1. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 4.2-4.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181| 4.2. "וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ׃", 4.2. "וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת־נַחְשׁוֹן וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׂלְמָה׃", 4.3. "וַיֹּאמֶר לַגֹּאֵל חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר לְאָחִינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב׃", 4.4. "וַאֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי אֶגְלֶה אָזְנְךָ לֵאמֹר קְנֵה נֶגֶד הַיֹּשְׁבִים וְנֶגֶד זִקְנֵי עַמִּי אִם־תִּגְאַל גְּאָל וְאִם־לֹא יִגְאַל הַגִּידָה לִּי ואדע [וְאֵדְעָה] כִּי אֵין זוּלָתְךָ לִגְאוֹל וְאָנֹכִי אַחֲרֶיךָ וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֶגְאָל׃", 4.5. "וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת־הַמֵּת קניתי [קָנִיתָה] לְהָקִים שֵׁם־הַמֵּת עַל־נַחֲלָתוֹ׃", 4.6. "וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל לֹא אוּכַל לגאול־[לִגְאָל־] לִי פֶּן־אַשְׁחִית אֶת־נַחֲלָתִי גְּאַל־לְךָ אַתָּה אֶת־גְּאֻלָּתִי כִּי לֹא־אוּכַל לִגְאֹל׃", 4.7. "וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־הַגְּאוּלָּה וְעַל־הַתְּמוּרָה לְקַיֵּם כָּל־דָּבָר שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 4.8. "וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל לְבֹעַז קְנֵה־לָךְ וַיִּשְׁלֹף נַעֲלוֹ׃", | 4.2. "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said: ‘Sit ye down here.’ And they sat down.", 4.3. "And he said unto the near kinsman: ‘Naomi, that is come back out of the field of Moab, selleth the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s;", 4.4. "and I thought to disclose it unto thee, saying: Buy it before them that sit here, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it; but if it will not be redeemed, then tell me, that I may know; for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee.’ And he said: ‘I will redeem it.’", 4.5. "Then said Boaz: ‘What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi—hast thou also bought of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance?’", 4.6. "And the near kinsman said: ‘I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance; take thou my right of redemption on thee; for I cannot redeem it.’—", 4.7. "Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the attestation in Israel.—", 4.8. "So the near kinsman said unto Boaz: ‘Buy it for thyself.’ And he drew off his shoe.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 10.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 181, 182| 10.1. "ודכה [יִדְכֶּה] יָשֹׁחַ וְנָפַל בַּעֲצוּמָיו חלכאים [חֵיל] [כָּאִים׃]", 10.1. "לָמָה יְהוָה תַּעֲמֹד בְּרָחוֹק תַּעְלִים לְעִתּוֹת בַּצָּרָה׃", | 10.1. "Why standest Thou afar off, O LORD? Why hidest Thou Thyself in times of trouble?", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 5.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 176, 180, 181| 5.6. "בְּצֹאנָם וּבִבְקָרָם יֵלְכוּ לְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־יְהוָה וְלֹא יִמְצָאוּ חָלַץ מֵהֶם׃", | 5.6. "With their flocks and with their herds they shall go To seek the LORD, but they shall not find Him; He hath withdrawn Himself from them.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Song of Songs, 5.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 182| 5.6. "פָּתַחְתִּי אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְדוֹדִי חָמַק עָבָר נַפְשִׁי יָצְאָה בְדַבְּרוֹ בִּקַּשְׁתִּיהוּ וְלֹא מְצָאתִיהוּ קְרָאתִיו וְלֹא עָנָנִי׃", | 5.6. I opened to my beloved; But my beloved had turned away, and was gone. My soul failed me when he spoke. I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer. |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Lamentations, 4.11 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184| 4.11. "כִּלָּה יְהוָה אֶת־חֲמָתוֹ שָׁפַךְ חֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ וַיַּצֶּת־אֵשׁ בְּצִיּוֹן וַתֹּאכַל יְסוֹדֹתֶיהָ׃", | 4.11. "The LORD hath accomplished His fury, He hath poured out His fierce anger; And He hath kindled a fire in Zion, Which hath devoured the foundations thereof.", |
|
6. Tosefta, Horayot, 2.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184| 2.5. "הוא ואביו ורבו עומדין בשבי הוא קודם לרבו ורבו קודם לאביו ואמו קודמת לכל אדם איזהו רבו רבו שלמדו תורה לא שלמדו אומנות ואיזה זה שפתח לו תחלה ר' מאיר אומר רבו שלמדו חכמה לא רבו שלמדו תורה ר' יהודה אומר כל שרוב תלמודו ממנו ר' יוסי אומר כל שהאיר עיניו במשנתו.", | |
|
| 7. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 13 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
| 8. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 43 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
| 9. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
10. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 176| 102b. ומי איכא כי האי גוונא אין דחזיוה רבנן לרב יהודה דנפק בחמשא זוזי מוקי לשוקא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יבמה שהגדילה בין האחין מותרת לינשא לאחד מן האחין ואין חוששין שמא חלצה סנדל לאחד מהן טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חיישינן,והא תניא בין שנתכוון הוא ולא נתכוונה היא בין שנתכוונה היא ולא נתכוון הוא חליצתה פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם כאחד הכי קאמר אע"ג דחזינן אין חוששין שמא כוונו,ואיכא דאמרי טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חוששין ודקא תנא בעי כוונה הני מילי לאישתרויי לעלמא אבל לאחין מיפסלא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב סנדל התפור בפשתן אין חולצין בו שנאמר (יחזקאל טז, י) ואנעלך תחש ואימא תחש אין מידי אחרינא לא נעל נעל ריבה,אי נעל נעל ריבה אפי' כל מילי נמי אם כן תחש מאי אהני ליה,בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב הוא של עור ותריסיותיו של שער מהו אמר ליה מי לא קרינן ביה ואנעלך תחש אי הכי כולו של שער נמי ההוא קרקא מקרי,אמר ליה רב כהנא לשמואל ממאי דהאי וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו מישלף הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מ) וחלצו את האבנים אשר בהן הנגע,ואימא זרוזי הוא דכתיב (במדבר לא, ג) החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא התם נמי שלופי מביתא לקרבא,והכתיב (איוב לו, טו) יחלץ עני בעניו בשכר עניו יחלצו מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (תהלים לד, ח) חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם בשכר יראיו יחלצם מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יא) ועצמותיך יחליץ ואמר רבי אלעזר זו מעולה שבברכות ואמר רבא זרוזי גרמי אין משמע הכי ומשמע הכי דהכא אי ס"ד זרוזי הוא א"כ לכתוב רחמנא וחלצה נעלו ברגלו,אי כתב רחמנא ברגלו ה"א ברגלו אין בשוקו לא כתב רחמנא מעל רגלו דאפילו בשוקו א"כ לכתוב רחמנא במעל רגלו מאי מעל רגלו ש"מ מישלף הוא,אמר ליה ההוא מינא לר"ג עמא דחלץ ליה מריה מיניה דכתיב (הושע ה, ו) בצאנם ובבקרם ילכו לבקש את ה' ולא ימצאו חלץ מהם,אמר ליה שוטה מי כתיב חלץ להם חלץ מהם כתיב ואילו יבמה דחלצו לה אחין מידי מששא אית ביה:,באנפיליא חליצתה פסולה כו': למימרא דאנפיליא לאו מנעל הוא,ותנן נמי אין התורם נכנס לא בפרגוד חפות ולא באנפיליא ואין צריך לומר במנעל וסנדל לפי שאין נכנסין במנעל וסנדל לעזרה,ורמינהו אחד מנעל וסנדל ואנפיליא לא יטייל בהן לא מבית לבית ולא ממטה למטה,אמר אביי דאית ביה כתיתי ומשום תענוג אמר ליה רבא ומשום תענוג בלא מנעל ביום הכפורים מי אסירי והא רבה בר רב הונא כריך סודרא אכרעיה ונפיק אלא אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד,ה"נ מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא יום הכפורים איום הכפורים דתניא לא יטייל אדם בקורדקיסין בתוך ביתו אבל מטייל הוא באנפילין בתוך ביתו אלא לאו ש"מ כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד ש"מ,תניא כוותיה דרבא חלצה במנעל הנפרם שחופה את רוב הרגל בסנדל הנפחת שמקבל את רוב הרגל בסנדל של שעם ושל סיב בקב הקיטע במוק בסמיכת הרגלים באנפיליא של עור והחולצת מן הגדול | 102b. The Gemara asks: b Is there really a case like this /b where people wear one shoe on top of another? The Gemara answers: b Yes, for the Sages saw Rav Yehuda, who went out /b once b to the market wearing five pairs of /b shoes, which were similar to b slippers, /b one on top of another., b Rav Yehuda said /b another i halakha /i that b Rav said: /b An underage b i yevama /i who grew up among /b her husband’s b brothers /b before any i ḥalitza /i was performed b is permitted to marry one of the brothers /b through levirate marriage, b and we are not concerned /b about the possibility b that /b during the time she was in the company of her i yevamin /i b she removed a sandal from one of them, /b and thereby she would have already performed i ḥalitza /i . The Gemara infers from this statement: b The reason /b it is permitted to perform levirate marriage now b is /b specifically b that we did not see /b her remove one of their shoes, b but if /b in fact b we did see /b her do so, b we are concerned /b and treat her as a i yevama /i who already performed i ḥalitza /i and is thereby forbidden to all the brothers.,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Whether he intended /b to perform i ḥalitza /i b and she did not intend /b to, b or whether she intended /b to perform i ḥalitza /i b and he did not intend to, the i ḥalitza /i is invalid, unless they both intended it as one /b to perform a proper act of i ḥalitza /i ? The Gemara answers: b This is what /b Rav b said: Even if we /b did b see /b that she removed a shoe from one of them, b we are not concerned that perhaps they intended to /b perform i ḥalitza /i ., b And there are /b those b who say /b the inference from Rav’s statement should be made in the opposite manner: b The reason /b it is permitted for her to perform levirate marriage now b is /b specifically b that we did not see /b her remove a shoe from one of the brothers. b But if we did see, we would be concerned /b and would treat her as a i yevama /i who already performed i ḥalitza /i , despite our knowledge that she did not intend to perform i ḥalitza /i . b And /b with regard to b that which was taught /b in the i baraita /i , b that intention is required, this applies /b only as far as validating the act of i ḥalitza /i in order b to permit her to marry a stranger. But /b performing an act of i ḥalitza /i even without intention is sufficient to b disqualify her for the brothers, /b rendering prohibited an act of levirate marriage afterward., b Rav Yehuda /b also b said /b that b Rav said: One may not perform i ḥalitza /i using a sandal /b that was b sewn /b together b with /b threads made of b flax, as it is stated: “And I made you shoes of i taḥash /i skin” /b (Ezekiel 16:10), which is the skin of an animal, implying that a shoe is something made entirely of leather. The Gemara challenges: If the source is “ i taḥash /i ,” b let us say: /b A shoe made of b i taḥash /i skin, yes, /b it is valid; but if made of b anything else, no. /b The Gemara rejects this: Because b “shoe” /b and b “shoe” /b are written in the Torah multiple times, this b amplifies /b and includes all types of shoes crafted from leather skins as valid for performing i ḥalitza /i .,The Gemara asks: b If /b the inclusion of the words b “shoe” /b and b “shoe” amplifies, /b then should one include as valid for performing i ḥalitza /i shoes crafted from b even any /b other b materials as well, /b including those not produced from leather at all? The Gemara answers: b If so, what purpose does “ i taḥash /i ” serve, /b as nothing is learned from it? Rather, from the word i taḥash /i it is derived that the shoe must be crafted entirely of leather, but all types of leather are included because the word “shoe” is repeated in the Torah numerous times., b Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: /b What is the status of the following type of sandal used for performing i ḥalitza /i ? In a case where b it, /b the shoe itself, b is made of leather, and /b the sections that hold b its straps [ i tereisiyyot /i ] /b are made b of hair, /b as they were woven together with goat’s hair, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b He said to him: Do we not refer to /b such a sandal b as: “And I made you shoes of i taḥash /i ”? /b Since it is crafted from material that comes from an animal it is valid. The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b i.e., that anything derived from an animal is valid, then even if it is fashioned b entirely of hair it should also be /b valid. The Gemara answers: b That would be called a slipper, /b not a shoe., b Rav Kahana said to Shmuel: From where is it known that this /b phrase: b “And she shall remove [ i ḥaltza /i ] his shoe from on his foot” /b (Deuteronomy 25:9), b means to remove? As it is written: /b “Then the priest shall command, b and they shall take out [ i ḥiltzu /i ] the stones in which the plague is” /b (Leviticus 14:40), indicating that the word i ḥaltza /i means that they shall remove the stones from their place.,The Gemara asks whether the word i ḥaltza /i can be interpreted differently based upon its apparent meaning in other contexts: b But /b could you b say it is /b a term for b strengthening, as it is written: “Arm [ i heḥaletzu /i ] men from among you for the army” /b (Numbers 31:3), meaning that men among you will be strengthened and take up arms to prepare for battle? The Gemara answers: b There too, /b the meaning of the word is referring to taking something from its place, as it means b removing /b people b from their houses /b in order b to go /b out b to war. