1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.5, 33.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Hidary (2017) 8; Rubenstein(1995) 220| 1.5. "וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד׃", 33.17. "וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל־כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם־הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת׃", | 1.5. "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.", 33.17. "And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him a house, and made booths for his cattle. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Jonah, 4.6-4.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 210| 4.6. "וַיְמַן יְהוָה־אֱלֹהִים קִיקָיוֹן וַיַּעַל מֵעַל לְיוֹנָה לִהְיוֹת צֵל עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ לְהַצִּיל לוֹ מֵרָעָתוֹ וַיִּשְׂמַח יוֹנָה עַל־הַקִּיקָיוֹן שִׂמְחָה גְדוֹלָה׃", 4.7. "וַיְמַן הָאֱלֹהִים תּוֹלַעַת בַּעֲלוֹת הַשַּׁחַר לַמָּחֳרָת וַתַּךְ אֶת־הַקִּיקָיוֹן וַיִּיבָשׁ׃", | 4.6. "And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his evil. So Jonah was exceeding glad because of the gourd.", 4.7. "But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd, that it withered.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.18, 24.17-24.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 134, 136| 19.18. "לֹא־תִקֹּם וְלֹא־תִטֹּר אֶת־בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃", 24.17. "וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם מוֹת יוּמָת׃", 24.18. "וּמַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ־בְּהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ׃", 24.19. "וְאִישׁ כִּי־יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ׃", | 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.", 24.17. "And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death.", 24.18. "And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life.", 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.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 13.7, 21.3, 21.24 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119, 125; Klawans (2019) 134| 13.7. "מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל־גְּבֻלֶךָ׃", 21.3. "אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁת עָלָיו׃", 21.3. "אִם־בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא אִם־בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ׃", 21.24. "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל׃", | 13.7. "Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.", 21.3. "If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.", 21.24. "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 19.21, 24.1-24.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 134, 136| 19.21. "וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן יָד בְּיָד רֶגֶל בְּרָגֶל׃", 24.1. "כִּי־תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה לֹא־תָבֹא אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ׃", 24.1. "כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ׃", 24.2. "וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵר׃", 24.2. "כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה׃", | 19.21. "And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.", 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,", 24.2. "and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife,", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 1.8, 58.7 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119; Rubenstein(1995) 220| 1.8. "וְנוֹתְרָה בַת־צִיּוֹן כְּסֻכָּה בְכָרֶם כִּמְלוּנָה בְמִקְשָׁה כְּעִיר נְצוּרָה׃", 58.7. "הֲלוֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת כִּי־תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם׃", | 1.8. "And the daughter of Zion is left As a booth in a vineyard, As a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, As a besieged city.", 58.7. "Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, And that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?", |
|
| 7. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 8 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 216 |
8. Mishnah, Yoma, 2.1-2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 136| 2.1. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כָּל מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִתְרֹם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, תּוֹרֵם. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרֻבִּין, רָצִין וְעוֹלִין בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת זָכָה. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִין, הַמְמֻנֶּה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם הַצְבִּיעוּ. וּמָה הֵן מוֹצִיאִין, אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֲגֻדָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: \n", 2.2. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִין וְרָצִין וְעוֹלִין בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, וְדָחַף אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ, וְנָפַל וְנִשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ בֵית דִּין שֶׁבָּאִין לִידֵי סַכָּנָה, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ תוֹרְמִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא בְפַיִס. אַרְבָּעָה פְיָסוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, וְזֶה הַפַּיִס הָרִאשׁוֹן: \n", | 2.1. "Originally anyone who wished to remove [the ashes from] the altar did so. When they were many, they would run up the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first within four cubits won the privilege. If two were even, the officer would say to them [all:] raise the finger! And how many did they put out? One or two but one does not put out a thumb in the Temple.", 2.2. "Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count.", |
|
9. New Testament, Matthew, 5.1-7.28, 5.38, 5.39, 5.40, 5.41, 5.42, 5.43, 5.44, 5.45, 5.46, 5.47, 5.48 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2019) 134| 5.38. Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. | 5.38. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' |
|
| 10. Musonius Rufus, Fragments, None (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119 |
11. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 4.212, 13.297-13.298 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140; Klawans (2019) 74 | 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. 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. |
|
12. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1-1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.12, 3.11, 4.13, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 187; Klawans (2019) 74| 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: \n", 1.2. "שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק הָיָה מִשְּׁיָרֵי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עַל שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הָעוֹלָם עוֹמֵד, עַל הַתּוֹרָה וְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה וְעַל גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים: \n", 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: \n", 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: \n", 1.12. "הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה: \n", 3.11. "רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָרַבִּים, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָנִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:", 4.13. "רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי זָהִיר בַּתַּלְמוּד, שֶׁשִּׁגְגַת תַּלְמוּד עוֹלָה זָדוֹן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה כְתָרִים הֵם, כֶּתֶר תּוֹרָה וְכֶתֶר כְּהֻנָּה וְכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת, וְכֶתֶר שֵׁם טוֹב עוֹלֶה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן: \n", 5.5. "עֲשָׂרָה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. לֹא הִפִּילָה אִשָּׁה מֵרֵיחַ בְּשַׂר הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְלֹא הִסְרִיחַ בְּשַׂר הַקֹּדֶשׁ מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא נִרְאָה זְבוּב בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם, וְלֹא אֵרַע קֶרִי לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְלֹא כִבּוּ גְשָׁמִים אֵשׁ שֶׁל עֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה, וְלֹא נָצְחָה הָרוּחַ אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָשָׁן, וְלֹא נִמְצָא פְסוּל בָּעֹמֶר וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּבְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, עוֹמְדִים צְפוּפִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים רְוָחִים, וְלֹא הִזִּיק נָחָשׁ וְעַקְרָב בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא אָמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ צַר לִי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁאָלִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: \n", | 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.", 3.11. "Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covet of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come.", 4.13. "Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all.", 5.5. "Ten wonders were wrought for our ancestors in the Temple: [1] no woman miscarried from the odor of the sacred flesh; [2] the sacred flesh never became putrid; [3] no fly was ever seen in the slaughterhouse; [4] no emission occurred to the high priest on the Day of Atonement; [5] the rains did not extinguish the fire of the woodpile; [6] the wind did not prevail against the column of smoke; [7] no defect was found in the omer, or in the two loaves, or in the showbread; [8] the people stood pressed together, yet bowed down and had room enough; [9] never did a serpent or a scorpion harm anyone in Jerusalem; [10] and no man said to his fellow: the place is too congested for me to lodge overnight in Jerusalem.", |
|
13. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 3.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 213| 3.12. "הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ יָד בְּפִקָּדוֹן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יִלְקֶה בְחָסֵר וּבְיָתֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כִּשְׁעַת הוֹצָאָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כִּשְׁעַת הַתְּבִיעָה. הַחוֹשֵׁב לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בְּפִקָּדוֹן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, חַיָּב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח בּוֹ יָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב) אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ. כֵּיצַד. הִטָּה אֶת הֶחָבִית וְנָטַל הֵימֶנָּה רְבִיעִית, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית. הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָטַל הֵימֶנָּה רְבִיעִית, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה, מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי כֻלָּהּ: \n", | 3.12. "If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.", |
|
14. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 134| 8.1. "הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים, בְּנֶזֶק, בְּצַעַר, בְּרִפּוּי, בְּשֶׁבֶת, וּבְבֹשֶׁת. בְּנֶזֶק כֵּיצַד. סִמָּא אֶת עֵינוֹ, קָטַע אֶת יָדוֹ, שִׁבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא עֶבֶד נִמְכָּר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמִין כַּמָּה הָיָה יָפֶה וְכַמָּה הוּא יָפֶה. צַעַר, כְּוָאוֹ בְשַׁפּוּד אוֹ בְמַסְמֵר, וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל צִפָּרְנוֹ, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה רוֹצֶה לִטֹּל לִהְיוֹת מִצְטַעֵר כָּךְ. רִפּוּי, הִכָּהוּ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִים, אִם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה, חַיָּב. שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה, פָּטוּר. חָיְתָה וְנִסְתְּרָה, חָיְתָה וְנִסְתְּרָה, חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. חָיְתָה כָל צָרְכָּהּ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. שֶׁבֶת, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִשּׁוּאִין, שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ דְמֵי יָדוֹ וּדְמֵי רַגְלוֹ. בֹּשֶׁת, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּשׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּשׁ. הַמְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הֶעָרֹם, הַמְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַסּוּמָא, וְהַמְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַיָּשֵׁן, חַיָּב. וְיָשֵׁן שֶׁבִּיֵּשׁ, פָּטוּר. נָפַל מִן הַגָּג, וְהִזִּיק וּבִיֵּשׁ, חַיָּב עַל הַנֶּזֶק וּפָטוּר עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה) וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיְהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּן: \n", | 8.1. "He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity].", |
|
15. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 3.7. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת, קוֹרֵא. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת, מַקְרִין אוֹתוֹ. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהָבִיא, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַקְרִין אֶת מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ וְאֶת מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ: \n", | 3.7. "Originally all who knew how to recite would recite while those who did not know how to recite, others would read it for them [and they would repeat the words]. But when they refrained from bringing, they decreed that they should read the words to both those who could and those who could not [recite so that they could repeat after them].", |
|
16. Mishnah, Eduyot, 8.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 8.7. "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁאֵין אֵלִיָּהוּ בָא לְטַמֵּא וּלְטַהֵר, לְרַחֵק וּלְקָרֵב, אֶלָּא לְרַחֵק הַמְקֹרָבִין בִּזְרוֹעַ וּלְקָרֵב הַמְרֻחָקִין בִּזְרוֹעַ. מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית צְרִיפָה הָיְתָה בְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְרִחֲקָהּ בֶּן צִיּוֹן בִּזְרוֹעַ, וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת הָיְתָה שָׁם וְקֵרְבָהּ בֶּן צִיּוֹן בִּזְרוֹעַ. כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ, אֵלִיָּהוּ בָא לְטַמֵּא וּלְטַהֵר, לְרַחֵק וּלְקָרֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְקָרֵב, אֲבָל לֹא לְרַחֵק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לְהַשְׁווֹת הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא לְרַחֵק וְלֹא לְקָרֵב, אֶלָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג) הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ לָכֶם אֵת אֵלִיָּה הַנָּבִיא וְגוֹ' וְהֵשִׁיב לֵב אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְלֵב בָּנִים עַל אֲבוֹתָם: \n", | 8.7. "Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2.", |
|
17. Mishnah, Sheviit, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 4.1. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, מְלַקֵּט אָדָם עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים וַעֲשָׂבִים מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא מְלַקֵּט מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, אֶת הַגַּס הַגָּס. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה מְלַקֵּט מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁל זֶה, וְזֶה מְלַקֵּט מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁל זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּקַצֵּץ לָהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת: \n", | 4.1. "At first they said: a man may gather wood, stones and grasses from his field, just as he was allowed to do from the field of his fellow, the large ones. When the transgressors increased, they decreed that this one may gather from this one’s field and this one may gather from this one’s field, but not as a [mutual] favor. It doesn’t need to be said that no stipulation can be made for food.", |
|
18. Mishnah, Gittin, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 4.3. "אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת לַיְתוֹמִים כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, וְגוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. הִלֵּל הִתְקִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל מִפְּנֵּי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 4.3. "A widow is paid back [her kethubah] from the property of orphans only by taking an oath. [When the court] refrained from imposing an oath on her, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that she could take any vow which the orphans wanted and collect her kethubah. Witnesses sign their names on a get because of tikkun olam. Hillel instituted the prosbul because of tikkun olam.", |
|
19. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 4.11. "בְּנָן נֻקְבִין דְּיֶהֶוְיָן לִיכִי מִנַּאי, יֶהֶוְיָן יָתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וּמִתְּזָנָן מִנִּכְסַי עַד דְּתִנַּסְּבָן לְגֻבְרִין, חַיָּב, שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֵּית דִּין: \n", | 4.11. "If he did not write for her, “the female children that I will have from you will dwell in my house and be maintained out of my estate until they are taken in marriage”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court.", |
|
20. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 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: \n", | 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: Don't 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.", |
|
21. Mishnah, Maaser Sheni, 5.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 5.8. "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ שׁוֹלְחִין אֵצֶל בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים שֶׁבַּמְּדִינוֹת, מַהֲרוּ וְהַתְקִינוּ אֶת פֵּרוֹתֵיכֶם עַד שֶׁלֹּא תַגִּיעַ שְׁעַת הַבִּעוּר. עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִמֵּד, שֶׁכָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, פְּטוּרִים מִן הַבִּעוּר: \n", | |
|
22. Mishnah, Megillah, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 124| 1.6. "אֵין בֵּין הַמֻּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לַמֻּדָּר מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל אֶלָּא דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל וְכֵלִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ. אֵין בֵּין נְדָרִים לִנְדָבוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנְּדָרִים חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, וּנְדָבוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן: \n", | 1.6. "There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except in the matter of setting foot [on his property] and of vessels which are not used for [preparing] food. There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings.", |
|
23. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140; Klawans (2019) 136| 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: \n", | 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.", |
|
24. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 4.1-4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 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: \n", 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: \n", 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: \n", 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: \n", | 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.", |
|
25. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 74| 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: \n", | 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.”", |
|
26. Mishnah, Sukkah, 1.2-1.7, 2.1, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 207, 210, 213, 216, 221| 1.2. "הָעוֹשֶׂה סֻכָּתוֹ תַחַת הָאִילָן, כְּאִלּוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ בְּתוֹךְ הַבָּיִת. סֻכָּה עַל גַּבֵּי סֻכָּה, הָעֶלְיוֹנָה כְשֵׁרָה, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין דִּיּוּרִין בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה, הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", 1.3. "פֵּרַס עָלֶיהָ סָדִין מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה, אוֹ תַּחְתֶּיהָ מִפְּנֵי הַנְּשָׁר, אוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַס עַל גַּבֵּי הַקִּינוֹף, פְּסוּלָה. אֲבָל פּוֹרֵס הוּא עַל גַּבֵּי נַקְלִיטֵי הַמִּטָּה: \n", 1.4. "הִדְלָה עָלֶיהָ אֶת הַגֶּפֶן וְאֶת הַדְּלַעַת וְאֶת הַקִּסּוֹם וְסִכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּהּ, פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם הָיָה סִכּוּךְ הַרְבֵּה מֵהֶן, אוֹ שֶׁקְּצָצָן, כְּשֵׁרָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה וְאֵין גִּדּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ, אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בּוֹ. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה וְגִדּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ, מְסַכְּכִין בּוֹ: \n", 1.5. "חֲבִילֵי קַשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים וַחֲבִילֵי זְרָדִין, אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁהִתִּירָן, כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְכֻלָּן כְּשֵׁרוֹת לַדְּפָנוֹת: \n", 1.6. "מְסַכְּכִין בִּנְסָרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו: \n", 1.7. "תִּקְרָה שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ מַעֲזִיבָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מְפַקְפֵּק וְנוֹטֵל אַחַת מִבֵּינְתַיִם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְפַקְפֵּק אוֹ נוֹטֵל אַחַת מִבֵּינְתַיִם. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, נוֹטֵל אַחַת מִבֵּינְתַיִם, וְאֵין מְפַקְפֵּק: \n", 2.1. "הַיָּשֵׁן תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה בַסֻּכָּה, לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נוֹהֲגִין הָיִינוּ, שֶׁהָיִינוּ יְשֵׁנִים תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה בִּפְנֵי הַזְּקֵנִים, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָנוּ דָבָר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַעֲשֶׂה בְטָבִי עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה יָשֵׁן תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה, וְאָמַר לָהֶן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַזְּקֵנִים, רְאִיתֶם טָבִי עַבְדִּי, שֶׁהוּא תַלְמִיד חָכָם וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעֲבָדִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסֻּכָּה, לְפִיכָךְ יָשֵׁן הוּא תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה. וּלְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַיָּשֵׁן תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה, לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ: \n", 2.7. "מִי שֶׁהָיָה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא כָךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהָלְכוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וְזִקְנֵי בֵית הִלֵּל לְבַקֵּר אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן הַחוֹרָנִי, וּמְצָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לוֹ דָבָר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה, אַף הֵם אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן הָיִיתָ נוֹהֵג, לֹא קִיַּמְתָּ מִצְוַת סֻכָּה מִיָּמֶיךָ: \n", | 1.2. "One who makes his sukkah under a tree, it is as if he made it within the house. One [who makes] a sukkah on top of another sukkah, the upper one is valid but the lower is invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.", 1.3. "If he spread a sheet over it because of the sun or beneath it because of falling [leaves]; Or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid. But he may spread it over the frame of a two-post bed.", 1.4. "If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.", 1.5. "Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood they do not use them as skhakh. But all of them, if he untied them, are valid. And they are all valid for the walls.", 1.6. "They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words or Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids. If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.", 1.7. "A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].", 2.1. "He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us. Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.", 2.7. "One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoha ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.", |
|
27. Mishnah, Taanit, 1.1-1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 176| 1.1. "מֵאֵימָתַי מַזְכִּירִין גְּבוּרוֹת גְּשָׁמִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מִיּוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, מִיּוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חָג. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַגְּשָׁמִים אֶלָּא סִימַן קְלָלָה בֶּחָג, לָמָּה מַזְכִּיר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לִשְׁאוֹל, אֶלָּא לְהַזְכִּיר מַשִּׁיב הָרוּחַ וּמוֹרִיד הַגֶּשֶׁם בְּעוֹנָתוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא מַזְכִּיר: \n", 1.2. "אֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין אֶת הַגְּשָׁמִים אֶלָּא סָמוּךְ לַגְּשָׁמִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּבָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג, הָאַחֲרוֹן מַזְכִּיר, הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ מַזְכִּיר. בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח, הָרִאשׁוֹן מַזְכִּיר, הָאַחֲרוֹן אֵינוֹ מַזְכִּיר. עַד אֵימָתַי שׁוֹאֲלִין אֶת הַגְּשָׁמִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר הַפָּסַח. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא נִיסָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יואל ב) וַיּוֹרֶד לָכֶם גֶּשֶׁם, מוֹרֶה וּמַלְקוֹשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹן: \n", 1.3. "בִּשְׁלשָׁה בְמַרְחֶשְׁוָן שׁוֹאֲלִין אֶת הַגְּשָׁמִים. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בְּשִׁבְעָה בוֹ, חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם אַחַר הֶחָג, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ אַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִנְהַר פְּרָת: \n", | 1.1. "From when do they mention the powers of [bringing] rain? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua says: on the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua said to him: Since rain on the Festival is nothing but a sign of [God’s] curse why should he mention it? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I also did not say to request [rain] but to make mention, “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” in its due season. He replied to him: if so one should at all times make mention of it.", 1.2. "They don’t pray for rain except close to the rainy season. Rabbi Judah says: One who goes down before the ark on the last day of Sukkot the last one mentions [rain], the first does not; on the first day of Pesah, the first mentions, the last does not. Up until when do they request rain? Rabbi Judah says: Until Pesah is over. Rabbi Meir says: Until Nissan is over, as it says, “Now He makes the rain fall in the first month, early rain and late rain” (Joel 2:23).", 1.3. "On the third of Marheshvan they [begin to] ask for rain. Rabban Gamaliel says: on the seventh, fifteen days after the Festival [of Sukkot] so that the last of the Jews reaches the river Euphrates.", |
|
28. Mishnah, Tamid, 5.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140| 5.1. "אָמַר לָהֶם הַמְמֻנֶּה, בָּרְכוּ בְרָכָה אֶחַת, וְהֵן בֵּרְכוּ. קָרְאוּ עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים, שְׁמַע, וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ, וַיֹּאמֶר. בֵּרְכוּ אֶת הָעָם שָׁלשׁ בְּרָכוֹת, אֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב, וַעֲבוֹדָה, וּבִרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים. וּבְשַׁבָּת מוֹסִיפִין בְּרָכָה אַחַת לַמִּשְׁמָר הַיּוֹצֵא: \n", | 5.1. "The superintendent said to them: Bless one blessing! And they blessed. They then read the Ten Commandments, the Shema, the “And it will be if you hearken” (the second paragraph of Shema) and Vayomer (the third paragraph of Shema), and they blessed the people with three blessings: Emet veYatziv, and Avodah, and the priestly benediction. On Shabbat they added a blessing to be said by the watch which was leaving.", |
|
29. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.8, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 140; Klawans (2019) 74| 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: \n", 2.7. "בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לַפְּרוּשִׁין. בִּגְדֵי פְרוּשִׁין מִדְרָס לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה. בִּגְדֵי אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ. בִּגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ מִדְרָס לְחַטָּאת. יוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר הָיָה חָסִיד שֶׁבַּכְּהֻנָּה, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ. יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גֻּדְגְּדָא הָיָה אוֹכֵל עַל טָהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ כָּל יָמָיו, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַחַטָּאת: \n", | 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.", 2.7. "The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.", |
|
30. Mishnah, Kilayim, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 220| 5.3. "חָרִיץ שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בַּכֶּרֶם, עָמֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה מְפֻלָּשׁ מֵרֹאשׁ הַכֶּרֶם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה נִרְאֶה כְּבֵין שְׁנֵי כְרָמִים, וְזוֹרְעִים בְּתוֹכוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי הוּא כְגָת. וְהַגַּת שֶׁבְּכֶרֶם עֲמֻקָּה עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, זוֹרְעִים בְּתוֹכָהּ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים. שׁוֹמֵרָה שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם, גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה, זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. וְאִם הָיָה שֵׂעָר כּוֹתֵשׁ, אָסוּר: \n", | 5.3. "A trench passing through a vineyard, ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if it runs right through from the beginning of the vineyard to the end, it looks like it is in between two [separately owned] vineyards, and it is permitted to sow in it. But if it is not, it is [regarded] as [if it were part of] a winepress. And as for a winepress in a vineyard, and [the winepress] is ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is permitted to sow in it. But the sages prohibit. A watchman’s mound in a vineyard, ten handbreadths high and four wide: it is permitted to sow in it. But if the ends of the vine-branches become intertwined over it, it is forbidden. Section one: According to Rabbi Eliezer if the trench is ten handbreadths deep and four wide it is considered to be its own domain and not part of the vineyard. The depth causes the sides to be treated as if they were walls, and the width gives the trench significance. Furthermore, the trench must go all the way through the property from one end to the other, causing the two sides of the vineyard to look as if they were owned by different people. If the trench does not go all the way through the property, then he regards it in the same way that the sages in the next section regard a winepress and it will be forbidden to sow seeds there. Section two: Rabbi Eliezer permits one to sow seeds in a winepress (assumedly one no longer used) as long as it is ten handbreadths deep and four wide. Evidently, Rabbi Eliezer is more lenient than the other rabbis and doesn’t require the winepress to pass through the entire length of the property. The other sages, however, disagree and hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob that this is prohibited unless the trench/winepress runs from one end of the vineyard to the other. Section three: A watchman’s mound is an elevated space upon which they would build a hut for the watchman to sit in while guarding the vineyard. If this mound is ten handbreadths high and four wide then they may sow seeds on it. However, if the ends of vines are entangled in the air over the mound then the mound is considered to be part of the vineyard and one cannot sow there. It seems that the trench, however, would be permitted even if the vines are entangled in the air over the trench. The reason would be that these vines do not come into the ten handbreadths of the depth of the trench, whereas they do come in the ten handbreadths of the height of the mound.", |
|
31. Tosefta, Eduyot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 74| 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.", 1.1. "כשנכנסו חכמים לכרם ביבנה אמרו עתידה שעה שיהא אדם מבקש דבר מדברי תורה ואינו מוצא מדברי סופרים ואינו מוצא שנאמר (עמוס ח׳:י״ב) <לכן> הנה ימים באים נאם ה' וגו' ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה' ולא ימצאו דבר ה' זו נבואה דבר ה' זה הקץ דבר ה' שלא יהא דבר מד\"ת דומה לחברו אמרו נתחיל מהלל ומשמאי שמאי אומר מקב חלה הלל אומר מקבים וחכ\"א לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה שנאמר (במדבר ט״ו:כ׳) ראשית עריסותיכם כדי עיסתכם וכמה עיסתכם כדי עיסת מדבר וכמה עיסת מדבר עומר שנאמר (שמות ט״ז:ל״ו) והעומר עשירית האיפה הוא שיערו חכמים שבעה רבעים ועוד מדברית שהן חמשה רבעי צפורית שהן קב ומחצה ירושלמית.", | 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!\"...", |
|
32. Tosefta, Maasrot, 2.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 221| 2.21. "ר\"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר\"ע כל שאחד פותח ואחד נועל [כגון שני שותפין שנים דיורין] הגגות פטורין אע\"פ שהן של חצר חייבת מעלין לראש הגג ואוכל.", | |
|
33. Tosefta, Sukkah, 1.4-1.7, 1.11, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 210, 216| 1.4. "[מסככין בנסרים דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אוסרין עד שיהא בינו לחבירו כמלואו אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בשעת סכנה שהיינו זוקפין סולמות ומסככין על גביהן נסרים וישנים תחתיהן אמרו לו] אין שעת הסכנה ראיה [אבל הכל מודים שאם יש בנסר ארבעה טפחים שיהא בינו לבין חבירו כמלואו. תלה בה אגוזים אפרסקאות ורמונים וגלוסקאות פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים כשרה לא יאכל מהן אפילו ביו\"ט האחרון של חג ואם התנה עליהן שיאכל מהן בחג מותר].", 1.5. "חצר גדולה שמוקפת עמודין הרי עמודין כדפנות עושה אדם [את חברו] דופן כדי שיאכל [ושישתה] ושיישן ולא עוד אלא שאדם זוקף את המטה ופורס עליה סדין כדי שלא תכנס [חמה] לא על האוכלים ולא על המת מודים חכמים לר\"א שאין עושין [אהלים] בתחלה ביו\"ט ואצ\"ל בשבת [על מה נחלקו על המוסיפין] שר\"א אומר אין מוסיפין ביו\"ט ואצ\"ל בשבת וחכ\"א מוסיפין בשבת ואצ\"ל ביו\"ט. מעשה בר\"א [שהיה מיסב בסוכתו] של יוחנן [בן אלעזר בקיסריו] והגיעה חמה אמר לו מהו [לפרוס] עליה סדין אמר לו אין לך כל שבט ושבט שלא העמיד [נביא] הגיעה חמה לחצי [סוכה] אמר לו מהו [לפרוס] עליה סדין אמר לו אין לך כל שבט ושבט [שלא העמיד שופט] שבט יהודה ובנימין העמידו מלכים על פי נביאים הגיע חמה [לרגליו של ר\"א נטל את הסדין ופרסו ע\"ג סוכה והפשיל את רגליו ר\"א והלך לו].", 1.6. "[העושה סוכתו כמין צריף או שסמכה אל הכותל] מודה ר\"א שאם [יש בגבהן טפח או שהיתה גבוהה מן הארץ] טפח שהיא כשרה.", 1.7. "מחצלת של [חשיפה] ושל גמי גדולה מסככין בה קטנה אין מסככין בה של קנים ושל חלף גדולה מסככין בה ארוכה אין מסככין בה ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אמר [משם אמו אף ארוכה] מסככין בה וכן היה ר' דוסא אומר כדבריו." | 1.4. "They can be covered with planed boards, these are the words of R. Yehudah; the sages say: they are prohibited unless there is sufficient space between them. R. Yehudah says: It once happened that at the time of [religious] danger they set up ladders, covered them with boards, and slept under them. They said to him: A time of danger is no proof [for a normal case]. But all agree that even if the boards be four handbreadths wide there must be between them sufficient space. One who hangs on it (Persian) nuts, pomegranates, olives, or bunches of grapes, or wreathes of grain, it is kosher. One may not eat from them except on the last day of the festival. If he made a condition on them that he would eat from them on the festival, it is permitted.", 1.5. "If a large courtyard is encircled by pillars, the pillars are considered like sides. A man can even make his friend a side in order to eat and drink. Not only that, but he can set up his bed there, and spread over it a sheet so that the sun should not fall on those who are eating nor on the dead. The sages agree to R. Eliezer that tents may not be started to be made on the festival, and of course [the same] on the Sabbath. How do they differ? Only with reference to adding [to a tent], for R. Eliezer says, One may not add on the festival, and of course [the same] on the Sabbath; whereas the sages say, One may add on the Sabbath, and of course [the same] on the festival. It once happened to R. Eliezer that he was dining in the sukkah of R. Yocha b. Elazar in Cesarea when the sun approached. He said to him,What [is the law] regarding spreading a sheet over [the sukkah]? He said, There is not a tribe in Israel which has not given rise to a judge. 1 The sun reached to half the booth. [R. Elieser repeated his question.] He answered, There is not a tribe which has appointed a judge [and we therefore must defer to them]; the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin appointed kings by word of prophets. The sun reached the feet of R. Eliezer, he took a sheet and spread it over the sukkah. R. Eliezer bundled up his garments, and went out.", 1.6. "One who makes his sukkah in the shape of a cone, or leans it against a wall, it is not valid. But R. Eliezer agrees that if it be placed on a roof with a space of a handbreadth s width, or if it be higher than the ground by a handbreadth, it is kosher. ", 1.7. "Matting made of shavings or of large reed-grass can be used as a covering, but if it is small they cannot cover with it. Reed mats or rush mats, if large, may be used as a covering, but not they are woven toegther. But R. Yishmael b. R. Yosi said in the name of his father that even if woven together they may be used; and so R. Dosa says, following his opinion." 2.10. "If one does not have a citron, he must not take in his hand a quince, or any other fruit. Withered fruits are valid, but dried ones are not valid. Rabbi Yehudah, however, says that even dried-up ones are valid. And again he says: There is a story of the men of Carbin that they used to transmit their lulavs in the time of persecution. They said to him, The time of persecution is no proof.", |
|
34. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.11-7.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175| 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.", 7.12. "(דברים כ׳:ז׳) ומי האיש אשר ארש אשה אחד [מארס] ואחד [מייבם] אפילו שומרת יבם לחמשה אחין ואפי' חמשה אחין ששמעו שמת אחיהם במלחמה כולן חוזרין ובאין אין לי אלא בנה ביתו ולא חנכו נטע כרם ולא חללו ארס אשה ולא לקחה בנה בית וחנכו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש נטע כרם וחללו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש ארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש מנין שאין זזין ממקומן ת\"ל (דברים כ״ד:ה׳) כי יקח איש אשה חדשה דבר זה בכלל היה ולמה יצא להקיש אליו מה זה מיוחד שארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה י\"ב חדש שאין [זזין ממקומן] אף כולן כן.", | 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. ", |
|
35. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 4.8. "מצוה לזון את הבנות ואין צריך לומר את הבנים ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר חובה לזון את הבנות.", | 4.8. "Ideally, one should feed [his] daughters, and it is not necessary to say [also his] sons. Rabbi Yoha ben Berokah says: It is required to feed daughters.", |
|
36. Tosefta, Taanit, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 176| 1.3. "איזו היא רביעה ראשונה [ר\"מ אומר בכירה לשלשה בינונית לשבעה אפילה לשבעה עשר רבי יהודה אומר הבכירה לשבעה בינונית לי\"ז אפילה לכ\"ג רבי יוסי אומר הבכירה לי\"ז בינונית לעשרים ושלשה אפילה לר\"ח כסלו] וכן היה רבי יוסי אומר אין היחידים מתענין [אלא מר\"ח].", | 1.3. "What is considered the first rain (heb. R'viah)? [Rabbi Meir says, \"An early one (lit. a firstborn) [falls] by the third [of Marcheshvan]; a middle one [falls] by the seventh; [and] a late one (lit. a dark one) [falls] by the seventeenth.\" Rabbi Yehudah says, \"An early one [falls] by the seventh; a middle one [falls] by the seventeenth; [and] a late one [falls] by the twenty-third.\" Rabbi Yose says, An early one [falls] by the seventeenth; a middle one [falls] by the twenty-third; [and] a late one [falls] by Rosh Chodesh Kislev.\"] And so, Rabbi Yose would say, \"The individuals do not fast until Rosh Chodesh Kislev.\"", |
|
| 37. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 84 |
| 38. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 173, 174 |
| 39. Palestinian Talmud, Horayot, 8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119, 124, 125, 127 |
| 40. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 75 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 187 |
| 41. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 140 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 210 |
| 42. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 136 |
| 43. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
44. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 26.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175; Hidary (2017) 119| 26.2. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִמִּלְחַיָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמְרוּ, מָצִינוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת בִּימֵי דָוִד עַד שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמוּ טַעַם חֵטְא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין לִדְרשׁ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מ"ט פָּנִים טָמֵא וּמ"ט פָּנִים טָהוֹר, וַהֲוָה דָּוִד מַצְלֵי עֲלַיְהוּ, הֲדָא הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים יב, ח): אַתָּה ה' תִּשְׁמְרֵם, אַתָּה ה' נְטַר אוֹרַיְתְהוֹן בְּלִבֵּהוֹן, [עפ"י (תהלים יב, ח)]: תִּנְצְרֵם מִן הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם, מִן הַדּוֹר הַהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב כְּלָיָה, אַחַר כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח הַזֶּה יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹפְלִין, אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶם דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין, הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים נז, ה): נַפְשִׁי בְּתוֹךְ לְבָאִם, לְבָאִם זֶה אַבְנֵר וַעֲמָשָׂא שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָאִים בַּתּוֹרָה. (תהלים נז, ה): אֶשְׁכְּבָה לֹהֲטִים, זֶה דּוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל שֶׁהָיוּ לְהוּטִין אַחַר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. (תהלים נז, ה): בְּנֵי אָדָם שִׁנֵּיהֶם חֲנִית וְחִצִּים, אֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי קְעִילָה דִּכְתִיב בָּהֶם (שמואל א כג, יא): הֲיַסְגִּרֻנִי בַעֲלֵי קְעִילָה בְיָדוֹ. (תהלים נז, ה): וּלְשׁוֹנָם חֶרֶב חַדָּה, אֵלּוּ הַזִּיפִים דִּכְתִיב בְּהוֹן (תהלים נד, ב): בְּבוֹא הַזִּיפִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְשָׁאוּל, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר דָּוִד וְכִי מָה הַשְּׁכִינָה עוֹשָׂה בָּאָרֶץ (תהלים נז, ב): רוּמָה עַל הַשָּׁמַיִם אֱלֹהִים, סַלֵּק שְׁכִינָתְךָ מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. אֲבָל דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אַחְאָב כֻּלָּן עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הָיוּ, וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָּהֶן דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹצְחִין, הוּא שֶׁעוֹבַדְיָה אָמַר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ (מלכים א יח, יג): הֲלֹא הֻגַּד לַאדֹנִי וגו' וָאֲכַלְכְּלֵם לֶחֶם וָמָיִם, אִם לֶחֶם לָמָּה מָיִם, אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ הַמַּיִם קָשִׁים לוֹ לְהָבִיא יוֹתֵר מִן הַלֶּחֶם, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ מַכְרִיז בְּהַר הַכַּרְמֶל וְאוֹמֵר (מלכים א יח, כב): אֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי נָבִיא לַה' לְבַדִּי, וְכָל עַמָּא יָדְעֵי וְלָא מְפַרְסְמֵי לְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמְרוּ לוֹ לַנָּחָשׁ מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מָצוּי בֵּין הַגְּדֵרוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּרַצְתִּי גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַנָּחָשׁ פָּרַץ גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם תְּחִלָּה לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲשָׂה סְפֶּקָלָטוֹר לְכָל פּוֹרְצֵי גְדֵרוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ, מָה אַתָּה מוֹעִיל, אֲרִי דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, זְאֵב טוֹרֵף וְאוֹכֵל, וְאַתְּ נוֹשֵׁךְ וּמֵמִית. אָמַר לָהֶם (קהלת י, יא): אִם יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ בְּלוֹא לָחַשׁ, אֶפְשָׁר דַּאֲנָא עָבֵיד כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם מִתְאֲמַר לִי מִן עֲלִיּוּתָא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ בְּאֵבֶר אֶחָד וְאַרְסְךָ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּכָל הָאֵבָרִים, אָמַר לָהֶם וְלִי אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים (קהלת י, יא): אֵין יִתְרוֹן לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן, דְּיָתֵיב בְּרוֹמִי וְקָטֵל בְּסוּרְיָא, בְּסוּרְיָא וְקָטֵל בְּרוֹמִי. וְלָמָּה קוֹרֵא שְׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג שְׁלשָׁה, הָאוֹמְרוֹ, הַמְּקַבְּלוֹ וְהַנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּגְבַר דַּהֲוַת לֵיהּ כַּלָּה בִּישָׁא וַהֲוַת צְמִידָה אֲמָרָה לִשָּׁן בִּישׁ, וַהֲוָה מְפַיֵּס יָתָהּ תְּרֵין זִמְנִין בְּיוֹמָא, חַד בְּרַמְשָׁא וְחַד בְּצַפְרָא, אֲמַר לָהּ אֲנָא בָּעֵי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תֵימְרִין לִשַּׁן בִּישׁ, מָה עֲבָדַת אֲזָלַת וַאֲמָרַת לְבַעֲלָהּ הָדֵין אֲבוּךְ בָּעֵי לְשַׁמָּשָׁא יָתִי, וְאִי לֵית אַתְּ מְהֵימַנְתְּ לִי עוּל אָתֵית לְרַמְשָׁא וְאַתְּ מַשְׁכַּח יָתֵיהּ יָתֵיב וּמְפַיֵּס לִי, אָזַל וּרְצַד עֲלוֹי וְחָמָא יָתֵיהּ קָאֵים גָּחִין וְסָיַח יָתָהּ. אֲמַר כְּבָר מִלָּא קוּשְׁטָן, מָה עֲבַד מְחָא לַאֲבוֹי וּקְטָלֵיהּ. אוֹבִילִין יָתֵיהּ לְדִינָא וְאִתְחַיַּיב קָטוֹלִין, וּלְהַהִיא אִנְתְּתָא דַּאֲמָרַת עַל אֲבוֹי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע וְאִיתְחַיְיבָא קָטוֹלִין, וְאִשְׁתַּכַּח לִשָּׁנָא קָטֵל תְּלָתֵיהוֹן. וּבִימֵי שָׁאוּל הָרַג אַרְבָּעָה, דּוֹאֵג שֶׁאָמַר, שָׁאוּל שֶׁקִּבְּלוֹ, אֲחִימֶלֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו, אַבְנֵר לָמָּה נֶהֱרַג, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אַבְנֵר נֶהֱרַג עַל שֶׁעָשָׂה דָמָן שֶׁל נְעָרִים שְׂחוֹק, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ב, יד): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְנֵר אֶל יוֹאָב יָקוּמוּ נָא הַנְּעָרִים וִישַׂחֲקוּ לְפָנֵינוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַל שֶׁהִקְדִּים שְׁמוֹ לְשֵׁם דָּוִד, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ג, יב): וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְנֵר מַלְאָכִים אֶל דָּוִד תַּחְתָּיו לֵאמֹר לְמִי אָרֶץ, וְהָכֵי כָּתַב לֵיהּ מֵאַבְנֵר לְדָוִד. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְשָׁאוּל לְהִתְפַּיֵּס בְּדָוִד וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ אַבְנֵר, שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דָּוִד (שמואל א כד, יא): וְאָבִי רְאֵה גַּם רְאֵה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי, מִן גְּלַגּוֹי דִּידָךְ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, כַּד אָתוֹן לַמַּעֲגָל. אָמַר לוֹ (שמואל א כו, יד): הֲלוֹא תַעֲנֶה אַבְנֵר, בַּכָּנָף אָמַרְתָּ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, חֲנִית וְצַפַּחַת בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת בְּשָׁאוּל עַל נוֹב וְלֹא מִחָה. | |
|
| 45. Palestinian Talmud, Sukkah, 1.1-1.4, 1.7-1.8, 1.10 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 210, 213, 216, 220 |
| 46. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 47. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 17 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119 |
48. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 134, 136| 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 | 16a. b Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon, and /b also b the Eternal House, /b i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem. The dust for the i sota /i is still brought from the ground of the Sanctuary wherever it is located, even after the Jewish people are no longer in the wilderness., b Isi ben Menaḥem says: There is no need /b to derive this i halakha /i from the verse. It may be learned by an i a fortiori /i inference: b With regard to /b the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary in a state of b impurity, a lenient /b matter for which there is no court-imposed capital punishment, b the Torah does not differentiate. /b It is prohibited for an impure person to enter the Tabernacle no matter where it stands. Therefore, b with regard to the impurity of a married woman, /b which is b stringent /b and carries the penalty of strangulation, b all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that the Torah does not differentiate? The dust must be brought from the Sanctuary no matter where it stands. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: /b “And of the dust that is b on the floor of the Tabernacle”? /b It teaches b that one should not bring /b dust b from his /b own b basket /b and place it directly into the water; he must first place it on the floor., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If b there is no dust there, what is /b the i halakha /i ? May one b place ashes /b in the vessel instead? The Gemara responds: There is b no /b need to b raise the dilemma /b if one holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai, as they say: We never find ashes referred to as dust /b in the Torah., b When you raise the dilemma, /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel, who say: We /b do b find ashes referred to as dust /b 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). b What /b is the i halakha /i here, with regard to the water of a i sota /i ? May ashes replace dust? b Although /b elsewhere ashes may be b referred to as dust, here it is written: “On the floor of the Tabernacle,” /b indicating that dust in particular is required, since dust comes from the ground. b Or perhaps /b the phrase b “on the floor of the Tabernacle” comes /b only to teach that the i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the teaching of b Isi ben Yehuda or in accordance with /b the teaching of b Isi ben Menaḥem. /b If so, perhaps ashes are acceptable as well., b Come /b and b hear /b evidence from b that /b which b Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In three instances the i halakha /i supersedes the verse, /b i.e., the tradition alters the straightforward meaning of the verse., b The Torah states: /b “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 b in dust” /b (Leviticus 17:13), b but the i halakha /i is /b that the blood may be covered b in anything /b similar to dust. b The Torah states /b with regard to the nazirite: “All the days of his vow of naziriteship there shall be no b razor /b come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), b but the i halakha /i is /b that the nazirite may not remove his hair b with anything. The Torah states: /b “That he writes her a b bill [ i sefer /i ] /b of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1). The word i sefer /i denotes a scroll, b but the i halakha /i is /b that the husband may inscribe the bill of divorce b on anything /b that is detached from the ground and suitable to be written upon, not only on a scroll., b And if it is so /b that ashes may be placed in the water of a i sota /i despite the verse’s stipulation of dust, b consider this /b fourth case b as well /b to be a i halakha /i 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 b taught /b some cases b and omitted /b others; his list is not exhaustive. The Gemara asks: b What /b else b did he omit that he omitted this? /b It is not reasonable that he would provide a list lacking only one item. The Gemara answers: b He omitted the leper, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Nega’im /i 1:9): In the verse: b “And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair” /b (Leviticus 14:9), the phrase “all his hair” is b a generalization. /b The phrase that follows: b “His head and his beard and his eyebrows,” /b is b a detail. /b And with the following phrase: b “Even all his hair he shall shave off,” /b the verse b then generalized /b again. In any case of b a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. Just as the detail is explicitly /b referring to b areas /b where there is b a collection of hair which is visible, so too all areas /b on the leper that have b a collection of hair which is visible /b must be shaven.,To b what /b otherwise excluded case does this i baraita /i b extend /b the i halakha /i ? It b extends /b the i halakha /i of hair to include b pubic hair. What /b does the i baraita /i b exclude? It excludes armpit hair, /b which is not visible, b and body hair /b that is not collected. This is the straightforward meaning of the verse., b And /b yet b the i halakha /i is: /b The leper b shaves like a gourd, /b i.e., his entire body must be shaved. b As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Nega’im /i 14:2): When the priest b comes to shave the leper, he passes a razor over all of his flesh. And /b in b the latter clause, /b the mishna b teaches: On the seventh day he shaves /b the leper again. b The second shaving is /b just b like the first shaving. /b 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 i halakha /i supersedes the straightforward meaning of the verse, yet it is omitted from Rabbi Yishmael’s list., b Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b Rabbi Yishmael consciously omitted the i halakha /i of the leper because he b counted /b only instances where the b i halakha /i supersedes /b the straightforward meaning of the b verse. This /b i halakha /i of the leper, however, b is /b an instance where the i halakha /i b supersedes /b only an exegetical interpretation b of the Sages. /b , b Rav Pappa said: /b Rabbi Yishmael b counted /b only cases where the b i halakha /i /b both b supersedes and uproots /b the straightforward meaning of the verse. b This, /b however, is an instance where the i halakha /i b supersedes and adds. /b The i halakha /i does not overrule the verse but rather adds an additional requirement, i.e., that the whole body must be shaved., b Rav Ashi said: This i baraita /i , /b which teaches that only certain parts of the body must be shaved, b is /b in accordance with b whose /b opinion? b It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets /b verses by means of the principle of b generalizations and details. /b According to this interpretation, only collected areas of hair that are visible must be shaven. |
|
49. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 33a. אחר לית ליה אימתא דרביה האי אית ליה אימתא דרביה,רב זביד משמיה דרבא מתני לה אהא ומצא פרט לממציא את עצמו מכאן א"ר אליעזר בן יעקב מי שיצתה אבן מתחת ידו והוציא הלה את ראשו וקיבלה פטור א"ר יוסי בר חנינא פטור מגלות וחייב בארבעה דברים,מאן דמתני לה אהא כ"ש אקמייתא ומאן דמתני לה אקמייתא אבל אהא פטור לגמרי:,ת"ר פועלים שבאו לתבוע שכרן מבעל הבית ונגחן שורו של בעל הבית ונשכן כלבו של בעה"ב ומת פטור אחרים אומרים רשאין פועלין לתבוע שכרן מבעל הבית,ה"ד אי דשכיח במתא מ"ט דאחרים אי דשכיח בבית מ"ט דת"ק,לא צריכא בגברא דשכיח ולא שכיח וקרי אבבא ואמר להו אין מר סבר אין עול תא משמע ומ"ס אין קום אדוכתך משמע,תניא כמ"ד אין קום אדוכתך משמע דתניא פועל שנכנס לתבוע שכרו מבעה"ב ונגחו שורו של בעה"ב או נשכו כלבו פטור אע"פ שנכנס ברשות אמאי פטור אלא לאו דקרי אבבא ואמר ליה אין וש"מ אין קום אדוכתך משמע:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שני שוורין תמין שחבלו זה את זה משלמין במותר חצי נזק שניהן מועדין משלמין במותר נזק שלם,אחד תם ואחד מועד מועד בתם משלם במותר נ"ש תם במועד משלם במותר חצי נזק,וכן שני אנשים שחבלו זה בזה משלמין במותר נזק שלם,אדם במועד ומועד באדם משלם במותר נזק שלם אדם בתם ותם באדם אדם בתם משלם במותר נזק שלם תם באדם משלם במותר חצי נזק ר' עקיבא אומר אף תם שחבל באדם משלם במותר נזק שלם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר (שמות כא, לא) כמשפט הזה יעשה לו כמשפט שור בשור כך משפט שור באדם מה שור בשור תם משלם חצי נזק ומועד נזק שלם אף שור באדם תם משלם חצי נזק ומועד נזק שלם,ר' עקיבא אומר כמשפט הזה כתחתון ולא כעליון,יכול משלם מן העלייה ת"ל יעשה לו מגופו משלם ואינו משלם מן העלייה,ורבנן זה למה לי לפוטרו מארבעה דברים,ורבי עקיבא לפוטרו מארבעה דברים מנא ליה נפקא ליה (ויקרא כד, יט) מאיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו איש בעמיתו ולא שור בעמיתו,ורבנן אי מההיא הוה אמינא צער לחודיה אבל ריפוי ושבת אימא ליתן ליה קמ"ל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שור שוה מנה שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבילה יפה כלום נוטל את השור:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מתניתין מני רבי עקיבא היא דתניא יושם השור בב"ד דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר הוחלט השור,במאי קמיפלגי ר' ישמעאל סבר בעל חוב הוא וזוזי הוא דמסיק ליה ור' עקיבא סבר שותפי נינהו,וקמיפלגי בהאי קרא (שמות כא, לה) ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו ר' ישמעאל סבר לבי דינא קמזהר רחמנא ור"ע סבר לניזק ומזיק מזהר להו רחמנא,מאי בינייהו הקדישו ניזק איכא בינייהו,בעא מיניה רבא מר"נ מכרו מזיק לר' ישמעאל מהו כיון דא"ר ישמעאל בעל חוב הוא וזוזי הוא דמסיק ליה מכור או דלמא | 33a. The Gemara answers: b Another /b person b does not have awe of his mentor. /b Therefore, even if the welder urges another person to leave, he must ascertain that that person actually did so, and otherwise he is liable to be exiled. By contrast, b this /b apprentice b has awe of his mentor, /b and so the welder may assume that if he instructed him to leave, he certainly did. Therefore, if in reality the apprentice did not leave and is killed by the sparks, the welder is not liable to be exiled, as he is not held accountable., b Rav Zevid taught in the name of Rava /b that b this /b aforementioned statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina is in reference not to the above i baraita /i but is b in reference to this /b i baraita /i : It is stated in the verse concerning one who kills unintentionally: “And the head slips off the helve, b and finds /b his neighbor, and he dies” (Deuteronomy 19:5); this serves to b exclude /b one b who introduces himself /b into an area of danger, in which case the one who kills unintentionally is exempt from exile. b From here Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b With regard to b one whom a stone departed from his hand, and another /b person b stuck out his head and received /b a blow from b it /b and died, the one who threw the stone is b exempt /b from exile. It is in reference to this statement that b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: He is exempt from exile /b for killing him. b But /b if the victim was merely injured, he is b liable to /b pay b four types of indemnity. /b ,The Gemara comments: b The one who teaches this /b statement b in reference to this /b i baraita /i , b all the more so /b he would teach it b in reference to the first /b i baraita /i , where one entered the workshop of the carpenter. b But the one who teaches it with regard to the first /b i baraita /i teaches it only in reference to that i baraita /i . b But in this /b i baraita /i he is b entirely exempt /b from liability for injury, as one could claim that he is completely blameless.,§ b The Sages taught: /b With regard to salaried b laborers who came /b into their employer’s courtyard b to claim their wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner’s ox gored them, or the homeowner’s dog bit them, and /b a laborer b died, /b the homeowner is b exempt. Others say /b that he is liable, as salaried b laborers are allowed /b to enter their employer’s property b to claim their wages from the homeowner. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances? If /b the employer b can be found in the city, what is the reason of the others, /b who hold him liable? The laborers could have met him in the city to claim their wages and did not need to enter his courtyard. b If he can be found /b only b at home, what is the reason of the first i tanna /i , /b who exempts him? Clearly they are entitled to claim their wages.,The Gemara answers: b No, /b these are not the circumstances under discussion. This i halakha /i is b necessary /b only b with regard to a man who can /b sometimes b be found /b in town b and /b sometimes b cannot be found /b in town, b and /b the laborers b called /b to him b at the gate /b of his courtyard, b and he said to them: Yes. /b One b Sage, /b referred to as the others, b holds /b that the term b yes /b in this context b indicates: Come in. /b Therefore, he is liable for their death. b And /b one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that the term b yes /b in this context b indicates: Stand in your place /b and I will come out to you. Since he did not give them permission to enter, he is exempt., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the one who says /b that b yes /b in this context b indicates: Stand in your place. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to a salaried b laborer who entered /b his employer’s courtyard b to claim his wages from the homeowner, and the homeowner’s ox gored him, or his dog bit him, /b the homeowner b is exempt, although /b the laborer b entered with permission. /b The Gemara asks: b Why /b is he b exempt /b if the laborer entered with permission? b Rather, is it not /b because it is a case b where /b the laborer b called /b him b at the gate, and /b he b said to him: Yes? Conclude from it /b that b yes /b in this context b indicates: Stand in your place. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b two innocuous oxen that injured each other, /b the respective damages are evaluated, and if one amount is more than the other, the owner b pays half the damages with regard to the difference. /b In other words, the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays the other owner half the difference. If b both oxen were forewarned, /b the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage b pays the full /b cost of the b damage with regard to the difference. /b ,In a case where b one /b of the oxen was b innocuous and /b the other b one /b was b forewarned, /b if the b forewarned /b ox caused greater damage b to /b the b innocuous /b ox than the reverse, the owner of the forewarned ox b pays the full /b cost of the b damage with regard to the difference. /b If the b innocuous /b ox caused greater damage b to /b the b forewarned /b ox, its owner b pays half the damage with regard to the difference. /b , b And similarly, /b with regard to b two people who injured each other, /b the one who did greater damage b pays the full /b cost of the b damage with regard to the difference, /b since one is always considered forewarned with regard to damage he causes.,If b a person /b caused damage b to a forewarned /b ox b and /b the b forewarned /b ox caused damage b to /b the b person, /b whichever side caused the greater damage b pays the full /b cost of the b damage with regard to the difference. /b In a case where b a person /b caused damage b to an innocuous /b ox b and /b the b innocuous /b ox caused damage b to /b the b person, /b if b the person /b caused greater ficial damage b to /b the b innocuous /b ox b he pays the full /b cost of the b damage with regard to the difference. /b If the b innocuous /b ox caused greater damage b to the person, /b its owner b pays /b only b half the damage with regard to the difference. Rabbi Akiva says: /b The owner of the b innocuous /b ox b that injured a person also pays the full /b cost of the b damage with regard to the difference. /b Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injures a person., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis about a case where an ox injures a person, b the Sages taught: /b It is derived from the verse: “Whether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, b according to this judgment shall it be done to him” /b (Exodus 21:31), that b as is the judgment /b concerning b an ox /b that causes damage b to an ox, so is the judgment /b with regard to b an ox /b that causes damage b to a person. Just as /b with regard to b an ox /b that causes damage b to an ox, /b if it is b innocuous /b its owner b pays half /b the cost of b the damage and /b if it is b forewarned /b he pays the b full /b cost of the b damage, so too, /b with regard to b an ox /b that causes damage b to a person, /b if it is an b innocuous /b ox its owner b pays half /b the cost of b the damage and /b if it is a b forewarned /b ox the owner pays the b full /b cost of the b damage. /b , b Rabbi Akiva says: /b It is derived from the phrase b “according to this judgment” /b that the i halakha /i with regard to an ox that gores a person is judged b like /b the case that appears in b the lower /b verse, i.e., the case of a forewarned ox, which appears in Exodus 21:29, b and not like /b the case that appears in b the upper /b verse, i.e., the case of an innocuous ox, which appears in Exodus 21:28.,One b might /b have thought that since the case of an ox that gored a person is compared to the case of a forewarned ox, the owner also b pays from /b his b superior-quality /b property. Therefore, b the verse states: “Shall it be done to him [ i lo /i ],” /b indicating b he pays /b restitution exclusively b from /b the proceeds of the sale of the b body /b of his belligerent ox b and does not pay from /b his b superior-quality /b property, as the word i lo /i can also be understood as referring to the ox. In this manner the case of an innocuous ox that gores a person is compared to the i halakha /i of an innocuous ox that gores another ox, whereas with regard to the amount of restitution, it is compared to the case of a forewarned ox.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who do not differentiate between an ox that gores a person and one that gores an animal, inasmuch as the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox applies in both cases, b why do I /b need the seemingly superfluous word b “this”? /b The Gemara answers: The word is stated b to exempt him from the four types of indemnity /b that one who injures another person is liable to pay, thereby emphasizing the comparison to the case of an ox that gores an ox.,The Gemara asks: b And from where does Rabbi Akiva /b derive the i halakha /i b exempting him from /b paying these b four types of indemnity? /b The Gemara answers: b He derives it from /b the verse: b “And if a man maims his neighbor, /b as he has done, so shall be done to him” (Leviticus 24:19). Rabbi Akiva derives from here that only when b a man /b injures b his neighbor /b is he liable to pay these four types of indemnity, b but not /b when b an ox /b injures b his neighbor. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b why do b the Rabbis /b not derive this i halakha /i from that verse? The Gemara answers: b If /b it would have been derived b from that /b verse, b I would have said /b that he is exempt b only /b from paying for b pain, but /b for b medical costs and loss of liveli-hood, /b I would b say /b that he is liable b to give him /b compensation. Therefore, the phrase “according to this judgment” b teaches us /b that he is not liable to pay compensation for anything other than the damage itself., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to an innocuous b ox worth one hundred dinars that gored an ox worth two hundred /b dinars, b and the carcass /b of the dead ox b is not worth anything, /b its owner b takes the /b entire b ox /b that gored it, since it is worth half the value of the damage., strong GEMARA: /strong b Whose /b opinion is expressed in the b mishna, /b which rules that the injured party takes the ox immediately? b It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : After it gores another ox, b the /b belligerent b ox shall be appraised in court /b before it is taken by the injured party, this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The ox was /b already b assigned /b to the owner of the dead ox as payment, and if the amount of damages is not contested by the owner of the goring ox, no further legal steps are required.,The Gemara explains: b With regard to what /b principle b do /b they b disagree? Rabbi Yishmael holds /b that the owner of the dead ox b is /b considered b a creditor /b of the owner of the belligerent ox, b and it is money that he is claiming from him, /b but he has no ownership of the body of the belligerent ox. b And Rabbi Akiva holds /b that b they are partners, /b i.e., from the time the innocuous ox killed the other ox, the owner of the dead ox has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox., b And they disagree with regard to /b the meaning of b this verse: “Then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its monetary value” /b (Exodus 21:35). b Rabbi Yishmael holds /b that b the Merciful One is commanding the court /b to evaluate the damages in this manner, b and Rabbi Akiva holds /b that b the Merciful One is commanding the injured /b party b and the one liable for damage /b to split ownership of the live ox, without the involvement of the court.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between /b the two opinions as to whether or not they are considered partners? The Gemara answers: There b is /b a practical difference b between them /b in a case where b the injured /b party b consecrated /b the ox to the Temple. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, until the court transfers the ox to the injured party, it still belongs to its owner, and therefore the injured party cannot consecrate it. According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the injured party owns the ox from the time the damage was inflicted, and he can therefore consecrate it., b Rava asked Rav Naḥman: /b If b the one liable for damage sold /b the ox, b what is /b the i halakha /i b according to Rabbi Yishmael? /b Is it that b since Rabbi Yishmael says /b that the injured party b is /b considered b a creditor, and it is /b merely b money that he is claiming from him, it is sold? Or perhaps /b |
|
50. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 74| 63a. ואימא הר הבית דאסור במנעל לילפא ממנעל אבל (ב"ה) דשרי במנעל אדיליף ממנעל ולהיתר נילף מקפנדריא ולאסור,אלא אמר רבא כי ביתו מה ביתו אקפנדריא קפיד אינש ארקיקה ומנעל לא קפיד אינש אף ב"ה קפנדריא הוא דאסור רקיקה ומנעל שרי:,כל חותמי ברכות שבמקדש וכו':,כל כך למה לפי שאין עונין אמן במקדש ומנין שאין עונין אמן במקדש שנאמר (נחמיה ט, ה) קומו ברכו את ה' אלהיכם מן העולם עד העולם ואומר (נחמיה ט, ה) ויברכו (את) שם כבודך ומרומם על כל ברכה ותהלה,יכול כל הברכות כולן תהא להן תהלה אחת ת"ל ומרומם על כל ברכה ותהלה על כל ברכה וברכה תן לו תהלה:,התקינו שיהא אדם שואל בשלום חברו וכו': מאי ואומר,וכי תימא בעז מדעתיה דנפשיה קאמר ת"ש (שופטים ו, יב) ה' עמך גבור החיל וכי תימא מלאך הוא דקאמר ליה לגדעון ת"ש (משלי כג, כב) אל תבוז כי זקנה אמך,ואומר (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך אמר רבא האי קרא מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש,מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש עת לעשות לה' מאי טעם משום הפרו תורתך מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש הפרו תורתך מ"ט משום עת לעשות לה',תניא הלל הזקן אומר בשעת המכניסין פזר בשעת המפזרים כנס ואם ראית דור שהתורה חביבה עליו פזר שנאמר (משלי יא, כד) יש מפזר ונוסף עוד ואם ראית דור שאין התורה חביבה עליו כנס שנא' עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך,דרש בר קפרא זלת קבוץ קנה מינה באתר דלית גבר תמן הוי גבר אמר אביי ש"מ באתר דאית גבר תמן לא תהוי גבר,פשיטא לא נצרכה אלא בששניהם שוין,דרש בר קפרא איזוהי פרשה קטנה שכל גופי תורה תלוין בה (משלי ג, ו) בכל דרכיך דעהו והוא יישר ארחותיך אמר רבא אפילו לדבר עבירה,דרש בר קפרא לעולם ילמד אדם את בנו אומנות נקיה וקלה מה היא אמר רב חסדא מחטא דתלמיותא:,תניא ר' אומר לעולם אל ירבה אדם רעים בתוך ביתו שנא' (משלי יח, כד) איש רעים להתרועע,תניא ר' אומר אל ימנה אדם אפטרופוס בתוך ביתו שאלמלי לא מינה פוטיפר את יוסף אפטרופוס בתוך ביתו לא בא לאותו דבר,תניא ר' אומר למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה לומר לך שכל הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין,אמר חזקיה בריה דר' פרנך אמר רבי יוחנן למה נסמכה פרשת סוטה לפרשת תרומות ומעשרות לומר לך כל שיש לו תרומות ומעשרות ואינו נותן לכהן סוף נצרך לכהן על ידי אשתו שנאמר (במדבר ה, י) ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו וסמיך ליה איש איש כי תשטה אשתו וכתיב והביא האיש את אשתו וגו' ולא עוד אלא סוף שנצרך להן שנאמר ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ואם נתנן סוף מתעשר שנאמר (במדבר ה, י) איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה לו יהיה ממון הרבה,א"ר הונא בר ברכיה משום רבי אלעזר הקפר כל המשתף שם שמים בצערו כופלין לו פרנסתו שנאמר (איוב כב, כה) והיה שדי בצריך וכסף תועפות לך,ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר פרנסתו מעופפת לו כצפור שנאמר וכסף תועפות לך,א"ר טבי א"ר יאשיה כל המרפה עצמו מדברי תורה אין בו כח לעמוד ביום צרה שנאמר (משלי כד, י) התרפית ביום צרה צר כחכה א"ר אמי בר מתנה אמר שמואל ואפילו מצוה אחת שנאמר התרפית מכל מקום,אמר רב ספרא ר' אבהו הוה משתעי כשירד חנינא בן אחי רבי יהושע לגולה היה מעבר שנים וקובע חדשים בחוצה לארץ,שגרו אחריו שני ת"ח רבי יוסי בן כיפר ובן בנו של זכריה בן קבוטל כיון שראה אותם אמר להם למה באתם אמרו ליה ללמוד תורה באנו הכריז [עליהם] אנשים הללו גדולי הדור הם ואבותיהם שמשו בבית המקדש כאותה ששנינו זכריה בן קבוטל אומר הרבה פעמים קריתי לפניו בספר דניאל,התחיל הוא מטמא והם מטהרים הוא אוסר והם מתירים הכריז עליהם אנשים הללו של שוא הם של תהו הם אמרו לו כבר בנית ואי אתה יכול לסתור כבר גדרת ואי אתה יכול לפרוץ,אמר להם מפני מה אני מטמא ואתם מטהרים אני אוסר ואתם מתירים אמרו לו מפני שאתה מעבר שנים וקובע חדשים בחו"ל,אמר להם והלא עקיבא בן יוסף היה מעבר שנים וקובע חדשים בחו"ל אמרו לו הנח רבי עקיבא שלא הניח כמותו בארץ ישראל א"ל אף אני לא הנחתי כמותי בא"י אמרו לו גדיים שהנחת נעשו תישים בעלי קרנים והם שגרונו אצלך וכן אמרו לנו לכו ואמרו לו בשמנו אם שומע מוטב ואם לאו יהא בנדוי | 63a. b and say /b as follows: With regard to b the Temple Mount, /b where one is b prohibited /b from wearing b shoes, let us derive /b the prohibition of spitting b from /b the case of b shoes. However, /b with regard to b a synagogue, /b where one is b permitted /b to wear b shoes, instead of deriving /b the law with regard to spitting b from /b the case of b shoes and permitting /b it, b derive it from /b the case of b a shortcut, and prohibit /b it., b Rather, Rava said /b a different reason: The synagogue is b like one’s house. Just as one objects to /b a person using b his house as a shortcut, /b but b does not mind spitting and /b wearing b shoes /b therein, b so too /b in the case of a b synagogue, a shortcut is prohibited /b while b spitting and /b wearing b shoes are permitted. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b At the conclusion of all blessings /b recited b in the Temple, /b the one reciting the blessing would say: Blessed are You Lord, God of Israel, until everlasting.,The Gemara explains: b Why /b were they insistent upon this formula b to that extent? Because one does not answer amen in the Temple. /b Because there is a unique response to the blessings in the Temple, a unique formula for their conclusion was instituted. b From where /b is it derived b that one does not answer amen in the Temple? As it is stated: “Stand up and bless the Lord, your God, from everlasting to everlasting” /b (Nehemiah 9:5), which refers to the conclusion. b The verse /b in Nehemiah b continues: “And let them say: Blessed be Your glorious name, that is exalted above all blessing and praise” /b (Nehemiah 9:5). The response is exalted above other blessings.,From the beginning of the verse, I b might /b have thought that b all of the blessings there will have /b only b a single /b expression of b praise, /b amen. Therefore, b the verse teaches: “That is exalted above all blessing and praise”; for every blessing, a /b unique b praise is offered. /b Therefore, the appropriate response to a blessing in the Temple is: Blessed are You Lord, God of Israel, from everlasting until everlasting.,We learned in the mishna that the Sages b instituted that a person will greet another /b with the name of God, and several biblical sources were cited. The Gemara asks: b Why /b is it necessary for the mishna to cite all of those sources, introduced with the phrase: b And it says? /b Why was the proof from Boaz’s statement to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, insufficient?,The Gemara explains: b And if you say: Boaz said this on his own, /b and it proves nothing with regard to normative practice, b come and hear /b a proof from the verse: b “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” /b (Judges 6:12). b And if you say /b that b it was an angel who said /b this b to Gideon, /b that perhaps this verse was the angel informing Gideon that the Lord is with him, but it is not the standard formula of a greeting, b come /b and b hear /b proof from the verse: b “And despise not your mother when she is old” /b (Proverbs 23:22); the customs of the nation’s elders are an adequate source from which to derive i halakha /i ., b And /b the verse b states: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah” /b (Psalms 119:126). of this, b Rava said: This verse /b can be b interpreted from beginning to end, and /b can be b interpreted from end to beginning. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: This verse can be b interpreted from beginning to end: It is time to work for the Lord; what is the reason? Because they have made void Your Torah, /b so it must be remedied. Conversely, it can be b interpreted from end to beginning /b as follows: b They have made void Your Torah; what is the reason? Because it is time to work for the Lord. /b By means of violating the Torah, it is possible to fundamentally rectify the situation.,With regard to this verse, b it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Hillel the Elder says: At the time of gathering, /b if the Sages of the generation see to it that the Torah remains the purview of the few, b disseminate /b it to the public at large. b At the time of dissemination, gather, /b and leave it to others to disseminate the Torah. b And if you see a generation for whom Torah is beloved, disseminate, as it is stated: “There is who scatters, and yet increases” /b (Proverbs 11:24). However, b if you see a generation for whom Torah is not beloved, gather; /b do not cause the Torah to be disgraced, b as it is stated: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah.” /b Preventing Torah study in that situation is a manifestation of work for the Lord.,On a similar note, b bar Kappara taught: /b If the price of the merchandise has b declined, jump and purchase from it; and where there is no man, there be a man; /b where there is no one to fill a particular role, accept that role upon yourself. b Abaye said: Infer from this /b that b where there is a man, there do not be a man. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t Abaye’s conclusion b obvious? /b The Gemara explains: b This /b statement b is only necessary /b in a case b where /b there are b two who are equal. /b Although you, too, are suited to fill that role, since another qualified person is already filling that role, allow him to succeed., b Bar Kappara taught: Which is a brief passage upon which all fundamental /b principles of b Torah are dependent? “In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths” /b (Proverbs 3:6). b Rava said: /b One must apply this principle b even to acts of transgression, /b as even then one must adhere to God and refrain from sinning excessively., b Bar Kappara taught: A person should always teach his child a clean and simple craft. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b craft is considered clean and simple? b Rav Ḥisda said: Cutting precious stones. /b ,Several ethical tenets and guidelines for life b were taught /b in a i baraita /i . b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: One should never have too many friends in his house, /b i.e., people should not become accustomed to being overly intimate in his house, b as it is stated: “There are friends that one has to his own hurt” /b (Proverbs 18:24); one with friends of that kind will ultimately come to quarrel., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Do not appoint an administrator [ i apitropos /i ] within your house, as had Potiphar not appointed Joseph as administrator within his house, /b Joseph b would not have come to that incident /b involving him in allegations of sexual impropriety., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i , b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Why is the portion of the Nazirite /b (Numbers ch. 6) b juxtaposed with the portion of the i sota /i /b (Numbers ch. 5)? They are juxtaposed b to tell you that anyone who sees a i sota /i in her disgrace, /b her transgression, b should renounce wine, /b as wine is one of the causes of that transgression., b Ḥizkiya, son of Rabbi Parnakh, said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Why is the portion of i sota /i juxtaposed with the portion of i terumot /i and tithes /b (Numbers ch. 5)? They are juxtaposed b to tell you: Anyone who has i terumot /i and tithes and does not give them to a priest, /b will b ultimately require /b the services of b a priest by means of his wife, as it is stated: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his” ( /b Numbers 5:10). This refers to one who keeps those hallowed items for himself. b To this /b the Torah b juxtaposed: “If any man’s wife go aside and act unfaithfully against him” /b (Numbers 5:12). b And it is written: “Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest” /b (Numbers 5:15). b Moreover, ultimately /b that man b will require /b assistance from the tithe given to the poor, b as it is stated: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his” /b (Numbers 5:10). He will himself need those very hallowed items that he was unwilling to give to others., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And if he gave them, ultimately /b he will b become wealthy, as it is said: “Whatsoever any man gives the priest, it shall be his” /b (Numbers 5:10); b much property shall be his. /b , b Rav Huna bar Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar: Anyone who includes the name of heaven in his distress, /b i.e., who turns and prays to God in his time of trouble, b his livelihood will /b ultimately b be doubled, as it is stated: “And the Almighty be your treasure, and precious [ i toafot /i ] silver unto you” /b (Job 22:25). If you include God in your trouble, your silver will be doubled. i Eif /i , which in Aramaic means double, is etymologically similar to i toafot /i ., b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b a different explanation: This means that b his sustece flies [ i meofefet /i ] to him like a bird, as it is stated: “And precious silver [ i toafot /i ] unto you.” /b , b Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya: Anyone who is lax in his /b study of b matters of Torah will /b ultimately b lack the strength to stand on a day of adversity, as it is stated: “If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small indeed” /b (Proverbs 24:10). b Rav Ami bar Mattana said /b that b Shmuel said: And even /b if he was lax in the performance of b a single /b mitzva, b as it is stated: If you faint; /b this applies b in any case, /b even in the case of a single mitzva., b Rav Safra said: Rabbi Abbahu would relate: When Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, went to the Diaspora, /b Babylonia, b he would intercalate years and establish months outside of Eretz /b Yisrael. Because Judaism in Eretz Yisrael had declined in the wake of the bar Kokheva rebellion, he considered it necessary to cultivate the Jewish community in Babylonia as the center of the Jewish people. Among other things, he intercalated the years and established the months even though the i halakha /i restricts those activities to Eretz Yisrael.,Eventually, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael b sent two Torah scholars after him, Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar and the grandson of Zekharya ben Kevutal. When /b Ḥanina b saw them, he asked them: Why did you come? They responded: We came to study Torah. /b Since he saw his standing enhanced by the Sages of Eretz Yisrael coming to study Torah from him, b he proclaimed about them: These people are eminent /b scholars b of our generation, and their fathers served in the Temple. As we learned /b in tractate i Yoma /i : b Zekharya ben Kevutal says: Many times I read before /b the High Priest from b the book of Daniel /b on the eve of Yom Kippur.,These two scholars, however, began to dispute every decision Ḥanina rendered in response to questions raised in the study hall. b He /b ruled it b impure and they /b ruled it b pure; he prohibited /b it b and they permitted /b it. Eventually, b he proclaimed about them: These people are worthless. They are /b good b for nothing /b and they know nothing. b They said to him: You have already built /b up our names and glorified us; b you cannot now demolish. You have already built a fence and you cannot break through it. /b , b He said to them: Why is it that /b when b I /b rule something b impure, you /b rule it b pure; /b when b I prohibit /b it, b you permit /b it? b They said to him: /b We do this b because you intercalate the years and establish the months outside of Eretz /b Yisrael., b He said to them: Didn’t /b Rabbi b Akiva ben Yosef /b also b intercalate years and establish months outside of Eretz /b Yisrael? b They replied to him: Leave /b the case of b Rabbi Akiva, as, /b when he left, b he did not leave behind anyone /b as great in Torah b as he in Eretz Yisrael. /b Rabbi Ḥanina b said to them: I also did not leave behind anyone /b as great b as me in Eretz Yisrael. They said to him: The kids who you left behind have grown into goats with horns; /b they are greater than you are. b And they sent us to you, and this is what they said to us: Go and tell him in our name: If he obeys, fine; and if /b he does b not /b obey, b he will be ostracized. /b |
|
51. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175| 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, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big 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: | 13b. b but /b later b reconsidered /b and did not divorce her, b and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is /b the same b as my name, and your wife’s name is /b the same b as my wife’s name, /b 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 b is invalid to divorce with it? /b 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 i sota /i .,The Gemara rejects this argument: b How can you compare /b the two cases? b There, /b with regard to a bill of divorce, b it is written: “And he shall write for her” /b (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore b we require writing /b it b in her name, /b specifically for her; whereas b here, /b with regard to a i sota /i , b it is written: “And he shall perform with her /b all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore b we require performance in her name. /b In b her /b case, the b performance is erasure; /b 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. b 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 /b one of the Sages who is b his equal. Why /b then b didn’t /b the Sages b establish the i halakha /i in accordance with his /b opinion? It is b because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. /b He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent i halakha /i . b As he /b would b state with regard to /b a ritually b impure /b item that it is b pure, and display justification /b for that ruling, and likewise he would state b with regard to /b a ritually b pure /b item that it is b impure, and display justification /b for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were i halakha /i and those that were not., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called /b by the b name Rabbi Meir? /b It was b because he illuminates [ i meir /i ] the eyes of the Sages in /b matters of b the i halakha /i . And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name /b of the i tanna /i known by that name; b rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called /b by the b name Rabbi Nehorai? /b It is b because he enlightens [ i manhir /i ] the eyes of the Sages in /b matters of b the i halakha /i . /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: /b The fact b that I am /b more b incisive than my colleagues is /b due to the fact b that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, /b i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. b Had I seen him from the front, I would be /b even more b incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” /b (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that b Rabbi Abbahu said /b that b 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 /b in support of the ruling of b impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons /b in support of the ruling of b purity. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could /b with his incisive intellect b purify the creeping animal, /b explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing b one hundred and fifty reasons /b in support of his argument., b Ravina said: I /b too b will deliberate and purify it /b employing the following reasoning: b And just as a snake that kills /b people and animals b and /b thereby b increases ritual impurity /b in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, b is ritually pure /b and transmits no impurity, b a creeping animal that does not kill and /b does not b increase impurity /b in the world, b all the more so /b should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: b And it is not so; /b that is not a valid i a fortiori /i argument, as it can be refuted. A snake b is performing a mere act of a thorn. /b A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this i a fortiori /i argument is rejected., b Rabbi Abba said /b that b Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with our /b opinion, b and these said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with our /b opinion. Ultimately, b a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: /b Both b these and those are the words of the living God. However, the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to /b have b the i halakha /i established in accordance with their /b opinion? The reason is b that they were agreeable and forbearing, /b showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the i halakha /i they would b teach /b both b their /b own b statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, /b when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, b they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their /b own b statements, /b in deference to Beit Shammai., b As /b in the mishna b that we learned: /b In the case of b one whose head and most of his body were in the i sukka /i , but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem /b this i sukka /i b 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 /b with b his head and most of his body in the i sukka /i , but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there /b do you seek to adduce b a proof? /b Those visitors, b too, said to him: If that was /b the manner in which b you were accustomed /b to perform the mitzva, b you have never fulfilled the mitzva of i sukka /i in /b all b your days. /b 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 b 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, /b conversely, b anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who /b attempts to b force the moment /b and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, b the moment forces him /b too, and he is unsuccessful. b And /b conversely, b anyone who /b is patient and b yields to the moment, the moment stands /b by b his /b side, and he will ultimately be successful., b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : b 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. /b Ultimately, b they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. /b However, b now that he has been created, he should examine his actions /b that he has performed and seek to correct them. b And some say: He should scrutinize his /b planned b actions /b and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin., strong MISHNA: /strong b The /b cross b beam, which /b the Sages b stated /b may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be b wide enough to receive /b and hold b a small brick. And /b this b small brick /b is b half a large brick, /b which measures b three handbreadths, /b i.e., a handbreadth and a half. b It is sufficient that the /b cross b beam will be a handbreadth in width, /b not a handbreadth and a half, b enough to hold a small brick across its width. /b ,And the cross beam must be b wide enough to hold a small brick /b and also b sturdy enough to hold a small brick /b and not collapse. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If it is b wide /b enough to hold the brick, b even though it is not sturdy /b enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam b is /b made b of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were /b made b of metal. /b ,If the cross beam is b curved, /b so that a small brick cannot rest on it, b one considers it as though it were straight; /b if it is b round, one considers it as though it were square. /b The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: b Any /b beam b with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, /b i.e., in diameter. |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175| 6b. ואי עבדת אהנית מאי אי עבדת אהנית דאי אתי בעל מערער לא משגחינן ביה,כדתניא מעשה באדם אחד שהביא גט לפני רבי ישמעאל אמר לו צריך אני לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם או איני צריך אמר לו בני מהיכן אתה אמר לו רבי מכפר סיסאי אני אמר לו צריך אתה לומר. בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם שלא תיזקק לעדים,לאחר שיצא נכנס לפניו רבי אלעאי אמר לו רבי והלא כפר סיסאי מובלעת בתחום ארץ ישראל וקרובה לציפורי יותר מעכו ותנן רבי מאיר אומר עכו כארץ ישראל לגיטין ואפי' רבנן לא פליגי עליה דר"מ אלא בעכו דמרחקא אבל כפר סיסאי דמקרבא לא,אמר לו שתוק בני שתוק הואיל ויצא הדבר בהיתר יצא,הא איהו נמי שלא תיזקק לעדים קאמר ליה לא סיימוה קמיה,שלח ליה ר' אביתר לרב חסדא גיטין הבאים משם לכאן אין צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לימא קסבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והני גמירי,ותסברא והא רבה אית ליה דרבא אלא דכ"ע בעינן לקיימו וכיון דאיכא רבים דסלקי ונחתי מישכח שכיחי,אמר רב יוסף מאן לימא לן דר' אביתר בר סמכא הוא ועוד הא איהו דשלח ליה לרב יהודה בני אדם העולין משם לכאן הן קיימו בעצמן (יואל ד, ג) ויתנו (את) הילד בזונה והילדה מכרו ביין וישתו וכתב ליה בלא שירטוט,וא"ר יצחק שתים כותבין שלש אין כותבין במתניתא תנא שלש כותבין ארבע אין כותבין,א"ל אביי אטו כל דלא ידע הא דר' יצחק לאו גברא רבה הוא בשלמא מילתא דתליא בסברא לחיי הא גמרא היא וגמרא לא שמיע ליה,ועוד הא ר' אביתר הוא דאסכים מריה על ידיה דכתיב (שופטים יט, ב) ותזנה עליו פילגשו רבי אביתר אמר זבוב מצא לה ר' יונתן אמר נימא מצא לה,ואשכחיה ר' אביתר לאליהו א"ל מאי קא עביד הקב"ה א"ל עסיק בפילגש בגבעה ומאי קאמר אמר ליה אביתר בני כך הוא אומר יונתן בני כך הוא אומר,א"ל ח"ו ומי איכא ספיקא קמי שמיא א"ל אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן זבוב מצא ולא הקפיד נימא מצא והקפיד,אמר רב יהודה זבוב בקערה ונימא באותו מקום זבוב מאיסותא ונימא סכנתא איכא דאמרי אידי ואידי בקערה זבוב אונסא ונימא פשיעותא,אמר רב חסדא לעולם אל יטיל אדם אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו שהרי פילגש בגבעה הטיל עליה בעלה אימה יתירה והפילה כמה רבבות מישראל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המטיל אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו סוף הוא בא לידי שלש עבירות גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וחילול שבת,אמר רבה בר בר חנה הא דאמרי רבנן שלשה דברים צריך אדם לומר בתוך ביתו ערב שבת עם חשיכה עשרתם ערבתם הדליקו את הנר צריך | 6b. b But if you do /b this then b you provide benefit. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the expression: b If you do /b this b you provide benefit? /b This means b that if the husband comes /b to b contest /b the validity of the bill of divorce, b we pay no attention to him /b and his claim., b As it is taught /b in the i Tosefta /i (1:3): b An incident /b occurred b involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, /b and b said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required /b to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to /b Rabbi Yishmael: b My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. /b Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so /b that b you will not /b cause the woman to b need to /b find b witnesses /b if the husband contests its validity., b After /b that man b left, Rabbi Elai entered before /b Rabbi Yishmael and b said to him: My teacher, but isn’t the village of Sisai /b located b within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and /b it is even b closer to Tzippori, /b which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, b more /b so b than Akko. And we learned /b in the mishna that b Rabbi Meir says: Akko /b is b like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, /b with regard to b the village of Sisai, which is close, no, /b they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.,Rabbi Yishmael b said to /b Rabbi Elai: b Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter /b of her divorce b was issued as permitted, it was issued, /b and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage.,The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? b But /b after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael b also /b stated his reason, as he b said to /b the man: Do this b so /b that b you will not /b cause the woman to b need to /b find b witnesses. /b The Gemara answers: Those who were present b did not conclude /b Rabbi Yishmael’s statement b before /b Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning, and therefore he questioned him.,§ The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Evyatar sent /b a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b to Rav Ḥisda /b in which he wrote the following: With regard to b bills of divorce that come from there, /b Babylonia, b to here, /b Eretz Yisrael, the agent b is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. /b The Gemara asks: b Shall we say /b that Rabbi Evyatar b holds /b that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is b because they are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake, and these /b residents of Babylonia b are learned /b with regard to this issue?,The Gemara challenges: b And can you understand /b it in this way? After all, b Rabba is of /b the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion b of Rava, /b that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. b Rather, everyone agrees that we require /b the declaration b to ratify /b the document. b But since there are many /b people b who ascend /b to Eretz Yisrael b and descend /b from there to Babylonia, witnesses b are frequently /b available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce., b Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us /b that b Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable /b authority? b And furthermore, /b there is good reason to question his statement: b He /b is b the one who sent /b a letter b to Rav Yehuda, /b and wrote: b People who ascend from there, /b Babylonia, b to here, /b Eretz Yisrael, b fulfill by themselves /b the verse: b “And they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk” /b (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. b And /b Rabbi Evyatar b wrote him /b this verse b without scoring, /b i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter., b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: b One may write two /b words without scoring the parchment, but b one may not write three /b words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And b it was taught in a i baraita /i : One may write three, /b but b one may not write four. /b Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable., b Abaye said to him: Is that to say /b that b anyone who does not know this /b i halakha /i b of Rabbi Yitzḥak is not a great man? Granted, /b with regard to b a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, /b as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a i halakha /i that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, b this /b i halakha /i b is a tradition, and /b it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply b did not hear /b this b tradition. /b , b And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar /b is the one b that his Master, /b the Holy One, Blessed be He, b agreed with /b in his interpretation of a verse, b as it is written /b with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: b “And his concubine went away from him” /b (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and b Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her /b responsible for b a fly /b in the food that she prepared for him, while b Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her /b responsible for b a hair [ i nima /i ]. /b , b And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah /b the prophet and b said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing /b now? Elijah b said to him: He is /b currently b engaged in /b studying the episode of b the concubine in Gibeah. /b Rabbi Evyatar asked him: b And what is He saying /b about it? Elijah b said to him /b that God is saying the following: b Evyatar, My son, says this /b and b Yonatan, My son, says that. /b It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.,Rabbi Evyatar b said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? /b Doesn’t God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah b said to him: /b Both b these and those are the words of the living God, /b i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: b He found a fly /b in his food b and did not take umbrage, /b and later b he found a hair and took umbrage. /b , b Rav Yehuda says /b a different explanation: The man found b a fly in the dish /b that she cooked for him, b and /b he found b a hair in that place, /b i.e., in her genital area. When he found b a fly /b it produced a reaction of b disgust, /b and he did not grow angry with her, b but /b the b hair /b was a matter of b danger, /b as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. b There are /b those b who say: This and that /b were found b in a dish. /b The difference is that the b fly /b was a result of b circumstances beyond /b her b control, /b as it fell into the dish on its own, b but the hair /b was found in the dish due to her b negligence. /b , b Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon /b the members of b his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and /b this ultimately b caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews /b in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20)., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon /b the members of b his household /b will b ultimately come to /b commit b three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, /b as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; b and /b he will also end up committing b bloodshed, /b as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; b and desecration of Shabbat, /b as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand., b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b a i halakha /i with regard to b this /b statement b that the Sages said: /b There are b three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. /b He should ask the members of his household: b Have you tithed /b the produce that required tithing? b Have you placed the i eiruv /i /b for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, b light the lamp /b in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one b must /b |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175| 3b. (דברי הימים א יז, כא) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ,ואף הוא פתח ודרש (קהלת יב, יא) דברי חכמים כדרבונות וכמסמרות נטועים בעלי אסופות נתנו מרועה אחד למה נמשלו דברי תורה לדרבן לומר לך מה דרבן זה מכוין את הפרה לתלמיה להוציא חיים לעולם אף דברי תורה מכוונין את לומדיהן מדרכי מיתה לדרכי חיים אי מה דרבן זה מטלטל אף דברי תורה מטלטלין ת"ל מסמרות,אי מה מסמר זה חסר ולא יתר אף דברי תורה חסירין ולא יתירין ת"ל נטועים מה נטיעה זו פרה ורבה אף דברי תורה פרין ורבין בעלי אסופות אלו תלמידי חכמים שיושבין אסופות אסופות ועוסקין בתורה הללו מטמאין והללו מטהרין הללו אוסרין והללו מתירין הללו פוסלין והללו מכשירין,שמא יאמר אדם היאך אני למד תורה מעתה תלמוד לומר כולם נתנו מרועה אחד אל אחד נתנן פרנס אחד אמרן מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא דכתיב (שמות כ, א) וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה,אף אתה עשה אזניך כאפרכסת וקנה לך לב מבין לשמוע את דברי מטמאים ואת דברי מטהרים את דברי אוסרין ואת דברי מתירין את דברי פוסלין ואת דברי מכשירין בלשון הזה אמר להם אין דור יתום שר' אלעזר בן עזריה שרוי בתוכו,ולימרו ליה בהדיא משום מעשה שהיה דתניא מעשה בר' יוסי בן דורמסקית שהלך להקביל פני ר' אלעזר בלוד אמר לו מה חידוש היה בבהמ"ד היום,א"ל נמנו וגמרו עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית,אמר לו יוסי פשוט ידיך וקבל עיניך פשט ידיו וקבל עיניו בכה ר' אלעזר ואמר (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם,אמר לו לך אמור להם אל תחושו למניינכם כך מקובלני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו הלכתא למשה מסיני עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית מה טעם הרבה כרכים כבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשום עולי בבל,מפני שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהן עניים בשביעית,תנא לאחר שנתיישבה דעתו אמר יהי רצון שיחזרו עיני יוסי למקומן וחזרו,ת"ר איזהו שוטה היוצא יחידי בלילה והלן בבית הקברות והמקרע את כסותו איתמר רב הונא אמר עד שיהו כולן בבת אחת ר' יוחנן אמר אפי' באחת מהן,היכי דמי אי דעביד להו דרך שטות אפי' בחדא נמי אי דלא עביד להו דרך שטות אפילו כולהו נמי לא,לעולם דקא עביד להו דרך שטות והלן בבית הקברות אימור כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה הוא דקא עביד והיוצא יחידי בלילה אימור גנדריפס אחדיה והמקרע את כסותו אימור בעל מחשבות הוא כיון דעבדינהו לכולהו הוה להו | 3b. b “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” /b (I Chronicles 17:21).,The Gemara adds: b And /b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya b also commenced /b his lecture b and taught: /b It is written: b “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” /b (Ecclesiastes 12:11). b Why are matters of Torah compared to a goad? To tell you /b that b just as this goad directs the cow to her furrow to bring forth /b sustece for b life to the world, so too the words of Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. /b The Gemara asks: b If so, /b derive the following from that same analogy: b Just as this goad is movable /b and not rigid, b so too matters of Torah are movable /b in accordance with circumstance and are not permanent. Therefore, b the verse states: “Nails,” /b which are permanent.,The Gemara further asks: b If so, /b one can explain as follows: b Just as this nail is diminished /b in size b and does not expand, /b as it wastes away over time, b so too matters of Torah are /b gradually b diminished and do not expand. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Well fastened [ i netuim /i ].” Just as this plant [ i neti’a /i ] flourishes and multiplies, so too matters of Torah flourish and multiply. “Those that are composed in collections [ i ba’alei asufot /i ]”: These are Torah scholars who sit in many groups [ i asupot /i ] and engage in Torah /b study. There are often debates among these groups, as some of b these /b Sages b render /b an object or person b ritually impure and these render it pure; these prohibit /b an action b and these permit /b it; b these deem /b an item b invalid and these deem it valid. /b , b Lest a person say: Now, how can I study Torah /b when it contains so many different opinions? b The verse states /b that b they are all “given from one shepherd.” One God gave them; one leader, /b i.e., Moses, b said them from the mouth of the Master of all creation, Blessed be He, as it is written: “And God spoke all these words” /b (Exodus 20:1). The plural form “words” indicates that God transmitted all the interpretations of the Ten Commandments. Since the Sages invariably utilize the Torah itself or the statements of the prophets as the sources for their opinions, there is a certain unity to the study of Torah, despite the numerous explanations and applications., b So too you, /b the student, b make your ears like a funnel and acquire for yourself an understanding heart to hear /b both b the statements of /b those b who render /b objects b ritually impure and the statements of /b those b who render /b them b pure; the statements of /b those b who prohibit /b actions b and the statements of /b those b who permit /b them; b the statements of /b those b who deem /b items b invalid and the statements of /b those b who deem /b them b valid. /b When Rabbi Yehoshua heard these interpretations, b he said to them in these words: No generation /b is considered b orphaned, /b i.e. without a leader, b if Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya dwells among it. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma b should have told /b Rabbi Yehoshua these statements of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya b directly, /b without delay. Why did they hesitate at first? The Gemara answers: They were hesitant b due to an incident that occurred. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit, who went to greet Rabbi Eliezer in Lod. /b Rabbi Elazar b said to him: What novel /b idea b was /b taught b today in the study hall? /b ,Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit b said to him: /b The Sages assembled, b counted /b the votes, b and concluded /b that although the lands of b Ammon and Moab /b on the eastern side of the Jordan River are not part of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the i halakhot /i of the Sabbatical Year and tithes should not apply to them, as these lands are adjacent to Eretz Yisrael, b one separates the poor man’s tithe /b there b in the Sabbatical Year. /b Since the Sages debated which tithes should be separated, they had to take a vote to determine the i halakha /i in this regard.,Rabbi Elazar b said to him /b in anger: b Yosei, extend your hands and catch your eyes, /b which are about to come out of their sockets. b He extended his hands and caught his eyes. Rabbi Elazar wept and said /b the verse: b “The counsel of the Lord is with them who fear Him; and His covet, to make them know it” /b (Psalms 25:14), i.e., the Sages arrived at the correct conclusion, although they were unaware of the proper rationale behind it.,Rabbi Elazar b said to /b Rabbi Yosei to b go /b and b say to /b the Sages in the study hall: b Do not be concerned /b with regard b to your counting, /b that you might not have ruled properly, as you have not in fact instituted a new ordice at all. b This is /b the tradition that b I received from Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: /b It is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai /b that in b Ammon and Moab one separates the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. What is the reason? Those who ascended from Egypt conquered many cities, and those who ascended from Babylonia did not conquer them /b after the destruction of the First Temple.,This difference is important, b because the first consecration /b of Eretz Yisrael, by those who ascended from Egypt, caused b it /b to be b sanctified /b only b for its time and it /b was b not sanctified forever, /b as that depended on the renewed conquest of the land by the Jewish people. b And /b those who ascended from Babylonia b left those /b cities aside and did not consider them part of Eretz Yisrael even after Jewish settlement was renewed there. They would plow and harvest in these places in the Sabbatical Year and tithe the poor man’s tithe, b so that the poor /b of Eretz Yisrael, who did not have sufficient income from the previous years, b could rely upon /b that produce b in the Sabbatical Year, /b receiving help from this tithe.,It was b taught /b that b after /b Rabbi Elazar’s b mind was put at ease, he said: May it be /b God’s b will that Rabbi Yosei’s eyes should return to their place. And /b indeed his eyes b returned. /b Due to this event, in which Rabbi Elazar responded harshly when his disciple related what he considered a novel idea, the students of Rabbi Yehoshua hesitated to recount what they had heard until their teacher encouraged them to do so.,§ b The Sages taught: Who is /b considered b an imbecile? One who goes out alone at night, and one who sleeps in a cemetery, and one who rends his garment. It was stated /b that b Rav Huna said: /b One does not have the halakhic status of an imbecile b until there are all /b of these signs present in him b at the same time. Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b He is considered an imbecile b even /b due to the appearance b of one of /b these signs.,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of the case under discussion? b If he performs them in a deranged manner, /b then b even /b the appearance b of one /b sign should be enough to classify him as an imbecile. b If /b he b does not perform these /b actions b in a deranged manner, /b but has a reason to act this way, then b even /b if he performs b all of them /b he should b not /b be deemed an imbecile.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b the i baraita /i is referring to one b who performs these /b actions b in a deranged manner, but /b each action on its own could be explained rationally. With regard to b one who sleeps in the cemetery, /b one could b say that he is doing /b so b in order that an impure spirit should settle upon him. /b Although it is inappropriate to do this, as there is a reason for this behavior it is not a sign of madness. b And /b with regard to b one who goes out alone at night, /b one could b say /b that perhaps b a fever took hold of him /b and he is trying to cool himself down. b And /b as for b one who tears his garments, /b one could b say /b that b he is a man /b engaged in b thought, /b and out of anxiety he tears his clothing unintentionally. Despite these possible explanations, b since one performed all of these /b together b they are /b considered |
|
54. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 3a. (ויקרא ו, ב) זאת תורת העולה היא הרי אלו שלשה מיעוטין,ואיבעית אימא עדיין אני אומר לא מצית מוקמת לה כר' יהודה דקתני רוב קהל שחטאו ב"ד מביאין על ידיהן פר ואי רבי יהודה האמר צבור הוא דמייתי ב"ד לא דתנן רבי יהודה אומר שבעה שבטים שחטאו מביאין ז' פרים,ורב נחמן אמר שמואל זו דברי ר"מ אבל חכמי' אומרי' יחיד שעשה בהוראת ב"ד חייב מאי ר"מ ומאי רבנן דתניא הורו ועשו רבי מאיר פוטר וחכמים מחייבין,מאן עשו אילימא ב"ד מ"ט דרבנן דמחייבי והתניא יכול הורו ב"ד ועשו ב"ד יכול יהו חייבין ת"ל הקהל ועשו מעשה תלוי בקהל והוראה תלויה בב"ד,אלא הורו ב"ד ועשו רוב קהל מאי טעמא דר' מאיר דפוטר אלא לאו הורו ב"ד ועשו מיעוט קהל ובהא קמיפלגי מר סבר יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין פטור ומר סבר יחיד שעשה בהוראת ב"ד חייב,אמר רב פפא דכולי עלמא יחיד שעשה בהוראת ב"ד פטור אלא ב"ד משלים לרוב צבור קמיפלגי,מ"ס ב"ד משלים לרוב צבור ומ"ס אין ב"ד משלים לרוב צבור,ואיבעית אימא הורו ב"ד ועשו רובו של קהל ומאן חכמים רבי שמעון היא דאמר צבור מייתי וב"ד מייתי,ואיבעית אימא שבט שעשה בהוראת בית דינו ומאן חכמי' רבי יהודה היא דתניא שבט שעשה בהוראת בית דינו אותו השבט חייב,ואב"א כגון שחטאו ששה והן רובו של קהל או שבעה אע"פ שאינן רובו של קהל ומתניתין מני ר' שמעון בן אלעזר היא,דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משמו חטאו ששה והן רובו של קהל או שבעה אע"פ שאינן רובו של קהל חייבין,אמר רב אסי ובהוראה הלך אחר רוב יושבי ארץ ישראל שנאמר (מלכים א ח, סה) ויעש שלמה בעת ההיא את החג וכל ישראל עמו קהל גדול מלבוא חמת עד נחל מצרים לפני ה' אלהינו שבעת ימים ושבעת ימים ארבעה עשר יום מכדי כתיב וכל ישראל עמו קהל גדול מלבוא חמת עד נחל מצרים למה לי שמע מינה הני הוא דאיקרי קהל אבל הנך לא איקרי קהל,פשיטא מרובין ונתמעטו היינו פלוגתא דרבי שמעון ורבנן,מועטין ונתרבו מאי מי פליגי רבי שמעון ורבנן ר"ש דאזיל בתר ידיעה מחייב ורבנן דאזלי בתר חטאת פטרי [או לא] מאי,ותיסברא אימור דשמעת ליה לר"ש דאזיל אף בתר ידיעה [היכי דהוי ידיעה וחטאה בחיוב] ידיעה דלא חטאה מי שמעת ליה,דא"כ לייתי כי השתא אלא ר"ש חטאה וידיעה בעי,איבעיא להו הורו ב"ד חלב מותר ועשו מיעוט הקהל וחזרו ב"ד בהן והורו ועשו מיעוט אחר מהו כיון דשתי ידיעות נינהו לא מצטרף או דלמא כיון דאידי ואידי חלב הוא מצטרף,ואם תמצא לומר כיון דאידי ואידי חלב הוא מצטרף מיעוט בחלב שעל גבי הקבה ומיעוט בחלב שעל גבי דקין מהו הכא ודאי כיון דבתרי קראי קאתי לא מצטרף או דלמא כיון דאידי ואידי חלב הוא מצטרף,ואת"ל שם חלב הוא ומצטרף מיעוט בחלב ומיעוט בדם מהו הכא ודאי (כיון) דתרי איסורי נינהו [וכיון דאין איסורן שוה] לא מצטרף או דלמא כיון (דאיסורן שוה) דקרבנן שוה מצטרף,ואת"ל כיון (דאיסורן שוה) דקרבנן שוה מצטרף מיעוט בחלב ומיעוט בעבודת כוכבים מהו הכא ודאי אין איסורן שוה ואין קרבנן שוה או דלמא כיון דאידי ואידי כרת הוא מצטרף תיקו,איבעיא להו הורו ב"ד שחלב מותר ועשו מיעוט הקהל ומת אותו ב"ד ועמד ב"ד אחר וחזרו והורו ועשו מיעוט אחר,אליב' דמ"ד ב"ד מייתי לא תיבעי לך דהא ליתנהו אלא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד צבור מייתי מאי צבור הא קאי | 3a. b “This is the law of the burnt-offering, it is /b that which goes up on its pyre on the altar” (Leviticus 6:2); b these are three exclusionary /b terms: “This,” “the burnt-offering,” and “it is,” which serve to exclude three offerings concerning which the i halakha /i is that even if they are placed on the altar they are subsequently removed: A burnt-offering slaughtered at night, a burnt-offering whose blood was spilled before it was sprinkled, and a burnt-offering whose blood was taken outside the courtyard. Apparently, it is Rabbi Yehuda who interprets multiple exclusionary terms., b And if you wish, say /b that proof for the attribution of the i baraitot /i may be cited from the second i baraita /i , which begins with the phrase: b Still I say. You cannot interpret /b that i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as /b the i baraita /i b teaches: /b One might have thought that each member of b a majority of the congregation that sinned /b based on the ruling of a court is exempt from liability to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression, as the b court brings a bull /b for an unwitting communal sin b on the basis of their /b transgression. b And if /b this i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say: It is the congregation that brings /b the bull as an offering, and b not the court? As we learned /b in a mishna (5a) that b Rabbi Yehuda says: Seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls. /b The tribes bring the offerings, not the court.,§ Up to this point, the Gemara explained the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and contrary to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him. b And Rav Naḥman /b says that b Shmuel says: /b The mishna b is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: An individual who performed /b a transgression b on /b the basis of b the ruling of /b the b court /b is b liable. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the opinion of b Rabbi Meir and what /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis /b to which Shmuel referred? It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If the court b issued a ruling and /b the judges b performed /b a transgression on the basis of that ruling, b Rabbi Meir deems /b them b exempt and the Rabbis deem /b them b liable. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who performed /b the transgression? b If we say /b that it is the members of the b court /b who performed the transgression, b what is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who deem /b him b liable? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : One b might /b have thought that if the b court issued a ruling and /b the members of the b court performed /b the transgression, one b might /b have thought b they /b would b be liable /b to bring a bull for an unwitting communal sin. b The verse states /b with regard to that bull: “And the matter is hidden from the eyes of b the congregation and they performed” /b (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that the b action is dependent on the congregation and /b the b ruling is dependent on /b the b court. /b , b Rather, /b the case in the i baraita /i is where the b court issued a ruling and the majority of the congregation performed /b a transgression on the basis of that ruling. If so, b what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, who deems /b them b exempt? Rather, is it not /b referring to a case where the b court issued a ruling and a minority of the congregation performed /b a transgression on the basis of that ruling, b and /b it is b with regard to this /b matter that the i tanna’im /i b disagree: /b One b Sage, /b Rabbi Meir, b holds: An individual who performed /b a transgression b on /b the basis of b the ruling of /b the b court /b is b exempt; and /b one b Sage, /b the Rabbis, b holds: An individual who performed /b a transgression b on /b the basis of b a ruling of /b the b court /b is b liable. /b The mishna, which states that an individual who performs a transgression on the basis of a ruling of the court is exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir., b Rav Pappa said: /b There is no proof that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis relates to the mishna, as their dispute can be understood differently. Perhaps b everyone agrees /b that b an individual who performed /b a transgression b on /b the basis of b the ruling of /b the b court /b is b exempt. Rather, /b the i tanna’im /i b disagree /b with regard to whether the members of the b court /b combine with the members of the congregation to b complete a majority of /b the b congregation. /b The members of the congregation who sinned constitute less than a majority. When the judges of the court who sinned are added to that minority, the total of people who sinned constitute a majority.,He explains: One b Sage, /b the Rabbis, b holds: /b The members of b the court /b combine with the members of the congregation to b complete a majority of /b the b congregation. And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Meir, b holds: /b The members of the b court do not /b combine with the members of the congregation to b complete a majority of /b the b congregation; /b therefore, those who sinned on the basis of the ruling of the court constitute less than a majority and the court is exempt from liability to bring an offering. The mishna is not only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as in the case of the mishna, but even the Rabbis agree., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is in a case where the b court issued a ruling and a majority of the congregation performed /b a transgression on the basis of that ruling, and everyone agrees that the court is liable to bring a bull as an offering for an unwitting communal sin. Rabbi Meir deems the members of the congregation exempt from bringing an offering. b And who are the Rabbis /b who deem them liable to bring an offering? b It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: /b The b congregation brings /b an offering b and /b the b court brings /b an offering., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is in the case of b a tribe that performed /b a transgression b on /b the basis of b the ruling of its /b tribal b court. /b Rabbi Meir holds that there is no liability to bring a bull as an offering for an unwitting communal sin for a ruling issued by a tribal court; therefore, he deems the court exempt from bringing an offering. b And who are the Rabbis /b who deem the tribal court liable to bring an offering? b It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a tribe that performed /b a transgression b on /b the basis of b a ruling of its /b tribal b court, that tribe /b is b liable. /b , b And if you wish, say /b instead that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is in a case b where six /b of the twelve tribes b sinned and, /b although they do not constitute a majority of the number of the tribes, in terms of population b they /b constitute b a majority of /b the b congregation. Or seven /b tribes sinned, and b even though /b in terms of population b they are not a majority of /b the b congregation, /b they constitute a majority of the tribes. b And whose /b opinion is expressed in b the i baraita /i /b as the opinion of the Rabbis? b It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. /b ,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of /b Rabbi Meir: If b six /b tribes b sinned and /b in terms of population b they are a majority of /b the b congregation, or /b if b seven /b tribes sinned b even though /b in terms of population b they are not a majority of /b the b congregation, they are liable. /b All these alternative understandings of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis lead to the conclusion that there is no proof for the statement of Rav Naḥman in the name of Shmuel that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.,§ b Rav Asi says: And with regard to /b the definition of the majority that establishes liability for performance of a transgression on the basis of the b ruling /b of a court, b follow the majority of the residents of Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “And Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entrance of Hamath until the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days and seven days, fourteen days” /b (I Kings 8:65). The Gemara clarifies the words of this verse: b Since it is written: “And all Israel with him,” why do I /b need to add: b “A great congregation, from the entrance of Hamath until the Brook of Egypt”? Conclude from it: /b It is b these /b residents of Eretz Yisrael b who are characterized /b as b a congregation; but those /b who reside outside Eretz Yisrael b are not characterized /b as b a congregation. /b ,§ The Gemara continues defining the majority that establishes liability. It is b obvious /b that the case of when those who performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court were b numerous, /b i.e., they constituted a majority, b and /b their percentage b diminished, /b e.g., if some sinners died and they now constitute a minority of the congregation; b that is the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, /b who disagree in a mishna (10b) with regard to an anointed High Priest or a king who performed an unwitting transgression before assuming his position. The Rabbis hold: Since they were laymen when they sinned, they are liable to bring the offering of a layman. Rabbi Shimon holds: If they became aware of their transgression while still laymen, they bring the offering of a layman. If they became aware of their transgression after they assumed their positions, they are exempt. Accordingly, in the case of a majority whose number diminished, the Rabbis hold that since it was a majority that sinned, they bring an offering. Rabbi Shimon holds that it depends on their status when they became aware they had unwittingly sinned.,If those who performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court were b few, /b i.e., they constituted a minority, b and /b their percentage b increased, /b e.g., if some non-sinners died and the sinners now constitute a majority of the congregation, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? b Do Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree /b with regard to this matter as well? That would mean that b Rabbi Shimon, who follows /b the status at the time of b awareness, deems /b the court b liable, and the Rabbis, who follow /b the status at the time of the b transgression, deem /b the court b exempt. Or /b do they b not /b disagree? b What /b is the conclusion?, b And can you understand /b that this case is contingent on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis? b Say that you heard that Rabbi Shimon follows /b the status at the time of b awareness as well, /b i.e., in a case b where /b both the b awareness and /b the b transgression /b were b in /b a period of b liability, /b either liability as a layman or liability as a king or as an anointed High Priest, the sinner is liable to bring an offering. But in a case where the b awareness /b was during a period of liability, but the b transgression /b was b not, did you hear /b Rabbi Shimon say the court is liable?,The Gemara clarifies: b As, if /b it is b so /b that Rabbi Shimon holds that the period of awareness is the sole determining factor, b let /b the High Priest and the king b bring /b an offering b according to /b their b present /b status. If they became aware of the transgression after assuming their positions, let them bring the offering appropriate for a High Priest or a king. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon say that in that case they are exempt? b Rather, /b apparently b Rabbi Shimon requires /b that both the b transgression and /b the b awareness /b take place in a period of liability. There is no resolution for the dilemma that was raised.,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If the b court issued a ruling /b that forbidden b fat /b is b permitted, and a minority of the congregation performed /b the transgression of eating forbidden fat on the basis of that ruling, b and the court reversed their /b decision and then reversed their decision again b and issued a ruling /b that forbidden fat is permitted, b and a different minority /b of the congregation b performed /b the transgression, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? The Gemara elaborates: Is it that b since there are two /b disparate experiences of b awareness, /b the first minority b does not combine /b with the second minority, even though the two minorities together would constitute a majority? b Or perhaps, since /b both b this /b transgression b and that /b transgression are the same, eating forbidden b fat, /b the first minority b combines /b with the second minority, and the two minorities together constitute a majority., b And if you say /b in that case: b Since /b both b this /b transgression b and that /b transgression are the same, eating forbidden b fat, /b the first minority b combines /b with the second minority, then there is another dilemma: In a case where b a minority /b performed a transgression on the basis of the first ruling of the court and ate forbidden b fat that is upon the maw, and a minority /b performed a transgression on the basis of the second ruling of the court and ate forbidden b fat that is upon the small intestine, what is /b the i halakha /i ? The Gemara elaborates: b Here, certainly, since /b these transgressions b come from two /b different b verses, /b the first minority b does not combine /b with the second minority; b or perhaps, since /b both b this /b transgression b and that /b transgression are the same, eating forbidden b fat, /b the first minority b combines /b with the second minority, and the two minorities together constitute a majority., b And if you say /b in that case: b It is the name of /b forbidden b fat /b that they both have in common, b and /b the first minority b combines /b with the second minority, then there is another dilemma: In a case where b a minority /b performed a transgression on the basis of the first ruling of the court and ate forbidden b fat, and a minority /b performed a transgression on the basis of the second ruling of the court and ate forbidden b blood, what is /b the i halakha /i ? The Gemara elaborates: b Here, certainly, they are two /b distinct b prohibitions, and since /b the nature of b their prohibition is not identical, /b the first minority b does not combine /b with the second minority. b Or perhaps, since their offerings are identical, /b as one is liable to bring a sin-offering for unwitting violation of either of these prohibitions, the first minority b combines /b with the second minority., b And if you say /b in that case: b Since their offerings are identical, /b the first minority b combines /b with the second minority, then there is another dilemma: In a case where b a minority /b performed a transgression on the basis of the first ruling of the court and ate forbidden b fat, and a minority /b performed a transgression on the basis of the second ruling of the court and engaged b in idol worship, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Here, certainly, neither are their prohibitions identical nor are their offerings identical, /b because an individual who unwittingly engages in idol worship may bring only a female goat for atonement. Therefore, the first minority does not combine with the second minority. b Or perhaps, since /b for both b this /b transgression b and that /b transgression one b is /b liable to receive b excision from the World-to-Come [ i karet /i ] /b if he performs it intentionally, the first minority b combines /b with the second minority. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved.,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If the b court issued a ruling that /b forbidden b fat /b is b permitted, and a minority of the congregation performed /b the transgression of eating forbidden fat on the basis of that ruling, b and /b the members of b that court died and another court stood /b in their place, b and again issued /b the same b ruling /b that forbidden fat is permitted, b and a different minority performed /b the transgression of eating forbidden fat on the basis of that ruling, what is the i halakha /i ?,The Gemara elaborates: b According to /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that only the b court brings /b the offering, b do not raise the dilemma, as those /b judges who issued the original ruling on the basis of which the minority performed a transgression b are no /b longer alive. b Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? /b Raise it b according to /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that the b congregation brings /b the offering. b What /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara elaborates: The b congregation exists, /b as together the two minorities constitute a majority of the congregation who performed the transgression. |
|
55. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 97b. אלא מן האירוסין מאי טעמא אמר עולא משום חינא ר' יוחנן אמר לפי שאין אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בבית דין,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו גרושה למאן דאמר משום חינא גרושה נמי בעיא חן למאן דאמר לפי שאין אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בבית דין גרושה לא איכפת ליה,תנן וגרושה לא תמכור אלא בבית דין בשלמא למאן דאמר לפי שאין אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בבית דין גרושה לא איכפת ליה אלא למאן דאמר משום חינא גרושה נמי בעיא חן,הא מני ר' שמעון היא,אי רבי שמעון הא תנא ליה רישא מן האירוסין לא תמכור כו',מהו דתימא אלמנה מן האירוסין הוא דלא נפיש חן דידה אבל גרושה דנפיש חן דידה אימא תיבעי חן,הא נמי תנינא כל שאין לה מזונות לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי גרושה,לא לאתויי מגורשת ואינה מגורשת כדרבי זירא דאמר ר' זירא כל מקום שאמרו מגורשת ואינה מגורשת בעל חייב במזונותי',ת"ש כשם שמוכרת שלא בב"ד כך יורשיה יורשי כתובתה מוכרים שלא בבית דין בשלמא למאן דאמר לפי שאין אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בבית דין כי היכי דאיהי לא ניחא ליה דתתבזי יורשיה נמי לא ניחא ליה דליבזו אלא למאן דאמר משום חינא יורשיה מאי חן איכא תרגמה עולא כגון שירשתה בתה או אחותה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מכרה כתובתה או מקצתה משכנה כתובתה או מקצתה נתנה כתובתה לאחר או מקצתה לא תמכור את השאר אלא בבית דין וחכ"א מוכרת היא אפי' ארבעה וחמשה פעמים ומוכרת למזונות שלא בבית דין וכותבת למזונות מכרתי וגרושה לא תמכור אלא בבית דין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מתניתין מני ר"ש היא דתניא מכרה כתובתה משכנה כתובתה עשתה כתובתה אפותיקי לאחר אין לה מזונות (דברי רבי מאיר) ר"ש אומר אע"פ שלא מכרה ולא משכנה כתובתה אלא מחציתה אבדה מזונותיה,למימרא דרבי שמעון סבר דלא אמרי' מקצת כסף ככל כסף ורבנן סברי אמרי' מקצת כסף ככל כסף,הא איפכא שמעינן להו דתניא (ויקרא כא, יג) והוא אשה בבתוליה פרט לבוגרת שכלו בתוליה דברי ר"מ ר' אלעזר ור' שמעון מכשירין בבוגרת,התם בקראי פליגי ר' מאיר סבר בתולה אפי' מקצת בתולים בתוליה עד דאיכא כולהו בתולים בבתוליה בכדרכה אין שלא כדרכה לא,ר' אלעזר ור' שמעון סברי בתולה שלמה משמע בתוליה אפילו מקצת בתולים | 97b. b However, what is the reason /b that a widow b from betrothal /b may sell property when not in court? b Ulla said: Due to desirability. /b The Sages enacted several ordices on behalf of women, so that men will want to marry them. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced /b by being involved b in court /b proceedings.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between /b the two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference b between them /b is in the case of b a divorcée. According to the one who says /b that it is b due to desirability, a divorcée also requires desirability. /b But b according to the one who says /b that it is b because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court, /b a man b does not care /b if his b ex-wife /b is disgraced., b We learned /b in the mishna (97b): b And a divorcée may sell only in court. /b The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that this is b because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in court, /b here b he does not care /b if his b ex-wife /b is disgraced. b However, according to the one who says /b that it is b due to desirability, a divorcée also requires desirability, /b so why should she be required to sell in court?,The Gemara answers: In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b continuation of the mishna? b It is /b according to the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon /b in the mishna, who explains that anyone who is selling property to receive payment of her marriage contract and not for sustece is required to sell only in court, and a divorcée does not receive sustece.,The Gemara asks: b If /b this is according to the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b then wasn’t b it /b already b taught in the first clause /b that a widow b from betrothal sells /b only in court because she does not receive sustece? Since the same reasoning applies to a divorcée, why would the mishna have to teach the i halakha /i again in this case?,The Gemara answers: It was necessary, b lest you say: /b In the case of b a widow from betrothal, she is not /b in b great /b need of b her desirability, /b as she has not been tarnished through sexual relations and men will not hold back from marrying her, and therefore she can go to the court to manage her affairs; b however, a divorcée, who is /b in b great /b need of b her desirability /b and needs assistance in getting remarried, b say /b that she b requires desirability /b so that she will not be disgraced and she is allowed to take care of her affairs out of court. Lest you make this argument, the i halakha /i was clearly stated in the mishna.,The Gemara asks: Didn’t b we /b already b learn /b this i halakha /i , as it b also /b says in the mishna the following generalization: b And anyone who does not receive sustece /b may sell only in court? This i halakha /i was intended b to add what? /b Was b it not /b meant b to add /b the case of a b divorcée /b and teach that she can sell only in court, in which case the concluding remark of the mishna about the divorcée is superfluous?,The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b it is b to include /b a woman about whom there is uncertainty whether b she is divorced or /b whether b she is not divorced, and it is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: Wherever it was said: /b A woman that there is uncertainty whether b she is divorced or /b whether b she is not divorced, /b her b husband is obligated /b to provide b her sustece /b until the divorce is final, and a woman in this situation may sell out of court as well.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof: b Just as /b the widow b sells when not in court, so too, her heirs, /b those who b inherit her marriage contract, sell when not in court. Granted, according to the one who says /b that the reason why she may sell out of court is b because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced /b by having to appear b in court, /b it is possible to say that b just as he is not amenable /b to the idea b that she will be disgraced, he also is not amenable /b to the idea b that her heirs will be disgraced. However, according to the one who says /b that she sells out of court b due to desirability, what desirability do her heirs /b need to b have? Ulla interpreted it: /b This could take place, b for example, /b when b her daughter or her sister inherited /b from b her, /b and they too need desirability., strong MISHNA: /strong If a woman b sold all or part of her marriage contract, /b or if b she mortgaged all or part of her marriage contract, /b or if b she gave /b away as a gift b all or part of her marriage contract to another, /b then b she sells the remainder only in court. And the Rabbis say: She sells even four or five times, /b and she is not obligated to sell everything at one time. b And /b despite selling several times, she b sells for /b her b sustece /b even b when not in court, and she writes /b in the bill of sale: b I sold /b this b for /b my b sustece.And a divorcée, /b who does not receive sustece, b sells only in court. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Whose /b opinion is expressed in the b mishna? /b The Gemara answers: b It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b she sold /b all of b her marriage contract, /b or b mortgaged her marriage contract, /b or if b she made her marriage contract designated repayment to another, she does not /b receive b sustece /b any longer; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: Although she has not sold or mortgaged her /b entire b marriage contract, but only half of it, she has lost her /b right to b sustece. /b Therefore, she can only sell the rest of her marriage contract in court.,The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that Rabbi Shimon holds that we do not say /b that b part of the money /b has a status b like the entire /b sum of b money? /b Since she no longer has a claim to the entire sum of her marriage contract, it is as though she no longer has a marriage contract and loses her right to sustece, b and the Rabbis hold that we /b do b say part of the money is like the entire money. /b ,Didn’t b we hear them say the opposite? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i concerning the verse that speaks about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:13): b “And he /b shall take b a wife in her virginity,” to exclude a grown woman whose /b sign of b virginity has diminished /b because when a girl goes through puberty her hymen wears away; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare as fit even a grown woman /b for the High Priest. This implies that they are of the opinion that the absence of a part is not considered the absence of the whole, and although part of her sign of virginity has been diminished, it is still present.,The Gemara answers: b There they disagree /b with regard to the interpretation of the b verses. Rabbi Meir holds /b that were it stated in the verse b a virgin, /b this general term would have indicated that as long as she is a virgin, b even if /b she has only b part /b of her sign of b virginity, /b she could marry the High Priest. However, since the verse states: b “Her virginity,” /b it means to say b until there is /b a sign of b virginity in its entirety. /b The addition of the prefix “in” to the phrase b “in her virginity” /b teaches that if she engaged in sexual intercourse b in the typical manner, /b i.e., in the place where her sign of virginity lies, then b yes, /b it is considered that she has engaged in sexual intercourse and is no longer considered a virgin. But if she engaged in b sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, /b i.e., anal intercourse, then she is b not /b considered to have engaged in sexual intercourse.,By contrast, b Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold /b that the word b virgin implies a complete virgin, /b whose sign of virginity is completely intact. Therefore, when the verse says: b “Her virginity,” /b it indicates that b even if /b she has only b part of /b her sign of b virginity, /b in this regard she is still considered a virgin. |
|
56. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 13a. מעלים היו שכר ללוים דברי רבי יהודה רבי מאיר אומר לא היו מעלים להן שכר וחוזר לשררה שהיה בה דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר לא היה חוזר לשררה שהיה בה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב כהנא מחלוקת בשש דמר סבר (במדבר לה, יב) לכם לקליטה ומר סבר לכם לכל צרכיכם אבל בארבעים ושתים דברי הכל היו מעלין להם שכר,א"ל רבא הא ודאי לכם לכל צרכיכם משמע אלא אמר רבא מחלוקת בארבעים ושתים דמר סבר (במדבר לה, ו) ועליהם תתנו כי הנך לקליטה ומר סבר ועליהם תתנו כי הנך מה הנך לכל צרכיכם אף הני נמי לכל צרכיכם אבל בשש דברי הכל לא היו מעלים להן שכר:,חוזר לשררה שהיה בה כו': תנו רבנן (ויקרא כה, מא) ושב אל משפחתו ואל אחוזת אבותיו ישוב למשפחתו הוא שב ואינו שב למה שהחזיקו אבותיו דברי ר"י ר"מ אומר אף הוא שב למה שהחזיקו אבותיו אל אחוזת אבותיו כאבותיו,וכן בגולה כשהוא אומר ישוב לרבות את הרוצח,מאי וכן בגולה כדתניא (במדבר לה, כח) ישוב הרוצח אל ארץ אחוזתו לארץ אחוזתו הוא שב ואינו שב למה שהחזיקו אבותיו דברי רבי יהודה ר"מ אומר אף הוא שב למה שהחזיקו אבותיו גמר שיבה שיבה מהתם:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אלו הן הגולין /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongואלו /strong /big הן הלוקין הבא על אחותו ועל אחות אביו ועל אחות אמו ועל אחות אשתו ועל אשת אחיו ועל אשת אחי אביו ועל הנדה אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לנתין ולממזר,אלמנה וגרושה חייבין עליה משום שני שמות גרושה וחלוצה אינו חייב אלא משום אחת בלבד:,הטמא שאכל את הקדש והבא אל המקדש טמא ואוכל חלב ודם ונותר ופגול וטמא,והשוחט ומעלה בחוץ והאוכל חמץ בפסח והאוכל והעושה מלאכה ביום הכפורים והמפטם את השמן והמפטם את הקטורת והסך בשמן המשחה והאוכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים,אכל טבל ומעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו,כמה יאכל מן הטבל ויהא חייב רבי שמעון אומר כל שהוא וחכמים אומרים כזית אמר להן רבי שמעון אי אתם מודים לי באוכל נמלה כל שהוא שהוא חייב אמרו לו מפני שהיא כברייתה אמר להן אף חטה אחת כברייתה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big חייבי כריתות קא תני חייבי מיתות ב"ד לא קתני מתני׳ מני רבי עקיבא היא דתניא אחד חייבי כריתות ואחד חייבי מיתות בית דין | 13a. The unintentional murderers b would pay a fee to the Levites /b as rent for their living quarters in the cities of refuge, which were Levite cities; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They would not pay a fee to them, /b but would reside rent free, as they are required to live there by Torah law. They also disagreed with regard to the status of the unintentional murderer when he returns home after the death of the High Priest. b He returns to the /b same public b office that he occupied /b prior to his exile; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not return to the office that he occupied. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Kahana said: /b This b dispute /b between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to payment of rent to the Levite landlords b in /b the b six /b cities of refuge designated in the Torah and in the book of Joshua, b as /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehuda, b holds /b that in the verse: “They shall be cities of refuge for you” (Numbers 35:11), the term b “for you” /b means that the cities shall be for you only b for providing refuge, /b and therefore they must pay rent to the Levites. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Meir, b holds /b that the term b “for you” /b means b for all your needs; /b therefore, they are not required to pay rent. b But with regard to the forty-two /b additional Levite cities, which also served as cities of refuge, b everyone agrees /b that the unintentional murderers b would pay rent to /b the Levite landlords., b Rava said to him: But /b the term b “for you” certainly indicates for all your needs; /b therefore, the dispute cannot be as Rav Kahana explains it. b Rather, Rava said: /b The b dispute /b is only b with regard to /b the b forty-two /b Levite cities, b as /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehuda, b holds /b that from the verse: “They shall be the six cities of refuge… b and beside them you shall give /b forty-two cities” (Numbers 35:6), it is derived that the forty-two cities are b like these /b original six cities, only insofar as b with regard to /b the unintentional murderer being b admitted. And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Meir, b holds /b that from the verse: “They shall be the six cities of refuge… b and beside them you shall give /b forty-two cities,” it is derived that the forty-two cities are b like these /b original six cities in every sense: b Just as those /b six cities were given to you, i.e., the unintentional murderers, b for all your needs, so too, these /b forty-two cities were given to you, i.e., the unintentional murderers, b for all your needs. But with regard to /b the b six /b cities specifically designated as cities of refuge, b everyone agrees /b that unintentional murderers b would not pay /b the Levites b a fee. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that there is a dispute as to whether the unintentional murderer b returns to the /b same public b office that he occupied /b prior to his exile. On a related note, b the Sages taught /b with regard to a Hebrew slave liberated during the Jubilee Year, about whom it is written: b “And he returns to his family, and to the estate of his fathers he shall return” /b (Leviticus 25:41): b He returns to his family, but he does not return to that /b status of prominence and honor b that his ancestors held; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He even returns to that /b status of prominence and honor b that his ancestors held. /b From the phrase b “to the estate of his fathers /b he shall return,” it is derived that he returns to be b like his fathers. /b , b And likewise, /b the same is true b with regard to an exile /b sent to a city of refuge, as b when /b the verse b states: /b “To the estate of his fathers b he shall return,” /b the term “he shall return” is redundant and it serves b to include the /b unintentional b murderer. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b And likewise, /b the same is true b with regard to an exile? /b The Gemara explains: It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “The murderer shall return to his ancestral land” /b (Numbers 35:28), from which it is derived that b he returns to his ancestral land, but he does not return to that /b status of prominence and honor b that his ancestors held; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He even returns to that /b status of prominence and honor b that his ancestors held. /b Rabbi Meir b derives /b this by means of a verbal analogy b from there, /b i.e., between the term of b “return” /b written with regard to the unintentional murderer, and the term of b “return” /b written with regard to the Hebrew slave. The verbal analogy teaches that just as a Hebrew slave returns to his father’s estate and the status of prominence held by his ancestors, so too, the unintentional murderer returns to his ancestral land and to the status of prominence held by his ancestors.,, strong MISHNA: /strong After enumerating in tractate i Sanhedrin /i those liable to be executed and in the previous chapter those liable to be exiled, the mishna proceeds to enumerate those liable to receive lashes. b These are /b the people b who are flogged /b by Torah law for violating a prohibition: b One who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with a menstruating woman. /b Likewise, one is flogged in the case of b a widow /b who married b a High Priest, a divorcée or a i ḥalutza /i /b who married b an ordinary priest, a i mamzeret /i , /b i.e., a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, b or a Gibeonite woman /b who married b a Jew /b of unflawed lineage, and b a Jewish woman /b of unflawed lineage who married b a Gibeonite or a i mamzer /i , /b i.e., a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship.,The mishna elaborates: If a woman was both b a widow and a divorcée, /b as after she was widowed she remarried and was divorced, a High Priest b is liable /b to receive two sets of lashes b for /b marrying b her due to /b the violation of b two /b different b prohibitions, /b that of his marrying a widow and that of his marrying a divorced woman. If a woman was both b a divorcée and a i ḥalutza /i , /b from two different men, an ordinary priest who marries her b is liable /b to receive b only /b one set of lashes, b due to /b the violation of b one /b prohibition b alone. /b ,The mishna continues enumerating those liable to receive lashes: b A ritually impure person who ate sacrificial /b food b and one who entered the Temple /b while b ritually impure. And one /b who b eats /b the forbidden b fat /b of a domesticated animal; b or blood; or i notar /i , /b leftover flesh from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption; b or i piggul /i , /b an offering invalidated due to intent to sprinkle its blood, burn its fats on the altar, or consume it, beyond its designated time; b or /b one who partakes of an offering that became b impure, /b is flogged., b And one who slaughters /b a sacrificial animal b or sacrifices /b it on an altar b outside /b the Temple courtyard, b and one who eats leavened bread on Passover, and one who eats /b on Yom Kippur b and one who performs labor on Yom Kippur, and one who blends the /b anointing b oil /b for non-sacred use, b and one who blends the incense /b that was burned on the altar in the Sanctuary for non-sacred use, b and one who applies the anointing oil, and one who eats unslaughtered /b animal or bird b carcasses, or i tereifot /i , /b which are animals or birds with a condition that will lead to their death within twelve months, or b repugt creatures, or creeping animals, /b is liable to receive lashes.,If b one ate untithed produce, /b i.e., produce from which i terumot /i and tithes were not separated; b or first-tithe /b produce b whose i teruma /i /b of the tithe b was not taken; or second-tithe /b produce b or sacrificial /b food b that was not redeemed; /b he is liable to receive lashes.,With regard to the measure for liability for eating forbidden food, the mishna asks: b How much does one /b need to b eat from untithed produce and be liable /b to receive lashes? b Rabbi Shimon says: /b If one ate b any amount /b of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. b And the Rabbis say: /b He is liable only if he eats b an olive-bulk, /b which is the minimum measure characterized as eating. b Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable /b to receive lashes? The Rabbis b said to /b Rabbi Shimon: He receives lashes for eating an ant of any size b due to /b the fact b that it is /b an intact entity in the form b of its creation, /b and that is what the Torah prohibited. Rabbi Shimon b said to them: One /b kernel of b wheat /b is b also /b in the form b of its creation, /b and therefore one should be liable to receive lashes for eating any intact entity., strong GEMARA: /strong Apropos the list in the mishna of those liable to receive lashes, the Gemara notes: The i tanna /i b teaches /b those b liable to /b receive b excision from the World-to-Come [ i karet /i ], /b as most of the cases enumerated at the beginning of the mishna include actions that not only entail violation of a prohibition but are also punishable by i karet /i . But the i tanna /i b does not teach /b those b liable to /b be executed with b court /b -imposed b death /b penalties among those liable to receive lashes. Apparently, lashes are not administered to those who violate a prohibition punishable by execution. The Gemara asks: b Whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? It /b is the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that there is a tannaitic dispute: b Both those liable to /b receive b i karet /i and those liable to /b be executed with b court /b -imposed b death /b penaltie |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 74| 26b. למישתא ביה שיכרא שפיר דמי,רבינא הוה ליה ההוא תילא דבי כנישתא אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה מהו למיזרעה אמר ליה זיל זבניה משבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר וזרעה,רמי בר אבא הוה קא בני בי כנישתא הוה ההיא כנישתא עתיקא הוה בעי למיסתריה ולאתויי ליבני וכשורי מינה ועיולי להתם יתיב וקא מיבעיא ליה הא דרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא לא ליסתור בי כנישתא עד דבני בי כנישתא אחריתי התם משום פשיעותא כי האי גוונא מאי אתא לקמיה דרב פפא ואסר ליה לקמיה דרב הונא ואסר ליה,אמר רבא האי בי כנישתא חלופה וזבונה שרי אוגורה ומשכונה אסור מאי טעמא בקדושתה קאי,ליבני נמי חלופינהו וזבונינהו שרי אוזופינהו אסור הני מילי בעתיקתא אבל בחדתא לית לן בה,ואפילו למאן דאמר הזמנה מילתא היא ה"מ כגון האורג בגד למת אבל הכא כטווי לאריג דמי וליכא למאן דאמר,מתנה פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר בהאי תפקע קדושתה ומאן דשרי אי לאו דהוה ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה יהיב ליה הדר הוה ליה מתנה כזביני,ת"ר תשמישי מצוה נזרקין תשמישי קדושה נגנזין ואלו הן תשמישי מצוה סוכה לולב שופר ציצית ואלו הן תשמישי קדושה דלוסקמי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ותיק של ס"ת ונרתיק של תפילין ורצועותיהן,אמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי כורסיא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא ושרי כיון דחזינא דמותבי עלויה ס"ת אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור,ואמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי פריסא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא כיון דחזינא דעייפי ליה ומנחי סיפרא עלויה אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור,ואמר רבא האי תיבותא דאירפט מיעבדה תיבה זוטרתי שרי כורסייא אסיר ואמר רבא האי פריסא דבלה למיעבדיה פריסא לספרי שרי לחומשין אסיר,ואמר רבא הני זבילי דחומשי וקמטרי דספרי תשמיש קדושה נינהו ונגנזין פשיטא מהו דתימא הני לאו לכבוד עבידן לנטורי בעלמא עבידי קמ"ל,ההוא בי כנישתא דיהודאי רומאי דהוה פתיח לההוא אידרונא דהוה מחית ביה מת והוו בעו כהני למיעל לצלויי התם אתו אמרו ליה לרבא אמר להו דלו תיבותא אותבוה דהוה ליה כלי עץ העשוי לנחת וכלי עץ העשוי לנחת אינו מקבל טומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא והא זמנין דמטלטלי ליה כי מנח ספר תורה עלויה והוה ליה מיטלטלא מלא וריקם אי הכי לא אפשר,אמר מר זוטרא מטפחות ספרים שבלו עושין אותן תכריכין למת מצוה וזו היא גניזתן,ואמר רבא ספר תורה שבלה גונזין אותו אצל תלמיד חכם ואפילו שונה הלכות אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ובכלי חרס שנאמר (ירמיהו לב, יד) ונתתם בכלי חרש למען יעמדו ימים רבים,(ואמר) רב פפי משמיה דר' מבי כנישתא לבי רבנן שרי מבי רבנן לבי כנישתא אסיר ורב פפא משמיה דרבא מתני איפכא אמר רב אחא | 26b. b to drink beer with /b the proceeds b seems well /b and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.,The Gemara relates: b Ravina had a certain /b piece of land on which stood b a mound /b of the ruins b of a synagogue. He came before Rav Ashi /b and b said to him: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard b to sowing /b the land? b He said to him: Go, purchase it from the seven representatives of the town in an assembly of the residents of the town, and /b then you may b sow it. /b , b Rami bar Abba was /b once b building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue /b that b he wished to demolish, and bring bricks and beams from it, and bring them to there, /b to construct a new synagogue. b He sat and considered that which Rav Ḥisda /b said, b as Rav Ḥisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. /b Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav Ḥisda’s ruling b there /b is b due to /b a concern of b negligence, /b as perhaps after the first synagogue is demolished, people will be negligent and a new one will never be built. However, in b a case like this, /b where the new synagogue is to be built directly from the materials of the old one, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? b He came before Rav Pappa /b to ask his opinion, b and he prohibited him /b from doing so. b He /b then came b before Rav Huna, and he /b also b prohibited him /b from doing so., b Rava said: /b With regard to b this synagogue, exchanging it /b for a different building b or selling it /b for money b is permitted, /b but b renting it /b out b or mortgaging it is prohibited. What is the reason /b for this? When a synagogue is rented out or mortgaged, it b remains in its sacred state. /b Therefore, it is prohibited to rent it out or mortgage it, because it will then be used for a non-sacred purpose. However, if it is exchanged or sold, its sanctity is transferred to the other building or to the proceeds of the sale, and therefore the old synagogue building may be used for any purpose.,The same i halakha /i is b also /b true of the b bricks /b of a synagogue; b exchanging them or selling them is permitted, /b but b renting them out is prohibited. /b The Gemara comments: b This applies to old /b bricks that have already been part of a synagogue, b but as for new /b bricks that have only been designated to be used in a synagogue, b we have no /b problem b with it /b if they are rented out for a non-sacred purpose., b And even according to the one who said /b that mere b designation is significant, /b i.e., although a certain object was not yet used for the designated purpose, the halakhic ramifications of using it for that purpose already take hold, b this applies /b only in a case where it was created from the outset for that purpose, b for example, one who weaves a garment /b to be used as shrouds b for a corpse. However, here /b the bricks are b comparable to /b already b spun /b thread that was then designated to be used b to weave /b burial shrouds. Concerning such designation, where nothing was specifically created for the designated purpose, b there is no one who said /b that the designation is significant., b Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about /b whether it is permitted to give away a synagogue as b a gift /b to then be used for a non-sacred purpose. b One /b of them b prohibited /b it, b and /b the other b one permitted /b it. b The one who prohibits /b it says: Is it possible that b with this /b act of giving alone b its sanctity is removed? /b This cannot be the case. Since the synagogue was not exchanged for anything else, there is nothing to which the sanctity may be transferred. Consequently, the synagogue remains sacred. b And the one who permitted /b it does so because he reasons that b if /b the donor b did not /b receive any b benefit from /b giving the synagogue, b he would not have given it. /b Therefore, b the gift has reverted to being like a sale, /b and the sanctity is transferred to the benefit received.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Articles /b used in the performance b of a mitzva may be thrown out /b after use. Although these items were used in the performance of a mitzva, they are not thereby sanctified. However, b articles /b associated with the b sanctity /b of God’s name, i.e. articles on which God’s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God’s name written on it, even after they are no longer used, b must be interred /b in a respectful manner. b And these /b items b are /b considered b articles of a mitzva: A i sukka /i ; a i lulav /i ; a i shofar /i ; /b and b ritual fringes. And these /b items b are /b considered b articles of sanctity: Cases /b of b scrolls, /b i.e. of Torah scrolls; b phylacteries; and i mezuzot /i ; and a container for a Torah scroll; and a cover for phylacteries; and their straps. /b , b Rava said: Initially, I used to say /b that b this lectern /b in the synagogue upon which the Torah is read b is /b only b an article of an article /b of sanctity, as the Torah scroll does not rest directly upon the lectern but rather upon the cloth that covers it. b And /b the i halakha /i is that once an article of an article of sanctity is no longer used, b it is permitted /b to throw it out. However, b once I saw that the Torah scroll is /b sometimes b placed /b directly b upon /b the lectern without an intervening cloth. b I said /b that b it is an article /b used directly for items b of sanctity, and /b as such b it is prohibited /b to simply discard it after use., b And Rava /b similarly b said: Initially, I used to say /b that b this curtain, /b which is placed at the opening to the ark as a decoration, b is /b only b an article of an article /b of sanctity, as it serves to beautify the ark but is not directly used for the Torah scroll. However, b once I saw that /b sometimes the curtain b is folded over and a Torah scroll is placed upon it. I said /b that b it is an article /b used directly for items b of sanctity and /b as such b it is prohibited /b to simply discard it after use., b And Rava /b further b said: /b With regard to b this ark that has fallen apart, constructing a smaller ark /b from its materials b is permitted, /b as both have the same level of sanctity, but to use the materials to construct b a lectern is prohibited /b because the lectern has a lesser degree of sanctity. b And Rava /b similarly b said: /b With regard to b this curtain /b used to decorate an ark b that has become worn out, to fashion it /b into b a wrapping cloth for /b Torah b scrolls is permitted, /b but to fashion it into a wrapping cloth b for /b a scroll of b one of the five /b books of the Torah b is prohibited. /b , b And Rava /b also b said: /b With regard to b these cases for /b storing scrolls of b one of the five /b books of the Torah b and sacks for /b storing Torah b scrolls, they are /b classified as b articles of sanctity. /b Therefore, b they are to be interred /b when they are no longer in use. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that since b these /b items b are not made for the honor /b of the scrolls but rather b are made merely to /b provide b protection, /b they should not be classified as articles of sanctity, Rava therefore b teaches us /b that although they are indeed made to protect the scrolls, they also provide honor and are therefore to be classified as articles of sanctity.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain synagogue of the Jews of Rome that opened out into a room in which a corpse was lying, /b thereby spreading the ritual impurity of the corpse throughout the synagogue. b And the priests wished to enter /b the synagogue b in order to pray there. /b However, it was prohibited for them to do so because a priest may not come in contact with ritual impurity of a corpse. b They came and spoke to Rava, /b about what to do. b He said to them: Lift up the ark and put it down /b in the opening between the two rooms, b as it is a wooden utensil that is designated to rest /b in one place and not be moved from there, b and /b the i halakha /i is that b a wooden utensil that is designated to rest is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and /b therefore it b serves as a barrier to /b prevent b ritual impurity /b from spreading., b The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn’t /b the ark b sometimes moved when a Torah scroll is /b still b resting inside it, and /b therefore b it is /b a utensil that b is moved /b both b when it is full and when it is empty; /b such a utensil is susceptible to ritual impurity and cannot prevent ritual impurity from spreading. He said to them: b If so, /b if it is as you claim, then b it is not possible /b to remedy the situation., b Mar Zutra said: /b With regard to b wrapping cloths of /b Torah b scrolls that have become worn out, they may be made into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it [ i met mitzva /i ], and this is their /b most appropriate manner for being b interred. /b , b And Rava said: A Torah scroll that became worn out is interred /b and buried b next to a Torah scholar, and /b in this regard, a Torah scholar is defined b even /b as b one who /b only b studies the i halakhot /i /b in the Mishna and the i baraitot /i but is not proficient in their analysis. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And /b when it is buried, it is first placed b in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: “And put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days” /b (Jeremiah 32:14).,§ b And Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: /b To convert a building b from a synagogue into a study hall /b is b permitted, /b but b from a study hall into a synagogue /b is b prohibited, /b as he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. b And Rav Pappa in the name of Rava teaches the opposite, /b as he holds that a synagogue has a higher degree of sanctity than a study hall. b Rav Aḥa said: /b |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119 | 93a. if the repeated term “his offering” is not needed to counter the i a fortiori /i inferences, b why do I /b need these three b verses? /b The Gemara explains: One instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of another /b person. Another instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of a gentile. /b The third instance of b “his offering” /b serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,§ The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then b the heir /b is regarded as the offering’s owner. Therefore, he b places /b his b hands /b on the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred., b Rav Ḥaya taught /b a i baraita /i b in the presence of Rava: An heir does not place hands /b on an offering he inherited, and b an heir cannot substitute /b a non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b The heir places /b his b hands /b on the offering, b and brings /b the accompanying b libations, and he can substitute /b a non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?,Rav Ḥaya b said to /b Rava: b Should I reverse /b the current version of the i baraita /i to have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava b said to him: No, /b as b whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An heir places hands, /b and b an heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands, /b and b an heir cannot effect substitution. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? /b He expounds the term b “his offering” /b as teaching that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b one’s father’s offering /b that one inherited. b And /b furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda b derives /b the i halakha /i concerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is b the initial stage of consecration, from /b the i halakha /i concerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is b the final stage of consecration: Just as /b with regard to b the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place /b his b hands, so too, /b with regard to b the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution. /b , b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ] /b animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of i hamer yamir /i serving b to include the heir /b as one capable of effecting substitution. b And /b furthermore, b they derive /b the i halakha /i concerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the b final stage of consecration, from /b the i halakha /i concerning who can effect substitution, which is b an initial stage of consecration: Just as /b with regard to b the initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too, /b with regard to b the final stage of consecration, an heir places /b his b hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, what do they do with this /b term: b “His offering”? /b The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of a gentile. /b Another instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of another /b person. The third instance of b “his offering” /b serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,The Gemara clarifies: b And Rabbi Yehuda does not hold /b that one of the mentions serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. b Alternatively, /b if b he holds /b that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must b derive /b that one does not place hands on the offering of b a gentile or /b of b another /b person b from /b the same b one /b mention in the b verse, /b which b leaves him two /b more mentions in the b verses. One /b he expounds to teach that on b “his offering” /b he places hands, b but not /b on b his father’s offering /b that he inherited, b and the other /b mention remains b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do /b with the use of the doubled form b in this /b verse: “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ]”? /b The Gemara answers: b He requires it to include a woman /b among those who can effect substitution. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Since the entire matter /b of substitution b is stated /b in the Torah b only in the masculine form, what /b is the reason that b we ultimately /b come b to include a woman? The verse states: /b “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ],” /b using a doubled form., b And /b as for b the Rabbis, they derive /b that a woman can effect substitution b from /b the term: b “And if” /b (Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase “and if he shall substitute.” b And Rabbi Yehuda does not expound /b the term b “and if” /b at all., strong MISHNA: /strong b Everyone /b who brings an animal offering b places hands /b upon its head, b except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile, /b a Canaanite b slave, the agent /b of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner’s behalf, b and a woman. /b , b And /b the requirement of b placing hands is a non-essential mitzva; /b therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.,The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning b on the head /b of the offering b with two hands. And in the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands, one slaughters /b the animal. b And immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: b Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor /b do not place their hands on the offering, b as they are not mentally competent. /b The exclusion of b a gentile /b is also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them” (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that b the children of Israel place hands /b upon their offerings, b but gentiles do not place /b their b hands /b upon their offerings. b But /b with regard to b a blind person, what is the reason /b that he does b not /b place his hands on his offering?, b Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi /b disagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. b One said /b that it is b derived /b from a verbal analogy between the mention of b placing hands /b in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of b placing hands /b stated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed b by /b the b Elders of /b the b congregation, /b i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see i Sanhedrin /i 34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person., b And /b the other b one said /b that it is b derived /b from a verbal analogy between the mention of b placing hands /b in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of b placing hands /b stated with regard to the b burnt offering of appearance /b brought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see i Ḥagiga /i 2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who said /b that the exclusion of a blind person is derived b from /b the b burnt offering of appearance, what is the reason /b that b he does not derive /b this b from /b the placing of hands performed by the b Elders of /b the b congregation? /b |
|
| 59. Origen, On Prayer, 2.2 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 124 |
60. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 220, 221| 8b. ריבועא דנפיק מגו עיגולא פלגא ולא היא דהא קחזינן דלא הוי כולי האי:,א"ר לוי משום ר"מ שתי סוכות של יוצרים זו לפנים מזו הפנימית אינה סוכה וחייבת במזוזה והחיצונה סוכה ופטורה מן המזוזה,ואמאי תהוי חיצונה כבית שער הפנימית ותתחייב במזוזה משום דלא קביע,תנו רבנן גנב"ך סוכת גוים סוכת נשים סוכת בהמה סוכת כותים סוכה מכל מקום כשרה ובלבד שתהא מסוככת כהלכתה,מאי כהלכתה אמר רב חסדא והוא שעשאה לצל סוכה,מכל מקום לאתויי מאי לאתויי סוכת רקב"ש דתנו רבנן סוכת רקב"ש סוכת רועים סוכת קייצים סוכת בורגנין סוכת שומרי פירות סוכה מכל מקום כשרה ובלבד שתהא מסוככת כהלכתה,מאי כהלכתה אמר רב חסדא והוא שעשאה לצל סוכה,מכל מקום לאתויי מאי לאתויי סוכת גנב"ך,האי תנא דגנב"ך אלימא ליה גנב"ך משום דקביעי וקא תנא מכל מקום לאתויי רקב"ש דלא קביעי,והאי תנא דרקב"ש אלימא ליה רקב"ש דבני חיובא נינהו ותנא מ"מ לאתויי גנב"ך דלאו בני חיובא נינהו: | 8b. while the perimeter of b a square circumscribed by a circle /b is smaller than the circumference of that circle by b half, /b i.e., if one adds half the perimeter of the square to the perimeter of the square, that is equal to the circumference of its circumscribing circle. Therefore, a circle with a circumference of twenty-four cubits would circumscribe a square with a perimeter of sixteen cubits, as prescribed by Rabbi Yoḥa. The Gemara notes: b And /b that b is not /b the case, b as we see that /b the circumference of the circumscribing circle b is not that much. /b The actual circumference is closer to seventeen cubits.,§ b Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Meir: /b With regard to b two craftsmen’s booths, one within the other, /b as potters would build two booths, an inner one used as living quarters and an outer one for plying their craft and selling their wares, b the inner one is not /b fit for fulfillment of the mitzva of b i sukka /i , /b since the potter resides there year-round and it is not evident during the Festival that he is residing there for the sake of the mitzva of i sukka /i . b And /b since it a permanent residence, b it is /b also b obligated in /b the mitzva of b i mezuza /i . And the outer /b booth b is /b fit for fulfillment of the mitzva of b i sukka /i , /b since he does not reside there year-round, and when he resides there during the Festival it is evident that he is doing so for the sake of the mitzva. Since it is not designated as a year-round residence, but rather serves as an entrance to his residence and a passage for merchants and merchandise, it is not considered a residence b and is not obligated in /b the mitzva of b i mezuza /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why /b is the outer booth exempt from the mitzva of i mezuza /i ? b Let the outer /b booth b be /b considered b like a gatehouse of the inner /b booth b and /b therefore b be obligated in /b the mitzva of b i mezuza /i . /b The Gemara answers: It is exempt b because /b even the inner booth b is not /b a b permanent /b residence. It requires a i mezuza /i because the potter resides there year-round; however, that alone does not render it a full-fledged residence that would obligate one to affix a i mezuza /i to the outer booth as its gatehouse., b The Sages taught: /b The booths represented by the mnemonic: b i Gimmel /i , i nun /i , i beit /i , i kaf /i , /b which stands for b a booth of gentiles [ i goyim /i ], a booth of women [ i nashim /i ], a booth of domesticated animals [ i behema /i ], a booth of Samaritans [ i Kutim /i ], a booth of any sort, /b each is b fit /b for use as a i sukka /i , b provided it is roofed in the standard sense. /b None of them is disqualified due to the one who constructed it or the purpose for which it was constructed.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the term: b In the standard sense? Rav Ḥisda said /b that it means: b And /b provided b that one established /b the booth b to /b provide b shade of a i sukka /i /b from its roofing, it may be used to fulfill the mitzva of i sukka /i .,The Gemara asks: b What does /b the phrase: A booth b of any sort, /b come b to include? /b What other booths are included in this generalization? The Gemara answers: It b comes to include /b the b booths /b listed in another i baraita /i with the mnemonic: b i Reish /i , i kuf /i , i beit /i , i shin /i , as the Sages taught: The booth /b known by the mnemonic b i reish /i , i kuf /i , i beit /i , i shin /i , /b which stands for b the booth of shepherds [ i ro’im /i ], the booth of fig driers [ i kayyatzim /i ], the booth of guards of fields [ i burganin /i ], the booth of the guards of produce [ i shomerei peirot /i ], a booth of any sort, /b each is b fit, provided it is roofed in the standard sense. /b ,The Gemara asks again: b What /b is the meaning of the term: b In the standard sense? Rav Ḥisda said /b that it means: b And /b provided b that one established /b the booth b to /b provide b shade of a i sukka /i , /b it may be used to fulfill the mitzva of i sukka /i .,The Gemara asks: b What does /b the phrase: A booth b of any sort, come to include? /b The Gemara answers: It b comes to include /b the b booths /b listed in the first i baraita /i cited above with the mnemonic b i gimmel /i , i nun /i , i beit /i , i kaf /i . /b ,The Gemara explains: b This i tanna /i who /b taught and detailed the i halakhot /i of booths b of i gimmel /i , i nun /i , i beit /i , i kaf /i /b did so because the fitness of the booths of b i gimmel /i , i nun /i , i beit /i , i kaf /i /b for use in fulfilling the mitzva of i sukka /i is b powerful /b and more obvious b to him because they are permanent /b structures, even though their builders are not obligated in the mitzva. b And he taught: /b Booths of b any sort, to include /b the booths of b i reish /i , i kuf /i , i beit /i , i shin /i , which, /b although they b are /b seasonal and b not permanent /b structures, may still be used to fulfill the mitzva of i sukka /i ., b And that /b other b i tanna /i /b who taught and detailed the i halakhot /i of booths b of i reish /i , i kuf /i , i beit /i , i shin /i /b did so because the fitness of the booths of b i reish /i , i kuf /i , i beit /i , i shin /i /b for use in fulfilling the mitzva of i sukka /i is b powerful /b and more obvious b to him /b because those who constructed the booths are b obligated /b in the mitzva of i sukka /i . b And he taught: /b Booths of b any sort, to include /b the booths of b i gimmel /i , i nun /i , i beit /i , i kaf /i , which, /b although those who constructed them are b not obligated /b in the mitzva, may still be used to fulfill the mitzva of i sukka /i . |
|
61. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 213| 42b. הא דטעו הא דלא טעו אי דלא טעו מאי יכולים למחות יכולים למחות ברוחות,אמר רב נחמן האחין שחלקו הרי הן כלקוחות פחות משתות נקנה מקח יתר על שתות בטל מקח שתות קנה ומחזיר אונאה,אמר רבא הא דאמרן פחות משתות נקנה מקח לא אמרן אלא דלא שויה שליח אבל שויה שליח אמר לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי,והא דאמרן יתר משתות בטל מקח לא אמרן אלא דלא אמר ניפליגן בשומא דבי דינא אבל אמר נפלוג בשומא דבי דינא מכרן קיים דתנן שום הדיינים שפיחתו שתות או הותירו שתות מכרן בטל רשב"ג אומר מכרן קיים,והא דאמרן שתות קנה ומחזיר אונאה לא אמרן אלא במטלטלי אבל במקרקעי אין אונאה לקרקעות ובמקרקעי לא אמרן אלא דפלוג בעילויא אבל פלוג במשחתא לא כדרבה דאמר רבה כל דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין אפילו פחות מכדי אונאה נמי חוזר,והא דתנן השולח את הבעירה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים שילח ביד פיקח פיקח חייב,ואמאי נימא שלוחו של אדם כמותו שאני התם דאין שליח לדבר עבירה דאמרינן דברי הרב ודברי תלמיד דברי מי שומעים,והדתניא שליח שלא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל עשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל כי עשה שליחותו דבעל הבית בעל הבית מיהא מעל אמאי נימא אין שליח לדבר עבירה,שאני מעילה דילפא חטא חטא מתרומה מה תרומה משוי שליח אף מעילה משוי שליח,ונילף מינה משום דהוי מעילה ושליחות יד שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין מעילה הא דאמרן שליחות יד מאי היא,דתניא (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע בש"א לחייב על המחשבה כמעשה ובה"א אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד שנאמר אם לא שלח ידו וגו',אמרו ב"ש לב"ה והלא נאמר על כל דבר פשע אמרו להם ב"ה לב"ש והלא נאמר (שמות כב, י) אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו אמרו ב"ש לב"ה א"כ על כל דבר פשע למה לי שיכול אין לי אלא הוא אמר לעבדו ולשלוחו מנין ת"ל על כל דבר פשע,הניחא לב"ה אלא לב"ש דמוקמי ליה להאי קרא במחשבה כמעשה | 42b. In b this /b case, where Rav Naḥman ruled that their transaction is void, in accordance with the Rabbis, the court b erred /b by one-sixth. But in b that /b case, where Rav Naḥman ruled that the orphans cannot protest when they grow up, b they did not err /b by one-sixth. The Gemara asks: b If /b Rav Naḥman’s ruling that the orphans cannot protest is referring to a case b where they did not err /b by one-sixth, b why /b did Shmuel say that b they can /b later b protest; /b what is the nature of their protest? The Gemara answers: b They can protest with regard to /b the b locations. /b One of the orphans can contend that he prefers property in a different location than he was given.,§ b Rav Naḥman says: /b With regard to b brothers who divided /b property received as an inheritance, b they are /b considered b like /b they are b purchasers /b from each other, and the i halakhot /i of fraud are like those for regular transactions: If there was an error of b less than one-sixth /b in the distribution, the b transaction is acquired, /b i.e., valid. If it was b more than one-sixth, /b the b transaction is void. /b If the error was precisely b one-sixth, /b it is b acquired, and /b the one who received more than his fair share b must return /b the amount of the b fraud. /b , b Rava says: That which we said, /b that with regard to b less than one-sixth /b the b transaction /b is valid and the item b is acquired, we said only /b in a case b where /b the brother receiving a smaller share b did not appoint an agent /b to deal with the distribution on his behalf. b But if /b the brother receiving a smaller share b appointed an agent, /b this i halakha /i does not apply, as the one who appointed the agent can b say: I sent you to /b act for b my benefit and not to my detriment. /b The agent’s right to act in this capacity did not extend to a case where it was to the detriment of the one who appointed him.,Rava continues: b And that which we said, /b that if the brothers erred by b more than one-sixth /b the b transaction is void, we said only when /b the brother receiving a smaller share b did not say: Let us divide /b the estate b by an appraisal of the court. But /b if b he said: Let us divide /b it b by an appraisal of the court, the transaction is valid, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ketubot /i 99b): This is the i halakha /i with regard to b the appraisal /b of an article’s value in order to sell it, as done by b the judges: /b In a case b where they decreased /b the price by b one-sixth /b of its market value b or added one-sixth /b to its market value, b their sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Their sale is valid. /b ,Rava continues: b And that which we said, /b that if the brothers erred by b one-sixth /b the one receiving a larger share b acquired /b it b and he must return /b the amount of the b fraud, we said only with regard to movable property. But with regard to land, /b the i halakha /i is that b there is no fraud with regard to land. And with regard to land, we said /b that the i halakha /i of fraud does not apply b only when they divided /b it b according to the value /b of the land. b But /b if b they divided /b it b by measure /b and erred in the measurement, we do b not /b say that there is no fraud. This is in accordance b with /b the statement b of Rabba, as Rabba said: Any matter that is according to measure, or according to weight, or according to number, /b if it turned out to be in error, b even /b if the error was b less than the amount /b that constitutes b fraud, /b it b is also returned. /b ,§ The Gemara returns to discuss various aspects of agency. b And /b there is a difficulty from b that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Bava Kamma /i 59b): In the case of b one who sends /b an item that causes b a fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b the one who sent it b is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b If b he sent /b it b in the hands of /b a halakhically b competent person, /b only b the /b halakhically b competent person is liable. /b , b But why /b is the halakhically competent person liable? b Let us say /b that the legal status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself. /b The Gemara answers: b There /b it b is different, as there is no agency for transgression, as we say: /b When there is a conflict between b the words of the Master, /b i.e., God, b and the words of /b the b student, /b i.e., a human being, b whose words /b should be b listened to? /b Consequently, the agent is considered to have acted of his own accord, and the one who sent him bears no responsibility.,The Gemara comments: b And /b there is a difficulty from b that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the i halakhot /i of misuse of consecrated property: In the case of b an agent who did not perform his agency /b but deviated from the instructions of the one who appointed him and made use of consecrated property, the b agent has misused /b consecrated property and is liable to bring the guilt-offering for that sin. In the case of an agent who b performed his agency, the owner has misused /b consecrated property and is liable to bring the offering. The Gemara asks: The i baraita /i states that b when /b the agent b performed the agency of the owner, the owner /b has b in any event misused /b consecrated property. b Why? Let us say /b that b there is no agency for transgression. /b ,The Gemara answers: The case of b misuse /b of consecrated property b is different, as /b it b is derived /b by means of a verbal analogy of b “sin” /b in this case and b “sin” from i teruma /i , /b as the verse states: “And sin through error” (Leviticus 5:15), with regard to misuse of consecrated property, and it states: “Lest they bear sin for it” (Leviticus 22:9) with regard to i teruma /i : b Just as /b with b i teruma /i /b one can b appoint an agent, so too /b with b misuse /b of consecrated property one can b appoint an agent, /b although the latter is a transgression.,The Gemara suggests: b And let us derive /b a principle b from /b misuse of consecrated property, that one can appoint an agent even to perform a transgression. The Gemara explains: This is not done b because misuse /b of consecrated property b and misappropriation /b of a deposit, i.e., a bailee using an item that was deposited with him, b are two verses that come as one, /b i.e., they teach the same matter, that an agent can be appointed to perform a transgression. b And any two verses that come as one do not teach /b their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara clarifies this statement: The verse pertaining to b misuse /b of consecrated property b is that which we said, /b but b what is /b the verse pertaining to b misappropriation? /b ,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Torah uses the inclusive term “every” with regard to one suspected of misappropriating a deposit: b “For every matter of trespass” /b (Exodus 22:8). b Beit Shammai say: /b This inclusive term “every” serves b to render /b one b liable for /b speech and b thought, /b i.e., intent to misappropriate, b like action. And Beit Hillel say: One is liable only if he /b actually b misappropriates it, as /b it b is stated: “Whether he has not put his hand /b unto his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7)., b Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: But isn’t it stated: “For every matter of trespass,” /b which indicates that one is liable without actually misappropriating the deposit? b Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t it stated: “Whether he has not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods”? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: If so, /b if one is liable only for actual misappropriation, b why do I /b need: b “For every matter of trespass”? /b Beit Hillel replied: It is necessary, b as /b one b might /b have thought that b I have /b derived liability b only /b if b he /b himself misappropriated it; b from where /b do I derive that he is liable also if he b told his slave or his agent /b to do so? b The verse states: “For every matter of trespass,” /b to teach that the bailee is liable if one acting on his behalf misappropriates the deposit.,The Gemara explains further: b This /b answer, that misuse of consecrated property and misappropriation are two verses that come to teach the same matter, b works out well /b according b to /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel. But /b according b to /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai, who establish this verse /b as rendering one liable b for thought like action /b and do not learn from here that the bailee is liable if one acting on his behalf misappropriates the deposit, |
