1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 10.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Legaspi (2018) 4| 10.2. "בְּגַאֲוַת רָשָׁע יִדְלַק עָנִי יִתָּפְשׂוּ בִּמְזִמּוֹת זוּ חָשָׁבוּ׃", | 10.2. "Through the pride of the wicked the poor is hotly pursued, They are taken in the devices that they have imagined.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 11.10-11.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 38| 11.11. "וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־יְהוָה לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ וְלָמָּה לֹא־מָצָתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ לָשׂוּם אֶת־מַשָּׂא כָּל־הָעָם הַזֶּה עָלָי׃", 11.12. "הֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי אֵת כָּל־הָעָם הַזֶּה אִם־אָנֹכִי יְלִדְתִּיהוּ כִּי־תֹאמַר אֵלַי שָׂאֵהוּ בְחֵיקֶךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת־הַיֹּנֵק עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָיו׃", 11.13. "מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר לָתֵת לְכָל־הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי־יִבְכּוּ עָלַי לֵאמֹר תְּנָה־לָּנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכֵלָה׃", 11.14. "לֹא־אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי לָשֵׂאת אֶת־כָּל־הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי כָבֵד מִמֶּנִּי׃", 11.15. "וְאִם־כָּכָה אַתְּ־עֹשֶׂה לִּי הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג אִם־מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וְאַל־אֶרְאֶה בְּרָעָתִי׃", 11.16. "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶסְפָה־לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתָּ כִּי־הֵם זִקְנֵי הָעָם וְשֹׁטְרָיו וְלָקַחְתָּ אֹתָם אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם עִמָּךְ׃", 11.17. "וְיָרַדְתִּי וְדִבַּרְתִּי עִמְּךָ שָׁם וְאָצַלְתִּי מִן־הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיךָ וְשַׂמְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתְּךָ בְּמַשָּׂא הָעָם וְלֹא־תִשָּׂא אַתָּה לְבַדֶּךָ׃", | 11.10. "And Moses heard the people weeping, family by family, every man at the door of his tent; and the anger of the LORD was kindled greatly; and Moses was displeased.", 11.11. "And Moses said unto the LORD: ‘Wherefore hast Thou dealt ill with Thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in Thy sight, that Thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?", 11.12. "Have I conceived all this people? have I brought them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their fathers?", 11.13. "Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they trouble me with their weeping, saying: Give us flesh, that we may eat.", 11.14. "I am not able to bear all this people myself alone, because it is too heavy for me.", 11.15. "And if Thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in Thy sight; and let me not look upon my wretchedness.’", 11.16. "And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with thee.", 11.17. "And I will come down and speak with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.", |
|
| 3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 142 |
4. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 15.5, 17.18, 34.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 38| 15.5. "וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט־נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים אִם־תּוּכַל לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ׃", 17.18. "וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים לוּ יִשְׁמָעֵאל יִחְיֶה לְפָנֶיךָ׃", 34.5. "וְיַעֲקֹב שָׁמַע כִּי טִמֵּא אֶת־דִּינָה בִתּוֹ וּבָנָיו הָיוּ אֶת־מִקְנֵהוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה וְהֶחֱרִשׁ יַעֲקֹב עַד־בֹּאָם׃", | 15.5. "And He brought him forth abroad, and said: ‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them’; and He said unto him: ‘So shall thy seed be.’", 17.18. "And Abraham said unto God: ‘Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee! ’", 34.5. "Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; and his sons were with his cattle in the field; and Jacob held his peace until they came.", |
|
| 5. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 38 |
6. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 13.15, 16.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine, x Found in books: Hidary (2017) 236| 13.15. "וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר נֶעֶשְׂתָה הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּקִרְבֶּךָ׃", | 13.15. "then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee;", 16.20. "Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.", |
|
7. Homer, Iliad, 1.3 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Legaspi (2018) 5 | 1.3. / The wrath sing, goddess, of Peleus' son, Achilles, that destructive wrath which brought countless woes upon the Achaeans, and sent forth to Hades many valiant souls of heroes, and made them themselves spoil for dogs and every bird; thus the plan of Zeus came to fulfillment, |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Habakkuk, 3.6 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 369| 3.6. "עָמַד וַיְמֹדֶד אֶרֶץ רָאָה וַיַּתֵּר גּוֹיִם וַיִּתְפֹּצְצוּ הַרְרֵי־עַד שַׁחוּ גִּבְעוֹת עוֹלָם הֲלִיכוֹת עוֹלָם לוֹ׃", | 3.6. "He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient hills do bow; His goings are as of old.", |
|
| 9. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 18 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 142 |
10. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 44.6-44.9 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 142| 44.6. "וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל־מֶרִי אֶל־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה רַב־לָכֶם מִכָּל־תּוֹעֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 44.7. "בַּהֲבִיאֲכֶם בְּנֵי־נֵכָר עַרְלֵי־לֵב וְעַרְלֵי בָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּמִקְדָּשִׁי לְחַלְּלוֹ אֶת־בֵּיתִי בְּהַקְרִיבְכֶם אֶת־לַחְמִי חֵלֶב וָדָם וַיָּפֵרוּ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אֶל כָּל־תּוֹעֲבוֹתֵיכֶם׃", 44.8. "וְלֹא שְׁמַרְתֶּם מִשְׁמֶרֶת קָדָשָׁי וַתְּשִׂימוּן לְשֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁמַרְתִּי בְּמִקְדָּשִׁי לָכֶם׃", 44.9. "כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה כָּל־בֶּן־נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבוֹא אֶל־מִקְדָּשִׁי לְכָל־בֶּן־נֵכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", | 44.6. "And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord GOD: O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations,", 44.7. "in that ye have brought in aliens, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house, when ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken My covet, to add unto all your abominations.", 44.8. "And ye have not kept the charge of My holy things; but ye have set keepers of My charge in My sanctuary to please yourselves.", 44.9. "Thus saith the Lord GOD: No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary, even any alien that is among the children of Israel.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 9.1-9.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 142| 9.1. "וּכְכַלּוֹת אֵלֶּה נִגְּשׁוּ אֵלַי הַשָּׂרִים לֵאמֹר לֹא־נִבְדְּלוּ הָעָם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מֵעַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת כְּתוֹעֲבֹתֵיהֶם לַכְּנַעֲנִי הַחִתִּי הַפְּרִזִּי הַיְבוּסִי הָעַמֹּנִי הַמֹּאָבִי הַמִּצְרִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי׃", 9.1. "וְעַתָּה מַה־נֹּאמַר אֱלֹהֵינוּ אַחֲרֵי־זֹאת כִּי עָזַבְנוּ מִצְוֺתֶיךָ׃", 9.2. "כִּי־נָשְׂאוּ מִבְּנֹתֵיהֶם לָהֶם וְלִבְנֵיהֶם וְהִתְעָרְבוּ זֶרַע הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּעַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת וְיַד הַשָּׂרִים וְהַסְּגָנִים הָיְתָה בַּמַּעַל הַזֶּה רִאשׁוֹנָה׃", | 9.1. "Now when these things were done, the princes drew near unto me, saying: ‘The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.", 9.2. "For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this faithlessness.’", |
|
12. Plato, Laws, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Legaspi (2018) 189| 714c. ὅλην βλέπειν δεῖν φασι τοὺς νόμους, ἀλλʼ ἥτις ἂν καθεστηκυῖα ᾖ πολιτεία, ταύτῃ ἰδεῖν τὸ συμφέρον, ὅπως ἄρξει τε ἀεὶ καὶ μὴ καταλυθήσεται, καὶ τὸν φύσει ὅρον τοῦ δικαίου λέγεσθαι κάλλισθʼ οὕτω. ΚΛ. πῶς; ΑΘ. ὅτι τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον ἐστίν. ΚΛ. λέγʼ ἔτι σαφέστερον. ΑΘ. ὧδε. τίθεται δήπου, φασίν, τοὺς νόμους ἐν τῇ πόλει ἑκάστοτε τὸ κρατοῦν. ἦ γάρ; ΚΛ. ἀληθῆ λέγεις. | 714c. that the laws ought not to aim either at war or at goodness in general, but ought to have regard to the benefit of the established polity, whatever it may be, so that it may keep in power forever and never be dissolved; and that the natural definition of justice is best stated in this way. Clin. In what way? Ath. That justice is what benefits the stronger. . Clin. Explain yourself more clearly. Ath. This is how it is:—the laws (they say) in a State are always enacted by the stronger power? Is it not so? Clin. That is quite true. Ath. Do you suppose, then (so they argue), that a democracy |
|
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, Pesher On Habakkuk, 8.8-8.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 294 |