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it written: “He delivers [ i yeḥaletz /i ] the afflicted by His affliction [ i be’onyo /i ]” /b (Job 36:15)? This indicates that the afflicted one becomes stronger due to his affliction, as, if the intention was to deliver him from his affliction, it should have said: From His affliction, rather than “by His affliction.” The Gemara answers that the verse should be interpreted as follows: i Be’onyo /i , in other words, b as reward for his /b suffering from b affliction, He shall deliver him from the judgment of Gehenna, /b as is understood from the term i be’onyo /i , through the reward due to his affliction.,The Gemara challenges further: b But /b with regard to b that it is written: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them [ i vayeḥaltzem /i ]” /b (Psalms 34:8), doesn’t i vayeḥaltzem /i rather mean: He shall strengthen them? The Gemara answers: The verse means: b As a reward for those that fear Him, He shall deliver them from the judgment of Gehenna. /b Therefore, the Gemara interprets i vayeḥaltzem /i as “delivers them,” not as: Strengthens them.,The Gemara challenges further: b But /b with regard to b that which is written: /b “And the Lord will guide you, and satisfy your soul in drought, b and make your bones strong [ i yaḥalitz /i ]” /b (Isaiah 58:11), b and Rabbi Elazar said /b regarding that verse: b This is the greatest of blessings, and Rava said /b it means: b Strengthening of bones. /b This seems to indicate that the root of the word i ḥalitza /i is referring to strengthening. The Gemara answers: b Yes, it has this connotation, and it has this connotation, /b i.e., the root i ḥ-l-tz /i sometimes connotes removal and sometimes connotes strengthening. b But here, /b only one meaning is possible, as, b if it enters your mind /b that i ḥalitza /i here b connotes strengthening, then let the Merciful One write /b in the Torah: b She shall strengthen [ i ḥaletza /i ] his shoe on his foot [ i beraglo /i ], /b indicating that she should tighten the shoe on his foot, rather than stating: “From on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” which indicates that she is removing something from his foot.,The Gemara responds: b If the Merciful One had written /b in the Torah: b On his foot [ i beraglo /i ], I would have said /b she must strengthen and tighten the shoe b on his foot, yes, but on his calf, no; /b and if his foot were amputated she may no longer perform i ḥalitza /i . Therefore, b the Merciful One writes /b in the Torah: b “From on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” /b to teach that she may strengthen the shoe b even on his calf, /b which is part of the leg, or i regel /i , above the foot. The Gemara answers: b If so, /b and i ḥalitza /i really means strengthening, b let the Merciful One write /b in the Torah: She shall strengthen his shoe b on the upper part of his foot [ i beme’al raglo /i ], /b indicating that the shoe can also be tightened on the area of the calf. b What /b then b is /b the meaning of b “from on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” /b which is written in the verse? b Learn from here /b that in this context the word i ḥalitza /i clearly b indicates removal, /b meaning that the mitzva of i ḥalitza /i is for the i yevama /i to remove the shoe of the i yavam /i and not to tighten it on his foot.,Parenthetical to this discussion, the Gemara relates: b A certain heretic said to Rabban Gamliel: /b You, the children of Israel, are b a nation whose Master removed [ i ḥalatz /i ] Himself from them, /b for God has left you in much the same way in which a i yavam /i would perform i ḥalitza /i with his i yevama /i , b as it is written: “With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they shall not find Him. He has removed [ i ḥalatz /i ] Himself from them [ i meihem /i ]” /b (Hoshea 5:6). The heretic tried to use this verse as scriptural support that God has performed i ḥalitza /i with the Jewish people., b He, /b Rabban Gamliel, b said to him: Imbecile, does it say: He performed i ḥalitza /i to them [ i lahem /i ]? /b Rather, b it says “ i ḥalatz /i from them [ i meihem /i ],” /b meaning it is as if they, the Jewish people, performed i ḥalitza /i on Him. b But if a i yevama /i had her shoe removed by her i yevamin /i , does this have any significance? /b Here too, the meaning of the verse is that the nation of Israel abandoned God by removing themselves from Him, and this abandonment has no significance.,The Gemara analyzes the phrase used in the mishna that discusses the types of shoes that can be used for i ḥalitza /i . It was taught in the mishna that if he was wearing b a soft shoe [ i anpileya /i ] /b made of cloth for i ḥalitza /i , b her i ḥalitza /i is invalid. /b The Gemara explains: b That is to say that an i anpileya /i is not /b considered b a shoe. /b , b And we also learned /b similarly in a mishna ( i Shekalim /i 3:2): b The one who collects the funds /b of shekels donated to the Temple from the chamber and puts them it into baskets in order to be used b may not enter /b to collect the funds b wearing a garment [ i pargod /i ] that is cuffed [ i ḥafut /i ], nor wearing an i anpileya /i , and needless to say /b that he may not enter wearing b a shoe or a sandal, because one may not enter /b the Temple b courtyard wearing a shoe or a sandal. /b It is prohibited for the one collecting funds from the chamber to enter the chamber wearing a garment or footwear in which money could be hidden, lest people come to suspect that he hid in them funds collected from the chamber. In any case, the wording of the mishna indicates