not use the money to commission the writing of a Torah scroll, as even if he wrote a set of phylacteries with it, this, too, is a mitzva whose merit will enable him to retain the rest of the money.Rav Ḥanin said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥanina who said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said: If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will consecrate their cities” (Numbers 21:2), which shows that one who wishes to succeed should sanctify a portion of his earnings for Heaven.The Gemara now cites additional teachings relating to the drinking of wine. Rami bar Abba said: Walking a path of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They only taught this with regard to one who has drunk a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, this advice is not useful. In that case, walking a path of such a distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him.,The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel encountered a certain gentile and said to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai.,Elai joined the gentile and said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From the nearby towns of guardsmen. He asked: And what is your name? The gentile replied: My name is Mavgai. He then inquired: Has Rabban Gamliel ever met you before, seeing as he knows your name? He said to him: No.,The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile’s name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s behavior: We learned that one may not pass by food, i.e. if a person sees food lying on the ground, he must stop and pick it up.We also learned that we follow the majority of travelers. Since the area was populated mostly by gentiles, Rabban Gamliel assumed that the loaf belonged to a gentile, and was consequently prohibited to be eaten by a Jew. Therefore, he ordered that it be given to a gentile. And we further learned that with regard to leavened bread belonging to a gentile, it is permitted to benefit from this food after Passover. The incident recounted above occurred not long after the festival of Passover. By giving the loaf to the gentile instead of burning it in accordance with the halakhot of leavened bread that remains after Passover, Rabban Gamliel gained a certain benefit from it in the form of the gentile’s gratitude. This benefit is regarded as having monetary value.The Gemara resumes the narrative: When Rabban Gamliel arrived in Keziv, a person came before him to request that he dissolve his vow. Rabban Gamliel said to the one who was with him, i.e. Rabbi Elai: Did we drink a quarter-log of Italian wine earlier? He said to him: Yes. Rabban Gamliel replied: If so, let him journey after us until the effect of our wine is dispelled, after which we may consider his issue.And that person journeyed after them for three mil, until Rabban Gamliel arrived at the Ladder of Tyre. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel alighted from his donkey and wrapped himself in his shawl in the customary manner of a judge, who wraps himself in a shawl in order to sit in awe at the time of judgment, and he sat and dissolved his vow.,The Gemara continues: At that time we learned many matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s conduct. We learned that a quarter-log of Italian wine intoxicates, and we learned that one who is intoxicated may not issue a halakhic ruling, and we learned that walking on a path dispels the effect of wine, and lastly we learned that one may not annul vows when he is either mounted on an animal, or walking, or even standing, but only when he is sitting.,In any event, the baraita is teaching that Rabban Gamliel found it necessary to walk three mil in order to become sober after drinking wine. The Gemara resolves the contradiction. Italian wine is different in that it is more intoxicating, therefore more extended activity is required in order to dispel its effects.The Gemara poses a question: But didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught this only with regard to one who has drunk a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, walking that distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him? If Italian wine is more intoxicating than other wine, shouldn’t a quarter-log be considered like a larger quantity of other wine?The Gemara answers: Being mounted on an animal is different from walking; since he is not on foot it is not such a tiring activity. Accordingly, riding three mil will not exhaust him; rather, it will dispel the effect of the wine. The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, according to Rami bar Abba, who says that walking one mil is sufficient, it is also not difficult, as he too can say that riding is different from walking. Since one is not on foot, the effects of the wine are not dispelled as quickly. Therefore, three mil is necessary.The Gemara poses a question with regard to one of the details of the story: Is that so, that Rabban Gamliel was required to alight from his donkey in order to annul the vow? But didn’t Rav Naḥman say: One may annul vows walking, standing, or mounted? Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel dismount his donkey?The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as there is an authority who says that one may open the possibility for dissolution of a vow by means of regret alone. In other words, there is no need to search for a special reason in order to dissolve a person’s vow; it is enough to ascertain that he regrets making it. This can be done easily, even while walking, standing, or riding.And there is another authority who says that one may not open the possibility for dissolution of a vow by means of regret alone. Rather, one must find an opening, i.e. a particular reason to dissolve the vow in question, which requires a thorough analysis of the circumstances of the vow. This task must be performed free of distractions, which means one must be seated (Tosafot).As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: With what did Rabban Gamliel open the possibility for dissolving his vow for that man, i.e. what opening did he find for him? Rabban Gamliel cited the verse: “There is one who utters like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18) and explained it as follows: Whoever utters a vow deserves to be pierced by a sword, as he might fail to fulfill it. Therefore, one should not vow at all. Had you known that whoever vows is liable to be executed, would you have vowed? Rather, it is the tongue of the wise that heals, as when a Sage dissolves a vow, he dissolves it retroactively, and it is as though one had never taken the vow.The Gemara continues with its analysis of the baraita. The Master said previously: One of the halakhot learned from the incident involving Rabban Gamliel was that one may not pass by food; rather, one must treat the food with respect and pick it up. Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: They taught this ruling only in the early generations, when Jewish women were not accustomed to using witchcraft. However, in the later generations, when Jewish women are accustomed to using witchcraft, one may pass by food, as a spell might have been cast on the bread, and one must not put himself in unnecessary danger.A Sage taught: If the loaves are whole, one may pass them by, as they might have been placed there for the purposes of witchcraft; however, if they are in pieces, one may not pass them by, because bread in pieces is not used for witchcraft. Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: Do they not perform magic with pieces of bread? Isn’t it written in the verse that deals with witchcraft: “And you have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread” (Ezekiel 13:19)? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that they used pieces of bread in their witchcraft, but rather that they took such pieces as their wages.,Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:, |
105. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, 11a, 48a, 60a, 60b, 88b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • halakha in ~ • mamzerim (halakhic bastards) • mamzerim (halakhic “bastards”) Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 215, 312, 368, 369; Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 40; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 40; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 30, 35 11a בשמות מובהקין,היכי דמי שמות מובהקין אמר רב פפא כגון הורמיז ואבודינא בר שיבתאי ובר קידרי ובאטי ונקים אונא,אבל שמות שאין מובהקים מאי לא אי הכי אדתני סיפא לא הוזכרו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט לפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל שמות שאין מובהקין לא,הכי נמי קאמר בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל בשמות שאין מובהקין נעשה כמי שנעשו בהדיוט ופסולין,ואיבעית אימא סיפא אתאן לגיטי ממון והכי קאמר לא הוזכרו גיטי ממון דפסולים אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט,תניא אמר ר\ אלעזר בר\ יוסי כך אמר ר"ש לחכמים בצידן לא נחלקו ר"ע וחכמים על כל השטרות העולין בערכאות של עובדי כוכבי\ שאע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשרים ואפי\ גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים לא נחלקו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט שר"ע מכשיר וחכמים פוסלים חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים,רשב"ג אומר אף אלו כשירין במקום שאין ישראל חותמין אבל במקום שישראל חותמין לא,מקום שאין ישראל חותמין נמי ליגזור אטו מקום שישראל חותמין שמא בשמא מחליף אתרא באתרא לא מחליף,רבינא סבר לאכשורי בכנופיאתה דארמאי א"ל רפרם ערכאות תנן,אמר רבא האי שטרא פרסאה דמסריה ניהליה באפי סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה מבני חרי,והא לא ידעי למיקרא בדידעי,והא בעינא כתב שאינו יכול לזייף וליכא בדאפיצן והא בעינא צריך שיחזיר מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה וליכא בדמהדר,א"ה ממשעבדי נמי לית ליה קלא,בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר\ יוחנן 48a בזמן שהיובל נוהג ר\ יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא ר"ל אמר מביא ואינו קורא,רבי יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי ר"ל אמר מביא ואינו קורא קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי,וצריכא דאי איתמר בההיא בההיא קאמר ריש לקיש דכי קא נחית אדעתא דפירא קא נחית אבל בהך דאדעתא דגופיה קא נחית אימא מודי ליה לר\ יוחנן,ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בהך אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש צריכא,ת"ש הקונה אילן וקרקעו מביא וקורא הכא במאי עסקינן בזמן שאין היובל נוהג,ת"ש הקונה שני אילנות בתוך שדהו של חבירו מביא ואינו קורא הא שלשה מביא וקורא ה"נ בזמן שאין היובל נוהג,והשתא דאמר רב חסדא מחלוקת ביובל שני אבל ביובל ראשון דברי הכל מביא וקורא דאכתי לא סמך דעתייהו ל"ק הא ביובל ראשון הא ביובל שני,לימא כתנאי מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו והקדישה ואח"כ מת אביו מניין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה,ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כב) אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה דברי ר\ יהודה ור"ש,ר"מ אומר מניין ללוקח שדה מאביו ומת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה מניין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה ת"ל אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שהיא שדה אחוזה ואילו לרבי יהודה ור"ש מת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה לא צריכא קרא,מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דר"מ סבר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי ובהא במיתת אביו הוא דלא ירית ולא מידי והלכך מת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה צריך קרא,רבי יהודה ור"ש סברי קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי ובהא במיתת אביו השתא הוא דקא ירית והלכך מת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה לא צריכא קרא וכי איצטריך קרא להקדישה ואח"כ מת אביו הוא דאיצטריך,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם אימא לך בעלמא קסברי ר\ יהודה ור"ש קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי והכא רבי יהודה ור"ש קרא אשכחו ודרוש לכתוב רחמנא אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא אחוזתו מאי משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה,א"ר יוסף אי לאו דא"ר יוחנן קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי לא מצא ידיו ורגליו בבית המדרש דא"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן האחין שחלקו לקוחות הן ומחזירין זה לזה ביובל,ואי ס"ד לאו כקנין הגוף דמי לא משכחת דמייתי ביכורים אלא חד בר חד עד יהושע בן נון,אמר רבא קרא ומתניתא מסייעי ליה לר"ל קרא, 60a מי קוראין לא הוה בידיה אתא ושייליה לרבי יצחק נפחא א"ל אחריהן קוראין ת"ח הממונין פרנסים על הצבור ואחריהן ת"ח הראויין למנותם פרנסים על הציבור ואחריהן בני ת"ח שאבותיהן ממונים פרנסים על הצבור ואחריהן ראשי כנסיות וכל אדם,שלחו ליה בני גליל לר\ חלבו מהו לקרות בחומשים בבהכ"נ בציבור לא הוה בידיה אתא שייליה לר\ יצחק נפחא לא הוה בידיה אתא שאיל בי מדרשא ופשטוה מהא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן ס"ת שחסר יריעה אחת אין קורין בו,ולא היא התם מחסר במילתיה הכא לא מחסר במילתיה רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו אין קוראין בחומשין בבית הכנסת משום כבוד צבור,ורבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו האי ספר אפטרתא אסור למקרי ביה בשבת מאי טעמא דלא ניתן ליכתב,מר בר רב אשי אמר לטלטולי נמי אסור מ"ט דהא לא חזי למיקרי ביה ולא היא שרי לטלטולי ושרי למיקרי ביה,דר\ יוחנן ור"ש בן לקיש מעייני בספרא דאגדתא בשבתא והא לא ניתן ליכתב אלא כיון דלא אפשר (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה\ הפרו תורתך ה"נ כיון דלא אפשר עת לעשות לה\ הפרו תורתך,בעא מיניה אביי מרבה מהו לכתוב מגילה לתינוק להתלמד בה תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה חתומה ניתנה,תיבעי למ"ד תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה כיון דמגילה מגילה ניתנה כותבין או דילמא כיון דאידבק אידבק,תיבעי למ"ד תורה חתומה ניתנה כיון דחתומה ניתנה אין כותבין או דילמא כיון דלא אפשר כתבינן א"ל אין כותבין ומה טעם לפי שאין כותבין,איתיביה אף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה א"ר שמעון בן לקיש משום ר\ ינאי באל"ף בי"ת,איתיביה כשהוא כותב רואה וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא אימא כמה שכתוב בטבלא,איתיביה כשהוא כותב רואה בטבלא וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא מה הוא כתוב בטבלא (במדבר ה, יט) אם שכב אם לא שכב הכא במאי עסקינן בסירוגין,כתנאי אין כותבין מגילה לתינוק להתלמד בה ואם דעתו להשלים מותר ר\ יהודה אומר בבראשית עד דור המבול בתורת כהנים עד ויהי ביום השמיני,א"ר יוחנן משום רבי בנאה תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה שנא\ (תהלים מ, ח) אז אמרתי הנה באתי במגילת ספר כתוב עלי ר"ש בן לקיש אומר תורה חתומה ניתנה שנאמר (דברים לא, כו) לקוח את ספר התורה הזאת,ואידך נמי הכתיב לקוח ההוא לבתר דאידבק,ואידך נמי הכתיב במגילת ספר כתוב עלי ההוא דכל התורה כולה איקרי מגילה דכתיב (זכריה ה, ב) ויאמר אלי מה אתה רואה ואומר אני רואה מגילה עפה,אי נמי לכדרבי לוי דאמר רבי לוי שמנה פרשיות נאמרו ביום שהוקם בו המשכן אלו הן פרשת כהנים ופרשת לוים ופרשת טמאים ופרשת שילוח טמאים ופרשת אחרי מות, 60b ופרשת שתויי יין ופרשת נרות ופרשת פרה אדומה,א"ר אלעזר תורה רוב בכתב ומיעוט על פה שנא\ (הושע ח, יב) אכתוב לו רובי תורתי כמו זר נחשבו ור\ יוחנן אמר רוב על פה ומיעוט בכתב שנא\ (שמות לד, כז) כי על פי הדברים האלה,ואידך נמי הכתיב אכתוב לו רובי תורתי ההוא אתמוהי קא מתמה אכתוב לו רובי תורתי הלא כמו זר נחשבו,ואידך נמי הכתיב כי על פי הדברים האלה ההוא משום דתקיפי למיגמרינהו,דרש רבי יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש כתיב (שמות לד, כז) כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתיב (שמות לד, כז) כי ע"פ הדברים האלה הא כיצד דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אלה אלה אתה כותב ואי אתה כותב הלכות,א"ר יוחנן לא כרת הקב"ה ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל דברים שבעל פה שנאמר (שמות לד, כז) כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל:מערבין בבית ישן מפני דרכי שלום: מאי טעמא אילימא משום כבוד והא ההוא שיפורא דהוה מעיקרא בי רב יהודה ולבסוף בי רבה ולבסוף בי רב יוסף ולבסוף בי אביי ולבסוף בי רבא,אלא משום חשדא:בור שהוא קרוב לאמה וכו\: איתמר בני נהרא רב אמר תתאי שתו מיא ברישא ושמואל אמר עילאי שתו מיא ברישא,בדמיזל כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי במיסכר ואשקויי שמואל אמר עילאי שתו מיא ברישא דאמרי אנן מקרבינן טפי ורב אמר תתאי שתו מיא ברישא דאמרי נהרא כפשטיה ליזיל,תנן בור הקרוב לאמה מתמלא ראשון מפני דרכי שלום תרגמה שמואל אליבא דרב באמה המתהלכת ע"פ בורו,אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מצי אמרי ליה סכר מיסכר ואשקי בהינדזא קמ"ל,אמר רב הונא בר תחליפא השתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר כל דאלים גבר,רב שימי בר אשי אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה לותבן מר בעידנא אמר ליה אית לי עידנא לדידי ולותבן מר בליליא א"ל אית לי מיא לאשקויי א"ל אנא משקינא ליה למר מיא ביממא ולותבן מר בליליא א"ל לחיי,אזל לעילאי אמר להו תתאי שתו מיא ברישא אזל לתתאי אמר להו עילאי שתו מיא ברישא אדהכי סכר מיסכר ואשקי כי אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה כבי תרי עבדת לי ולא טעמינהו אביי לפירי דההיא שתא,הנהו בני בי חרמך דאזול כרו ברישא דשנוותא ואהדרוה ושדיוה בשילהי נהרא אתו עילאי לקמיה דאביי אמרו ליה קא מתקיל לנהרין אמר להו כרו בהדייהו טפי פורתא אמרו ליה קא יבשי פירין אמר להו זילו סליקו נפשייכו מהתם:מצודות חיה ועופות ודגי\ יש בהן וכו\: באוזלי ואוהרי, 88b אמר רב אחא בר יעקב שמע מינה מהרה דמרי עלמא תמני מאה וחמשין ותרתי הוא:מתני׳ גט מעושה בישראל כשר ובעובדי כוכבים פסול ובעובדי כוכבים חובטין אותו ואומרים לו עשה מה שישראל אומרים לך (וכשר):גמ׳ אמר ר"נ אמר שמואל גט המעושה בישראל כדין כשר שלא כדין פסול ופוסל,ובעובדי כוכבים כדין פסול ופוסל שלא כדין אפי\ ריח הגט אין בו,מה נפשך אי עובדי כוכבי\ בני עשויי נינהו איתכשורי נמי ליתכשר אי לאו בני עשויי נינהו מיפסל לא ליפסל,אמר רב משרשיא דבר תורה גט מעושה בעובדי כוכבי\ כשר ומה טעם אמרו פסול שלא תהא כל אחת ואחת הולכת ותולה עצמה בעובד כוכבי\ ומפקעת עצמה מיד בעלה,אי הכי שלא כדין אפי\ ריח הגט אין בו ונהוי שלא כדין כישראל ומפסיל נמי לפסול,אלא הא דרב משרשיא בדותא היא,וטעמא מאי כדין בכדין דישראל מיחלף שלא כדין בכדין ישראל לא מיחלף:אביי אשכחיה לרב יוסף דיתיב וקא מעשה אגיטי א"ל והא אנן הדיוטות אנן ותניא היה ר"ט אומר כל מקום שאתה מוצא אגוריאות של עובדי כוכבים אע"פ שדיניהם כדיני ישראל אי אתה רשאי להיזקק להם שנאמר (שמות כא, א) ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם לפניהם ולא לפני עובדי כוכבים דבר אחר לפניהם ולא לפני הדיוטות,א"ל אנן שליחותייהו קא עבדינן מידי דהוה אהודאות והלואות,אי הכי גזילות וחבלות נמי כי עבדינן שליחותייהו במילתא דשכיחא במילתא דלא שכיחא לא עבדינן שליחותייהו:מתני׳ יצא שמה בעיר מקודשת הרי זו מקודשת מגורשת הרי זו מגורשת ובלבד שלא יהא שם אמתלא,איזו היא אמתלא גירש איש פלוני את אשתו על תנאי זרק לה קידושיה ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו זו היא אמתלא:גמ׳ ואסרינן לה אגברא והא אמר רב אשי כל קלא דבתר נישואין לא חיישינן ליה,ה"ק יצא שמה בעיר מקודשת הרי זו מקודשת מקודשת ומגורשת, 11a We are dealing with unambiguous gentile names, in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.,The Gemara infers: However, if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with ambiguous names, what is the halakha? Is this not a valid document? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: These two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of gentile courts itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, in a case of ambiguous names, no, gentile witnesses are not valid.The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying, i.e. Rabbi Shimon’s statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: In what case is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names, the document becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and therefore such documents are invalid.,And if you wish, say a different answer: In the last clause of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, we arrive at the case of ficial documents. Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first tanna. And this is what the mishna is saying: Ficial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person, whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid.It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in the city of Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, these documents are valid, even in the case of bills of divorce and bills of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, outside a court, as Rabbi Akiva deems a document of this kind valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, bills of divorce and manumission, are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. In other words, the halakha that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. However, in a place where Jews sign, no, these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.The Gemara suggests: Let us also decree in a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign. The Gemara answers: One might confuse one name with another name. It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is not likely to confuse one place with another place. Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.§ The Gemara relates that Ravina thought to deem valid a document that was written by a group of gentiles arma’ei. Rafram said to him that we learned: Gentile courts, in the mishna, i.e. these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.Similarly, Rava said: With regard to this Persian document shetara parsa’a written by the Persian authorities that was transferred to the recipient in the presence of Jewish witnesses, he can collect with it non-liened property, i.e. property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.The Gemara asks: But the witnesses for the transmission of this document do not know how to read Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation where the witnesses know how to read Persian.The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But I require that the document be written in a manner that cannot be forged, and it is not so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava’s statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). But I require that a document review the essential topic of the document in its last line, and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement applies in a case where it returned to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.The Gemara asks: If so, he should be able to collect from liened property as well, as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn’t Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does not generate publicity, i.e. a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase.Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥa: 48a in the time when the Jubilee Year is practiced, and every sale of land is only for its produce, because the land returns to its original owners in the Jubilee Year, Rabbi Yoḥa says: The purchaser brings the first fruits and recites the verses. Reish Lakish says: The purchaser brings the first fruits but he does not recite the verses.The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoḥa says that the purchaser brings the first fruits and recites the verses, because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself. Consequently, the one bringing the fruits can truthfully recite: “The land which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). Reish Lakish says that the purchaser brings the first fruits but he does not recite the verses, because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself.,The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish in both cases. Because if it was stated only in that case, with regard to one who acquires a field for its produce, one might say that it is only in that case that Reish Lakish says that he does not recite the verses, since already when he descended to the field, i.e. took possession of the land, he descended with the intention of acquiring only the produce, as stipulated at the time of the sale; but in this case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, when he descended to the field with the intention of acquiring the land itself, say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥa that he recites the verses. Therefore, it is necessary to state explicitly that Reish Lakish holds that he does not recite the verses in this case as well.And if it was stated only in this case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, one might say that it is only in this case that Rabbi Yoḥa says that it is like the acquisition of the item itself and recites the verses, as he purchased the field to fully own it; but in that case, where the sale was only with regard to the produce, say that he concedes to Reish Lakish that he does not recite the verses. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.The Gemara offers a proof in support of Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (Bikkurim 1:11): One who acquires a tree and its surrounding land brings the first fruits of those trees and recites the verses, even though he is required to return the land in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here according to the opinion of Reish Lakish? The mishna is referring to one who acquires a tree and its surrounding land in the time when the Jubilee Year is not practiced, so the acquisition is permanent.The Gemara suggests another proof in support of Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (Bikkurim 1:16): One who acquires two trees in another’s field brings the first fruits of those trees but does not recite the verses, as he acquires only the trees but not the land. But if one acquires three trees, he brings the first fruits of those trees and recites the verses, because he also acquires the land surrounding the trees, despite the fact that the land is returned in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara rejects this: Here too, Reish Lakish would explain that the mishna is referring to one who acquires three trees in the time when the Jubilee Year is not practiced.,The Gemara comments: And now that Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute between Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish is with regard to land sold during the second Jubilee, after the Jewish people already practiced the Jubilee Year once and people could trust that the land would be returned in the Jubilee Year, but with regard to land sold during the first Jubilee, which was practiced by the Jews immediately following their entry into Eretz Yisrael, everyone agrees that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses, as they did not yet rely on the fact that the fields would be returned, there is no need to claim that according to Reish Lakish these mishnayot are referring to when the Jubilee Year was not practiced. Instead, one could answer that it is not difficult: This, the mishnayot that state that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses, are referring to land sold during the first Jubilee. That, where Reish Lakish rules that he brings the first fruits but does not recite the verses, is referring to land sold during the second Jubilee.,The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. The halakha is that if one consecrated but did not redeem his ancestral field, and the Temple treasury sold it to another Jew, it becomes the property of the priesthood in the Jubilee Year. However, if one purchases a field from another Jew and consecrates it, it reverts back to the original owner in the Jubilee Year. The baraita taught: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father in the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced and consecrated it, and afterward his father died, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field, and it does not revert to the son’s ownership in the Jubilee Year?The baraita continues: The verse states: “And if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:22). The addition of the phrase: “Which is not of the field of his ancestral field,” teaches that the halakha that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. This field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field, although the son had purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.,The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father at the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced and his father died, and afterward he consecrated it, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field, and does not revert to the son in the Jubilee Year? The verse states: “And if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral field.” The addition of the phrase: “Which is not of the field of his ancestral field,” teaches that the halakha that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field, meaning that he did not inherit it. This field, which the son inherited before he consecrated it, is excluded, as it is an ancestral field, while according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, a verse is not required to teach that in a case where his father died, and he consecrated it afterward, it is considered an ancestral field, as this is obvious. The Gemara explains why the other tanna’im do not require a verse to teach the halakha in the case discussed by Rabbi Meir:The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not that they disagree about this, as Rabbi Meir holds: The acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and in this case, when he purchased the field, i.e. the rights to the produce, from his father before his death, it is the case that he inherits nothing when his father dies, as he had already taken ownership of the field when he purchased it from his father, and nothing changed with his father’s death; and therefore, if his father died and he consecrated it afterward, then a verse is necessary to teach that it is treated like an ancestral field, as one might have thought that the field is his entirely as a result of the purchase, and not because of an ancestral inheritance.While Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and in this case, when he had purchased the field from his father before his father died, with the death of his father he now inherits the field as well, since until now he owned only the rights to the produce; and therefore if his father died and he consecrated the field afterward, a verse is not necessary to teach that it is an ancestral field, as it is obvious that he now owns it due to his inheritance. And when a verse was necessary, it is for a case where he consecrated the field and his father died afterward that it was necessary.,The Gemara rejects this explanation of the dispute. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Actually, I could say to you that in general Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and they agree that the verse is necessary to teach the halakha concerning a case where he consecrated the field after his father’s death. And here, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon found another element of the verse and they expounded it. They maintain that if the verse is teaching the halakha only in the case where he consecrated the field after his father’s death, then let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not his ancestral field. What is the meaning of the expression: “of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:22)? This emphasizes: A field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. This field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field, although the son had purchased it.Rav Yosef said: If not for the fact that Rabbi Yoḥa said that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, he would not find his hands or his feet in the study hall, i.e. there would be a contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥa’s statements. As Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: Brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered to be purchasers from one another, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each other in the Jubilee Year, at which point they may redistribute the property.And if it enters your mind to say that the legal status of the acquisition of an item for its produce is not like that of the acquisition of the item itself, then according to Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion you will find that one brings first fruits by Torah law only when he is an only child the son of an only child, and so forth, dating back to the time of Joshua, son of Nun. Only in such a case does the child fully inherit the land. In any other case, the children inherit only the rights to the produce, as they must return the actual land to each other in the Jubilee Year, and would not be able to recite the verses connected with the first fruits, since they could not refer to the land that the Lord has given them. Since Rabbi Yoḥa holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, anyone who inherits land may recite the verses.Rava said: A verse and a baraita support the opinion of Reish Lakish. A verse, as it is written: 60a who reads from the Torah? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who said to him: After them read the Torah scholars who are appointed as leaders parnasim of the community. And after them read Torah scholars who are fit to be appointed as leaders of the community, even if in practice they received no such appointment. The Sages said that a Torah scholar who knows how to answer any question asked of him is fit to be appointed as leader of the community. And after them read the sons of Torah scholars whose fathers were appointed as leaders of the community. And after them read the heads of synagogues, and after them any person.,The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ḥelbo: What is the halakha with regard to reading from ḥumashim, i.e. scrolls containing only one of the five books of the Torah, in the synagogue in public? Is this permitted, or is it necessary to read from a complete Torah scroll? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, but an answer was not readily available to him either. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa came and asked this question in the study hall, and they resolved the difficulty from that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: With regard to a Torah scroll that is missing even one sheet of parchment, one may not read from it in public. This indicates that an incomplete Torah scroll may not be used for a public Torah reading.The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so, i.e. this cannot serve as a proof to the matter at hand. There, it is lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as a sheet of parchment is missing, whereas here, it is not lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as it contains a complete book. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One does not read from ḥumashim in the synagogue out of respect for the community.,And Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: It is prohibited to publicly read the haftara, the portion from the Prophets that is read after the weekly Torah portion, on Shabbat, from a scroll containing only the haftarot. What is the reason for this? It is because this type of scroll may not be written, as the words of the Prophets must also be written as complete books.Mar bar Rav Ashi said: To handle such a scroll on Shabbat is also prohibited. What is the reason for this? It is because it is not fit to be read. Consequently, it is treated as set-aside muktze on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so; rather, it is permitted to handle such a scroll and it is permitted to read from it.,And a proof for this is that Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish used to read from a scroll of aggada containing the words of the Sages on Shabbat. But such a scroll may not be written, for in principle, the statements of the Oral Law may not be committed to writing. Rather, since it is not possible to remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). Here too, in the case of a haftara scroll, since it is not always possible to write complete books of the Bible, due to the expense, it is permitted to apply the reasoning of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah.”,Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study it? The Gemara notes: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, meaning that Moses would teach the Jewish people one portion of the Torah, and then write it down, and then teach them the next portion of the Torah, and then write that down, and continue in this way until he committed the entire Torah to writing. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book, meaning that the Torah was not written down incrementally, but rather, after teaching the Jewish people the entire Torah, Moses committed it to writing all at once.The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma according to each opinion: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given scroll by scroll. On the one hand it is possible to say that since the Torah was originally given scroll by scroll, today as well one may write the Torah in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since it was ultimately joined together to form a single scroll, it was joined together and can no longer be written in separate scrolls.And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book. On the one hand it is possible to say that since it was given from the outset as a complete book, one may not write it today in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one could say that since it is not always possible to write a complete Torah, one may write it in separate scrolls. Rabba said to him: One may not write the Torah in separate scrolls. And what is the reason? Because one may not write a scroll that is only part of the Torah.Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Yoma 37b) where it was taught: Queen Helene also fashioned a golden tablet as a gift for the Temple on which the Torah portion discussing a sota was written. When the priest would write the scroll of a sota in the Temple, he would copy this Torah portion from the tablet, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. This indicates that it is permitted for one to write a single portion of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is no proof from this mishna, as the tablet prepared by Queen Helene was not written in an ordinary manner, but rather it consisted of the letters of the alef-beit, i.e. only the first letter of each word was written on the tablet, and by looking at it the priest writing the sota scroll would remember what to write.The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that teaches: When the priest writes the sota scroll, he looks at and writes that which is written on the tablet, which indicates that the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara rejects this argument: Emend the baraita and say that it should read as follows: He looks at and writes like that which is written on the tablet. The tablet aids the priest in remembering the text that must actually be written.The Gemara raised an objection from a different baraita: When he writes, he looks at the tablet and writes that which is written on the tablet. And what is written on the tablet? “If a man lay with you…and if he did not lay with you” (see Numbers 5:19). Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The tablet fashioned by Queen Helene was written by alternating complete words and initials. The first words of each verse were written there, but the rest of the words in the verse were represented by initials. Therefore, this contribution of Queen Helene does not resolve the question of whether writing a scroll for a child is permitted.The Gemara comments: The question of whether or not writing a scroll for a child is permitted is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in the following baraita: One may not write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study, but if the writer’s intention is to complete the scroll, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the book of Genesis he may write a scroll from the beginning until the generation of the flood. In Torat Kohanim, the book of Leviticus, he may write a scroll from the beginning until “And it came to pass on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1).The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned dispute. Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, as it is stated: “Then I said, behold, I come with the scroll of the book that is written for me” (Psalms 40:8). King David is saying about himself that there is a section of the Torah, “the scroll of the book,” that alludes to him, i.e. “that is written for me.” This indicates that each portion of the Torah constitutes a separate scroll. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was given as a complete book, as it is stated: “Take this scroll of the Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:26), which teaches that from the outset the Torah was given as a complete unit.The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥa, as well, isn’t it written “take,” indicating that the Torah scroll was given whole? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is speaking about the Torah after it was joined together to form a single unit.The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Reish Lakish, as well, isn’t it written: “With the scroll of the book that is written for me,” indicating that the Torah was given scroll by scroll? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse teaches that the entire Torah is called a scroll. This is indicated in another verse as well, as it is written: “And He said to me: What do you see? And I said: I see a flying scroll” (Zechariah 5:2).Alternatively, this verse serves to allude to the sections of the Torah discussed in that statement of Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: Eight sections were said on the day that the Tabernacle was erected, on the first of Nisan. They are: The section of the priests (Leviticus 21:1–22:26); the section of the Levites (Numbers 8:5–26); the section of the impure (Leviticus 13:1– 14:57); the section of the sending away of the impure (Numbers 5:1–4); the section beginning with the words “After the death” (Leviticus, chapter 16); 60b the section dealing with priests who have become intoxicated with wine (Leviticus 10:8–11); the section of the lamps (Numbers 8:1–7); and the section of the red heifer (Numbers, chapter 19), as all of these sections are necessary for service in the Tabernacle.§ The Gemara continues its discussion concerning the writing of the Torah: Rabbi Elazar says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted in writing, while the minority was transmitted orally, as it is stated: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah; they were reckoned a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12), meaning that the majority of the Torah was transmitted in written form. And Rabbi Yoḥa says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted orally al peh, while the minority was transmitted in writing, as it is stated with regard to the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai: “For on the basis of al pi these matters I have made a covet with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), which indicates that the greater part of the Sinaitic covet was taught orally.The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥa, as well, isn’t it written: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse is not a statement, but rather a rhetorical question expressing bewilderment: For did I write for him the greater part of My Torah? In that case they, the Jewish people, would be reckoned as strangers, meaning that there would be no difference between them and the nations of the world if everything was written down. Rather, the majority of the Torah must remain an oral tradition.The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, as well, isn’t it written: “For on the basis of these matters I have made a covet with you and with Israel”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse, which indicates that the covet was based on that which was taught by oral tradition, is stated due to the fact that it is more difficult to learn matters transmitted orally, but not because these matters are more numerous than those committed to writing.Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded as follows: It is written: “Write you these matters” (Exodus 34:27), and it is written later in that same verse: “For on the basis of al pi these matters.” How can these texts be reconciled? They mean to teach: Matters that were written you may not express them orally al peh, and matters that were taught orally you may not express them in writing. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word “these” in the mitzva recorded in the verse “Write you these matters” is used here in an emphatic sense: These matters, i.e. those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e. the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.Rabbi Yoḥa says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covet with the Jewish people only for the sake of the matters that were transmitted orally be’al peh, as it is stated: “For on the basis of al pi these matters I have made a covet with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27).§ The mishna teaches that the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards eiruv is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say that it is to show respect to the owner of that house, but wasn’t it related about a certain charity box, which was fashioned for the benefit of the community and brought honor to the person in whose house it was placed, that initially it was placed in Rav Yehuda’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rabba’s house, and afterward it was transferred to Rav Yosef’s house, and afterward it was moved to Abaye’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rava’s house. This teaches that there is no issue here of respect, and that such items would ordinarily be moved from place to place.Rather, say instead that the Sages instituted this enactment to avoid arousing suspicion. Since the eiruv had regularly been placed in a particular house, were it to be moved, people might think that the residents of the alleyway suspected that the owner of the house was stealing from them, and therefore they put it somewhere else.§ The mishna teaches that the Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. It was stated that the amora’im disagree about the following issue: When people own fields along a river and they irrigate their fields with water that is redirected from it, who among them enjoys first rights to irrigate his field? Rav said: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water, i.e. irrigate their fields, first. And Shmuel said: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first.,The Gemara explains: With regard to a case where the water flows on its own, everyone agrees that whoever wishes to irrigate may do so as he wishes. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where they need to dam the river and irrigate through channels. Shmuel said: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first because they can say: We are nearer to the river’s headwaters. And Rav said: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water first because they can say: Let the river go its natural way and after we take what we need, dam it as you please.We learned in the mishna that the Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. This teaches that the party who is nearest to the water’s source enjoys first rights, and it supports Shmuel’s opinion and is difficult for Rav. Shmuel interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The mishna refers here to an irrigation channel that passes the mouth of the pit, so that the pit fills with water on its own, even without damming.The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this? It is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the owners of the other fields can say to the owner of the pit: Dam your pit as well so that water not enter it, and irrigate your fields in proportion hindeza, just like the rest of us. The mishna therefore teaches us that the owner of the pit is not required to do this, and consequently his pit is filled first.Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rav, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, Shmuel, whoever is stronger prevails. Since the halakha has not been decided, the court refuses to judge the case and leaves the claimants to settle the matter themselves, in the hope that the rightful party will exert himself and prevail.Rav Shimi bar Ashi came before Abaye and said to him: Master, set a time for me to study with you. Abaye said to him: I have a set time for myself, and I cannot devote it to you. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: Master, set a time for me at night, and we can study then. Abaye said to him: I have to bring water at night with which to irrigate my fields. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: I will irrigate for Master during the day, and then Master can set a time for me at night to study with him. Abaye said to him: Very well; this is an acceptable arrangement.What did Rav Shimi bar Ashi do? He first went to the owners of the uppermost fields, and said to them: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water first, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. He then went to the owners of the lowermost fields, and said to them: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. In the meantime, while the owners of the upper fields and the lower fields were arguing over who has first rights to the water, Rav Shimi bar Ashi dammed the river and irrigated Abaye’s fields. When he came before Abaye, the latter said to him: You have acted for me in accordance with two opposing opinions. And Abaye would not even taste the produce of that year because he thought that the water had reached his field in an unlawful manner.It is related that there were certain residents of a place called Bei Ḥarmakh who went and dug a channel at the head of the Shanvata River in order to divert the water and allow it to circle their fields, and then they returned the water to the river further downstream. Those who owned fields further upstream came before Abaye, and said to him: This damages our river, as the water is not flowing as it once had. Abaye said to them: Dig a little deeper with them, and that should solve the problem. They said to him: If we do that, our pits will become dry. Once Abaye heard this he said to the residents of Bei Ḥarmakh: Go remove yourselves from there, and dam the diversion that you made for the river.§ The mishna teaches: Taking animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps belonging to another person is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. And Rabbi Yosei says that this is full-fledged robbery. The Gemara comments: With regard to nets uzlei and woven traps oharei,, 88b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Learn from this numerical value that soon mehera for the Master of the World is eight hundred and fifty-two years, as it is stated in the verse in Deuteronomy: “You will soon maher utterly perish.” Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon. |
106. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, 3a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • Yohanan, R., on teaching halakhah Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 197; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 467 3a חייב בשמחה ואת שאינו לא שומע ולא מדבר ושוטה וקטן פטורין אף מן השמחה הואיל ופטורין מכל מצות האמורות בתורה מאי שנא לענין ראיה דפטירי ומאי שנא לענין שמחה דמחייבי,לענין ראיה גמר ראיה ראיה מהקהל דכתיב (דברים לא, יב) הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף וכתיב (דברים לא, יא) בבא כל ישראל לראות,והתם מנלן דכתיב (דברים לא, יב) למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו ותניא למען ישמעו פרט למדבר ואינו שומע ולמען ילמדו פרט לשומע ואינו מדבר,למימרא דכי לא משתעי לא גמר והא הנהו תרי אילמי דהוו בשבבותיה דרבי בני ברתיה דרבי יוחנן בן גודגדא ואמרי לה בני אחתיה דרבי יוחנן דכל אימת דהוה עייל רבי לבי מדרשא הוו עיילי ויתבי קמייהו ומניידי ברישייהו ומרחשין שפוותייהו,ובעי רבי רחמי עלייהו ואיתסו ואשתכח דהוו גמירי הלכתא וספרא וספרי וכולה הש"ס,אמר מר זוטרא קרי ביה למען ילמדו רב אשי אמר ודאי למען ילמדו הוא דאי סלקא דעתך למען ילמדו וכיון דלא משתעי לא גמר וכיון דלא שמע לא גמר,האי מלמען ישמעו נפקא אלא ודאי למען ילמדו הוא,אמר ר\ תנחום חרש באזנו אחת פטור מן הראיה שנאמר (דברים לא, יא) באזניהם,והאי באזניהם מבעי ליה באזניהם דכולהו ישראל ההוא מנגד כל ישראל נפקא אי מנגד כל ישראל הוה אמינא אע"ג דלא שמעי כתב רחמנא באזניהם והוא דשמעי,ההוא מלמען ישמעו נפקא,אמר רבי תנחום חיגר ברגלו אחת פטור מן הראיה שנאמר רגלים,והא רגלים מבעי ליה פרט לבעלי קבין ההוא מפעמים נפקא דתניא פעמים אין פעמים אלא רגלים וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו כו, ו) תרמסנה רגל רגלי עני פעמי דלים ואומר (שיר השירים ז, ב) מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב כמה נאין רגליהן של ישראל בשעה שעולין לרגל בת נדיב בתו של אברהם אבינו שנקרא נדיב שנאמר (תהלים מז, י) נדיבי עמים נאספו עם אלהי אברהם אלהי אברהם ולא אלהי יצחק ויעקב אלא אלהי אברהם שהיה תחילה לגרים,אמר רב כהנא דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משום ר\ תנחום מאי דכתיב (בראשית לז, כד) והבור רק אין בו מים משמע שנאמר והבור רק איני יודע שאין בו מים אלא מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו,ת"ר מעשה ברבי יוחנן בן ברוקה ורבי אלעזר (בן) חסמא שהלכו להקביל פני ר\ יהושע בפקיעין אמר להם מה חידוש היה בבית המדרש היום אמרו לו תלמידיך אנו ומימיך אנו שותין אמר להם אף על פי כן אי אפשר לבית המדרש בלא חידוש,שבת של מי היתה שבת של ר\ אלעזר בן עזריה היתה ובמה היתה הגדה היום אמרו לו בפרשת הקהל ומה דרש בה,(דברים לא, יב) הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף אם אנשים באים ללמוד נשים באות לשמוע טף למה באין כדי ליתן שכר למביאיהן אמר להם מרגלית טובה היתה בידכם ובקשתם לאבדה ממני,ועוד דרש (דברים כו, יז) את ה\ האמרת היום וה\ האמירך היום,אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם דכתיב (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה\ אלהינו ה\ אחד ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם שנאמר 3a they are obligated in rejoicing. And one who does not hear and does not speak, an imbecile, and a minor are all exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to the mitzva of appearance, that a deaf person and a mute are exempt from this mitzva? And what is different with regard to the mitzva of rejoicing, that they are obligated?,The Gemara explains: With regard to their exemption from the obligation of appearance, the tanna derives this halakha by means of a verbal analogy between the term appearance stated with regard to the mitzva of appearance at the Temple on the pilgrim Festival and the term appearance stated with regard to the mitzva of assembly, i.e. the obligation to assemble in the Temple on Sukkot in the year following the Sabbatical Year. As it is written, with regard to the mitzva of assembly: “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones” (Deuteronomy31:12), and it is written in that context: “When all of Israel come to appear” (Deuteronomy31:11). Just as a deaf person and a mute are not obligated to attend the assembly, they are likewise exempt from appearing in the Temple on the Festivals.The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the mitzva of assembly, from where do we derive that a deaf person and a mute are exempt? As it is written there: “That they may hear, and that they may learn” (Deuteronomy 31:12), and it is taught in a baraita that the phrase “that they may hear” excludes one who speaks but does not hear; and the phrase “and that they may learn” excludes one who hears but does not speak, as he is unable to learn.The Gemara asks: Is that to say that one who is not able to speak is not able to learn? But consider the following incident. There were two mute people who were in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. They were the sons of the daughter of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda, and some say that they were the sons of the sister of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda. Whenever Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would enter the study hall they would also enter and sit before the Sages, and they would nod their heads as if they understood and move their lips.,And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prayed for God to have mercy upon them, and they were healed. And it was discovered that they had learned and were proficient in halakha, i.e. Mishna; Sifra, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus; Sifrei, the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy; and the entire Talmud. This shows that those who cannot speak are able to learn.Mar Zutra said that one should read into the verse: That they may teach yelamdu, instead of: “That they may learn yilmedu” (Deuteronomy 31:12). Even if a mute person is able to learn he cannot teach others. Rav Ashi said that the verse is certainly to be read: That they may teach. As, if it enters your mind that one should read: “That they may learn,” as it is written, and you will explain that since he is not able to speak he is not able to learn, and similarly the reason for the exemption of a deaf person is that since he is not able to hear he is not able to learn, you will have erred. According to this interpretation, it is clear from the context that a deaf person is exempted by the phrase: “That they may hear,” not merely due to his lack of hearing but because his inability to hear prevents him from learning.However, this is incorrect, for if so, this exemption of a mute could also be derived from: “That they may hear,” as the verse has already taught the basic principle that anyone who cannot learn is not obligated in the mitzva of assembly. Rather, the verse is certainly to be read as: “That they may teach,” which indicates that although a mute is able to learn himself, and therefore he is not exempted by the previous verse, he is nevertheless exempt because he is unable to teach others.Rabbi Tanḥum said: One who is deaf in one ear is exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple, as it is stated with regard to the mitzva of assembly: “When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God in the place that He shall choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their ears” (Deuteronomy31:11). This verse indicates that the obligation of assembly applies only to those who can hear with both ears. Since the two mitzvot are connected by verbal analogy, as explained above, this halakha applies to the mitzva of appearance as well.The Gemara asks: But this phrase: “In their ears,” is necessary to teach that the reading of the Torah at the assembly must enter the ears of the entire Jewish people. Consequently, it cannot serve as the source of the halakha concerning one who is deaf in one ear. The Gemara answers: That halakha, that the reading of the Torah must be heard by the entire Jewish people, is derived from the phrase: “Before all Israel” (Deuteronomy31:11). The Gemara asks: If that halakha were derived from: “Before all Israel,” I would say that the mitzva applies even though they cannot hear; therefore, the Merciful One writes: “In their ears,” and that indicates that they must be able to hear. If so, this phrase is not available for deriving the halakha of someone who is deaf in one ear.The Gemara answers: That halakha, that the people must hear, is derived from: “That they may hear” (Deuteronomy31:12). Therefore, the phrase: “In their ears,” is not required for that purpose. Rather, it teaches that only those who can hear with both ears are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, and by extension, in the mitzva of appearance as well.Rabbi Tanḥum said: One who is lame in one leg is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: “Three times regalim shall you keep a feast for Me in the year” (Exodus 23:14).Since the term for feet is raglayim, it can be inferred from here that the obligation to ascend involves the use of both of one’s legs.The Gemara asks: But the term “regalim” is necessary to exclude people with artificial legs. Although these people are capable of walking, as they do not have two natural legs they are exempt from ascending to the Temple. The Gemara responds: That halakha is derived from: “Three occasions pe’amim in the year all your males will appear before the Lord God” (Exodus23:17). The term pe’amim can also mean legs, as it is taught in a baraita, with regard to the term “pe’amim”: Pe’amim means nothing other than legs. And so it says: “The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor and the steps pa’amei of the needy” (Isaiah 26:6), and it says: “How beautiful are your feet fe’amayikh in sandals, daughter of the prince” (Song of Songs 7:2).With regard to the aforementioned verse, Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, daughter of the prince nadiv”? How pleasant are the feet raglehen of the Jewish people when they ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival regel. “Daughter of the prince”: this is referring to the daughter of Abraham our father who is called a prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham” (Psalms 47:10). The Gemara asks: Is God only “the God of Abraham,” and not the God of Isaac and Jacob? Rather, the verse mentions “the God of Abraham,” as he was the first of the converts. Abraham was the first prince, as all converts who follow in his path are called “the princes of the peoples.”,The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Tanḥum. Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). By inference from that which is stated: “And the pit was empty,” don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, this teaches that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.,§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma, when they went to greet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki’in. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: What novel idea was taught today in the study hall? They said to him: We are your students and we drink from your water, i.e. all of our Torah knowledge comes from you, and therefore how can we tell you something you have not already learned? He said to them: Even so, there cannot be a study hall without a novelty.,He asked them: Whose week was it, i.e. who was the lecturer this week? They said to him: It was Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s week. He inquired: And on what subject was the lecture today? They said to him: He spoke about the portion of the mitzva of assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua persisted: And what verse did he interpret homiletically with regard to this mitzva?They said to him that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya interpreted the following verse: “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones” (Deuteronomy 31:12). This verse is puzzling: If men come to learn, and women, who might not understand, come at least to hear, why do the little ones come? They come in order for God to give a reward to those who bring them, i.e. God credits those who bring their children to the assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: This good pearl of wisdom was in your hands, and you tried to conceal it from me?,Upon seeing that Rabbi Yehoshua was pleased to hear this idea, Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma said to him: Additionally, Rabbi Elazar interpreted the following verses homiletically: “You have affirmed, this day, that the Lord is your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His mitzvot, and His ordices, and listen to His voice. And the Lord has affirmed you, this day, to be His treasure, as He promised you, and that you should keep all His mitzvot” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18).Rabbi Elazar explained: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: You have made Me a single entityin the world, as you singled Me out as separate and unique. And therefore I will make you a single entity in the world, as you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God. You have made Me a single entity in the world, as it is written: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And therefore I will make you a single entity in the world, as it is stated: |
107. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 76b, 95b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Change, in custom and halakhah • halakhic exegesis, prooftexts of Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 206; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 82; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 31, 36, 37 76b מר בר רב אשי אמר כיון דזיגי אע"ג דלא חוורי,אמר אמימר משמיה דרב זביד תלתא חוטי הוו חד אלימא ותרי קטיני איפסיק אלימא אזדא רוב בנין איפסיק קטיני אזדא רוב מנין מר בר רב אשי מתני לקולא איפסיק אלימא האיכא רוב מנין איפסיק קטיני האיכא רוב בנין,בעופות שיתסר חוטי הוו אי פסיק חד מינייהו טרפה אמר מר בר רב אשי הוה קאימנא קמיה דאבא ואייתו לקמיה עופא ובדק ואשכח ביה חמיסר הוה חד דהוה שני מחבריה נפציה ואשכח תרי,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב צומת הגידין שאמרו ברובו מאי רובו רוב אחד מהן כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי מכדי תלתא הוו כי מיפסיק חד מינייהו לגמרי הא איכא תרי,טעמא דאיכא תרי הא ליכא תרי לא ופליגא דרבנאי דאמר רבנאי אמר שמואל צומת הגידים אפי\ לא נשתייר בה אלא כחוט הסרבל כשרה,ואיכא דאמרי מאי רובו רוב כל אחד ואחד כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי מכדי תלתא הוו האיכא תלתא דכל חד וחד מסייע ליה לרבנאי דאמר רבנאי אמר שמואל צומת הגידין שאמרו אפי\ לא נשתייר בה אלא כחוט הסרבל כשרה:נשבר העצם כו\:אמר רב למעלה מן הארכובה אם רוב הבשר קיים זה וזה מותר ואם לאו זה וזה אסור למטה מן הארכובה אם רוב הבשר קיים זה וזה מותר אם לאו אבר אסור ובהמה מותרת,ושמואל אמר בין למעלה בין למטה אם רוב הבשר קיים זה וזה מותר אם לאו אבר אסור ובהמה מותרת,מתקיף לה רב נחמן לשמואל יאמרו אבר ממנה מוטל באשפה ומותרת א"ל רב אחא בר רב הונא לרב נחמן לרב נמי יאמרו אבר ממנה מוטל באשפה ומותרת,א"ל הכי קאמינא אבר שחיה ממנה מוטל באשפה ומותרת,שלחו מתם הלכתא כוותיה דרב הדור שלחו כוותיה דשמואל הדור שלחו כוותיה דרב ואבר עצמו מטמא במשא,מתיב רב חסדא לא אם טיהרה שחיטת טרפה אותה ואת האבר המדולדל בה דבר שגופה תטהר את העובר דבר שאינו גופה,א"ל רבה הדורי אפירכי למה לך אותיב ממתני\ נשחטה בהמה הוכשרו בדמיה דברי ר"מ ר"ש אומר לא הוכשרו,א"ל מתני\ איכא לדחויי כדדחינן,כי סליק ר\ זירא אשכחיה לרב ירמיה דיתיב וקאמר לה להא שמעתא א"ל יישר וכן תרגמה אריוך בבבל אריוך מנו שמואל והא מיפלג פליג הדר ביה שמואל לגביה דרב,ת"ר נשבר העצם ויצא לחוץ אם עור ובשר חופין את רובו מותר אם לאו אסור וכמה רובו כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר\ יוחנן רוב עוביו ואמרי לה רוב הקיפו אמר רב פפא הלכך בעינן רוב עוביו ובעינן רוב הקיפו,אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן עור הרי הוא כבשר א"ל רב נחמן לעולא ולימא מר עור מצטרף לבשר דהא עור ובשר קתני א"ל אנן עור או בשר תנינן,איכא דאמרי אמר עולא א"ר יוחנן עור מצטרף לבשר א"ל רב נחמן לעולא ולימא מר עור משלים לבשר לחומרא,א"ל אנא עובדא ידענא דההוא בר גוזלא דהוה בי רבי יצחק דעור מצטרף לבשר הוה ואתא לקמיה דר\ יוחנן ואכשריה א"ל בר גוזלא קאמרת בר גוזלא דרכיך שאני,הנהו גידין רכין דאתו לקמיה דרבה אמר רבה למאי ליחוש להו חדא דאמר ר\ יוחנן גידין שסופן להקשות 95b מחוור רישא נפל מיניה אזל אייתי סילתא שדא אסיק תרין אמר רב עבדי נמי הכי אסרינהו ניהליה,אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב דאיסורא שכיחי דהתירא לא שכיחי אמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי,וכי מכללא מאי פרוותא דעובדי כוכבים הואי תדע דקאמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי,אלא רב היכי אכל בשרא בשעתיה דלא עלים עיניה מיניה איבעית אימא בציירא וחתומא ואי נמי בסימנא כי הא דרבה ב"ר הונא מחתך ליה אתלת קרנתא,רב הוה קאזיל לבי רב חנן חתניה חזי מברא דקאתי לאפיה אמר מברא קאתי לאפי יומא טבא לגו,אזל קם אבבא אודיק בבזעא דדשא חזי חיותא דתליא טרף אבבא נפוק אתו כולי עלמא לאפיה אתא טבחי נמי לא עלים רב עיניה מיניה אמר להו איכו השתא ספיתו להו איסורא לבני ברת לא אכל רב מההוא בישרא,מ"ט אי משום איעלומי הא לא איעלים אלא דנחיש,והאמר רב כל נחש שאינו כאליעזר עבד אברהם וכיונתן בן שאול אינו נחש אלא סעודת הרשות הואי ורב לא מתהני מסעודת הרשות,רב בדיק במברא ושמואל בדיק בספרא רבי יוחנן בדיק בינוקא,כולהו שני דרב הוה כתב ליה רבי יוחנן לקדם רבינו שבבבל כי נח נפשיה הוה כתב לשמואל לקדם חבירינו שבבבל אמר לא ידע לי מידי דרביה אנא כתב שדר ליה עיבורא דשיתין שני אמר השתא חושבנא בעלמא ידע,כתב שדר ליה תליסר גמלי ספקי טריפתא אמר אית לי רב בבבל איזיל איחזייה א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל א כח, ג) ושמואל מת אמר ש"מ נח נפשיה דשמואל,ולא היא לא שכיב שמואל אלא כי היכי דלא ליטרח רבי יוחנן,תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בית תינוק ואשה אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן,אמר ר\ אלעזר והוא דאיתחזק תלתא זימני דכתיב (בראשית מב, לו) יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו ואת בנימין תקחו,בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב בחרוזין מהו א"ל אל תהי שוטה בחרוזין הרי זה סימן איכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא אמר רב בחרוזין הרי זה סימן,רב נחמן מנהרדעא איקלע לגבי רב כהנא לפום נהרא במעלי יומא דכפורי אתו עורבי שדו כבדי וכוליתא אמר ליה שקול ואכול האידנא דהיתרא שכיח טפי,רב חייא בר אבין איתבד ליה כרכשא (בי דינא) אתא לקמיה דרב הונא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה א"ל לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,רב חנינא חוזאה איתבד ליה גבא דבשרא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,רב נתן בר אביי איתבד ליה קיבורא דתכלתא אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,אמר רבא מרישא הוה אמינא סימנא עדיף מטביעות עינא דהא מהדרינן אבידתא בסימנא, 76b Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Once the sinews begin to be translucent, even if they are not actually white, they are considered part of the convergence of sinews.§ With regard to the removal of the convergence of sinews in the thigh, which renders the animal a tereifa, Ameimar says in the name of Rav Zevid: There are three strands, i.e. sinews; one is thick and the other two are thin. If the thick sinew was severed, a majority of the structure of the convergence of sinews is gone, as the thick sinew is thicker than the other two combined. If the thin ones were severed, then a majority of the number of sinews is gone. If either type of majority has been severed, the animal is rendered a tereifa. Conversely, Mar bar Rav Ashi teaches a lenient version of this ruling: If the thick sinew was severed, since there is a majority of the number of sinews that remains, the animal is not a tereifa. Likewise, if the thin ones were severed, since there is a majority of the structure that remains intact, the animal is not a tereifa.The Gemara comments: All this applies to animals, whereas with regard to birds, there are sixteen strands; if even one of them is severed, it is a tereifa. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I was standing before father, i.e. Rav Ashi, and they brought before him a bird, and he examined it to see if it was a tereifa and found fifteen sinews. There was one of them that was different from the others; he broke it apart and it was found to be composed of two sinews.The Gemara returns to the issue of the convergence of sinews in an animal. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The convergence of sinews in the thigh of which the Sages spoke, stating that if it is severed the animal is a tereifa, is referring to the severing of the majority of it. Rav Yehuda added: What is the meaning of the majority of it? This means the majority of one of the sinews. Rav Yehuda further stated: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Since they are three sinews, when one of them is severed entirely, there are still two remaining, which means that the majority of the convergence of sinews is intact. Therefore, the animal is still kosher.The Gemara infers from Shmuel’s statement: The reason the animal is not a tereifa is only that there are two remaining, from which it may be inferred that if there are not two remaining it is not kosher, despite the fact that the other sinew is intact. The Gemara notes: And according to this version of his opinion, Shmuel disagrees with the opinion of Rabbenai, who also stated his ruling in Shmuel’s name. As Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: With regard to the convergence of sinews in the thigh, even if only one sinew remains of it, which is as thick as the string used to close the neckline of a cloak hasarbal, the animal is kosher.,And some say that there is a different version of this discussion. Rav Yehuda said: What is the meaning of a majority of it? This means a majority of each and every one of the sinews. Rav Yehuda added: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Since they are three sinews, there is one-third of each and every one, and that should be sufficient. There is no need for a majority of each sinew to remain. The Gemara notes: Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Shmuel supports the opinion of Rabbenai, as Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: With regard to the convergence of sinews in the thigh of which the Sages spoke, even if there remains of each of the three sinews only as much as the thickness of the string used to close the neckline of a cloak, the animal is kosher. This also indicates that there is no need for a majority of the sinew to remain.§ The mishna states: If the bone of a limb was broken but the limb was not completely severed, and the animal was then slaughtered, if the majority of the flesh surrounding the bone is intact, the slaughter of the animal renders it permitted; but if not, its slaughter does not render it permitted.Rav says: If the bone was broken above the leg joint and then the animal was slaughtered, if a majority of the flesh around the break is intact, both this, the animal itself, and that, the limb, are permitted. The break does not render the animal a tereifa and the limb is not regarded as a hanging limb; therefore it is permitted by the slaughter of the animal. But if not, i.e. if a majority of the flesh around the break is not intact, both this and that, the animal and the limb, are prohibited. If the bone was broken below the leg joint, then if a majority of the flesh is intact, both this and that are permitted; if not, then the limb itself is prohibited from the area of the break and below, as it is not permitted by the slaughter of the animal, but the rest of the animal is permitted.,And Shmuel says: Whether the break is above or below the leg joint, the halakha is the same: If a majority of the flesh is intact, both this and that, the limb and the animal, are permitted. If the majority of the flesh is not intact, the limb is prohibited and the animal is permitted. Even if the leg was broken above the leg joint the animal does not become a tereifa unless the leg was entirely severed.Rav Naḥman objects to this ruling of Shmuel: If one permits the animal despite the fact that its leg is prohibited, people will say: A limb from the animal is placed in the garbage, as it is prohibited, and yet the animal itself is permitted? They may then mistakenly conclude that even if that leg had been completely severed from the animal, the animal would be permitted. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: This concern also exists according to the opinion of Rav, in a case where the bone is broken below the joint and the flesh is not intact. Rav rules in that case that the animal is permitted and the limb is prohibited. But is there not the concern that people will say: A limb from this animal is placed in the garbage, and the animal itself is permitted?,Rav Naḥman said to him: This is what I meant to say: People will say: A limb from which this animal lives, i.e. which if removed, renders the animal a tereifa, is placed in the garbage, and the animal itself is permitted? The concern exists only according to the opinion of Shmuel, who permits the animal even when the break is above the joint, as were it severed there, the animal would thereby be rendered a tereifa. People may mistakenly equate the case where the bone was broken and the case where it was severed and permit both. The concern does not exist according to the opinion of Rav, as he permits the animal only in a case where the bone is broken below the joint, and even if it were severed there that would not render it a tereifa.§ With regard to this dispute, they sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that if the bone was broken above the leg joint, if a majority of the flesh around the break is not intact, both the animal and the limb are prohibited. They then sent a ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that only the limb is prohibited. They then a ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the animal is a tereifa, and they added that the limb itself is not rendered pure by the slaughter; rather, it imparts the impurity of a limb from a living animal by carrying. The animal itself, though, is rendered pure from the impurity of a carcass and is prohibited only as a tereifa.Rav Ḥisda raises an objection from a baraita cited earlier (73a) concerning whether the slaughter of a mother animal can render pure a limb of its fetus that was extended outside the womb even though the act of slaughter cannot render the fetus permitted for consumption. The Rabbis brought proof for their opinion that this limb is rendered pure from the halakha that a tereifa is rendered pure by slaughter even though it is not thereby permitted for consumption. Rabbi Meir responded: No, even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the animal itself pure, and likewise, the slaughter of any animal renders pure the limb that was partially cut from it but still hangs from it from imparting the impurity of a carcass, despite the fact that this animal or limb is prohibited for consumption, that is so with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body? It is explicit in Rabbi Meir’s claim that the hanging limb of a tereifa is rendered pure by the slaughter of the animal.Rabba said to Rav Ḥisda: Why are you searching after refutations from baraitot that are not known by all? You can raise a conclusive refutation from the mishna (127b): With regard to the limb or flesh of an animal that was partially severed but remains hanging from it, if the animal was slaughtered, the limb and the flesh were thereby rendered susceptible to contracting the impurity of food by the blood of the animal, as blood is one of the seven liquids that render foods susceptible to impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible with the blood of the slaughtered animal. It is evident that according to all opinions in the mishna, the hanging limb and flesh are not regarded as a limb or flesh from a living animal, which would not need to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as they impart their own impurity.Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: The difficulty from the mishna can be refuted, as we refuted it earlier (73a), by claiming that the dispute about the blood rendering the animal susceptible to impurity concerns only the hanging flesh, but that a hanging limb from an animal that was slaughtered does have the status of a limb from a living animal and the associated impurity.The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying this halakha of Rav, i.e. that if the bone is broken above the leg joint and the flesh is not intact, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have spoken well, and Aryokh interpreted the matter likewise in Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Who is Aryokh? It is Shmuel. But that is difficult, as Shmuel disagrees with Rav concerning this issue. The Gemara explains: Shmuel retracted his opinion in favor of that of Rav.,§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the bone broke and protruded outward, if skin and flesh cover a majority of the bone the animal is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And how much is a majority of a bone? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥa says: A majority of its width, and some say that he said: A majority of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, as there is no clear ruling on the matter, we require that the bone be covered by a majority of its width, and we also require that it be covered by a majority of its circumference.,Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Skin is like flesh with regard to this issue, i.e. if the flesh has been removed but the skin covers a majority of the bone, the animal is kosher. Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: And let the Master say that skin combines with flesh, i.e. that if flesh and skin together cover a majority of the bone the animal is kosher, as the tanna of the above baraita teaches: Skin and flesh, which indicates that skin alone is ineffective. Ulla said to him: We learned that the baraita states: Skin or flesh.,Some say that there is a different version of this discussion: Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Skin combines with flesh. Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: And let the Master say that skin completes the amount of flesh required, and this is a stringent ruling. This would mean that if the majority of the bone is covered mostly with flesh and the rest of the majority is covered with skin the animal is kosher, but if the majority is covered half with flesh and half with skin, it is not kosher.Ulla said to him: I know my ruling from the following incident: As there was a certain fledgling that was in the house of Rabbi Yitzḥak, and its leg broke, and it was a situation where the skin combined with flesh to cover the majority of the bone. And Rabbi Yitzḥak came before Rabbi Yoḥa and he deemed the bird kosher. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you speak of a fledgling? The halakha in the case of a fledgling is different, as its skin is soft and is considered like flesh.The Gemara further relates: There was a case involving certain soft sinews that combined with flesh to cover the majority of a broken bone, and they came before Rabba for a ruling. Rabba said: What concern is there with the sinews in this case? First, there is no concern, because Rabbi Yoḥa says: With regard to sinews that will ultimately harden, 95b cleaning the head of an animal in the river. The head fell from him. He went and brought a basket, cast the basket into the river, and pulled out two animal heads. Rav said to him: Does it commonly happen this way that one loses one item and finds two? Just as one of the animal heads is not the one you dropped, it is possible that neither of them is the one you dropped. Therefore, Rav rendered both of them forbidden to him.,Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is forbidden meat common but permitted meat not common? Most of the meat in this general location is kosher, so why did you forbid the two animal heads? He said to them: Forbidden meat is more common. From this incident the Sages derived that according to Rav, meat that has been obscured from sight becomes forbidden due to the possibility that the meat one finds now was actually deposited by ravens, who transported it from a location where the majority of the meat is forbidden.The Gemara asks: And what does it matter if this opinion of Rav is known by inference based on this incident, rather than by an explicit statement made by Rav? The Gemara answers: There is room to say that this incident cannot serve as a precedent for a general policy, because that location was a port of gentiles, where most of the meat was non-kosher. Know that this is the case, as Rav said to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi: Forbidden meat is more common. Consequently, it is possible that Rav would not have prohibited the meat in a location where the majority of the meat is kosher.The Gemara asks: But how did Rav ever eat meat if he holds that meat becomes forbidden if it is unsupervised for even a short time? The Gemara answers: Rav ate meat only in its time, i.e. shortly after it was slaughtered, when it had not been obscured from his sight from the time of the slaughter until he ate it. Alternatively, if you wish, say that Rav ate meat that was tied and sealed in a way that proved it had not been swapped for non-kosher meat. Or alternatively, he ate meat that could be recognized by a distinguishing mark, like that practice of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who would cut meat into pieces with three corners, i.e. triangles, before he would send it to his family members.The Gemara relates that Rav was going to the home of Rav Ḥa, his son-in-law. He saw that the ferry was coming toward him just when he arrived at the riverbank. He said: The ferry is coming toward me even though I did not arrange for it to come now; this is a sign that a good day, i.e. a festive meal, awaits me in the place where I am going.After crossing the river on the ferry, Rav went and stood at the gate of Rav Ḥa’s home. He looked through a crack in the door and saw an animal that was hanging and ready to be cooked. He knocked on the gate, and everyone went out to greet him, and the butchers also came out to greet him. Rav did not remove his eyes from the meat that the butchers were preparing. He said to them: If you had eaten the meat based upon the supervision you provided now, you would have fed forbidden meat to the sons of my daughter because no one apart from me was watching the meat when you all came out to greet me. And despite the fact that he had kept the meat in his sight Rav did not eat from that meat.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav did not eat the meat? If one suggests that he was concerned because it had been obscured from sight, that cannot be the reason, as Rav kept watching it so that it was not obscured from sight. Rather, Rav did not eat because he divined, i.e. he saw the arrival of the ferry as a good omen. This is prohibited, and therefore Rav penalized himself and abstained from the meat.The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that any divination that is not like the divination of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, when he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), or like the divination of Jonathan, son of Saul, who sought an omen as to whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see ISamuel 14:8–12), is not divination? Since Rav did not rely on the omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize himself. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rav did not eat the meat is that it was an optional feast, rather than a feast associated with a mitzva, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast.,Having mentioned Rav’s reaction to the ferry in the incident cited above, the Gemara states that Rav would check whether to travel based upon the ferry; if it came quickly he would take the ferry, but otherwise he would not. And Shmuel would check what would happen to him by opening a scroll and reading from wherever it was open to. Rabbi Yoḥa would check what was in store for him by asking a child to recite the verse he was learning.The Gemara relates an incident when Rabbi Yoḥa checked his luck based on a child’s verse. During all the years when Rav lived in Babylonia, Rabbi Yoḥa, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, would write to him and begin with the greeting: To our Master who is in Babylonia. When Rav died, Rabbi Yoḥa would write to Shmuel and begin with the greeting: To our colleague who is in Babylonia. Shmuel said: Does Rabbi Yoḥa not know any matter in which I am his master? Shmuel wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥa the calculation of the leap years for the next sixty years. Rabbi Yoḥa was not impressed by this and said: Now he has merely demonstrated that he knows mathematics, which does not make him my master.Shmuel then wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥa explications of uncertainties pertaining to tereifot that had to be transported on thirteen camels. Rabbi Yoḥa was impressed by this and said: I have a Master in Babylonia; I will go and see him. Before departing on his journey, Rabbi Yoḥa said to a child: Recite to me your verse that you studied today. The child recited the following verse to Rabbi Yoḥa: “Now Samuel was dead” (ISamuel 28:3). Rabbi Yoḥa said to himself: Learn from this that Shmuel has died. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥa did not go to see Shmuel.The Gemara comments: But it was not so; Shmuel had not died. Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoḥa was given this sign was so that Rabbi Yoḥa would not trouble himself to embark on the long and arduous journey from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia.It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to one who is successful with his first business transaction after he has built a home, after the birth of a child, or after he marries a woman, even though he may not use this as a means of divination to decide upon future courses of action, it is an auspicious sign that he will continue to be successful. Conversely, if his first transaction is not successful he may take that as an inauspicious sign.Rabbi Elazar said: But this is provided that the sign has been established by repeating itself three times. This is based on a verse, as it is written: “And Jacob their father said to them: Me you have bereaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and you will take Benjamin away; upon me are all these things come” (Genesis 42:36). If calamity were to befall Benjamin, that would establish a pattern of three tragedies.§ The Gemara returns to discuss distinguishing marks that prevent meat from being prohibited despite its having been obscured from sight. Rav Huna inquired of Rav: If pieces of meat were strung together and then were obscured from sight, what is the halakha? Rav said to him: Do not be an imbecile; of course if the meat is strung together it is considered to be a distinguishing mark, and the meat is permitted. There are those who say this halakha as follows: Rav Huna said that Rav said: If pieces of meat are strung together it is a distinguishing mark, and the meat remains permitted even if it is obscured from sight.The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman of Neharde’a arrived at the home of Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara on the eve of Yom Kippur, which is a day when people commonly eat meat. Ravens came and dropped livers and kidneys. Rav Kahana said to Rav Naḥman: Take these livers and kidneys and eat them, as they are not forbidden, even though they were obscured from sight. This is because at this time permitted meat is more common than forbidden meat, since Jews slaughter many animals on this day.Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin lost a cut of meat from an animal intestine among the barrels of wine in his wine cellar. When he found it, he came before Rav Huna to ask whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Huna said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: No. Rav Huna asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Yes. Rav Huna said: If so, go and take it and eat it.Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a lost a side of meat. When he found it, he came before Rav Naḥman and asked him whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: No. Rav Naḥman asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: Yes. Rav Naḥman said: If so, go and take it and eat it.Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of sky-blue wool prepared for use in ritual fringes. He searched for it and found it. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask whether the wool was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight and may have become confused with other blue wool that is not valid for ritual fringes. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark in it so that you can identify it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: No. Rav Ḥisda asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: Yes. Rav Ḥisda said: If so, go and take it, and you may use it for ritual fringes.Rava said: At first I would say that a distinguishing mark is preferable to visual recognition, because we return a lost item to its owner based on a distinguishing mark,, |
108. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, 51a, 62a, 62b, 110b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Bavli, aggada integrated into halakhic context • Neusner, Jacob, on halakhah • Rabbinic Halakhah • Sabbath, and Halakhah, did not prohibit sex on Sabbath • Sex, and Halakhah, did not prohibit sex on Sabbath • aggada and halakha, address same social and cultural tensions • aggada and halakha, aggada suggests alternative halakha • aggada in Bavli, integrated with halakhic context • halakha • halakha k . . . • halakha, and marriage vs. Torah study • halakhah • halakhah, authority challenged in • halakhah, decision-making in • halakhah, terminology of • prayer, halakhic and aggadic discussions Found in books: Ben-Eliyahu, Identity and Territory: Jewish Perceptions of Space in Antiquity (2019) 88; Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 249; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 65; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 574, 575, 598; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 58; Kosman, Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism (2012) 207; Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 105, 108 51a סוף סוף כל העומד לגזוז כגזוז דמי דצריכא לדיקלא קאמינא:ההוא יתום ויתומה דאתו לקמיה דרבא אמר להו רבא העלו ליתום בשביל יתומה אמרי ליה רבנן לרבא והא מר הוא דאמר ממקרקעי ולא ממטלטלי בין למזוני בין לכתובה ובין לפרנסה,אמר להו אילו רצה שפחה לשמשו מי לא יהבינן ליה כל שכן הכא דאיכא תרתי:תנו רבנן אחד נכסים שיש להן אחריות ואחד נכסים שאין להן אחריות מוציאין למזון אשה ולבנות דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נכסים שיש להן אחריות מוציאין לבנות מן הבנים ולבנות מן הבנות ולבנים מן הבנים,ולבנים מן הבנות בנכסים מרובין אבל לא לבנים מן הבנות בנכסים מועטין,נכסים שאין להן אחריות מוציאין לבנים מן הבנים ולבנות מן הבנות ולבנים מן הבנות אבל לא לבנות מן הבנים,אע"ג דקיימא לן הלכה כרבי מחבירו הכא הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דאמר רבא הלכתא ממקרקעי ולא ממטלטלי בין לכתובה בין למזוני בין לפרנסה:מתני׳ לא כתב לה כתובה בתולה גובה מאתים ואלמנה מנה מפני שהוא תנאי בית דין כתב לה שדה שוה מנה תחת מאתים זוז ולא כתב לה כל נכסים דאית לי אחראין לכתובתיך חייב שהוא תנאי בית דין,לא כתב לה אם תשתבאי אפרקינך ואותבינך לי לאינתו ובכהנת אהדרינך למדינתך חייב שהוא תנאי בית דין,נשבית חייב לפדותה ואם אמר הרי גיטה וכתובתה ותפדה את עצמה אינו רשאי לקתה חייב לרפאותה אמר הרי גיטה וכתובתה תרפא את עצמה רשאי:גמ׳ מני רבי מאיר היא דאמר כל הפוחת לבתולה ממאתים ולאלמנה ממנה הרי זו בעילת זנות,דאי רבי יהודה האמר רצה כותב לבתולה שטר של מאתים והיא כותבת התקבלתי ממך מנה ולאלמנה מנה והיא כותבת התקבלתי ממך חמשים זוז,אימא סיפא כתב לה שדה שוה מנה תחת מאתים זוז ולא כתב לה כל נכסים דאית לי אחראין לכתובתיך חייב שהוא תנאי בית דין אתאן לר"י דאמר אחריות טעות סופר הוא,דאי רבי מאיר האמר אחריות לאו טעות סופר הוא דתנן מצא שטרי חוב אם, 62a אורחא דמילתא כמה אמר רב חדש כאן וחדש בבית שנאמר (דברי הימים א כז, א) לכל דבר המחלקות הבאה והיוצאת חדש בחדש לכל חדשי השנה ור\ יוחנן אמר חדש כאן ושנים בביתו שנאמר (מלכים א ה, כח) חדש יהיו בלבנון שנים חדשים בביתו,ורב נמי מ"ט לא אמר מההיא שאני בנין בית המקדש דאפשר ע"י אחרים ור\ יוחנן מ"ט לא אמר מההיא שאני התם דאית ליה הרווחה,אמר רב אנחה שוברת חצי גופו של אדם שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, יא) ואתה בן אדם האנח בשברון מתנים ובמרירות תאנח ורבי יוחנן אמר אף כל גופו של אדם שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, יב) והיה כי יאמרו אליך על מה אתה נאנח ואמרת אל שמועה כי באה ונמס כל לב ורפו כל ידים וכהתה כל רוח וכל ברכים תלכנה מים,ורבי יוחנן נמי הכתיב בשברון מתנים ההיא דכי מתחלא ממתנים מתחלא ורב נמי הכתי\ ונמס כל לב ורפו כל ידים וכהתה כל רוח שאני שמועה דבית המקדש דתקיפא טובא,ההוא ישראל ועובד כוכבים דהוו קאזלי באורחא בהדי הדדי לא אימצי עובד כוכבים לסגויי בהדי ישראל אדכריה חורבן בית המקדש נגיד ואיתנח ואפ"ה לא אימצי עובד כוכבים לסגויי בהדיה א"ל לאו אמריתו אנחה שוברת חצי גופו של אדם א"ל ה"מ מילתא חדתי אבל הא דשנן בה לא דאמרי אינשי דמלפי תכלי לא בהתה:הטיילין בכל יום: מאי טיילין אמר רבא בני פירקי א"ל אביי מאן דכתיב בהו (תהלים קכז, ב) שוא לכם משכימי קום מאחרי שבת אוכלי לחם העצבים כן יתן לידידו שנא ואמר רב יצחק אלו נשותיהן של ת"ח שמנדדות שינה מעיניהם בעוה"ז ובאות לחיי העוה"ב ואת אמרת בני פירקי,אלא אמר אביי כדרב דאמר רב כגון רב שמואל בר שילת דאכיל מדידיה ושתי מדידיה וגני בטולא דאפדניה ולא חליף פריסתקא דמלכא אבביה כי אתא רבין אמר כגון מפנקי דמערבא,ר\ אבהו הוה קאי בי באני הוו סמכי ליה תרי עבדי איפחית בי באני מתותיה איתרמי לי\ עמודא סליק ואסקינהו ר\ יוחנן הוה קסליק בדרגא הוו סמכי ליה רב אמי ורב אסי איפחתא דרגא תותיה סליק ואסקינהו אמרי ליה רבנן וכי מאחר דהכי למה ליה למיסמכיה אמר להו א"כ מה אניח לעת זקנה:והפועלים שתים בשבת: והתניא הפועלים אחת בשבת א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא לא קשיא כאן בעושין מלאכה בעירן כאן בעושין מלאכה בעיר אחרת תניא נמי הכי הפועלים שתים בשבת במה דברים אמורים בעושין מלאכה בעירן אבל בעושין מלאכה בעיר אחרת אחת בשבת:החמרים אחת בשבת: אמר ליה רבה בר רב חנן לאביי איכפל תנא לאשמועינן טייל ופועל אמר ליה לא, 62b אכולהו והא ששה חדשים קאמר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,א"ל רבה בר רב חנן לאביי חמר ונעשה גמל מאי א"ל רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות מעשרה קבין ופרישות:הספנים אחת לששה חדשים דברי ר\ אליעזר: אמר רב ברונא אמר רב הלכה כר"א אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב זו דברי ר\ אליעזר אבל חכמים אומרים התלמידים יוצאין לת"ת ב\ וג\ שנים שלא ברשות אמר רבא סמכו רבנן אדרב אדא בר אהבה ועבדי עובדא בנפשייהו,כי הא דרב רחומי הוה שכיח קמיה דרבא במחוזא הוה רגיל דהוה אתי לביתיה כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא הוה מסכיא דביתהו השתא אתי השתא אתי לא אתא חלש דעתה אחית דמעתא מעינה הוה יתיב באיגרא אפחית איגרא מתותיה ונח נפשיה,עונה של תלמידי חכמים אימת אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מע"ש לע"ש (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב הונא ואיתימא רב נחמן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,יהודה בריה דר\ חייא חתניה דר\ ינאי הוה אזיל ויתיב בבי רב וכל בי שמשי הוה אתי לביתיה וכי הוה אתי הוה קא חזי קמיה עמודא דנורא יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא כיון דלא חזי ההוא סימנא אמר להו רבי ינאי כפו מטתו שאילמלי יהודה קיים לא ביטל עונתו הואי (קהלת י, ה) כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ונח נפשיה,רבי איעסק ליה לבריה בי רבי חייא כי מטא למיכתב כתובה נח נפשה דרביתא אמר רבי ח"ו פסולא איכא יתיבו ועיינו במשפחות רבי אתי משפטיה בן אביטל ורבי חייא אתי משמעי אחי דוד,אזיל איעסק ליה לבריה בי ר\ יוסי בן זימרא פסקו ליה תרתי סרי שנין למיזל בבי רב אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו ניהוו שית שנין אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו איכניס והדר איזיל הוה קא מכסיף מאבוה א"ל בני דעת קונך יש בך,מעיקרא כתיב (שמות טו, יז) תביאמו ותטעמו ולבסוף כתיב (שמות כה, ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם,אזיל יתיב תרתי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתא איעקרא דביתהו אמר רבי היכי נעביד נגרשה יאמרו ענייה זו לשוא שימרה נינסיב איתתא אחריתי יאמרו זו אשתו וזו זונתו בעי עלה רחמי ואיתסיאת:רבי חנניה בן חכינאי הוה קאזיל לבי רב בשילהי הלוליה דר"ש בן יוחאי א"ל איעכב לי עד דאתי בהדך לא איעכבא ליה אזל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתי אישתנו שבילי דמתא ולא ידע למיזל לביתיה,אזל יתיב אגודא דנהרא שמע לההיא רביתא דהוו קרו לה בת חכינאי בת חכינאי מלי קולתך ותא ניזיל אמר ש"מ האי רביתא דידן אזל בתרה הוה יתיבא דביתהו קא נהלה קמחא דל עינה חזיתיה סוי לבה פרח רוחה אמר לפניו רבש"ע ענייה זו זה שכרה בעא רחמי עלה וחייה,רבי חמא בר ביסא אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי מדרשא כי אתא אמר לא איעביד כדעביד בן חכינאי עייל יתיב במדרשא שלח לביתיה אתא ר\ אושעיא בריה יתיב קמיה הוה קא משאיל ליה שמעתא חזא דקא מתחדדי שמעתיה חלש דעתיה אמר אי הואי הכא הוה לי זרע כי האי,על לביתיה על בריה קם קמיה הוא סבר למשאליה שמעתתא קא בעי אמרה ליה דביתהו מי איכא אבא דקאים מקמי ברא קרי עליה רמי בר חמא (קהלת ד, יב) החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק זה ר\ אושעיא בנו של רבי חמא בר ביסא,ר"ע רעיא דבן כלבא שבוע הוה חזיתיה ברתיה דהוה צניע ומעלי אמרה ליה אי מקדשנא לך אזלת לבי רב אמר לה אין איקדשא ליה בצינעה ושדרתיה שמע אבוה אפקה מביתיה אדרה הנאה מנכסיה אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שנין בבי רב כי אתא אייתי בהדיה תרי סרי אלפי תלמידי שמעיה לההוא סבא דקאמר לה עד כמה, 110b אבל לא מעיר לכרך ולא מכרך לעיר,מוציאין מנוה הרעה לנוה היפה אבל לא מנוה היפה לנוה הרעה רשב"ג אומר אף לא מנוה רעה לנוה יפה מפני שהנוה היפה בודק:גמ׳ בשלמא מכרך לעיר דבכרך שכיחי כל מילי בעיר לא שכיחי כל מילי אלא מעיר לכרך מ"ט,מסייע ליה לרבי יוסי בר חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר חנינא מנין שישיבת כרכים קשה שנאמר (נחמיה יא, ב) ויברכו העם לכל האנשים המתנדבים לשבת בירושלים:רשב"ג אומר כו\: מאי בודק כדשמואל דאמר שמואל שינוי וסת תחלת חולי מעים כתוב בספר בן סירא (משלי טו, טו) כל ימי עני רעים והאיכא שבתות וימים טובים כדשמואל דאמר שמואל שינוי וסת תחלת חולי מעים,בן סירא אומר אף לילות בשפל גגים גגו ובמרום הרים כרמו ממטר גגים לגגו ומעפר כרמו לכרמים:מתני׳ הכל מעלין לארץ ישראל ואין הכל מוציאין הכל מעלין לירושלים ואין הכל מוציאין אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים,נשא אשה בא"י וגרשה בארץ ישראל נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל נשא אשה בא"י וגרשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל נשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגרשה בארץ ישראל נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא נשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגרשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא:גמ׳ הכל מעלין לאתויי מאי לאתויי עבדים,ולמאן דתני עבדים בהדיא לאתויי מאי לאתויי מנוה היפה לנוה הרעה,ואין הכל מוציאין לאתויי מאי לאתויי עבד שברח מחוצה לארץ לארץ דאמרינן ליה זבניה הכא וזיל משום ישיבת ארץ ישראל,הכל מעלין לירושלים לאתויי מאי לאתויי מנוה היפה לנוה הרעה,ואין הכל מוציאין לאתויי מאי לאתויי אפי\ מנוה הרעה לנוה היפה ואיידי דתנא רישא אין מוציאין תנא סיפא נמי אין מוציאין:ת"ר הוא אומר לעלות והיא אומרת שלא לעלות כופין אותה לעלות ואם לאו תצא בלא כתובה היא אומרת לעלות והוא אומר שלא לעלות כופין אותו לעלות ואם לאו יוציא ויתן כתובה,היא אומרת לצאת והוא אומר שלא לצאת כופין אותה שלא לצאת ואם לאו תצא בלא כתובה הוא אומר לצאת והיא אומרת שלא לצאת כופין אותו שלא לצאת ואם לאו יוציא ויתן כתובה:נשא אשה כו\: הא גופא קשיא,קתני נשא אשה בארץ ישראל וגרשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל אלמא בתר שיעבודא אזלינן אימא סיפא נשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגרשה בארץ ישראל נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל אלמא בתר גוביינא אזלינן,אמר רבה מקולי כתובה שנו כאן קסבר כתובה דרבנן:רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא: קסבר כתובה דאורייתא,תנו רבנן המוציא שטר חוב על חבירו כתוב בו בבל מגבהו ממעות בבל כתוב בו ארץ ישראל מגבהו ממעות ארץ ישראל כתוב בו סתם הוציאו בבבל מגבהו ממעות בבל הוציאו בארץ ישראל מגבהו ממעות ארץ ישראל כתוב בו כסף סתם מה שירצה לוה מגבהו מה שאין כן בכתובה,אהייא אמר רב משרשיא ארישא לאפוקי מדרשב"ג דאמר כתובה דאורייתא:כתוב בו כסף סתם מה שירצה לוה מגבהו ואימא נסכא א"ר אלעזר דכתיב ביה מטבע ואימא פריטי אמר רב פפא פריטי דכספא לא עבדי אינשי,ת"ר לעולם ידור אדם בא"י אפי\ בעיר שרובה עובדי כוכבים ואל ידור בחו"ל ואפילו בעיר שרובה ישראל שכל הדר בארץ ישראל דומה כמי שיש לו אלוה וכל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמי שאין לו אלוה שנא\ (ויקרא כה, לח) לתת לכם את ארץ כנען להיות לכם לאלהים,וכל שאינו דר בארץ אין לו אלוה אלא לומר לך כל הדר בחו"ל כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים וכן בדוד הוא אומר (שמואל א כו, יט) כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת ה\ לאמר לך עבוד אלהים אחרים וכי מי אמר לו לדוד לך עבוד אלהים אחרים אלא לומר לך כל הדר בחו"ל כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים,ר\ זירא הוה קמשתמיט מיניה דרב יהודה דבעא למיסק לארץ ישראל דאמר רב יהודה כל העולה מבבל לארץ ישראל עובר בעשה שנאמר 51a Abaye asked him: Ultimately, anything that is about to be sheared is considered sheared, and therefore these dates should already be classified as movable property, from which her sustece cannot be collected. Rav Yosef replied: I spoke of a case when the fruit is nearly fully ripe, but is still in need of the palm tree. Since they are attached to the ground, they may be used for the daughter’s sustece.The Gemara relates: There were a certain minor orphan boy and orphan girl who came before Rava. Rava said to the trustees of the father’s estate: Increase the amount you give to the orphan boy, so that there should be enough for the orphan girl as well. The Sages said to Rava: But it was the Master who said that one may collect from land but not from movable property, whether for sustece, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for the daughters’ livelihood. In this case only movable property was available.Rava said to them: If this orphan wanted a maidservant to serve him, would we not give him one? The court would use his father’s property to fund this acquisition. All the more so here, where there are two factors, as she is his sister and she will serve him as well. It is therefore appropriate to act in this manner, which is to the benefit of both the boy and the girl.§ The Sages taught: With regard to both property that has a guarantee, i.e. real estate, and property that does not have a guarantee, i.e. movable objects, the court removes them from the orphan heirs for the sustece of the wife and for the daughters. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to property that has a guarantee, the court removes it from the possession of the sons, who are the heirs, for the sake of the sustece of the daughters. If the deceased had only daughters, and the adult daughters have taken possession of the estate, the court takes some of the property from the adult daughters in order to give an equal share to the young daughters. And likewise, one takes some of the property from the adult sons in order to give an equal share to the younger sons.,And in a case where the estate has a large amount of property, so that there is more than enough to provide sustece for the daughters, the court takes from the daughters the property that is not needed to provide for their sustece and gives it to the sons, who are the true heirs. However, in a case where the estate has a small amount of property, one does not take it from the daughters in order to give it to the sons.,By contrast, with regard to property that does not have a guarantee, i.e. movable property, the court removes some of it from the possession of the adult sons, if they have taken it, in order to give a fair share to the young sons, and similarly, some property is taken from the adult daughters in order to give a fair share to the young daughters. And if there are both sons and daughters and the daughters have seized the movable property, it is taken from the daughters, who are not entitled to sustece from movable property, and given to the sons, who are the heirs. However, they do not take any property from the sons in order to give it to the daughters.,The Gemara comments: Even though we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague, and therefore the halakha should follow his ruling rather than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As Rava said: The halakha is that a woman can collect her claim from land but not from movable property, whether for the marriage contract, for sustece, or for her livelihood., 62a The Gemara explains its query: Although a man can legally make any agreement with his wife to limit her conjugal rights, how much is an acceptable manner for this matter? Rav said: The husband may spend a month here, in the study hall, and then must spend a month at home. The allusion to this is as it is stated with regard to reserve units serving in King David’s army: “In any matter of the courses, which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year” (IChronicles 27:1). And Rabbi Yoḥa said: He may spend one month here, in the study hall, and then two months in his home, as it is stated with regard to workers who worked in the construction of the Temple: “A month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home” (IKings 5:28).The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav did not also say a proof from that source that Rabbi Yoḥa quoted? The Gemara answers: The construction of the Temple is different, since it is possible for this work to be performed by others, as there were many people involved in it, but with regard to Torah study, which cannot be performed by others, he is given permission to spend a month here and a month there. The Gemara further questions: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥa did not say a proof from that source that Rav quoted? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to King David, it is different, since he gains profit from working for the king; since there is profit involved, his wife might be willing to forgo his staying with her. However, in general a woman wants her husband to spend most of his time at home, so with regard to Torah study, where there is no monetary profit, she will not waive her right for as long.§ Apropos a dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥa with regard to the construction of the Temple, the Gemara cites another dispute between them. Rav said: Groaning breaks half of a person’s body, as it is stated: “Groan, therefore, you son of man, with the breaking of your loins, groan so bitterly” (Ezekiel 21:11), which indicates that groaning breaks half of a one’s body, down to his loins. And Rabbi Yoḥa said that groaning breaks even a person’s entire body, as it is stated: “And it shall be, when they say to you: Why are you groaning? That you shall say: Due to the tiding, for it comes, and every heart shall melt, and all hands shall be slack, and every spirit shall be faint, and all knees shall drip with water” (Ezekiel 21:12).The Gemara asks: And why doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa also say that it breaks half of one’s body? Isn’t it written: “With the breaking of your loins,” implying that it does not break the entire body? The Gemara answers: This does not mean that the breakage only reaches the loins, but rather that when the sigh begins to affect a person, it begins from his loins. The Gemara asks: And why doesn’t Rav also say that it breaks the entire body? Isn’t it written: “And every heart shall melt, and all hands shall be slack, and every spirit shall be faint,” which indicates that groaning causes the entire body to break? The Gemara answers: The news with regard to the destruction of the Temple is different, as it is extremely crushing and causes great anguish, but in general a sigh causes only half of the body to break.It is related that a certain Jew and a gentile were walking along the road together. The gentile could not keep up with the Jew, who was walking faster, and he therefore reminded him of the destruction of the Temple in order to make the Jew feel sorrowful and slow down. The Jew sighed and groaned, but even so the gentile could not keep up with him, as the Jew was still walking faster. The gentile said to him: Don’t you say that groaning breaks half of a person’s body? Why didn’t it affect you? He said to him: This applies only with regard to a new sorrowful affair, but this, from which we have suffered repeatedly and to which we have become accustomed, does not affect us as much, as people say: One who is used to being bereaved of her children does not panic bahata when one of them dies, and similarly, one who is used to a tragedy is not as devastated when being reminded of it.§ The mishna said that men of leisure must engage in marital relations with their wives every day. The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term men of leisure? Rava said: These are students of Torah who go daily to review their lectures at a local study hall and return home each evening. Abaye said to him: Wives of Torah scholars are those about whom it is written: “It is vain for you to rise early and sit up late, you that eat the bread of toil, so He gives to His beloved in sleep” (Psalms 127:2), and Rabbi Yitzḥak said in explanation of this verse: These are the wives of Torah scholars who deprive their eyes of sleep in this world and reach the life of the World-to-Come. This indicates that Torah scholars exert themselves greatly in their studies and are not home in the evenings, and you say that the students reviewing their lectures are men of leisure, whose wives have conjugal rights for every night?Rather, Abaye said: The mishna should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as Rav said: This is referring to a man such as Rabbi Shmuel bar Sheilat, who ate his own food, drank his own drinks, slept in the shade of his own house, and the king’s tax collector peristaka did not pass by his door, as they did not know that he was a man of means. A man like this, who has a steady income and no worries, is called a man of leisure. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said: For example, the wealthy, pampered men in the West, Eretz Yisrael, are called men of leisure. Due to the time they have available and the richness of their diet, they have the ability to satisfy their wives every night.To illustrate this point, the Gemara relates two incidents demonstrating the health and strength of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael: Rabbi Abbahu was once standing in the bathhouse and two slaves were supporting his walking. The bathhouse collapsed under him and was destroyed. He found a pillar, stood on it and got out, and pulled them both up with him. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥa was once going up stairs, and Rav Ami and Rav Asi were supporting him. The stair collapsed under him, but he went up and pulled them both up with him. The Sages said to him: Since it is clear that you are so strong, why do you need people to support you? He said to them: If so, if I were to expend all my strength now, what will I leave for myself in my old age?,§ The mishna said: The set interval for laborers to fulfill their conjugal obligations to their wives is twice a week. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita: For laborers, once a week? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This is not difficult: Here, the case is where they work in their own city. There, the case is where they work in another city. This is also taught in the Tosefta (5:6): For laborers, twice a week. In what case is this statement said? It is when they work in their own city, but when they work in another city, the set interval for their conjugal obligations is once a week.,§ The mishna said: The set interval for donkey drivers is once a week, and for other professions it is even less frequent. Rabba bar Rav Ḥa said to Abaye: Did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us the halakha for a man of leisure and for a laborer? According to the set intervals given for conjugal obligations, it seems that the halakha that one who vowed to prohibit his wife from conjugal relations for longer than a week must divorce her is referring only to a man of leisure or a laborer, whose set interval for conjugal relations is less than that period. However, for other people, whose set interval is once a month or even less frequent, there should be no need to divorce the wife, since the vow does not deprive her of conjugal rights for longer than she would have been deprived anyway. He said to him: No,, 62b the tanna taught us a halakha with regard to all of them, not only a man of leisure or a laborer. He asked him: But with regard to a sailor it said that the set interval for conjugal relations is six months; why, then, should he have to divorce her if he vowed to forbid these relations for only a week? He answered him: It is well known that one who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket. On a fast day, one who does not have bread available in his basket suffers more than one who does have bread available and knows that he will be able to eat later. In this case as well, when a woman knows that marital relations are forbidden to her due to a vow, her suffering from waiting for her husband to return is increased.Rabba bar Rav Ha said to Abaye: If a donkey driver who is already married wants to become a camel driver, what is the halakha? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? He answered him: A woman prefers a kav, i.e. modest means, with conjugal relations to ten kav with abstinence. Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.§ The mishna stated: For sailors, the set interval for conjugal relations is once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leave their homes to study Torah for as long as two or three years without permission from their wives. Rava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’s opinion and performed an action like this themselves, but the results were sometimes fatal.This is as it is related about Rav Reḥumi, who would commonly study before Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to come back to his home every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he was particularly engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. His wife was expecting him that day and continually said to herself: Now he is coming, now he is coming. But in the end, he did not come. She was distressed by this and a tear fell from her eye. At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died. This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.§ When is the ideal time for Torah scholars to fulfill their conjugal obligations? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The appropriate time for them is from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve, i.e. on Friday nights. Similarly, it is stated with regard to the verse “that brings forth its fruit in its season” (Psalms 1:3): Rav Yehuda said, and some say that it was Rav Huna, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman: This is referring to one who engages in marital relations, bringing forth his fruit, from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve.,It is related further that Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and every Shabbat eve at twilight he would come to his house. When he would come, Rabbi Yannai would see a pillar of fire preceding him due to his sanctity. One day he was engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. When Rabbi Yannai did not see that sign preceding him, he said to the family: Turn his bed over, as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that if Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set interval for conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said became “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, died.,It is related further that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother.,He went and arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for him that they would support him for twelve years to go to study in the study hall. It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. They passed the girl in front of the groom and when he saw her he said: Let it be just six years. They passed her in front of him again and he said to them: I will marry her now and then go to study. He was then ashamed to see his father, as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and said to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception, meaning you acted the same way that God does.The proof for this is that initially it is written: “You bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place that You, O Lord, have made for You to dwell in” (Exodus 15:17), which indicates that God’s original intention was to build a Temple for the Jewish people after they had entered Eretz Yisrael. And ultimately it is written: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), i.e. even while they were still in the desert, which indicates that due to their closeness to God, they enjoyed greater affection and He therefore advanced what would originally have come later.After his wedding he went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back his wife had become infertile, as a consequence of spending many years without her husband. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: What should we do? If he will divorce her, people will say: This poor woman waited and hoped for naught. If he will marry another woman to beget children, people will say: This one, who bears him children, is his wife and that one, who lives with him, is his mistress. Therefore, her husband pleaded with God to have mercy on her and she was cured.,Rabbi Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Wait for me until I can come with you, after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, he did not wait and went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home.,He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter, meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥaya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e. he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this.,Rabbi Ḥama went in to his house and his son went in with him. Rabbi Ḥama then stood up before him to honor a Torah scholar, since he thought that he wanted to ask him a matter of halakha. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son? The Gemara comments: Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is referring to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa, as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family.The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The daughter of Ben Kalba Savua saw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hall to learn Torah? He said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent him off to study. Her father heard this and became angry. He removed her from his house and took a vow prohibiting her from benefiting from his property. Rabbi Akiva went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house he brought twelve thousand students with him, and as he approached he heard an old man saying to his wife: For how long, 110b However, even within the same land one may not force his wife to move from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town.,The mishna adds: One may remove his wife from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, even if it is in another land. However, one may not compel his wife to move from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may also not remove her from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, because a pleasant residence tests the individual, i.e. one accustomed to certain environments can suffer even in more comfortable living quarters. |
109. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 29a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halacha • halakha, study of Found in books: Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period (2005) 450; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years (2005) 478 29a מבטלין ת"ת להוצאת המת ולהכנסת הכלה אמרו עליו על ר\ יהודה בר\ אילעאי שהיה מבטל ת"ת להוצאת המת ולהכנסת הכלה בד"א בשאין שם כל צורכו אבל יש שם כל צורכו אין מבטלין,וכמה כל צורכו אמר רב שמואל בר איניא משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי ואמרי לה תריסר אלפי גברי ומינייהו שיתא אלפי שיפורי עולא אמר כגון דחייצי גברי מאבולא עד סיכרא,רב ששת אמר כנתינתה כך נטילתה מה נתינתה בששים ריבוא אף נטילתה בס\ ריבוא ה"מ למאן דקרי ותני אבל למאן דמתני לית ליה שיעורא,תניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בוא וראה כמה חביבין ישראל לפני הקב"ה שבכל מקום שגלו שכינה עמהן גלו למצרים שכינה עמהן שנאמר (שמואל א ב, כז) הנגלה נגליתי לבית אביך בהיותם במצרים וגו\ גלו לבבל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (ישעיהו מג, יד) למענכם שלחתי בבלה ואף כשהן עתידין ליגאל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (דברים ל, ג) ושב ה\ אלהיך את שבותך והשיב לא נאמר אלא ושב מלמד שהקב"ה שב עמהן מבין הגליות,בבבל היכא אמר אביי בבי כנישתא דהוצל ובבי כנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא ולא תימא הכא והכא אלא זמנין הכא וזמנין הכא אמר אביי תיתי לי דכי מרחיקנא פרסה עיילנא ומצלינא התם אבוה דשמואל ולוי הוו יתבי בכנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא אתיא שכינה שמעו קול ריגשא קמו ונפקו,רב ששת הוה יתיב בבי כנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא אתיא שכינה ולא נפק אתו מלאכי השרת וקא מבעתו ליה אמר לפניו רבש"ע עלוב ושאינו עלוב מי נדחה מפני מי אמר להו שבקוהו,(יחזקאל יא, טז) ואהי להם למקדש מעט אמר רבי יצחק אלו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שבבבל ור"א אמר זה בית רבינו שבבבל,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים צ, א) ה\ מעון אתה היית לנו אלו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות אמר אביי מריש הואי גריסנא בביתא ומצלינא בבי כנשתא כיון דשמעית להא דקאמר דוד (תהלים כו, ח) ה\ אהבתי מעון ביתך הואי גריסנא בבי כנישתא,תניא ר"א הקפר אומר עתידין בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שבבבל שיקבעו בא"י שנאמר (ירמיהו מו, יח) כי כתבור בהרים וככרמל בים יבא והלא דברים ק"ו ומה תבור וכרמל שלא באו אלא לפי שעה ללמוד תורה נקבעים בארץ ישראל בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שקורין ומרביצין בהן תורה עאכ"ו,דרש בר קפרא מאי דכתיב (תהלים סח, יז) למה תרצדון הרים גבנונים יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם למה תרצו דין עם סיני כולכם בעלי מומים אתם אצל סיני כתיב הכא גבנונים וכתיב התם (ויקרא כא, כ) או גבן או דק אמר רב אשי ש"מ האי מאן דיהיר בעל מום הוא:אין עושין אותו קפנדריא: מאי קפנדריא אמר רבא קפנדריא כשמה מאי כשמה כמאן דאמר אדמקיפנא אדרי איעול בהא,א"ר אבהו אם היה שביל מעיקרא מותר,אר"נ בר יצחק הנכנס ע"מ שלא לעשות קפנדריא מותר לעשותו קפנדריא וא"ר חלבו אמר ר"ה הנכנס לבהכ"נ להתפלל מותר לעשותו קפנדריא שנא\ (יחזקאל מו, ט) ובבא עם הארץ לפני ה\ במועדים הבא דרך שער צפון להשתחוות יצא דרך שער נגב:עלו בו עשבים לא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש: והתניא אינו תולש ומאכיל אבל תולש ומניח כי תנן נמי מתני\ תולש ומאכיל תנן,ת"ר בית הקברות אין נוהגין בהן קלות ראש אין מרעין בהן בהמה ואין מוליכין בהן אמת המים ואין מלקטין בהן עשבים ואם ליקט שורפן במקומן מפני כבוד מתים,אהייא אילימא אסיפא כיון ששורפן במקומן מאי כבוד מתים איכא אלא ארישא:מתני׳ ר"ח אדר שחל להיות בשבת קורין בפרשת שקלים חל להיות בתוך השבת מקדימין לשעבר ומפסיקין לשבת אחרת,בשניה זכור בשלישית פרה אדומה ברביעית החודש הזה לכם בחמישית חוזרין לכסדרן,לכל מפסיקין בראשי חדשים בחנוכה ובפורים בתעניות ובמעמדות וביוה"כ:גמ׳ תנן התם באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים 29a One interrupts his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. They said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would interrupt his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: In what case is this statement said? Only where there are not sufficient numbers of other people available to perform these mitzvot and honor the deceased or the bride appropriately. However, when there are sufficient numbers, additional people should not interrupt their Torah study to participate.The Gemara asks: And how many people are considered sufficient? Rav Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and another six thousand men to blow horns as a sign of mourning. And some say a different version: Twelve thousand men, among whom are six thousand men with horns. Ulla said: For example, enough to make a procession of people all the way from the town gate abbula to the place of burial.,Rav Sheshet said: As the Torah was given, so it should be taken away, i.e. the same honor that was provided when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai should be provided when the Torah is taken through the passing away of a Torah scholar. Just as the Torah was given in the presence of six hundred thousand men, so too its taking should be done in the presence of six hundred thousand men. The Gemara comments: This applies to someone who read the Bible and studied halakhot for himself. But for someone who taught others, there is no limit to the honor that should be shown to him.§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Come and see how beloved the Jewish people are before the Holy One, Blessed be He. As every place they were exiled, the Divine Presence went with them. They were exiled to Egypt, and the Divine Presence went with them, as it is stated: “Did I reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt?” (ISamuel 2:27). They were exiled to Babylonia, and the Divine Presence went with them, as it is stated: “For your sake I have sent to Babylonia” (Isaiah 43:14). So too, when, in the future, they will be redeemed, the Divine Presence will be with them, as it is stated: “Then the Lord your God will return with your captivity” (Deuteronomy 30:3). It does not state: He will bring back, i.e. He will cause the Jewish people to return, but rather it says: “He will return,” which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will return together with them from among the various exiles.,The Gemara asks: Where in Babylonia does the Divine Presence reside? Abaye said: In the ancient synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. And do not say that the Divine Presence resided here and there, i.e. in both places simultaneously. Rather, at times it resided here in Huzal and at times there in Neharde’a. Abaye said: I have a blessing coming to me, for whenever I am within a distance of a parasang from one of those synagogues, I go in and pray there, due to the special honor and sanctity attached to them. It was related that the father of Shmuel and Levi were once sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. The Divine Presence came and they heard a loud sound, so they arose and left.,It was further related that Rav Sheshet was once sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a, and the Divine Presence came but he did not go out. The ministering angels came and were frightening him in order to force him to leave. Rav Sheshet turned to God and said before Him: Master of the Universe, if one is wretched and the other is not wretched, who should defer to whom? Shouldn’t the one who is not wretched give way to the one who is? Now I am blind and wretched; why then do you expect me to defer to the angels? God then turned to the angels and said to them: Leave him.,The verse states: “Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they have come” (Ezekiel 11:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is referring to the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia. And Rabbi Elazar said: This is referring to the house of our master, i.e. Rav, in Babylonia, from which Torah issues forth to the entire world.Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations” (Psalms 90:1)? This is referring to the synagogues and study halls. Abaye said: Initially, I used to study Torah in my home and pray in the synagogue. Once I heard and understood that which King David says: “Lord, I love the habitation of Your house” (Psalms 26:8), I would always study Torah in the synagogue, to express my love for the place in which the Divine Presence resides.It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says: In the future, the synagogues and the study halls in Babylonia will be transported and reestablished in Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Surely, like Tabor among the mountains, and like Carmel by the sea, so shall he come” (Jeremiah 46:18). There is a tradition that these mountains came to Sinai at the giving of the Torah and demanded that the Torah should be given upon them. And are these matters not inferred through an a fortiori argument: Just as Tabor and Carmel, which came only momentarily to study Torah, were relocated and established in Eretz Yisrael in reward for their actions, all the more so should the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia, in which the Torah is read and disseminated, be relocated to Eretz Yisrael.Bar Kappara interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why do you look askance teratzdun, O high-peaked mountains, at the mountain that God has desired for His abode” (Psalms 68:17)? A Divine Voice issued forth and said to all the mountains that came and demanded that the Torah be given upon them: Why do you seek tirtzu to enter into a legal dispute din with Mount Sinai? You are all blemished in comparison to Mount Sinai, as it is written here: “High-peaked gavnunnim” and it is written there, with regard to the blemishes that disqualify a priest: “Or crookbacked gibben or a dwarf” (Leviticus 21:20). Rav Ashi said: Learn from this that one who is arrogant is considered blemished. The other mountains arrogantly insisted that the Torah should be given upon them, and they were therefore described as blemished.§ The mishna teaches that even if a synagogue fell into ruin, it may not be made into a kappendarya. The Gemara asks: What is meant by kappendarya? Rava said: A shortcut, as implied by its name. The Gemara clarifies: What do you mean by adding: As implied by its name? It is like one who said: Instead of going around the entire row of houses makkifna addari to get to the other side, thereby lengthening my journey, I will enter this house and walk through it to the other side. The word kappendarya sounds like a contraction of makkifna addari. This is what Rava meant by saying: As implied by its name.Rabbi Abbahu said: If a public path had initially passed through that location, before the synagogue was built, it is permitted to continue to use it as a shortcut, for the honor due to a synagogue cannot annul the public’s right of access to the path.Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With regard to one who enters a synagogue without intending to make it into a shortcut, when he leaves he is permitted to make it into a shortcut for himself, by leaving through the exit on the other side of the building. And Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: With regard to one who enters a synagogue to pray, he is permitted to make it into a shortcut for himself by leaving through a different exit, and it is fitting to do so, as it is stated: “And when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the appointed seasons, he that enters by way of the north gate to bow down shall go forth by the way of the south gate” (Ezekiel 46:9). This indicates that it is a show of respect not to leave through the same entrance through which one came in; it is better to leave through the other side.§ The mishna teaches: If grass sprang up in a ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, one should not pick it, due to the anguish that it will cause to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One may not pick the grass and feed it to one’s animals, but he may pick it and leave it there? The Gemara answers: When we learned the prohibition against picking the grass in the mishna as well, we learned only that it is prohibited to pick it and feed it to one’s animals, but it is permitted to leave it there.The Sages taught in a baraita: In a cemetery, one may not act with frivolity; one may not graze an animal on the grass growing inside it; and one may not direct a water channel to pass through it; and one may not gather grass inside it to use the grass as feed for one’s animals; and if one gathered grass for that purpose, it should be burnt on the spot, out of respect for the dead.,The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the phrase: Out of respect for the dead, to which clause of the baraita does it refer? If we say it is referring to the last clause, that if one gathered grass that it should be burnt out of respect for the dead, then one could ask: Since the grass is burnt on the spot, and not publicly, what respect for the dead is there in this act? Rather, the phrase must be referring to the first clause of the baraita, and it explains why it is prohibited to act with frivolity. |
110. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, 29b, 37a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Change, in custom and halakhah • Halakha, halakhic • halakhah, authority challenged in • halakhah, decision-making in • halakhah, refutation of opinions in • halakhah, terminology of Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 248, 250; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 72; Ruzer, Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror (2020) 149 29b had the leg of the letter heh in the term: “The nation ha’am” (Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before his son-in-law Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: If there remains in the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, i.e. the letter yod, it is fit. But if not, it is unfit.,The Gemara relates: Rami bar Tamrei, who was the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, had the leg of the letter vav in the term: “And the Lord slew vayaharog all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, but of average intelligence; if he reads the term as “And the Lord slew vayaharog” then it is fit, as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a vav. But if not, then it is as though the term were: Will be slain yehareg, written without the letter vav, and it is unfit.,§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, show him to me. God said to him: Return behind you. Moses went and sat at the end of the eighth row in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and did not understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength waned, as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. When Rabbi Akiva arrived at the discussion of one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. When Moses heard this, his mind was put at ease, as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.Moses returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man as great as this and yet You still choose to give the Torah through me. Why? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, You have shown me Rabbi Akiva’s Torah, now show me his reward. God said to him: Return to where you were. Moses went back and saw that they were weighing Rabbi Akiva’s flesh in a butcher shop bemakkulin, as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns ziyyunin, and they are the letters shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin; gimmel and tzadi. Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet and they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, i.e. they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.Rava explains: They would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet as if to thereby say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, lives ḥai in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord beYah is God, an everlasting olamim Rock” (Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami said to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He, will have Him as his refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come. This is alluded to in the word “olamim,” which can also mean: Worlds.Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; this is what poses a difficulty for me: What is different about that which is written: “For in the Lord beYah,” and it is not written: For the Lord Yah?,Rav Ashi responded: It is as Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught: The verse “For in the Lord beYah is God, an everlasting Rock Tzur olamim” is understood as follows: The term “Tzur olamim” can also mean Creator of worlds. These letters yod and heh that constitute the word yah are referring to the two worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with be the letter heh and one with be the letter yod. And I do not know whether the World-to-Come was created with the letter yod and this world was created with the letter heh, or whether this world was created with the letter yod and the World-to-Come was created with the letter heh.,When the verse states: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created behibare’am” (Genesis 2:4), do not read it as behibare’am, meaning: When they were created; rather, read it as beheh bera’am, meaning: He created them with the letter heh. This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e. this world, were created with the letter heh, and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter yod.And for what reason was this world created specifically with the letter heh? It is because the letter heh, which is open on its bottom, has a similar appearance to a portico, which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, i.e. every person has the ability to choose to do evil. And what is the reason that the left leg of the letter heh is suspended, i.e. is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is because if one repents, he is brought back in through the opening at the top.The Gemara asks: But why not let him enter through that same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would not be effective, since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who comes in order to become pure, he is assisted from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening to do so. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the letter heh has a crown on its roof? The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If a sinner returns, repenting for his sin, I tie a crown for him from above.The Gemara asks: For what reason was the World-to-Come created specifically with the letter yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is because the righteous of the world are so few. And for what reason is the left side of the top of the letter yod bent downward? It is because the righteous who are in the World-to-Come hang their heads in shame, since the actions of one are not similar to those of another. In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.§ Rav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, and in each case a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling. One is that which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected, but if there are three errors on each and every column then it shall be interred.,And a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling: A Torah scroll that contains three errors on every column may be corrected, but if there are four errors on every column then it shall be interred. A tanna taught in a baraita: If the Torah scroll contains one complete column with no errors, it saves the entire Torah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this is the halakha only when the majority of the scroll is written properly and is not full of errors.Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said to him: Since the column itself may be corrected, it enables the correction of the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: And with regard to the halakha that a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, this statement applies when letters are missing and must be added in the space between the lines. But if there were extraneous letters, we have no problem with it, since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a scroll with letters missing may not be corrected? Rav Kahana said: Because it would look speckled if one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.The Gemara relates: Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had many extraneous letters in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: We said that one may not correct the scroll only in a case where the letters are missing. 37a Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem says: This is no proof, as we have found that the right hand is also called yad, as it is stated: “And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand yad yemino” (Genesis 48:17). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, who maintains that the right hand is not called yad, how does he respond to this proof? He maintains that the right hand is called “his right hand yad yemino,” but it is not called a yad without further specification.,Rabbi Natan says: This proof is not necessary, as it says: “And you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and then it states: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This teaches that just as writing is with the right hand, as most people write with their right hands, so too, the binding of phylacteries must be performed with the right hand. And since binding is with the right hand, this means that donning is on the left arm, as one cannot bind the phylacteries with the same hand upon which he is donning them. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem, who holds that the right hand is also called yad in the Torah, derive that donning phylacteries is on the left arm? The Gemara answers: He derives it from where Rabbi Natan derives it.,Rav Ashi said: The requirement that phylacteries be donned on the left arm is derived from the verse: “It shall be for a sign upon your arm yadkha” (Exodus 13:16), which is written with a letter heh at the end. This is expounded as though it stated: Your weak keha arm. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: But one can say that yadkha should be interpreted as yadko’aḥ, with a letter ḥet at the end instead of a heh. If so, this would mean: Your arm that is of strength shebeko’aḥ, which is the right arm. Rav Ashi said to Rabbi Abba: Is this word written with a ḥet?,The Gemara notes that Rav Ashi’s opinion, that the halakha that phylacteries are donned on the left arm is derived from the term yadkha, is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Yadkha is written with a heh, indicating weakness, and this is referring to the left arm. Others say: “Your arm,” i.e. yadkha, serves to include one without a complete arm, i.e. one whose arm ends at the elbow, in the obligation to don phylacteries, as the remaining part is also categorized as a weak arm. It is taught in another baraita: If one does not have a left arm, i.e. not even above the elbow, he is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries. Others say: Yadkha serves to include one without a left arm even above the elbow, teaching that he must don phylacteries on his right arm.The Sages taught in a baraita: A left-handed person dons phylacteries on his right arm, which is equivalent to his left arm, i.e. his weaker arm. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a left-handed person dons phylacteries on his left arm, which is the left arm of every other person? Abaye said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to one who has equal control with both his hands, i.e. an ambidextrous person. Since such an individual also uses his right hand, he dons phylacteries on his left arm.The school of Menashe taught with regard to the verse: “And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8): “On your arm”; this is the bicep. “Between your eyes”; this is the crown of the head. The Gemara asks: Where exactly on the crown of the head are the phylacteries placed? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: Phylacteries are placed on the place where the bone above the baby’s brain is soft after birth.§ The Sage Peleimu raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of one who has two heads, on which of them does he don phylacteries? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Either get up and exile yourself from here or accept upon yourself excommunication for asking such a ridiculous question. In the meantime, a certain man arrived and said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: A firstborn child has been born to me who has two heads. How much money must I give to the priest for the redemption of the firstborn? A certain elder came and taught him: You are obligated to give him ten sela, the requisite five for each head.The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rami bar Ḥama teaches: Since it is stated with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: “The firstborn of man you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15), I would derive that even if he was ravaged, e.g. by an animal, within thirty days of his birth, one should redeem him. To counter this, the verse states:, |
111. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 28a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • mamzerim (halakhic bastards) • mamzerim (halakhic “bastards”) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 169; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 169 28a אלא חיה אבל שאר נשים מניחין,ר\ אלעזר אמר אפילו שאר הנשים דכתיב (במדבר כ, א) ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם סמוך למיתה קבורה,ואמר ר\ אלעזר אף מרים בנשיקה מתה אתיא שם שם ממשה ומפני מה לא נאמר בה על פי ה\ מפני שגנאי הדבר לאומרו,א"ר אמי למה נסמכה מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה לומר לך מה פרה אדומה מכפרת אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת א"ר אלעזר למה נסמכה מיתת אהרן לבגדי כהונה מה בגדי כהונה מכפרין אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת,ת"ר מת פתאום זו היא מיתה חטופה חלה יום אחד ומת זו היא מיתה דחופה ר\ חנניא בן גמליאל אומר זו היא מיתת מגפה שנאמר (יחזקאל כד, טז) בן אדם הנני לוקח ממך את מחמד עיניך במגפה וכתיב (יחזקאל כד, יח) ואדבר אל העם בבקר ותמת אשתי בערב,שני ימים ומת זו היא מיתה דחויה ג\ גערה ארבעה נזיפה חמשה זו היא מיתת כל אדם,א"ר חנין מאי קרא (דברים לא, יד) הן קרבו ימיך למות הן חד קרבו תרי ימיך תרי הא חמשה הן חד שכן בלשון יוני קורין לאחת הן,מת בחמשים שנה זו היא מיתת כרת חמשים ושתים שנה זו היא מיתתו של שמואל הרמתי ששים זו היא מיתה בידי שמים,אמר מר זוטרא מאי קרא דכתיב (איוב ה, כו) תבא בכלח אלי קבר בכלח בגימטריא שיתין הוו,שבעים שיבה שמונים גבורות דכתיב (תהלים צ, י) ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה ואם בגבורות שמונים שנה אמר רבה מחמשים ועד ששים שנה זו היא מיתת כרת והאי דלא חשיב להו משום כבודו של שמואל הרמתי,רב יוסף כי הוה בר שיתין עבד להו יומא טבא לרבנן אמר נפקי לי מכרת א"ל אביי נהי דנפק ליה מר מכרת דשני מכרת דיומי מי נפיק מר א"ל נקוט לך מיהא פלגא בידך,רב הונא נח נפשיה פתאום הוו קא דייגי רבנן תנא להו זוגא דמהדייב לא שנו אלא שלא הגיע לגבורות אבל הגיע לגבורות זו היא מיתת נשיקה,אמר רבא חיי בני ומזוני לא בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא דהא רבה ורב חסדא תרוייהו רבנן צדיקי הוו מר מצלי ואתי מיטרא ומר מצלי ואתי מיטרא,רב חסדא חיה תשעין ותרתין שנין רבה חיה ארבעין בי רב חסדא שיתין הלולי בי רבה שיתין תיכלי,בי רב חסדא סמידא לכלבי ולא מתבעי בי רבה נהמא דשערי לאינשי ולא משתכח,ואמר רבא הני תלת מילי בעאי קמי שמיא תרתי יהבו לי חדא לא יהבו לי חוכמתיה דרב הונא ועותריה דרב חסדא ויהבו לי ענותנותיה דרבה בר רב הונא לא יהבו לי,רב שעורים אחוה דרבא הוה יתיב קמיה דרבא חזייה דהוה קא מנמנם א"ל לימא ליה מר דלא לצערן א"ל מר לאו שושביניה הוא א"ל כיון דאימסר מזלא לא אשגח בי א"ל ליתחזי לי מר איתחזי ליה א"ל הוה ליה למר צערא א"ל כי ריבדא דכוסילתא,רבא הוה יתיב קמיה דר"נ חזייה דקא מנמנם א"ל לימא ליה מר דלא לצערן א"ל מר לאו אדם חשוב הוא א"ל מאן חשיב מאן ספין מאן רקיע,א"ל ליתחזי לי מר אתחזי ליה א"ל ה"ל למר צערא א"ל כמישחל בניתא מחלבא ואי אמר לי הקב"ה זיל בההוא עלמא כד הוית לא בעינא דנפיש בעיתותיה,רבי אלעזר הוה קאכיל תרומה איתחזי ליה א"ל תרומה קא אכילנא ולאו קודש איקרי חלפא ליה שעתא,רב ששת איתחזי ליה בשוקא אמר ליה בשוקא כבהמה איתא לגבי ביתא,רב אשי איתחזי ליה בשוקא א"ל איתרח לי תלתין יומין ואהדרי לתלמודאי דאמריתו אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו ביום תלתין אתא אמר ליה מאי כולי האי קא דחקא רגליה דבר נתן ואין מלכות נוגעת בחבירתה אפילו כמלא נימא,רב חסדא לא הוה יכיל ליה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק יתיב בארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתק ויכיל ליה,ר\ חייא לא הוה מצי למיקרבא ליה יומא חד אידמי ליה כעניא אתא טריף אבבא א"ל אפיק לי ריפתא אפיקו ליה א"ל ולאו קא מרחם מר אעניא אההוא גברא אמאי לא קא מרחם מר גלי ליה אחוי ליה שוטא דנורא אמצי ליה נפשיה: 28a with regard to a woman who died in childbirth, and therefore continues to bleed. But the biers of other women may be set down in the street.Rabbi Elazar said: Even the biers of other women must not be set down in the street, as it is written: “And Miriam died there and was buried there” (Numbers 20:1), which teaches that the site of her burial was close to the place of her death. Therefore, it is preferable to bury a woman as close as possible to the place where she died.With regard to that same verse Rabbi Elazar said further: Miriam also died by the divine kiss, just like her brother Moses. What is the source for this? This is derived through a verbal analogy between the word “there” stated with regard to Miriam and the word “there” mentioned with regard to Moses. With regard to Moses it says: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 34:5). For what reason was it not explicitly stated with regard to her, as it is stated with regard to Moses, that she died “by the mouth of the Lord”? It is because it would be unseemly to say such a thing, that a woman died by way of a divine kiss, and therefore it is not said explicitly.Rabbi Ami said: Why was the Torah portion that describes the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the portion dealing with the red heifer? To tell you: Just as the red heifer atones for sin, so too, the death of the righteous atones for sin. Rabbi Elazar said: Why was the Torah portion that describes the death of Aaron juxtaposed to the portion discussing the priestly garments? This teaches that just as the priestly garments atone for sin, so too, the death of the righteous atones for sin.§ The Sages taught the following baraita: If one dies suddenly without having been sick, this is death through snatching. If he became sick for a day and died, this is an expedited death. Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel says: This is death at a stroke, as it is stated: “Son of man, behold, I am about to take away from you the delight of your eyes at a stroke” (Ezekiel 24:16). And when this prophecy is fulfilled it is written: “So I spoke to the people in the morning and at evening my wife died” (Ezekiel 24:18).If he was sick for two days and died, this is a quickened death. If he was sick for three days and died, this is a death of rebuke. If he died after being sick for four days, this is a death of reprimand. If one died after a sickness lasting five days, this is the ordinary death of all people.,Rabbi Ḥanin said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is stated: “Behold, your days approach that you must die” (Deuteronomy 31:14). This verse is expounded in the following manner: “Behold hen” indicates one; “approach karvu,” a plural term, indicates two; “your days yamekha,” also a plural term, indicates another two; and therefore in total this is five. How does the word hen indicate one? Because in the Greek language they call the number one hen.,The Gemara discusses the significance of death at different ages: If one dies when he is fifty years old, this is death through karet, the divine punishment of excision, meted out for the most serious transgressions. If he dies when he is fifty-two years old, this is the death of Samuel from Ramah. If he dies at the age of sixty, this is death at the hand of Heaven.,Mar Zutra said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written: “You shall come to your grave in a ripe age bekhelaḥ” (Job 5:26). The word “ripe age” bekhelaḥ has the numerical value of sixty, and it is alluded to there that dying at this age involves a divine punishment.One who dies at the age of seventy has reached old age. One who dies at the age of eighty dies in strength, as it is written: “The days of our years are seventy, or if by reason of strength, eighty years” (Psalms 90:10). Rabba said: Not only is death at the age of fifty a sign of karet, but even death from fifty to sixty years of age is death by karet. And the reason that all of these years were not counted in connection with karet is due to the honor of Samuel from Ramah, who died at the age of fifty-two.The Gemara relates that when Rav Yosef turned sixty he made a holiday for the Sages. Explaining the cause for his celebration, he said: I have passed the age of karet. Abaye said to him: Master, even though you have passed the karet of years, have you, Master, escaped the karet of days? As previously mentioned, sudden death is also considered to be a form of karet. He said to him: Grasp at least half in your hand, for I have at least escaped one type of karet.It was related that Rav Huna died suddenly, and the Sages were concerned that this was a bad sign. The Sage Zuga from Hadayeiv taught them the following: They taught these principles only when the deceased had not reached the age of strength, i.e. eighty. But if he had reached the age of strength and then died suddenly, this is death by way of a divine kiss.,Rava said: Length of life, children, and sustece do not depend on one’s merit, but rather they depend upon fate. As, Rabba and Rav Ḥisda were both pious Sages; one Sage would pray during a drought and rain would fall, and the other Sage would pray and rain would fall.,And nevertheless, their lives were very different. Rav Ḥisda lived for ninety-two years, whereas Rabba lived for only forty years. The house of Rav Ḥisda celebrated sixty wedding feasts, whereas the house of Rabba experienced sixty calamities. In other words, many fortuitous events took place in the house of Rav Ḥisda and the opposite occurred in the house of Rabba.In the house of Rav Ḥisda there was bread from the finest flour semida even for the dogs, and it was not asked after, as there was so much food. In the house of Rabba, on the other hand, there was coarse barley bread even for people, and it was not found in sufficient quantities. This shows that the length of life, children, and sustece all depend not upon one’s merit, but upon fate.Apropos Rav Ḥisda’s great wealth, the Gemara reports that Rava said: These three things I requested from Heaven, two of which were given to me, and one was not given to me: I requested the wisdom of Rav Huna and the wealth of Rav Ḥisda and they were given to me. I also requested the humility of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but it was not given to me.,The Gemara continues its discussion of the deaths of the righteous. Rav Seorim, Rava’s brother, sat before Rava, and he saw that Rava was dozing, i.e. about to die. Rava said to his brother: Master, tell him, the Angel of Death, not to torment me. Knowing that Rava was not afraid of the Angel of Death, Rav Seorim said to him: Master, are you not a friend of the Angel of Death? Rava said to him: Since my fate has been handed over to him, and it has been decreed that I shall die, the Angel of Death no longer pays heed to me. Rav Seorim said to Rava: Master, appear to me in a dream after your death. And Rava appeared to him. Rav Seorim said to Rava: Master, did you have pain in death? He said to him: Like the prick of the knife when letting blood.,It was similarly related that Rava sat before Rav Naḥman, and he saw that Rav Naḥman was dozing, i.e. slipping into death. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Master, tell the Angel of Death not to torment me. Rava said to him: Master, are you not an important person who is respected in Heaven? Rav Naḥman said to him: In the supernal world who is important? Who is honorable? Who is complete?,Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Master, appear to me in a dream after your death. And he appeared to him. Rava said to him: Master, did you have pain in death? Rav Naḥman said to him: Like the removal of hair from milk, which is a most gentle process. But nevertheless, were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to say to me: Go back to that world, the physical world, as you were, I would not want to go, for the fear of the Angel of Death is great. And I would not want to go through such a terrifying experience a second time.The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar was once eating teruma, when the Angel of Death appeared to him. He said to the Angel of Death: I am eating teruma; is it not called sacred? It would be inappropriate for me to die now and thereby defile this sacred teruma. The Angel of Death accepted his argument and left him. The moment passed, and he lived for some time afterward.It was similarly related that the Angel of Death once appeared to Rav Sheshet in the marketplace. Rav Sheshet said to the Angel of Death: Shall I die in the market like an animal? Come to my house and kill me there like a human being.So too, the Angel of Death appeared to Rav Ashi in the marketplace. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: Give me thirty days so that I may review my studies, for you say above: Fortunate is he who comes here to Heaven with his learning in his hand. On the thirtieth day the Angel of Death came to take him. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: What is all of this? Why are you in such a hurry to take me? Why can you not postpone my death? He said to him: The foot of Rav Huna bar Natan is pushing you, as he is ready to succeed you as the leader of the generation, and one sovereignty does not overlap with its counterpart, even by one hairbreadth. Therefore, you cannot live any longer.The Angel of Death was unable to take Rav Ḥisda because his mouth was never silent from study. So the Angel of Death went and sat on the cedar column that supported the roof of the study hall of the Sages. The cedar cracked and Rav Ḥisda was silent for a moment, as he was startled by the sound. At that point the Angel of Death was able to take him.,The Angel of Death could not come near Rabbi Ḥiyya, owing to his righteousness. One day the Angel of Death appeared to him as a poor person. He came and knocked on the door. He said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Bring out bread for me, and he took out bread for him. The Angel of Death then said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Master, do you not have mercy on a poor person? Why, then, do you not have mercy upon that man, i.e. upon me, and give me what I want? The Angel of Death then revealed his identity to him, and showed him a fiery rod in order to confirm that he was the Angel of Death. At this point Rav Ḥiyya surrendered himself to him. |
112. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 81a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • halakha, on gentiles • history of Halakha, Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 130; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 38 81a גוף כולו לא כל שכן אמרי אין כביסה אלימא לר\ יוסי דאמר שמואל האי ערבוביתא דרישא מתיא לידי עוירא ערבוביתא דמאני מתיא לידי שעמומיתא ערבוביתא דגופא מתיא לידי שיחני וכיבי,שלחו מתם הזהרו בערבוביתא הזהרו בחבורה הזהרו בבני עניים שמהן תצא תורה שנאמר (במדבר כד, ז) יזל מים מדליו שמהן תצא תורה,ומפני מה אין מצויין ת"ח לצאת ת"ח מבניהן אמר רב יוסף שלא יאמרו תורה ירושה היא להם רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אומר כדי שלא יתגדרו על הצבור מר זוטרא אומר מפני שהן מתגברין על הצבור רב אשי אומר משום דקרו לאינשי חמרי,רבינא אומר שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ט, יא) מי האיש החכם ויבן את זאת דבר זה נשאל לחכמים ולנביאים ולא פירשוהו,עד שפירשו הקב"ה בעצמו דכתיב (ירמיהו ט, יב) ויאמר ה\ על עזבם את תורתי וגו\ היינו לא שמעו בקולי היינו לא הלכו בה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה,איסי בר יהודה לא אתא למתיבתא דר\ יוסי תלתא יומי אשכחיה ורדימוס בר\ יוסי א"ל מאי טעמא לא אתי מר לבי מדרשא דאבא הא תלתא יומין א"ל כי טעמיה דאבוך לא ידענא היכא איתאי א"ל לימא מר מאי קא"ל דלמא ידענא טעמיה א"ל הא דתניא ר\ יוסי אומר כביסתן קודמין לחיי אחרים קרא מנלן,א"ל דכתיב (במדבר לה, ג) ומגרשיהם יהיו לבהמתם וגו\ מאי חייתם אילימא חיה והלא חיה בכלל בהמה היא אלא מאי חייתם חיותא ממש פשיטא אלא לאו כביסה דהא איכא צערא דערבוביתא,א"ר יוסי אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש איבעיא להו לר\ יוסי מהו שיפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה ת"ש א"ר יוסי אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש אבל דברים שבינו לבינה הויין,דלמא לדידהו קאמר להו לדידי אפי\ דברים שבינו לבינה לא הויין לדידכו דאמריתו הויין נדרי עינוי נפש אודו לי דאין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש,מאי רב אדא בר אהבה אומר מפר רב הונא אומר אין מפר 81a is it not all the more so the case that if one does not bathe, which affects the entire body, Rabbi Yosei would agree that he will suffer pain? The Gemara refutes this argument: The Sages say in response: Yes, the pain of refraining from laundering one’s clothes is stronger, according to Rabbi Yosei, than the pain of not washing one’s body. As Shmuel said: Grime on one’s head leads to blindness, and grime on one’s clothes leads to madness, whereas grime on one’s body leads to boils and sores, which are less serious than madness and blindness. Based on this it may be suggested that according to Rabbi Yosei, soiled clothing presents a greater danger than an unwashed body.§ With regard to this issue, the Gemara relates that the Sages sent the following message from there, i.e. Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: Be careful with regard to grime, as it can lead to disease and sickness. Be careful to learn Torah in the company of others, rather than study it alone. And be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches midalyav” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones midalim among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth.,With regard to a similar matter, the Gemara inquires: And for what reason is it not common for Torah scholars to give rise to Torah scholars from among their sons? Why are Torah scholars generally born to paupers, who are not Torah scholars themselves? Rav Yosef said: This is so that they should not say the Torah is their inheritance. Therefore, it is unusual to find that all the sons of a Torah scholar are also Torah scholars. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: This is so that they should not be presumptuous yitgadderu toward the community, with the knowledge that they will be Torah scholars like their fathers. Mar Zutra said: Because they take advantage of their fathers’ standing to lord over the community and are punished for their conduct. Rav Ashi said: Because they call ordinary people donkeys.,Ravina says: They are punished because they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah before commencing their studies. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who is the wise man that may understand this, and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land is perished and laid waste like a wilderness, so that none passes through” (Jeremiah 9:11)? This matter, the question as to why Eretz Yisrael was destroyed, was asked of the Sages, i.e. “the wise man,” and of the prophets, “he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken,” but they could not explain it.,The matter remained a mystery until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained why Eretz Yisrael was laid waste, as it is written in the next verse: “And the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked therein” (Jeremiah 9:12). It would appear that “have not obeyed My voice” is the same as “nor walked therein.” Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The expression “nor walked therein” means that they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah, and they are therefore liable to receive the severe punishments listed in the verse.§ Returning to the issue of laundering clothes, the Gemara relates that it once happened that Isi bar Yehuda did not come to the academy of Rabbi Yosei for three straight days. Vardimus, son of Rabbi Yosei, found him and said to him: What is the reason that the Master did not come to Father’s academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father’s reasoning, how can I come? Vardimus said to him: Let the Master say what he, my father, is saying to him; perhaps I know his reasoning. He said to him: With regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, from where do we have a verse that teaches this halakha?Vardimus said to him: As it is written with regard to the Levite cities: “And their open land shall be for their animals and for their substance, and for all their beasts” (Numbers 35:3). What is the meaning of “their beasts”? If we say an actual beast, there is a difficulty, as isn’t a beast included in the category of animal, which has already been mentioned in the verse? Rather, what is the meaning of “their beasts ḥayyatam”? It means their actual lives ḥiyyuta. This, however, is difficult, as it is obvious that the Levites received their cities in order to live their lives there. Rather, is it not referring to laundering clothes, as there is the pain caused by the grime on one’s unwashed clothes? Since it is vitally necessary for their well-being, laundering the clothing of the city’s residents takes precedence over the lives of others.§ With regard to the vows: If I bathe, and: If I do not bathe, and: If I adorn myself, and: If I do not adorn myself, Rabbi Yosei said in the mishna that these are not vows of affliction. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yosei, what is the halakha as to whether the husband can nullify these vows as matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this question from what Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction, which indicates, however, that they are matters that affect the relationship between him and her.,The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their own opinion, as follows: According to my opinion, they are not even matters that affect the relationship between him and her. But according to your opinion, that you say that they are vows of affliction, agree with me at least that these are not vows of affliction. In other words, one should not infer from the phrasing of Rabbi Yosei’s response to the Rabbis that he holds that these vows are concerning matters that affect the relationship between him and her, as he was merely countering the claim of the Rabbis that they are vows of affliction.The question therefore remains: What does Rabbi Yosei maintain in this regard? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: He can nullify these vows as matters between him and her, whereas Rav Huna says: He cannot nullify them. |
113. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 3b, 53b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Tannaic halakha • Tannaic literature, halakhic vs. aggadic exegesis • halakhah Found in books: Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 62; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 101, 233; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 34, 36, 136 3b משום בניו אורחא הוא,והכתיב (שמואל א כה, כ) והיא רוכבת על החמור התם משום ביעתותא דליליא אורחא הוא ואיבעית אימא משום ביעתותא דליליא ליכא משום ביעתותא דדוד איכא ואיבעית אימא ביעתותא דדוד נמי ליכא משום ביעתותא דהר איכא,ובאורייתא מי לא כתיב טמא אלא כל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו משתעי בלשון נקיה כל היכא דנפישין מילי משתעי בלשון קצרה כדאמר רב הונא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא אמר רב משום ר"מ לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה,וכל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו משתעי בלשון כבוד והא רוכבת ויושבת דכי הדדי נינהו וקאמר רוכבת רכבת כתיב,הנהו תרי תלמידי דהוו יתבי קמיה דרב חד אמר שויתינן האי שמעתא כדבר אחר מסנקן וחד אמר שויתינן האי שמעתא כגדי מסנקן ולא אישתעי רב בהדי דהאיך,הנהו תרי תלמידי דהוו יתבי קמיה דהלל וחד מינייהו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואמרי לה קמיה דרבי וחד מינייהו רבי יוחנן חד אמר מפני מה בוצרין בטהרה ואין מוסקין בטהרה וחד אמר מפני מה בוצרין בטהרה ומוסקין בטומאה אמר מובטח אני בזה שמורה הוראה בישראל ולא היה ימים מועטים עד שהורה הוראה בישראל,הנהו תלתא כהני חד אמר להו הגיעני כפול וחד אמר הגיעני כזית וחד אמר הגיעני כזנב הלטאה בדקו אחריו ומצאו בו שמץ פסול,והא (תניא) אין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה,לא תימא שמץ פסול אלא אימא שחץ פסול ואי בעית אימא שאני התם דאיהו דארע נפשיה,ההוא ארמאה דהוה סליק ואכיל פסחים בירושלים אמר כתיב (שמות יב, מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו (שמות יב, מח) כל ערל לא יאכל בו ואנא הא קאכילנא משופרי שופרי,אמר ליה רבי יהודה בן בתירא מי קא ספו לך מאליה אמר ליה לא כי סלקת להתם אימא להו ספו לי מאליה כי סליק אמר להו מאליה ספו לי אמרו ליה אליה לגבוה סלקא,אמרו ליה מאן אמר לך הכי אמר להו רבי יהודה בן בתירא אמרו מאי האי דקמן בדקו בתריה ואשכחוהו דארמאה הוא וקטלוהו שלחו ליה לרבי יהודה בן בתירא שלם לך ר\ יהודה בן בתירא דאת בנציבין ומצודתך פרוסה בירושלים,רב כהנא חלש שדרוה רבנן לר\ יהושע בריה דרב אידי אמרו ליה זיל בדוק מאי דיניה אתא אשכחיה דנח נפשיה קרעיה ללבושיה ואהדריה לקרעיה לאחוריה ובכי ואתי אמרו ליה נח נפשיה אמר להו אנא לא קאמינא (משלי י, יח) ומוציא דבה הוא כסיל,יוחנן חקוקאה נפק לקרייתא כי אתא אמרו ליה חיטין נעשו יפות אמר להם שעורים נעשו יפות אמרו ליה צא ובשר לסוסים ולחמורים דכתיב (מלכים א ה, ח) השעורים והתבן לסוסים ולרכש מאי הוי ליה למימר אשתקד נעשו חיטין יפות אי נמי עדשים נעשו יפות: 53b קרוב להאכיל את ישראל קדשים בחוץ מקולס אין שאין מקולס לא אמרי מקולס לא שנא אמר לא שנא לא אמר שאינו מקולס פירש אין לא פירש לא,רב אחא מתני לה להא מתני\ כר\ שמעון מתקיף לה רב ששת בשלמא למאן דתני לה כרבי יוסי ניחא אלא למאן דמתני כר\ שמעון מי ניחא,והתנן רבי שמעון פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבים,אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ומאן דמתני לה כר\ יוסי מי ניחא והאמר רבא רבי שמעון בשיטת רבי יוסי אמרה דאמר אף בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס,מאי לאו מדרבי שמעון סבר לה כר\ יוסי רבי יוסי נמי סבר לה כרבי שמעון לא רבי שמעון סבר לה כר\ יוסי ולא רבי יוסי סבר לה כר\ שמעון,איבעיא להו תודוס איש רומי גברא רבה הוה או בעל אגרופין הוה,ת"ש עוד זו דרש תודוס איש רומי מה ראו חנניה מישאל ועזריה שמסרו עצמן על קדושת השם לכבשן האש,נשאו קל וחומר בעצמן מצפרדעים ומה צפרדעים שאין מצווין על קדושת השם כתיב בהו (שמות ז, כח) ובאו ועלו בביתך וגו\ ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך אימתי משארות מצויות אצל תנור הוי אומר בשעה שהתנור חם אנו שמצווין על קדושת השם על אחת כמה וכמה,רבי יוסי בר אבין אמר מטיל מלאי לכיס של תלמידי חכמים היה דאמר ר\ יוחנן כל המטיל מלאי לכיס תלמידי חכמים זוכה ויושב בישיבה של מעלה שנא\ (קהלת ז, יב) כי בצל החכמה בצל הכסף:מתני׳ מקום שנהגו להדליק את הנר בלילי יום הכפורים מדליקין מקום שנהגו שלא להדליק אין מדליקין ומדליקין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמבואות האפלים ועל גבי החולים:גמ׳ תנא בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהן לדבר אחד נתכוונו אמר רב יהושע דרש רבא (ישעיהו ס, כא) ועמך כלם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ וגו\ בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהם לא נתכוונו אלא לדבר אחד,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחלת ברייתו הוא אמר ליה ההוא סבא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנה ישר וכן אמר רבי יוחנן עולא הוה רכיב חמרא ואזיל והוה שקיל ואזיל רבי אבא מימיניה ורבה בר בר חנה משמאליה אמר ליה רבי אבא לעולא ודאי דאמריתו משמיה דרבי יוחנן אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחלת ברייתו הוא,הדר עולא חזא ביה ברבה בר בר חנה בישות א"ל אנא לאו אהא אמרי אלא אהא אמרי דתני תנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר יום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת אף במקום שאמרו שלא להדליק מדליקין מפני כבוד השבת ועני רבי יוחנן בתריה וחכמים אוסרים א"ל עדא תהא,קרי עליה רב יוסף (משלי כ, ה) מים עמוקים עצה בלב איש, 3b due to his children, as it is standard practice for children to ride.The Gemara raises another difficulty. But isn’t it written with regard to Abigail: “And it was so, as she rode on her donkey and came down by the covert of the mountain” (I Samuel 25:20). This verse employs the language of riding in reference to a woman on a donkey. The Gemara answers: There, due to the fear of the night, it is standard practice for a woman to ride and not merely sit on the donkey. And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to the fear of the night that would explain why she was permitted to ride in the regular manner; rather, there is a consideration due to fear of David. And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to fear of David either; however, there is a consideration due to the fear of the incline when riding down the mountain.,The Gemara asks: But isn’t the word impure written in the Torah? Apparently, the Torah does not consistently employ euphemisms, and indeed the word impure appears regularly. Rather, anywhere that two phrases are equal in length, the verse speaks employing a euphemism. Anywhere that the words of the euphemism are more numerous, requiring a lengthier description, the Torah speaks employing concise language, in accordance with that which Rav Huna said that Rav said, and some say it was Rav Huna who said that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner.,The Gemara asks: And anywhere that the phrases are equal in length, does the verse always speak employing dignified language? Aren’t the Hebrew words for rides rokhevet, spelled: Reish, vav, kaf, beit, tav; and sits yoshevet, spelled: Yod, vav, shin, beit, tav, of equal length, and yet the verse states: Rides (I Samuel 25:20). The Gemara answers: The Hebrew word for rides is written without a vav in the defective form, rendering it shorter than the term for sits. Brevity takes precedence over dignified language.The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language: There were these two students who were sitting before Rav and were weary from studying a complex issue. One of them said: This halakha we are studying is rendering us as tired as a tired mesankan something else, a euphemism for a pig. And the other one said: This halakha is rendering us as tired as a tired kid. Rav would not speak with that student who made reference to a pig, as one who speaks inappropriately is undoubtedly flawed in character.The Gemara additionally relates that there were these two students who were sitting before Hillel, and one of them was Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai. And some say they were sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one of them was the amora Rabbi Yoḥa. One of them said: Due to what reason need one be careful to harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, by insisting on the use of pure vessels, and one need not harvest olives in a state of ritual purity? And the other one said the same point, only he worded it differently: Due to what reason need one harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, but one may harvest olives in a state of ritual impurity? Their teacher said: I am certain that this first student, who spoke in a clean manner, will issue halakhic rulings in Israel. The Gemara adds: And it was not even a few days later that he issued halakhic rulings in Israel.,The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language. There were these three priests in the Temple, each of whom received a portion of the showbread divided among the priests. Since there were many priests, each one received only a small amount. One said to them: I received a bean-sized portion. And one said: I received an olive-bulk. And one said: I received a portion the size of a lizard’s tail. They investigated the background of the latter priest, who used the imagery of an impure creeping animal, and they found a trace shemetz of disqualification in his background. The Gemara assumes that they found a problem in his lineage that disqualified him from the priesthood.The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one does not investigate a priest’s lineage beyond the altar? When the court investigated the lineage of a priest, they would investigate his ancestry only until they discovered a priest who sacrificed offerings on the altar. At that point, they would halt the investigation. A priest of questionable lineage would certainly not have been permitted to serve on the altar. However, in this incident the lineage of a priest who had brought offerings was indeed called into question.The Gemara rejects this contention: Do not say that they found a trace shemetz of disqualification, referring to his lineage. Rather, say that they found arrogance shaḥatz of disqualification, and for that reason he was disqualified from the priesthood. And if you wish, say instead: There it is different, as he cast aspersions upon himself. Although it is generally assumed that any priest who participates in the Temple service is qualified to do so, this priest discredited his own lineage through his conduct.With regard to the investigation of the priestly lineage, the Gemara relates: A certain gentile would ascend on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, claiming he was Jewish, and eat Paschal lambs in Jerusalem. He would then return home and boast about how he had tricked the Jews. He said: It is written: “This is the statute of the Paschal lamb; no foreigner may eat of it” (Exodus 12:43), and another verse says: “Any uncircumcised man shall not eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). And yet, I ate from the finest of the fine portions of the Paschal lamb.Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him, in an attempt to thwart any repetition of this action: Did they feed you from the fat tail of the lamb? Do you really think they gave you the finest portion? The gentile was ignorant of the fact that the fat tail is sacrificed on the altar, not eaten. The gentile said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira replied: If so, when you ascend there next time, say to them: Feed me the fat tail. The next year when he ascended, he said to the other members of the group he joined: Feed me from the fat tail. They said to him: The fat tail is offered up to God.,They said to him: Who said that to you, to ask for that portion? He said to them testily: It was Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. They said: What is this incident that has come before us? Could Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira have told him to eat the fat tail? This matter must be investigated further. They investigated his background and found that he was a gentile, and they killed him. They sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace unto you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as you are in Netzivin and your net is spread in Jerusalem. Despite your distance from Jerusalem, you enabled us to apprehend a person who deceived us.The Gemara relates another incident in praise of one who is careful to refrain from improper or negative language. Rav Kahana fell ill, and the Sages sent Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, as their emissary to him. They said to him: Go and assess what is Rav Kahana’s condition at present. Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, went and found that Rav Kahana had passed away. He rent his garment and turned his garment around so the tear would be behind him and would not be immediately apparent, and he was crying as he was coming. They said to him: Did Rav Kahana pass away? He said to them: I did not say that, as the verse states: “And he who utters slander is a fool” (Proverbs 10:18). This verse indicates that it is undesirable to be a bearer of bad tidings, and if one must inform others of the unfortunate news, he should do so in an indirect manner.The Gemara continues to cite examples of clean language: Yoḥa from Ḥakuk went to the villages. When he came, they said to him: Did the wheat crop develop nicely? Reluctant to say that the wheat crop did not develop nicely, he said to them: The barley crop developed nicely, leaving them to draw their own conclusion. They said to him, mockingly: Go out and inform the horses and donkeys about the barley, as it is written: “Barley and hay for the horses and swift steeds” (I Kings 5:8). The Gemara asks: What could he have said to better express the bad news euphemistically? The Gemara answers: He could have said: Last year’s wheat crop developed nicely. Alternatively, he could have said that this year’s crop of lentils, which is also food for people, has developed nicely. 53b Doing so is akin to feeding Jews consecrated meat outside the permitted area, as due to its resemblance to the Paschal lamb it could be misleading. The Gemara analyzes this statement: A goat roasted whole, yes, it is prohibited; a goat not roasted whole, no, it is not prohibited. This contradicts Rav, who prohibited roasting even ordinary meat. The Sages say that this is the distinction: With regard to a goat roasted whole, there is no difference if one said it is for Passover, and there is no difference if one did not say it is for Passover. In either case, it looks like a sacrifice and it is prohibited. With regard to a goat not roasted whole, if one specified that it is for Passover, yes, it is prohibited because it appears that he is consecrating it as a sacrifice. However, if one did not specify that it is for Passover, no, it is not prohibited, as there is no need for concern.Rav Aḥa teaches this baraita about Theodosius in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Sheshet strongly objected to this: Granted, according to the one who learns it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it works out well. However, according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, does it work out well? Didn’t we learn in a mishna about a dispute with regard to one who consecrated an item for a purpose for which it was unsuited, e.g. a case where one sought to bring a meal-offering of barley, although meal-offerings may be brought only from wheat? In that case, the Rabbis say he is required to bring a meal-offering of wheat because in the first part of his statement he vowed to bring a meal-offering.Rabbi Shimon exempts him from any obligation, as in his opinion, he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. In other words, Rabbi Shimon relates to the statement: A meal-offering of barley, as a single entity. Since no meal-offering of that kind exists, one is not required to bring an offering at all. Similarly, with regard to Passover, since one can consecrate only a living animal as a sacrifice and cannot consecrate meat as a sacrifice, if one declares: This meat is for Passover, it is in no way similar to consecrating an animal, and the meat has no sanctity.Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, does it work out well? Didn’t Rava say: With regard to a meal-offering of barley, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. The Sages disagreed with regard to the halakhot of consecration in a case where one consecrates an animal for two objectives in the same statement, e.g. as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. According to Rabbi Meir, one is held accountable for the beginning of his statement. Since he mentioned the burnt-offering first, the animal assumes the status of a burnt-offering. However, Rabbi Yosei says that one’s entire statement is significant, and that the animal is consecrated for two sacrifices. The owner must wait until the animal becomes blemished, redeem it, and use the money to purchase a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei’s opinion concerning a barley meal-offering. He maintains that one is held accountable not only for his first expression, i.e. that it is a meal-offering, but also for his second expression, i.e. that it is of barley. In that case, the second part of his statement negates the first part.What, is it not concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that if one did not donate in the manner typical of donors, his act is meaningless? If that is the case, then any difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon would be similarly difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: No, although Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the above incident. Was Theodosius of Rome a great man in terms of his Torah scholarship, and the Sages refrained from ostracizing him in deference to the Torah that he studied? Or, was he a violent man who could not be punished due to his local influence?Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Haiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, it is written: “And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls” (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose. Apparently, Theodosius taught Torah in public, which indicates that he was a great man.Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Theodosius was one who cast the profits from merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars. He would lend them money and enter into partnership with them so they could open businesses, and that is praiseworthy, as Rabbi Yoḥa said: Anyone who casts merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars is rewarded and sits in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: “For in the shadow of wisdom, is the shadow of money” (Ecclesiastes 7:12). One who provides Torah scholars with money will merit being with them in the shadow of wisdom. |
114. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 31b, 44a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • betrothal, rabbinic halakha • halakha, Babylonian • halakha, Shammaite • halakhah, authority challenged in • halakhah, refutation of opinions in • halakhah, terminology of • law, Jewish (halakhah) Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 141; Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 26; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 22 31b ומביאו לחיי העולם הבא,אמר רבי אבהו כגון אבימי ברי קיים מצות כיבוד חמשה בני סמכי הוה ליה לאבימי בחיי אביו וכי הוה אתא רבי אבהו קרי אבבא רהיט ואזיל ופתח ליה ואמר אין אין עד דמטאי התם,יומא חד אמר ליה אשקיין מיא אדאייתי ליה נמנם גחין קאי עליה עד דאיתער איסתייעא מילתיה ודרש אבימי (תהלים עט, א) מזמור לאסף,אמר ליה רב יעקב בר אבוה לאביי כגון אנא דעד דאתינא מבי רב אבא מדלי לי כסא ואמא מזגה לי היכי איעביד א"ל מאמך קביל ומאבוך לא תקבל דכיון דבר תורה הוא חלשה דעתיה,רבי טרפון הוה ליה ההיא אמא דכל אימת דהות בעיא למיסק לפוריא גחין וסליק לה וכל אימת דהות נחית נחתת עלויה אתא וקא משתבח בי מדרשא אמרי ליה עדיין לא הגעת לחצי כיבוד כלום זרקה ארנקי בפניך לים ולא הכלמתה,רב יוסף כי הוה שמע קל כרעא דאמיה אמר איקום מקמי שכינה דאתיא אמר רבי יוחנן אשרי מי שלא חמאן רבי יוחנן כי עברתו אמו מת אביו ילדתו מתה אמו וכן אביי איני והאמר אביי אמרה לי אם ההיא מרבינתיה הואי,רב אסי הוה ליה ההיא אמא זקינה אמרה לי\ בעינא תכשיטין עבד לה בעינא גברא נייעין לך בעינא גברא דשפיר כותך שבקה ואזל לארעא דישראל,שמע דקא אזלה אבתריה אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר לי\ מהו לצאת מארץ לחוצה לארץ א"ל אסור לקראת אמא מהו א"ל איני יודע אתרח פורתא הדר אתא אמר ליה אסי נתרצית לצאת המקום יחזירך לשלום,אתא לקמיה דרבי אלעזר א"ל חס ושלום דלמא מירתח רתח א"ל מאי אמר לך אמר ליה המקום יחזירך לשלום אמר ליה ואם איתא דרתח לא הוה מברך לך אדהכי והכי שמע לארונא דקאתי אמר אי ידעי לא נפקי,ת"ר מכבדו בחייו ומכבדו במותו בחייו כיצד הנשמע בדבר אביו למקום לא יאמר שלחוני בשביל עצמי מהרוני בשביל עצמי פטרוני בשביל עצמי אלא כולהו בשביל אבא,במותו כיצד היה אומר דבר שמועה מפיו לא יאמר כך אמר אבא אלא כך אמר אבא מרי הריני כפרת משכבו והני מילי תוך שנים עשר חדש מכאן ואילך אומר זכרונו לברכה לחיי העולם הבא,תנו רבנן חכם משנה שם אביו ושם רבו תורגמן אינו משנה לא שם אביו ולא שם רבו אבוה דמאן אילימא אבוה דמתורגמן אטו תורגמן לאו בר חיובא הוא,אלא אמר רבא שם אביו של חכם ושם רבו של חכם כי הא דמר בר רב אשי כי הוה דריש בפירקא איהו אמר אבא מרי ואמוריה אמר הכי אמר רב אשי,ת"ר איזהו מורא ואיזהו כיבוד מורא לא עומד במקומו ולא יושב במקומו ולא סותר את דבריו ולא מכריעו כיבוד מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא,איבעיא להו 44a קטנה מן האירוסין אין עושים בה מאמר אלא מדעת אביה והנערה בין מדעת עצמה בין מדעת אביה (מה שאין כן בקידושין),אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רבי יוסי בר\ חנינא מאי טעמיה דר\ יוחנן אליבא דרבנן קידושין דמדעתה אביה ולא היא גירושין דבעל כרחה בין היא בין אביה,הרי מאמר דמדעתה וקתני בין היא ובין אביה התם במאמר דבעל כרחה ורבי היא דתניא העושה מאמר ביבמתו שלא מדעתה רבי אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה,מאי טעמיה דרבי גמר מביאה דיבמה מה ביאה דיבמה בעל כרחה אף הכא נמי בע"כ ורבנן סברי ילפינן מקידושין מה קידושין דמדעתה אף ה"נ דמדעתה,במאי קמיפלגי רבי סבר מילי דיבמה מיבמה הוה ליה למילף ורבנן סברי קידושין מקידושין הוה ליה למילף,ה"נ מסתברא כדקא מתרץ רבי יוחנן מדקתני סיפא מה שאין כן בקידושין אלא נימא תיהוי תיובתא דר"ל אמר לך ר"ל הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר אין שתי ידים זוכות כאחת,אי רבי יהודה מה שאין כן בקידושין מה שאין כן בגירושין מיבעי ליה אין ה"נ איידי דתנא מאמר דדמי לקידושין תנא נמי מה שאין כן בקידושין,ורבי יהודה מאי שנא מאמר הואיל וזקוקה ועומדת השתא דאתית להכי ר\ יוחנן נמי לא תיקשי לך מעיקרא שאני מאמר הואיל וזקוקה ועומדת,תנן האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה בו ובשלוחו בו ובשלוחו אין בה ובשלוחה לא תיובתא דר"ל אמר לך ר"ל הא נמי רבי יהודה היא,ומי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי יהודה והקתני סיפא האומר לאשה התקדשי לי בתמרה זו התקדשי לי בזו ואמרינן מאן תנא התקדשי התקדשי,ואמר רבה ר"ש היא דאמר עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד,וכי תימא כולה ר\ יהודה ובפרטי סבר לה כר"ש ומי סבר לה,והתניא זה הכלל כלל אינו חייב אלא אחת פרט חייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר שבועה לא לך לא לך לא לך חייב על כל אחת ואחת רא"א לא לך לא לך לא לך ולא לך שבועה חייב על כל אחת ואחת ר\ שמעון אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד,אלא כולה ר\ שמעון היא ובשליחות סבר לה כרבי יהודה,ר\ אסי לא על לבי מדרשא אשכחיה לרבי זירא אמר ליה מאי אמור האידנא בי מדרשא אמר ליה אף אנא לא עייל ר\ אבין הוא דעייל ואמר חברותא כולה כר\ יוחנן וצווח ריש לקיש כי כרוכיא (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה וליכא דאשגח ביה אמר ליה רבי אבין בר סמכא הוא אמר ליה אין כמין ימא לטיגני הוא,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אנא לא רבי אבין ברבי חייא ולא רבי אבין בר כהנא אלא רבי אבין סתם למאי נפקא מינה למירמא דידיה אדידיה,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן, 31b and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come.,Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored.One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e. as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79).Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect.The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her?,When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥa himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregt with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother.Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael.,Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥa and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more.Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥa certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e. his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her.The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father.How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come.,The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e. when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name?Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so.The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs.A dilemma was raised before the Sages: 44a If a minor girl was widowed after her betrothal, a surviving brother of her betrothed can perform levirate betrothal only with the consent of her father. And in the case of a young woman, he can do so either with her consent mida’at atzmah or with the consent of her father, unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal. This indicates that a young woman can accept levirate betrothal on her own, despite the fact that it removes her from her father’s authority.Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the reason of Rabbi Yoḥa, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? With regard to betrothal, which takes effect only with the consent of the one who accepts the betrothal, her father can accept it but not her, since betrothal requires his approval. With regard to a bill of divorce, which can be given without her consent, either she or her father can receive it.The Gemara asks: But isn’t levirate betrothal valid only with her consent, like other betrothals, and yet it teaches in the baraita that either she or her father can accept it? The Gemara answers: There it is referring to levirate betrothal that is performed against her will, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: If a yavam performs levirate betrothal with his yevama without her consent, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The yavam acquires her. And the Rabbis say: He does not acquire her.The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derives the halakha of levirate betrothal from the halakha of sexual intercourse that a yavam engages in with a yevama: Just as intercourse with the yevama renders her acquired even if it is done against her will, so too here, in the case of levirate betrothal, the yavam can betroth her against her will. And the Rabbis hold that we derive the halakha of levirate betrothal from standard betrothal: Just as betrothal can be performed only with her consent, so too here, levirate betrothal can be performed only with her consent.,The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one should derive matters involving a yevama from other matters involving a yevama, and the marriage between a yevama and a yavam can be formalized against her will. And the Rabbis hold that one should derive matters involving betrothal from the halakhot of betrothal, as levirate betrothal is structured like standard betrothal in other respects.The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to rule with regard to betrothal as Rabbi Yoḥa explains, that only the father can accept betrothal, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that with regard to levirate betrothal, in the case of a young woman, the yavam can perform it either with her consent or with the consent of her father, unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal. This indicates that she can be betrothed in standard betrothal only with her father’s agreement. The Gemara asks: Then shall we say that this should be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that according to the Rabbis a young woman can also accept her own betrothal? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Two hands do not acquire an item as one.,The Gemara asks: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why does the baraita state: Unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal? It should have stated: Unlike the halakha with regard to divorce, as Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion in the mishna with regard to divorce, not betrothal. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, it should have referred to divorce, but since it taught the halakha of levirate betrothal, which is similar to betrothal, it also taught: Unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal.,The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, in what way is levirate betrothal different from divorce? Why can a young woman accept the former but not receive a bill of divorce, when both levirate betrothal and divorce can be performed without her consent? The Gemara answers: The halakha of levirate betrothal is different. Since she is bonded to the yavam and standing in wait for him, acceptance of the betrothal money by the yevama suffices to effect the levirate betrothal. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the statement of Rabbi Yoḥa also should not pose a difficulty for you from the outset. One cannot question his statement with regard to the Rabbis’ opinion in the case of betrothal. Levirate betrothal is different, since the yevama is bonded to the yavam and standing in wait for him.We learned in the mishna that a man can betroth his daughter to a man when she is a young woman, by himself or by means of his agent. The Gemara analyzes this: Yes, he can betroth her by himself or by means of his agent, but no, she cannot become betrothed by herself or by means of her agent. This is a conclusive refutation of Reish Lakish, who holds that according to the opinion of the Rabbis a young woman can accept her own betrothal. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: This mishna too is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,The Gemara asks: But can you establish this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But the last clause, in the following mishna (46b), teaches: In the case of one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this date and adds: Be betrothed to me with that date, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta on its own. And we say: Who is the tanna who taught that the two dates are valued separately only if he said: Become betrothed and: Become betrothed, in a separate statement when giving each date, but that if he said: Become betrothed, only once, the value of the two dates are added together?And Rabba said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who says that one is not liable to bring multiple offerings for taking false oaths to multiple people in the same utterance. For example, if one says: I take an oath that I do not have your item, nor yours, nor yours, he brings a single offering. This is the halakha unless one states an expression of an oath to each and every one of the plaintiffs, by stating: I take an oath I do not have yours; I take an oath I do not have yours, in which case he brings multiple offerings. Consequently, the tanna of this mishna is Rabbi Shimon, not Rabbi Yehuda.And if you would say that the tanna of the entire mishna concerning betrothal is Rabbi Yehuda, and that with regard to the specification of separate oaths he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be. But does he in fact hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the specification of separate oaths?But isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle with regard to one’s liability to bring offerings for a false oath: If he included all the statements in one oath he is liable for only one oath, but if he specified them, he is liable for each and every one; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one said: I take an oath that I do not have your deposit, nor yours, nor yours, nor yours, and he was found to have taken a false oath, he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he said: I do not have yours, nor yours, nor yours, and nor yours, I take an oath, then he is liable for each and every one. Since he stated the oath at the end, it refers back to each element of his statement. Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable to bring more than one offering only if he states an expression of an oath for each and every one. This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Shimon with regard to the question of when oaths are considered distinct.Rather, the Gemara explains in the opposite manner: The tanna of the entire mishna concerning betrothal is Rabbi Shimon, and with regard to the halakha of agency he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that only the father of a young woman can appoint an agent to accept her betrothal or receive her bill of divorce.The Gemara relates: One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira and said to him: What was said today in the study hall? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I too did not go, but Rabbi Avin is the one who went, and he said: The entire coterie sided with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa that there is a difference between betrothal and divorce in the case of a young woman. And Reish Lakish screamed at them like a crane: Doesn’t the verse state: “And she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2), juxtaposing the halakhot of divorce and betrothal? But no one paid any attention to him. Rabbi Asi said to him: Is Rabbi Avin reliable? Can one be sure that he transmitted an accurate report? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Yes, in this case he can be trusted, since the elapsed time was only like the interval between catching a fish from the sea and bringing it to a frying pan tignei.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: When I quote this statement, I do not state it in the name of Rabbi Avin, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, nor Rabbi Avin bar Kahana, but in the name of Rabbi Avin, without specification. The Gemara asks: What difference is there? Why does it matter which Rabbi Avin is cited as the source of this statement? The Gemara answers: It would matter if one were to raise a contradiction between one of his rulings and another one of his rulings. If there were to be a conflicting opinion attributed to a specific Rabbi Avin, e.g. Rabbi Avin, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, it would not be a true contradiction, as this statement might have been issued by a different Rabbi Avin.Rava asked Rav Naḥman:, |
115. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, 24a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • halakha, study of • halakhah, priestly • halakhah, priestly, calendar conflict • priests, halakhah, priestly Found in books: Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years (2005) 478; Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 258 24a גירי קא משדייא:כמה היה גבוה ולאין היה נוטה כו\: תנא חדא לצפונה דבריו קיימין לדרומה לא אמר כלום והתניא איפכא לדרומה דבריו קיימין לצפונה לא אמר כלום,לא קשיא כאן בימות החמה כאן בימות הגשמים,ת"ר אחד אומר גבוה ב\ מרדעות ואחד אומר ג\ עדותן קיימת אחד אומר ג\ ואחד אומר ה\ עדותן בטילה אבל מצטרפין לעדות אחרת,ת"ר ראינוהו במים ראינוהו בעששית ראינוהו בעבים אין מעידין עליו חציו במים חציו בעבים חציו בעששית אין מעידין עליו,השתא כולו אמרת לא חציו מבעיא אלא ה"ק חציו במים חציו ברקיע חציו בעבים חציו ברקיע חציו בעששית חציו ברקיע אין מעידין,ת"ר ראינוהו ושוב לא ראינוהו אין מעידין עליו כל הכי חזו לה ואזלי,אמר אביי ה"ק ראינוהו מאלינו ושבנו לראותו מדעתנו ולא ראינוהו אין מעידין עליו מאי טעמא אימור כוביתא דעיבא בעלמא הוא דחזי:מתני׳ ראש ב"ד אומר מקודש וכל העם עונין אחריו מקודש מקודש בין שנראה בזמנו בין שלא נראה בזמנו מקדשין אותו,ר"א בר\ צדוק אומר אם לא נראה בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו שכבר קידשוהו שמים:גמ׳ ראש ב"ד וכו\: מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר גמדא א"ר יוסי בן שאול אמר רבי אמר קרא (ויקרא כג, מד) וידבר משה את מועדי ה\ מכאן שראש ב"ד אומר מקודש:וכל העם עונין אחריו מקודש מקודש מנלן אמר רב פפא אמר קרא (ויקרא כג, ב) אשר תקראו אותם קרי ביה אתם ר"נ בר יצחק אמר (ויקרא כג, ב) אלה הם מועדי הם יאמרו מועדי,מקודש מקודש תרי זימני למה לי דכתיב מקראי קודש:ר"א בר\ צדוק אומר אם לא נראה בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו: תניא פלימו אומר בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו שלא בזמנו מקדשין אותו,ר"א בר"ש אומר בין כך ובין כך אין מקדשין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא כה, י) וקדשתם את שנת החמשים שנים אתה מקדש ואי אתה מקדש חדשים א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר\ אלעזר בר\ צדוק,אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא ראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר מעובר אין מקודש לא,מעובר איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא הואיל וראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איפרסמא ולא ליעברוה קמ"ל:מתני׳ דמות צורות לבנה היו לו לרבן גמליאל בטבלא ובכותל בעלייתו שבהן מראה את ההדיוטות ואומר הכזה ראית או כזה:גמ׳ ומי שרי והכתיב (שמות כ, כג) לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות שמשיי,אמר אביי לא אסרה תורה אלא שמשין שאפשר לעשות כמותן כדתניא לא יעשה אדם בית תבנית היכל אכסדרה תבנית אולם חצר כנגד עזרה שלחן כנגד שלחן מנורה כנגד מנורה אבל עושה 24a that the sun is shooting arrows at those who deny its divinity, using the rainbow as its bow. The concave side of the rainbow always faces away from the sun, so that it does not look like a bow held by the sun.§ The mishna taught that the examination of the witnesses included the following questions: How high was the moon over the horizon, and in which direction did it tilt? It was taught in one baraita: If the witness testifies that he saw the moon to the north of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says that he saw it to its south, he has not said anything of significance, as this is impossible. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the opposite taught in a different baraita: If he testifies that he saw the moon to the south of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says he saw it to its north, he has not said anything.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the summer, when the moon is to the south of the sun; there, in the first baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the rainy season, when the moon is to the north of the sun.The Sages taught in a baraita: If one witness says that he saw the moon two plow handles high above the horizon, and the other one says it was three plow handles high, their testimony is valid, as a small discrepancy of this kind is reasonable. However, if one says that he saw the moon three plow handles above the horizon, and the other one says it was five plow handles high, their testimony is void, as that discrepancy is unacceptable. However, this does not mean that the witnesses themselves are disqualified, as either of them may join with another testimony, i.e. he may combine his account with that of another witness who testifies likewise.The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: We did not actually see the moon, but we saw it reflected in the water, or we saw it reflected in a glass lantern, or we saw it through thin clouds, they may not testify about it, as only a direct sighting of the moon is acceptable. If they say: We saw half of the moon’s reflection in the water, or we saw half of it through the clouds, or we saw half of it in a lantern, they still may not testify about it.,The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Now, if when one sees the entire moon in this manner, you said that this is not valid testimony, is it necessary to teach that one may not testify when he sees only half of it? Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses saw half of the moon’s reflection in water and half of it directly in the sky, or half of it through the clouds and half of it in the sky, or half of it in a lantern and half of it in the sky, although they saw half of the moon directly, they may not testify about it until they see the entire moon in the sky.The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: One moment we saw the new moon, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. The Gemara asks: Must they go on watching it to such an extent, i.e. why should they have to see it for a long period of time?Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses say: We saw the moon on our own accord, i.e. by chance, without looking for it, and then we returned to look for it on purpose, to deliver precise testimony about it, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. What is the reason? Because one can say that the first time it was merely a small round white cloud that they saw, which they mistook for the moon, and that is why when they looked for it again they could not find it. |
116. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 19a, 19b, 21b, 65b, 74a, 88b, 99b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Bavli, aggada integrated into halakhic context • Dead Sea Scrolls, divine inspiration as source of halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Midrash halakhah • Rabbinic Halakhah • adoption, rabbinic halakha • aggada in Bavli, integrated with halakhic context • aggadah, halakhah compared with • halakha, and Scripture • halakha, rabbinic • halakhah • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, definition of • halakhah, divine versus human authority in • halakhah, refutation of opinions in • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah) • law, Jewish (halakhah), king and • midrash halakhah Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 198, 252; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177; Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 177; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 304, 314, 452, 454; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 128, 570, 571, 572; Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 24; Kattan Gribetz et al., Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context (2016) 48; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 81; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 207, 208; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 56, 60; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 185; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 33 19a ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה אלא מן האירוסין אמאי יבא עשה וידחה לא תעשה,גזירה ביאה ראשונה אטו ביאה שניה,תניא נמי הכי אם קדמו ובעלו ביאה ראשונה קנו ואסור לקיימן בביאה שניה:מת לו מת כו\: ת"ר (ויקרא כא, יב) ומן המקדש לא יצא לא יצא עמהן אבל יוצא הוא אחריהן כיצד הן נכסין והוא נגלה הן ניגלין והוא נכסה:ויוצא עד פתח כו\: שפיר קאמר ר\ יהודה,אמר לך רבי מאיר אי הכי לביתו נמי לא אלא ה"ק מן המקדש לא יצא מקדושתו לא יצא וכיון דאית ליה הכירא לא אתי למינגע,ורבי יהודה אגב מרריה דילמא מקרי ואתי ונגע:כשהוא מנחם: ת"ר כשהוא עובר בשורה לנחם את אחרים סגן ומשוח שעבר בימינו וראש בית אב ואבלים וכל העם משמאלו וכשהוא עומד בשורה ומתנחם מאחרים סגן מימינו וראש בית אב וכל העם משמאלו,אבל משוח שעבר לא אתי גביה מ"ט חלשא דעתיה סבר קא חדי בי א"ר פפא ש"מ מהא מתניתא תלת שמע מינה היינו סגן היינו ממונה ושמע מינה אבלים עומדין וכל העם עוברין ושמע מינה אבלים לשמאל המנחמין הן עומדין,ת"ר בראשונה היו אבלים עומדין וכל העם עוברין והיו ב\ משפחות בירושלים מתגרות זו בזו זאת אומרת אני עוברת תחלה וזאת אומרת אני עוברת תחלה התקינו שיהא העם עומדין ואבלים עוברין:(חזר והלך וסיפר סימן):אמר רמי בר אבא החזיר רבי יוסי את הדבר ליושנו בציפורי שיהיו אבלים עומדין וכל העם עוברין ואמר רמי בר אבא התקין רבי יוסי בציפורי שלא תהא אשה מהלכת בשוק ובנה אחריה משום מעשה שהיה ואמר רמי בר אבא התקין ר\ יוסי בציפורי שיהיו נשים מספרות בבית הכסא משום ייחוד,אמר רב מנשיא בר עות שאילית את רבי יאשיה רבה בבית עלמין דהוצל ואמר לי אין שורה פחותה מעשרה בני אדם ואין אבלים מן המנין בין שאבלים עומדין וכל העם עוברין בין שאבלים עוברין וכל העם עומדין:כשהוא מתנחם כו\: איבעיא להו כי מנחם הוא אחריני היכי אמר להו ת"ש והוא אומר תתנחמו היכי דמי אילימא כי מנחמי אחריני לדידיה אמר להו איהו תתנחמו נחשא קא רמי להו אלא כי מנחם לאחריני אמר להו תתנחמו ש"מ:מלך לא דן כו\: אמר רב יוסף לא שנו אלא מלכי ישראל אבל מלכי בית דוד דן ודנין אותן דכתיב (ירמיהו כא, יב) בית דוד כה אמר ה\ דינו לבקר משפט ואי לא דיינינן ליה אינהו היכי דייני והכתיב (צפניה ב, א) התקוששו וקושו ואמר ר"ל קשט עצמך ואחר כך קשט אחרים,אלא מלכי ישראל מ"ט לא משום מעשה שהיה דעבדיה דינאי מלכא קטל נפשא אמר להו שמעון בן שטח לחכמים תנו עיניכם בו ונדוננו שלחו ליה עבדך קטל נפשא שדריה להו שלחו לי\ תא אנת נמי להכא (שמות כא, כט) והועד בבעליו אמרה תורה יבא בעל השור ויעמוד על שורו,אתא ויתיב א"ל שמעון בן שטח ינאי המלך עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך ולא לפנינו אתה עומד אלא לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם אתה עומד שנאמר (דברים יט, יז) ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב וגו\ אמר לו לא כשתאמר אתה אלא כמה שיאמרו חבריך 19b נפנה לימינו כבשו פניהם בקרקע נפנה לשמאלו וכבשו פניהם בקרקע אמר להן שמעון בן שטח בעלי מחשבות אתם יבא בעל מחשבות ויפרע מכם מיד בא גבריאל וחבטן בקרקע ומתו באותה שעה אמרו מלך לא דן ולא דנין אותו לא מעיד ולא מעידין אותו:לא חולץ ולא חולצין וכו\: איני והאמר רב אשי אפילו למאן דאמר נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול שנאמר (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך שתהא אימתו עליך מצוה שאני:ואין נושאין כו\: תניא אמרו לו לר\ יהודה נשים הראויות לו מבית המלך ומאי נינהו מירב ומיכל,שאלו תלמידיו את ר\ יוסי היאך נשא דוד שתי אחיות בחייהן אמר להן מיכל אחר מיתת מירב נשאה ר\ יהושע בן קרחה אומר קידושי טעות היו לו במירב שנאמר (שמואל ב ג, יד) תנה את אשתי את מיכל אשר ארסתי לי במאה ערלות פלשתים,מאי תלמודא אמר רב פפא מיכל אשתי ולא מירב אשתי,מאי קידושי טעות דכתיב (שמואל א יז, כה) והיה האיש אשר יכנו יעשרנו המלך עושר גדול וגו\ אזל קטליה אמר לו מלוה אית לך גבאי והמקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת,אזל יהבה לעדריאל דכתיב (שמואל א יח, יט) ויהי בעת תת את מירב בת שאול לדוד וגו\ א"ל אי בעית דאתן לך מיכל זיל אייתי לי מאה ערלות פלשתים אזל אייתי ליה א"ל מלוה ופרוטה אית לך גבאי,שאול סבר מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אמלוה ודוד סבר מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אפרוטה,ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אפרוטה שאול סבר לא חזו ולא מידי ודוד סבר חזו לכלבי ושונרי,ור\ יוסי האי תנה את אשתי את מיכל מאי דריש ביה ר\ יוסי לטעמיה דתניא רבי יוסי היה דורש מקראות מעורבין,כתיב (שמואל ב כא, ח) ויקח המלך את שני בני רצפה בת איה אשר ילדה לשאול את אדמוני ואת מפיבושת ואת חמשת בני מיכל אשר ילדה לעדריאל המחולתי וגו\ וכי לעדריאל נתנה והלא לפלטי בן ליש נתנה דכתיב (שמואל א כה, מד) ושאול נתן את מיכל בתו אשת דוד לפלטי בן ליש וגו\,אלא מקיש קידושי מירב לעדריאל לקידושי מיכל לפלטי מה קידושי מיכל לפלטי בעבירה אף קידושי מירב לעדריאל בעבירה,ור\ יהושע בן קרחה נמי הכתיב את חמשת בני מיכל בת שאול אמר לך רבי יהושע וכי מיכל ילדה והלא מירב ילדה מירב ילדה ומיכל גידלה לפיכך נקראו על שמה ללמדך שכל המגדל יתום בתוך ביתו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו:(חנינא קרא יוחנן ואשתו אלעזר וגאולה ושמואל בלימודי סימן): רבי חנינא אומר מהכא (רות ד, יז) ותקראנה לו השכנות שם לאמר יולד בן לנעמי וכי נעמי ילדה והלא רות ילדה אלא רות ילדה ונעמי גידלה לפיכך נקרא על שמה,רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא (דברי הימים א ד, יח) ואשתו היהודית ילדה את ירד אביגדור וגו\ אלה בני בתיה בת פרעה אשר לקח (לו) מרד מרד זה כלב ולמה נקרא שמו מרד שמרד בעצת מרגלים וכי בתיה ילדה והלא יוכבד ילדה אלא יוכבד ילדה ובתיה גידלה לפיכך נקרא על שמה,רבי אלעזר אמר מהכא (תהלים עז, טז) גאלת בזרוע עמך בני יעקב ויוסף סלה וכי יוסף ילד והלא יעקב ילד אלא יעקב ילד ויוסף כילכל לפיכך נקראו על שמו,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל המלמד בן חבירו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו שנאמר (במדבר ג, א) ואלה תולדות אהרן ומשה וכתיב ואלה שמות בני אהרן לומר לך אהרן ילד ומשה לימד לפיכך נקראו על שמו,(ישעיהו כט, כב) לכן כה אמר ה\ אל בית יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם וכי היכן מצינו ביעקב שפדאו לאברהם אמר רב יהודה שפדאו מצער גידול בנים והיינו דכתיב (ישעיהו כט, כב) לא עתה יבוש יעקב וגו\ לא עתה יבוש יעקב מאביו ולא עתה פניו יחוורו מאבי אביו,כתיב פלטי וכתיב פלטיאל אמר ר\ יוחנן פלטי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו פלטיאל שפלטו אל מן העבירה מה עשה נעץ חרב בינו לבינה אמר כל העוסק בדבר זה ידקר בחרב זה,והכתיב (שמואל ב ג, טז) וילך אתה אישה שנעשה לה כאישה והכתיב (שמואל ב ג, טז) הלך ובכה על המצוה דאזיל מיניה עד בחורים שנעשו שניהם כבחורים שלא טעמו טעם ביאה,אמר רבי יוחנן תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז תוקפו של בועז ענוותנותו של פלטי בן ליש תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז דכתיב (רות ג, ח) ויהי בחצי הלילה ויחרד האיש וילפת מאי וילפת אמר רב שנעשה בשרו כראשי לפתות, 21b על הייחוד ועל הפנויה,יחוד דאורייתא הוא דאמר ר\ יוחנן משום ר\ שמעון בן יהוצדק רמז לייחוד מן התורה מניין שנאמר (דברים יג, ז) כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך וכי בן אם מסית בן אב אינו מסית אלא לומר לך בן מתייחד עם אמו ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה,אלא אימא גזרו על ייחוד דפנויה,(מלכים א א, ה) ואדניה בן חגית מתנשא לאמר אני אמלוך אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שביקש להולמו ולא הולמתו,(מלכים א א, ה) ויעש לו רכב ופרשים וחמשים איש רצים לפניו מאי רבותא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כולן נטולי טחול וחקוקי כפות רגלים היו:מתני׳ לא ירבה לו סוסים אלא כדי מרכבתו וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד אלא כדי ליתן אספניא וכותב לו ס"ת לשמו יוצא למלחמה מוציאה עמה נכנס הוא מכניסה עמו יושב בדין היא עמו מיסב היא כנגדו שנאמר (דברים יז, יט) והיתה עמו וקרא בו כל ימי חייו:גמ׳ תנו רבנן (דברים יז, טז) לא ירבה לו סוסים יכול אפילו כדי מרכבתו ופרשיו תלמוד לומר לו לו אינו מרבה אבל מרבה הוא כדי רכבו ופרשיו הא מה אני מקיים סוסים סוסים הבטלנין מניין שאפילו סוס א\ והוא בטל שהוא בלא ירבה ת"ל (דברים יז, טז) למען הרבות סוס,וכי מאחר דאפילו סוס אחד והוא בטל קאי בלא ירבה סוסים למה לי לעבור בל"ת על כל סוס וסוס,טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו הא לאו הכי ה"א אפילו כדי רכבו ופרשיו נמי לא לא צריכא לאפושי:וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו אלא כדי ליתן אספניא: ת"ר (דברים יז, יז) וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו יכול אפילו כדי ליתן אספניא ת"ל לו לו אינו מרבה אבל מרבה הוא כדי ליתן אספניא,טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא אפילו כדי ליתן אספניא נמי לא לא צריכא להרווחה,השתא דאמרת לו לדרשה (דברים יז, יז) לא ירבה לו נשים מאי דרשת ביה למעוטי הדיוטות,רב יהודה רמי כתיב (מלכים א ה, ו) ויהי לשלמה ארבעים אלף ארוות סוסים למרכבתו וכתיב (דברי הימים ב ט, כה) ויהי לשלמה ארבעת אלפים (ארוות) סוסים הא כיצד אם ארבעים אלף איצטבלאות היו כל אחד ואחד היו בו ד\ אלפים ארוות סוסים ואם ד\ אלפים איצטבלאות היו כל אחד ואחד היו בו ארבעים אלף ארוות סוסים,(רבי) יצחק רמי כתיב (דברי הימים ב ט, כ) אין כסף נחשב בימי שלמה למאומה וכתיב (מלכים א י, כז) ויתן) שלמה את הכסף בירושלים כאבנים לא קשיא כאן קודם שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה כאן לאחר שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה,אמר רבי יצחק בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים והעלה שירטון ועליו נבנה כרך גדול שברומי,ואמר ר\ יצחק מפני מה לא נתגלו טעמי תורה שהרי שתי מקראות נתגלו טעמן נכשל בהן גדול העולם כתיב (דברים יז, יז) לא ירבה לו נשים אמר שלמה אני ארבה ולא אסור וכתיב (מלכים א יא, ד) ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו,וכתיב (דברים יז, טז) לא ירבה לו סוסים ואמר שלמה אני ארבה ולא אשיב וכתיב (מלכים א י, כט) ותצא מרכבה ממצרים בשש וגו\:וכותב ספר תורה לשמו: תנא ובלבד שלא יתנאה בשל אבותיו,אמר (רבא) אף על פי שהניחו לו אבותיו לאדם ספר תורה מצוה לכתוב משלו שנאמר (דברים לא, יט) ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה איתיביה אביי וכותב לו ספר תורה לשמו שלא יתנאה בשל אחרים מלך אין הדיוט לא,לא צריכא לשתי תורות וכדתניא (דברים יז, יח) וכתב לו את משנה וגו\ כותב לשמו שתי תורות אחת שהיא יוצאה ונכנסת עמו ואחת שמונחת לו בבית גנזיו,אותה שיוצאה ונכנסת עמו (עושה אותה כמין קמיע ותולה בזרועו שנאמר (תהלים טז, ח) שויתי ה\ לנגדי תמיד כי מימיני בל אמוט) אינו נכנס בה לא לבית המרחץ ולא לבית הכסא שנאמר (דברים יז, יט) והיתה עמו וקרא בו מקום הראוי לקראות בו,אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא מר עוקבא בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי,מאן הדיוטות אמר רב חסדא כותאי מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה,תניא רבי יוסי אומר ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל אילמלא (לא) קדמו משה במשה הוא אומר (שמות יט, ג) ומשה עלה אל האלהים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז, ו) הוא עזרא עלה מבבל מה עלייה האמור כאן תורה אף עלייה האמור להלן תורה,במשה הוא אומר (דברים ד, יד) ואותי צוה ה\ בעת ההיא ללמד אתכם חקים ומשפטים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז, י) כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרוש את תורת ה\ (אלהיו) ולעשות וללמד בישראל חוק ומשפט ואף על פי שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו נשתנה על ידו הכתב שנאמר, 65b מתיב ר\ זירא יצאו עדים זוממין שאין בהן מעשה ואמאי הא ליתנהו בלב,אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנו בקול,וקול לרבי יוחנן לאו מעשה הוא והא איתמר חסמה בקול והנהיגה בקול רבי יוחנן אמר חייב ור"ל אמר פטור,רבי יוחנן אמר חייב עקימת פיו הוי מעשה ר"ל אמר פטור עקימת פיו לא הוי מעשה,אלא אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנן בראיה,ת"ר בעל אוב זה המדבר בין הפרקים ומבין אצילי ידיו ידעוני זה המניח עצם ידוע בפיו והוא מדבר מאליו,מיתיבי (ישעיהו כט, ד) והיה כאוב מארץ קולך מאי לאו דמשתעי כי אורחיה לא דסליק ויתיב בין הפרקים ומשתעי,תא שמע (שמואל א כח, יג) ותאמר האשה אל שאול אלהים ראיתי עולים מן הארץ מאי לאו דמשתעי כי אורחיה לא דיתיב בין הפרקים ומשתעי,ת"ר בעל אוב אחד המעלה בזכורו ואחד הנשאל בגולגולת מה בין זה לזה מעלה בזכורו אינו עולה כדרכו ואינו עולה בשבת נשאל בגולגולת עולה כדרכו ועולה בשבת,עולה להיכא סליק הא קמיה מנח אלא אימא עונה כדרכו ועונה בשבת,ואף שאלה זו שאל טורנוסרופוס את ר"ע אמר לו ומה יום מיומים אמר לו ומה גבר מגוברין א"ל דמרי צבי שבת נמי דמרי צבי,א"ל הכי קאמינא לך מי יימר דהאידנא שבתא אמר לו נהר סבטיון יוכיח בעל אוב יוכיח קברו של אביו יוכיח שאין מעלה עשן בשבת אמר לו ביזיתו ביישתו וקיללתו,שואל אוב היינו ודורש אל המתים,דורש למתים כדתניא (דברים יח, יא) ודורש אל המתים זה המרעיב עצמו והולך ולן בבה"ק כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה,וכשהיה ר"ע מגיע למקרא זה היה בוכה ומה המרעיב עצמו כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה שורה עליו רוח טומאה המרעיב עצמו כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טהרה על אחת כמה וכמה אבל מה אעשה שעונותינו גרמו לנו שנאמר (ישעיהו נט, ב) כי אם עונותיכם היו מבדילים ביניכם לבין אלהיכם,אמר רבא אי בעו צדיקי ברו עלמא שנאמר כי עונותיכם היו מבדילים וגו\,רבא ברא גברא שדריה לקמיה דר\ זירא הוה קא משתעי בהדיה ולא הוה קא מהדר ליה אמר ליה מן חבריא את הדר לעפריך,רב חנינא ורב אושעיא הוו יתבי כל מעלי שבתא ועסקי בספר יצירה ומיברו להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי ליה,תנו רבנן מעונן ר\ שמעון אומר זה המעביר שבעה מיני זכור על העין וחכ"א זה האוחז את העינים ר"ע אומר זה המחשב עתים ושעות ואומר היום יפה לצאת למחר יפה ליקח לימודי ערבי שביעיות חיטין יפות עיקורי קטניות מהיות רעות,תנו רבנן מנחש זה האומר פתו נפלה מפיו מקלו נפלה מידו בנו קורא לו מאחריו עורב קורא לו צבי הפסיקו בדרך נחש מימינו ושועל משמאלו, 74a רב פפא אמר במפותה ודברי הכל,אביי אמר ביכול להציל באחד מאבריו ורבי יונתן בן שאול היא דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל נהרג עליו,מאי טעמא דרבי יונתן בן שאול דכתיב (שמות כא, כב) וכי ינצו אנשים (יחדו) וגו\ וא"ר אלעזר במצות שבמיתה הכתוב מדבר דכתיב (שמות כא, כג) ואם אסון יהיה ונתתה נפש תחת נפש ואפ"ה אמר רחמנא ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש,אי אמרת בשלמא יכול להציל באחד מאבריו לא ניתן להצילו בנפשו היינו דמשכחת לה דיענש כגון שיכול להציל באחד מאבריו,אלא אי אמרת יכול להציל באחד מאבריו נמי ניתן להצילו בנפשו היכי משכחת לה דיענש,דילמא שאני הכא דמיתה לזה ותשלומין לזה,לא שנא דאמר רבא רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו ושיבר את הכלים בין של נרדף ובין של כל אדם פטור מאי טעמא מתחייב בנפשו הוא,ונרדף ששיבר את הכלים של רודף פטור של כל אדם חייב של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו של כל אדם חייב שמציל עצמו בממון חבירו,ורודף שהיה רודף אחר רודף להצילו ושיבר את הכלים בין של רודף בין של נרדף בין של כל אדם פטור ולא מן הדין שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אין לך כל אדם שמציל את חבירו מיד הרודף:אבל הרודף אחר בהמה: תניא רשב"י אומר העובד עבודת כוכבים ניתן להצילו בנפשו מק"ו ומה פגם הדיוט ניתן להצילו בנפשו פגם גבוה לא כל שכן וכי עונשין מן הדין קא סבר עונשין מן הדין,תניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר המחלל את השבת ניתן להצילו בנפשו סבר לה כאבוה דאמר עונשין מן הדין ואתיא שבת בחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים,א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק נימנו וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד כל עבירות שבתורה אם אומרין לאדם עבור ואל תהרג יעבור ואל יהרג חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים,ועבודת כוכבים לא והא תניא א"ר ישמעאל מנין שאם אמרו לו לאדם עבוד עבודת כוכבים ואל תהרג מנין שיעבוד ואל יהרג ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,יכול אפילו בפרהסיא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי,אינהו דאמור כר"א דתניא ר"א אומר (דברים ו, ה) ואהבת את ה\ אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך,גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה למדנו מרוצח,מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילו בנפשו אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו,ומקיש נערה המאורסה לרוצח מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה תהרג ואל תעבור,רוצח גופיה מנא לן סברא הוא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה ואמר ליה אמר לי מרי דוראי זיל קטליה לפלניא ואי לא קטלינא לך אמר ליה לקטלוך ולא תיקטול מי יימר דדמא דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דהוא גברא סומק טפי,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזרת המלכות) אבל בשעת גזרת המלכות אפי\ מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אפי\ שלא בשעת גזרת מלכות לא אמרו אלא בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא אפי\ מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב, 88b בן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו,זקן ממרא שרצו בית דינו למחול לו מוחלין לו וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום על שנים הודו לי על זקן ממרא לא הודו לי כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל תיובתא,תניא אמר רבי יוסי מתחילה לא היו מרבין מחלוקת בישראל אלא בית דין של שבעים ואחד יושבין בלשכת הגזית ושני בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה יושבין בכל עיירות ישראל,הוצרך הדבר לשאול שואלין מבית דין שבעירן אם שמעו אמרו להן ואם לאו באין לזה שסמוך לעירן אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח הר הבית אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח העזרה,ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך למדתי וכך למדו חבירי אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין ללשכת הגזית ששם יושבין מתמיד של שחר עד תמיד של בין הערבים,ובשבתות ובימים טובים יושבין בחיל נשאלה שאלה בפניהם אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו עומדין למנין רבו המטמאים טמאו רבו המטהרין טהרו,משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן רבו מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות,משם כותבין ושולחין בכל מקומות כל מי שהוא חכם ושפל ברך ודעת הבריות נוחה הימנו יהא דיין בעירו משם מעלין אותו להר הבית משם לעזרה משם ללשכת הגזית,שלחו מתם איזהו בן העולם הבא ענוותן ושפל ברך שייף עייל שייף ונפיק וגריס באורייתא תדירא ולא מחזיק טיבותא לנפשיה יהבו ביה רבנן עינייהון ברב עולא בר אבא:חזר לעירו ושנה: ת"ר אינו חייב עד שיעשה כהוראתו או שיורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו,בשלמא יורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו מעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא שיעשה כהוראתו מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא התינח היכא דאורי בחלב ודם דמעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא היכא דאורי בחייבי מיתות ב"ד מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא,מעיקרא בעי התראה השתא לא בעי התראה,מסית דלא בעי התראה מאי איכא למימר מעיקרא אי אמר טעמא מקבלינן מיניה השתא אי אמר טעמא לא מקבלינן מיניה:מתני׳ חומר בדברי סופרים מבדברי תורה האומר אין תפילין כדי לעבור על ד"ת פטור חמש טוטפות להוסיף על דברי סופרים חייב:גמ׳ אמר ר\ אלעזר אמר ר\ אושעיא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע ואין לנו אלא תפילין אליבא דרבי יהודה,והאיכא לולב דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בלולב מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דלולב אין צריך אגד האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן דצריך אגד גרוע ועומד הוא,והאיכא ציצית דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בציצית מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דקשר העליון לאו דאורייתא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן, 99b זמר בכל יום זמר בכל יום אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי מאי קרא שנאמר (משלי טז, כו) נפש עמל עמלה לו כי אכף עליו פיהו הוא עמל במקום זה ותורתו עומלת לו במקום אחר,אמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם לעמל נברא שנאמר (איוב ה, ז) כי אדם לעמל יולד איני יודע אם לעמל פה נברא אם לעמל מלאכה נברא כשהוא אומר כי אכף עליו פיהו הוי אומר לעמל פה נברא ועדיין איני יודע אם לעמל תורה אם לעמל שיחה כשהוא אומר (יהושע א, ח) לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך הוי אומר לעמל תורה נברא והיינו דאמר רבא כולהו גופי דרופתקי נינהו טובי לדזכי דהוי דרופתקי דאורייתא,(משלי ו, לב) ונואף אשה חסר לב אמר ריש לקיש זה הלומד תורה לפרקים שנאמר (משלי כב, יח) כי נעים כי תשמרם בבטנך יכונו יחדיו על שפתיך,ת"ר (במדבר טו, ל) והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה זה מנשה בן חזקיה שהיה יושב ודורש בהגדות של דופי,אמר וכי לא היה לו למשה לכתוב אלא (בראשית לו, כב) ואחות לוטן תמנע ותמנע היתה פלגש לאליפז (בראשית ל, יד) וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים וימצא דודאים בשדה יצאה ב"ק ואמרה לו (תהלים נ, כ-כא) תשב באחיך תדבר בבן אמך תתן דופי אלה עשית והחרשתי דמית היות אהיה כמוך אוכיחך ואערכה לעיניך,ועליו מפורש בקבלה (ישעיהו ה, יח) הוי מושכי העון בחבלי השוא וכעבות העגלה חטאה מאי כעבות העגלה א"ר אסי יצר הרע בתחלה דומה לחוט של כוביא ולבסוף דומה לעבות העגלה,דאתן עלה מיהת אחות לוטן תמנע מאי היא תמנע בת מלכים הואי דכתיב (בראשית לו, כט) אלוף לוטן אלוף תמנע וכל אלוף מלכותא בלא תאגא היא,בעיא לאיגיורי באתה אצל אברהם יצחק ויעקב ולא קבלוה הלכה והיתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו אמרה מוטב תהא שפחה לאומה זו ולא תהא גבירה לאומה אחרת נפק מינה עמלק דצערינהו לישראל מאי טעמא דלא איבעי להו לרחקה,וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים אמר רבא בר\ יצחק אמר רב מכאן לצדיקים שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל וימצא דודאים בשדה מאי דודאים אמר רב יברוחי לוי אמר סיגלי ר\ יונתן אמר (סיבסוך) סביסקי:א"ר אלכסנדרי כל העוסק בתורה לשמה משים שלום בפמליא של מעלה ובפמליא של מטה שנאמר (ישעיהו כז, ה) או יחזק במעוזי יעשה שלום לי שלום יעשה לי:רב אמר כאילו בנה פלטרין של מעלה ושל מטה שנאמר (ישעיהו נא, טז) ואשים דברי בפיך ובצל ידי כסיתיך לנטוע שמים וליסד ארץ (אמר ריש לקיש) רבי יוחנן אמר אף מגין על כל העולם כולו שנאמר ובצל ידי כסיתיך ולוי אמר אף מקרב את הגאולה שנאמר (ישעיהו נא, טז) ולאמר לציון עמי אתה,אמר ריש לקיש כל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאו שנאמר (בראשית יב, ה) ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן ר\ (אליעזר) אומר כאילו עשאן לדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים כט, ח) ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת ועשיתם אותם רבא אמר כאילו עשאו לעצמו שנאמר ועשיתם אותם אל תקרי אותם אלא אתם,אמר רבי אבהו כל המעשה את חבירו לדבר מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה שנאמר (שמות יז, ה) ומטך אשר הכית בו את היאר וכי משה הכהו והלא אהרן הכהו אלא לומר לך כל המעשה את חבירו לדבר מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה:אפיקורוס: רב ור\ חנינא אמרי תרוייהו זה המבזה ת"ח רבי יוחנן ור\ יהושע בן לוי אמרי זה המבזה חבירו בפני ת"ח,בשלמא למ"ד המבזה חבירו בפני ת"ח אפיקורוס הוי מבזה תלמיד חכם עצמו מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה הוי אלא למ"ד מבזה תלמיד חכם עצמו אפיקורוס הוי מגלה פנים בתורה כגון מאי כגון מנשה בן חזקיה,ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא מגלה פנים בתורה רב ור\ חנינא אמרי זה המבזה ת"ח רבי יוחנן וריב"ל אמרי זה המבזה את חבירו בפני תלמיד חכם,בשלמא למ"ד המבזה תלמיד חכם עצמו מגלה פנים בתורה הוי מבזה חבירו בפני ת"ח אפיקורוס הוי אלא למ"ד מבזה חבירו בפני תלמיד חכם מגלה פנים בתורה הוי אפיקורוס כגון מאן אמר רב יוסף כגון הני דאמרי מאי אהנו לן רבנן לדידהו קרו לדידהו תנו,אמר ליה אביי האי מגלה פנים בתורה נמי הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו לג, כה) אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מהכא נמי שמע מינה שנאמר (בראשית יח, כו) ונשאתי לכל המקום בעבורם,אלא כגון דיתיב קמיה רביה ונפלה ליה שמעתא בדוכתא אחריתי ואמר הכי אמרינן התם ולא אמר הכי אמר מר רבא אמר כגון הני דבי בנימין אסיא דאמרי מאי אהני לן רבנן מעולם, 19a and there is a principle that a positive mitzva by itself does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva. But as for the ruling that he does not consummate levirate marriage with a widow from betrothal, why not? The positive mitzva to consummate levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition.,The Gemara answers: The first act of intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the likelihood of a second act of intercourse. Although the first act of intercourse would fulfill the positive mitzva of consummating levirate marriage, which would override the prohibition against a High Priest’s engaging in intercourse with a widow, any further intercourse would not be in fulfillment of a mitzva, and would not override the prohibition. Therefore, due to the possibility that the High Priest and the yevama would engage in intercourse a second time, the Sages decreed that even the first act is forbidden.The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If the High Priest or one whose yevama is forbidden to him went ahead and engaged in a first act of intercourse with her, he acquired her as a wife, but it is prohibited to retain that woman as a wife for a second act of intercourse.,§ The mishna teaches with regard to the High Priest that if a relative of his died, he does not follow the bier carrying the corpse. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the High Priest, which states: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge” (Leviticus 21:12), means: He shall not emerge with them as they escort the bier, but he emerges after them. How so? Once they are concealed from sight by turning onto another street, he is revealed on the street they departed, and when they are revealed, then he is concealed.,The mishna teaches Rabbi Meir’s opinion, that in the manner just described to escort the deceased, the High Priest emerges with them until the entrance of the gate of the city, which is contrasted with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that he does not leave the Temple at all. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda is saying well, and his statement is consistent with the straightforward meaning of the verse: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge” (Leviticus 21:12).The Gemara responds: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: If so, that you understand the verse so narrowly, he should not go out to his house as well but should be required to stay in the Temple. Rather, this is what it is saying: “And from the Temple hamikdash he shall not emerge” means: From his sanctity mikedushato he shall not emerge by contracting ritual impurity, and since he has a distinctive indicator in that he does not walk together with those accompanying the bier, he will not come to touch the bier and contract impurity.The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Yehuda respond? The Gemara explains: There is still cause for concern that on account of his bitterness due to the death of his loved one, perhaps it will happen that he comes and touches the bier. Therefore, a more restrictive regimen of separation is necessary.The mishna teaches: And when he consoles others in their mourning when they return from burial, the way of all the people is that they pass by one after another and the mourners stand in a line and are consoled, and the appointed person stands in the middle, between him and the people. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:1) in a more detailed manner: When the High Priest passes by in the line to console others, the deputy High Priest and the former anointed High Priest, who had served temporarily and then stepped down, are on his right. And the head of the patrilineal family appointed over the priestly watch performing the sacrificial rites that day in the Temple; and the mourners; and all the people are on his left. And when he is standing in the line among the other mourners and is consoled by others, the deputy High Priest is on his right, and the head of the patrilineal family and all the people are on his left.,The Gemara infers: But the previously anointed one does not come before him. What is the reason? The High Priest will become distraught. He will think: He is happy about me in my bereaved state. Rav Pappa said: Learn from it, from this baraita, three matters. Learn from it that the deputy High Priest is the same as the appointed person, as the baraita is referring to the deputy High Priest in the same function described by the mishna as the appointed one. And learn from it that the way of consoling in a line is that the mourners stand and all the people pass by and console them. And learn from it that the custom is that the mourners stand to the left of the consolers.,The Sages taught in a baraita: Initially the mourners would stand, and all the people would pass by one after another and console them. And there were two families in Jerusalem who would fight with each other, as this one would say: We pass by first because we are more distinguished and important, and that one would say: We pass by first. Consequently, they decreed that the people should stand and the mourners pass by, and disputes would be avoided.The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the following discussion: Returned; and walk; and converse.,Rami bar Abba says: Rabbi Yosei returned the matter to its former custom in Tzippori his city, that the mourners would stand and all the people would pass. And Rami bar Abba says: Rabbi Yosei instituted an ordice in Tzippori that a woman should not walk in the market and have her son following behind her; rather, he should walk in front of her, because of an incident that happened in which bandits abducted a child and assaulted the mother when she came searching for him in his place of captivity. And Rami bar Abba says: Rabbi Yosei instituted an ordice in Tzippori that women should converse in the bathroom, because of the restrictions on women being secluded with men. Since the public bathrooms there were outside the city a man might enter to take advantage of a woman, but he would be warded off by the women’s conversation.Rav Menashya bar Ute says: I asked a question of Rabbi Yoshiya the Great in the cemetery of Huzal, and he said this halakha to me: There is no line for consoling mourners with fewer than ten people, and the mourners are not included in the count. This minimum number of consolers applies whether the mourners stand and all the people pass by, or the mourners pass by and all the people stand.,§ The mishna teaches: And when he is consoled by others in his mourning, all the people say to him: We are your atonement. And he says to them: May you be blessed from Heaven. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When the High Priest consoles others, what should he say to them? Come and hear an answer from a baraita: And he says: May you be consoled. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which he says this? If we say that when others console him in his mourning he says to them: May you be consoled, this does not make sense, because he would be throwing a curse at them by saying that they too will need to be consoled. Rather, it must mean: When he consoles others, he says to them: May you be consoled. Learn from the baraita that this is what he says to console others.§ The mishna teaches: A king does not judge and is not judged. Rav Yosef says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the kings of Israel, who were violent and disobedient of Torah laws, but with regard to the kings of the house of David, the king judges and is judged, as it is written: “O house of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning” (Jeremiah 21:12). If they do not judge him, how can he judge? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together hitkosheshu vakoshu” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn kashet yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e. one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others. Since it is understood from the verse in Jeremiah that kings from the Davidic dynasty can judge others, it is implicit that they can also be judged.The Gemara asks: But what is the reason that others do not judge the kings of Israel? It is because of an incident that happened, as the slave of Yannai the king killed a person. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to the Sages: Put your eyes on him and let us judge him. They sent word to Yannai: Your slave killed a person. Yannai sent the slave to them. They sent word to Yannai: You also come here, as the verse states with regard to an ox that gored a person to death: “He should be testified against with his owner” (Exodus 21:29). The Torah stated: The owner of the ox should come and stand over his ox.,The Gemara continues to narrate the incident: Yannai came and sat down. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: Yannai the king, stand on your feet and witnesses will testify against you. And it is not before us that you are standing, to give us honor, but it is before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that you are standing, as it is stated: “Then both the people, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 19:17). Yannai the king said to him: I will not stand when you alone say this to me, but according to what your colleagues say, and if the whole court tells me, I will stand. 19b Shimon ben Shataḥ turned to his right. The judges forced their faces to the ground out of fear and said nothing. He turned to his left, and they forced their faces to the ground and said nothing. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to them: You are masters of thoughts, enjoying your private thoughts, and not speaking. May the Master of thoughts, God, come and punish you. Immediately, the angel Gabriel came and struck those judges to the ground, and they died. At that moment, when they saw that the Sanhedrin does not have power to force the king to heed its instructions, the Sages said: A king does not judge others and others do not judge him, and he does not testify and others do not testify concerning him, due to the danger of the matter.The mishna teaches that the king does not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform ḥalitza with his wife, and Rabbi Yehuda says that he may do so if he wishes. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who says that with regard to a Nasi who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is relinquished, nevertheless, with regard to a king who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning that his fear should be upon you. The preservation of a king’s honor is mandated by the Torah. How could Rabbi Yehuda allow him to waive it? The Gemara answers: A mitzva is different; a king is not disgraced if he relinquishes his honor to perform a mitzva.The mishna teaches: And no one may marry the king’s widow, and Rabbi Yehuda says that a king may marry another king’s widow, as proven by King David, who was promised with regard to King Saul after his death: “And I have given you the house of your master and the wives of your master” (IISamuel 12:8). It is taught in a baraita: The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: The meaning of the verse is not that David married Saul’s widows, but that he married women appropriate for him from the house of the king. And who are they? Merab and Michal, the daughters of Saul.The Gemara relates a discussion about David’s marriage to Merab and Michal from a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 11:9): Rabbi Yosei’s students asked him: How did David marry two sisters while they were both alive? Rabbi Yosei said to them: He married Michal only after the death of Merab, which is permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says a different explanation: His betrothal to Merab was in error and therefore void from the outset, and so Michal was permitted to him. This is as it is stated in the words of King David to Saul’s son Ish-bosheth: “Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to me for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines” (IISamuel 3:14).The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation here? How does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa learn from this verse that King David’s betrothal to Merab was in error? Rav Pappa says: In the verse, David indicates: Michal is my wife but Merab is not my wife.,The Gemara asks: What caused the betrothal between David and Merab to be a mistaken betrothal? The Gemara responds: As it is written about Israel’s war against the Philistines and Goliath: “And it shall be that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches and will give him his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel” (ISamuel 17:25). David went and killed Goliath. King Saul said to him: You have a loan in my possession, as I owe you the great wealth that I promised, though David had not given him an actual monetary loan. And the halakha is that with regard to one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan, she is not betrothed, and therefore David’s betrothal of Merab did not take effect.Saul went and gave Merab to Adriel, as it is written: “But it came to pass at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife” (ISamuel 18:19). Saul said to David: If you want me to give you Michal, go bring me one hundred foreskins of the Philistines (see ISamuel 18:25–27). David went and brought Saul two hundred foreskins. Saul said to him: Even though you brought the foreskins, the betrothal is not valid, as you, David, have a loan and one peruta in my possession, i.e. the wealth Saul owed him for slaying Goliath as well as the item of lesser monetary value, the foreskins of the Philistines.Saul and David had a halakhic dispute on this point: Saul reasoned that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the loan and not on the additional peruta, and therefore the betrothal is not valid. And David reasoned that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the peruta and therefore the betrothal is valid.And if you wish, say instead: Everyone reasons that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the peruta. Saul reasoned that foreskins of Philistines are not fit for any purpose and as such are worth not even one peruta, and that consequently the betrothal did not take effect. And David reasoned that they are fit for dogs and cats as food and as such are worth at least one peruta, and therefore the betrothal takes effect.The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yosei, who explains that David married Michal after the death of Merab, with regard to this verse: “Deliver me my wife Michal” (IISamuel 3:14), what does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 11:8): Rabbi Yosei would derive meaning from mixed verses that seem contradictory.The Tosefta continues. It is written: “But the king took the two sons of Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel, son of Barzillai the Meholathite” (IISamuel 21:8). But did Saul give Michal to Adriel? But didn’t he give her to Palti, son of Laish, as it is written: “Now Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti, son of Laish” (ISamuel 25:44)?The Tosefta continues: The first verse does not mean, then, that Michal married Adriel. Rather, the verse compares Merab’s betrothal to Adriel to Michal’s betrothal to Palti: Just as Michal’s betrothal to Palti was effected in transgression, according to all opinions, since she was already married to David, so, too, Merab’s betrothal to Adriel was effected in transgression, since according to halakha she was betrothed to David.The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa as well, isn’t it written: “And the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel” (IISamuel 21:8). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa could have said to you to understand it this way: And did Michal give birth to these children? But didn’t Merab give birth to them for Adriel? Rather, Merab gave birth to them and died, and Michal raised them in her house. Therefore, the children were called by her name, to teach you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.,The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the following discussion: Ḥanina called; Yoḥa and his wife; Elazar and redemption; and Shmuel in my studies. Rabbi Ḥanina says: Proof for the aforementioned statement can be derived from here: “And the neighbors gave him a name, saying: There is a son born to Naomi” (Ruth 4:17). And did Naomi give birth to the son? But didn’t Ruth give birth to him? Rather, Ruth gave birth and Naomi raised him. Therefore, he was called by her name: “A son born to Naomi.”,Rabbi Yoḥa says: Proof for the aforementioned statement can be derived from here: “And his wife Hajehudijah gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took” (IChronicles 4:18). Mered is Caleb, and why was his name called Mered? Because he rebelled marad against the counsel of the spies. And according to the midrash, Jered, Heber, and Jekuthiel all refer to Moses our teacher. And did Bithiah give birth to Moses? But didn’t Jochebed give birth to him? Rather, Jochebed gave birth to him and Bithiah raised him. Therefore, he was called by her name as though she had given birth to him.Rabbi Elazar says: Proof for the aforementioned statement can be derived from here: “You have with Your arm redeemed your people, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah” (Psalms 77:16). And did Joseph sire all of the children of Israel? But didn’t Jacob sire them? Rather, Jacob sired them and Joseph sustained them ficially. Therefore, they were called by his name; all of Israel were called the children of Joseph.Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who teaches another person’s son Torah, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sired him, as it is stated: “Now these are the generations of Aaron and Moses” (Numbers 3:1), and it is written immediately afterward: “And these are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadav the firstborn and Avihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar” (Numbers 3:2), but it does not mention the names of Moses’ children. This serves to say to you that Aaron sired his children, but Moses taught them Torah. Therefore, the children were also called by his name.,The Gemara cites another derivation connected to child-rearing: “Therefore, so says the Lord to the house of Jacob, who redeemed Abraham; Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale” (Isaiah 29:22). But where have we found any indication about Jacob that he redeemed Abraham? Rav Yehuda says: It means that he redeemed him from the suffering of raising children, in that Abraham did not have twelve tribes and the resultant hardships involved in raising them, as Jacob did, as Jacob assumed the burden of raising the tribes of Israel. And this is as it is written: “Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale,” meaning: “Jacob shall not now be ashamed” before his father, and “neither shall his face now wax pale” before his father’s father, since he took upon himself the role that they bore as well.The Gemara cites a tradition with regard to Palti, son of Laish: It is written in one place “Palti” (ISamuel 25:44), and it is written in another place “Paltiel” (IISamuel 3:15). Rabbi Yoḥa says: Palti was his real name, and why was his name called Paltiel? To teach that God El saved pelato him from the sin, by giving him the insight that he may not touch Michal, understanding that she was still David’s wife and therefore forbidden to him. What did he do? He embedded a sword in the bed between him and her, and said: Anyone who engages in this matter, i.e. sexual intercourse, should be stabbed by this sword.,The Gemara challenges this: But isn’t it written: “And her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim” (IISamuel 3:16), referring to Palti as Michal’s husband? The Gemara responds: This means that he became like a husband for her through his affection and concern for her. The Gemara counters: But isn’t it written in that very verse: “weeping as he went”? If from the outset he thought that she was David’s wife, why was he crying? The Gemara responds: He was weeping about the mitzva that left him, as from now on, he would receive no reward for restraining his desire. The end of the verse says that they went “to Bahurim,” meaning that they both became like young men baḥurim in that they did not taste sexual intercourse at all.Rabbi Yoḥa says: Joseph’s power is the humility of Boaz, as Joseph is praised for showing strength with regard to an accomplishment that was insignificant for Boaz (see Genesis, chapter 39). Likewise, Boaz’s power is the humility of Palti, son of Laish, as Palti’s capacity for restraint was greater still. Joseph’s power is the humility of Boaz, as it is written about Boaz: “And it came to pass at midnight that the man was startled and turned himself, and behold, a woman lay at his feet” (Ruth 3:8). What is the meaning of “and turned himself vayyilafet”? Rav says: The meaning is that his flesh became like the heads of turnips lefatot, his sexual organ hardening out of arousal, but even though Ruth was not married he refrained from engaging in intercourse with her; while Joseph had to exert more effort, despite the fact that Potiphar’s wife was married. 21b about seclusion, that a man should not be secluded with women who are forbidden to him, and about a single woman.,The Gemara objects: Seclusion with a woman forbidden by familial ties is prohibited by Torah law, and was not a rabbinic decree issued in the time of David. As Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where is there an allusion to the halakha that seclusion is forbidden by Torah law? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). One can ask: But does the son of a mother entice, and does the son of a father not entice? Why mention only the son of a mother? Rather, this verse serves to tell you that only a son may be secluded with his mother. Sons are frequently with their mother, and two half-brothers of one mother consequently have the opportunity to grow close to one another. But another individual may not be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, including a stepmother. Therefore, half-brothers of one father spend less time together.Since seclusion, then, is prohibited by Torah law, how did Rav say that it was prohibited by a decree issued in King David’s time? Rather, say that they decreed against seclusion of a man with a single woman, to prevent occurrences like that of Amnon and Tamar.Apropos Amnon, the Gemara cites traditions about another son of David: “Now Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king” (IKings 1:5). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The term “exalted himself” teaches that he sought for the monarchy to fit him, but it did not fit him.,The verse continues: “And he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him” (IKings 1:5). The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings, with designs on the throne? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What was unique was that the runners all had their spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, removing the flesh of their feet, and these two procedures enhanced their speed. 65b Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to Rava’s answer, as it is stated in a baraita that one who unwittingly commits a transgression punishable by death is obligated to bring a sin-offering, excluding conspiring witnesses, who are not obligated to bring a sin-offering, as their transgressions do not involve an action. Rabbi Zeira asks: And why is a false witness’s testimony not considered a transgression that involves an action? The testimony is delivered through speech, which should be considered an action, as this is not a transgression that is committed in the heart; the witnesses are liable for what they said, and not for their intention.Rava says: Conspiring witnesses are different, since their transgression is committed through their voice. The essence of their transgression is not speech itself but rather making themselves heard by the court. Therefore, since the projection of one’s voice does not involve action, the transgression of conspiring witnesses is considered not be to involving action.The Gemara asks: And is projecting one’s voice not considered an action according to Rabbi Yoḥa? But wasn’t it stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the following case: If one muzzled an animal by projecting his voice, by berating it whenever it tried to eat, has he transgressed the prohibition of: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25:4)? And similarly, if one led different species to work together by projecting his voice, without performing any action, has he transgressed the prohibition of: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10)? Rabbi Yoḥa says he is liable, and Reish Lakish says he is exempt.,The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their opinions: Rabbi Yoḥa says he is liable, as he maintains that the twisting of one’s mouth to speak is considered an action, whereas Reish Lakish says he is exempt, because he holds that that the twisting of one’s mouth to speak is not considered an action. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥa holds that a transgression one commits by projecting his voice is considered to involve an action.Rather, Rava says there is a different answer to Rabbi Zeira’s objection: Conspiring witnesses are different, since they are rendered liable mainly through sight, i.e. the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not considered an action.§ The Sages taught: A necromancer is one who causes the voice of the dead to be heard speaking from between his joints or from his armpit. A sorcerer yideoni is one who places a bone of an animal called a yadua in his mouth, and the bone speaks on its own.,The Gemara raises an objection from the verse: “And your voice shall be as a ghost out of the ground” (Isaiah 29:4). What, does the dead person not speak from the grave on his own? The Gemara answers: No, this is not so, as the dead person rises by sorcery and sits between the joints of the necromancer and speaks.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the statement of the necromancer to King Saul: “And the woman said to Saul, I see a godlike being coming up out of the earth” (ISamuel 28:13). What, does the verse not mean to say that the dead person spoke on his own? The Gemara refutes this proof: No, this is not so, as the dead person sits between the joints of the necromancer and speaks.,The Sages taught: The category of a necromancer includes both one who raises the dead with his zekhur, which is a form of sorcery, and one who inquires about the future from a skull begulgolet. What is the difference between this type of necromancer and that type of necromancer? When one raises the dead with his zekhur, the dead does not rise in its usual manner, but appears upside-down, and it does not rise on Shabbat. By contrast, when one inquires about the future from a skull, the dead rises in its usual manner, and it rises oleh even on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks with regard to the wording of the last statement: Rises? To where does it rise? Isn’t the skull lying before him? Rather, say as follows: The dead answers in its usual manner, and it answers ve’oneh even on Shabbat.,With regard to the statement that the dead do not rise on Shabbat, the Gemara relates: The wicked Turnus Rufus, the Roman governor of Judea, asked this question of Rabbi Akiva as well. Turnus Rufus said to him: And what makes this day, Shabbat, different from other days? Rabbi Akiva said to him: And what makes this man, referring to his interlocutor, more distinguished than other men? Turnus Rufus said to him: I am more distinguished because my master the emperor wants it that way. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Shabbat too is unique because my Master wants it that way, as he has sanctified that day.Turnus Rufus said to him: This is what I mean to say to you: Who is to say that now is Shabbat? Perhaps a different day of the week is Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The Sabbatyon River can prove that today is Shabbat, as it is calm only on Shabbat. A necromancer can also prove this, as the dead do not rise on Shabbat. The grave of his father, referring to Turnus Rufus’s father, can also prove this, as it does not emit smoke on Shabbat, although smoke rises from it all week, as during the week he is being punished in Gehenna. Turnus Rufus said to him: You have demeaned my father, you have publicly shamed him, and you have cursed him by saying that he is being punished in Gehenna.§ The Gemara asks: Isn’t one who inquires about the future from a necromancer the same as what is described in the verse: “Or directs inquiries to the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:11)? Why are they mentioned separately in the verse?The Gemara answers: One who directs inquiries to the dead em-ploys a different method to contact the dead, as it is taught in a baraita: “Or directs inquiries to the dead”; this is one who starves himself and goes and sleeps overnight in a graveyard so that a spirit of impurity should settle upon him, and he can listen to what the dead are saying.And when Rabbi Akiva would arrive at this verse he would weep and say: If one who starves himself so that a spirit of impurity will settle upon him succeeds in doing so, and a spirit of impurity settles upon him, all the more so one who starves himself so that a spirit of purity will settle upon him should be successful, and a spirit of purity should settle upon him. But what can I do, as our iniquities have caused us not to merit the spirit of sanctity and purity, as it is stated: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).Rava says: If the righteous wish to do so, they can create a world, as it is stated: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God.” In other words, there is no distinction between God and a righteous person who has no sins, and just as God created the world, so can the righteous.Indeed, Rava created a man, a golem, using forces of sanctity. Rava sent his creation before Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him but he would not reply. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You were created by one of the members of the group, one of the Sages. Return to your dust.,The Gemara relates another fact substantiating the statement that the righteous could create a world if they so desired: Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya would sit every Shabbat eve and engage in the study of Sefer Yetzira, and a third-born calf igla tilta would be created for them, and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat.§ The Sages taught: What is the definition of the soothsayer mentioned in the verse: “There shall not be found among you…a soothsayer” (Deuteronomy 18:10)? Rabbi Shimon says: This is one who applies seven types of semen zekhur to one’s eye in order to perform sorcery. And the Rabbis say: This is one who deceives the eyes, as though he is performing sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says: This is one who calculates the fortune of times and hours, and says, for example: Today is a propitious day for going away on a journey; tomorrow is propitious for purchasing property successfully. Or he says that on the eve of the Sabbatical Years, the wheat harvest is generally good; uprooting legumes rather than cutting them from above the ground prevents them from going bad.,The Sages taught: The enchanter mentioned in the verse (Deuteronomy 18:10) is one who relies on superstitious signs, e.g. one who says: If one’s bread fell from his mouth, that is a bad sign for him; or: If one’s staff fell from his hand, it is a bad sign; or: If one’s son calls him from behind, it is a sign that he should return from his journey; or: If a raven calls to him, or if a deer blocks him on the way, or if a snake is to his right, or if a fox is to his left, all of these are bad signs. An enchanter is one who relies on these as bad signs and consequently changes his course of action. 74a Rav Pappa says: The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated with regard to a young woman who was seduced, and in the case of seduction all agree that the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer’s life, as the intercourse was consensual.Abaye says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a young woman who was raped in a case where one was able to save her by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says: If a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and one was able to save the pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him in one of his limbs, but he did not save him in this manner and rather chose to kill him, he is executed on his account as a murderer.The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: “If men strive and strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman’s husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). And concerning this Rabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill, where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is that it is written: “But if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life” (Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? And even so, the Merciful One states: “And yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,” teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman’s husband.Granted, if you say that in a case where one is able to save the pursued party by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, he may not save the pursued party at the cost of the pursuer’s life, and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, that is how you find the possibility that the one who ultimately struck the woman would be punished. This would be in a case where it was possible to save the man under attack, i.e. one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e. the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, in one of his limbs. In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine.But if you say that even if one is able to save the pursued party by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, he can also save him at the cost of the pursuer’s life, how can you find the possibility that the one who ultimately struck the woman would be punished? When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the halakha is that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: Perhaps it is different here because his two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to death is on account of this person, the man with whom he fought, while his liability to give payment is on account of that person, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.The Gemara rejects this distinction: There is no difference. As Rava says: If a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and during the course of the chase the pursuer broke vessels belonging either to the person being pursued or to anyone else, he is exempt from paying for the broken vessels. What is the reason for this? The reason is that he is liable to be killed, since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim’s life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.Rava continues: And if the pursued party broke vessels while fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels belonged to the pursuer, the pursued party is exempt. But if they belonged to anyone else, he is liable to pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels belonged to the pursuer, he is exempt. The reason for this is so that the pursuer’s property should not be more precious to the pursuer than his own body. Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer’s vessels. And if the vessels belonged to anyone else, he is liable, as he saved himself at the expense of another’s property, and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.Rava continues: But if one pursuer was pursuing another pursuer in order to save him, i.e. if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, and while doing so he broke vessels belonging either to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyone else, he is exempt from paying for them. The Gemara comments: This is not by strict law, as if one who saves himself at another’s expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordice instituted by the Sages. This is because if you do not say that he is exempt, it will be found that no person will save another from a pursuer, as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.§ The mishna teaches: But with regard to one who pursues an animal to sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One who seeks to worship idols may be saved from transgressing at the cost of his life. This is derived through an a fortiori inference: If to avoid the degradation of an ordinary person, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, he can be saved even at the cost of his life, all the more so is it not clear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid the degrading of the honor of God through the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: But does the court administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai maintains that the court administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference.,It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One who seeks to desecrate Shabbat may be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who says: The court administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference, and the halakha with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat is derived from the halakha with regard to idol worship by way of a verbal analogy between the word “desecration” mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word “desecration” mentioned in the context of idol worship.§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod: With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed, he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.The Gemara asks: And should one not transgress the prohibition of idol worship to save his life? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael said: From where is it derived that if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from where is it derived that he should worship the idol and not be killed? The verse states: “You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, and he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, but they were not given so that one will die due to their observance.The baraita continues: One might have thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance even in public, i.e. in the presence of many people. Therefore, the verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.The Gemara answers: Those in the upper story of the house of Nitza stated their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). If it is stated: “With all your soul,” why is it also stated: “With all your might,” which indicates with all your material possessions? And if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is it also stated: “With all your soul”? One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.Rather, this serves to teach that if you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: “With all your soul.” That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God’s name. And if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: “With all your might.” That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations and the prohibition of bloodshed? This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, so too with this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? But what do we learn here from a murderer?,Now, the mention of murder came in order to teach a halakha about the betrothed young woman, and it turns out that, in addition, it derives a halakha from that case. The Torah juxtaposes the case of a murderer to the case of a betrothed young woman to indicate that just as in the case of a betrothed young woman one may save her at the cost of the rapist’s life, so too, in the case of a murderer, one may save the potential victim at the cost of the murderer’s life.,And conversely, the Torah juxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murderer to indicate that just as with regard to a potential murderer, the halakha is that if one was ordered to murder another, he must be killed and not transgress the prohibition of bloodshed, so too, with regard to a betrothed young woman, if she is faced with rape, she must be killed and not transgress the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha with regard to a murderer himself, that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning that one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: As when a certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place, a local official, said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you, what shall I do? Rabba said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder than his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? Perhaps that man’s blood is redder. This logical reasoning is the basis for the halakha that one may not save his own life by killing another.§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: The Sages taught that one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger only when it is not a time of religious persecution. But in a time of religious persecution, when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, even if they issued a decree about a minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress.,When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even when it is not a time of religious persecution, the Sages said that one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger only when he was ordered to do so in private. But if he was ordered to commit a transgression in public, even if they threaten him with death if he does not transgress a minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress.,The Gemara asks: What is a minor mitzva for this purpose? Rava bar Yitzḥak says that Rav says:, 88b The second matter is that in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son whose father and mother sought to forgive him for his gluttonous and drunken conduct and decided not to bring him to court, they can forgive him.,The third is that in the case of a rebellious elder whom his court sought to forgive for his deviation from their ruling, they can forgive him. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, with regard to two of the cases they agreed with me, but with regard to a rebellious elder they did not agree with me, so that discord would not proliferate in Israel. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Kahana.It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Initially, discord would not proliferate among Israel. Rather, the court of seventy-one judges would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And there were two additional courts each consisting of twenty-three judges; one would convene at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one would convene at the entrance to the Temple courtyard. And all the other courts consisting of twenty-three judges would convene in all cities inhabited by the Jewish people.,If the matter was unclear and it was necessary to ask and clarify it, those uncertain of the halakha would ask the court that is in their city. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, they would come to a court that is adjacent to their city. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, they would come to the court at the entrance to the Temple Mount. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, they would come to the court at the entrance to the Temple courtyard.,And the elder whose ruling deviated from the ruling of his colleagues says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, these judges and those judges would come to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, where the Sanhedrin would be convened from the time that the daily morning offering is sacrificed until the time that the daily afternoon offering is sacrificed.And on Shabbatot and Festivals, when court is not in session, the members of the court would sit at the rampart. When a question was asked before them, if the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they would say it to them, and if not they would stand for a vote on the matter. If the judges who deemed the item in question ritually impure outnumbered those who deemed it pure, the court would deem the item impure. If the judges who deemed the item in question ritually pure outnumbered those who deemed it impure, the court would deem the item pure.,From the time that the disciples of Shammai and Hillel grew in number, and they were disciples who did not attend to their masters to the requisite degree, dispute proliferated among the Jewish people and the Torah became like two Torahs. Two disparate systems of halakha developed, and there was no longer a halakhic consensus with regard to every matter.The baraita continues its discussion of the workings of the Sanhedrin: From there, the Sanhedrin writes and dispatches the following statement to all places: Anyone who is wise and humble and the minds of people are at ease with him shall be a judge in his city. If he is successful in his city, from there, they promote him to the court at the entrance to the Temple Mount if there is a vacant seat on the court, and from there they promote him to the court at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, and from there to the court in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.,Apropos the appointment of judges, the Gemara relates that they sent the following statement from there, i.e. Eretz Yisrael: Who is the one destined to receive a place in the World-to-Come? It is one who is modest and humble, who bows and enters and bows and exits, and who studies Torah regularly, and who does not take credit for himself. The Sages cast their eyes on Rav Ulla bar Abba, as they perceived him as the embodiment of all these characteristics.The mishna teaches: If the rebellious elder returned to his city and he taught in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment, unless he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling. The Sages taught: He is not liable unless he acts in accordance with his ruling, or he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling.,The Gemara challenges: Granted, if he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling there is a novel element in the fact that he is liable to be executed, as initially, before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is not liable to receive the death penalty for instructing others to perform the transgression, and now, he is to receive the death penalty. But if he acts in accordance with his ruling, initially, before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is also liable to receive the death penalty for performing that action. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: This works out well in a case where he ruled with regard to forbidden fat and blood, as initially he would not have been liable to receive the death penalty; rather, he would have been liable to receive karet, and now he is liable to receive the death penalty. But in a case where he ruled with regard to a transgression for which one is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty, initially, he is also liable to receive the death penalty.The Gemara explains: There is a novel element even in a case where he acts in accordance with his ruling, as initially, before he is deemed a rebellious elder, he requires forewarning in order to be executed; now, he does not require forewarning in order to be executed.The Gemara asks: If the rebellious elder’s ruling was with regard to one who instigates others to engage in idol worship, who does not require forewarning, what is there to say? Both before and after he is deemed a rebellious elder he is executed without forewarning. The Gemara answers: Initially, before the rebellious elder ruled that instigating others to engage in idol worship is permitted, if after he instigated others, he stated a reason why he thought that it is permitted, we accept his explanation from him and exempt him. Now, after he issued the divergent ruling, if he stated a reason, we do not accept the explanation from him, since he already indicated that he holds that instigating others to engage in idol worship incitement is permitted and that is the reason that he engaged in instigation. 99b Sing every day, sing every day, i.e. review your studies like a song that one sings over and over. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: From what verse is this derived? It is as it is stated: “The hunger of the laborer labors for him; for his mouth presses upon him” (Proverbs 16:26), i.e. he exhausts his mouth through constant review and study. He labors in Torah in this place, this world, and his Torah labors for him in another place, the World-to-Come.Rabbi Elazar says: Every man was created for labor, as it is stated: “Man is born for toil” (Job 5:7). Based on this verse, I do not know whether he was created for toil of the mouth, speech, or whether he was created for the toil of labor. When the verse states: “For his mouth presses upon him” (Proverbs 16:26), you must say that he was created for toil of the mouth. And still I do not know with regard to the toil of the mouth whether it is for the toil of Torah or for the toil of conversation. When the verse states: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth” (Joshua 1:8), you must say that he was created for the toil of Torah. And that is the meaning of what Rava said: All bodies are like receptacles to store items until use. Happy is one who is privileged, who is a receptacle for Torah.,The verse states: “He who commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding” (Proverbs 6:32). Reish Lakish says: This is a reference to one who studies Torah intermittently, who is like an adulterer, who sins with the other woman intermittently, as it is stated about words of Torah: “For it is a pleasant thing if you keep them within your belly; let them be established on your lips” (Proverbs 22:18) and keep the Torah always available.§ The Sages taught in a baraita that with regard to the verse: “But the person who acts high-handedly, whether he is born in the land, or a stranger, that person blasphemes the Lord” (Numbers 15:30), this is a reference to Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Israel, who would sit and teach flawed interpretations of Torah narratives.,Manasseh said: But did Moses need to write only insignificant matters that teach nothing, for example: “And Lotan’s sister was Timna” (Genesis 36:22), or: “And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, son of Esau” (Genesis 36:12), or: “And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest and found duda’im in the field” (Genesis 30:14)? A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: “You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother’s son. These things you have done, and should I have kept silence, you would imagine that I was like you, but I will reprove you, and set the matter before your eyes” (Psalms 50:20–21). The verses in the Torah are not empty matters, with regard to which you can decide their import.And about Manasseh ben Hezekiah it is stated explicitly in the texts of tradition, the Prophets: “Woe unto them who draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as with a cart rope” (Isaiah 5:18). What is the meaning of the phrase “as with a cart rope”? Rabbi Asi says: This is a reference to the evil inclination. Initially, it seems like a flimsy spinning kuveya thread and ultimately it seems like a sturdy cart rope.,Manasseh began by mocking a few verses and ultimately violated the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: With regard to that verse that we came to discuss, in any event, what is the significance of the phrase in the verse “And Lotan’s sister was Timna”? The Gemara explains: Timna was the daughter of kings, as it is written: “The chief of Lotan” (Genesis 36:29), and: “The chief of Timna” (Genesis 36:40), and each chief is a member of a monarchy, albeit without a crown. That is why they are called chief and not king.Timna sought to convert. She came before Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they did not accept her. She went and became a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and said, referring to herself: It is preferable that she will be a maidservant for this nation, and she will not be a noblewoman for another nation. Ultimately, Amalek, son of Eliphaz, emerged from her, and that tribe afflicted the Jewish people. What is the reason that the Jewish people were punished by suffering at the hand of Amalek? It is due to the fact that they should not have rejected her when she sought to convert. Therefore, the verse is significant.“And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest” (Genesis 30:14). Rava, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak, says that Rav says: From here it can be seen that the righteous do not extend their hands to engage in robbery even of small items, as rather than taking wheat, Reuben took only the ownerless duda’im. The verse continues: “And he found duda’im in the field.” The Gemara asks: What are duda’im? Rav says: They are a plant called yavruḥei. Levi says: They are violets. Rabbi Yonatan says: They are seviskei.,§ Apropos the significance of Torah study, Rabbi Alexandri says: Anyone who engages in the study of Torah for its own sake introduces peace into the heavenly entourage above and into the earthly entourage below, as it is stated: “Or let him take hold of My stronghold ma’uzi, that he may make peace with Me; and he shall make peace with Me” (Isaiah 27:5). One who observes the Torah, which is called oz, introduces peace, even before the presence of God, as it were.Rav says: It is as though he built a palace of heaven above and of earth below, as it is stated: “And I have placed My words in your mouth, and I have covered you in the shadow of My hand, to plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth, and say to Zion, you are My people” (Isaiah 51:16). One who has the word of God placed in his mouth through Torah study has established heaven and earth. Rabbi Yoḥa says: One who engages in Torah study also protects the entire world, as it is stated: “And I have covered you in the shadow of My hand.” And Levi says: He also advances the coming of the redemption, as it is stated: “And say to Zion, you are My people.”,Reish Lakish said: With regard to anyone who teaches Torah to the son of another, the verse ascribes him credit as though he formed that student, as it is stated: “And Abram took Sarai his wife…and the souls that they formed in Haran” (Genesis 12:5). They are given credit for forming the students to whom they taught Torah. Rabbi Elazar says: It is as though he fashioned asa’an the words of Torah themselves, as it is stated: “Observe the words of this covet, va’asitem otam” (Deuteronomy 29:8), indicating that studying the Torah is like fashioning it. Rava says: It is as though he fashioned himself, as it is stated: “Va’asitem otam.” Do not read “va’asitem otam” as: And you shall fashion them; rather, read it as va’asitem atem, meaning: You shall fashion yourself.Rabbi Abbahu says: With regard to anyone who causes another to engage in a matter of a mitzva, the verse ascribes him credit as though he performed it himself, as it is stated: “And the Lord said to Moses…and your rod, with which you struck the river, take in your hand and go” (Exodus 17:5). And was it Moses who struck the river? But isn’t it written explicitly (see Exodus 7:19–20) that Aaron struck the river? Rather, that verse serves to say to you: Anyone who causes another to engage in a matter of a mitzva, the verse ascribes him credit as though he performed it himself.§ The mishna teaches that those who have no share in the World-to-Come include an epikoros. Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say: This is one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt. Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: This is one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is the epikoros mentioned in the mishna, one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt is characterized as one who interprets the Torah inappropriately, due to his lowering of the status of a Torah scholar. But according to the one who says that one who treats a Torah scholar himself with contempt is the epikoros mentioned in the mishna, how would he characterize one who interprets the Torah inappropriately? Like what individual does such a person conduct himself? He is like Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, who would teach flawed interpretations of Torah narratives.And there are those who teach this dispute with regard to the latter clause of the baraita: From here Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i said: One who interprets the Torah inappropriately has no share in the World-to-Come. Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina say: This is one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt. Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: This is one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that one who treats a Torah scholar himself with contempt is the one mentioned in the baraita who interprets the Torah inappropriately, one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is characterized as the epikoros mentioned in the mishna. But according to the one who says that one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is the one mentioned in the baraita who interprets the Torah inappropriately, how would he characterize the epikoros mentioned in the mishna? Like whom does he conduct himself? Rav Yosef says: It is referring to one who conducts himself like those who say: In what manner have the Sages benefited us with all their Torah study? They read the Bible for their own benefit and they study the Mishna for their own benefit.Abaye said to him: That person who questions the benefit provided by Sages is also in the category of one who interprets the Torah inappropriately, since with that statement he repudiates the Torah itself, as it is written: “If not for My covet, I would not have appointed day and night, the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). The eternal covet of the Torah is responsible for maintaining the existence of the entire world. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: From here too conclude the same concept from it, as it is stated: “If I find in Sodom fifty just men within the city, then I will spare the entire place for their sakes” (Genesis 18:26). The righteous protect the place where they reside.Rather, the epikoros mentioned in the mishna is referring to one who conducts himself like one who sits before his teacher and a halakha that he learned from another place happens to fall into his consciousness and the student says: This is what we say there, and he does not say deferentially: This is what the Master said, even if he did not learn that matter from his teacher. Rava said: The term epikoros is referring to one who conducts himself like those from the house of Binyamin the doctor, who say: In what manner have the Sages benefited us with all their Torah study? Never, |
117. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 14b, 20a, 31a, 41a, 110a, 115a, 156b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakha, and community • Halakhah • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Peter's vision, halakhic perspectives • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic Halakhah • Tannaic halakha • aggada in Bavli, linked formally or subtly to halakhic context • aggadah, halakhah compared with • aggadic midrash, circulating independent of halakha • halakha in Diaspora • halakhah • halakhah and custom • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, terminology of • history of Halakha, • mamzerim (halakhic bastards) • mamzerim (halakhic “bastards”) Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246; Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 72; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 374, 453; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 578, 579; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 222; Moxon, Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective (2017) 87; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 98, 218; Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 169; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 169; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 9, 17, 30, 113; Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (2006) 143 14b כיון דהך גזור ברישא הא תו למה לי אלא הך גזור ברישא והדר גזור בכולהו ידים,וטבול יום טבול יום דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ז) ובא השמש וטהר סמי מכאן טבול יום,והאוכלין שנטמאו במשקין במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ דאוריי\ נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לד) וכל משקה אשר ישתה אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת ידים וגזירה משום משקין הבאין מחמת שרץ,והכלים שנטמאו במשקין כלים דאיטמאו במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין דזב דאוריי\ נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ח) וכי ירוק הזב בטהור מה שביד טהור טמאתי לך אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ וגזירה משום משקין דזב,וידים תלמידי שמאי והלל גזור שמאי והלל גזור דתניא יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית שמעון בן שטח תיקן כתובה לאשה וגזר טומאה על כלי מתכות שמאי והלל גזרו טומאה על הידים,וכ"ת שמאי וסיעתו והלל וסיעתו והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י"ח דבר גזרו ובי"ח נחלקו ואילו הלל ושמאי לא נחלקו אלא בג\ מקומות דא"ר הונא בג\ מקומות נחלקו ותו לא וכ"ת אתו אינהו גזור לתלות ואתו תלמידייהו וגזרו לשרוף והאמר אילפא ידים תחלת גזירתן לשריפה אלא אתו אינהו גזור ולא קבלו מינייהו ואתו תלמידייהו גזרו וקבלו מינייהו,ואכתי שלמה גזר דא"ר יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שתיקן שלמה עירובין ונטילת ידים יצתה בת קול ואמרה (משלי כג, טו) בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני (משלי כז, יא) חכם בני ושמח לבי ואשיבה חורפי דבר אתא, 20a ובגבולין כדי שתאחוז האור ברובו ר\ יהודה אומר בפחמין כל שהוא:גמ׳ וכמה א"ר אלעזר אמר רב כדי שיצולו מבעו"י כמאכל בן דרוסאי איתמר נמי אמר רב אסי א"ר יוחנן כל שהוא כמאכל בן דרוסאי אין בו משום בישולי נכרים תניא חנניא אומר כל שהוא כמאכל בן דרוסאי מותר להשהותו ע"ג כירה ואע"פ שאין גרופה וקטומה:אין נותנין את הפת כו\: איבעיא להו תחתון האיך דגבי תנור או דילמא תחתון האיך דגבי האור ת"ש ר"א אומר כדי שיקרמו פניה המדובקין בתנור:משלשלין את הפסח: מ"ט משום דבני חבורה זריזין הן הא לאו הכי לא והאמר מר גדיא בין שריק בין לא שריק שפיר דמי התם מינתח הכא לא מינתח:ומאחיזין את האור וכו\: מנהני מילי אמר רב הונא (שמות לה, ג) לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם בכל מושבותיכם אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר במדורת בית המוקד מתקיף לה רב חסדא אי הכי אפילו בשבת נמי אלא אמר רב חסדא קרא כי אתא למשרי אברים ופדרים הוא דאתא וכהנים זריזין הן:ובגבולין כדי שתאחוז כו\: מאי רובן אמר רב רוב כל אחד ואחד ושמואל אמר כדי שלא יאמרו הבא עצים ונניח תחתיהן תנא רב חייא לסיועיה לשמואל כדי שתהא שלהבת עולה מאיליה ולא שתהא שלהבת עולה ע"י דבר אחר,עץ יחידי רב אמר רוב עביו ואמרי לה ברוב היקפו אמר רב פפא הלכך בעינן רוב עביו ובעינן רוב היקפו כתנאי ר\ חייא אמר כדי שישחת העץ ממלאכת האומן רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר כדי שתאחז האש משני צדדין ואע"פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר (יחזקאל טו, ד) את שני קצותיו אכלה האש ותוכו נחר היצלח למלאכה:(ירמיהו לו, כב) והאח לפניו מבערת מאי אח אמר רב אחוונא ושמואל אמר עצים שנדלקו באחוונא ההוא דאמר להו מאן בעי אחוונא אשתכח ערבתא,א"ר הונא קנים אין צריכין רוב אגדן צריכין רוב גרעינין אין צריכין רוב נתנן בחותלות צריכין רוב מתקיף לה רב חסדא אדרבה איפכא מסתברא קנים מבדרן אגדן לא מבדרן גרעינין מבדרן נתנן בחותלות לא מבדרן איתמר נמי, 31a שהמרו זה את זה אמרו כל מי שילך ויקניט את הלל יטול ד\ מאות זוז אמר אחד מהם אני אקניטנו אותו היום ע"ש היה והלל חפף את ראשו הלך ועבר על פתח ביתו אמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה ראשיהן של בבליים סגלגלות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שאין להם חיות פקחות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה עיניהן של תרמודיין תרוטות אמר לו בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין החולות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו א"ל בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה רגליהם של אפרקיים רחבות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין בצעי המים,אמר לו שאלות הרבה יש לי לשאול ומתירא אני שמא תכעוס נתעטף וישב לפניו א"ל כל שאלות שיש לך לשאול שאל א"ל אתה הוא הלל שקורין אותך נשיא ישראל א"ל הן א"ל אם אתה הוא לא ירבו כמותך בישראל א"ל בני מפני מה א"ל מפני שאבדתי על ידך ד\ מאות זוז א"ל הוי זהיר ברוחך כדי הוא הלל שתאבד על ידו ד\ מאות זוז וד\ מאות זוז והלל לא יקפיד:ת"ר מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי אמר לו כמה תורות יש לכם אמר לו שתים תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה א"ל שבכתב אני מאמינך ושבעל פה איני מאמינך גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני תורה שבכתב גער בו והוציאו בנזיפה בא לפני הלל גייריה יומא קמא א"ל א"ב ג"ד למחר אפיך ליה א"ל והא אתמול לא אמרת לי הכי א"ל לאו עלי דידי קא סמכת דעל פה נמי סמוך עלי:שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי א"ל גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני כל התורה כולה כשאני עומד על רגל אחת דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה אמר לו דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד זו היא כל התורה כולה ואידך פירושה הוא זיל גמור.שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שהיה עובר אחורי בית המדרש ושמע קול סופר שהיה אומר (שמות כח, ד) ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו חושן ואפוד אמר הללו למי אמרו לו לכהן גדול אמר אותו נכרי בעצמו אלך ואתגייר בשביל שישימוני כהן גדול בא לפני שמאי אמר ליה גיירני על מנת שתשימני כהן גדול דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה,א"ל כלום מעמידין מלך אלא מי שיודע טכסיסי מלכות לך למוד טכסיסי מלכות הלך וקרא כיון שהגיע (במדבר א, נא) והזר הקרב יומת אמר ליה מקרא זה על מי נאמר א"ל אפי\ על דוד מלך ישראל נשא אותו גר קל וחומר בעצמו ומה ישראל שנקראו בנים למקום ומתוך אהבה שאהבם קרא להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל כתיב עליהם והזר הקרב יומת גר הקל שבא במקלו ובתרמילו על אחת כמה וכמה,בא לפני שמאי א"ל כלום ראוי אני להיות כהן גדול והלא כתיב בתורה והזר הקרב יומת בא לפני הלל א"ל ענוותן הלל ינוחו לך ברכות על ראשך שהקרבתני תחת כנפי השכינה לימים נזדווגו שלשתן למקום אחד אמרו קפדנותו של שמאי בקשה לטורדנו מן העולם ענוותנותו של הלל קרבנו תחת כנפי השכינה:אמר ר"ל מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, ו) והיה אמונת עתיך חוסן ישועות חכמת ודעת וגו\ אמונת זה סדר זרעים עתיך זה סדר מועד חוסן זה סדר נשים ישועות זה סדר נזיקין חכמת זה סדר קדשים ודעת זה סדר טהרות ואפ"ה (ישעיהו לג, ו) יראת ה\ היא אוצרו,אמר רבא בשעה שמכניסין אדם לדין אומרים לו נשאת ונתת באמונה קבעת עתים לתורה עסקת בפו"ר צפית לישועה פלפלת בחכמה הבנת דבר מתוך דבר ואפ"ה אי יראת ה\ היא אוצרו אין אי לא לא משל לאדם שאמר לשלוחו העלה לי כור חיטין לעלייה הלך והעלה לו א"ל עירבת לי בהן קב חומטון א"ל לאו א"ל מוטב אם לא העליתה,תנא דבי ר"י מערב אדם קב חומטון בכור של תבואה ואינו חושש:אמר רבה בר רב הונא כל אדם שיש בו תורה ואין בו, 41a דלית ליה גידודי הא דאית ליה גידודי:וא"ר זירא אנא חזיתיה לר\ אבהו שהניח ידיו כנגד פניו של מטה ולא ידענא אי נגע אי לא נגע פשיטא דלא נגע דתניא ר\ אליעזר אומר כל האוחז באמה ומשתין כאילו מביא מבול לעולם,אמר אביי עשאוה כבולשת דתנן בולשת שנכנסה לעיר בשעת שלום חביות פתוחות אסורות סתומות מותרות בשעת מלחמה אלו ואלו מותרות לפי שאין פנאי לנסך אלמא כיון דבעיתי לא מנסכי ה"נ כיון דבעית לא אתי להרהורי והכא מאי ביעתותא ביעתותא דנהרא,איני והאמר ר\ אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל המניח ידיו כנגד פניו של מטה כאילו כופר בבריתו של אברהם אבינו לא קשיא הא כי נחית הא כי סליק כי הא דרבא שחי ר\ זירא זקיף רבנן דבי רב אשי כי קא נחתי זקפי כי קא סלקי שחי,ר\ זירא הוה קא משתמיט מדרב יהודה דבעי למיסק לארעא דישראל דאמר רב יהודה כל העולה מבבל לא"י עובר בעשה שנאמר (ירמיהו כז, כב) בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו אמר איזיל ואשמע מיניה מילתא ואיתי ואיסק אזל אשכחיה דקאי בי באני וקאמר ליה לשמעיה הביאו לי נתר הביאו לי מסרק פתחו פומייכו ואפיקו הבלא ואשתו ממיא דבי באני אמר אילמלא (לא) באתי אלא לשמוע דבר זה דיי,בשלמא הביאו נתר הביאו מסרק קמ"ל דברים של חול מותר לאומרם בלשון קדש פתחו פומייכו ואפיקו הבלא נמי כדשמואל דאמר שמואל הבלא מפיק הבלא אלא אשתו מיא דבי באני מאי מעליותא דתניא אכל ולא שתה אכילתו דם וזהו תחילת חולי מעיים אכל ולא הלך ד\ אמות אכילתו מרקבת וזהו תחילת ריח רע הנצרך. לנקביו ואכל דומה לתנור שהסיקוהו ע"ג אפרו וזהו תחילת ריח זוהמא רחץ בחמין ולא שתה מהן דומה לתנור שהסיקוהו מבחוץ ולא הסיקוהו מבפנים רחץ בחמין ולא נשתטף בצונן דומה לברזל שהכניסוהו לאור ולא הכניסוהו לצונן רחץ ולא סך דומה למים ע"ג חבית:מתני׳ מוליאר הגרוף שותין הימנו בשבת אנטיכי אע"פ שגרופה אין שותין הימנה:גמ׳ היכי דמי מוליאר הגרוף תנא מים מבפנים וגחלים מבחוץ אנטיכי רבה אמר בי כירי רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר בי דודי מאן דאמר בי דודי כ"ש בי כירי ומאן דאמר בי כירי אבל בי דודי. לא תניא כוותיה דרב נחמן אנטיכי אע"פ שגרופה וקטומה אין שותין הימנה מפני שנחושתה מחממתה:מתני׳ המיחם שפינהו לא יתן לתוכו צונן בשביל שיחמו אבל נותן הוא לתוכו או לתוך הכוס כדי להפשירן:גמ׳ מאי קאמר אמר רב אדא בר מתנא הכי קאמר המיחם שפינה ממנו מים חמין לא יתן לתוכן מים מועטים כדי שיחמו אבל נותן לתוכו מים מרובים כדי להפשירן, 110a בר קשא דפומבדיתא דטרקיה חיויא הוה תליסר חמרי חיורתא בפומבדיתא קרעינהו לכולהו ואישתכחו טריפה הואי חדא בההוא גיסא דפומבדיתא עד דאזלי מייתי לה אכלה אריה אמר להו אביי דילמא חיויא דרבנן טרקיה דלית ליה אסותא דכתיב (קהלת י, ח) ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש אמרו ליה אין רבי דכי נח נפשיה דרב גזר רב יצחק בר ביסנא דליכא דלימטייה אסא וגידמי לבי הילולא בטבלא ואזל איהו אמטי אסא וגידמי לבי הילולא בטבלא טרקיה חיויא ומית,האי מאן דכרכיה חיויא לינחות למיא וליסחוף דיקולא ארישא ולהדקיה מיניה וכי סליק עילויה לישדיה למיא וליסלוק וליתי האי מאן דמיקני ביה חיויא אי איכא חבריה בהדיה לירכביה ארבע גרמידי ואי לא לישואר נגרא ואי לא ליעבר נהרא ובליליא לותביה לפוריא אארבעה חביתא וניגני בי כוכבי ולייתי ד\ שונרי וליסרינהו בארבעה כרעי דפורייה וליתי שחפי ולישדי התם דכי שמע קלי אכלי ליה האי מאן דרהיט אבתריה לירהיט בי חלתא,האי איתתא דחזיא חיויא ולא ידעה אי יהיב דעתיה עילוה אי לא יהיב דעתיה עילוה תשלח מאנה ונשדייה קמיה אי מכרך בהו דעתיה עילוה ואי לא לא יהיב דעתיה עילוה,מאי תקנתה תשמש קמיה איכא דאמרי כ"ש דתקיף ליה יצריה אלא תשקול ממזיה ומטופרה ותשדי ביה ותימא דישתנא אנא האי איתתא דעייל בה חיויא ליפסעה ולתבוה אתרתי חביתא וליתי בישרא שמנה ולישדי אגומרי וליתי אגנא דתחלי וחמרא ריחתנא ולותבו התם וליטרוקינהו בהדי הדדי ולינקוט צבתא בידה דכי מירח ריחא נפיק ואתי ולישקליה וליקלייה בנורא דאי לא הדר עילוה:כל האוכלין כו\: כל האוכלין לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי טחול לשינים וכרשינין לבני מעיים כל המשקין לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי מי צלפין בחומץ א"ל רבינא לרבא מהו לשתות מי רגלים בשבת א"ל תנינא כל המשקין שותה ומי רגלים לא שתו אינשי:חוץ ממי דקלים: תנא חוץ ממי דקרים מאן דתנא מי דקרים שהם דוקרים את המרה ומאן דאמר מי דקלים שיוצאין מן שני דקלי מאי מי דקלים אמר רבה בר ברונא תרתי תלאי איכא במערבא ונפקא עינא דמיא מבינייהו כסא קמא מרפי אידך משלשל ואידך כי היכי דעיילי הכי נפקי אמר עולא לדידי שתי שיכרא דבבלאי ומעלי מינייהו והוא דלא רגיל ביה ארבעין יומין,רב יוסף אמר זיתום המצרי תילתא שערי ותילתא קורטמי ותילתא מילחא רב פפא אמר תילתא חיטי ותילתא קורטמי ותילתא מילחא (וכמונא) וסימניך סיסאני ושתי להו בין דבחא לעצרתא דקמיט מרפי ליה ודרפי קמיט ליה:וכוס עקרין: מאי כוס עקרין אמר ר\ יוחנן לייתי מתקל זוזא קומא אלכסנדריא ומתקל זוזא גביא גילא ומתקל זוזא כורכמא רישקא ולישחקינהו בהדי הדדי לזבה תלתא בחמרא ולא מיעקרא לירקונא תרין בשיכרא ומיעקר לזבה תלתא בחמרא ולא מיעקרא ואי לא לייתי תלתא 115a מותר בקניבת ירק (ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן יום כיפורים שחל להיות בחול) מפצעין באגוזים ומפרכסין ברימונים מן המנחה ולמעלה מפני עגמת נפש דבי רב יהודה מקנבי כרבא דבי רבה גרדי קארי כיון דחזא דהוו קא מחרפי אמר להו אתא איגרתא ממערבא משמיה דר\ יוחנן דאסיר: הדרן עלך ואלו קשרים כל כתבי הקדש מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה בין שקורין בהן ובין שאין קורין בהן אע"פ שכתובים בכל לשון טעונים גניזה ומפני מה אין קורין בהם מפני ביטול בית המדרש:גמ׳ איתמר היו כתובים תרגום או בכל לשון רב הונא אמר אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ורב חסדא אמר מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אליבא דמאן דאמר ניתנו לקרות בהן דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דמצילין כי פליגי אליבא דמאן דאמר לא ניתנו לקרות בהן רב הונא אמר אין מצילין דהא לא ניתנו לקרות בהן רב חסדא אמר מצילין משום בזיון כתבי הקדש תנן כל כתבי הקדש מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה בין שקורין בהן בין שאין קורין בהן אע"פ שכתובין בכל לשון מאי לאו שקורין בהן נביאים ושאין קורין בהן כתובים אע"פ שכתובין בכל לשון דלא ניתנו לקרות בהן וקתני מצילין ותיובתא דרב הונא,אמר לך רב הונא ותסברא אימא סיפא טעונין גניזה השתא אצולי מצילינן גניזה מיבעי אלא רב הונא מתרץ לטעמיה ורב חסדא מתרץ לטעמיה רב הונא מתרץ לטעמיה בין שקורין בהם נביאים ובין שאין קורין בהם כתובים במה דברים אמורים שכתובין בלשון הקדש אבל בכל לשון אין מצילין ואפילו הכי גניזה בעו רב חסדא מתרץ לטעמיה בין שקורין בהן נביאים ובין שאין קורין בהן כתובים אע"פ שכתובין בכל לשון נמי מצילין והכי קאמר ומקק שלהן טעונין גניזה,מיתיבי היו כתובים תרגום וכל לשון מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה תיובתא דרב הונא אמר לך רב הונא האי תנא סבר ניתנו לקרות בהן ת"ש היו כתובין גיפטית מדית עיברית עילמית יוונית אע"פ שלא ניתנו לקרות בהן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה תיובתא דרב הונא אמר לך רב הונא תנאי היא דתניא היו כתובין תרגום ובכל לשון מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ר\ יוסי אומר אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה,אמר ר\ יוסי מעשה באבא חלפתא שהלך אצל רבן גמליאל בריבי לטבריא ומצאו שהי\ יושב על שלחנו של (יוחנן הנזוף) ובידו ספר איוב תרגום והוא קורא בו אמר לו זכור אני ברבן גמליאל אבי אביך שהיה עומד ע"ג מעלה בהר הבית והביאו לפניו ספר איוב תרגום ואמר לבנאי שקעהו תחת הנדבך אף הוא צוה עליו וגנזו ר\ יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר עריבה של טיט כפו עליו אמר רבי שתי תשובות בדבר חדא וכי טיט בהר הבית מנין ועוד וכי מותר לאבדן ביד אלא מניחן במקום התורפה והן מרקיבין מאליהן מאן תנאי, 156b דקאי צדק במערב מהדרנא ומוקמינא ליה במזרח והיינו דכתיב (ישעיהו מא, ב) מי העיר ממזרח צדק יקראהו לרגלו,ומדשמואל נמי אין מזל לישראל דשמואל ואבלט הוו יתבי והוו קאזלי הנך אינשי לאגמא א"ל אבלט לשמואל האי גברא אזיל ולא אתי טריק ליה חיויא ומיית א"ל שמואל אי בר ישראל הוא אזיל ואתי אדיתבי אזיל ואתי,קם אבלט שדיה לטוניה אשכח ביה חיויא דפסיק ושדי בתרתי גובי א"ל שמואל מאי עבדת א"ל כל יומא הוה מרמינן ריפתא בהדי הדדי ואכלינן האידנא הוה איכא חד מינן דלא הוה ליה ריפתא הוה קא מיכסף אמינא להו אנא קאימנא וארמינא כי מטאי לגביה שואי נפשאי כמאן דשקילי מיניה כי היכי דלא ליכסיף א"ל מצוה עבדת נפק שמואל ודרש (משלי י, ב) וצדקה תציל ממות ולא ממיתה משונה אלא ממיתה עצמה,ומדר"ע נמי אין מזל לישראל דר"ע הויא ליה ברתא אמרי ליה כלדאי ההוא יומא דעיילה לבי גננא טריק לה חיויא ומיתא הוה דאיגא אמילתא טובא ההוא יומא שקלתה למכבנתא דצתא בגודא איתרמי איתיב בעיניה דחיויא לצפרא כי קא שקלה לה הוה קא סריך ואתי חיויא בתרה,אמר לה אבוה מאי עבדת אמרה ליה בפניא אתא עניא קרא אבבא והוו טרידי כולי עלמא בסעודתא וליכא דשמעיה קאימנא שקלתי לריסתנאי דיהבית לי יהבתיה ניהליה אמר לה מצוה עבדת נפק ר"ע ודרש וצדקה תציל ממות ולא ממיתה משונה אלא ממיתה עצמה,ומדר"נ בר יצחק נמי אין מזל לישראל דאימיה דר"נ בר יצחק אמרי לה כלדאי בריך גנבא הוה לא שבקתיה גלויי רישיה אמרה ליה כסי רישיך כי היכי דתיהוו עלך אימתא דשמיא ובעי רחמי לא הוה ידע אמאי קאמרה ליה יומא חד יתיב קא גריס תותי דיקלא נפל גלימא מעילויה רישיה דלי עיניה חזא לדיקלא אלמיה יצריה סליק פסקיה לקיבורא בשיניה:מתני׳ מחתכין את הדלועין לפני הבהמה ואת הנבלה לפני הכלבים רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה נבלה מערב שבת אסורה לפי שאינה מן המוכן:גמ׳ איתמר (ער"ל שח"ז סימן) אמר עולא הלכה כרבי יהודה (ושמואל אמר הלכה כר"ש),ואף רב סבר הלכה כרבי יהודה מדכרכי דזוזי דרב אסר ושמואל שרי ואף לוי סבר הלכה כרבי יהודה כי הא דלוי כי הוו מייתי טריפתא לקמיה ביומא טבא לא הוה חזי לה אלא כי יתיב אקילקליתא דאמר דילמא לא מתכשרא ואפילו לכלבים לא חזיא,ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון ואף זעירי סבר הלכה כר"ש דתנן בהמה שמתה לא יזיזנה ממקומה ותרגמא זעירי בבהמת קדשים אבל בחולין שפיר דמי ואף רבי יוחנן אמר הלכה כר"ש ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן, 14b once they decreed that first, why do I need that decree of impurity on hands that touch a sacred scroll as well? Once the Sages decreed impurity on hands in general, there is no longer a necessity to decree impurity on hands that touched a Torah scroll, as hands are impure in any case. Rather, certainly the Sages decreed impurity on this, hands that touched a Torah scroll, first. And then they decreed impurity on all hands.,Among the decrees listed in the mishna, there is the decree that contact with one who immersed himself during the day disqualifies teruma. The Gemara asks: One who immersed himself during the day transmits impurity by Torah law, as it is written: “One who touches it remains impure until evening. He should not eat of the consecrated items and he must wash his flesh with water. And the sun sets and it is purified. Afterward, he may eat from the teruma, for it is his bread” (Leviticus 22:6–7). Consequently, until sunset he is prohibited by Torah law from touching consecrated items, and the same is true for teruma. The Gemara answers: Delete from here, from the list of decrees in the mishna, one who immersed himself during the day.,And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the impurity of the foods that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: With liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, they are impure by Torah law, as it is written with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: “And every liquid that is drunk in any vessel, will be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). Rather, the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with impure hands. The Sages issued this decree due to liquids that come to be impure through contact with a creeping animal.,And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the vessels that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: Vessels that became impure due to contact with liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that they become impure due to contact with liquids secreted by a zav, e.g. spittle, urine, etc. they are impure by Torah law, as it is written: “And if a zav spits on a pure person and he should wash his clothes and wash in water and he is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:8). The Sages interpreted homiletically: Whatever is in the hand of the pure person I made impure for you. Not only did the person who came into contact with the liquids of the zav become impure, but the objects in his hand did as well. Rather, here it is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, which by Torah law do not transmit impurity to vessels. And the Sages issued a decree with regard to those liquids due to their similarity to the liquids of a zav.,Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥa of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shataḥ instituted the formula of a woman’s marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.,And if you say that the baraita is referring to Shammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with hands would be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burn teruma that came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. Didn’t Ilfa, one of the Sages, say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. Teruma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a decree and the people did not accept the decree from them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they accepted it from them.,The Gemara asks further: Still, the matter is not clear, as the decree of hands was issued by King Solomon. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: At the time that Solomon instituted the ordices of eiruv and of washing hands to purify them from their impurity, a Divine Voice emerged and said in his praise: “My son, if your heart is wise my heart will be glad, even mine” (Proverbs 23:15), and so too: “My son, be wise and make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt me” (Proverbs 27: 11). The Gemara responds: Came, 20a And, however, in the outlying areas, meaning in all of Eretz Yisrael outside the Temple, it is prohibited to light a bonfire on Shabbat eve, unless there is sufficient time for the fire to take hold in most of the bonfire, while it is still day. Rabbi Yehuda says: With a bonfire of coals, even in the outlying areas one is permitted to light the fire on Shabbat eve at nightfall, even if the fire only spread to any amount of the bonfire. The coals, once they are kindled, will not be extinguished again, and there is no concern lest he come to tend to them on Shabbat. 31a who wagered with each other and said: Anyone who will go and aggravate Hillel to the point that he reprimands him, will take four-hundred zuz. One of them said: I will aggravate him. That day that he chose to bother Hillel was Shabbat eve, and Hillel was washing the hair on his head. He went and passed the entrance to Hillel’s house and in a demeaning manner said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Hillel wrapped himself in a dignified garment and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. Hillel said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked him: Why are the heads of Babylonians oval? He was alluding to and attempting to insult Hillel, who was Babylonian. He said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The reason is because they do not have clever midwives. They do not know how to shape the child’s head at birth.That man went and waited one hour, a short while, returned to look for Hillel, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Again, Hillel wrapped himself and went out to greet him. Hillel said to him: My son, what do you seek? The man said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked: Why are the eyes of the residents of Tadmor bleary terutot? Hillel said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The reason is because they live among the sands and the sand gets into their eyes.Once again the man went, waited one hour, returned, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Again, he, Hillel, wrapped himself and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked: Why do Africans have wide feet? Hillel said to him: You have asked a significant question. The reason is because they live in marshlands and their feet widened to enable them to walk through those swampy areas.That man said to him: I have many more questions to ask, but I am afraid lest you get angry. Hillel wrapped himself and sat before him, and he said to him: All of the questions that you have to ask, ask them. The man got angry and said to him: Are you Hillel whom they call the Nasi of Israel? He said to him: Yes. He said to him: If it is you, then may there not be many like you in Israel. Hillel said to him: My son, for what reason do you say this? The man said to him: Because I lost four hundred zuz because of you. Hillel said to him: Be vigilant of your spirit and avoid situations of this sort. Hillel is worthy of having you lose four hundred zuz and another four hundred zuz on his account, and Hillel will not get upset.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai. The gentile said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The gentile said to him: With regard to the Written Torah, I believe you, but with regard to the Oral Torah, I do not believe you. Convert me on condition that you will teach me only the Written Torah. Shammai scolded him and cast him out with reprimand. The same gentile came before Hillel, who converted him and began teaching him Torah. On the first day, he showed him the letters of the alphabet and said to him: Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet. The next day he reversed the order of the letters and told him that an alef is a tav and so on. The convert said to him: But yesterday you did not tell me that. Hillel said to him: You see that it is impossible to learn what is written without relying on an oral tradition. Didn’t you rely on me? Therefore, you should also rely on me with regard to the matter of the Oral Torah, and accept the interpretations that it contains.There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.,There was another incident involving one gentile who was passing behind the study hall and heard the voice of a teacher who was teaching Torah to his students and saying the verse: “And these are the garments which they shall make: A breastplate, and an efod, and a robe, and a tunic of checkered work, a mitre, and a girdle” (Exodus 28:4). The gentile said: These garments, for whom are they designated? The students said to him: For the High Priest. The gentile said to himself: I will go and convert so that they will install me as High Priest. He came before Shammai and said to him: Convert me on condition that you install me as High Priest. Shammai pushed him with the builder’s cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel; he converted him.,Hillel said to him, to the convert: Is it not the way of the world that only one who knows the protocols takhsisei of royalty is appointed king? Go and learn the royal protocols by engaging in Torah study. He went and read the Bible. When he reached the verse which says: “And the common man that draws near shall be put to death” (Numbers 1:51), the convert said to Hillel: With regard to whom is the verse speaking? Hillel said to him: Even with regard to David, king of Israel. The convert reasoned an a fortiori inference himself: If the Jewish people are called God’s children, and due to the love that God loved them he called them: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22), and nevertheless it is written about them: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death; a mere convert who came without merit, with nothing more than his staff and traveling bag, all the more so that this applies to him, as well.The convert came before Shammai and told him that he retracts his demand to appoint him High Priest, saying: Am I at all worthy to be High Priest? Is it not written in the Torah: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death? He came before Hillel and said to him: Hillel the patient, may blessings rest upon your head as you brought me under the wings of the Divine Presence. The Gemara relates: Eventually, the three converts gathered together in one place, and they said: Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience brought us beneath the wings of the Divine Presence.,The Gemara continues discussing the conduct of the Sages, citing that Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the faith of your times shall be a strength of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge, the fear of the Lord is his treasure” (Isaiah 33:6)? Faith; that is the order of Zera’im, Seeds, in the Mishna, because a person has faith in God and plants his seeds (Jerusalem Talmud). Your times; that is the order of Moed, Festival, which deals with the various occasions and Festivals that occur throughout the year. Strength; that is the order of Nashim, Women. Salvations; that is the order of Nezikin, Damages, as one who is being pursued is rescued from the hands of his pursuer. Wisdom; that is the order of Kodashim, Consecrated Items. And knowledge; that is the order of Teharot, Purity, which is particularly difficult to master. And even if a person studies and masters all of these, “the fear of the Lord is his treasure,” it is preeminent.With regard to the same verse, Rava said: After departing from this world, when a person is brought to judgment for the life he lived in this world, they say to him in the order of that verse: Did you conduct business faithfully? Did you designate times for Torah study? Did you engage in procreation? Did you await salvation? Did you engage in the dialectics of wisdom or understand one matter from another? And, nevertheless, beyond all these, if the fear of the Lord is his treasure, yes, he is worthy, and if not, no, none of these accomplishments have any value. There is a parable that illustrates this. A person who said to his emissary: Bring a kor of wheat up to the attic for me to store there. The messenger went and brought it up for him. He said to the emissary: Did you mix a kav of ḥomton, a preservative to keep away worms, into it for me? He said to him: No. He said to him: If so, it would have been preferable had you not brought it up. of what use is worm-infested wheat? Likewise, Torah and mitzvot without the fear of God are of no value.On a related note, the Gemara cites a halakha that was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person who sells wheat may, ab initio, mix a kav of ḥomton into a kor of grain and need not be concerned that by selling it all at the price of grain he will be guilty of theft, as the kav of ḥomton is essential for the preservation of the wheat.Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Any person who has Torah in him but does not have, 41a that does not have embankments surrounding it. Since there are no partitions, it appears like an ocean or a river. That incident involving Rabbi Abbahu occurred in a place that has embankments and looks like a vessel. Therefore, the Sages did not prohibit it.After citing what Rabbi Zeira related with regard to Rabbi Abbahu, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Zeira said: I saw that Rabbi Abbahu, while he was bathing, placed his hands over his genitals for the sake of modesty, and I do not know whether he touched them or did not touch them. The Gemara questions Rabbi Zeira’s uncertainty. It is obvious that he did not touch his genitals, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who holds his penis and urinates it is as if he were bringing a flood to the world. He is liable to become aroused by that contact and that is an extremely severe transgression, comparable to the transgressions violated in the generation of the flood.Abaye said: Nevertheless, no proof can be cited from that baraita. Perhaps the Sages rendered the legal status of this situation like that of a military unit, as we learned in a mishna: A military unit that entered a city, if it entered during peacetime, after the soldiers leave, the open barrels of wine are prohibited and the wine in them may not be drunk due to suspicion that the gentile soldiers may have poured this wine as a libation for idolatry. The sealed barrels are permitted. However, if the unit entered in wartime, both are permitted because in wartime there is no respite to pour wine for idolatry, and one can be certain that the soldiers did not do so. Apparently, since they are afraid, they do not pour libations. Here too, in the case of bathing, since he is afraid, he will not come to have impure thoughts. The Gemara asks: And what fear is there here that would prevent one bathing from having impure thoughts? The Gemara answers: Fear of the river. Since he needs to be careful that the water does not wash him away, he is too distracted to think of other matters.The Gemara questions the story itself: And is that so? Is it permitted under any circumstances to cover one’s genitals while bathing? Didn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: Anyone who places his hands over his genitals is as if he denies the covet of our father Abraham? It appears as if he is covering himself to obscure the fact that he is circumcised. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is room to distinguish and say that this, the case where it is prohibited to cover oneself, is when he is descending into the river and there are no people facing him and he need not be concerned with modesty. In that case covering oneself is prohibited as he appears to be renouncing the covet of Abraham. That, the case where, in certain circumstances, this prohibition does not apply, is when he is emerging from the river. When he emerges, he is facing the people on the riverbank and it is then permitted to cover himself in the interest of modesty, as that which Rava would do. He would bend over when he was naked. Rabbi Zeira would stand upright, in accordance with Rav’s statement that it is prohibited to appear to be renouncing the covet of Abraham. When the Sages of the school of Rav Ashi descended into the river they stood upright. When they emerged from the river they bent over.,Speaking of bathing and its halakhot, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive commandment, as it is stated: “They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that I recall them, said the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:22). Based on that verse, Rav Yehuda held that since the Babylonian exile was by divine decree, permission to leave Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael could only be granted by God. Rabbi Zeira did not want to discuss his desire to emigrate with Rav Yehuda, so that he would not be forced to explicitly disobey him. Nevertheless, he said: I will go and hear something from him and then I will leave. He went and found Rav Yehuda standing in the bathhouse and telling his servant: Bring me natron neter with which to wash, bring me a comb, open your mouths and let out air, and drink from the water of the bathhouse. Rabbi Zeira said: If I had come only to hear this matter from Rav Yehuda, it would suffice for me.,The Gemara analyzes the lessons learned from this story. Granted, when Rav Yehuda said: Bring me natron, bring me a comb, he was teaching us that mundane matters are permitted to be spoken in the bathhouse, even in the sacred language. When he said: Open your mouths and let out air, that too is in accordance with that which Shmuel said, as Shmuel said: Heat produces heat. The hot air that one inhales causes him to sweat more quickly. However, drink the water of the bathhouse, what benefit is there in doing that? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: One who ate and did not drink at all, what he ate becomes blood and that causes the onset of intestinal disease. One who ate and did not walk four cubits after eating, what he ate rots and that causes the onset of bad breath. One who needs to defecate and ate is similar to an oven that was lit on top of its ashes. When ashes from a previous fire are not swept out, and new logs are placed on top of the old ones, it inhibits the burning and dirties the oven, and that causes the onset of odor of the filth of perspiration in a person. As far as our matter is concerned, the baraita teaches: One who bathed in hot water and did not drink from it is like an oven that was lit from the outside and not lit from the inside. The lighting is ineffective and the oven does not heat properly. Rav Yehuda told his servants to drink the hot water while bathing so that they would be heated from the inside and the outside. The baraita continues: One who bathed in hot water and did not rinse afterward with cold water is like iron that was placed in the fire and not placed afterward in cold water, which leaves the iron soft. And one who bathed and did not smear himself with oil afterward is like water that was poured on top of a barrel, and not into it. The water spills outside the barrel. 110a Jewish official in Pumbedita that was bitten by a snake. There were thirteen white donkeys in Pumbedita and they tore them all open and they were found to be tereifot. There was one donkey on the other side of Pumbedita, and until they went to bring it, a lion ate it. Abaye said to them: Since all of these things have happened, perhaps a snake of the Rabbis bit him, for which there is no cure, as it is written: “One that digs a pit will fall into it, and one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake” (Ecclesiastes 10:8). Perhaps this person violated a rabbinic decree, also known as a fence, and was bitten by a snake as punishment. That bite has no cure. They said to him: Yes, my teacher, it is so, as when Rav died Rav Yitzḥak bar Bisna ruled that one may not bring myrtle and palm branches to a wedding hall to accompany bells, and he went and brought myrtle and palm branches to the wedding hall with bells. Therefore, a snake bit him. And it is reported that ultimately the official died.,The Gemara cites additional information about the dangers posed by snakes and how to deal with them. One whom a snake encircled should descend into water and place a basket on his head and remove the snake slowly from him into the basket. And once the snake goes into the basket, let him throw it into the water and climb and emerge. One at whom a snake is angry and is being pursued by a snake, if he has another with him, let him ride him four cubits. And if not, let him jump over a ditch. And if not, let him cross a river. And at night let him place his bed on four barrels and sleep outside beneath the stars. And let one bring four cats and let one tie them to the four legs of the bed. And let one bring twigs and branches and throw them there so that when the cats hear the sound of the snake crawling they will eat it. One who is being pursued by a snake, let him run in sand because a snake cannot move as quickly in sand as a person can.A woman who is seen by a snake and does not know whether it has directed his attention toward her or whether it has not directed his attention toward her, she should remove her garment and throw it before the snake. If the snake wraps itself in the garments, it is an indication that it has directed his attention toward her; and if not, it is an indication that it has not directed his attention toward her.,What is her remedy so the snake will leave her alone? She should have relations with her husband before the snake. Some say: If she has relations in front of the snake, all the more so that its desire will become stronger. Rather, she should take from her hair and her nails and throw them at the snake, and say the following to it as an incantation: I am a menstruating woman dishtana. A woman whom a snake has entered, let them spread her legs and place her on two barrels, and let them bring fatty meat and throw it onto coals. And let them bring her a bowl of cress and fragrant wine and place them there and mix them together. And she should take tongs in her hand, as when the snake smells the fragrance it emerges. And then one should take the snake and burn it in the fire, as if it is not burned, it will come back onto her.,We learned in the mishna: All types of food that healthy people eat may be eaten by one eating them for medicinal purposes on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: The phrase: All foods, what does it come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include spleen for healing teeth and vetch for healing intestines, although they are not common foods. We also learned in the mishna: And one may drink all drinks on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: The phrase: All drinks, what does it come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include mixing water in which capers have soaked, with vinegar. Ravina said to Rava: What is the ruling with regard to drinking urine on Shabbat? Rava said to him: We already learned in the mishna: One may drink all drinks, and people do not drink urine and is not considered a drink. It is only consumed for medical purposes and is therefore prohibited.We learned in the mishna: One may drink anything on Shabbat except for palm tree water mei dekalim. It was taught slightly differently in the Tosefta: Water that stabs mei dekarim. The Gemara explains: The one who taught water that stabs means that the waters pierce the gall bladder; and the one who said palm tree water means that they come from two palm trees. In order to explain what palm tree water is, Rabba bar Beruna said: There are two palm trees in Eretz Yisrael, and a spring of water emerges from between them. The first cup one drinks of this water loosens the intestines, another cup causes diarrhea, and another, a third cup, just as it entered as water, so too it emerges. Ulla said: For me, I drink Babylonian beer, and it is more effective than palm tree water in causing diarrhea. The Gemara comments: And this is true. It is effective for the stomach when the person who drinks it has not become accustomed to beer for forty days.,Rav Yosef said: Water that stabs is Egyptian zitom, which is made from one-third barley, and one-third saffron, and one-third salt. Rav Pappa said: It is one-third wheat, and one-third saffron, and one-third salt and cumin. And this is your mnemonic to remember which said zitom is made from barley: A basket which is called sisanei, a word with two samekhs. This word alludes to the fact that Rav Yosef, who has a samekh in his name, is the one who says that Egyptian zitom is made from barley se’orim, which has the letter sin. Sin is interchangeable with samekh. And one should drink it between Passover and Shavuot. For one whose intestines are blocked, it will loosen his intestines and cure him; and for one whose bowels are loose, it will block him and cure him as well.,And we also learned about a kos ikarin in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What is a kos ikarin? Rabbi Yoḥa said: Let one bring the weight of a zuz of Alexandrian gum, and a weight of a zuz of alum, and a weight of a zuz of garden saffron, and let one grind them together. The procedure for treating a zava is that she should drink these three ingredients with wine, and she will be cured of her emission and will not become barren. For treating jaundice one should drink two of these ingredients with beer; however, one will become sterile from it. It was said that for treating a zava, she should drink these three ingredients with wine and she will be healed from her emission and will not become barren. And if it is not effective, let one bring three 115a trimming vegetables is permitted. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: If Yom Kippur occurs on a weekday, one may crack nuts and remove pomegranate seeds from the late afternoon and onward, because doing so involves no actual labor and due to anxiety, i.e. if a person does not know that there is food prepared for when the fast ends, he suffers more during the final hours of the day (Rabbi Zeraḥia HaLevi). The Gemara relates: The members of Rav Yehuda’s house would trim cabbage. The members of Rabba’s house would scrub gourds. Once Rabba saw that they were doing this early, before the late afternoon, he said to them: A letter came from the West, i.e. from Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa, saying that doing so is prohibited., 156b Is it because Jupiter is situated in the west that you cannot have children? I will restore it and establish it in the east. And that is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Abraham: “Who has raised up one from the east, he will call justice tzedek to his steps leraglo. He gives nations before him, and makes him rule over kings; his sword makes them as the dust, his bow as the driven stubble” (Isaiah 41:2). God established Jupiter tzedek in the east on behalf of leraglo Abraham.And from that which transpired to Shmuel, one can also conclude that there is no constellation for the Jewish people. The Gemara relates that Shmuel and the gentile sage Ablet were sitting, and they saw these people were going to the lake. Ablet said to Shmuel: This person will go and he will not return, because a snake will bite him and he will die. Shmuel said to him: If he is a Jew, he will go and come back. As they were sitting for a while, the person they discussed went away and then returned.,Ablet stood up, threw down the person’s burden, and inside he found a snake cut and cast in two pieces. Shmuel said to him: What did you do to merit being saved from death? The person said to him: Every day we all take bread together and eat from the bread. Today, there was one of us who did not have bread, and when it came time to gather the bread, he was embarrassed because he did not have any to give. I said to the others: I will go and take the bread. When I came to the person who did not have bread, I rendered myself as one who was taking from him so that he would not be embarrassed. Shmuel said to him: You performed a mitzva. Shmuel went out and taught based on this incident that even though it is written: “And charity will save from death” (Proverbs 10:2), it does not only mean that it will save a person from an unusual death but even from death itself.,And from that which transpired to Rabbi Akiva as well it can be derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, as Rabbi Akiva had a daughter, and Chaldean astrologers told him that on the same day that she enters the wedding canopy, a snake will bite her and she will die. She was very worried about this. On that day, her wedding day, she took the ornamental pin from her hair and stuck it into a hole in the wall for safekeeping, and it happened that it entered directly into the eye of the snake. In the morning, when she took the pin, the snake was pulled and came out with it.,Her father Rabbi Akiva said to her: What did you do to merit being saved from the snake? She told him: In the evening a poor person came and knocked on the door, and everyone was preoccupied with the feast and nobody heard him. I stood and took the portion that you had given me and gave it to him. Rabbi Akiva said to her: You performed a mitzva, and you were saved in its merit. Rabbi Akiva went out and taught based on this incident that even though it is written: “And charity will save from death” (Proverbs 10:2), it does not mean that it will save a person only from an unusual death, but even from death itself.,And from that which transpired to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as well it can be derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, As Chaldean astrologers told Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s mother: Your son will be a thief. She did not allow him to uncover his head. She said to her son: Cover your head so that the fear of Heaven will be upon you, and pray for Divine mercy. He did not know why she said this to him. One day he was sitting and studying beneath a palm tree that did not belong to him, and the cloak fell off of his head. He lifted his eyes and saw the palm tree. He was overcome by impulse and he climbed up and detached a bunch of dates with his teeth. Apparently, he had an inborn inclination to steal, but was able to overcome that inclination with proper education and prayer. |
118. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, 2a, 16a, 37b, 40a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Neusner, Jacob, on halakhah • aggadah, halakhah compared with • biblical texts, halakhah and • halakha k . . . • halakha, and Scripture • halakhah • halakhah and custom • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, aggadah compared with • halakhah, authority challenged in • halakhah, biblical exegesis and • halakhah, decision-making in • halakhah, definition of • halakhah, terminology of • law, Jewish (halakhah) Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 198, 247, 249; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 30, 347; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 127; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 192; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 317; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 87; Rubenstein, The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings (2018) 52 2a מתני׳ המקנא לאשתו רבי אליעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי שנים ומשקה על פי עד אחד או ע"פ עצמו רבי יהושע אומר מקנא לה על פי שנים ומשקה ע"פ שנים,כיצד מקנא לה אומר לה בפני שנים אל תדברי עם איש פלוני ודברה עמו עדיין היא מותרת לביתה ומותרת לאכול בתרומה,נכנסה עמו לבית הסתר ושהתה עמו כדי טומאה אסורה לביתה ואסורה לאכול בתרומה ואם מת חולצת ולא מתייבמת,גמ׳ מכדי תנא מנזיר סליק מאי תנא דקא תנא סוטה,כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה לומר לך שכל הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין,וליתני סוטה והדר ליתני נזיר איידי דתנא כתובות ותנא המדיר תנא נדרים ואיידי דתנא נדרים תנא נזיר דדמי לנדרים וקתני סוטה כדרבי,המקנא דיעבד אין לכתחילה לא קסבר תנא דידן אסור לקנאות,א"ר שמואל בר רב יצחק כי הוה פתח ריש לקיש בסוטה אמר הכי אין מזווגין לו לאדם אשה אלא לפי מעשיו שנא\ (תהלים קכה, ג) כי לא ינוח שבט הרשע על גורל הצדיקים אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר\ יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף, שנאמר (תהלים סח, ז) אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות,איני והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני בית פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני לא קשיא הא בזוג ראשון הא בזוג שני,ר"א אומר מקנא לה על פי שנים וכו\ עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בקינוי וסתירה אבל בטומאה עד אחד מהימן,ותנן נמי עד אחד אומר אני ראיתי שניטמאת לא היתה שותה,מדאורייתא מנלן דמהימן עד אחד דתנו רבנן (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה בשנים הכתוב מדבר,או אינו אלא אפילו באחד ת"ל (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד אחד באיש, 16a שילה נוב וגבעון ובית עולמים,איסי בן מנחם אומר אינו צריך ומה בטומאה קלה לא חלק הכתוב בטומאת אשת איש חמורה לא כ"ש א"כ מה ת"ל בקרקע המשכן שלא יביא מתוך קופתו,איבעיא להו אין שם עפר מהו שיתן אפר אליבא דבית שמאי לא תיבעי לך דאמרי לא מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר,כי תיבעי לך אליבא דבית הלל דאמרי מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר מאי אע"ג דאיקרי עפר הכא בקרקע המשכן כתיב או דילמא האי בקרקע המשכן לכדאיסי בן יהודה ולכדאיסי בן מנחם הוא דאתי,ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן משום ר\ ישמעאל בשלשה מקומות הלכה עוקבת מקרא,התורה אמרה (ויקרא יז, יג) בעפר והלכה בכל דבר התורה אמרה (במדבר ו, ה) בתער והלכה בכל דבר התורה אמרה (דברים כד, א) ספר והלכה בכל דבר,ואם איתא ליחשוב נמי האי,תנא ושייר ומאי שייר דהאי שייר שייר מצורע דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו כלל את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו פרט ואת כל שערו יגלח חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה פרט מפורש מקום כינוס שער ונראה אף כל מקום כינוס שער ונראה,מה רבי רבי שיער הרגלים מאי מיעט מיעט דבית השחי ודכוליה גופיה,והלכתא מגלח כדלעת דתנן בא לו להקיף את המצורע מעביר תער על כל בשרו וקתני סיפא וביום השביעי מגלחו תגלחת שניה כתגלחת ראשונה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת מקרא הא עוקבת מדרבנן היא,רב פפא אמר כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת ועוקרת הא עוקבת ומוספת היא,רב אשי אמר הא מתניתא מני רבי ישמעאל היא דדריש כללי ופרטי 37b ארבע ארבע וארבע הרי שמונה שמונה ושמונה הרי שש עשרה וכן בסיני וכן בערבות מואב שנא\ (דברים כח, סט) אלה דברי הברית אשר צוה ה\ את משה וגו\ וכתיב (דברים כט, ח) ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת וגו\ נמצא מ"ח בריתות על כל מצוה ומצוה,ר"ש מוציא הר גריזים והר עיבל ומכניס אהל מועד שבמדבר,ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא רבי ישמעאל אומר כללות נאמרו בסיני ופרטות באהל מועד ר\ עקיבא אומר כללות ופרטות נאמרו בסיני ונשנו באהל מועד ונשתלשו בערבות מואב,ואין לך כל דבר מצוה ומצוה שכתובה בתורה שלא נכרתו עליה ארבעים ושמנה בריתות,ר\ שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עכו אמר משום רבי שמעון אין לך מצוה ומצוה שכתובה בתורה שלא נכרתו עליה ארבעים ושמנה בריתות של שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים,אמר רבי לדברי רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עכו שאמר משום רבי שמעון אין לך כל מצוה ומצוה שבתורה שלא נכרתו עליה ארבעים ושמנה בריתות של שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים נמצא לכל אחד ואחד מישראל שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים,מאי בינייהו אמר רב משרשיא ערבא וערבא דערבא איכא בינייהו,דרש רבי יהודה בן נחמני מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש כל הפרשה כולה לא נאמרה אלא בנואף ונואפת,(דברים כז, טו) ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה וגו\ בארור סגי ליה אלא זה הבא על הערוה והוליד בן והלך לבין עובדי כוכבים ועבד עבודת כוכבים ארורין אביו ואמו של זה שכך גרמו לו,ת"ר (דברים יא, כט) ונתת את הברכה על הר גריזים ואת הקללה וגו מה תלמוד לומר אם ללמד שתהא ברכה על הר גריזים וקללה על הר עיבל הרי כבר נאמר (דברים כז, יב) אלה יעמדו לברך את העם על הר גריזים וכתיב (דברים כז, יג) ואלה יעמדו על הקללה בהר עיבל אלא להקדים ברכה לקללה,יכול יהיו כל הברכות קודמות לקללות תלמוד לומר ברכה וקללה ברכה אחת קודמת לקללה ואין כל הברכות קודמות לקללות,ולהקיש ברכה לקללה לומר לך מה קללה בלוים אף ברכה בלוים ומה קללה בקול רם אף ברכה בקול רם ומה קללה בלשון הקודש אף ברכה בלה"ק ומה קללה בכלל ופרט אף ברכה בכלל ופרט ומה קללה אלו ואלו עונין ואומרים אמן אף ברכה אלו ואלו עונין ואומרים אמן,מתני׳ ברכת כהנים כיצד במדינה אומר אותה שלש ברכות ובמקדש ברכה אחת במקדש אומר את השם, 40a בנעילה דיומא דכיפורי מאי אמר אמר מר זוטרא ואמרי לה במתניתא (תהלים קכח, ד) הנה כי כן יברך גבר ירא ה\ יברכך ה\ מציון וראה בטוב ירושלים כל ימי חייך וראה בנים לבניך שלום על ישראל,היכן אומרן רב יוסף אמר בין כל ברכה וברכה ורב ששת אמר בהזכרת השם,פליגי בה רב מרי ורב זביד חד אמר פסוקא לקבל פסוקא וחד אמר אכל פסוקא אמר להו לכולהו,א"ר חייא בר אבא כל האומרן בגבולין אינו אלא טועה אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא תדע דבמקדש נמי לא מיבעי למימרינהו כלום יש לך עבד שמברכין אותו ואינו מאזין,א"ר אחא בר חנינא תדע דבגבולין נמי מיבעי למימרינהו כלום יש עבד שמברכין אותו ואין מסביר פנים א"ר אבהו מריש הוה אמינא להו כיון דחזינא ליה לרבי אבא דמן עכו דלא אמר להו אנא נמי לא אמינא להו,ואמר רבי אבהו מריש הוה אמינא עינותנא אנא כיון דחזינא ליה לרבי אבא דמן עכו דאמר איהו חד טעמא ואמר אמוריה חד טעמא ולא קפיד אמינא לאו עינותנא אנא,ומאי עינוותנותיה דרבי אבהו דאמרה לה דביתהו דאמוריה דרבי אבהו לדביתיה דרבי אבהו הא דידן לא צריך ליה לדידך והאי דגחין וזקיף עליה יקרא בעלמא הוא דעביד ליה אזלא דביתהו ואמרה ליה לרבי אבהו אמר לה ומאי נפקא ליך מינה מיני ומיניה יתקלס עילאה,ותו רבי אבהו אימנו רבנן עליה לממנייה ברישא כיון דחזיה לר\ אבא דמן עכו דנפישי ליה בעלי חובות אמר להו איכא רבה,ר\ אבהו ור\ חייא בר אבא איקלעו לההוא אתרא רבי אבהו דרש באגדתא רבי חייא בר אבא דרש בשמעתא שבקוה כולי עלמא לרבי חייא בר אבא ואזול לגביה דר\ אבהו חלש דעתיה אמר ליה אמשל לך משל למה הדבר דומה לשני בני אדם אחד מוכר אבנים טובות ואחד מוכר מיני סידקית על מי קופצין לא על זה שמוכר מיני סידקית,כל יומא הוה מלוה רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי אבהו עד אושפיזיה משום יקרא דבי קיסר ההוא יומא אלויה רבי אבהו לרבי חייא בר אבא עד אושפיזיה ואפילו הכי לא איתותב דעתיה מיניה,בזמן ששליח צבור אומר מודים העם מה הם אומרים אמר רב מודים אנחנו לך ה\ אלהינו על שאנו מודים לך ושמואל אמר אלהי כל בשר על שאנו מודים לך רבי סימאי אומר יוצרנו יוצר בראשית על שאנו מודים לך נהרדעי אמרי משמיה דרבי סימאי ברכות והודאות לשמך הגדול על שהחייתנו וקיימתנו על שאנו מודים לך רב אחא בר יעקב מסיים בה הכי כן תחיינו ותחננו ותקבצנו ותאסוף גליותינו לחצרות קדשך לשמור חוקיך ולעשות רצונך בלבב שלם על שאנו מודים לך,אמר רב פפא הילכך נימרינהו לכולהו,אמר ר\ יצחק לעולם תהא אימת צבור עליך שהרי כהנים פניהם כלפי העם ואחוריהם כלפי שכינה,רב נחמן אמר מהכא (דברי הימים א כח, ב) ויקם המלך דוד על רגליו ויאמר שמעוני אחי ועמי אם אחי למה עמי ואם עמי למה אחי אמר רבי אלעזר אמר להם דוד לישראל אם אתם שומעין לי אחי אתם ואם לאו עמי אתם ואני רודה אתכם במקל,רבנן אמרי מהכא דאין הכהנים רשאין לעלות בסנדליהן לדוכן וזהו אחת מתשע תקנות שהתקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מאי טעמא לאו משום כבוד צבור אמר רב אשי לא התם שמא נפסקה לו רצועה בסנדלו והדר אזיל למיקטריה ואמרי בן גרושה או בן חלוצה הוא,ובמקדש ברכה אחת כו\, 2a 16a Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon, and also the Eternal House, i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem. The dust for the sota is still brought from the ground of the Sanctuary wherever it is located, even after the Jewish people are no longer in the wilderness.Isi ben Menaḥem says: There is no need to derive this halakha from the verse. It may be learned by an a fortiori inference: With regard to the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary in a state of impurity, a lenient matter for which there is no court-imposed capital punishment, the Torah does not differentiate. It is prohibited for an impure person to enter the Tabernacle no matter where it stands. Therefore, with regard to the impurity of a married woman, which is stringent and carries the penalty of strangulation, all the more so is it not clear that the Torah does not differentiate? The dust must be brought from the Sanctuary no matter where it stands. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle”? It teaches that one should not bring dust from his own basket and place it directly into the water; he must first place it on the floor.A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is no dust there, what is the halakha? May one place ashes in the vessel instead? The Gemara responds: There is no need to raise the dilemma if one holds in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as they say: We never find ashes referred to as dust in the Torah.When you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say: We do find ashes referred to as dust in the context of the red heifer (Numbers 19:17). They likewise hold that ashes may also be used instead of dust to cover the blood of a slaughtered bird or undomesticated animal (see Leviticus 17:13). What is the halakha here, with regard to the water of a sota? May ashes replace dust? Although elsewhere ashes may be referred to as dust, here it is written: “On the floor of the Tabernacle,” indicating that dust in particular is required, since dust comes from the ground. Or perhaps the phrase “on the floor of the Tabernacle” comes only to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the teaching of Isi ben Yehuda or in accordance with the teaching of Isi ben Menaḥem. If so, perhaps ashes are acceptable as well.Come and hear evidence from that which Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In three instances the halakha supersedes the verse, i.e. the tradition alters the straightforward meaning of the verse.The Torah states: “And whatsoever man…that takes in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it in dust” (Leviticus 17:13), but the halakha is that the blood may be covered in anything similar to dust. The Torah states with regard to the nazirite: “All the days of his vow of naziriteship there shall be no razor come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), but the halakha is that the nazirite may not remove his hair with anything. The Torah states: “That he writes her a bill sefer of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1). The word sefer denotes a scroll, but the halakha is that the husband may inscribe the bill of divorce on anything that is detached from the ground and suitable to be written upon, not only on a scroll.And if it is so that ashes may be placed in the water of a sota despite the verse’s stipulation of dust, consider this fourth case as well to be a halakha that supersedes the verse. Since it is omitted from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement, it seems that ashes may not be used.The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yishmael taught some cases and omitted others; his list is not exhaustive. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? It is not reasonable that he would provide a list lacking only one item. The Gemara answers: He omitted the leper, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 1:9): In the verse: “And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair” (Leviticus 14:9), the phrase “all his hair” is a generalization. The phrase that follows: “His head and his beard and his eyebrows,” is a detail. And with the following phrase: “Even all his hair he shall shave off,” the verse then generalized again. In any case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the detail is explicitly referring to areas where there is a collection of hair which is visible, so too all areas on the leper that have a collection of hair which is visible must be shaven.To what otherwise excluded case does this baraita extend the halakha? It extends the halakha of hair to include pubic hair. What does the baraita exclude? It excludes armpit hair, which is not visible, and body hair that is not collected. This is the straightforward meaning of the verse.And yet the halakha is: The leper shaves like a gourd, i.e. his entire body must be shaved. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 14:2): When the priest comes to shave the leper, he passes a razor over all of his flesh. And in the latter clause, the mishna teaches: On the seventh day he shaves the leper again. The second shaving is just like the first shaving. The verse previously analyzed is referring to the second shaving, and its straightforward meaning is that not all of the leper’s flesh needs to be shaved. However, the mishna states that the leper must shave all of his flesh in the second shaving as well. This is another instance where the halakha supersedes the straightforward meaning of the verse, yet it is omitted from Rabbi Yishmael’s list.Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rabbi Yishmael consciously omitted the halakha of the leper because he counted only instances where the halakha supersedes the straightforward meaning of the verse. This halakha of the leper, however, is an instance where the halakha supersedes only an exegetical interpretation of the Sages.,Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Yishmael counted only cases where the halakha both supersedes and uproots the straightforward meaning of the verse. This, however, is an instance where the halakha supersedes and adds. The halakha does not overrule the verse but rather adds an additional requirement, i.e. that the whole body must be shaved.Rav Ashi said: This baraita, which teaches that only certain parts of the body must be shaved, is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details. According to this interpretation, only collected areas of hair that are visible must be shaven. 