14. Septuagint, Wisdom of Solomon, 2.12-2.13, 6.4, 6.18, 9.5, 10.16, 11.1, 14.16, 16.6, 18.4, 18.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Legaspi (2018) 188, 189 | 2.12. "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;he reproaches us for sins against the law,and accuses us of sins against our training. 2.13. He professes to have knowledge of God,and calls himself a child of the Lord. 6.4. Because as servants of his kingdom you did not rule rightly,nor keep the law,nor walk according to the purpose of God, 6.18. and love of her is the keeping of her laws,and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality, 9.5. For I am thy slave and the son of thy maidservant,a man who is weak and short-lived,with little understanding of judgment and laws; 10.16. She entered the soul of a servant of the Lord,and withstood dread kings with wonders and signs. 11.1. Wisdom prospered their works by the hand of a holy prophet." 14.16. Then the ungodly custom, grown strong with time, was kept as a law,and at the command of monarchs graven images were worshiped. 16.6. they were troubled for a little while as a warning,and received a token of deliverance to remind them of thy laws command. 18.4. For their enemies deserved to be deprived of light and imprisoned in darkness,those who had kept thy sons imprisoned,through whom the imperishable light of the law was to be given to the world. 18.9. For in secret the holy children of good men offered sacrifices,and with one accord agreed to the divine law,that the saints would share alike the same things,both blessings and dangers;and already they were singing the praises of the fathers. |
|
15. Anon., Jubilees, 16.17-16.18 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 142 | 16.17. And she bare a son in the third month, and in the middle of the month, at the time of which the Lord had spoken to Abraham, 16.18. on the festival of the first-fruits of the harvest, Isaac was born. br And Abraham circumcised his son on the eighth day: |
|
16. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 10.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine, x Found in books: Hidary (2017) 27| 10.1. "וְהִנֵּה־יָד נָגְעָה בִּי וַתְּנִיעֵנִי עַל־בִּרְכַּי וְכַפּוֹת יָדָי׃", 10.1. "בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלוֹשׁ לְכוֹרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס דָּבָר נִגְלָה לְדָנִיֵּאל אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר וֶאֱמֶת הַדָּבָר וְצָבָא גָדוֹל וּבִין אֶת־הַדָּבָר וּבִינָה לוֹ בַּמַּרְאֶה׃", | 10.1. "In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the word was true, even a great warfare; and he gave heed to the word, and had understanding of the vision.", |
|
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q266, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 18. Anon., Sibylline Oracles, 3.591-3.593 (1st cent. BCE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 303 |
19. Mishnah, Nazir, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171| 7.3. "אֲבָל הַסְּכָכוֹת, וְהַפְּרָעוֹת, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וְהַגּוֹלֵל, וְהַדּוֹפֵק, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם, וְאֹהֶל, וְרֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת, וְכֵלִים הַנּוֹגְעִים בְּמֵת, וִימֵי סָפְרוֹ, וִימֵי גָמְרוֹ, עַל אֵלּוּ אֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, וּמַזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְאֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, וּמַתְחִיל וּמוֹנֶה מִיָּד, וְקָרְבָּן אֵין לוֹ. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וִימֵי הֶסְגֵּרוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לוֹ: \n", | 7.3. "But for [defilement contracted by] overhanging branches, or protruding stones, or a field that may have once been a cemetery, or land of the Gentiles, or the stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb, or a quarter-log of blood, or a tent, or a quarter-kav of bones, or utensils that have been in contact with a corpse, or on account of the days of counting [after contracting scale disease] or the days during which he is certified unclean [because of scale disease]; For all these the nazirite is not required to shave, but they do sprinkle him on the third and seventh [days], and [the defilement] does not annul the formerly served period, and he begins to resume counting [his naziriteship] immediately [after purification] and there is no sacrifice. In fact they said: the days of [defilement of] a male or female sufferer from gonorrhea and the days that a leper is shut up as a leper count toward his [naziriteship].", |
|
20. Mishnah, Middot, 1.4, 2.3, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307; Simon-Shushan (2012) 262| 1.4. "שִׁבְעָה שְׁעָרִים הָיוּ בָעֲזָרָה, שְׁלשָׁה בַצָּפוֹן וּשְׁלשָׁה בַדָּרוֹם וְאֶחָד בַּמִּזְרָח. שֶׁבַּדָּרוֹם, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק. שֵׁנִי לוֹ, שַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת. שְׁלִישִׁי לוֹ, שַׁעַר הַמָּיִם. שֶׁבַּמִּזְרָח, שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, וּשְׁתֵּי לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ, אַחַת מִימִינוֹ וְאַחַת מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ, אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת פִּנְחָס הַמַּלְבִּישׁ, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת עוֹשֵׂי חֲבִתִּין: \n", 2.3. "לִפְנִים מִמֶּנּוּ, סוֹרֵג, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וּשְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה פְרָצוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, שֶׁפְּרָצוּם מַלְכֵי יָוָן. חָזְרוּ וּגְדָרוּם, וְגָזְרוּ כְנֶגְדָּם שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת. לִפְנִים מִמֶּנּוּ, הַחֵיל, עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. וּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם. רוּם הַמַּעֲלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה, וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה. כָּל הַמַּעֲלוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, רוּם מַעֲלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה, וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אוּלָם. כָּל הַפְּתָחִים וְהַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, גָּבְהָן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, וְרָחְבָּן עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אוּלָם. כָּל הַפְּתָחִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, הָיוּ לָהֶן דְּלָתוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אוּלָם. כָּל הַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, הָיוּ לָהֶן שְׁקוֹפוֹת, חוּץ מִשַּׁעַר טָדִי, שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם שְׁתֵּי אֲבָנִים מֻטּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ. כָּל הַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, נִשְׁתַּנּוּ לִהְיוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב, חוּץ מִשַּׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בָהֶן נֵס. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּחֻשְׁתָּן מַצְהִיב: \n", 2.6. "וּלְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ תַחַת עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּפְתוּחוֹת לְעֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים, שֶׁשָּׁם הַלְוִיִּם נוֹתְנִים כִּנּוֹרוֹת וּנְבָלִים וּמְצִלְתַּיִם וְכָל כְּלֵי שִׁיר. עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה אַמָּה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל רֹחַב אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. וְכֵן עֶזְרַת כֹּהֲנִים הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל רֹחַב אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. וְרָאשֵׁי פִסְפָּסִין מַבְדִּילִין בֵּין עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, מַעֲלָה הָיְתָה שָׁם, וּגְבוֹהָה אַמָּה, וְהַדּוּכָן נָתוּן עָלֶיהָ, וּבָהּ שָׁלשׁ מַעֲלוֹת שֶׁל חֲצִי חֲצִי אַמָּה. נִמְצֵאת עֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים גְּבוֹהָה מֵעֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה. כָּל הָעֲזָרָה הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁמוֹנִים וָשֶׁבַע עַל רֹחַב מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ. וּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶן חָנָן אוֹמֵר, כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁעָרִים. שְׁעָרִים דְּרוֹמִיִּים סְמוּכִים לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר הָעֶלְיוֹן, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק, שַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת, שַׁעַר הַמָּיִם, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם. שֶׁבּוֹ מַכְנִיסִין צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם שֶׁל נִסּוּךְ בֶּחָג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, וּבוֹ הַמַּיִם מְפַכִּים, וַעֲתִידִין לִהְיוֹת יוֹצְאִין מִתַּחַת מִפְתַּן הַבָּיִת. וּלְעֻמָּתָן בַּצָּפוֹן סְמוּכִים לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שַׁעַר הַקָּרְבָּן, שַׁעַר הַנָּשִׁים, שַׁעַר הַשִּׁיר. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שֶׁבּוֹ יָצָא יְכָנְיָה בְּגָלוּתוֹ. שֶׁבַּמִּזְרָח, שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר. וּשְׁנֵי פִשְׁפָּשִׁים הָיוּ לוֹ, אֶחָד מִימִינוֹ וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם בַּמַעֲרָב, לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם שֵׁם: \n", | 1.4. "There were seven gates in the courtyard: three in the north and three in the south and one in the east. In the south: the Gate of Kindling, and next to it the Gate of the First-borns, and then the Water Gate. In the east: the Gate of Nicanor. It had two chambers, one on its right and one on its left. One was the chamber of Pinchas the dresser and one the other the chamber of the griddle cake makers.", 2.3. "Within it was the Soreg, ten handbreadths high. There were thirteen breaches in it, which had been originally made by the kings of Greece, and when they repaired them they enacted that thirteen prostrations should be made facing them. Within this was the Hel, which was ten cubits [broad]. There were twelve steps there. The height of each step was half a cubit and its tread was half a cubit. All the steps in the Temple were half a cubit high with a tread of half a cubit, except those of the Porch. All the doorways in the Temple were twenty cubits high and ten cubits broad except those of the Porch. All the doorways there had doors in them except those of the Porch. All the gates there had lintels except that of Taddi which had two stones inclined to one another. All the original gates were changed for gates of gold except the gates of Nicanor, because a miracle happened with them. Some say: because their copper gleamed like gold.", 2.6. "There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments. The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel. The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And thirteen prostrations were made there. Abba Yose ben Ha says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate, the gate of burning, the gate of the firstborn, and the water gate. And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah, the gate of the offering, the women's gate, the gate of song. Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor; it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left (10 +. There were further two gates in the west which had no special name (12 +.", |
|
21. Mishnah, Kilayim, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171| 2.2. "בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה וְקִטְנִית בְּקִטְנִית, תְּבוּאָה בְקִטְנִית וְקִטְנִית בִּתְבוּאָה. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִנָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין, מִצְטָרְפִין אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְהַחְמִיר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לְהָקֵל, הַפִּשְׁתָּן בַּתְּבוּאָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה: \n", | 2.2. "To what does this refer? To [an mixture of] grain [occurring] with [different] grain, or pulse with [different] pulse, to grain with pulse, and to pulse with grain. However they stated: Seeds from a garden which are not eaten, they add up [with other seeds to form an amount sufficient to prohibit the sowing of a seah] when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. Rabbi Shimon says: just as they ruled to be stringent so too they ruled to be lenient flax [mixed in with] produce, combines when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah.", |
|
22. Mishnah, Hulin, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 347| 7.6. "נוֹהֵג בִּטְהוֹרָה, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּטְמֵאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בִּטְמֵאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וַהֲלֹא מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב נֶאֱסַר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וַעֲדַיִן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת לָהֶן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, בְּסִינַי נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", | 7.6. "It applies to clean animals but not to unclean. Rabbi Judah says, even to unclean animals. Rabbi Judah said: was not the sciatic nerve prohibited from the time of the sons of Jacob, and at that time unclean animals were still permitted to them? They replied, this law was ordained at Sinai but was written in its proper place.", |
|
23. Tosefta, Kippurim, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307| 2.4. "[מהו נס שנעשה בהן אמרו כשהיה נקנור מביאו מאלכסנדריא שבמצרים] עמד עליהן נחשול שבים לטבען ונטלו אחד מהן והטילוהו לים [ובקשו להטיל את השני ולא הניחן נקנור אמר להם אם אתם מטילין את השני הטילוני עמו היה מצטער ובא עד שהגיע לנמל של יפו כיון שהגיע לנמילה של יפו היה מבעבע ועולה מתחת הספינה וי\"א אחת מהן חיה שבים בלעה אותה וכיון שהגיע ניקנור לנמילה של יפו פלטתו והטילתו ליבשה ועליהן מפורש בקבלה (שיר השירים א׳:י״ז) קורות בתינו ארזים וגו'].", | |
|
24. Tosefta, Bava Batra, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171| 1.4. "לשכנו אין יכולין לכופו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לשכנו יכולין לכופו. יש לו חנות ברשות הרבים ומבקש לפותחה לחצר השותפין יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהן את הדרך יש לו בית בחצר השותפין ומבקש לחלקו ולהקרות בו את התינוקות יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהם את הדרך יש לו גג ברשות הרבים ומבקש לבנות על גבו עלייה לפותחה לחצר השותפין יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהן את הדרך כיצד הוא עושה עושה לו לולו ופותחה לתוך ביתו.", | |
|
25. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 369| 4.3. "שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל נָכְרִי, פָּטוּר. וְשֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם: \n", | 4.3. "An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.", |
|
26. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171| 4.11. "אֵין מְעָרְבִין פֵּרוֹת בְּפֵרוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ חֲדָשִׁים בַּחֲדָשִׁים, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חֲדָשִׁים בִּישָׁנִים. בֶּאֱמֶת, בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ, לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַחֲנוּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ, וְלֹא לְתַגָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַמּוֹת בּוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַטִּיל מַיִם בַּיַּיִן, יַטִּילוּ: \n", | 4.11. "Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste]. Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine. One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.", |
|
27. Tosefta, Berachot, 5.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171| 5.17. "מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין אינו מוציא לא [את] מינו ולא [את] שאינו מינו.", | |
|
28. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171| 2.3. לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. בֶּאֱמֶת, בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ, אֲבָל לֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. חֲנוּת שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר, יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישֹׁן מִקּוֹל הַנִּכְנָסִין וּמִקּוֹל הַיּוֹצְאִין. אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה כֵלִים, יוֹצֵא וּמוֹכֵר בְּתוֹךְ הַשּׁוּק, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישֹׁן, לֹא מִקּוֹל הַפַּטִּישׁ, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הָרֵחַיִם, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. | 2.3. "One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.”", |
|
29. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 1.187 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Legaspi (2018) 189 | 1.187. one of whom (Hecateus says) was Hezekiah, the high priest of the Jews; a man of about sixty-six years of age, and in great dignity among his own people. He was a very sensible man, and could speak very movingly, and was very skilful in the management of affairs, if any other man ever were so; |
|
| 30. Tosefta, Kilayim, 1.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171 |
31. Mishnah, Negaim, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 347| 7.1. "אֵלּוּ בֶהָרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת. שֶׁהָיוּ בוֹ קֹדֶם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, בְּנָכְרִי וְנִתְגַּיֵּר, בְּקָטָן וְנוֹלַד, בְּקֶמֶט וְנִגְלָה, בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַזָּקָן, בַּשְּׁחִין וּבַמִּכְוָה וְקֶדַח וּבַמּוֹרְדִין. חָזַר הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח וְנַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, טְהוֹרִים. הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר, הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת וְחָיוּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן טָמֵא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים: \n", | 7.1. "The following bright spots are clean:Those that one had before the Torah was given, Those that a non-Jew had when he converted; Or a child when it was born, Or those that were in a crease and were subsequently uncovered. If they were on the head or the beard, on a boil, a burn or a blister that is festering, and subsequently the head or the beard became bald, and the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, they are clean. If they were on the head or the beard before they grew hair, and they then grew hair and subsequently became bald, or if they were on the body before the boil, burn or blister before they were festering and then these formed a scar or were healed: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said that they are unclean since at the beginning and at the end they were unclean, But the sages say: they are clean.", |
|
32. Mishnah, Niddah, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 218| 1.1. "שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַנָּשִׁים דַּיָּן שְׁעָתָן. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וַאֲפִלּוּ לְיָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֵט עַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת. כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּעִדִּים, הֲרֵי זוֹ כִפְקִידָה, וּמְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְעַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה: \n", | 1.1. "Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.", |
|
33. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 302| 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", | 4.3. "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].", |