that an i anpileya /i is not considered a type of shoe, since it is permitted to enter the Temple wearing an i anpileya /i when there is no reason for suspicion, unlike a shoe or sandal, which can never be worn in the Temple., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i concerning what footwear is permitted on Yom Kippur, which seems to indicate otherwise: The halakha is b the same for a /b soft leather b shoe, and a /b hard leather b sandal, and an i anpileya /i , as one may not walk in them from one house to another, nor from one bed to another /b on Yom Kippur, due to the prohibition against wearing shoes, indicating that at least as far as Yom Kippur is concerned, an i anpileya /i is considered a shoe., b Abaye said: /b There, with regard to Yom Kippur, it is referring to an i anpileya /i b that has cushioning, and /b this is forbidden b due to the pleasure /b that one derives from cushioned footwear on a day when people are commanded to afflict themselves. b Rava said to him: But /b is footwear b that is not considered /b to be b shoes forbidden on Yom Kippur due to /b the b pleasure /b one derives from wearing them? b But Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a scarf on his feet and go out /b on Yom Kippur so his feet would not be injured, implying that there is no prohibition against wearing something comfortable on one’s foot, as long as it is not defined as a shoe. b Rather, Rava said: This /b is b not difficult. Here, /b when they said that an i anpileya /i has the status of a shoe, it is referring to b an i anpileya /i /b made b of leather. There, /b when they do not consider it a shoe, it is referring to b an i anpileya /i /b made b of cloth. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And so too, it is reasonable /b to distinguish in this manner, b as, if you do not say so, it /b is b difficult /b to reconcile the seeming contradiction between one statement about b Yom Kippur and /b another statement about b Yom Kippur. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A person shall not walk /b while wearing b slippers [ i kordakisin /i ] within his house /b on Yom Kippur, b but he may walk /b while wearing b an i anpileya /i within his house. /b This would imply that wearing an i anpileya /i is permitted, but the i baraita /i quoted above taught that it is prohibited. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from here /b that b here, /b where it indicates that an i anpileya /i is forbidden, it is referring b to an i anpileya /i /b made b of leather, /b as they are considered like a shoe, and b there, /b where an i anpileya /i is permitted, it is referring b to an i anpileya /i /b made b of cloth? /b The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from here /b that it is so.,It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rava: /b If b she performed i ḥalitza /i using a shoe whose seams were opened up, which /b still b covered most of the foot; /b or if she performed i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal /b whose sole b was /b partially b opened that /b still b held most of the foot; /b or if she performed i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal /b made b of cork [ i sha’am /i ], or of fibers /b from a tree; or b with a prosthetic foot of an amputee; /b or b with a felt shoe [ i muk /i ]; /b or b with a leg blanket /b that an amputee makes for his feet as a covering in which to put the stumps of his legs, which is not an actual shoe; or b with a leather i anpileya /i ; and /b likewise, a woman b who performs i ḥalitza /i /b with her i yavam /i when he is an b adult man, /b |
|
| 11. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 11.4 (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 176, 179 |
12. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184| 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 | 8b. This applies to every verse, b even /b a verse like: b “Atarot and Divon /b 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, b as one who completes his /b Torah b portions with the congregation /b is rewarded that b his days and years are extended. /b , b Rav Beivai bar Abaye thought to finish all the /b Torah b portions of the entire year, /b which he had been unable to complete at their appointed time, b on the eve of Yom Kippur /b when he would have time to do so. But b Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught him: It is written /b with regard to Yom Kippur: b “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, /b from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32).,The Gemara wonders: b And does one fast on the ninth /b of Tishrei? b Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei, /b 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)? b Rather, /b this verse comes b to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth /b day of Tishrei in preparation for the fast the next day, b the verse ascribes him /b credit b as if he fasted on /b both b the ninth and the tenth /b 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, b he thought to /b read the Torah portions b earlier, /b before they were to be read by the community. b A certain /b unnamed b elder told him, we learned: As long as one does not /b read the Torah portions b earlier or later /b than the congregation. One must read them together with the congregation., b As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi told his sons: Complete your portions with the congregation, the Bible /b text b twice and /b the b translation once. /b ,He also advised them: b Be careful with the /b jugular b veins, in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned /b in a mishna with regard to the laws of ritual slaughter: b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b Cutting the trachea and esophagus in the ritual slaughter of a bird does not render the bird kosher b until he slaughters the /b jugular b veins /b 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: b And be careful /b to continue to respect b an elder who has forgotten his /b Torah b knowledge due to /b circumstances b beyond his control. /b Even though he is no longer a Torah scholar, he must still be respected for the Torah that he once possessed. b As we say: /b Both b the tablets /b of