|
62. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 33a. ואין חותכין אותו בין בדבר שהוא משום שבות ובין בדבר שהוא משום לא תעשה: משום שבות מגלא לא תעשה סכינא,השתא משום שבות אמרת לא לא תעשה מיבעיא זו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני:,אבל אם רצה ליתן לתוכו מים או יין יתן: מים או יין אין מי רגלים לא,מתני' מני אבא שאול היא דתניא אבא שאול אומר מים או יין מותר כדי לצחצחו מי רגלים אסור מפני הכבוד:,אין מעכבין את התינוקות מלתקוע: הא נשים מעכבין והתניא אין מעכבין לא את הנשים ולא את התינוקות מלתקוע ביום טוב אמר אביי ל"ק הא רבי יהודה הא רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון,דתניא (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים נשים סומכות רשות:,אבל מתעסקין בהם עד שילמדו: אמר רבי אלעזר אפילו בשבת תנ"ה מתעסקין בהן עד שילמדו אפילו בשבת ואין מעכבין התינוקות מלתקוע בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב,הא גופא קשיא אמרת מתעסקין בהן עד שילמדו ואפילו בשבת אלמא לכתחלה אמרינן תקעו והדר תנא אין מעכבין עכובא הוא דלא מעכבין הא לכתחלה לא אמרינן תקעו,לא קשיא כאן | 33a. § The mishna stated: b One may not cut /b the i shofar /i if it needs to be prepared, b neither with an object that is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree nor with an object /b that may not be used b due to /b a Torah b prohibition. /b The Gemara explains: An example of an object prohibited b due to a rabbinic decree /b is b a sickle, /b which is not ordinarily used for preparing a i shofar /i ; an example of an object that may not be used due to b a prohibition /b by Torah law is b a knife. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Now /b that b you have said /b that to sound the i shofar /i b one may not /b perform an action that is prohibited b due to rabbinic law, is /b it b necessary /b to say that one may not perform an action that violates b a prohibition /b by Torah law? The Gemara answers: The mishna b teaches /b employing the style: b This, and it is unnecessary to say that. /b ,§ The mishna continues. b However, if one wishes to place water or wine into /b the i shofar /i on Rosh HaShana, so that it should emit a clear sound, b he may place it. /b The Gemara infers: b Water or wine, yes, /b one may insert these substances into a i shofar /i . However, b urine, /b whose acidity is good for the i shofar /i , b no. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who is /b the i tanna /i of b the mishna? /b The Gemara answers: b It is Abba Shaul, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Abba Shaul says: /b With regard to b water or wine, /b one is b permitted /b to pour these liquids into a i shofar /i on Rosh HaShana b in order to make /b its sound b clear. /b However, with regard to b urine, /b one is b prohibited /b to do so b due to the respect /b that must be shown to the i shofar /i . Although urine is beneficial, it is disrespectful to place it in a i shofar /i , which serves for a mitzva.,§ The mishna further teaches: b One /b need b not prevent children from sounding /b the i shofar /i on Rosh HaShana. The Gemara infers: If b women /b wish to sound the i shofar /i , b one /b indeed b prevents /b them from doing so. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b one does not prevent women or children from sounding /b the i shofar /i b on a Festival? /b The Gemara answers that b Abaye said: /b This is b not difficult: This /b mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b while b that /b i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “Speak to the children of Israel… /b and he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:2–4). The phrase “children of Israel” literally means sons of Israel, and this teaches that b the sons of Israel place /b their hands upon offerings, b but the daughters of Israel do not place /b their hands upon offerings; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: /b It is b optional /b for b women /b to b place /b their hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered, although they are not obligated to do so. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, if a woman wishes to perform any mitzva that is not obligatory for her, she is permitted to do so. Here too, one does not prevent a woman from sounding the i shofar /i .,§ The mishna further states: b Rather, one occupies /b himself b with them, /b encouraging and instructing children, b until they learn /b how to sound it properly. b Rabbi Elazar said: /b This applies b even /b when Rosh HaShana occurs b on Shabbat. This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One occupies /b himself b with /b children b until they learn /b to sound the i shofar /i properly, b even on Shabbat. And one does not prevent the children from sounding /b the i shofar /i b on Shabbat, and needless to say /b one does not prevent them b on /b the b festival /b of Rosh HaShana that occurs on a weekday.,The Gemara asks: b This matter itself is difficult, /b i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the i baraita /i . b You said /b that b one occupies /b himself b with /b the children b until they learn /b how to sound the i shofar /i , b and /b this applies b even on Shabbat. Apparently, we say to them i ab initio /i : Sound /b the i shofar /i . b And then /b the i baraita /i b taught: One does not prevent /b them from sounding the i shofar /i , which indicates that although b one does not prevent them /b from sounding it, b we do not say i ab initio /i : Sound /b it.,The Gemara explains: This is b not difficult. Here, /b |
|
63. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 75a. ואם איתא לא לימא ליה הא בצנעה הא בפרהסיא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשה אחת והעלה לבו טינא ובאו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שתבעל אמרו חכמים ימות ואל תבעל לו תעמוד לפניו ערומה ימות ואל תעמוד לפניו ערומה תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר ימות ולא תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר,פליגי בה ר' יעקב בר אידי ור' שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר אשת איש היתה וחד אמר פנויה היתה בשלמא למאן דאמר אשת איש היתה שפיר אלא למ"ד פנויה היתה מאי כולי האי,רב פפא אמר משום פגם משפחה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות,ולינסבה מינסב לא מייתבה דעתיה כדר' יצחק דא"ר יצחק מיום שחרב בית המקדש ניטלה טעם ביאה וניתנה לעוברי עבירה שנאמר (משלי ט, יז) מים גנובים ימתקו ולחם סתרים ינעם:, br br big strongהדרן עלך בן סורר ומורה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongואלו /strong /big הן הנשרפין הבא על אשה ובתה ובת כהן שזנתה,יש בכלל אשה ובתה בתו ובת בתו ובת בנו ובת אשתו ובת בתה ובת בנה חמותו ואם חמותו ואם חמיו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big הבא על אשה שנשא בתה לא קתני אלא הבא על אשה ובתה מכלל דתרוייהו לאיסורא ומאן נינהו חמותו ואם חמותו,וקתני יש בכלל אשה ובתה מכלל דתרוייהו כתיבי בהדיא והנך מדרשא אתיא,הניחא לאביי דאמר משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו מתניתין מני רבי עקיבא היא,אלא לרבא דאמר חמותו לאחר מיתה איכא בינייהו מתניתין מני אמר לך רבא תני הבא על אשה שנשא בתה:,יש בכלל אשה ובתה חמותו ואם חמותו ואם חמיו: לאביי איידי דקא בעי למיתנא אם חמיו תני נמי חמותו ואם חמותו,לרבא איידי דקא בעי למיתנא אם חמיו ואם חמותו תני נמי חמותו,מנהני מילי דת"ר (ויקרא כ, יד) איש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה אין לי אלא אשה ואמה בת אשה ובת בתה ובת בנה מנין,נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה מה להלן בתה ובת בתה ובת בנה אף כאן בתה ובת בתה ובת בנה,מנין לעשות זכרים כנקבות נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה מה להלן זכרים כנקבות אף כאן זכרים כנקבות,מנין לעשות למטה כלמעלה נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה מה להלן למטה כלמעלה אף כאן למטה כלמעלה ומה כאן למעלה כלמטה אף להלן למעלה כלמטה,אמר מר מנין לעשות זכרים כנקבות מאי זכרים כנקבות אילימא בת בנה כבת בתה בהדי הדדי קאתיאן,אלא אם חמיו כאם חמותו השתא אם חמותו לא קמה לן אם חמיו מיהדר עלה | 75a. b And if it is so /b that a descendant of Noah is commanded about the sanctification of God’s name, b he should not have said to him: /b “Go in peace.” The Gemara answers: b This /b situation, where Elisha permitted Naaman’s conduct, happened b in private. /b When Naaman bowed down in the house of Rimmon, he did not do so in the presence of ten Jews. Whereas b that /b question that was raised is whether or not a descendant of Noah must sanctify God’s name b in public, /b in the presence of ten Jews. Consequently, the question remains without a solution.,§ Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b There was b an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, /b to the point that he became deathly ill. b And they came and asked doctors /b what was to be done with him. b And /b the doctors b said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse /b with him. b The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. /b The doctors said: b She should /b at least b stand naked before him. /b The Sages said: b Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. /b The doctors suggested: The woman b should /b at least b converse with him behind a fence /b in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: b Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence. /b ,The Gemara comments: b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani disagree about /b this issue. b One /b of them b says: /b The woman in question b was a married woman, and /b the other b one says: She was unmarried. /b The Gemara tries to clarify the issue: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that b she was a married woman, /b the matter is b properly /b understood. Since the case involved a severely prohibited forbidden relationship, the Sages did not allow any activity hinting at intimacy. b But according to the one who says /b that b she was unmarried, what is /b the reason for b all this /b opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested?, b Rav Pappa says: /b This is b due to /b the potential b family flaw, /b i.e., harm to the family name, as it is not permitted to bring disgrace to the entire family in order to save the lovesick man. b Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: /b This is b so that the daughters of Israel should not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations. /b Were they to listen to the doctors’ recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the woman was unmarried, b let /b the man b marry her. /b The Gemara answers: b His mind would not have been eased /b by marriage, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken away /b from those who engage in permitted intercourse b and given to transgressors, as it is stated: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” /b (Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction.,, strong MISHNA: /strong b And these are /b the transgressors b who are burned /b in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: b One who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and /b one who is b the daughter of a priest /b and b who committed adultery. /b ,Included b in the category of /b the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with b a woman and her daughter /b and the resulting execution by burning, b there are: His daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son. /b Likewise, the following are also included in this category: Intercourse with b the daughter of his wife, /b even though she is not his daughter, b and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, /b as well as intercourse with b his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. /b The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her daughter, and in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her mother., strong GEMARA: /strong The i tanna /i b does not teach /b the case of b one who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he /b previously b married. Rather, /b the i tanna /i teaches the case of b one who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, /b one may conclude b that both /b the woman and her daughter are mentioned in the mishna b for /b the purpose of establishing that there is b a prohibition /b of intercourse with either of them, and when he engages in intercourse with the first of them he is liable to be executed. b And who are these /b women? The reference is to b his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law. /b , b And /b the i tanna /i b teaches: /b Additional women are included b in the category of /b the prohibition of and the punishment for engaging in intercourse with b a woman and her daughter. By inference, /b one may conclude b that /b with regard to b both /b his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law, the prohibition and punishment b are written explicitly /b in the Torah, b and /b with regard to b those /b additional women enumerated in the mishna, the prohibition and punishment b are derived by /b means of b interpretation. /b ,The Gemara comments: b This works out well according to Abaye, who says /b that with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva cited later in the Gemara (76b), the difference b between their /b opinions is only concerning b the interpretation of the meaning /b of the verse, but there is no practical difference between their opinions. According to Abaye, b whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva. /b Abaye explains that Rabbi Akiva maintains that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah., b But according to Rava, who says /b that the difference b between their /b opinions is with regard to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s b mother-in-law after /b the b death /b of his wife, b whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? /b The opinion of the i tanna /i of the mishna corresponds neither to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva nor to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as they both maintain that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one’s mother-in-law is not stated explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: b Rava /b could b say to you: /b Emend the mishna and b teach: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he /b previously b married. /b ,The mishna teaches: Included b in the category of /b the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with b a woman and her daughter /b and the resulting execution by burning, b there are: His mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. /b The Gemara comments: Abaye holds that everyone agrees that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah, and the i tanna /i enumerates his mother-in-law together with relatives concerning whom the prohibition is derived by means of interpretation. Therefore, b according to Abaye, since /b the i tanna /i b seeks to teach /b that b the mother of his father-in-law /b is included in the prohibition, b he teaches /b the i halakha /i of b his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law as well, /b despite the fact the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.,By contrast, Rava holds that the woman and her daughter mentioned in the first clause of the mishna are his wife and his mother-in-law. Therefore, b according to Rava, since /b the i tanna /i b seeks to teach /b that b the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law /b are included in the prohibition, b he teaches /b the i halakha /i of b his mother-in-law /b in the latter clause b as well, /b despite the fact that it is stated explicitly in the Torah.,§ The mishna enumerates several women with whom intercourse is forbidden who are included in the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, which is punished by execution by burning. The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? They are derived b as the Sages taught: /b “And b if a man takes a woman and her mother, /b it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14). b I have /b derived b only /b that this punishment applies to one who engages in intercourse with b a woman and /b with b her mother. From where /b is it derived that one who engages in intercourse with b the daughter of /b the b woman /b married to him, b or /b with b the daughter of her daughter, or /b with b the daughter of her son, /b is also liable to be executed by burning?,The i baraita /i continues: b Lewdness is stated here, /b with regard to the punishment: “There shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), b and lewdness is stated there, /b with regard to the prohibition: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). It is derived by means of a verbal analogy that b just as there /b the prohibition applies to the woman’s b daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, so too here, /b the punishment of burning applies to one who engages in intercourse with the woman’s b daughter, and /b to b the daughter of her daughter, and /b to b the daughter of her son. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b From where /b is it derived b to render /b the status of b males like /b that of b females /b with regard to this punishment? b Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, /b the Torah renders the status of b males like /b that of b female /b relatives, b so too here, /b the Torah renders the status of b males like /b that of b females. /b , b From where /b is it derived b to render /b the status of relatives b below like /b the status of relatives b above? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, /b the Torah renders the status of relatives b below like /b that of relatives b above, so too here, /b the Torah renders the status of relatives b below like /b that of relatives b above. And just as here, /b the Torah renders the status of relatives b above like /b that of relatives b below, so too there, /b the Torah renders the status of relatives b above like /b that of relatives b below. /b ,The Gemara proceeds to elaborate on the derivations cited in the i baraita /i . b The Master says: From where /b is it derived b to render /b the status of b males like /b that of b females? /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: The status of b males like /b that of b females? If we say /b that it means that one who engages in intercourse with the b daughter of the son of /b his wife is executed by burning b like /b one who engages in intercourse with b the daughter of her daughter, /b the status of the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter b are derived together /b in the first clause of the i baraita /i , as both are written explicitly in the prohibition., b Rather, /b this clause in the i baraita /i means that one who engages in intercourse with b the mother of his father-in-law /b is executed by burning b like /b one who engages in intercourse with b the mother of his mother-in-law. /b The Gemara asks: b Now, we have not /b yet b established /b the i halakha /i of one who engages in intercourse with b the mother of his mother-in-law, /b and the i baraita /i b is seeking /b to derive the i halakha /i of one who engages in intercourse with b the mother of his father-in-law /b from the i halakha /i of the mother of his mother-in-law? |
|
64. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 299| 5b. מילתא דכתיבא בהאי ענינא מילתא דלא כתיבא בהאי ענינא מנא לן,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק יליף פתח פתח רב משרשיא אמר (ויקרא ח, לה) ושמרתם את משמרת ה' עכובא רב אשי אמר (ויקרא ח, לה) כי כן צויתי עכובא,ת"ר כי כן צויתי (ויקרא י, יח) כאשר צויתי (ויקרא י, טו) כאשר צוה ה' כי כן צויתי באנינות יאכלוה כאשר צויתי בשעת מעשה אמר להם כאשר צוה ה' ולא מאלי אני אומר,א"ר יוסי בר חנינא מכנסים אין כתובין בפרשה כשהוא אומר (שמות כט, א) וזה הדבר אשר תעשה להם לקדש אותם לכהן להביא המכנסים ועשירית האיפה,בשלמא מכנסים כתיבי בענינא דבגדים אלא עשירית האיפה מנא לן אתיא זה זה (ויקרא ו, יג) מוזה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה' עשירית האיפה,א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחאי מניין שאף מקרא פרשה מעכב ת"ל (ויקרא ח, ה) ויאמר משה אל העדה זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' אפילו דיבור מעכב,כיצד הלבישן כיצד הלבישן מאי דהוה הוה אלא כיצד מלבישן לעתיד לבוא לעתיד לבוא נמי לכשיבואו אהרן ובניו ומשה עמהם,אלא כיצד הלבישן למיסבר קראי פליגי בה בני ר' חייא ורבי יוחנן חד אמר אהרן ואח"כ בניו וחד אמר אהרן ובניו בבת אחת,אמר אביי בכתונת ומצנפת כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאהרן ואח"כ בניו דבין בצוואה ובין בעשיה אהרן קדים כי פליגי באבנט מאן דאמר אהרן ואחר כך בניו דכתיב (ויקרא ח, ז) ויחגור אותו באבנט והדר כתיב ויחגור אותם אבנט ומאן דאמר אהרן ובניו בבת אחת דכתיב (שמות כט, ט) וחגרת אותם ולמאן דאמר אהרן ובניו בבת אחת הכתיב ויחגור אותו באבנט והדר כתיב ויחגור אותם אבנט | 5b. b matters that are written in /b the context of b this topic /b of inauguration in the book of Exodus invalidate the inauguration. However, with regard to b matters that are not written in that context, /b but are written in the portion of the inauguration in Leviticus, b from where do we derive /b that they invalidate the inauguration?, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b One b derives a /b verbal analogy between the word opening that appears in the two portions of the inauguration. It is written in the command concerning the inauguration: “The b opening /b of the Tent of Meeting” (Exodus 29:32), and in its fulfillment it is written: “The b opening /b of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 8:31). Failure to perform the matters written in both portions invalidates the inauguration. br b Rav Mesharshiyya said: /b The verbal analogy is unnecessary, as the conclusion can be derived directly from the verse written with regard to the implementation of the inauguration: b “And keep the charge of the Lord, /b that you not die, for so I am commanded” (Leviticus 8:35). The emphasis on this being the charge of the Lord comes to teach that failure to perform all the details mentioned in the implementation of the command b invalidates /b the inauguration. br b Rav Ashi says: /b The phrase: b For so I am commanded, /b is the source from which it is derived that all the details written in both portions b invalidate /b the inauguration.,Apropos that phrase, the Gemara cites a related halakhic midrash. b The Sages taught: /b In the context of the implementation of the inauguration, three variations of the phrase appear: b “For so I am commanded” /b (Leviticus 8:35); b “as I commanded” /b (Leviticus 10:18); and b “as God has commanded” /b (Leviticus 10:15). What does this repetition teach? From the phrase: b “For so I am commanded,” /b it is derived that even in a state of b acute mourning, /b on the first day after the death of a relative, one must b eat /b the offering. God stated the verse: b “As I commanded,” at the time of the incident /b just after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, when Aaron and his sons were in a state of acute mourning. And when Moses states: b “As God commanded,” /b he is saying: The command is from God b and /b it is b not from my /b own initiative that b I am saying /b it.,Apropos the matters mentioned that are not explicit in the portion, the Gemara cites that which b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Trousers /b are one of the priestly vestments worn during the inauguration, but they b are not written in the /b Torah b portion. When /b the verse b says: “And this is the matter that you shall do for them to sanctify them for /b My b service” /b (Exodus 29:1), the superfluous word: And, which appears at the beginning of the verse, comes to add to that which was written previously and b to include trousers and the tenth of an ephah /b offered by a priest on the day that he begins his service.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, trousers /b can be derived, as the verse b is written /b in the context b of the matter of /b priestly b garments /b detailed adjacent to the portion of the inauguration. b However, /b with regard to b the tenth of an ephah, from where do we /b derive that there is an obligation to offer it during the inauguration? The Gemara answers: It is b derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the word b this /b that appears in one verse and the word b this /b that appears in another. It is written: b “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord /b in the day when he is anointed, b a tenth of an ephah” /b (Leviticus 6:13). And in the verse cited above in the context of the inauguration it says: “And this is the matter that you shall do for them,” which teaches that there is an obligation to offer a tenth of an ephah during the inauguration., b Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where /b is it derived b that even /b failure to b read the /b Torah b portion /b of the inauguration b invalidates /b the inauguration? b The verse states: “And Moses said to the assembly: This is the matter [ i davar /i ] that God has commanded /b to be done” (Leviticus 8:5), teaching that b even /b failure to perform the b recitation [ i dibbur /i ] /b of the Torah portion to the people b invalidates /b the inauguration.,§ Apropos the inauguration of the priests, the Gemara asks: b How, /b i.e., in what order, did Moses b dress /b Aaron and his sons in the priestly vestments? The Gemara wonders: b In what order did he dress them? /b That is an irrelevant question, as b what was, was. /b The order in which Moses dressed the priests has no practical ramifications. b Rather, /b the question must be: b How /b will Moses b dress /b the priests b in the future, /b following the resurrection of the dead, when the Temple service will be restored? The Gemara rejects this question as well: b In the future, too, when Aaron and his sons will come and Moses /b will be b with them, /b he will know the proper sequence, and there is no point to raising the question., b Rather, /b the question is: b How /b did Moses b dress them? /b The Gemara seeks b to explain the verses /b on this topic, as they appear somewhat contradictory. The Gemara responds: b The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yoḥa disagree with regard to /b this matter. b One said: /b Moses dressed b Aaron /b first b and afterward /b Moses dressed b his sons; and one said: /b Moses dressed b Aaron and his sons simultaneously, /b i.e., consecutively from one to the next, without interruption, to avoid changing the order prescribed in the verses., b Abaye said: /b With regard to the b tunic and mitre everyone agrees that /b Moses dressed b Aaron and afterward his sons, as both in /b the portion of b the command /b concerning the inauguration b and in /b the portion of b the implementation, /b mention of b Aaron precedes /b mention of his sons. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to the belt. /b The Gemara elaborates. The b one who said: /b Moses dressed b Aaron and afterward his sons /b derives it from that b which is written: “And he girded him with the belt” /b (Leviticus 8:7), b and then it is written: “And he girded them with belts” /b (Leviticus 8:13). Moses first dressed Aaron in all of the garments, including the belt, and then Moses dressed Aaron’s sons. b And /b the b one who said: /b Moses dressed b Aaron and his sons, simultaneously /b derives it from that b which is /b subsequently b written: “And gird them /b with belts, Aaron and his sons” (Exodus 29:9), indicating that Moses girded them all with belts simultaneously. The Gemara asks: b And /b according b to the one who says: /b Moses dressed b Aaron and his sons simultaneously, isn’t it written: He girded him with the belt, and then it is written: He girded them with belts, /b clearly indicating that he dressed Aaron and then his sons? |
|
65. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 74| 105b. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי ר' מאיר אבל חכמים אומרים אין חליצת קטן כלום:,קטנה שחלצה וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי ר"מ דאמר איש כתוב בפרשה ומקשינן אשה לאיש,אבל חכמים אומרים איש כתיב בפרשה אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה,מאן חכמים רבי יוסי היא דר' חייא ור' שמעון בר רבי הוו יתבי פתח חד מינייהו ואמר המתפלל צריך שיתן עיניו למטה שנאמר (מלכים א ט, ג) והיו עיני ולבי שם כל הימים,וחד אמר עיניו למעלה שנאמר (איכה ג, מא) נשא לבבנו אל כפים אדהכי אתא ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי לגבייהו אמר להו במאי עסקיתו אמרו ליה בתפלה אמר להו כך אמר אבא המתפלל צריך שיתן עיניו למטה ולבו למעלה כדי שיתקיימו שני מקראות הללו,אדהכי אתא רבי למתיבתא אינהו דהוו קלילי יתיבו בדוכתייהו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אגב יוקריה הוה מפסע ואזיל,אמר ליה אבדן מי הוא זה שמפסע על ראשי עם קדוש אמר ליה אני ישמעאל בר' יוסי שבאתי ללמוד תורה מרבי אמר ליה וכי אתה הגון ללמוד תורה מרבי,אמר ליה וכי משה היה הגון ללמוד תורה מפי הגבורה אמר ליה וכי משה אתה אמר ליה וכי רבך אלהים הוא אמר רב יוסף שקליה רבי למטרפסיה דקאמר ליה רבך ולא רבי,אדהכי אתיא יבמה לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה רבי לאבדן פוק בדקה לבתר דנפק אמר ליה ר' ישמעאל כך אמר אבא איש כתוב בפרשה אבל אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה,אמר ליה תא לא צריכת כבר הורה זקן קמפסע אבדן ואתי אמר ליה רבי ישמעאל בר' יוסי מי שצריך לו עם קדוש יפסע על ראשי עם קדוש מי שאין צריך לו עם קדוש היאך יפסע על ראשי עם קדוש,אמר ליה רבי לאבדן קום בדוכתיך תאנא באותה שעה נצטרע אבדן וטבעו שני בניו ומאנו שתי כלותיו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בריך רחמנא דכספיה לאבדן בהאי עלמא,אמר ר' אמי מדבריו של ברבי נלמוד קטנה חולצת בפעוטות רבא אמר עד שתגיע לעונת נדרים והלכתא עד שתביא שתי שערות:,חלצה בשנים וכו': אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אין הלכה כאותו הזוג והא אמר ר"נ חדא זימנא דאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן חליצה בשלשה,צריכי דאי איתמר הך קמייתא הוה אמינא ה"מ לכתחילה אבל דיעבד אפי' תרי קמ"ל אין הלכה כאותו הזוג ואי אשמועינן אין הלכה כאותו הזוג אלא כתנא קמא ה"א דיעבד אבל לכתחילה ליבעי חמשה צריכא:,מעשה שחלצו כו': בינו לבינה מי ידענא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ועדים רואין אותו מבחוץ,איבעיא להו מעשה שחלצו בינו לבינה אבראי ובא מעשה לפני ר"ע בבית האסורין או דלמא מעשה שחלצו בינו לבינה בבית האסורין אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בבית האסורין היה מעשה ולבית האסורין בא מעשה | 105b. b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: This /b teaching of the mishna with regard to a minor is b the statement of Rabbi Meir, /b who maintains that such a i ḥalitza /i has significance in that it disqualifies a subsequent levirate marriage, but it is insufficient to permit the woman to marry a stranger. b But the Rabbis say: The i ḥalitza /i of a male minor isn’t /b significant of b anything, /b as she is permitted to one of the brothers in levirate marriage as one who no i ḥalitza /i was performed at all.,§ It was taught in the mishna: b If a female minor performed i ḥalitza /i , /b she must perform i ḥalitza /i a second time once she becomes an adult, and if she does not, her first i ḥalitza /i is invalid. b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said: “Man” is written in the /b Torah b portion /b about i ḥalitza /i : “And if the man does not wish” (Deuteronomy 25:7), implying an adult must perform i ḥalitza /i , b and we juxtapose /b and compare b a woman with a man, /b indicating that the woman must also be an adult at the time of i ḥalitza /i ., b But the Rabbis say: “Man” is written in this /b Torah b portion, /b which indicates that an adult male must perform i ḥalitza /i , but with respect to the b woman /b who removes the shoe, since the term woman is not used to describe her, but rather the more general term i yevama /i is written, as the continuation of the above-mentioned verse says: “To take his i yevama /i ” (Deuteronomy 25:9), b she may be either an adult or a female minor. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who are these Rabbis /b who disagree with Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: b It is Rabbi Yosei, /b as it seems from this incident: b As, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b were sitting /b outside the house of study, immersed in Torah learning. b One of them began and said: One who prays must direct his gaze downward /b while praying, b as it is stated /b by God with regard to the Holy Temple: b “And My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually” /b (I Kings 9:3), meaning: The Divine Presence rests in the Eretz Yisrael, and one must direct his gaze to the sacred land when praying., b And one of them said /b he must direct b his eyes upward, because it is stated: “Let us lift our hearts with our hands /b toward God in Heaven” (Lamentations 3:41). b In the meantime, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, came beside them. He said to them: What are you dealing with? They said /b to him: b With prayer, /b as we are debating the proper posture for prayer. b He said to them: My father, /b Rabbi Yosei, b said as follows: One who prays must direct his eyes downward and his heart upward, in order to fulfill both of these verses. /b , b In the meantime, /b while they were talking, b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b came to the house of study /b and everyone quickly went to sit in their assigned places. b Those who were light-footed /b hurried and b sat in their places. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, due to his being very heavy, was stepping and walking /b slowly, as everyone was already sitting in his place on the ground, requiring him to pass over their heads in order to get to his place., b Abdon, /b the shortened form of the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s student and attendant, Abba Yudan, b said to him: Who is that individual stepping over the heads of a sacred people, /b for it appeared to him as an act of disrespect to those sitting that Rabbi Yishmael stepped over their heads. b He said to him: I am Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who came to learn Torah from Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. Abdon b said to him: But are you fit to learn Torah from Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, for it seems that you are showing disrespect to others in order to accomplish it?,He b said to him: Was Moses fit to learn Torah from the mouth of the Almighty? /b Rather, it is not necessary that the student be as dignified as his teacher. He b said to him: And are you Moses? /b Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: And is your teacher God? Rav Yosef said /b about this part of the story: Here b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b received his retribution /b [ b i mittarpesei /i /b ] for remaining silent during this discussion and not reprimanding his student for humiliating Rabbi Yishmael. And what is his retribution? b When /b Rabbi Yishmael spoke to Abdon, b he said your teacher, and not my teacher, /b implying that he did not accept Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s authority upon himself., b In the meantime, a i yevama /i came before Rabbi, /b and she was a minor close to the age of maturity who had performed i ḥalitza /i , but it was not clear whether she had already reached the age of maturity necessary to validate her i ḥalitza /i . b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said to Abdon: Go and check /b to see if she has already reached maturity. b After /b Abdon b left, Rabbi Yishmael said to /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b : My father, /b Rabbi Yosei, b said as follows: “Man” is written in the /b Torah b portion /b of i ḥalitza /i , b but /b the b woman may be either an adult woman or a female minor. /b , b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b Abdon b : Come /b back. b You do not need /b to check, as b the Elder, /b Rabbi Yosei, b has already ruled /b that a minor can perform i ḥalitza /i , and therefore no further examination is required. b Abdon was stepping and coming /b over the heads of the others in order to return to his place. b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: One upon whom a holy people depends may step over the heads of a holy people. But one upon whom a holy people does not depend, /b as there is no longer a need for Abdon to examination the woman, b how can he step over the heads of a holy people? /b , b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said to Abdon: Stand in your place /b and do not go any further. b It was taught: At that moment Abdon was afflicted with leprosy /b as a punishment for insulting Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and b two of his sons /b who were recently married b drowned, and his two daughters-in-law, /b who were minors married to those sons, b made declarations of refusal /b and annulled their marriages. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Blessed is the Merciful One, Who shames Abdon in this world, /b for this prevents him from being punished further in the World-to-Come, as all his iniquities have been forgiven through this suffering., b Rabbi Ami said: From the words of the great man, /b Rabbi Yosei, b let us learn: A female minor performs i ḥalitza /i /b even b as a young child, /b at age six or seven. b Rava said: /b She may not perform i ḥalitza /i b until she reaches the age of vows /b as an eleven-year-old, when she has enough intellectual capacity to understand the meaning of a vow. However, the Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is: /b She may not perform i ḥalitza /i b until she has two /b pubic b hairs. /b ,It was taught in the mishna: b If she performed i ḥalitza /i before two /b or three people, and one of them is found to be disqualified to serve as a judge, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler validate it. b Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said /b that b Rav Naḥman said: The i halakha /i does not follow this pair /b who validate such a case. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t Rav Naḥman /b already b say this /b same ruling b one time /b before? b As Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said /b that b Rav Naḥman said: i Ḥalitza /i must be /b conducted b before three /b people, indicating that there must be no fewer than three valid judges.,The Gemara answers: Both b are necessary, for if only the /b first one, stating that i ḥalitza /i must be before three judges, b were stated, I would say: This applies i ab initio /i , but after the fact even two /b is acceptable. Therefore, b he teaches us that the i halakha /i does not follow this pair /b of Sages, and her i ḥalitza /i before two people is invalid even after the fact. And vice versa: b If he would have told us only that the i halakha /i does not follow this pair, but rather the first i tanna /i , I would say /b that it is valid if performed before three people only b after the fact, but they must require five /b people b i ab initio /i , /b in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. Therefore b it is necessary /b to say both of these statements.,§ b A story is told /b in the mishna about b an incident /b in which a couple b once performed i ḥalitza /i /b between themselves in private while alone in prison, and the case later came before Rabbi Akiva and he validated it. The Gemara asks: b How can we know what happened between him and her? /b There was no testimony to confirm it, and how can we be certain that the i ḥalitza /i was done properly to validate it? b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: And /b the i ḥalitza /i was validated because b there were witnesses who saw them from outside /b the prison, who testified that the i ḥalitza /i was performed properly., b A dilemma was raised before /b the students in the house of study with regard to the incident recorded in the mishna in which a private i ḥalitza /i performed in a prison was validated: b Did the incident in which they performed i ḥalitza /i between him and her /b privately actually b take place outside /b in a different locale, b and /b the reference to prison is that b the case came before Rabbi Akiva /b when he was confined b in prison? Or, perhaps the incident when they performed i ḥalitza /i between him and her took place in prison, /b and then this case came before Rabbi Akiva? b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: The /b i ḥalitza /i b incident took place in prison, and /b also b the case came /b to Rabbi Akiva when he was b in prison. /b |