|
34. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 20.17-20.53 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307 | 20.17. 1. About this time it was that Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following: 20.18. Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, who had also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to be his wife, and begat her with child. But as he was in bed with her one night, he laid his hand upon his wife’s belly, and fell asleep, and seemed to hear a voice, which bid him take his hand off his wife’s belly, and not hurt the infant that was therein, which, by God’s providence, would be safely born, and have a happy end. 20.19. This voice put him into disorder; so he awaked immediately, and told the story to his wife; and when his son was born, he called him Izates. 20.20. He had indeed Monobazus, his elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten son Izates, 20.21. which was the origin of that envy which his other brethren, by the same father, bore to him; while on this account they hated him more and more, and were all under great affliction that their father should prefer Izates before them. 20.22. Now although their father was very sensible of these their passions, yet did he forgive them, as not indulging those passions out of an ill disposition, but out of a desire each of them had to be beloved by their father. However, he sent Izates, with many presents, to Abennerig, the king of Charax-Spasini, and that out of the great dread he was in about him, lest he should come to some misfortune by the hatred his brethren bore him; and he committed his son’s preservation to him. 20.23. Upon which Abennerig gladly received the young man, and had a great affection for him, and married him to his own daughter, whose name was Samacha: he also bestowed a country upon him, from which he received large revenues. 20.24. 2. But when Monobazus was grown old, and saw that he had but a little time to live, he had a mind to come to the sight of his son before he died. So he sent for him, and embraced him after the most affectionate manner, and bestowed on him the country called Carra; 20.25. it was a soil that bare amomum in great plenty: there are also in it the remains of that ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them. 20.26. Accordingly, Izates abode in that country until his father’s death. But the very day that Monobazus died, queen Helena sent for all the grandees, and governors of the kingdom, and for those that had the armies committed to their command; 20.27. and when they were come, she made the following speech to them: “I believe you are not unacquainted that my husband was desirous Izates should succeed him in the government, and thought him worthy so to do. However, I wait your determination; for happy is he who receives a kingdom, not from a single person only, but from the willing suffrages of a great many.” 20.28. This she said, in order to try those that were invited, and to discover their sentiments. Upon the hearing of which, they first of all paid their homage to the queen, as their custom was, and then they said that they confirmed the king’s determination, and would submit to it; and they rejoiced that Izates’s father had preferred him before the rest of his brethren, as being agreeable to all their wishes: 20.29. but that they were desirous first of all to slay his brethren and kinsmen, that so the government might come securely to Izates; because if they were once destroyed, all that fear would be over which might arise from their hatred and envy to him. 20.30. Helena replied to this, that she returned them her thanks for their kindness to herself and to Izates; but desired that they would however defer the execution of this slaughter of Izates’s brethren till he should be there himself, and give his approbation to it. 20.31. So since these men had not prevailed with her, when they advised her to slay them, they exhorted her at least to keep them in bonds till he should come, and that for their own security; they also gave her counsel to set up some one whom she could put the greatest trust in, as a governor of the kingdom in the mean time. 20.32. So queen Helena complied with this counsel of theirs, and set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king, and put the diadem upon his head, and gave him his father’s ring, with its signet; as also the ornament which they call Sampser, and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come; 20.33. who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother Monobazus, who resigned up the government to him. 20.34. 3. Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Aias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. 20.35. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them. 20.36. But when Izates had taken the kingdom, and was come to Adiabene, and there saw his brethren and other kinsmen in bonds, he was displeased at it; 20.37. and as he thought it an instance of impiety either to slay or imprison them, but still thought it a hazardous thing for to let them have their liberty, with the remembrance of the injuries that had been offered them, he sent some of them and their children for hostages to Rome, to Claudius Caesar, and sent the others to Artabanus, the king of Parthia, with the like intentions. 20.38. 4. And when he perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not be thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. 20.39. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. 20.40. This it was that she said to him, and for the present persuaded him to forbear. And when he had related what she had said to Aias, he confirmed what his mother had said; and when he had also threatened to leave him, unless he complied with him, he went away from him, 20.41. and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king’s instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he said that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. 20.42. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Aias. 20.43. But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; 20.44. for as he entered into his palace to salute him, and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, “Thou dost not consider, O king! that thou unjustly breakest the principal of those laws, and art injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for thou oughtest not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. 20.45. How long wilt thou continue uncircumcised? But if thou hast not yet read the law about circumcision, and dost not know how great impiety thou art guilty of by neglecting it, read it now.” 20.46. When the king had heard what he said, he delayed the thing no longer, but retired to another room, and sent for a surgeon, and did what he was commanded to do. He then sent for his mother, and Aias his tutor, and informed them that he had done the thing; 20.47. upon which they were presently struck with astonishment and fear, and that to a great degree, lest the thing should be openly discovered and censured, and the king should hazard the loss of his kingdom, while his subjects would not bear to be governed by a man who was so zealous in another religion; and lest they should themselves run some hazard, because they would be supposed the occasion of his so doing. 20.48. But it was God himself who hindered what they feared from taking effect; for he preserved both Izates himself and his sons when they fell into many dangers, and procured their deliverance when it seemed to be impossible, and demonstrated thereby that the fruit of piety does not perish as to those that have regard to him, and fix their faith upon him only. But these events we shall relate hereafter. 20.49. 5. But as to Helena, the king’s mother, when she saw that the affairs of Izates’s kingdom were in peace, and that her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners, by the means of God’s providence over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-offerings there. So she desired her son to give her leave to go thither; 20.50. upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her dismission, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem, her son conducting her on her journey a great way. 20.51. Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. 20.52. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent memorial behind her of this benefaction, which she bestowed on our whole nation. 20.53. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem. However, what favors this queen and king conferred upon our city Jerusalem shall be further related hereafter. |
|
| 35. New Testament, Matthew, 5-7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 178 |
36. New Testament, Acts, 15.29 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 150| 15.29. ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξετε. Ἔρρωσθε. | 15.29. that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell." |
|
37. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 5.201 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307 | 5.201. 3. Now nine of these gates were on every side covered over with gold and silver, as were the jambs of their doors and their lintels; but there was one gate that was without [the inward court of] the holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, and greatly excelled those that were only covered over with silver and gold. |
|