the Covet b and the broken tablets are placed in the Ark /b 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., b Rava said to his sons /b three bits of advice: b When you cut meat, do not cut it on your hand. /b The Gemara offers two explanations for this. b Some say: Due to /b the b danger /b that one might accidentally cut his hand, b and some say: Due to /b the fact that it could b ruin the meal, /b as even if one only cut himself slightly, that small amount of blood could still spoil the meat and render it repulsive to eat., b And /b Rava also advised: b Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman, and do not pass by a synagogue when the community is praying. /b The Gemara explains: b Some say: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman /b means b one should not go to sleep without reciting i Shema, /i /b as by doing so, it is tantamount to sleeping in the bed of a non-Jew, as his conduct is unbecoming a Jew. b Others say: /b This means that b one should not marry a woman who converted, /b and it is better to marry a woman who was born Jewish. b And some say: /b It b literally /b means that one should not sit on the bed of b an Aramean, /b i.e., a non-Jewish b woman. /b ,This bit of advice was b due to an incident /b involving b Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa went to /b visit b an Aramean woman. She took out a bed /b and b she said to him: Sit. He said to her: I will not sit until you lift the /b sheets covering the b bed. /b She did so b and they found a dead baby there. /b Had Rav Pappa sat upon the bed, he would have been blamed for killing the baby. b From /b that incident, b the Sages said: One is prohibited from sitting on the bed of an Aramean woman. /b , b And /b Rava’s third bit of advice was, b do not pass behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying. This /b statement b supports /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b as b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One is prohibited from passing behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying /b because they will suspect that he does not want to pray, and it is a show of contempt for the synagogue., b Abaye /b introduced several caveats to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement and b said: /b br b We only said /b this prohibition if b there is no other entrance /b to the synagogue, b but /b if b there is /b another entrance, since it is possible that he will simply use the second entrance, they will not suspect him, and the prohibition b does not apply. /b br b And we only said /b this prohibition if b there is no other synagogue /b in the city, b but /b if b there is another synagogue, /b the prohibition b does not apply. /b br b And we only said /b this prohibition when b he is not carrying a burden, and not running, and not wearing phylacteries. But /b if b one of those /b factors b applies /b , the prohibition b does not apply. /b 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 i baraita /i , along the lines of Rava’s advice to refrain from cutting meat on one’s hands: b Rabbi Akiva said: In three aspects /b of their conduct, b I like the Medes, /b and we should learn from their practices. b When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table /b and not on their hands; b when they kiss, /b either as a show of affection or honor, b they kiss only the back of the hand /b and do not give the person being kissed an unpleasant feeling; and b when they hold counsel, they only hold counsel in the field /b so others will not hear their secrets., b Rav Adda bar Ahava said: /b From b what verse /b is this derived? From the verse, b “And Jacob sent and he called Rachel and Leah to the field to his flock” /b (Genesis 31:4); it was only there in the field that he held counsel with them., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i , b Rabban Gamliel said: In three aspects /b of their conduct, b I like the Persians: /b They are a modest people; b they are modest in their eating, they are modest in the lavatory, and they are modest in another matter, /b 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: b “I have commanded My consecrated ones; /b I have also called My mighty ones for My anger, even My proudly exulting ones” (Isaiah 13:3). b Rav Yosef taught /b a i baraita /i : b These are the Persians who are consecrated and designated for Gehenna, /b 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 b Rabban Gamliel says: /b One may recite i Shema /i until dawn. b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabban Gamliel. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : Based on Rabban Gamliel’s ruling, b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: At times, one recites i Shema /i twice at night, once /b just b before dawn and once /b just b after dawn, and he thereby fulfills his obligation /b to recite i Shema /i , b one of the day and one of the night. /b According to Rabban Gamliel, the i Shema /i that he recited before dawn fulfills his evening obligation and the i Shema /i that he recited after dawn fulfills his morning obligation., b This /b i Tosefta /i b is self-contradictory. /b Initially, b you said: At times one recites i Shema /i twice at night. Apparently, /b the time just b after dawn is /b still b night. And then you taught: He thereby fulfills his obligation /b to recite i Shema /i b one of the day and one of the night. Apparently, /b the time in question b is /b considered b day, /b as otherwise, he would not have fulfilled his obligation to recite i Shema /i 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: b No, /b there is no contradiction. b Actually, /b the time just after dawn, when it is still dark, b is /b considered b night and the fact that it is referred to /b here as b day /b is because b there are people who rise /b from their sleep b at that time /b and, if the need arises, it can be characterized as i bekumekha /i , when you rise, despite the fact that it is still night., b Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The /b i halakha /i b is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. /b , b Some teach this /b statement b of Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina, /b in which he ruled