37b every mitzva contains four aspects. Four general aspects and four specific aspects add up to eight. Eight blessings and eight curses add up to sixteen. And so too at Mount Sinai, and so too at the plains of Moab, as it is stated: “These are the words of the covet that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covet that He made with them in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 28:69). And it is written: “Observe therefore the words of this covet” (Deuteronomy 29:8). It follows that between the three events where sixteen covets were made, God established forty-eight covets for each and every mitzva.,Rabbi Shimon excludes Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal from this list because only some of the mitzvot were mentioned there, and he includes instead the covet at the Tent of Meeting in the desert.,The Gemara explains: And it is in the dispute between these tanna’im that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:11): Rabbi Yishmael says: General statements were said at Sinai, i.e. Moses received general mitzvot at Sinai, including the Ten Commandments. And the details of the mitzvot were explained to Moses at a later time in the Tent of Meeting. Rabbi Akiva says: Both general statements and the details of mitzvot were said at Sinai, and later repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and reiterated a third time by Moses to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with his teacher, Rabbi Akiva, and counts Mount Sinai and the Tent of Meeting Tent as two distinct places where all of the mitzvot were given.The baraita concludes: And there is no mitzva written in the Torah for which forty-eight covets were not established.,Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: There is no mitzva written in the Torah for which forty-eight covets were not established 603,550 times, corresponding to the population of the Jewish people in the desert. This is because each member of the Jewish people received the covet both for himself and as a guarantor for the rest of the Jewish people.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko, who spoke in the name of Rabbi Shimon, there is no mitzva in the Torah for which forty-eight covets were not established 603,550 times; it follows that for every one of the Jewish people there were 603,550 covets.The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the statements of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? What does the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add? Rav Mesharshiyya said: The matter of a guarantor and a guarantor for a guarantor is the difference between them. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, every Jew is not only rendered a guarantor for every other Jew, but he is also rendered a guarantor for every other Jew’s responsibility as a guarantor. Therefore, according to his calculation, the number of covets is multiplied again by 603,550.§ Rabbi Yehuda ben Naḥmani, the disseminator of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, taught: The entire passage of the blessings and curses is stated only in reference to an adulterer and adulteress.,This is proved from the verse: “Cursed is the man who makes a graven or molten image” (Deuteronomy 27:15). Is a curse a sufficient consequence for the actions of an idol worshipper? He has rebelled against the fundamental tenet of the Torah. Rather, this is referring to one who engaged in sexual intercourse with a forbidden relative and bore her a mamzer son. And the son, who is not allowed to marry a Jew of unflawed lineage, went to live among the other nations of the world and engaged in idol worship. His father and mother are cursed for causing him to worship idols. Likewise, the rest of the curses refer to sins that are the result of adultery.The Sages taught: “And you shall give the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal” (Deuteronomy 11:29). Why must the verse state this? If it is to teach that the blessing must be given on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal, it is already stated: “These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people” (Deuteronomy 27:12), and it is written: “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse” (Deuteronomy 27:13). Rather, the verse teaches that the proclamation of the blessing must precede the curse.,One might have thought that all of the blessings should precede the curses. Therefore, the verse states “blessing” and “curse” in the singular, to teach that one blessing precedes each curse, but all of the blessings do not precede the curses. The blessings and curses were recited alternately, first one blessing and then one curse.And furthermore, the verse comes to juxtapose the blessing with the curse, to say to you that just as the curse is recited by the Levites, so too, the blessing is uttered by the Levites; and just as the curse is proclaimed loudly, so too, the blessing is proclaimed loudly; and just as the curse is proclaimed in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, so too, the blessing is proclaimed in the sacred tongue; and just as the curse is proclaimed both in general and in detail, so too, the blessing is proclaimed in general and in detail. And just as after the curse is uttered, both groups of people on each mountain respond and say amen, so too, after the blessing is uttered, both groups respond and say amen., 40a During the closing prayer ne’ila of Yom Kippur, which also includes the Priestly Benediction, what do the people say? Mar Zutra says, and some say that this was taught in a baraita: “Behold, surely thus shall the man who fears the Lord be blessed” (Psalms 128:4), “The Lord shall bless you out of Zion, and you shall see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life” (Psalms 128:5), and “And see your children’s children. Peace be upon Israel” (Psalms 128:6).The Gemara asks: Where does the congregation say these verses during the Priestly Benediction? Rav Yosef says: They are said between each and every blessing. And Rav Sheshet says: They are said during the mention of the name of God in each of the three blessings.Rav Mari and Rav Zevid disagree about this matter. One says: The congregation recites one verse at a time, corresponding to the verse that the priests recite. And one says: For every single verse that the priests recite, the congregation says all three verses.Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Anyone who recites these verses in the outlying areas, i.e. outside the Temple, is nothing other than mistaken in his practice. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: You should know that in the Temple also people should not recite these verses. Do you have a servant who is being blessed and does not listen to the blessing, but rather speaks at the same time?Conversely, Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: You should know that in the outlying areas one is also required to say these verses. Is there a servant who is being blessed and his face does not brighten? Therefore, one must recite these verses to give thanks for receiving the Priestly Benediction. Rabbi Abbahu says: At first, I would recite these verses, but since I saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko does not say them, I also do not recite them anymore.And Rabbi Abbahu says: At first, I would say to myself that I was humble. Since I saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko himself stated one reason for a matter, and his interpreter stated one other reason of his own rather than delivering the reason that Rabbi Abba stated, and yet Rabbi Abba did not mind, I say to myself that I am not humble.,The Gemara asks: And what was the humility of Rabbi Abbahu? The Gemara relates that Rabbi Abbahu’s interpreter’s wife said to Rabbi Abbahu’s wife: This one of ours, i.e. my husband, has no need for your husband Rabbi Abbahu, as he could teach everything on his own. And the fact that he bends over to listen to Rabbi Abbahu, and then stands up above him, and repeats his words to the congregants is merely to show respect for him. Rabbi Abbahu’s wife went and told this to Rabbi Abbahu. He said to her: And what difference does it make to you? Through me and through him the One above will be exalted, and it does not matter which one of us is teaching.And furthermore, in another example of his humility, the Sages were counted and reached a decision to appoint Rabbi Abbahu to be the head of the yeshiva. Since he saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko had many creditors and was impoverished, he attempted to get him out of debt. He said to them: There is a man who is greater than me, Rabbi Abba.The Gemara relates another example of his humility: Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to a certain place. Rabbi Abbahu taught matters of aggada, and at the same time Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba taught halakha. Everyone left Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and went to Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Ḥiyya was offended. Rabbi Abbahu said to him, to appease him: I will tell you a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to two people, one who sells precious stones and one who sells small items sidkit. Upon whom do the customers spring? Don’t they spring upon the one who sells small items? Similarly, you teach lofty and important matters that do not attract many people. Everyone comes to me because I teach minor matters.The Gemara relates that every day Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would escort Rabbi Abbahu to his lodging place ushpizei out of respect for the house of the emperor, with which Rabbi Abbahu was associated. On that day, Rabbi Abbahu escorted Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba to his lodging place, and even so, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s mind was not at ease with Rabbi Abbahu and he felt insulted.§ The Gemara returns to discuss the response of the congregants to certain parts of the prayer service. While the prayer leader is reciting the blessing of: We give thanks, what do the people say? Rav says that they say: We give thanks to You, Lord our God, for the merit of giving thanks to You. And Shmuel says that one should say: God of all living flesh, for the merit of giving thanks to You. Rabbi Simai says that one should say: Our Creator, Who created everything in the beginning, for the merit of giving thanks to You. The Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Simai that one should say: We offer blessings and praises to Your great name, for You have given us life and sustained us, for giving thanks to You. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would finish the blessing as follows: So may You give us life, and show us favor, and collect us, and gather our exiles into Your sacred courtyards, in order to observe Your laws and to fulfill Your will wholeheartedly, for giving thanks to You.,Rav Pappa said: These Sages each added a different element to the prayer. Therefore, we should combine them together and recite all of them.,§ Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The awe of the public should always be upon you, i.e. one must always treat the public courteously. As when the priests bless the people they face the people and their backs are toward the Divine Presence, out of respect for the congregation.Rav Naḥman said that this principle is derived from here: “Then King David stood up upon his feet, and said: Hear me, my brethren, and my people” (IChronicles 28:2). Evidently, King David stood up to address the people rather than remain seated. If he said “my brethren,” why did he say “my people”? And if he said “my people” why did he say “my brethren”? Rabbi Elazar says: David said to the Jewish people: If you listen to me, you are my brethren. And if you do not listen to me willingly, you are my people and I am your king, and I will rule over you by force with a staff. This shows that if the nation acted properly, David would relate to them respectfully.The Sages say that the importance of showing respect for the congregation is derived from here: The halakha is that the priests are not permitted to ascend the platform to recite the benediction in their sandals, as is taught in a baraita. And this halakha is one of nine ordices that Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai instituted. What is the reason for this ordice? Is it not out of respect for the congregation, as it would be disrespectful for the priests to display their dirty sandals in front of the congregants? Rav Ashi said: No, this is not the reason. There, in the baraita, the reason is a concern lest a strap of his sandal break, and he will therefore return to his place to go tie it and not ascend the platform in time for the benediction, and people will say that he was removed from the platform because he is disqualified from the priesthood, as he is the son of a priest and a divorced woman or the son of a priest and a ḥalutza.,§ It is taught in the mishna: And in the Temple, the priests recite the three verses as one blessing., |
119. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, 20a, 48a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic tradition/halakha • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • System, halakhic ~ • halakha, Stammaitic • halakhah and custom • midrash halakhah Found in books: Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 24; Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (2006) 169; Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 162; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 50 20a והכי קאמר מחצלת הקנים גדולה עשאה לשכיבה מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה טעמא דעשאה לשכיבה הא סתמא נעשה כמי שעשאה לסיכוך מסככין בה (קטנה עשאה לסיכוך מסככין בה טעמא דעשאה לסיכוך הא סתמא נעשה כמי שעשאה לשכיבה ואין מסככין בה) ואתא ר\ אליעזר למימר אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה סתמא כשרה לסיכוך,אמר ליה אביי אי הכי ר\ אליעזר אומר אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה מיבעי ליה,ועוד כי פליגי בגדולה הוא דפליגי ורבי אליעזר לחומרא דתניא מחצלת הקנים בגדולה מסככין בה ר\ אליעזר אומר אם אינה מקבלת טומאה מסככין בה,אלא אמר רב פפא בקטנה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דסתמא לשכיבה כי פליגי בגדולה ת"ק סבר סתם גדולה לסיכוך ורבי אליעזר סבר סתם גדולה נמי לשכיבה,ומאי עשאה לשכיבה דקאמר הכי קאמר סתם עשייתה נמי לשכיבה עד דעביד לסיכוך,ת"ר מחצלת של שיפה ושל גמי גדולה מסככין בה קטנה אין מסככין בה של קנים ושל חילת גדולה מסככין בה ארוגה אין מסככין בה,רבי ישמעאל בר\ יוסי אומר משום אביו אחת זו ואחת זו מסככין בה וכן היה רבי דוסא אומר כדבריו,תנן התם כל החוצלות מטמאין טמא מת דברי ר\ דוסא וחכמים אומרים מדרס,מדרס אין טמא מת לא והא אנן תנן כל המטמא מדרס מטמא טמא מת אימא אף מדרס,מאי חוצלות אמר רב אבדימי בר המדורי מרזובלי מאי מרזובלי אמר ר\ אבא מזבלי ר\ שמעון בן לקיש אומר מחצלות ממש,ואזדא ריש לקיש לטעמיה דאמר ריש לקיש הריני כפרת רבי חייא ובניו שבתחלה כשנשתכחה תורה מישראל עלה עזרא מבבל ויסדה חזרה ונשתכחה עלה הלל הבבלי ויסדה חזרה ונשתכחה עלו רבי חייא ובניו ויסדוה וכן אמר רבי חייא ובניו לא נחלקו רבי דוסא וחכמים על מחצלות של אושא 48a רגל בפני עצמו לענין פז"ר קש"ב פייס בפני עצמו זמן בפני עצמו רגל בפני עצמו קרבן בפני עצמו שירה בפני עצמו ברכה בפני עצמו:מתני׳ ההלל והשמחה שמונה כיצד מלמד שחייב אדם בהלל ובשמחה ובכבוד יום טוב האחרון של חג כשאר כל ימות החג:גמ׳ מנה"מ דת"ר (דברים טז, טו) והיית אך שמח לרבות לילי יום טוב האחרון או אינו אלא יו"ט הראשון כשהוא אומר אך חלק,ומה ראית לרבות לילי יו"ט האחרון ולהוציא לילי יו"ט הראשון מרבה אני לילי יום טוב האחרון שיש שמחה לפניו ומוציא אני לילי יום טוב הראשון שאין שמחה לפניו:מתני׳ סוכה שבעה כיצד גמר מלאכול לא יתיר את סוכתו אבל מוריד את הכלים מן המנחה ולמעלה מפני כבוד יו"ט האחרון של חג:גמ׳ אין לו כלים להוריד מהו אין לו כלים אלא כי אשתמש במאי אשתמש אלא אין לו מקום להוריד כליו מהו ר\ חייא בר (רב) אמר פוחת בה ארבעה ור\ יהושע בן לוי אמר מדליק בה את הנר,ולא פליגי הא לן והא להו,הא תינח סוכה קטנה סוכה גדולה מאי איכא למימר דמעייל בה מאני מיכלא דאמר רבא מאני מיכלא בר ממטללתא מאני משתיא במטללתא:מתני׳ ניסוך המים כיצד צלוחית של זהב מחזקת שלשה לוגים היה ממלא מן השילוח הגיעו לשער המים תקעו והריעו ותקעו עלה בכבש ופנה לשמאלו שני ספלים של כסף היו שם ר\ יהודה אומר של סיד היו אלא שהיו מושחרין פניהם מפני היין ומנוקבין, 20a And this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to a large mat of reeds, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity, and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason is that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. With regard to a small mat of reeds, if one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it. The reason is that one produced it specifically for roofing; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may not roof a sukka with it. And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say that both a small mat and a large one produced without designation are fit for roofing.Abaye said to him: If so, if their dispute is only with regard to a small mat, then instead of saying: Rabbi Eliezer says: Both a small mat and a large mat, the mishna needed to say: Both a large mat and a small mat. In a phrase with the format: Both this and that, one typically mentions the more obvious item first. Why then, does Rabbi Eliezer mention the small mat first, if it is with regard to the small mat that they disagree?And furthermore, there is proof that when they disagree, it is with regard to a large mat, and Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is a stringency and not a leniency, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a reed mat, with a large mat one may roof a sukka. Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, one may roof his sukka with it. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that without designation, one may not roof his sukka with a large mat.Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rava’s proposed resolution is rejected. Rather, with regard to a small mat, everyone agrees that if it was produced without designation, presumably it is for the purpose of lying upon it. When they disagree, is with regard to a large mat: The first tanna holds that a large mat produced without designation is presumably for roofing, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that a large mat produced without designation is also presumably for the purpose of lying upon it.What, then, is the meaning of: If one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, that Rabbi Eliezer states? This is what he is saying: Making mats without designation is also for the purpose of lying upon it, until one makes it specifically for roofing.,§ The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a mat maḥatzelet woven of papyrus or bulrushes, if it is a large mat, one may roof a sukka with it, as it is not typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is a small mat, one may not roof a sukka with it, as it is typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. However, with regard to a mat produced of ordinary reeds or reeds specifically used for plaiting, if the mat is plaited with a large, coarse weave, one may roof a sukka with it, as it was certainly not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is woven with a small, fine weave, one may not roof the sukka with it, as typically mats of this sort are woven only for the purpose of lying upon them.Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: Both with this plaited mat and with that woven mat, one may roof a sukka, as without specific designation otherwise they are not produced for the purpose of lying upon them, and therefore they are ritually pure. And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement.,We learned in a mishna there: All types of ḥotzalot can become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Since their legal status is that of a vessel, they become a primary source of ritual impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They become impure with the impurity imparted by treading. If a zav lies or sits on one of the ḥotzalot, they become a primary source of ritual impurity, like a chair or bed of a zav.The Gemara asks: Impurity imparted by treading, yes; impurity imparted by a corpse, no? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: Any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading also becomes ritually impure with other types of impurity, including impurity imparted by a corpse, although the reverse is not necessarily so. The opinion of the Rabbis is difficult. The Gemara explains: Emend the mishna and say: They become ritually impure even with the impurity imparted by treading. These mats are not merely nondescript vessels, which become primary sources of ritual impurity through exposure to a corpse, they are vessels designated for sitting and lying upon them, and therefore they also become primary sources of ritual impurity if a zav sits or lies upon them.The Gemara asks about the term used in the mishna: What is the meaning of ḥotzalot? Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said: They are marzovelei. The Gemara is unfamiliar with the term and asks: What is the meaning of marzovelei? Rabbi Abba said: They are called mezablei in Babylonia. They are leather sacks used by shepherds to feed their animals. Shepherds place them under their heads when lying down. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Ḥotzalot are a different term for actual mats.,The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons, as initially, when some of the Torah laws were forgotten from the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished the forgotten laws. Parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, and Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. When parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. This expression of deference toward Rabbi Ḥiyya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name. And so said Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons: Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis did not disagree concerning the soft mats of Usha, 48a is a Festival in and of itself with regard to the matter of: Peh, zayin, reish; kuf, shin, beit. This is an acronym for: A lottery payis in and of itself, i.e. a new lottery is performed on that day to determine which priests will sacrifice the offerings that day, and the order established on Sukkot does not continue; the blessing of time zeman, i.e. Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, in and of itself, as it is recited just as it is recited at the start of each Festival; a Festival regel in and of itself, and there is no mitzva to sit in the sukka (see Tosafot); an offering korban in and of itself, as the number of offerings sacrificed on the Eighth Day is not a continuation of the number sacrificed on Sukkot but is part of a new calculation; a song shira in and of itself, since the psalms recited by the Levites as the offerings are sacrificed on the Eighth Day are not a continuation of those recited on Sukkot; a blessing berakha in and of itself, as the addition to the third blessing of Grace after Meals and to the Amida prayer (see Tosafot) is phrased in a manner different from that of the addition recited on Sukkot. |
120. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 7a, 25b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Yohanan, R., on teaching halakhah • aggada and halakha, address same social and cultural tensions • halakhah, differences between Babylonian, Palestinian traditions • study curriculum, halakha and aggada as subjects in • theology, in both aggada and halakha Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 197; Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 547, 560, 561; Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 78 7a נימרינהו לתרוייהו אל ההודאות ורוב ההודאות,אמר ר\ אבהו גדול יום הגשמים מתחיית המתים דאילו תחיית המתים לצדיקים ואילו גשמים בין לצדיקים בין לרשעים ופליגא דרב יוסף דאמר רב יוסף מתוך שהיא שקולה כתחיית המתים קבעוה בתחיית המתים,אמר רב יהודה גדול יום הגשמים כיום שניתנה בו תורה שנא\ (דברים לב, ב) יערף כמטר לקחי ואין לקח אלא תורה שנא\ (משלי ד, ב) כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו רבא אמר יותר מיום שניתנה בו תורה שנאמר יערף כמטר לקחי מי נתלה במי הוי אומר קטן נתלה בגדול,רבא רמי כתיב יערף כמטר לקחי וכתיב תזל כטל אמרתי אם תלמיד חכם הגון הוא כטל ואם לאו עורפהו כמטר,תניא היה ר\ בנאה אומר כל העוסק בתורה לשמה תורתו נעשית לו סם חיים שנאמר (משלי ג, יח) עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה ואומר (משלי ג, ח) רפאות תהי לשרך ואומר (משלי ח, לה) כי מוצאי מצא חיים וכל העוסק בתורה שלא לשמה נעשית לו סם המות שנאמר יערף כמטר לקחי ואין עריפה אלא הריגה שנאמר (דברים כא, ד) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל,א"ל ר\ ירמיה לר\ זירא ליתי מר ליתני א"ל חלש לבאי ולא יכילנא לימא מר מילתא דאגדתא א"ל הכי אמר ר\ יוחנן מאי דכתיב (דברים כ, יט) כי האדם עץ השדה וכי אדם עץ שדה הוא,אלא משום דכתיב (דברים כ, יט) כי ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרת וכתיב אותו תשחית וכרת הא כיצד אם ת"ח הגון הוא ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרת ואם לאו אותו תשחית וכרת,אמר רבי חמא (אמר רבי) חנינא מאי דכתיב (משלי כז, יז) ברזל בברזל יחד לומר לך מה ברזל זה אחד מחדד את חבירו אף שני תלמידי חכמים מחדדין זה את זה בהלכה,אמר רבה בר בר חנה למה נמשלו דברי תורה כאש שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה\ לומר לך מה אש אינו דולק יחידי אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימין ביחידי,והיינו דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו נ, לו) חרב אל הבדים ונואלו חרב על שונאיהן של תלמידי חכמים שעוסקין בד בבד בתורה ולא עוד אלא שמטפשין שנאמר ונואלו,ולא עוד אלא שחוטאין כתיב הכא ונואלו וכתיב התם (במדבר יב, יא) אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו ואיבעית אימא מהכא (ישעיהו יט, יג) נואלו שרי צוען וגו\ והתעו את מצרים,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק למה נמשלו דברי תורה כעץ שנאמר (משלי ג, יח) עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה לומר לך מה עץ קטן מדליק את הגדול אף תלמידי חכמים קטנים מחדדים את הגדולים והיינו דאמר ר\ חנינא הרבה למדתי מרבותי ומחבירי יותר מרבותי ומתלמידי יותר מכולן,רבי חנינא בר פפא רמי כתיב (ישעיהו כא, יד) לקראת צמא התיו מים וכתיב (ישעיהו נה, א) הוי כל צמא לכו למים אם תלמיד הגון הוא לקראת צמא התיו מים ואי לא הוי כל צמא לכו למים,רבי חנינא בר חמא רמי כתיב (משלי ה, טז) יפוצו מעינותיך חוצה וכתיב (משלי ה, יז) יהיו לך לבדך אם תלמיד הגון הוא יפוצו מעינותיך חוצה ואם לאו יהיו לך לבדך,(ואמר) רבי חנינא בר אידי למה נמשלו דברי תורה למים דכתיב הוי כל צמא לכו למים לומר לך מה מים מניחין מקום גבוה והולכין למקום נמוך אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימין אלא במי שדעתו שפלה,ואמר רבי אושעיא למה נמשלו דברי תורה לשלשה משקין הללו במים וביין ובחלב דכתיב הוי כל צמא לכו למים וכתיב (ישעיהו נה, א) לכו שברו ואכלו ולכו שברו בלא כסף ובלא מחיר יין וחלב לומר לך מה שלשה משקין הללו אין מתקיימין אלא בפחות שבכלים אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימין אלא במי שדעתו שפלה,כדאמרה ליה ברתיה דקיסר לר\ יהושע בן חנניה אי חכמה מפוארה בכלי מכוער אמר לה אביך רמי חמרא במני דפחרא אמרה ליה אלא במאי נירמי אמר לה אתון דחשביתו רמו במאני דהבא וכספא,אזלה ואמרה ליה לאבוה רמייא לחמרא במני דהבא וכספא ותקיף אתו ואמרו ליה אמר לה לברתיה מאן אמר לך הכי אמרה ליה רבי יהושע בן חנניה קריוהו אמר ליה אמאי אמרת לה הכי אמר ליה כי היכי דאמרה לי אמרי לה והא איכא שפירי דגמירי, 25b אין גזעו מחליף אף צדיק ח"ו אין גזעו מחליף לכך נאמר ארז אילו נאמר ארז ולא נאמר תמר הייתי אומר מה ארז אין עושה פירות אף צדיק ח"ו אין עושה פירות לכך נאמר תמר ונאמר ארז,וארז גזעו מחליף והתניא הלוקח אילן מחבירו לקוץ מגביהו מן הקרקע טפח וקוצץ בסדן השקמה שני טפחים בבתולת השקמה שלשה טפחים בקנים ובגפנים מן הפקק ולמעלה בדקלים ובארזים חופר למטה ומשריש לפי שאין גזעו מחליף,הכא במאי עסקינן בשאר מיני ארזים כדרבה בר הונא דאמר רבה בר הונא עשרה מיני ארזים הן שנאמר (ישעיהו מא, יט) אתן במדבר ארז שיטה והדס וגו\,ת"ר מעשה ברבי אליעזר שגזר שלש עשרה תעניות על הצבור ולא ירדו גשמים באחרונה התחילו הצבור לצאת אמר להם תקנתם קברים לעצמכם געו כל העם בבכיה וירדו גשמים,שוב מעשה בר\ אליעזר שירד לפני התיבה ואמר עשרים וארבע ברכות ולא נענה ירד רבי עקיבא אחריו ואמר אבינו מלכנו אין לנו מלך אלא אתה אבינו מלכנו למענך רחם עלינו וירדו גשמים הוו מרנני רבנן יצתה בת קול ואמרה לא מפני שזה גדול מזה אלא שזה מעביר על מדותיו וזה אינו מעביר על מדותיו,ת"ר עד מתי יהו הגשמים יורדין והצבור פוסקין מתעניתם כמלא ברך המחרישה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים בחרבה טפח בבינונית טפחיים בעבודה שלשה טפחים,תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אין לך טפח מלמעלה שאין תהום יוצא לקראתו שלשה טפחים והא תניא טפחיים לא קשיא כאן בעבודה כאן בשאינה עבודה,א"ר אלעזר כשמנסכין את המים בחג תהום אומר לחבירו אבע מימיך קול שני ריעים אני שומע שנאמר (תהלים מב, ח) תהום אל תהום קורא לקול צנוריך וגו\,אמר רבה לדידי חזי לי האי רידיא דמי לעיגלא (תלתא) ופירסא שפוותיה וקיימא בין תהומא תתאה לתהומא עילאה לתהומא עילאה א"ל חשור מימיך לתהומא תתאה א"ל אבע מימיך שנא\ (שיר השירים ב, יב) הנצנים נראו בארץ וגו\:היו מתענין וירדו גשמים קודם הנץ החמה כו\: ת"ר היו מתענין וירדו להם גשמים קודם הנץ החמה לא ישלימו לאחר הנץ החמה ישלימו דברי ר\ מאיר ר\ יהודה אומר קודם חצות לא ישלימו לאחר חצות ישלימו,רבי יוסי אומר קודם ט\ שעות לא ישלימו לאחר ט\ שעות ישלימו שכן מצינו באחאב מלך ישראל שהתענה מתשע שעות ולמעלה שנאמר (מלכים א כא, כט) הראית כי נכנע אחאב וגו\,ר\ יהודה נשיאה גזר תעניתא וירדו להם גשמים לאחר הנץ החמה סבר לאשלומינהו א"ל רבי אמי קודם חצות ואחר חצות שנינו שמואל הקטן גזר תעניתא וירדו להם גשמים קודם הנץ החמה כסבורין העם לומר שבחו של צבור הוא,אמר להם אמשול לכם משל למה הדבר דומה לעבד שמבקש פרס מרבו אמר להם תנו לו ואל אשמע קולו,שוב שמואל הקטן גזר תעניתא וירדו להם גשמים לאחר שקיעת החמה כסבורים העם לומר שבחו של צבור הוא אמר להם שמואל לא שבח של צבור הוא אלא אמשול לכם משל למה הדבר דומה לעבד שמבקש פרס מרבו ואמר להם המתינו לו עד שיתמקמק ויצטער ואחר כך תנו לו,ולשמואל הקטן שבחו של צבור היכי דמי אמר משיב הרוח ונשב זיקא אמר מוריד הגשם ואתא מיטרא:מעשה וגזרו תענית בלוד כו\: ונימא הלל מעיקרא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו לפי שאין אומרים הלל 7a we will recite them both: God of thanksgivings, and: Abundant thanksgivings.,§ The Gemara cites statements in praise of rainfall. Rabbi Abbahu said: The day of rain is greater than the resurrection of the dead. The reason is that while the resurrection of the dead benefits only the righteous, rain benefits both the righteous and the wicked. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said: Since rainfall is equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, the Sages established its recitation in the second blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the resurrection of the dead. According to Rav Yosef, rainfall is the equivalent to, but not superior to, the resurrection of the dead.Similarly, Rav Yehuda said: The day of the rains is as great as the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine likḥi shall drop as the rain” (Deuteronomy 32:2), and lekaḥ means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I give you good doctrine lekaḥ; do not forsake My Torah” (Proverbs 4:2). Rava said: Rainfall is even greater than the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain,” and when one makes a comparison, which object is made dependent upon which? You must say that the lesser object is dependent upon the greater one. If Torah is compared to rain, it follows that rain is greater than Torah.The Gemara cites another interpretation of the verse from Deuteronomy. Rava raised a contradiction: At the beginning of the verse it is written: “My doctrine shall drop ya’arof as the rain,” in a harsh manner, and yet later in the verse, it is written: “My speech shall distill as the dew,” in a gentle tone. He resolves this apparent contradiction as follows: If he is a worthy Torah scholar, the Torah flows through him like the dew, but if he is not worthy, it snaps his neck orfehu like the powerful rain.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Bena’a would say: Anyone who engages in Torah for its own sake, his Torah study will be an elixir of life for him, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18), and it says: “It shall be health to your navel” (Proverbs 3:8), and it says: “For whoever finds Me finds life” (Proverbs 8:35). And anyone who engages in Torah not for its own sake, e.g. for self-aggrandizement, his Torah will be an elixir of death for him, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop ya’arof as the rain,” and arifa means nothing other than killing, as it is stated: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck arefu there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4).Rabbi Yirmeya once said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and teach a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My heart is weak and I cannot strain myself over a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Yirmeya replied to him: In that case, let the Master tell us a matter of aggada, which does not require as much effort. Rabbi Zeira said to him that Rabbi Yoḥa said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man is a tree of the field” (Deuteronomy 20:19)? And is man actually a tree of the field?,Rather, it is because it is written earlier in the same verse: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” and it is written in the next verse: “Them you may destroy and cut down” (Deuteronomy 20:20). This indicates that there are certain trees which may be cut down, while others may not be destroyed. How so? If a Torah scholar is worthy: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” but if he is not worthy: “He you may destroy and cut down.”,The Gemara cites other expositions that deal with Torah study. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countece of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17)? This verse comes to tell you that just as with these iron implements, one sharpens the other when they are rubbed against each other, so too, when Torah scholars study together, they sharpen one another in halakha.,Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Why are matters of Torah compared to fire, as it is stated: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29)? To tell you: Just as fire does not ignite in a lone stick of wood but in a pile of kindling, so too, matters of Torah are not retained and understood properly by a lone scholar who studies by himself, but by a group of Sages.And this is what Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A sword is upon the boasters habaddim, and they shall become fools noalu” (Jeremiah 50:36)? This verse can be interpreted homiletically: There is a sword upon the enemies of Torah scholars, a euphemism for Torah scholars themselves, who sit alone bad bevad and study Torah. And not only that, but those who study by themselves grow foolish from their solitary Torah study, as it is stated: “And they shall become fools.”,And not only that, but they sin, as it is written here: “And they shall become fools,” and it is written there: “For that we have done foolishly noalnu and for that we have sinned” (Numbers 12:11). And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “The princes of Zoan have become fools noalu…they have caused Egypt to go astray” (Isaiah 19:13).Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Why are Torah matters likened to a tree, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18)? This verse comes to tell you that just as a small piece of wood can ignite a large piece, so too, minor Torah scholars can sharpen great Torah scholars and enable them to advance in their studies. And this is what Rabbi Ḥanina said: I have learned much from my teachers and even more from my friends, but from my students I have learned more than from all of them.,Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa raised a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “To him who is thirsty bring water” (Isaiah 21:14), which indicates that the one who has water must bring it to the thirsty person, and it is written elsewhere: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1), from which it may be inferred that the thirsty person must seek out water himself. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that if he is a worthy student the teacher must seek him out, as in “to him who is thirsty bring water,” but if the student is not worthy, then “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” i.e. this student must seek out a teacher himself.Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama raised another contradiction. In one verse it is written: “Let your springs be dispersed abroad” (Proverbs 5:16), whereas in the next verse it is written: “Let them be your own” (Proverbs 5:17). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama explains: If the student sitting before you is worthy, then “Let your springs be dispersed abroad,” as you should teach him, but if he is not worthy, then “Let them be your own.”,And Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi said: Why are matters of Torah likened to water, as it is written: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1)? This verse comes to tell you: Just as water leaves a high place and flows to a low place, so too, Torah matters are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly, i.e. a humble person.And Rabbi Oshaya said: Why are matters of Torah likened to these three liquids: To water, wine and milk? As it is written with regard to water: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” and it is written in the same verse: “Come, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” This verse comes to tell you: Just as these three liquids can be retained only in the least of vessels, e.g. clay pots, but not vessels of silver and gold, as they will spoil, so too, matters of Torah are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly.,The Gemara cites a related incident: This is as the daughter of the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya, who was an ugly man: Woe to glorious wisdom such as yours, which is contained in an ugly vessel. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said to her, in a seemingly unrelated response: Does your father keep his wine in simple clay vessels? The emperor’s daughter said to him: Rather, in what, then, should he keep it? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said to her: You, who are so important, should put it in vessels of gold and silver.,The emperor’s daughter went and said this to her father. He put the wine in vessels of gold and silver and it turned sour. When his advisors came and told the emperor that the wine had turned sour, he said to his daughter: Who told you to do this? His daughter responded: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya. The emperor summoned him and said to him: Why did you say this to her? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said to him: Just as she said to me, so I said say to her, to demonstrate to her that fine material is best preserved in the least of vessels. The emperor said to him: But there are handsome people who are learned., 25b its shoots do not replenish themselves when its stump is cut down, so too, Heaven forbid, with regard to a righteous person, his shoots will not replenish themselves, i.e. he will be unable to recover from misfortune. Therefore, it is stated “cedar” in the verse. Just as the cedar grows new shoots after its stump is cut down, so too, a righteous individual will thrive again. Conversely, were it stated “cedar” and were it not stated “palm tree,” I would say that just as in the case of a cedar, it does not produce fruit, so too, a righteous man, God forbid, does not produce fruit, i.e. he will have no reward in the World-to-Come. Therefore, it is stated “palm tree” and it is also stated “cedar.”,§ The Gemara asks: And do a cedar’s shoots really replenish themselves? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who bought a tree from another to chop it down for wood, without acquiring total ownership of the tree, he must lift his ax a handbreadth and chop there, so as to allow the tree to grow back? However, in a case where he purchased a large sycamore, he must leave two handbreadths. In the case of an untrimmed sycamore, he must leave three handbreadths. In a situation where one bought reeds or grapevines, he may chop only from the first knot and above. In the case of palms or cedars, one may dig down and uproot it, as its shoots will not replenish themselves. This baraita indicates that cedars will not grow new shoots after they have been cut down.The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With other species of cedars. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Huna, as Rabba bar Huna said: There are ten species of cedars, as it is stated: “I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree and myrtle and the oil tree; I will set in the desert cypress, the plane tree and the larch together” (Isaiah 41:19). The seven species mentioned in this verse are all called cedars, as are three additional species.The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving Rabbi Eliezer, who decreed a complete cycle of thirteen fasts upon the congregation, but rain did not fall. At the end of the last fast, the congregation began to exit the synagogue. He said to them: Have you prepared graves for yourselves? If rain does not fall, we will all die of hunger. All the people burst into tears, and rain fell.,There was another incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who descended to serve as prayer leader before the ark on a fast day. And he recited twenty-four blessings, but he was not answered. Rabbi Akiva descended before the ark after him and said: Our Father, our King, we have no king other than You. Our Father, our King, for Your sake, have mercy on us. And rain immediately fell. The Sages were whispering among themselves that Rabbi Akiva was answered while his teacher, Rabbi Eliezer, was not. A Divine Voice emerged and said: It is not because this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, is greater than that one, Rabbi Eliezer, but that this one is forgiving, and that one is not forgiving. God responded to Rabbi Akiva’s forgiving nature in kind by sending rain.§ The Sages taught in a baraita: How much rain must fall for the community to cease their fast for rain? If the rain penetrates the soil by the full depth of the blade of a plow until the spot where it bends, they may cease fasting; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say a different measurement: If the earth is completely dry, the soil must become moist to the depth of a single handbreadth. For average soil, they must wait until the moisture reaches a depth of two handbreadths. If it is worked soil, i.e. soil that has been plowed, the moisture must reach to a depth of three handbreadths.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There is no handbreadth of rain from above toward which the water of the deep does not rise three handbreadths. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t it taught in another baraita that the water of the deep rises two handbreadths? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Here, in first baraita, it is referring to worked land, which water penetrates faster, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is referring to unworked land, which water does not penetrate as easily, and therefore the water of the deep rises only two handbreadths.Rabbi Elazar said: When the water libation was poured during the festival of Sukkot, these waters of the deep say to the other waters of the deep: Let your water flow, as I hear the voices of two of our friends, the wine libation and the water libation, which are both poured on the altar. As it is stated: “Deep calls to deep at the sound of your channels, all Your waves and Your billows are gone over me” (Psalms 42:8), i.e. the upper waters of the deep call to the lower waters of the deep when they hear the sound of the libations.Rabba said: I have seen this angel in charge of water, Ridya, in the form of a calf whose lips were parted, standing between the lower waters of the deep and the upper waters of the deep. To the upper waters of the deep, he said: Distill your water and let it rain. To the lower waters of the deep, he said: Let your water flow from below, as it is stated: “The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove tur is heard in our land” (Song of Songs 2:12). The appearance of flowers in this verse alludes to the libations, as both the blooming of flowers and pouring of these libations are annual events. The time of the singing is referring to the singing of the Festival. Finally, the term tur in Aramaic can also mean an ox; in this context, it is interpreted as a reference to the angel Ridya.§ The mishna teaches: If they were fasting for rain and rain fell for them before sunrise, they need not complete their fast until the evening. The Sages taught: If they were fasting for rain and rain fell for them before sunrise, they need not complete their fast, as the obligation to fast does not come into effect until sunrise. However, if rain fell after sunrise, they must complete their fast. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If rain fell before midday, they need not complete their fast; however, if it rains after midday, they must complete their fast.Rabbi Yosei says: If rain falls before the ninth hour, three hours into the afternoon, they need not complete their fast; if it rains after the ninth hour of the day, they must complete their fast, as we found with regard to Ahab, king of Israel, who fasted from the ninth hour and onward, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when Ahab heard these words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly. And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite saying: Do you see how Ahab humbles himself before Me?” (IKings 21:27–29). According to tradition, this occurred in the ninth hour.Rabbi Yehuda Nesia decreed a fast, and rain fell for them after sunrise. He thought to complete the fast, but Rabbi Ami said to him that we learned: Before noon and after noon, i.e. the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel HaKatan decreed a fast, and rain fell for them before sunrise. The people thought to say: This is a sign of the praiseworthiness of the community, as we merited rainfall even before we prayed.He said to them: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To a situation where there is a slave who requests a reward from his master, either food or livelihood, and the master says to his ministers: Give him what he asks for and let me not hear his voice, as I would rather not have to listen to him. Here, too, evidently God has no desire to hear our prayers.Again, on another occasion, Shmuel HaKatan decreed a fast, and rain fell for them after sunset. Based on his previous response, the people thought to say: This is a sign of the praiseworthiness of the community, as God listened to our prayers all day. Shmuel HaKatan said to them: It is not a sign of the praiseworthiness of the community. Rather, I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To a situation where there is a slave who requests a reward from his master, and the master says to his ministers: Wait until he pines away and suffers, and afterward give it to him. Here too, the delay is not to the congregation’s credit.The Gemara asks: But if so, according to the opinion of Shmuel HaKatan, what is considered the praiseworthiness of the community; what are the circumstances in which approval is shown from Heaven? The Gemara explains: When the prayer leader recites: He Who makes the wind blow, and the wind blows; and when he recites: And the rain fall, and rain falls.,The mishna teaches: An incident occurred in which the court decreed a fast in Lod, and when rain fell they ate and drank, and afterward they recited hallel. The Gemara asks: And let us recite hallel at the outset, without delay. Why did they first go home and eat? Abaye and Rava both said: Because one recites hallel |
121. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, 14a, 14b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • halakha in ~ • halakhah, Mosaic • halakhah, as modality of tradition Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 142; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 30, 35 14a מתני׳ יש בקרבנות יחיד שאין בקרבנות הציבור ויש בקרבנות הציבור שאין בקרבנות היחיד שקרבנות היחיד עושין תמורה ואין קרבנות הציבור עושין תמורה,קרבנות היחיד נוהגות בין בזכרים בין בנקבות וקרבנות הציבור אין נוהגין אלא בזכרים קרבנות היחיד חייבין באחריותן ובאחריות נסכיהם וקרבנות הציבור אין חייבין באחריותן ולא באחריות נסכיהן אבל חייבין באחריות נסכיהן משקרב הזבח,יש בקרבנות הציבור מה שאין בקרבנות יחיד שקרבנות הציבור דוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה וקרבנות יחיד אינן דוחות לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה,א"ר מאיר והלא חביתי כ"ג ופר של יוה"כ קרבנות היחיד הן ודוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה אלא שזמנו קבוע,גמ׳ קרבן יחיד עושה תמורה כו\ וכללא הוא והרי עופות דקרבן יחיד ואין עושה תמורה כי קתני בבהמה קתני,והרי ולד דקרבן יחיד הוא ואין עושה תמורה הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר הולד עושה תמורה,והרי תמורה עצמה דקרבן יחיד היא ואין תמורה עושה תמורה כי קתני בעיקר זיבחא קתני,השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא רבנן בעיקר זיבחא קתני,קרבנות היחיד נוהגות בין בזכרים בין בנקבות וכללא הוא והרי עולה דקרבן יחיד וזכר אתיא נקבה לא אתיא,האיכא עולת העוף דתניא תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות,והרי חטאת דקרבן יחיד היא ונקבה אתיא זכר לא אתיא האיכא שעיר נשיא דמייתי זכר,והאיכא אשם יחיד דזכר אתי נקבה לא אתי כי קאמרי רבנן קרבן דשוי בין ביחיד בין בציבור אשם ביחיד איתיה בצבור ליתיה ואיבעית אימא מי קתני כל קרבנות יש בקרבנות קתני ומאי ניהו שלמים ואי בעי נקבה מייתי ואי בעי זכר מייתי,קרבנות יחיד חייבין באחריותן כו\ מנא לן,דת"ר (ויקרא כג, לז) דבר יום ביומו מלמד שכל היום כשר למוספין (ויקרא כג, לז) ביומו מלמד שאם עבר היום ולא הביאן אינו חייב באחריותן,יכול לא יהא חייב באחריות נסכיהם ואע"פ שקרב הזבח ת"ל (במדבר כט, יח) מנחתם ונסכיהם בלילה מנחתם ונסכיהם למחר,ר"ל אמר מהכא (ויקרא כג, לח) מלבד שבתות ה\,וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא מלבד שבתות ה\ הוה אמינא ביום אין ובלילה לא אמר קרא ומנחתם ונסכיהם ואי כתב רחמנא מנחתם ונסכיהם ולא כתב מלבד שבתות ה\ הוה אמינא בלילה אין ביממא לא,ומאי שנא משום דבקדשים לילה הולך אחר היום צריכי,ונסכים מי קרבי בלילה והתנן אין לי אלא דברים שדרכן ליקרב בלילה כגון אברים ופדרים שמקריבין מבוא השמש ומתעכלין והולכין כל הלילה כולו,דברים שדרכן ליקרב ביום כגון הקומץ הלבונה ומנחת נסכים שמעלן מבוא השמש מבוא השמש סלקא דעתך והאמרת דברים שדרכן ליקרב ביום נינהו אלא עם בא השמש שמתעכלין והולכין כל הלילה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ו, ב) זאת תורת העולה ריבה,קתני מיהא נסכים ביום אמר רמי בר חמא לא קשיא כאן ליקדש כאן ליקרב,אמר ליה רבא אי מיקדש קדשי קרובי מיקרבי והא תניא זה הכלל כל הקרב ביום אין קדוש אלא ביום וכל הקרב בלילה קדוש בלילה בין ביום בין בלילה קדוש בין ביום בין בלילה אלא אמר רב יוסף סמי מנחת נסכים מהא מתניתא,כי סליק רב דימי אשכחיה לרב ירמיה דיתיב וקאמר משמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי מנין לנסכים הבאים עם הזבח שאין קריבין אלא ביום ת"ל (במדבר כט, לט) ולנסכיכם ולשלמיכם מה שלמים ביום אף נסכים ביום,אמר אי אשכחיה דכתיב איגרתא שלחי ליה לרב יוסף 14b ולא תיסמי מנחת נסכים ממתני\ ולא קשיא כאן בנסכים הבאין עם הזבח כאן בנסכים הבאין בפני עצמן,ואי הוה ליה איגרתא מי אפשר למישלחא והא אמר רבי אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כותבי הלכות כשורף התורה והלמד מהן אינו נוטל שכר,דרש ר\ יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דר"ל כתוב אחד אומר (שמות לד, כז) כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתוב אחד אומר (שמות לד, כז) כי על פי הדברים האלה לומר לך דברים שעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב ושבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה,ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כתוב לך את הדברים האלה אלה אתה כותב אבל אין אתה כותב הלכות,אמרי דלמא מילתא חדתא שאני דהא רבי יוחנן ור"ל מעייני בסיפרא דאגדתא בשבתא ודרשי הכי (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה\ הפרו תורתך אמרי מוטב תיעקר תורה ואל תשתכח תורה מישראל,אמר רב פפא השתא דאמרת נסכים הבאין בפני עצמן קריבין אפי\ בלילה נזדמנו נסכים בלילה מקדישין בלילה ומקריבין,אמר ליה רב יוסף בריה דרב שמעיה לרב פפא תניא דמסייע לך זה הכלל כל הקרב ביום אינו קדוש אלא ביום וכל הקרב בלילה קדוש (בין ביום בין) בלילה,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה ועלות השחר פוסלת בהן כאברין,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק (במדבר כט, לט) אלה תעשו לה\ במועדיכם אלו חובות הבאות חובה ברגל,לבד מנדריכם ונדבותיכם לימד על נדרים ונדבות שקרבין בחולו של מועד,ולעולותיכם במה הכתוב מדבר אי בעולת נדר הרי כבר אמור נדריכם ואי בעולת נדבה הרי כבר אמור ונדבותיכם הא אינו מדבר אלא בעולת יולדת ועולת מצורע,ולמנחותיכם במה הכתוב מדבר אי במנחת נדר הרי כבר אמור אי במנחת נדבה הרי כבר אמור הא אינו מדבר אלא במנחת סוטה ובמנחת קנאות,ולנסכיכם ולשלמיכם מקיש נסכים לשלמים מה שלמים ביום אף נסכים ביום ולשלמיכם לרבות שלמי נזיר,א"ל אביי ולימא מר שלמי פסח דאי שלמי נזיר נידר ונידב הוא,דהתניא זה הכלל כל שהוא נידב ונידר קרב בבמת יחיד ושאינו נידב ונידר אינו קרב בבמת יחיד,ותנן המנחות והנזירות קריבין בבמת יחיד דברי ר"מ סמי מכאן נזירות,מי איכא למ"ד דנזיר לאו נידר ונידב הוא והכתיב (שמואל ב טו, ז) מקץ ארבעים שנה ויאמר אבשלום אל המלך אלכה נא ואשלם את נדרי אשר נדרתי לה\ בחברון כי נדר נדר עבדך וגו\ מאי לאו אקרבן,לא אעיקר נדרו אמר עיקר נדרו בחברון הוה והלא בגשור הוה,אמר רב אחא ואיתימא רבה בר רב חנן לא הלך אבשלום אלא להביא כבשים מחברון ה"נ מסתברא דאי תימא לאקרובי הוא דאזיל שביק ירושלים ואזיל ומקריב בחברון,ואלא מאי להביא כבשים מחברון האי אשר נדרתי לה\ בחברון מחברון מיבעי ליה,אלא לעולם לאקרובי ודקא קשיא לך אמאי שבק ירושלים ומקריב בחברון תיקשי לך גבעון דמקום קדוש הוא אלא כיון שהותרו הבמות כל היכא דבעי מקריב,ארבעים שנה למאן תניא רבי נהוראי אומר משום רבי יהושע מקץ ארבעים שנה ששאלו להם מלך דתניא אותה שנה ששאלו להם מלך אותה שנה עשירית של שמואל היתה, 14a 14b and in light of this ruling he will not delete the phrase: The meal offering that accompanies the libations, from the baraita. And instead, the apparent contradiction between the baraitot can be explained as follows: It is not difficult; here, the baraita that states that meal offerings accompanying libations are sacrificed only in the day is referring to libations that come with an animal offering, whereas there, the baraita that permits sacrificing a meal offering that accompanies the libations at night is referring to libations that come to be sacrificed by themselves, i.e. which do not accompany the sacrifice of an offering.The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Dimi’s suggestion to write this opinion in a letter. And even if he had someone to write a letter for him, would it have been possible to send it? But didn’t Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Those who write halakhot are considered like those who burn the Torah, and one who learns from written halakhot does not receive the reward of studying Torah. Evidently, it is prohibited to send halakhot in letters.Before resolving the difficulty, the Gemara further discusses the prohibition of writing down the Torah: Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Reish Lakish, expounded as follows: One verse says: “Write you these words,” and one verse says, i.e. it states later in that same verse: “For by the mouth of these words” (Exodus 34:27). These phrases serve to say to you: Words that were taught orally you may not recite in writing, and words that are written you may not recite orally, i.e. by heart.And furthermore, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word “these” in the command “write you these words” serves to emphasize that these words, i.e. those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e. the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.They said in response to the question of how Rav Dimi could propose writing down the halakha in a letter: Perhaps with regard to a new matter it is different, i.e. it might be permitted to write down new material so that it not be forgotten. One proof for this suggestion is that Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish would read from a scroll of aggada, containing the words of the Sages, on Shabbat. And they did so because they taught as follows: Since one cannot remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as derived from the verse: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). They said it is better to uproot a single halakha of the Torah, i.e. the prohibition of writing down the Oral Torah, and thereby ensure that the Torah is not forgotten from the Jewish people entirely.§ With regard to Rav Dimi’s differentiation between libations that come with an animal offering and libations that are sacrificed by themselves, Rav Pappa said: Now that you have said that libations that come by themselves are sacrificed even at night, if one happened to have libations of this kind at night, they may be consecrated by placing them in a service vessel at night and they may be sacrificed at night.Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa: A baraita is taught that supports your opinion. This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed in the day is consecrated by being placed in a service vessel only in the day; but any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated both in the day and at night.,With regard to the topic of libations sacrificed by themselves, Rav Adda bar Ahava says: And dawn disqualifies them, like the halakha of limbs of offerings that have had their blood sprinkled during the day. Such limbs are left to burn on the altar all night long, but at dawn they are disqualified and may no longer be placed on the altar.§ The Gemara returns to discuss the verse: “These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: “These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,” i.e. these are the obligatory offerings that come to be sacrificed as obligatory offerings on the pilgrimage Festival, e.g. the burnt offerings of appearance, the Festival offerings, and the additional offerings.The verse continues: “Beside your vows and your voluntary offerings.” This teaches with regard to vows and voluntary offerings that they are sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.,The verse further states: “And your burnt offerings.” The Gemara inquires: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a vow burnt offering, the verse already said: “Your vows.” And if it is referring to a voluntary burnt offering, the verse already said: “Your voluntary offerings.” Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than a burnt offering of a woman who gave birth, i.e. the lamb that she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter, and a burnt offering of a leper, which is the lamb that is sacrificed after a leper is purified. The verse teaches that these obligatory offerings may be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.The verse continues: “And your meal offerings.” The Gemara again asks: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a meal offering brought in fulfillment of a vow, the verse already said: “Your vows.” If it is referring to a voluntary meal offering, the verse already said: “Your voluntary offerings.” Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than the meal offering of a sota, and that is the meal offering of jealousy.,The verse further states: “And your libations and your peace offerings.” The Torah here juxtaposes libations to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are sacrificed only during the day, not at night, so too, libations are sacrificed only during the day, not at night. Finally, the verse states: “And your peace offerings.” This serves to include the peace offering of a nazirite, which he brings at the completion of his term of naziriteship. This offering may also be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.With regard to the last halakha, Abaye said to Rav Dimi, when he cited this statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: But let the Master say that the phrase “and your peace offerings” serves to include the peace offering that is brought together with a Paschal offering. This offering is sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan by a large group of people when they will not receive enough meat from their Paschal offering to feed them all. The suggested derivation from the verse is that if a peace offering separated for this purpose was not sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan, it may be brought during the intermediate days of the Festival. Abaye further adds: It is more reasonable to include this peace offering, as, if the verse is referring to the peace offering of a nazirite, it is already included by the verse in the categories of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily.Abaye elaborates: As isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily, e.g. a burnt offering or a peace offering, is sacrificed on a private altar. And any offering that is not vowed or contributed voluntarily may not be sacrificed on a private altar.,And we learned in another baraita: The meal offerings and the offerings of a nazirite are sacrificed on a private altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. It is clear from these baraitot that the peace offering of a nazirite belongs in the category of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily. If so, there is no need for it to be included separately by the verse. Rav Dimi replied to Abaye: Delete the phrase: offering of a nazirite from here, i.e. from the baraita that considers it an offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily. Only the nazirite vow itself is classified as voluntary; once the vow has been uttered, the ensuing offerings are obligatory.The Gemara asks: Is there one who said that the offering of a nazirite is not vowed or contributed voluntarily? But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord” (IISamuel 15:7–8). The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not the case that Absalom asked his father for permission for him to go to Hebron to sacrifice an offering on a private altar?The Gemara answers: No, Absalom did not go to Hebron to sacrifice his nazirite offerings. Rather, Absalom actually said that he undertook the principal vow to be a nazirite when he was in Hebron. The Gemara asks: Was his principal vow to be a nazirite in fact uttered in Hebron? But wasn’t the vow made when Absalom was in Geshur? After all, the verse states explicitly: “For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur.”,Rav Aḥa said, and some say that it was Rabba bar Rav Ḥa who said: The verse means that Absalom went to Hebron only in order to bring sheep specifically from there. The Gemara adds that this also stands to reason, as, if you say that Absalom went to Hebron to sacrifice his offering, would he have abandoned Jerusalem and gone to sacrifice in Hebron?,The Gemara rejects Rabba bar Rav Ḥa’s answer: But rather, what is our explanation of the verse? That Absalom went to bring sheep from Hebron? If so, this verse that states: “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron” (IISamuel 15:7), should instead have stated: Which I have vowed to the Lord from Hebron.,Rather, the Gemara explains that actually Absalom did go to Hebron to sacrifice his peace offering as a nazirite. And that which is difficult for you, i.e. why Absalom abandoned Jerusalem and sacrificed his offering in Hebron, should not pose a difficulty for you; rather, it is the question of why Absalom did not sacrifice his offering in Gibeon that should pose a difficulty for you, as at that time the Tabernacle and the communal altar were in Gibeon, and it was a sanctified place. Why, then, did Absalom go to Hebron rather than Gibeon? Rather, since the private altars were permitted, he was permitted to sacrifice wherever he wished, and he chose to go to Hebron. There was no reason for him to choose to go to Gibeon rather than any private altar.The verse states that Absalom submitted his request to his father “at the end of forty years.” The Gemara asks: Forty years, according to whose counting, i.e. forty years from when? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: The verse is referring to the end of forty years from when the Jewish people requested for themselves a king, in the days of Samuel (see ISamuel, chapter 8). As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to that year when they requested for themselves a king, that year was the tenth year of the leadership of Samuel., |
122. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 56b, 58a, 62a, 62b, 69b, 122a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian, halakha/tradition • Halakhah/Halakhot • Roman law,vs. rabbinic halakha • Second Temple period, halakhic disputes from time of • halakha, on gentiles • halakha, tannaitic vs. amoraic • halakha, vs. Roman law • halakha,Geonic • halakhah • halakhah, decision-making in Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 248; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 489; Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 317; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 106, 116, 142; Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 130; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 91; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 29, 171 56b ואנהרינהו לעיינין ממתניתין אשת ישראל שנאנסה אע"פ שמותרת לבעלה פסולה לכהונה ותנא תונא וכן הבא על אחת מכל העריות האמורות בתורה או פסולות,מאי וכן מאי לאו לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד ולא שנא באונס ולא שנא ברצון וקתני פסלה,לא מאי וכן אהעראה העראה דמאן אילימא דעריות למימרא דעריות ילפי\ מיבמה אדרבה יבמה ילפינן מעריות דעיקר העראה בעריות כתיב,אלא מאי וכן אשלא כדרכה דעריות אדרבה עיקר משכבי אשה בעריות כתיב,אלא מאי וכן אשלא כדרכה דחייבי לאוין,אמר רבא אשת כהן שנאנסה בעלה לוקה עליה משום זונה משום זונה אין משום טומאה לא אימא אף משום זונה,מתיב רבי זירא (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאע"פ שנתפשה אסורה ואי זו זו אשת כהן,ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה,אמר רבה הכל היו בכלל זונה כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת מכלל דאשת כהן כדקיימא קיימא,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה אשת כהן שנאנסה בעלה לוקה עליה משום טומאה משום טומאה אין משום זונה לא אלמא באונס לא קרינא ביה זונה,מתיב רבי זירא והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאף על פי שנתפשה אסורה ואיזו זו אשת כהן ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה,אמר רבא הכל היו בכלל (דברים כד, ד) אחרי אשר הוטמאה כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת מכלל דאשת כהן כדקיימא קיימא:מתני׳ אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט מן האירוסין לא יאכלו בתרומה רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון מכשירין,נתארמלו או נתגרשו מן הנשואין פסולות מן האירוסין כשרות:גמ׳ תניא אמר ר"מ ק"ו ומה קדושי רשות אין מאכילין קדושי עבירה לא כ"ש,אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בקידושי רשות שכן אין לו להאכיל במקום אחר תאמר בקדושי עבירה שכן יש לו להאכיל במקום אחר,א"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא פצוע דכא כהן שקדש בת ישראל באנו למחלוקת ר"מ ורבי אלעזר ור"ש,לר"מ דאמר משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא לא אכלה הא נמי לא אכלה לר\ אלעזר ור\ שמעון דאמרי משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא אכלה, 58a לרבי מאיר דאמר קדושין פסלי חופה נמי פסלה לר\ אלעזר ור\ שמעון דאמרי קדושין לא פסלי חופה נמי לא פסלה,וממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם אלא בקדושין דקני לה אבל חופה דלא קנה לה לא,א"נ עד כאן לא קאמרי רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון התם אלא בקדושין דלא קריבי לביאה אבל חופה דקריבא לביאה הכי נמי דפסלה,אלא אי איכא למימר בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא נישאו זו וזו כשרות ופסולות או שנכנסו לחופה ולא נבעלו אוכלות משלו ואוכלות בתרומה,נכנסו מכלל דנישאו נישאו ממש,אלא לאו כגון שנכנסו לחופה ולא נבעלו וקתני אוכלות משלו ואוכלות בתרומה,רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר\ יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר כל שביאתה מאכילתה חופתה מאכילתה וכל שאין ביאתה מאכילתה אין חופתה מאכילתה,ממאי דלמא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה כר\ מאיר סבירא ליה דאמר קדושין לא אכלה,האי כל שאין ביאתה מאכילתה אין חופתה מאכילתה כל שאין ביאתה מאכילתה אין כספה מאכילתה מיבעי ליה דלמא איידי דאמר ת"ק חופה אמר איהו נמי חופה,אמר רב עמרם הא מילתא אמר לן רב ששת ואנהרינהו לעיינין ממתניתין יש חופה לפסולות ותנא תונא אמן שלא שטיתי ארוסה ונשואה שומרת יבם וכנוסה,האי ארוסה היכי דמי אילימא דקני לה כשהיא ארוסה וקא משקה לה כשהיא ארוסה ארוסה בת משתיא היא והא תנן ארוסה ושומרת יבם לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה,אלא דקני לה כשהיא ארוסה ואיסתתרה וקמשקה לה כשהיא נשואה מי בדקי לה מיא והתניא (במדבר ה, לא) ונקה האיש מעון בזמן שהאיש מנוקה מעון המים בודקין את אשתו אין האיש מנוקה מעון אין המים בודקין את אשתו,אלא דקני לה כשהיא ארוסה ואיסתתרה ונכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה ושמע מינה יש חופה לפסולות,אמר רבא ותסברא דהא מתרצתא היא והא כי אתא רבי אחא בר חנינא מדרומא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה (במדבר ה, כ) מבלעדי אישך מי שקדמה שכיבת בעל לבועל ולא שקדמה שכיבת בועל לבעל,אמר רמי בר חמא משכחת לה כגון שבא עליה ארוסה בבית אביה,דכוותה גבי שומרת יבם שבא עליה יבם בבית חמיה, 62a משאי אפשר ובית הלל נמי לילפו ממשה אמרי לך משה מדעתיה הוא דעבד דתניא שלשה דברים עשה משה מדעתו והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום פירש מן האשה ושיבר הלוחות והוסיף יום אחד,פירש מן האשה מאי דרש אמר ומה ישראל שלא דברה עמהם שכינה אלא לפי שעה וקבע להם זמן אמרה תורה (שמות יט, טו) אל תגשו אל אשה אני שמיוחד לדבור בכל שעה ושעה ולא קבע לי זמן על אחת כמה וכמה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום שנאמר (דברים ה, ל) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ואתה פה עמוד עמדי,שיבר את הלוחות מאי דרש אמר ומה פסח שהוא אחד משש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות אמרה תורה (שמות יב, מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו התורה כולה וישראל מומרים על אחת כמה וכמה,והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת ואמר ריש לקיש אמר ליה הקב"ה למשה יישר כחך ששברת,הוסיף יום אחד מדעתו מאי דרש דכתיב (שמות יט, י) וקדשתם היום ומחר היום כמחר מה מחר לילו עמו אף היום לילו עמו ולילה דהאידנא נפק ליה ש"מ תרי יומי לבר מהאידנא והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דלא שריא שכינה עד שבתא,תניא רבי נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים שני זכרים ושתי נקבות ובה"א זכר ונקבה,א"ר הונא מ"ט דרבי נתן אליבא דב"ש דכתיב (בראשית ד, ב) ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל הבל ואחותו קין ואחותו וכתיב (בראשית ד, כה) כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר תחת הבל כי הרגו קין ורבנן אודויי הוא דקא מודית,תניא אידך ר\ נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים זכר ונקבה ובה"א או זכר או נקבה אמר רבא מ"ט דר\ נתן אליבא דב"ה שנא\ (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה והא עבד לה שבת,איתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר ר\ יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה דהא הוו ליה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר רבי יוחנן אמר אין לו בכור לנחלה דהא הוה ליה ראשית אונו וריש לקיש אמר יש לו בכור לנחלה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן בההיא קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי יוחנן משום דמעיקרא נמי בני פריה ורביה נינהו אבל לענין נחלה דלאו בני נחלה נינהו אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש,ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ריש לקיש אבל בההיא אימא מודה ליה לר\ יוחנן צריכא,איתיביה ר\ יוחנן לר"ל (מלכים ב כ, יב) בעת ההיא שלח בראדך בלאדן בן בלאדן מלך בבל וגו\ א"ל בהיותן עובדי כוכבים אית להו חייס נתגיירו לית להו חייס,אמר רב הכל מודין בעבד שאין לו חייס דכתיב (בראשית כב, ה) שבו לכם פה עם החמור עם הדומה לחמור מיתיבי (שמואל ב ט, י) ולציבא חמשה עשר בנים ועשרים עבדים אמר רב אחא בר יעקב כפר בן בקר,א"ה ה"נ שאני התם דיחסינהו בשמייהו ובשמא דאבוהון והכא לא מפרש ואיבעית אימא יחסינהו בדוכתא אחריתי באבוהון ובאבא דאבוהון דכתיב (מלכים א טו, יח) וישלחם המלך אסא אל בן הדד בן טברימון בן חזיון מלך ארם היושב בדמשק לאמר,איתמר היו לו בנים ומתו רב הונא אמר קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים,רב הונא אמר קיים משום דרב אסי דאמר רב אסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל נשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף וגו\ ורבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה לשבת יצרה בעינן והא ליכא,מיתיבי, 62b בני בנים הרי הן כבנים כי תניא ההיא להשלים,מיתיבי בני בנים הרי הם כבנים מת אחד מהם או שנמצא סריס לא קיים פריה ורביה תיובתא דרב הונא תיובתא:בני בנים הרי הם כבנים: סבר אביי למימר ברא לברא וברתא לברתא וכ"ש ברא לברתא אבל ברתא לברא לא א"ל רבא לשבת יצרה בעיא והא איכא,דכולי עלמא מיהת תרי מחד לא ולא והא אמרי ליה רבנן לרב ששת נסיב איתתא ואוליד בני ואמר להו בני ברתי בני נינהו,התם דחויי קמדחי להו דרב ששת איעקר מפירקיה דרב הונא,אמר ליה רבה לרבא בר מארי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן בני בנים הרי הן כבנים אילימא מדכתיב (בראשית לא, מג) הבנות בנותי והבנים בני אלא מעתה והצאן צאני הכי נמי אלא דקנית מינאי הכא נמי דקנית מינאי,אלא מהכא (דברי הימים א ב, כא) ואחר בא חצרון אל בת מכיר אבי גלעד ותלד לו את שגוב וכתיב (שופטים ה, יד) מני מכיר ירדו מחוקקים וכתיב (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי,מתניתין דלאו כרבי יהושע דתניא רבי יהושע אומר נשא אדם אשה בילדותו ישא אשה בזקנותו היו לו בנים בילדותו יהיו לו בנים בזקנותו שנא\ (קהלת יא, ו) בבקר זרע את זרעך ולערב אל תנח ידך כי אינך יודע אי זה יכשר הזה או זה ואם שניהם כאחד טובים,ר"ע אומר למד תורה בילדותו ילמוד תורה בזקנותו היו לו תלמידים בילדותו יהיו לו תלמידים בזקנותו שנא\ בבקר זרע את זרעך וגו\ אמרו שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא מגבת עד אנטיפרס וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה,והיה העולם שמם עד שבא ר"ע אצל רבותינו שבדרום ושנאה להם ר"מ ור\ יהודה ור\ יוסי ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע והם הם העמידו תורה אותה שעה,תנא כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת אמר רב חמא בר אבא ואיתימא ר\ חייא בר אבין כולם מתו מיתה רעה מאי היא א"ר נחמן אסכרה,א"ר מתנא הלכה כרבי יהושע,אמר רבי תנחום א"ר חנילאי כל אדם שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה בלא ברכה בלא טובה בלא שמחה דכתיב (דברים יד, כו) ושמחת אתה וביתך בלא ברכה דכתיב (יחזקאל מד, ל) להניח ברכה אל ביתך בלא טובה דכתיב (בראשית ב, יח) לא טוב היות האדם לבדו,במערבא אמרי בלא תורה בלא חומה בלא תורה דכתיב (איוב ו, יג) האם אין עזרתי בי ותושיה נדחה ממני בלא חומה דכתיב (ירמיהו לא, כב) נקבה תסובב גבר,רבא בר עולא אמר בלא שלום דכתיב (איוב ה, כד) וידעת כי שלום אהלך ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא,אמר ריב"ל כל היודע באשתו שהיא יראת שמים ואינו פוקדה נקרא חוטא שנאמר וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו\ ואמר ריב"ל חייב אדם לפקוד את אשתו בשעה שהוא יוצא לדרך שנא\ וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו\,הא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ואל אישך תשוקתך מלמד שהאשה משתוקקת על בעלה בשעה שהוא יוצא לדרך א"ר יוסף לא נצרכה אלא סמוך לווסתה,וכמה אמר רבא עונה והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה מיטרידי,ת"ר האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך האוהב את שכיניו והמקרב את קרוביו והנושא את בת אחותו, 69b עיברה לא תאכל בתרומה נחתך העובר במעיה תאכל היה כהן שבא על בת ישראל לא תאכל בתרומה עיברה לא תאכל ילדה תאכל נמצא כחו של בן גדול משל אב,העבד פוסל משום ביאה ואינו פוסל משום זרע כיצד בת ישראל לכהן בת כהן לישראל וילדה הימנו בן והלך הבן ונכבש על השפחה וילדה הימנו בן הרי זה עבד היתה אם אביו בת ישראל לכהן לא תאכל בתרומה בת כהן לישראל תאכל בתרומה,ממזר פוסל ומאכיל כיצד בת ישראל לכהן ובת כהן לישראל וילדה הימנו בת והלכה הבת ונישאת לעבד או לעובד כוכבים וילדה הימנו בן הרי זה ממזר היתה אם אמו בת ישראל לכהן תאכל בתרומה בת כהן לישראל לא תאכל בתרומה,כהן גדול פעמים שהוא פוסל כיצד בת כהן לישראל וילדה הימנו בת והלכה הבת וניסת לכהן וילדה הימנו בן ה"ז ראוי להיות כהן גדול עומד ומשמש על גבי המזבח מאכיל את אמו ופוסל אם אמו זאת אומרת לא כבני כ"ג שהוא פוסלני מן התרומה:גמ׳ תנינא להא דת"ר שוטה וקטן שנשאו נשים ומתו נשותיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום,כיצד היה ישראל שבא על בת כהן תאכל בתרומה עיברה לא תאכל כיון דעיברה לא תאכל ליחוש שמא עיברה מי לא תנן מפרישין אותן ג\ חדשים שמא מעוברות הן,אמר רבה בר רב הונא ליוחסין חששו לתרומה לא חששו ולתרומה לא חששו והתניא הרי זה גיטיך שעה אחת קודם למיתתי אסורה לאכול בתרומה מיד,אלא אמר רבה בר רב הונא בנישואין חששו בזנות לא חששו,ובנישואין מי חששו והתניא בת כהן שנישאת לישראל ומת טובלת ואוכלת בתרומה לערב,אמר רב חסדא טובלת ואוכלת עד ארבעים דאי לא מיעברא הא לא מיעברא ואי מיעברא עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא,אמר ליה אביי אי הכי אימא סיפא הוכר עוברה במעיה תהא מקולקלת למפרע מאי מקולקלת עד ארבעים,איתמר הבא על ארוסתו בבית חמיו רב אמר הולד ממזר ושמואל אמר הולד שתוקי אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב דדיימא מעלמא אבל לא דיימא מעלמא בתרא דידיה שדינן ליה,אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דקתני ילדה תאכל היכי דמי אילימא דדיימא מעלמא ילדה אמאי תאכל אלא לאו מיניה דיימא ולא דיימא מעלמא,ומה התם דלהאי איסורא ולהאי איסורא בתרא דידיה שדינן ליה הכא דלהאי איסורא ולהאי היתירא לא כל שכן,א"ל אביי לעולם אימא לך כל היכא דדיימא מיניה אע"ג דלא דיימא מעלמא אמר רב הולד ממזר מ"ט דאמרינן מדאפקרא נפשה לגבי ארוס אפקרא נפשה לעלמא ומתני\ שהיו שניהם חבושים בבית האסורין,איכא דאמרי בבא עליה כ"ע לא פליגי דבתריה דידיה שדינן ליה והכי איתמר ארוסה שעיברה רב אמר הולד ממזר ושמואל אמר הולד שתוקי אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב דלא דיימא מיניה ודיימא מעלמא, 122a תלתא ריגלי אמר לה רב אדא בר אהבה זיל לקמיה דרב יוסף דחריף סכינא,אזלה קמיה פשט מהא מתניתין עובד כוכבים שהיה מוכר פירות בשוק ואמר פירות הללו של ערלה הן של עזיקה הן של נטע רבעי הן לא אמר כלום לא נתכוון אלא להשביח מקחו,אבא יודן איש ציידן אמר מעשה בישראל ועובד כוכבים שהלכו בדרך ובא עובד כוכבים ואמר חבל על יהודי שהיה עמי בדרך שמת בדרך וקברתיו והשיאו אשתו,ושוב מעשה בקולר של בני אדם שהיו מהלכין לאנטוכיא ובא עובד כוכבים אחד ואמר חבל על קולר של בני אדם שמתו וקברתים והשיאו את נשותיהם ושוב מעשה בששים בני אדם שהיו מהלכין לכרכום ביתר ובא עובד כוכבים ואמר חבל על ששים בני אדם שהיו מהלכין בדרך ביתר שמתו וקברתים והשיאו את נשותיהם:מתני׳ מעידין לאור הנר ולאור הלבנה ומשיאין על פי בת קול מעשה באחד שעמד על ראש ההר ואמר איש פלוני בן פלוני ממקום פלוני מת הלכו ולא מצאו שם אדם והשיאו את אשתו,ושוב מעשה בצלמון באחד שאמר אני איש פלוני בן איש פלוני נשכני נחש והרי אני מת והלכו ולא הכירוהו והלכו והשיאו את אשתו:גמ׳ אמר רבה בר שמואל תנא בית שמאי אומרים אין משיאין על פי בת קול וב"ה אומרים משיאין על פי בת קול מאי קמ"ל מתני׳ היא הא קמ"ל דאי משתכחת סתמא דאין משיאין בית שמאי היא:והלכו ולא מצאו: ודלמא שד הוה א"ר יהודה אמר רב שראו לו דמות אדם אינהו נמי דמו דחזו ליה בבואה,ואינהו נמי אית להו בבואה דחזו ליה בבואה דבבואה ודלמא לדידהו אית להו בבואה דבבואה אמר רבי חנינא אמר לי יונתן שידא בבואה אית להו בבואה דבבואה לית להו,ודלמא צרה הואי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשעת הסכנה כותבין ונותנין אף על פי שאין מכירין:מתני\ אמר רבי עקיבא כשירדתי לנהרדעא לעבר השנה מצאתי נחמיה איש בית דלי אמר לי שמעתי שאין משיאין את האשה בארץ ישראל על פי עד אחד אלא יהודה בן בבא ונומיתי לו כן הדברים אמר לי אמור להם משמי אתם יודעים שהמדינה משובשת בגייסות מקובלני מר"ג הזקן שמשיאין את האשה על פי עד אחד,וכשבאתי והרציתי הדברים לפני ר"ג שמח לדברי ואמר מצאנו חבר לרבי יהודה בן בבא,מתוך הדבר נזכר ר"ג שנהרגו הרוגים בתל ארזא והשיא ר"ג נשותיהן על פי עד אחד והוחזקו להיות משיאין עד מפי עד מפי עבד מפי אשה מפי שפחה ר\ אליעזר ורבי יהושע אומרים אין משיאין את האשה על פי עד אחד ר\ עקיבא אומר לא ע"פ אשה ולא על פי עבד ולא על פי שפחה ולא על פי קרובים:גמ׳ וסבר רבי עקיבא ע"פ אשה לא והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי עקיבא אשה נאמנת להביא גיטה מק"ו ומה נשים שאמרו חכמים אין נאמנות לומר מת בעלה נאמנות להביא גיטיהן זו שנאמנת לומר מת בעלה אינו דין שנאמנת להביא גיטה,נשים שאמרו חכמים הוא דלא מהימני אשה בעלמא מהימנא לא קשיא כאן קודם שהחזיקו כאן לאחר שהחזיקו:מתני׳ אמרו לו מעשה בבני לוי שהלכו לצוער עיר התמרים וחלה אחד מהם והביאוהו בפונדק ובחזרתם אמרו לפונדקית איה חברנו נומית להם מת וקברתיו והשיאו את אשתו ולא תהא כהנת כפונדקית,אמר להו לכשתהא כפונדקית נאמנת הפונדקית הוציאה להם מקלו ותרמילו וספר תורה שהיה בידו: 56b and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e. he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion: With regard to the wife of an Israelite who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified for the priesthood. Therefore, if her husband dies, she may not marry a priest. And the tanna of our mishna also taught: And so too, in the case of one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden arayot by the Torah or with those who are unfit to marry him even though they are not in the category of arayot, the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest.What is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? What, is it not that it is no different whether they have intercourse unwittingly or intentionally, and it is no different whether they have intercourse due to coercion or willingly? And it is taught that he has rendered her disqualified from marrying a priest.The Gemara refutes this proof: No, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to the initial stage of intercourse, as this too invalidates her. The Gemara asks: The initial stage of intercourse of whom? If we say it is referring to those with whom relations are prohibited and carry a punishment of karet or death arayot, is this to say that the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited is derived from the halakha with regard to a yevama, as implied by the phrase: And so too? On the contrary, we derive the halakha of a yevama from the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited, as the main source that indicates that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse is stated in the context of those with whom relations are prohibited and not in the context of a yevama.Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical, i.e. anal, sexual intercourse with those with whom relations are prohibited arayot. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: On the contrary, the main source that atypical intercourse is considered intercourse, which is based upon the verse “The cohabitations of a woman” (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited arayot.,Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical intercourse by those liable for violating an ordinary prohibition not punishable by karet, with regard to whom the expression: The cohabitations of a woman, does not appear. In any event, Rav Sheshet’s proof from the mishna is not conclusive.§ Rava said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged if he later has intercourse with her, due to the fact that it is prohibited for a priest to have intercourse with a zona. The Gemara expresses surprise: Due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, yes; due to ritual impurity, no? The Torah refers to a married woman who has had intercourse with another man as ritually impure, and she is forbidden to her husband. The Gemara emends Rava’s statement: Say that he is also flogged due to the prohibition with regard to a zona.,Rabbi Zeira raised an objection based upon a verse with regard to a sota: “And neither was she taken” (Numbers 5:13) indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, i.e. raped, she is permitted to her husband. The term “And…she” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is prohibited even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest.,And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, e.g. the prohibition proscribing a priest’s wife to her husband if she has been raped, which is derived from the fact that the Torah indicates that the wife of an Israelite remains permitted, has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.Rabba said in response: All married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse were included in the category of zona. When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if in fact she was forcibly taken, she is permitted. By inference, unlike the wife of an Israelite, the wife of a priest remains as she was. Since the Torah does not limit the category of zona with regard to the wife of a priest, she is considered a zona even if she was raped.And some say a different version of this discussion. Rabba said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged for having intercourse with her due to her ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: Due to ritual impurity, yes; due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, no? Apparently, in a case of rape, the victim is not called a zona.,Rabbi Zeira raised an objection from the verse: “And neither was she taken” indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, she is permitted to her husband. The term: “And…she,” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is forbidden even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.Rava said: All were included in the verse “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she was made ritually impure” (Deuteronomy 24:4). When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if she was forcibly taken she is permitted. By inference, the wife of a priest remains as she was, and she is forbidden. 58a According to Rabbi Meir, who says that betrothal to a priest disqualifies a woman who is unfit to marry him from partaking of teruma even if she is the daughter of a priest, entering the wedding canopy with a priest also disqualifies her. Conversely, according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that betrothal does not disqualify her, entering the wedding canopy also does not disqualify her.The Gemara refutes this claim: And from where do we know that these tanna’im would apply their opinions with regard to betrothal to entering the wedding canopy? Perhaps Rabbi Meir only stated his opinion there, with regard to betrothal, which acquires her. However, in the case of a wedding canopy, which does not acquire her, no, she is not disqualified.Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon stated their opinion only there, with regard to betrothal, as it is not close to an act of sexual intercourse. However, with regard to entering the wedding canopy, which is close to an act of sexual intercourse, as it is the place where the bride and groom are secluded together and symbolizes the woman’s entrance into her husband’s home, it is possible that it also disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.Rather, if it can be said that this issue was already discussed by earlier Sages, it was in the dispute between these other tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If they married one another, i.e. either a woman who is fit or a woman who is unfit married a priest, or they entered the wedding canopy and did not yet have intercourse with him, they are entitled to eat of his food and to partake of teruma.,The Gemara interrupts its presentation of the baraita to examine its wording. The fact that the baraita mentions a case where they entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse proves by inference that the earlier case, where they married, is referring to actual marriage. However, this is difficult because if they were actually married and had engaged in intercourse, the woman who was unfit to marry a priest is certainly disqualified from partaking of teruma due to the prohibited act of intercourse.Rather, is it not that the baraita is referring to a single case: Where they were married, and they entered the canopy, and had not had intercourse? And it is taught in the baraita that they are entitled to partake of his food and to partake of teruma. This indicates that entrance into the wedding canopy does not disqualify a woman who is unfit to marry a priest from eating teruma, although the act of intercourse does.The baraita continues: Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, says: Any woman whose act of intercourse entitles her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also entitles her to partake of teruma; and any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. Consequently, it appears that the tanna’im cited in this baraita disagree over the very question of whether the entry of a priest and a woman unfit to marry him into the wedding canopy has legal significance.The Gemara refutes this claim: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that in the case of the betrothal of a woman unfit for a priest she may not partake of teruma?The Gemara expresses surprise: According to this suggestion, this expression in the baraita is difficult: Any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. It should have said: Any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her betrothal money also does not entitle her to partake of teruma, as it was the betrothal that disqualified her. The Gemara counters this argument: Perhaps it can be suggested that since the first tanna said his ruling with regard to a wedding canopy, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, also said his ruling with regard to a wedding canopy, even though he holds that she was already disqualified from the time of her betrothal.§ Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet, and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e. he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion. Rav Sheshet’s statement was as follows: There is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. And the tanna of the mishna also taught this halakha with regard to a sota (Sota 18a–b): When a sota is brought to the Temple to drink the bitter waters, she affirms the oath imposed on her by a priest that she has not committed adultery. The mishna explains that when she says amen, it is as though she herself states that: I did not go astray while betrothed, or married, or as a widow waiting for her yavam, or as a fully married woman.The Gemara inquires: This case of a betrothed woman, what are the circumstances? If we say that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and he also causes her to drink the waters when she is betrothed, is a betrothed woman fit to drink the waters of a sota? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sota 23b): A betrothed woman and a widow waiting for her yavam do not drink, as the halakha of the sota waters applies only to married women; and they do not collect their marriage contract if they secluded themselves after being warned, as they have acted in a licentious fashion?Rather, the case in the first mishna cited above is that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with that man, and her husband causes her to drink when she is already married. However, in that case do the waters examine her? Isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity” (Numbers 5:31), that when the man is clear of iniquity the waters examine his wife, but if the man is not clear of iniquity the waters do not examine his wife? By secluding herself with the other man when she was betrothed, the woman rendered herself forbidden to her husband. If he then married her, he cannot be described as clear of iniquity, and therefore the sota waters are ineffective.Rather, it must be that he was jealous of her when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with the other man anyway, and she had entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse with her husband when he brought her to the priest. Consequently, she is made to drink the sota waters as a married woman, and her husband has not committed a transgression, as he has not had intercourse with her. Learn from this that there is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest, as demonstrated by the fact that the sota waters will examine her in these circumstances.Rava said: Do you hold that this baraita is sufficiently accurate to rely upon? But when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the South, he came with this baraita in hand: The verse states with regard to the oath of the sota: “And some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20), which indicates that it applies only when the cohabitation of the husband preceded that of the adulterer, but not when the cohabitation of the adulterer preceded that of the husband. Consequently, in the case under discussion, drinking the sota waters would not be effective.Rami bar Ḥama said: You find it in a case such as where her betrothed had intercourse with her licentiously when she was a betrothed woman in her father’s house. Since the act of intercourse was committed licentiously rather than for the purpose of consummating the marriage, the woman is still considered betrothed. Subsequently, her betrothed warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she disobeyed. Then, they entered the wedding canopy together, despite the fact that they are forbidden to one another. Once they entered the wedding canopy, the woman can be made to drink the bitter waters. This proves that there is significance to entering the wedding canopy with a woman that is unfit for one to marry.The Gemara asks: If so, in the corresponding case with regard to a widow waiting for her yavam, in which the yavam had licentious intercourse with her in her father-in-law’s house,, 62a from one that is not possible. Mankind was initially created with a male and female because otherwise reproduction would not have been possible. However, this fact cannot serve as a source that the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled only once one has a son and a daughter. The Gemara asks: And Beit Hillel, let them also learn from Moses. Beit Hillel could say to you: Moses acted based on his own perception when he separated from his wife, but this does not mean that a man is permitted to neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply after fathering two males, as it is taught in a baraita: Moses did three things based on his own perception, and his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent: He separated from his wife, he broke the tablets, and he added one day to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai.The Gemara clarifies: When Moses separated from his wife after the revelation at Sinai, what did he interpret that led him to do so? He said: If in the case of Israel, with whom the Divine Presence spoke only temporarily and for whom God set a specific time for revelation, the Torah stated: “Do not approach a woman” (Exodus 19:15), I, Moses, who am set aside for divine speech all the time and for whom God did not set a specific time, all the more so I must separate from my wife. And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is stated after the revelation at Sinai: “Go say to them: Return to your tents; and you, stand here with Me” (Deuteronomy 5:26–27). This indicates that whereas others could return to their homes and normal married life after the revelation at Sinai, Moses was to stay with God and not return to his wife.Moses broke the tablets following the sin of the Golden Calf. What did he interpret that led him to do so? Moses said: If in the case of the Paschal lamb, which is only one of 613 mitzvot, the Torah states: “No alien shall eat of it” (Exodus 12:43), excluding not only gentiles but apostate Jews as well, then here, in the case of the Golden Calf, where the tablets represent the entire Torah and where the Jewish people are apostates, as they are worshipping the calf, all the more so must they be excluded from receiving them.And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is written: “The first tablets that you broke asher shibbarta” (Exodus 34:1), and Reish Lakish said: The word asher is an allusion to the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: May your strength be true yishar koḥakha that you broke the tablets.When Moses added one day to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai based on his own perception, what did he interpret that led him to do so? He reasoned that since it is written: “And sanctify them today and tomorrow” (Exodus 19:10), the juxtaposition of the words “today” and “tomorrow” teaches that today is like tomorrow: Just as tomorrow the men and women will separate for that day and the night preceding it, so too, today requires separation for the day and the night preceding it. Since God spoke to him in the morning, and the night of that day already passed, Moses said: Conclude from this that separation must be in effect for two days aside from now, i.e. not including the day of the command. Therefore, he extended the mitzva of separation by one day. And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as the Divine Presence did not rest upon Mount Sinai until Shabbat morning, as Moses had determined.§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says that Beit Shammai say: The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with two males and two females. And Beit Hillel say: A male and a female.,Rav Huna said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? It is as it is written: “And again she bore his brother et aḥiv Abel et Hevel” (Genesis 4:2). The use of the superfluous word “et” indicates that she gave birth to Abel and his sister, in addition to Cain and his sister. And it states: “For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him” (Genesis 4:25). This indicates that one must have at least four children. And the Rabbis, how do they understand this verse? In their opinion, Eve was thanking God for granting her another child, but one is not obligated to have four children.It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Natan says that Beit Shammai say: The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with a male and a female. And Beit Hillel say: Either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? It is as it is stated: “He did not create it a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18), and one has made the earth inhabited to a greater degree by adding even one child to the world.§ It was stated that amora’im disagreed over the following issue: If a man had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, and Reish Lakish said: He has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Rabbi Yoḥa said he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as he already had children. And Reish Lakish said he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as the legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and it is considered as though he did not have children.The Gemara comments: And they follow their regular line of reasoning, as it was stated: If one had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, i.e. the first son born to him after his conversion does not inherit a double portion, as this man already had “the first of his strength” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. And Reish Lakish said: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as the legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born.,The Gemara adds: And it is necessary to state their opinions in both cases. As, had it only been taught to us with regard to that first case of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might have said that it is only in that case that Rabbi Yoḥa said his opinion, because from the outset, gentiles are also subject to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. However, with regard to inheritance, since they are not subject to the halakhot of inheritance, one might say that Rabbi Yoḥa concedes to Reish Lakish.,And conversely, if their dispute was stated only with regard to this issue of inheritance, I would have said that it is only in this case that Reish Lakish said his opinion, as the halakhot of inheritance do not apply to gentiles. But with regard to that case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥa. Consequently, it is necessary for both disputes to be recorded.Rabbi Yoḥa raises an objection to Reish Lakish based upon the verse: “At that time Berodach-baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent a letter” (IIKings 20:12), which indicates that gentiles are considered to be the children of their parents. Therefore, when they convert, they should already have fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: When they are gentiles they do have family lineage, but when they convert they do not have lineage, as they now belong to the family of the Jewish people and their previous lineage is disregarded.Rav said: Everyone agrees with regard to a Canaanite slave, that he does not have lineage, as it is written that Abraham said to his slaves: “Remain here with the donkey” (Genesis 22:5). This verse is interpreted to mean that they are a nation comparable to a donkey, which has no lineage. The Gemara raises an objection based upon a verse pertaining to Jonathan’s Canaanite slave: “And Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants” (IISamuel 9:10), which indicates that a slave’s sons are in fact considered his sons. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is like the expression: A bullock, son of a bull. The word son in this context merely denotes progeny, not lineage.The Gemara asks: If so, here too, with regard to gentiles, there is no proof from the verse about Berodach-baladan that they have family lineage. The Gemara answers: There it is different, as the Bible identified him by his name and by his father’s name, thereby emphasizing the family connection. But here, it does not specify the names of Ziba’s children. And if you wish, say instead that the Bible identified gentiles elsewhere by their father and their father’s father, as it is written: “And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, son of Tabrimmon, son of Hezion, king of Aram, who dwelled in Damascus, saying” (IKings 15:18). This indicates that there is lineage for gentiles.§ It was stated that amora’im disagreed over the following issue: If a man had children and they died, Rav Huna said: He has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply through these children. Rabbi Yoḥa said: He has not fulfilled the mitzva.The Gemara clarifies the reasons for their opinions: Rav Huna said he has fulfilled the mitzva due to a statement of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said that the reason for this mitzva is that the Messiah, son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, i.e. until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so, as it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). Consequently, once a child has been born and his soul has entered a body the mitzva has been fulfilled, even if the child subsequently dies. And Rabbi Yoḥa said he has not fulfilled the mitzva, as we require “He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18), and this is not fulfilled when the children have passed away and no longer inhabit the earth.The Gemara raises an objection with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna based upon the following baraita: 62b Grandchildren are considered like children. This indicates that if one’s children have passed away, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply only if they had children of their own, as they are considered like his own children. The Gemara responds: When that baraita is taught it is with regard to completing the required number of children, e.g. if he had only a son, but his son had a daughter, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from another baraita: Grandchildren are considered like children. If one of a man’s children died or was discovered to be a eunuch, the father has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. This directly contradicts Rav Huna’s statement that one fulfills the mitzva even if his children die. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is indeed a conclusive refutation.,§ It was taught in the baraita that grandchildren are considered like children. Abaye thought to say that if one’s children die, he fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply through grandchildren, provided a son was born to his son and a daughter to his daughter, and all the more so if a son was born to his daughter, as his grandchildren take the place of his children in these cases. However, if a daughter was born to his son, no, she cannot take the place of her father. Rava said to him: We require merely fulfillment of the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited,” and there is fulfillment in this case, as the earth is inhabited by his descendants.The Gemara comments: In any event, everyone agrees that if one has two grandchildren from one child, no, he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, even if he has both a grandson and a granddaughter. The Gemara asks: And has he not? Didn’t the Rabbis say to Rav Sheshet: Marry a woman and have sons, as you have not yet fathered any sons, and Rav Sheshet said to them: The sons of my daughter are my sons? This indicates that one can fulfill the mitzva through grandchildren even if he did not have a son and daughter of his own.The Gemara answers: There, Rav Sheshet was merely putting them off. The real reason he did not want to get remarried was because Rav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. Rav Huna’s discourses were so lengthy that Rav Sheshet became impotent after waiting for so long without relieving himself.Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived, that grandchildren are considered like children? If we say it is derived from the fact that it is written in Laban’s speech to Jacob: “The daughters are my daughters and the children are my children” (Genesis 31:43), which indicates that Jacob’s children were also considered to be the children of their grandfather Laban, if that is so, does the continuation of Laban’s statement: “And the flocks are my flocks” (Genesis 31:43), indicate that so too, Jacob’s flocks were considered as belonging to Laban? Rather, Laban was saying that you, Jacob, acquired them from me. Here too, with regard to the children, Laban was saying: You acquired them from me, i.e. it is only due to me that you have children.Rather, the proof is from here: “And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead…and she bore him Segub” (IChronicles 2:21), and it is written: “Out of Machir came down governors” (Judges 5:14), and it is written: “Judah is my governor” (Psalms 60:9). Consequently, the governors, who were from the tribe of Judah, were also called the sons of Machir, who was from the tribe of Manasseh. This must be because they were the children of Machir’s daughter and Hezron, indicating that grandchildren are considered like children.§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If a man married a woman in his youth, and she passed away, he should marry another woman in his old age. If he had children in his youth, he should have more children in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both alike shall be good” (Ecclesiastes 11:6). This verse indicates that a man should continue having children even after he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.Rabbi Akiva says that the verse should be understood as follows: If one studied Torah in his youth he should study more Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth he should have additional students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said by way of example that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students in an area of land that stretched from Gevat to Antipatris in Judea, and they all died in one period of time, because they did not treat each other with respect.,And the world was desolate of Torah until Rabbi Akiva came to our Rabbis in the South and taught his Torah to them. This second group of disciples consisted of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. And these are the very ones who upheld the study of Torah at that time. Although Rabbi Akiva’s earlier students did not survive, his later disciples were able to transmit the Torah to future generations.With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is taught that all of them died in the period from Passover until Shavuot. Rav Ḥama bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: They all died a bad death. The Gemara inquires: What is it that is called a bad death? Rav Naḥman said: Diphtheria.,Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one must attempt to have more children even if he has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.§ Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is left without joy, without blessing, without goodness. He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that the a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e. his wife. He is without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e. one’s wife. He is without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), i.e. without a wife.In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: One who lives without a wife is left without Torah, and without a wall of protection. He is without Torah, as it is written: “Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven from me?” (Job 6:13), indicating that one who does not have a wife lacks sound wisdom, i.e. Torah. He is without a wall, as it is written: “A woman shall go round a man” (Jeremiah 31:21), similar to a protective wall.Rava bar Ulla said: One who does not have a wife is left without peace, as it is written: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” (Job 5:24). This indicates that a man has peace only when he has a tent, i.e. a wife.On the same verse, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever knows that his wife fears Heaven and she desires him, and he does not visit her, i.e. have intercourse with her, is called a sinner, as it is stated: And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A man is obligated to visit his wife for the purpose of having intercourse when he is about to depart on a journey, as it is stated: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace, etc.”,The Gemara asks: Is this last statement derived from here? It is derived from there: “And your desire shall be to your husband” (Genesis 3:16), which teaches that a wife desires her husband when he is about to depart on a journey. Rav Yosef said: The additional derivation cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is necessary only near the time of her set pattern, i.e. when she expects to begin experiencing menstrual bleeding. Although the Sages generally prohibited intercourse at this time due to a concern that the couple might have intercourse after she begins bleeding, if he is about to depart on a journey he must have intercourse with her.The Gemara asks: And how much before the expected onset of menstrual bleeding is considered near the time of her set pattern? Rava said: An interval of time, i.e. half a daily cycle, either a day or a night. The Gemara comments: And this statement that a man must have intercourse with his wife before he departs on a journey applies only if he is traveling for an optional matter, but if he is traveling in order to attend to a matter pertaining to a mitzva, he is not required to have intercourse with his wife so that he not become preoccupied and neglect the mitzva.§ The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife, 69b If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma, as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If the fetus was cut in her womb, i.e. she miscarried, she may partake of teruma. If the man was a priest who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she still may not partake of teruma, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If she gave birth she may partake due to her child, a priest. It is therefore found in this case that the power of the son is greater than that of the father, as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of teruma, but the son does.A slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, and he does not disqualify a woman because he is her offspring. How so? In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her offspring? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite; and she a bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant, an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; and she bore him a son, then this son is a slave. If the latter’s father’s mother was an Israelite who was married to a priest, and her husband died, she may not partake of teruma due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and he died, leaving only this grandson, she may partake of teruma, as the grandson is not considered his father’s offspring.A mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. How so? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this son is a mamzer. If his mother’s mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest, even if her husband died, she may partake of teruma, as she has surviving offspring from a priest. Conversely, if she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma, even after her Israelite husband’s death, as she has offspring from him.Even with regard to a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. How so? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this son is fit to be a High Priest, who stands and serves on the altar. This son enables his mother to partake of teruma, as he is a priest. And yet, he disqualifies his mother’s mother from partaking of teruma, as he is her offspring from her Israelite husband. This grandmother can say in disapproval: Let there not be many like my daughter’s son, the High Priest, as he disqualifies me from partaking of teruma., 122a for three pilgrim Festivals, on which the Sages gather together to study, but he could not resolve this uncertainty on any of those occasions. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to her: Go before Rav Yosef, whose knife is sharp, i.e. he has keen insight into halakhic matters, and ask him to decide your case.She went before him and he resolved the case based on this baraita: With regard to a gentile who was selling fruit at the market and said: These fruits are from the first three years of the tree’s growth orla; or they are from Azeka, i.e. land tilled on the Sabbatical Year, the produce of which it is prohibited to eat; or they are fourth-year produce, which it is prohibited to eat outside of Jerusalem, he has said nothing of consequence. His statement is not deemed credible, since it is possible that he intended only to enhance the reputation of his goods, as he thought that his produce would fetch a higher price if he described it in that fashion. Rav Yosef derived from this baraita that in the case of the missing Jew, the gentile’s statement could not be relied upon, as he may have stated it only to promote his own agenda.Abba Yudan of Sidon said: An incident occurred involving a Jew and a gentile who traveled on the road, and later the gentile came and said: Alas for the Jew who was with me on the road, for he died, and I buried him. And the Sages relied upon this statement and allowed his wife to marry.,And there was another incident involving a group of people who had been taken prisoner, each of whom was shackled with a collar kolar around his neck, and they were walking to Antokhya. And some time later a certain gentile came and said: Alas for the group of collared people, for they died, and I buried them. And the Sages allowed their wives to marry. And there was yet another incident involving sixty people who were walking to the siege karkom of Beitar, and later a gentile came and said: Alas for those sixty people who were walking on the road to Beitar, for they died, and I buried them. And the Sages allowed their wives to marry., |
123. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 8, 12, 14 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot, and Aggadah; Law and Narrative • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • Rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha • System, halakhic ~ • halakhah, as modality of tradition • midrash, halakhic midrashim Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 15; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 27, 347, 371; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 70; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 44, 138 NA> |
124. Anon., Challah, 2.9 Tagged with subjects: • Change, in custom and halakhah • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah Found in books: Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 304; Rubin Time and the Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash: Socio-Anthropological Perspectives (2008) 70 איזו היא הארץ ואיזו היא חו\\"ל כל השופע מטורי אמנון ואילך ארץ ישראל מטורי אמנון ולהלן חוצה לארץ הניסין שבים רואין אותן כאילו חוט מתוח מטורי אמנון ועד נחל מצרים מחוט ולפנים ארץ ישראל מלחוט ולחוץ חוצה לארץ ר\ יהודה אומר כל שהוא כנגד ארץ ישראל הרי הוא כארץ ישראל שנא\ (במדבר ל״ד:ו׳) וגבול ים והיה לכם הים הגדול וגבול הניסין שבצדדין רואין אותן כאילו חוט מתוח מקפלריא ועד אוקיינוס מנחל מצרים ועד אוקיינוס מחוט ולפנים ארץ ישראל מחוט ולחוץ חוצה לארץ. NA> |
125. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 5 Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • Law, Biblical/Rabbinic—see also, Halakhah • halakhah, halitzah (drawing of the shoe) • halakhah, Ḥaliṣah (drawing of the shoe) Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 32; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 369 NA> |
126. Anon., Midrash On Song of Songs, 5.3 Tagged with subjects: • halakhah • law and legal formulae, rabbinic (halakhah) Found in books: Lieber, A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (2014) 304; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 246 "פָּשַׁטְתִּי אֶת כֻּתָּנְתִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִלּוּ תַּמָּה שֶׁבַּתַּמּוֹת יוֹדַעַת לִפְשֹׁט וְלִלְבּשׁ, וְאַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ פָּשַׁטְתִּי אֶת כֻּתָּנְתִּי, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרֵי יוֹם שֶׁנִּזְדַּוֵּג לָהֶם נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָרָשָׁע לְיִשְׂרָאֵל פָּשַׁט מֵהֶם שְׁנֵי לְבוּשִׁים גְּדוֹלִים, לְבוּשׁ כְּהֻנָּה וּלְבוּשׁ מַלְכוּת. רָחַצְתִּי אֶת רַגְלַי, מִטִּנּוּף עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים, יוֹדַעַת הָיִיתִי שֶׁאָבָק שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם מַשִּׁיאֵנִי לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן דּוֹדִי שָׁלַח יָדוֹ מִן הַחוֹר. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא, וְכִי מַה טִּיבוֹ שֶׁל חוֹר זֶה לִהְיוֹת מְגַדֵּל שְׁרָצִים, אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמְרָה כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם כָּל נִסִּים שֶׁעָשִׂיתָ לִי עַל יְדֵי כּוֹרֶשׁ, לֹא הָיָה מוּטָב לַעֲשׂוֹתָן לִי עַל יְדֵי דָנִיֵּאל, וְעַל יְדֵי אָדָם צַדִּיק, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, מֵעַי הָמוּ עָלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲזַרְיָה אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא גָּזַר טַב אֲנָא, אַתּוּן אָמְרִין וּמֵעַי הָמוּ עָלָיו, גַּם אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי (ירמיה ד, יט): מֵעַי מֵעַי אוֹחִילָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר פָּשַׁטְתִּי אֶת כֻּתָּנְתִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֲפִלּוּ תַּמָּה שֶׁבַּתַּמּוֹת יוֹדַעַת לִפְשֹׁט וְלִלְבּשׁ, וְאַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ פָּשַׁטְתִּי אֶת כֻּתָּנְתִּי אֵיכָכָה אֶלְבָּשֶׁנָּה, אֶלָּא מַהוּ זֶה, לְפִי שֶׁשֵּׁנַת הָעֲצֶרֶת עֲרֵבָה, וְהַלַּיְלָה קְצָרָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן אַף פּוּרְטַעְנָא לֹא עָקְצָה בָהֶם. רָחַצְתִּי אֶת רַגְלַי, מִטִּנּוּף שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים, יוֹדַעַת הָיִיתִי שֶׁאָבָק שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם מַשִּׁיאֵנִי לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן דּוֹדִי שָׁלַח יָדוֹ מִן הַחוֹר. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי כְּעָנִי שֶׁמְּבַקֵּשׁ צְדָקָה, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן וּמֵעַי הָמוּ עָלָיו וְהוּא אָמַר לִי (ירמיה לא, יט): הָמוּ מֵעַי לוֹ רַחֵם אֲרַחֲמֶנּוּ נְאֻם ה." NA> |
127. Anon., Seder Eliyahu Zuta, 16 Tagged with subjects: • Halakhah/Halakhot • Rabbinic Halakhah Found in books: Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 57; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 443, 448 NA> |