38. Mishnah, Terumot, 1.4, 2.1-2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171, 302| 1.4. "אֵין תּוֹרְמִין זֵיתִים עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְלֹא עֲנָבִים עַל הַיָּיִן. וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, תְּרוּמַת עַצְמָן בָּהֶם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה: \n", 2.1. "אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא. וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הָעִגּוּל שֶׁל דְּבֵלָה שֶׁנִּטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ, תּוֹרֵם מִן הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ עַל הַטָּמֵא שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ. וְכֵן אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל יָרָק, וְכֵן עֲרֵמָה. הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עִגּוּלִים, שְׁתֵּי אֲגֻדּוֹת, שְׁתֵּי עֲרֵמוֹת, אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה, לֹא יִתְרֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא: \n", 2.2. "אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר. וְאִם תָּרַם, שׁוֹגֵג, תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, וּמֵזִיד, לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. וְכֵן בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר טֶבֶל, הָיָה מַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו וְהוֹלֵךְ, שׁוֹגֵג, מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה, עָשׂוּי, מֵזִיד, לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹגֵג, לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם: \n", | 1.4. "They should not take terumah from olives for oil, or from grapes for wine. If one did: Bet Shammai says: there is terumah in [the olives or grapes] themselves. But Bet Hillel says: the terumah is not terumah.", 2.1. "They may not give terumah from pure [produce] for impure [produce], but if they did give, the terumah is terumah. In truth they said: If a cake of pressed figs had become partly defiled, one may give terumah from the clean part for that part which had become defiled. The same applies to a bunch of vegetables, or a stack of grain. If there were two cakes [of figs], two bunches [of vegetables], two stacks [of grain], one pure and one impure, one should not give terumah from one for the other. Rabbi Eliezer says: one can give terumah from that which is pure for that which is impure.", 2.2. "They may not give terumah from impure [produce] for that which is pure. If he did give: If unwittingly, the terumah is valid; If intentionally he has done nothing. So too, if a Levite had [unclean] tithe [from which terumah] had not been given, and he gave terumah from this, if unwittingly, the terumah is valid, if intentionally he has done nothing. Rabbi Judah says: if he knew of it at the outset, even if done in error, he has done nothing.", |
|
39. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.3, 10.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171| 1.3. "לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּט בְּמַחְטוֹ סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁכָה, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיֵצֵא. וְלֹא הַלַּבְלָר בְּקֻלְמוֹסוֹ. וְלֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו, וְלֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הַחַזָּן רוֹאֶה הֵיכָן תִּינוֹקוֹת קוֹרְאִים, אֲבָל הוּא לֹא יִקְרָא. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, לֹא יֹאכַל הַזָּב עִם הַזָּבָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה: \n", 10.4. "הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיא לְפָנָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו, פָּטוּר, לְאַחֲרָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְפָנָיו, חַיָּב. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הָאִשָּׁה הַחוֹגֶרֶת בְּסִינָר בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ חַיֶּבֶת, שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת חוֹזֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף מְקַבְּלֵי פִתְקִין:", | 1.3. "A tailor must not go out with his needle near nightfall, lest he forget and go out. Nor a scribe with his quill. And one may not search his garments [for lice or fleas], nor read by the light of a lamp. In truth it was said, the hazzan may see where the children are reading from, but he himself must not read. Similarly, a zav must not eat together with a zavah, because it may lead to sin.", 10.4. "If one intends to carry out [an object] in front of him, but it comes around behind him, he is not liable. Behind him, but it comes around in front of him, he is liable. In truth they said: a woman who wraps herself with an apron whether in front of her or behind her, is liable, because it is normal for it to reverse itself. Rabbi Judah said: also those who receive notes.", |
|
| 40. Mishnah, Yadayim, a b c d\n0 4 4 4 None\n1 . . \n2 ) ) ) None\n3 1 1 1 None\n4 None\n5 ( ( ( None\n6 6 6 6 None\n7 - None\n8 8 8 8 None\n9 4.7 4.7 4 7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 225 |
| 41. Palestinian Talmud, Gittin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan |
| 42. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 96 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine, x Found in books: Hidary (2017) 27 |
| 43. Palestinian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan |
| 44. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 1.1, 4.1-4.2, 10.1, 11.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine, x Found in books: Hidary (2017) 27, 202, 236, 278 |
| 45. Palestinian Talmud, Sukkah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 46. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 47. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307 |
| 48. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 49. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 171 |
50. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307| 1.3. הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא הֵם לֹא פָּלְשׁוּ אַחַר מִדַּת הַדִּין, וְהִיא לֹא פָּלְשָׁה אַחֲרֵיהֶם. הֵם לֹא פָּלְשׁוּ אַחַר מִדַּת הַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא, א): וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים, מִתְאֹנְנִים אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים. (הושע ה, י): הָיוּ שָׂרֵי יְהוּדָה כְּמַסִּיגֵי גְּבוּל, מַסִּיגֵי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּמַסִּיגֵי. (הושע ד, טז): כִּי כְּפָרָה סֹרֵרָה, כִּי פָּרָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּפָרָה סֹרֵרָה, וּמִדַּת הַדִּין לֹא פָּלְשָׁה אַחֲרֵיהֶם, הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, הָיְתָה אַלְמָנָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּאַלְמָנָה, כְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָה לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְדַעְתּוֹ לַחֲזֹר אֵלֶיהָ. (איכה ב, ד): דָּרַךְ קַשְׁתּוֹ כְּאוֹיֵב, אוֹיֵב אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּאוֹיֵב. הָיָה ה' כְּאוֹיֵב, אוֹיֵב אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּאוֹיֵב. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְּבָא אָמַר לְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְלֹא הָיְתָה תּוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁכָּעַס עַל מַטְרוֹנָה וְכָתַב לָהּ גִּטָּהּ וְעָמַד וַחֲטָפוֹ מִמֶּנָּהּ, וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לִנָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר הָיָה אוֹמֵר לָהּ הֵיכָן גִּטֵּךְ, וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ הָיָה אוֹמֵר לָהּ וְלֹא כְבָר גֵּרַשְׁתִּיךְ, כָּךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְבַקְּשִׁים לַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הָיָה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (ישעיה נ, א): אֵי זֶה סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת אִמְּכֶם, וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁמְּבַקְּשִׁים לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם נִסִּים כְּבַתְּחִלָּה, אוֹמֵר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּבָר גֵּרַשְׁתִּי אֶתְכֶם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ירמיה ג, ח): שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ וָאֶתֵּן אֶת סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אַלְמָנָה, וְאַתָּה אוֹמֵר כְּאַלְמָנָה, אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה מֵעֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים וְלֹא מִשֵּׁבֶט יְהוּדָה וּבִנְיָמִין. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין אַלְמָנָה מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ, וְלֹא מֵהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה נא, ה): כִּי לֹא אַלְמָן יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה מֵאֱלֹהָיו. 2.2. אֵיכָה יָעִיב בְּאַפּוֹ ה' אֶת בַּת צִיּוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אֵיךְ חַיֵּיב ה' בְּרוּגְזֵיהּ יָת בַּת צִיּוֹן. אִית אַתְרָא דְּצָוְוחִין לְחַיָּיבָא עֲיָיבָא. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר, אֵיךְ כַּיֵּיב ה' בְּרוּגְזֵיהּ. אִית אַתְרָא דְּצַוְוחִין לְכֵיבָא עֵייבָא. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין אֵיךְ שַׁיֵּים ה' בְּרוּגְזֵיהּ יָת בַּת צִיּוֹן. הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ תִּפְאֶרֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, רַבִּי הוּנָא וְרַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן, בָּכָה וּנְתָנוֹ עַל אַרְכּוּבוֹתָיו, בָּכָה וּנְתָנוֹ עַל זְרוֹעוֹתָיו, בָּכָה וְהִרְכִּיבוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, טִנֵּף עָלָיו וּמִיָּד הִשְׁלִיכוֹ לָאָרֶץ, וְלָא הֲוַת מְחוּתִיתֵיהּ כִּמְסוּקִיתֵיהּ, מְסוּקִיתֵיהּ צִיבְחַר צִיבְחַר, וּמְחוּתִיתֵיהּ כּוֹלָּא חֲדָא. כָּךְ (הושע יא, ג): וְאָנֹכִי תִרְגַּלְתִּי לְאֶפְרַיִם קָחָם עַל זְרוֹעֹתָיו. וְאַחַר כָּךְ (הושע י, יא): אַרְכִּיב אֶפְרַיִם יַחֲרוֹשׁ יְהוּדָה יְשַׂדֶּד לוֹ יַעֲקֹב. וְאַחַר כָּךְ: הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ תִּפְאֶרֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ תִּפְאֶרֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּרַבִּי נַחְמָן מָשָׁל לִבְנֵי מְדִינָה שֶׁעָשׂוּ עֲטָרָה לַמֶּלֶךְ, הִקְנִיטוּהוּ וּסְבָלָן, הִקְנִיטוּהוּ וּסְבָלָן, אָחַר כָּךְ אָמַר לָהֶם הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּלוּם אַתֶּם מַקְנִיטִין אוֹתִי אֶלָּא בַּעֲבוּר עֲטָרָה שֶׁעִטַּרְתֶּם לִי, הֵא לְכוֹן טְרוֹן בְּאַפֵּיכוֹן, כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּלוּם אַתֶּם מַקְנִיטִין אוֹתִי אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל אִיקוּנִין שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב שֶׁחֲקוּקָה עַל כִּסְאִי, הֵא לְכוֹן טְרוֹן בְּאַפֵּיכוֹן, הֱוֵי: הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ וגו'. 4.2. בְּנֵי צִיּוֹן הַיְקָרִים, מֶה הָיְתָה יַקְרוּתָן, עִירוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא יְרוּשַׁלְמִית הָיָה נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִשְׁקָלָהּ זָהָב, וְכֵן יְרוּשַׁלְמִי שֶׁנָשָׂא עִירוֹנִית, הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִשְׁקָלוֹ זָהָב. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶה הָיְתָה יַקְרוּתָן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה גְדוֹלָה מִמֶּנּוּ, הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה שֻׁלְחָנוֹת יוֹתֵר מִן הַיְצִיאוֹת, יְרוּדָה מִמֶּנּוּ הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה הוֹצָאוֹת יוֹתֵר מִן הַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶה הָיְתָה יַקְרוּתָן, לֹא הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם הוֹלֵךְ לִסְעוּדָה עַד שֶׁנִּקְרָא וְנִשְׁנָה. 4.13. יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן. רַבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא הִנִּיחוּ אוֹתִי לִפְשֹׁט יָדִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן כִּכָּר אַחַת וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֹּאכַלְנָה הִיא וּבַעֲלָהּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל שְׁכֶנְתָּהּ, הָיְתָה נוֹטֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ הַכִּכָּר וּמְנַחֶמָה אוֹתָהּ בָּהּ, וְהֶעֱלָה עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן לְמִצְווֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָרוֹת לָמוֹ. | |
|
51. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 262| 5b. וכי נס אחד נעשה בשמן המשחה והלא נסים הרבה נעשו בו מתחלתו ועד סופו תחלתו לא היה אלא י"ב לוג ובו נמשח המשכן וכליו ואהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים וכולו קיים לעתיד לבא,שנאמר (שמות ל, לא) שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם זה בגימטריא י"ב לוגין הויין,ת"ר (ויקרא ח, י) ויקח משה את שמן המשחה וימשח את המשכן וגו' רבי יהודה אומר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר הרבה נסים נעשו בו מתחלתו ועד סופו תחלתו לא היה אלא י"ב לוגין כמה יורה בולעת כמה עיקרין בולעין כמה האור שורף ובו נמשח משכן וכליו אהרן ובניו כל ז' ימי המלואים,ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים ואפי' כהן גדול בן כ"ג טעון משיחה ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקת אדוניה ואת יהואש מפני עתליה ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים אחיו שהיה גדול מאחיו שתי שנים,אמר מר ואפי' כ"ג בן כ"ג טעון משיחה מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ו, טו) והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו נימא קרא והכהן שתחתיו מבניו מאי המשיח הא קמ"ל דאפי' מבניו ההוא דמשח הוי כ"ג ואי לא משח לא הוי כ"ג,אמר מר אין מושחין מלך בן מלך מנלן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב דכתיב (דברים יז, כ) למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו כל הימים ירושה היא,ומפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקת אדוניה מנלן דכי אתי מחלוקת בעי משיחה ולא כל דבעי מלכא מורית ליה מלכותא אמר רב פפא אמר קרא (דברים יז, כ) בקרב ישראל בזמן ששלום בישראל,תנא אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשח אלא מפני מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב אמאי תיפוק ליה דמלך ראשון הוא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מלכי בית דוד מושחין מלכי ישראל אין מושחין ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו יהוא בן נמשי מפני מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב,אמר מר מלכי בית דוד מושחין ואין מלכי ישראל מושחין מנלן דכתיב (שמואל א טז, יב) קום משחהו כי זה הוא זה טעון משיחה ואין אחר טעון משיחה,אמר מר מפני מחלוקת יורם ומשום מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב נמעל בשמן המשחה כדאמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא ה"נ באפרסמא דכיא,ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומי קשיש והכתיב (דברי הימים א ג, טו) ובני יאשיה הבכור יוחנן והשני יהויקים והשלישי צדקיהו והרביעי שלום וא"ר יוחנן הוא יהואחז הוא צדקיהו הוא שלום,אלא לעולם יהויקים קשיש ואמאי קרי ליה בכור שהוא בכור למלכות ומי מוקמינן זוטא קמי קשישא והכתיב (דברי הימים ב כא, ג) ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור ההוא ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה,אמר מר הוא שלום הוא צדקיה והא בדרי קחשיב ומאי קרי ליה שלישי שהוא שלישי לבנים ומאי קרי ליה רביעי שהוא רביעי למלכות משום דמלך יכניה קמיה בתחלה מלך יהואחז וסוף מלך יהויקים וסוף מלך יכניה וסוף מלך צדקיה,ת"ר הוא שלום הוא צדקיה ולמה נקרא שמו שלום שהיה שלם במעשיו דבר אחר שלום ששלם מלכות בית דוד בימיו ומה שמו מתניה שמו שנאמר (מלכים ב כד, יז) וימלך את מתניה דודו תחתיו ויסב שמו צדקיה,דאמר לו יה יצדיק עליך את הדין אם תמרוד בי שנאמר (דברי הימים ב לו, י) ויביאהו בבלה וכתיב (דברי הימים ב לו, יג) וגם במלך נבוכדנאצר מלך בבל מרד אשר השביעו באלהים,ומי הוה שמן המשחה והתניא משנגנז ארון נגנז צנצנת המן וצלוחית שמן המשחה ומקלו של אהרן שקדים ופרחים,וארגז ששגרו פלשתים דורון לאלהי ישראל שנאמר (שמואל א ו, ח) ואת כלי הזהב אשר השיבותם לו אשם תשימו בארגז מצדו ומי גנזו יאשיה מלך יהודה גנזו שנאמר (דברי הימים ב לה, ג) ויאמר המלך אל הכהנים תנו את ארון הקדש,ואמר רבי אלעזר אתיא שם שם,אתיא דורות דורות,אתיא משמרת משמרת אמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא,ת"ר מושחין את המלכים כמין נזר ואת הכהנים כמין כי אמר רב מנשיה כמין כי יוני תני חדא בתחלה מציק שמן על ראשו ואחר כך נותן לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ותני אחריתי בתחלה נותן לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ואחר כך מציק לו שמן על ראשו,תנאי היא איכא למאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא ואיכא למאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא מאי טעמא דמ"ד יציקה עדיפא שנאמר (ויקרא ח, יב) ויצק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן ומאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא קסבר שכן נתרבה אצל כלי שרת,והכתיב ויצק ולבסוף וימשח ה"ק מה טעם ויצק משום וימשח אותו לקדשו,ת"ר (תהילים קלג, ב) כשמן הטוב היורד על הראש וגו' כמין שתי טיפין מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו אמר רב כהנא תנא כשהוא מספר עולות ויושבות בעיקרי זקנו ועל דבר זה היה משה רבינו דואג שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה,יצתה בת קול ואמרה (תהילים קלג, ג) כטל חרמון שיורד על הררי ציון מה טל אין בו מעילה אף שמן שיורד על זקן אהרן אין בו מעילה,ועדיין אהרן היה דואג שמא משה לא מעל ואני מעלתי יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו (תהילים קלג, א) הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד מה משה לא מעל אף אתה לא מעלת,ת"ר אין מושחין את המלכים אלא על המעיין כדי שתימשך מלכותן שנאמ' (מלכים א א, לג-לד) ויאמר המלך (אל בניהו) וגו' והורדתם אותו על גיחון (וגו') ומשח אותו שם,אמר רב אמי האי מאן דבעי לידע אי משכא שתא אי לא מייתי שרגא בהלין עשרה יומין דבין ריש שתא ליומא דכיפורי וניתלי בביתא דלא נשיב זיקא אי משיך נהוריה נידע דמסיק שתיה,ומאן דבעי נעביד עיסקי ובעי דנידע אי מצלח עיסקי אי לא נירבי תרנגולא אי שמין ושפר נידע דמצלח,האי מאן דבעי ניפוק באורחא ובעי דנידע אי הדר לביתיה ניעול ניקום בביתא דבהתא אם חזי | 5b. b And was /b just b one miracle performed with the anointing oil? But many miracles were performed with it, from its initial /b preparation b to its end. /b He explains: b Its initial /b preparation b was only /b the measure of b twelve i log /i , and /b even so b the Tabernacle and its vessels were anointed with it, and /b likewise b Aaron and his sons /b were anointed with it b all the seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it /b throughout the generations, b and /b yet despite the reduction in the amount of oil during its preparation process, as well as its multiple uses throughout history, b it all /b remains b intact for /b its use in b the future. /b ,Rabbi Yehuda adds that this is b as it is stated: “This [ i zeh /i ] shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” /b (Exodus 30:31). The word b i zeh /i has a numerical value [ i bigimatriya /i ] /b of b twelve, /b which teaches that the original twelve b i log /i /b of oil that existed at the outset b are /b extant throughout all the generations. If so, i.e., if such miracles were performed in connection with the oil, it is no wonder that its initial preparation was miraculous., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle /b and all that was in it and sanctified them” (Leviticus 8:10). b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b With regard to b the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, many miracles were performed with it, from its initial /b preparation b to its end. Its initial /b preparation b was only twelve i log /i ; /b consider b how much /b of it b a cauldron absorbs /b from what is cooked inside it, b and how much /b of it the b roots /b of the plants b absorb, how much /b of it b the fire burns, and /b yet b the Tabernacle, and its vessels, /b and b Aaron, and his sons were /b all b anointed with it all seven days of the inauguration. /b ,The i baraita /i adds: b And