that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, b with regard to this /b i halakha /i , which is stylistically similar to the previous i halakha /i . b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: At times, one recites i Shema /i twice during the day, once /b just b before sunrise and once /b just b after sunrise, and he thereby fulfills his /b dual b obligation /b to recite i Shema /i : b One, /b that he recites after sunrise, i Shema /i b of the day, and one, /b that he recites before sunrise, i Shema /i b of the night. /b , b This /b i baraita /i b is self-contradictory. /b Initially, b you said: “At times one recites i Shema /i twice during the day.” Apparently, /b the time just b before sunrise is /b considered b day. And then you taught: “He thereby fulfills his /b dual b obligation /b to recite i Shema /i , b one of the day and one of the night.” Apparently, /b the time in question b is /b considered b night, /b as otherwise, he could not thereby fulfill his obligation to recite i Shema /i during the night. |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184| 60b. לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב שנאמר (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר,ת"ר דבר בעיר כנס רגליך שנאמר ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ואומר (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך בעדך ואומר (דברים לב, כה) מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה,מאי ואומר וכי תימא ה"מ בליליא אבל ביממא לא תא שמע לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך,וכי תימא ה"מ [היכא] דליכא אימה מגואי אבל היכא דאיכא אימה מגואי כי נפיק יתיב ביני אינשי בצוותא בעלמא טפי מעלי ת"ש מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה אע"ג דמחדרים אימה מחוץ תשכל חרב,רבא בעידן רתחא הוי סכר כוי דכתי' (ירמיהו ט, כ) כי עלה מות בחלונינו,ת"ר רעב בעיר פזר רגליך שנא' (בראשית יב, י) ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם מצרימה [לגור] (ויגר) שם ואומר (מלכים ב ז, ד) אם אמרנו נבא העיר והרעב בעיר ומתנו שם,מאי ואומר וכי תימא ה"מ היכא דליכא ספק נפשות אבל היכא דאיכא ספק נפשות לא ת"ש (מלכים ב ז, ד) לכו ונפלה אל מחנה ארם אם יחיונו נחיה,ת"ר דבר בעיר אל יהלך אדם באמצע הדרך מפני שמלאך המות מהלך באמצע הדרכים דכיון דיהיבא ליה רשותא מסגי להדיא שלום בעיר אל יהלך בצדי דרכים דכיון דלית ליה רשותא מחבי חבויי ומסגי,ת"ר דבר בעיר אל יכנס אדם יחיד לבית הכנסת שמלאך המות מפקיד שם כליו וה"מ היכא דלא קרו ביה דרדקי ולא מצלו ביה עשרה,ת"ר כלבים בוכים מלאך המות בא לעיר כלבים משחקים אליהו הנביא בא לעיר וה"מ דלית בהו נקבה:,יתיב רב אמי ורב אסי קמיה דר' יצחק נפחא מר א"ל לימא מר שמעתתא ומר א"ל לימא מר אגדתא פתח למימר אגדתא ולא שביק מר פתח למימר שמעתתא ולא שביק מר,אמר להם אמשול לכם משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שיש לו שתי נשים אחת ילדה ואחת זקינה ילדה מלקטת לו לבנות זקינה מלקטת לו שחורות נמצא קרח מכאן ומכאן,אמר להן אי הכי אימא לכו מלתא דשויא לתרוייכו (שמות כב, ה) כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים תצא מעצמה שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה אמר הקב"ה עלי לשלם את הבערה שהבערתי,אני הציתי אש בציון שנאמר (איכה ד, יא) ויצת אש בציון ותאכל יסודותיה ואני עתיד לבנותה באש שנאמר (זכריה ב, ט) ואני אהיה לה חומת אש סביב ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה,שמעתתא פתח הכתוב בנזקי ממונו וסיים בנזקי גופו לומר לך אשו משום חציו:,(שמואל ב כג, טו) ויתאוה דוד ויאמר מי ישקני מים מבור בית לחם אשר בשער ויבקעו שלשת הגבורים במחנה פלשתים וישאבו מים מבור בית לחם אשר בשער [וגו'],מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אמר רבא אמר ר"נ טמון באש קמיבעיא ליה אי כר' יהודה אי כרבנן ופשטו ליה מאי דפשטו ליה,רב הונא אמר גדישים דשעורים דישראל הוו דהוו מטמרי פלשתים בהו וקא מיבעיא ליה מהו להציל עצמו בממון חבירו,שלחו ליה אסור להציל עצמו בממון חבירו אבל אתה מלך אתה [ומלך] פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו,ורבנן ואיתימא רבה בר מרי אמרו גדישים דשעורין דישראל הוו וגדישין דעדשים דפלשתים וקא מיבעיא להו מהו ליטול גדישין של שעורין דישראל ליתן לפני בהמתו על מנת לשלם גדישין של עדשים דפלשתים,שלחו ליה (יחזקאל לג, טו) חבול ישיב רשע גזילה ישלם אע"פ שגזילה משלם רשע הוא אבל אתה מלך אתה ומלך פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו,בשלמא למאן דאמר לאחלופי היינו דכתיב חד קרא (שמואל ב כג, יא) ותהי שם חלקת השדה מלאה עדשים וכתיב חד קרא (דברי הימים א יא, יג) ותהי חלקת השדה מלאה שעורים,אלא למאן דאמר למקלי מאי איבעיא להו להני תרי קראי אמר לך דהוו נמי גדישים דעדשים דישראל דהוו מיטמרו בהו פלשתים,בשלמא למאן דאמר למקלי היינו דכתיב (שמואל ב כג, יב) ויתיצב בתוך החלקה ויצילה אלא למ"ד לאחלופי מאי ויצילה,דלא שבק להו לאחלופי,בשלמא הני תרתי היינו דכתיב תרי קראי | 60b. b A person /b should b always enter /b an unfamiliar city b at /b a time of b good, /b i.e., while it is light, as the Torah uses the expression “It is good” with regard to the creation of light (see Genesis 1:4). This goodness is manifest in the sense of security one feels when it is light. b And /b likewise, when one leaves a city b he /b should b leave at /b a time of b good, /b meaning after sunrise the next morning, b as it is stated /b in the verse: b “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning” /b (Exodus 12:22).,§ b The Sages taught: /b If there is b plague in the city, gather your feet, /b i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house, b as it is stated /b in the verse: b “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.” And it says /b in another verse: b “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; /b hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by” (Isaiah 26:20). b And it says: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror” /b (Deuteronomy 32:25).,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the reason for citing the additional verses introduced with the term: b And it says? /b The first verse seems sufficient to teach the principle that one should not emerge from one’s house when there is a plague. The Gemara answers: b And if you would say /b that b this matter, /b the first verse that states that none of you shall go out until morning, applies only b at night, but in the day /b one may think that the principle does b not /b apply, for this reason the Gemara teaches: b Come /b and b hear: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.” /b , b And if you would say /b that b this matter /b applies only b where there is no fear inside, /b which explains why it is preferable