|
66. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 74| 22a. קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ומודה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ברוכלין המחזירין בעיירות דלא מצי מעכב דאמר מר עזרא תקן להן לישראל שיהו רוכלין מחזירין בעיירות כדי שיהו תכשיטין מצויין לבנות ישראל,והני מילי לאהדורי אבל לאקבועי לא ואי צורבא מרבנן הוא אפילו לאקבועי נמי כי הא דרבא שרא להו לר' יאשיה ולרב עובדיה לאקבועי דלא כהלכתא מאי טעמא כיון דרבנן נינהו אתו לטרדו מגירסייהו,הנהו דיקולאי דאייתו דיקלאי לבבל אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרבינא אמר להו מעלמא אתו ולעלמא ליזבנו והני מילי ביומא דשוקא אבל בלא יומא דשוקא לא וביומא דשוקא נמי לא אמרינן אלא לזבוני בשוקא אבל לאהדורי לא,הנהו עמוראי דאייתו עמרא לפום נהרא אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרב כהנא אמר להו דינא הוא דמעכבי עלייכו אמרו ליה אית לן אשראי אמר להו זילו זבנו שיעור חיותייכו עד דעקריתו אשראי דידכו ואזליתו,רב דימי מנהרדעא אייתי גרוגרות בספינה א"ל ריש גלותא לרבא פוק חזי אי צורבא מרבנן הוא נקיט ליה שוקא א"ל רבא לרב אדא בר אבא פוק תהי ליה בקנקניה,נפק [אזל] בעא מיניה פיל שבלע כפיפה מצרית והקיאה דרך בית הרעי מהו לא הוה בידיה א"ל מר ניהו רבא טפח ליה בסנדליה א"ל בין דידי לרבא איכא טובא מיהו על כרחך אנא רבך ורבא רבה דרבך,לא נקטו ליה שוקא פסיד גרוגרות דידיה אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל חזי מר מאי עבדו לי אמר ליה מאן דלא שהייה לאוניתא דמלכא דאדום לא נשהייה לאוניתיך דכתיב (עמוס ב, א) כה אמר ה' על שלשה פשעי מואב ועל ארבעה לא אשיבנו על שרפו עצמות מלך אדום לסיד,נח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא רב יוסף אמר אנא ענישתיה דאנא לטייתיה רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר אנא ענישתיה דאפסיד גרוגרות דידי אביי אמר אנא ענישתיה דאמר להו לרבנן אדמגרמיתו גרמי בי אביי תו אכלו בישרא [שמינא] בי רבא ורבא אמר אנא ענישתיה [דכי הוה אזיל לבי טבחא למשקל אומצא] אמר להו לטבחי אנא שקילנא בישרא מיקמי שמעיה דרבא דאנא עדיפנא מיניה,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אנא ענישתיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק ריש כלה הוה כל יומא מיקמי דניעול לכלה מרהיט בהדיה רב אדא בר אבא לשמעתיה והדר עייל לכלה,ההוא יומא נקטוה רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב אדא בר אבא משום דלא הוו בסיומא אמרו ליה אימא לן הני שמעתתא דמעשר בהמה היכי אמרינהו רבא אמר להו הכי אמר רבא והכי אמר רבא אדהכי נגה ליה [לרב נחמן בר יצחק] (ולא אתי רב אדא בר אבא),אמרו ליה רבנן לרב נחמן בר יצחק קום דנגה לן למה יתיב מר אמר להו יתיבנא וקא מנטרא לערסיה דרב אדא בר אבא אדהכי נפק קלא דנח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא ומסתברא דרב נחמן בר יצחק ענשיה: , big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שהיה כותלו סמוך לכותל חבירו לא יסמוך לו כותל אחר אא"כ הרחיק ממנו ארבע אמות החלונות בין מלמעלן בין מלמטן בין כנגדן ארבע אמות: , big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וקמא היכי סמיך אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר | 22a. b Jealousy among teachers increases wisdom. /b , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, /b who said that townspeople can bar craftsmen who come from other cities, b concedes with regard to /b perfume b salesmen who travel from /b one b town /b to another b that /b the townspeople b cannot prevent /b them from entering their town. b As the Master said: Ezra instituted /b an ordice b for the Jewish people that /b perfume b salesmen shall travel from town to town so that cosmetics will be available to Jewish women. /b Since this ordice was instituted on behalf of Jewish women, the Sages ruled that these peddlers could not be barred from entering a town.,The Gemara continues: b And this matter /b applies only to one who seeks b to travel /b from town to town as a salesman. b But /b if he wants b to establish /b a shop, this ruling was b not /b stated, and the townspeople can prevent him from doing so. b And if he is a Torah scholar he may even establish /b a shop as a perfume salesman. This is b like that /b incident in b which Rava permitted Rabbi Yoshiya and Rav Ovadya to establish /b a shop b not /b in accordance b with the i halakha /i . What is the reason /b for this ruling? The reason is that b since they are rabbis, they are likely to be distracted from their studies /b should they be required to travel from place to place.,§ The Gemara relates: There were b these basket sellers who brought baskets to Babylonia. The townspeople came /b and b prevented them /b from selling there. The two parties b came before Ravina /b for a ruling. Ravina b said to them: /b The basket sellers b came from outside /b the town, b and they sell to /b those from b outside /b the town, i.e., to guests who are not residents of the town. The Gemara comments: b And this statement /b applies only b on a market day, /b when people from other towns come to shop, b but /b they may b not /b sell their wares b on non-market days. And even with regard to market days, we say /b so b only /b with regard b to selling in the market, but /b this i halakha /i does b not /b apply b to circulating /b around the town.,The Gemara further relates: There were b these wool sellers who brought wool to /b the city of b Pum Nahara. The townsfolk came /b and b prevented them /b from selling it. The two parties b came before Rav Kahana /b for a ruling. Rav Kahana b said to them: The i halakha /i is that they may prevent you /b from selling your wares. The wool sellers b said to him: We have debts /b to collect in the city, and we must sell our wares in the meantime to sustain ourselves until we are paid. Rav Kahana b said to them: Go /b and b sell the amount /b needed b to sustain yourselves until you have collected your debts, and /b then b leave. /b ,§ The Gemara relates: b Rav Dimi of Neharde’a brought dried figs on a ship /b to sell them. b The Exilarch said to Rava: Go /b and b see; if he is a Torah scholar, reserve the market for him, /b i.e., declare that he has the exclusive right to sell dried figs. b Rava said to /b his student b Rav Adda bar Abba: Go /b and b smell his jar, /b i.e., determine whether or not Rav Dimi is a Torah scholar.,Rav Adda bar Abba b went /b and b asked /b Rav Dimi a question: With regard to b an elephant that swallowed a wicker basket and excreted it /b intact along b with its waste, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the vessel still susceptible to ritual impurity or is it considered digested and not susceptible to impurity? An answer b was not available to /b Rav Dimi. Rav Dimi b said to /b Rav Adda bar Abba: b Is the Master Rava, /b i.e., are you Rava, as you have asked me such a difficult question? Rav Adda bar Abba b struck him on his shoe /b in a disparaging way and b said to him: There is a great /b difference b between me and Rava; but I am perforce your teacher, and Rava is your teacher’s teacher. /b ,Based on this exchange, Rav Adda bar Abba decided that Rav Dimi was not a great Torah scholar, and therefore b he did not reserve the market for him, and /b Rav Dimi b lost his dried figs, /b as they rotted. Rav Dimi b came before Rav Yosef /b to complain, and b said to him: The Master /b should b see what they did to me. /b Rav Yosef b said to him: He Who did not delay /b retribution for b the humiliation of the King of Edom should not delay /b His response to b your humiliation, /b but should punish whoever distressed you, b as it is written: “So says the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, indeed for four I will not reverse for him, because he burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime” /b (Amos 2:1).,The Gemara reports that b Rav Adda bar Abba died. Rav Yosef said: I punished him, /b i.e., I am to blame for his death, b as I cursed him. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: I punished him, as he caused my loss of dried figs. Abaye said: I punished him, /b i.e., he was punished on my account because he did not exhibit the proper respect for me. b As /b Rav Adda bar Abba b said to the Sages: Instead of gnawing the bones in the school of Abaye, you /b would do b better /b to b eat fatty meat in the school of Rava, /b i.e., it is preferable to study with Rava than with Abaye. b And Rava said: I punished him, as when he would go to the butcher to buy a piece of meat, he would say to the butchers: I will take meat before Rava’s servant, as I am greater than he is. /b , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I punished him, /b i.e., he was punished because of me, b as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the head of the i kalla /i /b lectures, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach the students immediately following the lesson taught by the head of the academy. b Every day, before he went in for the i kalla /i /b lecture, b he reviewed his lecture with Rav Adda bar Abba, and then he would enter /b the study hall b for the i kalla /i /b lecture.,On b that day Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, seized Rav Adda bar Abba, because they had not been present at the conclusion /b of Rava’s lecture. b They said to him: Tell us how Rava stated these i halakhot /i of animal tithe. /b Rav Adda bar Abba b said to them: Rava said this and Rava said that. Meanwhile, it grew late for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and Rav Adda bar Abba /b had b not /b yet b arrived. /b , b The Sages said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Arise /b and teach us, b as it is late for us. Why does the Master sit /b and wait? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak b said to them: I am sitting and waiting for the bier of Rav Adda bar Abba, /b who has presumably died. b Meanwhile, a rumor emerged that Rav Adda bar Abba had /b indeed b died. /b The Gemara comments: b And so too, it is reasonable /b to conclude that b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak punished him, /b i.e., he died as a result of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, as the unfortunate event occurred just as he announced that Rav Adda bar Abba’s bier was on its way., strong MISHNA: /strong b One whose wall was close to the wall of another may not /b build b another wall close /b to the neighbor’s wall b unless he distances it four cubits from /b the wall of the neighbor. And one who desires to build a wall opposite b the windows /b of a neighbor’s house must distance the wall b four cubits /b from the windows, b whether above, below, or opposite. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara comments: Before addressing the construction of the second wall, one could ask: b And /b with regard to the b first /b man, b how did he place /b his wall b close /b to the neighbor’s wall in the first place? b Rav Yehuda said /b that b this is what /b the i tanna /i b is saying: /b |
|
67. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2019) 74| 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 | 31a. b who wagered with each other /b and b said: Anyone who will go and aggravate Hillel /b to the point that he reprimands him, b will take four-hundred /b i zuz /i . b One of them said: I will aggravate him. That day /b that he chose to bother Hillel b was Shabbat eve, and Hillel was washing /b the hair on b his head. He went and passed the entrance to /b Hillel’s b house /b and in a demeaning manner b said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? /b Hillel b wrapped himself /b in a dignified garment b 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. /b Hillel b said to him: Ask, my son, ask. /b The man asked him: b Why are the heads of Babylonians oval? /b He was alluding to and attempting to insult Hillel, who was Babylonian. b He said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. /b The reason is b because they do not have clever midwives. /b They do not know how to shape the child’s head at birth.,That man b went and waited one hour, /b a short while, b returned /b to look for Hillel, b and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? /b Again, Hillel b wrapped himself and went out to greet him. /b Hillel b said to him: My son, what do you seek? /b The man b said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. /b The man asked: b Why are the eyes of the residents of Tadmor bleary [ i terutot /i ]? /b Hillel b said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. /b The reason is b because they live among the sands /b and the sand gets into their eyes.,Once again the man b went, waited one hour, returned, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? /b Again, b he, /b Hillel, b 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. /b The man asked: b Why do Africans have wide feet? /b Hillel b said to him: You have asked a significant question. /b The reason is b because they live in marshlands /b and their feet widened to enable them to walk through those swampy areas.,That man b said to him: I have many /b more b questions to ask, but I am afraid lest you get angry. /b Hillel b wrapped himself and sat before him, /b and b he said to him: All of /b the b questions that you have to ask, ask /b them. The man got angry and b said to him: Are you Hillel whom they call /b the b i Nasi /i of Israel? He said to him: Yes. He said to him: If /b it b is you, /b then b may there not be many like you in Israel. /b Hillel b said to him: My son, for what /b reason do you say this? The man b said to him: Because I lost four hundred i zuz /i because of you. /b Hillel b said to him: Be vigilant of your spirit /b and avoid situations of this sort. b Hillel is worthy of having you lose four hundred i zuz /i and /b another b four hundred i zuz /i on his account, and Hillel will not get upset. /b , b The Sages taught: /b There was b an incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai. /b The gentile b said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. /b The gentile b said to him: /b With regard to b the Written /b Torah, b I believe you, but /b with regard to b the Oral /b Torah, b I do not believe you. Convert me on condition that you will teach me /b only the b Written Torah. /b Shammai b scolded him and cast him out with reprimand. /b The same gentile b came before Hillel, /b who b converted him /b and began teaching him Torah. b On the first day, he /b showed him the letters of the alphabet and b said to him: i Alef /i , i bet /i , i gimmel /i , i dalet /i . The next day he reversed /b the order of the letters and told him that an i alef /i is a i tav /i and so on. The convert b said to him: But yesterday you did not tell me that. /b Hillel b said to him: /b You see that it is impossible to learn what is written without relying on an oral tradition. b Didn’t you rely on me? /b Therefore, you should b also rely on me /b with regard to the matter b of the Oral /b Torah, and accept the interpretations that it contains.,There was b another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai /b and b said to /b Shammai: b Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. /b Shammai b pushed him /b away b with the builder’s cubit in his hand. /b This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile b came before Hillel. He converted him /b and b said to him: /b That b which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study. /b ,There was b another incident involving one gentile who was passing behind the study hall /b and b heard the voice of a teacher who was /b teaching Torah to his students and b saying /b the verse: b “And these are the garments which they shall make: A breastplate, and an i efod, /i /b and a robe, and a tunic of checkered work, a mitre, and a girdle” (Exodus 28:4). b The gentile said: These /b garments, b for whom are they /b designated? The students b 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 /b and b said to him: Convert me on condition that you install me /b as High Priest. Shammai b pushed him with the builder’s cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel; he converted him. /b ,Hillel b said to him, /b to the convert: b Is it not /b the way of the world that b only one who knows the protocols [ i takhsisei /i ] /b of royalty b is appointed king? Go /b and b learn the royal protocols /b by engaging in Torah study. b He went and read /b the Bible. b When he reached /b the verse which says: b “And the common man that draws near shall be put to death” /b (Numbers 1:51), the convert b said to /b Hillel: b With regard to whom is the verse speaking? /b Hillel b said to him: Even with regard to David, king of Israel. The convert reasoned an i a fortiori /i 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” /b (Exodus 4:22), and nevertheless b it is written about them: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death; a mere convert who came /b without merit, b with /b nothing more than b his staff and traveling bag, all the more so /b that this applies to him, as well.,The convert b came before Shammai /b and b told him /b that he retracts his demand to appoint him High Priest, saying: b 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 /b and b said to him: Hillel the patient, may blessings rest upon your head as you brought me under the wings of the Divine Presence. /b The Gemara relates: b Eventually, the three /b converts b gathered together /b in b one place, /b and b they said: Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience brought us beneath the wings of the Divine Presence. /b ,The Gemara continues discussing the conduct of the Sages, citing that b Reish Lakish said: What /b is the meaning of b that which is written: “And the faith of your times shall be a strength of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge, /b the fear of the Lord is his treasure” (Isaiah 33:6)? b Faith; that is the order of i Zera /i ’ i im /i , Seeds, /b in the Mishna, because a person has faith in God and plants his seeds (Jerusalem Talmud). b Your times; that is the order of i Moed /i , Festival, /b which deals with the various occasions and Festivals that occur throughout the year. b Strength; that is the order of i Nashim /i , Women. Salvations; that is the order of i Nezikin /i , Damages, /b as one who is being pursued is rescued from the hands of his pursuer. b Wisdom; that is the order of i Kodashim /i , Consecrated Items. And knowledge; that is the order of i Teharot /i , Purity, /b which is particularly difficult to master. b And even /b if a person studies and masters all of these, b “the fear of the Lord is his treasure,” /b it is preeminent.,With regard to the same verse, b Rava said: /b After departing from this world, b when a person is brought to judgment /b for the life he lived in this world, b they say to him /b in the order of that verse: Did b you conduct business faithfully? /b Did b you designate times for Torah /b study? Did b you engage in procreation? Did you await salvation? Did you engage /b in the dialectics of b wisdom /b or understand b one matter from another? And, nevertheless, /b beyond all these, b if the fear of the Lord is his treasure, yes, /b he is worthy, and b if not, no, /b none of these accomplishments have any value. There is b a parable /b that illustrates this. b A person who said to his emissary: Bring a i kor /i of wheat up to the attic for me /b to store there. The messenger b went and brought it up for him. He said to the emissary: /b Did b you mix a i kav /i of i ḥomton /i , /b a preservative to keep away worms, b into it for me? He said to him: No. He said to him: /b If so, it would have been b preferable had you not brought it up. /b 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 i halakha /i that was b taught /b in b the school /b of b Rabbi Yishmael: A person /b who sells wheat b may, /b i ab initio /i , b mix a i kav /i of i ḥomton /i into a i kor /i of grain and need not be concerned /b that by selling it all at the price of grain he will be guilty of theft, as the i kav /i of i ḥomton /i is essential for the preservation of the wheat., b Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Any person who has Torah in him but does not have /b |
|
68. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 187| 16a. אמר רב יוסף דופי של סמיכה קתני,והא יוסף בן יועזר גופיה מיפליג פליג בסמיכה כי איפליג בה בסוף שניה דבצר ליבא,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שלשת אלפים הלכות נשתכחו בימי אבלו של משה אמרו לו ליהושע שאל א"ל (דברים ל, יב) לא בשמים היא,אמרו לו לשמואל שאל אמר להם אלה המצות שאין הנביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה אמר ר' יצחק נפחא אף חטאת שמתו בעליה נשתכחה בימי אבלו של משה,אמרו לפנחס שאל אמר ליה לא בשמים היא א"ל לאלעזר שאל אמר להם אלה המצות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שנפטר משה רבינו לגן עדן אמר לו ליהושע שאל ממני כל ספיקות שיש לך אמר לו רבי כלום הנחתיך שעה אחת והלכתי למקום אחר לא כך כתבת בי (שמות לג, יא) ומשרתו יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל מיד תשש כחו של יהושע ונשתכחו ממנו שלש מאות הלכות ונולדו לו שבע מאות ספיקות ועמדו כל ישראל להרגו,אמר לו הקב"ה לומר לך אי אפשר לך וטורדן במלחמה שנאמר (יהושע א, א) ויהי אחרי מות משה עבד ה' ויאמר ה' וגו',במתניתין תנא אלף ושבע מאות קלין וחמורין וגזירות שוות ודקדוקי סופרים נשתכחו בימי אבלו של משה,אמר רבי אבהו אעפ"כ החזירן עתניאל בן קנז מתוך פלפולו שנאמר (יהושע טו, יז) וילכדה עתניאל בן קנז אחי כלב (הקטן ממנו) [ויתן לו את עכסה בתו לאשה] ולמה נקרא שמה עכסה שכל הרואה אותה כועס על אשתו,(יהושע טו, יח) ויהי בבואה ותסיתהו לשאל מאת אביה שדה ותצנח מעל החמור מאי ותצנח אמר רבא א"ר יצחק אמרה לו מה חמור זה כיון שאין לו מאכל באבוסו מיד צועק כך אשה כיון שאין לה תבואה בתוך ביתה מיד צועקת,(יהושע טו, יט) ותאמר תנה לי ברכה כי ארץ הנגב נתתני בית שמנוגב מכל טובה ונתתה לי גולות מים אדם שאין בו אלא תורה בלבד (יהושע טו, יט) ויתן לה כלב את גולות עליות ואת גולות תחתיות אמר לה מי שדר עליונים ותחתונים יבקש ממנו מזונות,וכלב בן קנז הוא והלא כלב בן יפונה הוא מאי יפונה שפנה מעצת מרגלים,ואכתי בן קנז הוא בן חצרון הוא דכתיב (דברי הימים א ב, יח) וכלב בן חצרון הוליד את עזובה אמר רבא חורגיה דקנז הוא,תנא הוא עתניאל הוא יעבץ ומה שמו יהודה אחי שמעון שמו עתניאל שענאו אל יעבץ שיעץ וריבץ תורה בישראל,ומנלן שענאו אל דכתיב (דברי הימים א ד, י) ויקרא יעבץ לאלהי ישראל לאמור אם ברך תברכני והרבית את גבולי והיתה ידך (עמדי ועשה מרעתי) לבלתי עצבי ויבא אלהים את אשר שאל,אם ברך תברכני בתורה והרבית את גבולי בתלמידים והיתה ידך עמדי שלא ישתכח תלמודי מלבי ועשה מרעתי שיזדמנו לי ריעים כמותי לבלתי עצבי שלא ישגבני יצה"ר מלשנות אם אתה עושה כן מוטב ואם לאו הריני הולך לנסיסי לשאול מיד ויבא אלהים את אשר שאל,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (משלי כט, יג) רש ואיש תככים נפגשו מאיר עיני שניהם ה' בשעה שהתלמיד הולך אצל רבו ואומר לו למדני תורה אם מלמדו מאיר עיני שניהם ה' ואם לאו (משלי כב, ב) עשיר ורש נפגשו עושה כולם ה' מי שעשאו חכם לזה עושה אותו טיפש טיפש לזה עושה אותו חכם זו משנת ר' נתן,ר' יהודה הנשיא אומר אם ברך תברכני בפריה ורביה והרבית את גבולי בבנים ובבנות והיתה ידך עמדי במשא ובמתן ועשית מרעתי שלא יהא בי מיחוש ראש ומיחוש אזנים ומיחוש עינים לבלתי עצבי שלא ישגבני יצה"ר מלשנות אם אתה עושה כן מוטב ואם לאו הריני הולך בנסיסי לשאול ויבא לו אלהים את אשר שאל,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר רש ואיש תככים נפגשו מאיר עיני שניהם ה' בשעה שעני הולך אצל בעל הבית ואמר פרנסני אם מפרנסו מוטב ואם לאו עשיר ורש נפגשו עושה כולם ה' מי שעשאו עשיר לזה עושה אותו עני עני לזה עושה אותו עשיר,אר"ש מה מצינו כו',ת"ר רבי שמעון אומר חמש חטאות מתות ולד חטאת ותמורת חטאת וחטאת שמתו בעליה וחטאת שכפרו בעליה וחטאת שעיברה שנתה,אי אתה יכול לומר ולד חטאת בציבור לפי שאין חטאת נקבה בציבור ואי אתה יכול לומר תמורת חטאת בציבור לפי שאין ציבור עושין תמורה ואי אתה יכול לומר חטאת שמתו בעליה בציבור לפי שאין הציבור מתים,שכיפרו בעליה ושעיברה שנתה לא מצינו יכול יהו נוהגות בין ביחיד בין בציבור,אמרת ילמד (אדם) סתום ממפורש מה מפורש ביחיד ולא בצבור אף בשכיפרו בעליה ושעיברה שנתה ביחיד דברים אמורים ולא בציבור | 16a. b Rav Yosef said /b in response: The i baraita /i is not referring to a flaw due to some sin; rather, it b is teaching /b about the b flaw of /b the early dispute over the i halakha /i of b placing hands /b on the head of an animal brought as a Festival peace offering, as taught in tractate i Ḥagiga /i (16a).,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But Yosef ben Yo’ezer himself disputed /b the i halakha /i b of placing hands /b on the head of an offering. The first Sages to dispute this issue were Yosef ben Yo’ezer and Yosef ben Yoḥa. The Gemara answers: b When they disputed it, /b that was b at the end of the years /b of Yosef ben Yo’ezer’s life, b when /b the understanding of b his heart was limited, /b due to old age. Therefore, the dispute is considered as though it occurred after his lifetime.,The Gemara returns to b the /b matter b itself. Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: Three thousand i halakhot /i were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. /b The Jewish people b said to Joshua: Ask /b for guidance from Heaven so that you can reacquire the forgotten i halakhot /i . Joshua b said to them: “It is not in heaven” /b (Deuteronomy 30:12). Once the Torah was given on Sinai, the Sages of each generation must determine the i halakha /i . No new i halakhot /i may be added or subtracted by heavenly instruction or through prophecy.,Many years later the Jewish people again b said to Samuel: Ask /b for halakhic guidance from Heaven. b He said to them: /b This is not possible, as the Torah states: b “These are the commandments /b that the Lord commanded Moses to tell the children of Israel at Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34). The word “these” indicates b that from now /b on b a prophet is not permitted to introduce any /b new b element /b related to the Torah and its mitzvot through prophecy. With regard to the topic of the chapter, b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: Also, /b the i halakha /i of b a sin offering whose owner has died was /b one of those b forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. /b ,At the time of Moses’ death, the people b said to Pinehas: Ask /b for halakhic guidance from Heaven so that you can relearn the forgotten i halakhot /i . Pinehas b said to them: “It is not in heaven” /b (Deuteronomy 30:12). The people b said to Elazar: Ask /b for halakhic guidance from God. b He said to them /b that the verse states: b “These are the commandments,” /b to teach b that a prophet is not permitted to introduce any /b new b element from now /b on.,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b Just before b the time when Moses, our teacher, left /b this world and went b to the Garden of Eden, he said to Joshua: Ask from me all /b the cases of b uncertainty /b in matters of i halakha /i b that you have, /b so that I can clarify them for you. Joshua b said to him: My teacher, did I /b ever b leave you /b for even b one moment and go to another place? Didn’t you write this about me /b in the Torah: b “But his minister, Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart out of the tent” /b (Exodus 33:11)? If I would have had any case of uncertainty I would have asked you earlier. b Immediately /b after he said this, b Joshua’s strength weakened, and three hundred i halakhot /i were forgotten by him, and seven hundred /b cases of b uncertainty emerged before him, and the entire Jewish people arose to kill him, /b as he was unable to teach them the forgotten i halakhot /i ., b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said /b to Joshua: It is b impossible to tell you /b these i halakhot /i , as the Torah is not in Heaven. But to save yourself from the Jewish people who want to kill you, b go and exhaust them in war, /b so that they will leave you alone. b As it is stated: “Now it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord spoke /b to Joshua, son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying: Moses My servant is dead, now therefore arise, go over this Jordan” (Joshua 1:1–2). This shows that immediately after the death of Moses, God commanded Joshua to lead the nation into battle.,§ b It is taught in a i baraita /i : One thousand and seven hundred i a fortiori /i inferences, and verbal analogies, and minutiae of the scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. /b , b Rabbi Abbahu says: Even so, Othniel, son of Kenaz, restored them through his sharp /b mind b [ i pilpulo /i ], as it is stated: /b “And Caleb said: To he who smites Kiriath Sefer, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as a wife. b And Othniel, son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as a wife” /b (Joshua 15:16–17).The name “Kiriath Sefer,” which literally means the village of the book, is homiletically interpreted as a reference to those parts of the Torah that were forgotten, while the phrase “took it” is referring to Othniel’s acumen and learning. The i baraita /i adds: b And why is she called Achsah? /b The reason is b that anyone who sees her became angry [ i ko’es /i ] about his /b own b wife, /b who was not as beautiful as Achsah.,The Gemara relates another incident involving Achsah. The verse states: b “And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she persuaded him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her donkey; /b and Caleb said to her: What do you want?” (Joshua 15:18). The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b “And she alighted [ i vatitznaḥ /i ],” /b which can also be understood as crying out? b Rava says /b that b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: /b Achsah b said to /b Caleb: b Just as /b in the case of b this donkey, when it has no food in its trough it immediately cries out, so too /b in the case of b a woman, when she has no produce in her house she immediately cries out. /b ,The Gemara cites yet another verse involving Achsah: b “And she said: Give me a blessing; for that you have set me in the land of the South [ i negev /i ], /b and you have given me springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs” (Joshua 15:19). She said to her father: You have given me b a home dried [ i menugav /i ] of all goodness. “And you have given me springs of water”; /b this is referring to b a man who has nothing other than Torah, /b which is metaphorically called water. But as he is unable to provide me with food, how can I live? b “And gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.” /b Caleb b said to her: /b Does someone learned in Torah, b who dwells in the upper /b worlds b and the lower /b worlds, b require /b that b sustece be requested for him? /b He certainly does not need it, as God will provide for him in merit of his Torah studies.,The Gemara asks: b And Caleb, /b was b he the son of Kenaz? Wasn’t he Caleb, son of Jephunneh /b (Joshua 15:13)? The Gemara explains that Jephunneh was not the name of his father, but a description of Caleb. b What /b does the word b Jephunneh /b mean? It means b that he turned [ i sheppana /i ] from the advice of the spies /b and did not join with them in their negative report about Eretz Yisrael.,The Gemara further asks: b But still, /b was b he the son of Kenaz? He was the son of Hezron, as it is written: “And Caleb, son of Hezron, begot children of Azubah /b his wife, and of Jerioth, and these were her sons: Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon” (I Chronicles 2:18). b Rava said: /b Caleb was actually the son of Hezron, but after his father passed away his mother remarried Kenaz, and consequently b he was the stepson of Kenaz. /b Othniel, son of Kenaz, was therefore his maternal half brother., b A i tanna /i /b taught in a i baraita /i : The same person b is /b known as b Othniel /b and b he is /b also known as b Jabez. And what is his /b actual b name? Judah, brother of Simeon, is his name. /b He was known as b Othniel, as God answered [ i ana’o El /i ] /b his prayer. He was also known as b Jabez [ i yabetz /i ] because he advised and spread [ i ya’atz veribetz /i ] Torah among the Jewish people. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive b that God answered him? As it is written: “And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying: If You will bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that Your hand may be with me, and that You will work deliverance from evil, that it may not pain me! And God granted him that which he requested” /b (I Chronicles 4:10).,The Gemara interprets this verse. The phrase: b “If You will bless me indeed,” /b means that he prayed for a blessing b with regard to Torah. “And enlarge my border,” /b means that he prayed for a blessing b with regard to students. “And that Your hand be with me,” that my studies not be forgotten from my heart. “And that You will work deliverance from evil [ i mera’ati /i ],” that I will find friends [ i re’im /i ] like me. “That it may not pain me,” that the evil inclination should not grow stronger /b and prevent b me from studying /b Torah. Othniel further prayed: b If You do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed [ i linsisi /i ] to /b my grave and b the netherworld. Immediately, /b God answered him, as the verse states: b “And God granted him that which he requested.” /b , b On a similar /b note, b you say /b likewise with regard to the following verse: b “The poor man and the oppressor [ i tekhakhim /i ] meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them” /b (Proverbs 29:13). b When the student, /b who is poor in his knowledge, b goes to his teacher, /b i.e., one who knows enough to teach but requires further enlightenment himself, as he is a man between [ i tokh /i ] the levels of a Sage and a commoner, b and says to him: Teach me Torah, if /b the teacher agrees to b teach him, /b then b the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them, /b as they both become greater as a result. b But if /b the teacher will b not /b teach the student, then b “the rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all” /b (Proverbs 22:2). This verse teaches that He b Who made this one wise /b now b makes him foolish, /b and He Who made b that one foolish /b now b makes him wise. This is the exposition of Rabbi Natan. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says /b an alternative interpretation of the prayer of Jabez: b “If You will bless me indeed” /b means b with procreation. “And enlarge my border” /b refers to blessing b with sons and with daughters. “And that Your hand may be with me,” /b indicates b in business. “And that You will work deliverance from evil,” /b so b that I will not have a headache or an earache or an eye ache. “That it may not pain me,” that the evil inclination will not grow strong against me /b and prevent b me from studying /b Torah. Jabez then said to God: b If you do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed to /b my grave and b the netherworld. Immediately, /b God answered him: b And God granted him that which he requested. /b , b On a similar /b note, b you say /b an interpretation with regard to the verse: b “The poor man and the oppressor meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them” /b (Proverbs 29:13). b When a poor /b person b goes to a homeowner and says: Provide for me, if he provides for him, /b that is b good. But if not, /b then it is stated: b “The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all” /b (Proverbs 22:2). This verse indicates that He b Who made this one wealthy /b now b makes him poor, /b and He Who made b that one poor /b now b makes him wealthy. /b ,§ The mishna taught that b Rabbi Shimon says: Just as we found /b with regard to the offspring of a sin offering, and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner died, that these matters apply to an individual sin offering but not to a communal sin offering, so too, with regard to a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, and a sin offering whose year has passed, these matters are stated with regard to an individual sin offering but not with regard to a communal sin offering., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: Five /b types of b sin offerings /b are left to b die, /b and one may not sacrifice them, and they are: b An offspring /b born b to /b a b sin offering, /b i.e., if a female animal that was consecrated as a sin offering gave birth, its offspring is sacred but cannot be brought as an offering itself; b and the substitution of a sin offering, /b if one substituted another animal for a sin offering, the same sanctity applies to it, but it cannot be sacrificed; b and a sin offering whose owner has died; and a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement /b by sacrificing another offering; b and a sin offering whose /b first b year has passed, /b as a sin offering must be within its first year.,Rabbi Shimon continues: b You cannot say /b that there could be b an offspring of a sin offering in the case of a community, because there /b are b no female sin offerings /b separated b by the community. And /b likewise b you cannot say /b that there could be b a substitution for a sin offering in the case of a community, because a community cannot render /b a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for its consecrated one as b a substitute. And /b furthermore, b you cannot say /b that there could be b a sin offering whose owners have died in the case of a community, because a community cannot die. /b ,With regard to communal offerings b whose owners /b already b achieved atonement and /b a communal offering b whose /b first b year has passed, we have not found /b a similarly clear indication of the i halakha /i . Therefore, one b might /b have thought b that /b these two cases b are in effect both for /b the offering of b an individual and a communal /b offering.,But b you /b must b say: A person can learn /b with regard to a case in which certain details are b not specified from /b a similar case where these details b are specified. Just as /b with regard to those offerings whose details are b specified, /b i.e., an offspring of a sin offering, a substitution for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died, the i halakha /i that it dies applies only b to /b an offering b of an individual and not to a communal /b offering, b so too, /b with regard to a sin offering b whose owner achieved atonement, and /b a sin offering b whose /b first b year has passed, these matters are said with regard to /b the offering of b an individual, but not with regard to a communal /b offering. |
|
69. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 187; Rubenstein(1995) 174| 4a. עורפילא אפילו לפרצידא דתותי קלא מהניא ליה מאי עורפילא עורו פילי ואמר רבא האי צורבא מרבנן דמי לפרצידא דתותי קלא דכיון דנבט נבט,ואמר רבא האי צורבא מרבנן דרתח אורייתא הוא דקא מרתחא ליה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' ואמר רב אשי כל ת"ח שאינו קשה כברזל אינו ת"ח שנא' (ירמיהו כג, כט) וכפטיש יפוצץ סלע,א"ל רבי אבא לרב אשי אתון מהתם מתניתו לה אנן מהכא מתנינן לה דכתיב (דברים ח, ט) ארץ אשר אבניה ברזל אל תקרי אבניה אלא בוניה אמר רבינא אפ"ה מיבעי ליה לאיניש למילף נפשיה בניחותא שנאמר (קהלת יא, י) והסר כעס מלבך וגו',א"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן שלשה שאלו שלא כהוגן לשנים השיבוהו כהוגן לאחד השיבוהו שלא כהוגן ואלו הן אליעזר עבד אברהם ושאול בן קיש ויפתח הגלעדי,אליעזר עבד אברהם דכתיב (בראשית כד, יד) והיה הנערה אשר אומר אליה הטי נא כדך וגו' יכול אפי' חיגרת אפי' סומא השיבו כהוגן ונזדמנה לו רבקה,שאול בן קיש דכתיב (שמואל א יז, כה) והיה האיש אשר יכנו יעשרנו המלך עושר גדול ואת בתו יתן לו יכול אפי' עבד אפילו ממזר השיבו כהוגן ונזדמן לו דוד,יפתח הגלעדי דכתיב (שופטים יא, לא) והיה היוצא אשר יצא מדלתי ביתי וגו' יכול אפילו דבר טמא השיבו שלא כהוגן נזדמנה לו בתו,והיינו דקאמר להו נביא לישראל (ירמיהו ח, כב) הצרי אין בגלעד אם רופא אין שם,וכתיב (ירמיהו יט, ה) אשר לא צויתי ולא דברתי ולא עלתה על לבי,אשר לא צויתי זה בנו של מישע מלך מואב שנאמר (מלכים ב ג, כז) ויקח את בנו הבכור אשר ימלך תחתיו ויעלהו עולה ולא דברתי זה יפתח ולא עלתה על לבי זה יצחק בן אברהם,אמר רבי ברכיה אף כנסת ישראל שאלה שלא כהוגן והקב"ה השיבה כהוגן שנא' (הושע ו, ג) ונדעה נרדפה לדעת את ה' כשחר נכון מוצאו ויבוא כגשם לנו,אמר לה הקב"ה בתי את שואלת דבר שפעמים מתבקש ופעמים אינו מתבקש אבל אני אהיה לך דבר המתבקש לעולם שנאמר (הושע יד, ו) אהיה כטל לישראל,ועוד שאלה שלא כהוגן אמרה לפניו רבש"ע (שיר השירים ח, ו) שימני כחותם על לבך כחותם על זרועך א"ל הקב"ה בתי את שואלת דבר שפעמים נראה ופעמים אינו נראה אבל אני אעשה לך דבר שנראה לעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו מט, טז) הן על כפים חקותיך:,אין שואלין את הגשמים כו': סברוה שאלה והזכרה חדא מילתא היא מאן תנא אמר רבא ר' יהושע היא דאמר משעת הנחתו,א"ל אביי אפילו תימא רבי אליעזר שאלה לחוד והזכרה לחוד,ואיכא דאמרי לימא | 4a. and b drizzle [ i urpila /i ] is even beneficial to a seed [ i partzida /i ] under a clod /b of earth, as it can reach anywhere without causing any harm. The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of the word b drizzle? /b The Gemara explains: It is a contraction of the phrase: b Arise, furrows [ i uru pilei /i ]. And /b the Gemara cites another saying in which Rava uses the same imagery. b Rava said: This Torah scholar [ i tzurva /i ] is like a seed under a clod /b of earth, b as once he sprouts /b and begins to develop, b he /b continues to b sprout /b and his greatness increases.,§ b And, /b incidentally, the Gemara relates that which b Rava said: This Torah scholar who grows angry, /b it can be presumed that b it is his Torah study that angers him. /b Therefore, he must be given the benefit of the doubt, b as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord” /b (Jeremiah 23:29). b And /b similarly, b Rav Ashi said: Any Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron, /b but is indecisive and wavers, he b is not a Torah scholar, as it is stated /b in the same verse: b “And as a hammer that breaks rock in pieces” /b (Jeremiah 23:29)., b Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: You learned /b the proof for this idea b from /b that verse b there; we learned it from here, as it is written: “A land whose stones [ i avaneha /i ] are iron” /b (Deuteronomy 8:9). b Do not read /b this phrase as b “whose stones [ i avaneha /i ],” rather, /b read it as b whose builders [ i boneha /i ], /b since Torah scholars build the land spiritually and are as tough as iron. With regard to these statements praising the toughness of a Torah scholar, b Ravina said: And even so, one is required to teach himself to act gently, as it is stated: “And remove anger from your heart, /b and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10).,As a preamble to the statement of Rabbi Berekhya, below, the Gemara cites that which b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: Three /b people b entreated /b God in an b unreasonable /b manner, i.e., in situations where their requests might have received an unfavorable answer. b To two /b of them God b responded reasonably, /b with a favorable response to their requests, b and to one /b God b responded unreasonably, /b i.e., unfavorably, in a manner befitting the unreasonable request. b And they are: Eliezer, servant of Abraham; Saul, son of Kish; and Jephthah the Gileadite. /b ,The Gemara clarifies each of these cases in turn: With regard to b Eliezer, servant of Abraham, /b he made a request when he prayed beside the well, b as it is written: “That the maiden to whom I shall say: Please let down your pitcher /b that I may drink; and she shall say: Drink, and I will also give your camels to drink; that she be the one whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac” (Genesis 24:14). Eliezer entreated God unreasonably, as his request allowed for the possibility that she b might even /b be b lame /b or b even blind, /b and yet he had promised to take her to Isaac. Nevertheless, God b responded /b to him b reasonably and /b the eminently suitable b Rebecca happened /b to come b to him. /b ,With regard to b Saul, son of Kish, /b he made an offer when Goliath the Philistine challenged the Jews, b as it is written: “And it shall be that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter” /b (I Samuel 17:25). The man who killed Goliath b might even /b have been b a slave or a i mamzer /i , /b one born from an incestuous or adulterous union, who would be unfit to marry his daughter. Nevertheless, God b responded /b to him b reasonably and David happened /b to come b to him. /b ,By contrast, there is the case of b Jephthah the Gileadite. /b Upon leaving for battle he issued a statement, b as it is written: “Then it shall be that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house /b to meet me when I return in peace…it shall be to the Lord and I will bring it up for a burnt-offering” (Judges 11:31). This b might even /b have been b an impure, /b non-kosher b animal, /b which he had committed himself to sacrifice. In this instance, God b responded /b to him b unreasonably, and his daughter happened /b to come b to him. /b ,Regarding the incident of Jephthah, the Gemara remarks: b And this is what the prophet said to the Jewish people: “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? /b Why then has the health of the daughter of my people not recovered?” (Jeremiah 8:22). This verse alludes to the fact that had he sought a means to do so, Jephthah could have had his vow annulled., b And it is written, /b with regard to human sacrifice: “And they have also built the high places of the Ba’al, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt offerings to Ba’al, b which I did not command, and I did not speak, nor did it come into My heart” /b (Jeremiah 19:5).,The Gemara interprets each phrase of this verse: b “Which I did not command,” this /b is referring to b the son of Mesha, king of Moab. /b King Mesha sacrificed his son, b as it is stated: “Then he took his firstborn son, who would reign after him, and he offered him as a burnt-offering” /b (II Kings 3:27). b “And I did not speak,” this /b is referring to b Jephthah, /b who sacrificed his daughter as an offering. b “Nor did it come into my heart,” this /b is referring to b Isaac, son of Abraham. /b Although God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, there was no intent in God’s heart that he should actually do so; it was merely a test.,§ In light of the above statement, the Gemara returns to the issue of rain. b Rabbi Berekhya said: The Congregation of Israel also entreated /b God b unreasonably, and /b yet b the Holy One, Blessed be He, responded reasonably, as it is stated: “And let us know, eagerly strive to know the Lord. His going forth is sure as the morning, and He will come to us as the rain” /b (Hosea 6:3). They compared the revelation of God to the rain.,In response, b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to /b the Jewish people: b My daughter, you request /b the manifestation of My Presence by comparing Me to b a matter, /b rain, b that is sometimes desired, but is sometimes undesired, /b e.g., during the summer. b However, I will be to you /b like b a matter that is always desired, /b dew, b as it is stated: “I will be as the dew to Israel” /b (Hosea 14:6), since dew appears in all seasons and is invariably a blessing., b And /b the Congregation of Israel b further entreated /b God b unreasonably /b in another context, b saying before Him: Master of the Universe: “Set me as a seal upon Your heart, as a seal upon Your arm” /b (Song of Songs 8:6). b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to her: My daughter, you ask /b that I be manifest to you in b a matter that is sometimes visible and sometimes not visible, /b as the heart and arm are not covered. b However, I will act /b so that I manifest Myself b for you /b like b a matter that is always visible, as it is stated: “Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands, /b your walls are continually before me” (Isaiah 49:16).,§ The Gemara returns to the i halakhot /i of the mishna: b One requests rain /b only immediately preceding the rainy season. The Sages b assumed that requesting and mentioning are one /b and the same b thing, /b and consequently they asked: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who b taught /b this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers that b Rava said: It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua, who said /b that one mentions rain b from the time of putting down /b the i lulav /i , i.e., the Eighth Day of Assembly, which is indeed near the rainy season., b Abaye said to him: Even /b if b you say /b that b it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer, /b who holds that one mentions rain from the first day of the festival of i Sukkot /i , this ruling of the mishna can be explained by distinguishing between the two terms: b Requesting is /b a b discrete /b concept b and mentioning is /b another b discrete /b concept. In other words, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one begins to request rain just before the rainy season, on the Eighth Day of Assembly, whereas one starts to mention rain already on the first day of i Sukkot /i ., b And some say /b a different version of this discussion: b Let us say /b |
|
70. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119| 87a. והא גבי קרעים דכתיב על על דכתיב (שמואל ב א, יב) על שאול ועל יהונתן בנו,ותניא אמרו לו מת אביו וקרע ואחר כך נמצא בנו יצא ידי קריעה,אמרי לא קשיא הא בסתם והא במפרש,והתניא אמרו לו מת אביו וקרע ואחר כך נמצא בנו לא יצא ידי קריעה אמרו לו מת לו מת וכסבור אביו הוא וקרע ואחר כך נמצא בנו יצא ידי קריעה,רב אשי אמר כאן בתוך כדי דבור כאן לאחר כדי דבור,הא דקאמרת יצא ידי קריעה שנמצא בנו בתוך כדי דבור הא דאמרת לא יצא ידי קריעה לאחר כדי דבור,והתניא מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו ונתעלף וכמדומה שמת וקרע ואחר כך מת לא יצא ידי קריעה אמר ר' שמעון בן פזי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא לא שנו אלא שמת לאחר כדי דיבור אבל בתוך כדי דיבור כדבור דמי,והילכתא תוך כדי דבור כדבור דמי חוץ ממגדף ועובד עבודת כוכבים ומקדש ומגרש, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אמרה קונם תאנים וענבים אלו שאני טועמת קיים לתאנים כולו קיים הפר לתאנים אינו מופר עד שיפר אף לענבים אמרה קונם תאנה שאני טועמת וענבה שאני טועמת הרי אלו שני נדרים, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מני מתניתין רבי ישמעאל דתניא (במדבר ל, יד) אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו אמרה קונם תאנים וענבים אלו שאני טועמת קיים לתאנים כולו קיים | 87a. The Gemara comments: b But /b is it not so that b with regard to /b the b tears /b in one’s clothing that are made for the dead, b as it is written “for,” “for,” /b and b about which is written: /b “And David took hold of his garments and rent them, and likewise all the men that were with him, and they wailed, and wept, and fasted until the evening, b for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, /b and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword” (II Samuel 1:11–12). The use of the word “for” with regard to each of them indicates that one must make a separate tear in his garment for each person who died.,The Gemara asks: b And /b yet it b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b they said to him /b that b his father had died and he rent /b his garment over his death, b and afterward it was discovered /b that it was not his father who died, but b his son, he has fulfilled /b his obligation of b rending /b his garment. This shows that even if a person mistakenly tore his garment for the wrong person he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation. Here too, if a man nullified the vow of his wife, thinking that it was the vow of his daughter, his nullification should be effective.,The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction b is not difficult /b . b That /b baraita refers to a case where he received a b non-specific /b report, i.e., he was told that an unspecified relative died. In such a case his obligation to rend his garment has been discharged. And b this /b mishna refers to a case where the bearer of the news mistakenly b specified /b that his daughter had taken the vow, when in reality his wife had. In such a case, his nullification is ineffective., b And it is taught /b similarly in the following i baraita /i : If b they said to him /b that b his father had died and he rent /b his garment over his death, b and afterward it was discovered /b that it was not his father who died, but b his son, he has not fulfilled /b his obligation of b rending /b his garment. If, however, b they said to him /b that a relative b of his had died, and he thought it was his father and he rent /b his garment over his death, b and afterward it was discovered /b that it was not his father who died, but b his son, he has fulfilled /b his obligation of b rending /b his garment. This proves that a distinction is made between one who rends his garment relying on a specific report and one who does so following a non-specific report., b Rav Ashi says /b that the discrepancy between the i baraitot /i with regard to the rending of garments can be reconciled in a different manner: b Here, /b the person who rent his garment for the wrong relative realized his error b within the time required for speaking /b the short phrase: Greetings to you, my teacher. Until that time has passed his action is seen as incomplete and can therefore still be modified. b There, /b the mistake was noted only b after the time required for speaking /b a short phrase., b This /b case, b where you said /b that b he has fulfilled /b his obligation of b rending /b his garment even though he had initially been told explicitly that his father died, deals with a situation b where it was discovered within the time required for speaking /b a short phrase, i.e., immediately after he rent his garment, that the deceased was b his son. /b However, b that /b case, b where you said /b that b he has not fulfilled /b his obligation of b rending /b his garment, deals with a situation where he became aware of his mistake b after the time required for speaking /b a short phrase, i.e., a short while later., b And it is taught /b in the following i baraita /i : b One who has an ill /b relative b in his house, and /b the latter b fainted /b and lost consciousness, b and it seemed /b to him b that /b the ill person had b died and /b therefore b he rent /b his garment over his assumed death, if it turned out that he had not yet actually died at that point b and /b it was only b afterward /b that b he died, /b the relative b has not fulfilled /b his obligation of b rending /b his garment. And with regard to this i baraita /i , b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: They taught /b that he has not fulfilled his obligation of rending b only if /b the ill person b died after the time required for speaking /b a short phrase. b But /b if he passed away b within the time required for speaking /b a short phrase, b it is /b all considered b like /b continuous b speech, /b and his relative has fulfilled his obligation. That is to say, his act of rending is not viewed as complete until the time required for saying a short phrase has elapsed, and until that time has passed the act can still be modified.,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i /b is: The legal status of a pause or retraction b within /b the time required b for speaking /b a short phrase b is like /b that of b continuous speech, /b and so a person can retract what he first said if he issues the retraction within this period of time after he finished speaking. This principle holds true in almost every area of i halakha /i , b except for /b the case of one who b blasphemes /b God; b or /b in the case of b an idol worshipper, /b who verbally accepts an idol as his god; b or /b one who b betroths /b a woman; b or /b one who b divorces /b his wife. In these four cases, a person cannot undo his action, even if he immediately retracts what he said within the time required for saying a short phrase., strong MISHNA: /strong If a woman b said: Tasting these figs and grapes is i konam /i for me, /b and her husband b upheld /b her vow b with regard to figs, the entire /b vow b is upheld, /b but if b he nullified /b it b with regard to figs it is not nullified until he also nullifies /b the vow b with regard to grapes. /b If b she said: Tasting a fig and tasting a grape are i konam /i for me, these are /b viewed as b two /b separate b vows; /b if the husband upholds one of the vows it has no effect on the other one., strong GEMARA: /strong b Whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? /b The Gemara answers: It follows the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse concerning vows that states: b “Her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it” /b (Numbers 30:14), may be expounded as follows. If a woman b said: Tasting these figs and grapes is i konam /i for me, /b and her husband b upheld /b her vow b with regard to figs, the entire /b vow b is upheld. /b |
|
71. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 213| 114b. אמר ר"ל זאת אומרת מצות צריכות כוונה כיון דלא בעידן חיובא דמרור הוא דאכיל ליה בבורא פה"א הוא דאכיל ליה ודילמא לא איכוון למרור הלכך בעי למהדר לאטבולי לשם מרור דאי סלקא דעתך מצוה לא בעיא כוונה למה לך תרי טיבולי והא טביל ליה חדא זימנא,ממאי דילמא לעולם מצות אין צריכות כוונה ודקאמרת תרי טיבולי למה לי כי היכי דליהוי היכירא לתינוקות,וכי תימא א"כ לישמעינן שאר ירקות אי אשמעינן שאר ירקות הוה אמינא היכא דאיכא שאר ירקות הוא דבעינן תרי טיבולי אבל חזרת לחודא לא בעי תרי טיבולי קמשמע לן דאפי' חזרת בעינן תרי טיבולי כי היכי דליהוי ביה היכירא לתינוקות,ועוד תניא אכלן דמאי יצא אכלן בלא מתכוין יצא אכלן לחצאין יצא,ובלבד שלא ישהא בין אכילה לחבירתה יותר מכדי אכילת פרס,תנאי היא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר אע"פ שטיבל בחזרת מצוה להביא לפניו חזרת וחרוסת ושני תבשילין,ואכתי ממאי דילמא קסבר רבי יוסי מצות אין צריכות כוונה והאי דבעינן תרי טיבולי כי היכי דתיהוי היכירא לתינוקות א"כ מאי מצוה,מאי שני תבשילין אמר רב הונא סילקא וארוזא רבא הוה מיהדר אסילקא וארוזא הואיל ונפיק מפומיה דרב הונא,אמר רב אשי שמע מינה דרב הונא לית דחייש להא דרבי יוחנן בן נורי דתניא רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר אורז מין דגן הוא וחייבין על חימוצו כרת ואדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו בפסח,חזקיה אמר אפי' דג וביצה שעליו רב יוסף אמר צריך שני מיני בשר אחד זכר לפסח וא' זכר לחגיגה רבינא אמר אפילו גרמא ובישולא,פשיטא היכא דאיכא שאר ירקות מברך אשאר ירקות בורא פרי האדמה ואכיל והדר מברך על אכילת מרור ואכיל,היכא דליכא אלא חסא מאי אמר רב הונא מברך מעיקרא אמרור ב"פ האדמה ואכיל ולבסוף מברך עליה על אכילת מרור ואכיל | 114b. strong GEMARA: /strong b Reish Lakish said: That is to say /b that b mitzvot require intent. /b One who performs a mitzva must do so with the intent to fulfill his obligation. The proof of this from the mishna is that b since one does not eat /b the lettuce b at the time of his obligation to /b eat b bitter herbs, /b he eats it after reciting only one blessing: b Who creates fruit of the ground. And /b clearly the reason is that b perhaps he did not intend /b to fulfill his obligation to eat b bitter herbs, /b and b therefore /b he b needs to dip it again for the purpose of bitter herbs. For if it could enter your mind /b that b mitzvot do not require intent, why do you /b need b two dippings? But he /b has already b dipped /b the lettuce b once. /b ,The Gemara rejects this contention: b From where /b do you know that this is the case? b Perhaps /b I can say that b actually mitzvot do not require intent. And that which you said, why do I /b need b two dippings, /b perhaps the reason is b so that there /b should b be a conspicuous /b distinction b for the children, /b which will cause them to inquire into the difference between this night and all others., b And if you say: /b If b so, let /b the tanna b teach us /b this halakha with regard to b other vegetables /b as well, as there is no obvious reason that lettuce is chosen for this distinction. In response, I would say that had the mishna b taught us /b about b other vegetables, I would have said /b that it is only b where there are other vegetables that one requires two dippings, /b one for the other vegetables and one for the bitter herbs; b however, /b if one has b only i ḥazeret /i , he does not require two dippings, /b as one dipping is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that b even /b if one has just b i ḥazeret /i he requires two dippings, so that there be a conspicuous /b distinction b for the children. /b , b And furthermore, it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : On Passover, if b one ate /b vegetables of b doubtfully tithed produce, /b i.e., he bought the vegetables from an i am ha’aretz /i , b he has fulfilled /b his obligation. If b he ate them without /b the b intent /b of the mitzva, b he has fulfilled /b his obligation. b If he ate them in halves, /b by eating half an olive-bulk of bitter herbs, pausing, and then eating an additional half an olive-bulk, b he has fulfilled /b his obligation., b And /b the Gemara adds: With regard to this last case, one who eats an olive-bulk in halves, that is the i halakha /i , b provided that he does not pause between eating /b the first half an olive-bulk and b the other /b half an olive-bulk b more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf /b of bread. If one takes longer than this amount of time, the two parts of bitter herbs cannot combine. This i baraita /i indicates that even if one eats the bitter herbs without intention he has fulfilled his obligation, which presents a difficulty for Reish Lakish.,The Gemara answers: The issue of whether or not mitzvot require intent b is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei says: Although one /b has already b dipped the i ḥazeret /i /b once, it is b a mitzva to bring before him i ḥazeret /i and i ḥaroset /i , and two cooked dishes. /b Apparently, he lacked intention during his first consumption of lettuce, and therefore he must be given additional lettuce with which to fulfill his obligation.,The Gemara asks: b And still /b this is no conclusive proof, as b from where /b do I know that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that mitzvot require intent? b Perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains /b that b mitzvot do not require intent, and /b the reason b that we require two dippings is so that there /b should b be a conspicuous /b distinction b for the children. /b The Gemara rejects this argument: b If so, /b for b what /b reason does Rabbi Yosei use the term b mitzva? /b There is no mitzva from the Torah to provide a distinction to stimulate the curiosity of the young ones. The mitzva is to eat bitter herbs, and evidently this individual must return and eat them again because he lacked intention the first time.,The Gemara asks: b What /b are these b two cooked foods /b mentioned in the mishna? b Rav Huna said: Beets and rice. /b The Gemara relates that b Rava would seek beets and rice /b for his meal on Passover night, b since /b this ruling b came from Rav Huna’s mouth. /b Although Rava realized that Rav Huna was merely citing examples and did not mean that one must eat those specific foods, he wanted to fulfill the statement of his teacher precisely., b Rav Ashi said: Learn /b incidentally another i halakha /i b from /b this statement b of Rav Huna, /b that there is b no /b one b who is concerned about that /b statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri. As it was taught in /b a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri says: Rice is a type of grain /b in all regards; b and one is liable /b to receive b i karet /i for /b eating it in b its leavened /b state on Passover; b and one fulfills his obligation with it on Passover, /b if it was properly baked into i matza /i . It can be inferred from Rav Huna’s suggestion to use cooked rice, that rice cannot become leavened., b Ḥizkiya said: /b The two cooked foods can b even /b be b fish and /b the b egg that /b that was fried b on it. Rav Yosef said: /b One b requires two types of meat /b on Passover night, b one in remembrance of the Paschal lamb and /b the other b one in remembrance of the Festival /b peace-offering, which was also eaten on Passover night. b Ravina said: /b For the two cooked foods one may use b even /b the meat on b the bone /b and the b gravy /b in which it was cooked.,With regard to the i halakha /i of eating vegetables, the Gemara clarifies: It is b obvious /b that b where there are other vegetables /b available besides bitter herbs, at the first dipping b one recites over /b the b other vegetables the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, and eats, /b with the intention of including in this blessing the bitter herbs he will eat later. b And then, /b at the second dipping, b he recites the blessing: /b Commanded us over b eating bitter herbs, /b on the lettuce b and eats /b it.,However, b what is /b the i halakha /i b where there is only lettuce /b available? When should one recite each blessing? b Rav Huna said: One initially recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, over the bitter herbs, /b i.e., the lettuce, b and eats /b them. b And ultimately, /b after the i matza /i , b one recites the blessing: /b Commanded us over b eating bitter herbs, over /b the lettuce b and eats /b it. |
|
72. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 13.15, 15.22 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175| 13.15. בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי הִקְרִיב נְתַנְאֵל וגו' (במדבר ז, יח), לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ הִקְרִיב, לְפִי שֶׁבָּא רְאוּבֵן וְעִרְעֵר, אָמַר דַּיִּי שֶׁקְּדָמַנִי יְהוּדָה לַמַּסָּעוֹת אַקְרִיב אֲנִי לַתּוֹלָדוֹת, נָזַף בּוֹ משֶׁה וְאָמַר לוֹ מִפִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נֶאֱמַר לִי הַקְרֵב לַמַּסָּעוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִקְרִיב, הִקְרִיבוֹ משֶׁה בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִקְרִיב, כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב תְּחִלָּה, לָמָּה כֵן, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכָה בַּעֲצַת נְשִׂיאִים הֶעֱלָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ הוּא הִקְרִיב תְּחִלָּה. אַבָּא חָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְפִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָּעֵצָה זָכָה שֶׁנִּתַּן בִּינָה בְּשִׁבְטוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים א יב, לג): וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָֹּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים, וְנֶאֱמַר (שופטים ה, טו): וְשָׂרַי בְּיִשָֹּׂשכָר עִם דְּבֹרָה וגו'. וְכֵן הַכָּתוּב מְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחוֹ בְּבָתֵּי דִינִין בְּמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כו, כד): לְיָשׁוּב מִשְׁפַּחַת הַיָּשֻׁבִי, וְאֵין יָשׁוּב אֶלָּא בָּתֵּי דִינִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל לג, לא): וְיָבוֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ כִּמְבוֹא עָם וְיֵשְׁבוּ לְפָנֶיךָ וגו', (בראשית כה, כז): וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם ישֵׁב אֹהָלִים, וְאוֹמֵר (דברים לג, יח): וְיִשָֹּׂשכָר בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ. (במדבר ז, יט): הִקְרִיב אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי פִּינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר לָמָּה הוֹסִיף הִקְרִב, וְחָסֵר יו"ד, אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁעָשׂוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, לְכָךְ הוֹסִיף הִקְרִב חָסֵר יו"ד, וְהֶעֱמִיד הַתֵּבָה עַל אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיְתָה פָּרָה צְרִיכָה: אֲדֻמָּה, תְּמִימָה, בְּלֹא מוּם, בְּלֹא נְשִׂיאוּת עֹל, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (במדבר יט, ב): וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה וגו'. (במדבר ז, יט): קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף אַחַת, בָּא נְשִׂיא יִשָֹּׂשׂכָר וְהִקְרִיב עַל שֵׁם הַתּוֹרָה, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם אָהֲבוּ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מִכָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָֹּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים וגו', מַהוּ לַעִתִּים, רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אָמַר לַקָּרָסִין, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לָעִבּוּרִים. (דברי הימים א יב, לג): לָדַעַת מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם יַעֲשׂוּ מוֹעֲדִים. (דברי הימים א יב, לג): רָאשֵׁיהֶם מָאתַיִם, אֵלּוּ מָאתַיִם רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְּרָאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שֵׁבֶט יִשָֹּׂשכָר מַעֲמִיד, (דברי הימים א יב, לג): וְכָל אֲחֵיהֶם עַל פִּיהֶם, שֶׁהָיוּ מַסְכִּימִים הֲלָכָה עַל פִיהֶם, וְאוֹמֵר (בראשית מט, טו): וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, שֶׁהָיוּ סוֹבְלִים עֹל תּוֹרָה. (בראשית מט, טו): וַיְהִי לְמַס עֹבֵד, שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהָיָה טוֹעֶה בַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ שׁוֹאֲלִים אוֹתָהּ לְשֵׁבֶט יִשָֹּׂשכָר וְהֵם מְבָאֲרִים אוֹתָהּ לָהֶם. קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף, כְּנֶגֶד הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא קְרוּאָה לֶחֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ט, ה): לְכוּ לַחְמוּ בְלַחְמִי, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (שמות כה, כט): וְעָשִׂיתָ קְעָרֹתָיו וְכַפֹּתָיו, וּתְנֵינַן קְעָרֹתָיו אֵלּוּ דְפוּסִים, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂים לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּדְפוּסִים. (במדבר ז, יט): שְׁלשִׁים וּמֵאָה מִשְׁקָלָהּ, צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה סְפָרִים שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וּשְׁמוֹנִים מִן מִשְׁנָה שֶׁמַּתְחֶלֶת בְּמ"ם מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע וכו' וּמְסַיֶּמֶת בְּמ"ם (תהלים כט, יא): ה' יְבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ בַשָּׁלוֹם, מ"ם אַרְבָּעִים וּמ"ם אַרְבָּעִים, הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנִים, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים שֶׁעוֹלִים מִנְיָנָם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. דָּבָר אַחֵר שֶׁרָאשֵׁי שִׁשָּׁה סִדְרֵי מִשְׁנָה חֶשְׁבּוֹן רָאשֵׁי אוֹתִיּוֹת הֵן עוֹלִים שְׁמוֹנִים, צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב מ' מִן מֵאֵימָתַי שֶׁל סֵדֶר זְרָעִים, י' מִן יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁל סֵדֶר מוֹעֵד, ח' מִן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים מִן סֵדֶר נָשִׁים, א' מִן אַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין מִן סֵדֶר יְשׁוּעוֹת, כ' מִן כָּל הַזְּבָחִים מִן סֵדֶר קָדָשִׁים, א' מִן אֲבוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה מִן סֵדֶר טַהֲרוֹת, הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנִים. מִכָּאן שֶׁעוֹלִים תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה לְמִנְיַן מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעָה, וְנִתְּנָה לְעֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מֵאָדָם וְעַד משֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְּנָהּ תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים, לְכָךְ הָיָה מִשְׁקַל הַקְּעָרָה מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים. 15.22. אֶסְפָה לִי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (קהלת יב, יא): דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כַּדָּרְבֹנוֹת וּכְמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים בַּעֲלֵי אֲסֻפּוֹת נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. כַּדּוּר שֶׁל בָּנוֹת, מָה הַכַּדּוּר שֶׁל בָּנוֹת מְזָרְקִין בּוֹ לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, כָּךְ הָיוּ הַדִּבְּרוֹת מֻזְרָקִין בְּסִינַי. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כְּמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת בַּסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, שֶׁכָּתוּב נְטוּעִים. מַה מִּשְׁמָרוֹת הַכֹּהֲנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, אַף הַסְּפָרִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. בַּעֲלֵי אֲסֻפּוֹת, אֵלּוּ סַנְהֶדְּרִין, וְאִם תֹּאמַר זֶה מַתִּיר וְזֶה אוֹסֵר, זֶה פּוֹסֵל וְזֶה מַכְשִׁיר, זֶה מְטַמֵּא וְזֶה מְטַהֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵב וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין, לְמִי נִשְׁמַע, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כֻּלָּם נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. | 15.22. "22 (Numb. 11:16:) “Gather Me seventy men”: This text is related (to Eccl. 12:11), “The words of the wise are like goads ( i kedarbanot /i ) [...].” i Kedarbanot /i [signifies] i kadur shel banot /i (a ball for girls). Just like a ball for girls is thrown here and there, so were the words [of Torah] thrown at Sinai. Another interpretation (of Eccl. 12:11 cont.), “and like implanted nails”: From here the sages have said, “It is forbidden to read in the profane ( i chitzoniot /i ) books.” It is therefore stated (ibid.), “implanted nails.” [“Like nails ( i msmrwt /i )” – this is to teach that] just as the watches ( i mshmrwt /i ) of the priests number twenty-four, so also do the books [of the Bible] number twenty-four.” (Ibid. cont.:) [“(The masters of) collections.”] These [masters] are the Sanhedrin. sup 48 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Gk.: i synedrion. /i /i And if you say, “This person permits what another forbids, this one declares unfit what another declares fit, this one declares unclean what another declares clean, R. Eliezer obligates while R. Joshua exempts, and Bet Shammai prohibits while Bet Hillel permits; to whom should I listen?” [That is why] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Nevertheless (according to Eccl. 12:11 end) ‘all of them were given from one shepherd.’” ", |
|
| 73. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 5 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 74 |
| 74. Anon., Sifre Zuta, 19.3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans (2019) 74 |
| 75. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175 |
| 76. Mishnah, Ahilot, 7.3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 213 |
| 77. Anon., Seder ‘Olam Zuta, 2.73-2.76 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, d. w. Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 74 |
| 78. Diodorus, De Natura Deorum, 5.71 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes (2015) 175 |
| 79. Anon., Questions And Answers On The Ascetic Rule, 21.3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119 |
| 82. Paul of Elusa, Encomium, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119 |
| 83. Anon., Tanhuma, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein(1995) 213, 216 |
| 84. Dio Chrysostom, Rhodiaca, None Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary (2017) 119 |