to remain indoors, b but where there is fear inside, /b one might think that b when he goes out /b and b sits among people in general company /b it is b better, /b therefore, the Gemara introduces the third verse and says: b Come /b and b hear: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.” /b This means that b although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, /b so it is safer to remain indoors., b At a time /b when there was a b plague, Rava would close the windows /b of his house, b as it is written: “For death is come up into our windows” /b (Jeremiah 9:20)., b The Sages taught: /b If there is b famine in the city, spread your feet, /b i.e., leave the city, b as it is stated /b in the verse: b “And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there” /b (Genesis 12:10). b And it says: “If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; /b and if we sit here, we die also, now 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” (II Kings 7:4)., b What /b is the reason for citing the second verse, introduced with the term: b And it says? And if you would say /b that b this matter, /b the principle of leaving the city, applies only b where there is no uncertainty /b concerning b a life-threatening /b situation, b but where there is uncertainty /b concerning b a life-threatening /b situation this principle does b not /b apply, b come /b and b hear: “Come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; /b and if they kill us, we shall but die.”, b The Sages taught: /b If there is b a plague in the city, a person should not walk in the middle of the road, due to /b the fact b that the Angel of Death walks in the middle of the road, as, since /b in Heaven b they have given him permission /b to kill within the city, b he goes openly /b in the middle of the road. By contrast, if there is b peace /b and quiet b in the city, do not walk on the sides of the road, as, since /b the Angel of Death b does not have permission /b to kill within the city, b he hides /b himself b and walks /b on the side of the road., b The Sages taught: /b If there is b a plague in the city, a person should not enter the synagogue alone, as the Angel of Death leaves his utensils there, /b and for this reason it is a dangerous place. b And this matter, /b the danger in the synagogue, applies only b when there are no children learning in /b the synagogue, b and /b there are b not ten /b men b praying in it. /b But if there are children learning or ten men praying there, it is not a dangerous place., b The Sages taught: /b If the b dogs /b in a certain place b are crying /b for no reason, it is a sign that they feel the b Angel of Death has come to the city. /b If the b dogs are playing, /b it is a sign that they feel that b Elijah the prophet has come to the city. These matters /b apply only b if there is no female /b dog among them. If there is a female dog nearby, their crying or playing is likely due to her presence.,§ b Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. /b One b Sage said to /b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: b Let the Master say /b words of b i halakha /i , and /b the other b Sage said to /b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: b Let the Master say /b words of b i aggada /i . /b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa b began to say /b words of b i aggada /i but /b one b Sage did not let him, /b so he b began to say /b words of b i halakha /i but /b the other b Sage did not let him. /b ,Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa b said to them: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared? /b It can be compared b to a man who has two wives, one young and one old. The young /b wife b pulls out his white /b hairs, so that her husband will appear younger. b The old /b wife b pulls out his black /b hairs so that he will appear older. And it b turns out /b that he is b bald from here and from there, /b i.e., completely bald, due to the actions of both of his wives.,Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa continued and b said to them: If so, I will say to you a matter that is appropriate to both of you, /b which contains both i halakha /i and i aggada /i . In the verse that states: b “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns” /b (Exodus 22:5), the term b “breaks out” /b indicates that it breaks out b by itself. /b Yet, the continuation of the verse states: b “The one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,” /b which indicates that he must pay only if the fire spread due to his negligence. The verse can be explained allegorically: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said /b that although the fire broke out in the Temple due to the sins of the Jewish people, b it is incumbent upon Me to pay /b restitution b for the fire that I kindled. /b , b I, /b God, b kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated: /b “The Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; b and He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundations” /b (Lamentations 4:11). b And I will build it with fire /b in the b future, as it is stated: “For I, /b says the Lord, b will be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midst” /b (Zechariah 2:9).,There is b a i halakha /i /b that can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as b the verse begins with damage /b caused through one’s b property: /b “If a fire breaks out,” b and concludes with damage /b caused by b one’s body: /b “The one who kindled the fire.” This indicates that when damage is caused by fire, it is considered as though the person who kindled the fire caused the damage directly with his body. That serves b to say to you /b that the liability for b his fire /b damage is b due to /b its similarity to b his arrows. /b Just as one who shoots an arrow and causes damage is liable because the damage was caused directly through his action, so too, one who kindles a fire that causes damage is liable because it is considered as though the damage were caused directly by his actions.,§ The Gemara continues with another statement of i aggada /i on a related topic: The verse states: b “And David longed, and said: Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, /b and took it, and brought it to David; but he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord” (II Samuel 23:15–16). The Sages understood that David was not simply asking for water, but was using the term as a metaphor referring to Torah, and he was raising a halakhic dilemma., b What is the dilemma /b that David b is raising? Rava says /b that b Rav Naḥman says: He was asking /b about the i halakha /i with regard to b a concealed /b article damaged by b a fire. /b He wanted to know whether the i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who holds that one is liable to pay for such damage, or b whether /b the i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who hold that one is exempt from liability for damage by fire to concealed articles. b And /b the Sages in Bethlehem b answered him what they answered him. /b , b Rav Huna stated /b a different explanation of the verse: b There were stacks of barley belonging to Jews in which the Philistines were hiding, and /b David wanted to burn down the stacks to kill the Philistines and save his own life. b He raised the dilemma: What is /b the i halakha /i ? Is it permitted b to save oneself /b by destroying b the property of another? /b , b They sent /b the following answer b to him: It is prohibited to save oneself /b by destroying b the property of another. But you are king, and a king may breach the fence /b of an individual b in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his /b action, i.e., the normal i halakhot /i of damage do not apply to you since you are king., b The Rabbis, and some say /b that it was b Rabba bar Mari, /b give an alternative explanation of the dilemma and b said: The stacks of barley belonged to Jews, and /b there were b stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines. /b David needed barley to feed his animals. b And /b David b raised the /b following b dilemma: What is /b the i halakha /i ? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a gentile to feed my animals, but is it permitted b to take a stack of barley /b belonging to b a Jew, to place before one’s animal /b for it to consume, b with the intent to pay /b the owner of the barley with the b stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines? /b ,The Sages of Bethlehem b sent /b the following reply b to him: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had taken by robbery, /b walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die” (Ezekiel 33:15). This verse teaches that b even though /b the robber b repays /b the value of the b stolen item, he /b is nevertheless considered to be b wicked, /b and is described as such in the verse, and a commoner would not be allowed to act as you asked. b But you are king, and a king may breach the fence /b of an individual b in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his /b action.,The Gemara discusses the different explanations: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that David was asking whether he could take the stacks of barley and b exchange /b them, i.e., repay the owners of the barley, with stacks of lentils, b this is as it is written /b in b one verse: /b “And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, b where was a plot of ground full of lentils; /b and the people fled from the Philistines” (II Samuel 23:11), b and it is written /b in b one /b other b verse: /b “He was with David at Pas Dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, b where was a plot of ground full of barley; /b and the people fled from before the Philistines” (I Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils., b But according to /b Rav Huna, b the one who says /b that David’s question was asked because he wanted b to burn /b the stacks of barley, for b what /b purpose b does he require these two verses? /b How does he explain this contradiction? Rav Huna could have b said to you that there were also stacks of lentils belonging to Jews, inside which the Philistines were hiding. /b , b Granted, according to the one who says /b that David asked his question because he wanted b to burn /b the stacks, b this is as it is writ-ten /b in the following verse with regard to David: b “But he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it, /b and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victory” (II Samuel 23:12). b But according to the one who says /b that David’s question was asked b with regard to exchanging /b the lentils for the barley, b what /b is the meaning of the phrase: b “And saved it”? /b ,The Rabbis answer that David saved it in b that he did not permit them to exchange /b the value of the barley with the lentils., b Granted, /b according to both of b these two /b opinions, b this is as it is written /b in b two /b distinct b verses, /b one describing the field of lentils and one describing the field of barley. |
|
| 14. Ambrose, The Patriarchs, 30.10.71-30.10.74 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 178, 179 |
| 15. Anon., Ic 1, 10.8 Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 181, 182, 183 |
| 16. Gregory of Elvira, Tract. Sanc. Script., 4 Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 176, 179 |
17. Anon., Ruthrabbah, 7.10 Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 180| 7.10. וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז בְּיוֹם קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָֹּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת קָנִיתָ (רות ד, ה), קָנִיתִי כְּתִיב, וְהָא מְסַיְּעָא לְהַהִיא דְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אִלֵּם הָיָה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אָמַר הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לֹא מֵתוּ אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁנָּטְלוּ אוֹתָן וַאֲנִי הוֹלֵךְ לִטְלָהּ, חָס לִי לִטְלָהּ, לֵית אֲנָא מְעַרְבֵּב זַרְעֲיָיתִי אֵינִי מְעָרֵב פְּסֹלֶת בְּבָנַי, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה עַמּוֹנִי וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית מוֹאָבִי וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית. | |
|
| 18. Asterius, Pg, None Tagged with subjects: •halakhah, legal requirements of Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
| 19. Athanasius, Expositiones In Psalmos, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