High Priests and kings were anointed with it, and even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing /b with the oil. b But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. And if you say: /b If so, b for what /b reason b did they anoint King Solomon, /b who was the son of King David? It was b due to the dispute /b over the throne instigated by his older brother b Adonijah, /b who attempted to usurp the monarchy. b And /b similarly b Joash, /b son of Ahaziah, was anointed king (see II Kings 11:12) b due to /b the threat of b Athaliah, /b his paternal grandmother, who attempted to seize the monarchy for herself (II Kings 11:1–3). b And Jehoahaz, /b son of Josiah, was anointed as king (II Kings 23:30) b due to /b the competition from b Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than his brother, /b i.e., Jehoahaz. Ordinarily the older brother succeeds the father, but Jehoahaz was more worthy of the throne.,The Gemara clarifies several aspects of this i baraita /i . b The Master said /b earlier: b And even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this i halakha /i ? It is derived from a verse, b as it is written: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons” /b (Leviticus 6:15). b Let the verse say /b merely: b The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What /b is taught by the addition of the term b “anointed”? This teaches us that even /b when the new High Priest is b from among /b the b sons /b of the previous High Priest, only b that /b priest b who is anointed /b with oil b is /b the b High Priest, but if /b he is b not anointed /b with oil he b is not /b the b High Priest. /b , b The Master said /b earlier: b But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this i halakha /i ? b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said /b that this is b as it is written: In order that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, all the days /b in the midst of Israel (see Deuteronomy 17:20). The mention of a king’s sons teaches that the kingdom b is an inheritance, /b which does not need to be confirmed by anointing.,The i baraita /i further taught: b And for what /b reason b did they anoint King Solomon? Due to the dispute /b over the throne instigated by his older brother b Adonijah. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive b that /b in a situation b where there is a dispute /b the new king b requires anointing, and the /b current b king cannot /b simply b grant the kingship as an inheritance to whomever he desires? Rav Pappa said /b that b the verse states: /b “He and his children b in the midst of Israel” /b (Deuteronomy 17:20). b At a time when there is peace in Israel /b the monarchy transfers smoothly to the king’s son, but not when there is a dispute.,It was b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Also Jehu, /b son of Jehoshaphat, b son of Nimshi, was anointed /b by Elisha the prophet b only due to /b the b dispute /b with b Joram, son of Ahab, /b who was the incumbent king, against whose reign Jehu rebelled (see II Kings 9:1–6). The Gemara asks: b Why /b is it necessary to state this reason? b Let /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b derive /b that Jehu required anointing due to the fact b that he /b was b the first king /b of his lineage, as Jehu was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The i baraita /i b is incomplete, and this /b is what b it is teaching: One anoints the kings of the house of David /b with the anointing oil, but b one does not anoint the kings /b from the kingdom b of Israel. And if you say: For what /b reason b did /b Elisha b anoint Jehu, /b son of Jehoshaphat, b son of Nimshi? /b This was b due to /b the b dispute /b with b Joram, son of Ahab. /b , b The Master said /b earlier: b One anoints the kings of the house of David /b with the anointing oil, but b one does not anoint the kings of Israel. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this i halakha /i ? It is derived from a verse, b as it is written /b with regard to the anointing of David: b “Arise, anoint him; for this is he” /b (I Samuel 16:12). b This /b king, i.e., any king from the house of David, b requires anointing, but another /b king, i.e., from the kingdom of Israel, whose kings were not descendants of the house of David, b does not require anointing. /b , b The Master said /b earlier that Jehu was anointed b due to /b the b dispute /b with b Joram. /b The Gemara asks: b And due to /b the b dispute /b with b Joram, son of Ahab, will we misuse /b consecrated property by anointing someone unnecessarily b with the anointing oil, /b which is called “a sacred anointing oil” (Exodus 30:31)? After all, kings of the kingdom of Israel do not require anointing. The Gemara answers: This is b as Rav Pappa said /b with regard to Jehoahaz: They anointed him b with pure balsam /b oil, rather than with the anointing oil. b Here too, /b Elisha anointed Jehu b with pure balsam /b oil, not the anointing oil.,It was further stated in the i baraita /i : b And Jehoahaz, /b son of Josiah, was anointed b due to /b the competition from b Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than him. /b The Gemara asks: b And was /b Jehoiakim in fact b older /b than Jehoahaz? b But isn’t it written: “And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Joha, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum” /b (I Chronicles 3:15); b and Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The one who is called Joha in that verse b is /b also called b Jehoahaz, /b and the one who b is /b called b Zedekiah is /b the same as the one called b Shallum. /b If so, Jehoahaz is the eldest son, not Jehoiakim. Why, then, was it necessary to anoint Jehoahaz?,The Gemara answers: b Rather, Jehoiakim /b was b actually older /b than Jehoahaz. b And why /b does the verse b call /b Jehoahaz the b firstborn? /b This is referring to the fact b that /b Jehoahaz was the b firstborn with regard to the monarchy, /b i.e., he became king first. The Gemara asks: b And do we establish the younger /b son as king b before the older /b son? b But isn’t it written /b with regard to Jehoshaphat: b “And he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn” /b (II Chronicles 21:3)? The Gemara answers: Jehoram b was /b one b who filled the place of his fathers, /b i.e., he was fit to serve as king, and therefore as he was firstborn he received the kingship, whereas Jehoiakim was deemed unworthy of the honor, despite being the oldest among his brothers., b The Master said /b earlier: The one who b is /b called b Shallum is /b also called b Zedekiah. /b The Gemara objects: b But the Torah counts /b these individuals b in a row, /b i.e., one after the other, as I Chronicles 3:15 mentions the first, second, third, and fourth sons. This indicates that they are different people. The Gemara answers: Shallum and Zedekiah are in fact one and the same, b and what /b is the reason the verse b calls /b Zedekiah the b third? /b The reason is b that he is third of the sons, /b i.e., the third in order of birth. b And what /b is the reason the verse b calls /b Shallum the b fourth? /b The reason is b that he is fourth to the kingship, because Jeconiah reigned before him. /b How so? b Initially Jehoahaz reigned, and afterward Jehoiakim /b reigned, b and afterward Jeconiah /b reigned, b and afterward Zedekiah /b reigned. Accordingly, Zedekiah, called Shallum, was fourth to the kingship., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The one who b is /b called b Shallum is /b also called b Zedekiah, and why was he called Shallum? Because he was perfect [ i shalem /i ] in his /b good b deeds. Alternatively, /b he was called b Shallum because in his days the kingdom of the house of David was completed [ i shalam /i ], /b as he was the last king in the Davidic dynasty. b And what /b was b his /b true b name? Mattaniah /b was b his name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylonia made Mattaniah, his father’s brother, king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah” /b (II Kings 24:17).,The i baraita /i explains: Why did the king of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar, call him by the name Zedekiah? The reason is b that /b Nebuchadnezzar b said to him: God will justify [ i yatzdik /i ] the judgment over you if you rebel against me, as it is stated /b with regard to Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin: b “And brought him to Babylon” /b (II Chronicles 36:10), and with regard to Zedekiah it is stated: b “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God” /b (II Chronicles 36:13).,§ The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement that Jehoahaz was anointed: b And was there anointing oil /b in the days of Jehoahaz? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Yoma /i 2:15) that b from when /b the b Ark was sequestered, /b along with it b was sequestered the jar of manna /b that was next to it (see Exodus 16:33), b and the flask of the anointing oil, and Aaron’s staff /b with its b almonds and blossoms /b (see Numbers 17:23).,The i baraita /i continues: b And /b also sequestered with the Ark was the b chest that the Philistines sent as a gift to the God of Israel /b after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, b as it is stated: “And put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt offering, in a coffer by its side, /b and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8). b And who sequestered /b the Ark? b Josiah, king of Judah, sequestered it, as it is stated: And the king said to the priests: Put the sacred Ark /b in the house that Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, built (see II Chronicles 35:3)., b And Rabbi Elazar says: /b How do we know that all these items needed to be sequestered together with the Ark? The i halakha /i that the jar of manna was to be kept with the Ark is b derived /b through a verbal analogy between the words b “there” /b and b “there.” /b The word “there” is stated with regard to the Ark: “Where I will meet with you there” (Exodus 30:6), and it is also stated with regard to the manna: “And put there” (Exodus 16:33).,The i halakha /i that the anointing oil was to be kept together with the Ark is b derived /b through a verbal analogy between the words b “generations” /b and b “generations.” /b This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna: “To be kept throughout your generations” (Exodus 16:33), and also with regard to the anointing oil: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31).,Finally, the i halakha /i that Aaron’s staff was to be kept together with the Ark is b derived /b through a verbal analogy between the terms b “to be kept” /b and b “to be kept.” /b This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna, and also with regard to Aaron’s staff: “To be kept there, for a token against the rebellious children” (Numbers 17:25). All these items, which are connected through these verbal analogies, including the anointing oil, were kept by the side of the Ark, and therefore they were sequestered together with the Ark. If so, how was Jehoahaz anointed with the anointing oil? b Rav Pappa said: /b They did not anoint Jehoahaz with the anointing oil, but b with pure balsam. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One anoints the kings /b by placing the oil around the head in a shape b similar /b to b a crown, and one anoints the /b High b Priests /b by placing the oil upon the head in the shape b similar /b to b chi. /b In explanation of this statement, b Rav Menashya says: /b It is placed in a shape b similar /b to the b Greek /b letter b chi, /b which looks like the letter Χ. It b is taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : b First, one pours oil on /b the b head of /b the High Priest, b and afterward one places oil between his eyelashes. And it is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b First, one places oil between his eyelashes, and afterward one pours oil on his head. /b The i baraitot /i contradict each other.,The Gemara explains: This b is /b a matter of dispute between b i tanna’im /i , /b as b there is /b a i tanna /i b who says: Anointing /b between his eyelashes is b preferable /b to pouring on the head and therefore comes first, b and there is /b a i tanna /i b who says /b that b pouring /b on the head is b preferable /b to anointing between his eyelashes, and therefore comes first. b What is the reasoning of the one who says /b that b pouring /b on the head is b preferable? As it is stated: “And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head /b and anointed him to sanctify him” (Leviticus 8:12), which indicates that pouring is first, followed by anointing. b And /b as for b the one who says /b that b anointing /b between his eyelashes is b preferable /b to pouring on the head and precedes it, b he holds /b that anointing is preferable b in that /b its use b is increased, /b i.e., it is performed b on the service vessels, /b whereas pouring is not mentioned with regard to the service vessels.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b according to the opinion that anointing is preferable, b isn’t it written: “He poured,” and ultimately: “He anointed” /b (Leviticus 8:12)? The Gemara explains that b this /b is what the verse b is saying: What is the reason /b for b “he poured”? /b This action was made possible b due to /b the fact that he had already: b “Anointed him to sanctify him.” /b In other words, the pouring came after the anointing, which is the primary act., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “It is like the precious oil upon the head /b descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). b Two drops /b of anointing oil shaped b like pearls hung from Aaron’s beard. Rav Kahana says /b it is b taught: When /b Aaron b would speak /b his beard would move, and these drops b would /b miraculously b rise and sit on the roots of his beard, /b so that they would not fall to the ground. b And with regard to this matter Moses, our teacher, was concerned, /b thinking: b Perhaps, God forbid, I misused the anointing oil /b by pouring too much, which resulted in these two additional drops., b A Divine Voice emerged and said: /b “It is like the precious oil upon the head, descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments, b like the dew of the Hermon that comes down upon the mountains of Zion” /b (Psalms 133:2–3). This comparison serves to teach: b Just as the Hermon’s dew is not subject to misuse /b of consecrated property, as it is not consecrated but can be used by all, b so too, /b the anointing b oil that descends upon Aaron’s beard is not subject to misuse /b of consecrated property., b And still Aaron himself was concerned, /b thinking: b Perhaps Moses did not misuse /b consecrated property b but I misused /b the oil, as the additional oil is on my body and I derive benefit from it. b A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” /b (Psalms 133:1). b Just as /b your brother b Moses did not misuse /b consecrated property, b so too, you did not misuse /b consecrated property.,§ The Gemara cites a i baraita /i which discusses the anointing of kings. b The Sages taught: One may anoint kings only next to a spring. /b This is done as a fortuitous sign, b so that their kingdom should continue /b uninterrupted just as the waters of the spring flow uninterrupted throughout the year. b As it is stated /b with regard to the coronation of Solomon in the days of King David: b And the king said to Benaiah: /b Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule, b and bring him down to Gihon. And /b let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet b anoint him there /b king over Israel (see I Kings 1:33–34). The Sages derived from here that all kings should be anointed near a spring.,Parenthetical to this matter of performing an act as a fortuitous sign, the Gemara cites that which b Rav Ami says: One who desires to know if he will /b live b through /b this current b year or not should bring /b a lit b candle during those ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur and hang it in a house /b through b which wind does not blow, /b and he should watch it carefully: b If its light continues he shall know that he will live out his year. /b , b And one who desires to conduct business and wants to know if /b his b business will succeed or not should raise a rooster. If /b the rooster b gets fat and beautiful he shall know that /b the venture b will succeed. /b , b This one who wishes to leave on a journey and wants to know whether he will return to his home should enter a dark house. If he sees /b |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 369| 38a. דאם כן נכתוב קרא להאי רעהו גבי מועד:,שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור: אמרי ממה נפשך אי רעהו דוקא דכנעני כי נגח דישראל נמי ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני נחייב,א"ר אבהו אמר קרא (חבקוק ג, ו) עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח כיון שלא קיימו עמד והתיר ממונן לישראל,רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא (דברים לג, ב) הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונם לישראל,תניא נמי הכי שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור שור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם שנאמר עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ואומר הופיע מהר פארן,מאי ואומר,וכי תימא האי עמד וימודד ארץ מבעי' ליה לכדרב מתנה וכדרב יוסף ת"ש הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונן לישראל מאי דרב מתנה דא"ר מתנה עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שנצטוו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והגלה אותם מעל אדמתם,ומאי משמע דהאי ויתר לישנא דאגלויי הוא כתיב הכא ויתר גוים וכתיב התם (ויקרא יא, כא) לנתר בהן על הארץ ומתרגם לקפצא בהון על ארעא,מאי דרב יוסף דא"ר יוסף עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והתירן להם,איתגורי אתגר א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר אמר מר בריה דרבנא לומר שאפילו מקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהן שכר,ולא והתניא ר"מ אומר מנין שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים ולוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא אדם הא למדת שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול,אמרי אין מקבלים עליהן שכר כמצווה ועושה אלא כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה דא"ר חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה:,ת"ר וכבר שלחה מלכות רומי שני סרדיוטות אצל חכמי ישראל למדונו תורתכם קראו ושנו ושלשו בשעת פטירתן אמרו להם דקדקנו בכל תורתכם ואמת הוא חוץ מדבר זה שאתם אומרים שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם,ממ"נ אי רעהו דוקא אפילו דכנעני כי נגח דישראל ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני לחייב ודבר זה אין אנו מודיעים אותו למלכות,רב שמואל בר יהודה שכיבא ליה ברתא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא קום ניזל נינחמיה אמר להו מאי אית לי גבי נחמתא דבבלאי דגידופא הוא דאמרי מאי אפשר למיעבד הא אפשר למיעבד עבדי,אזל הוא לחודאי גביה א"ל (דברים ב, ב) ויאמר ה' (אל משה) אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה וכי מה עלה על דעתו של משה לעשות מלחמה שלא ברשות אלא נשא משה ק"ו בעצמו אמר ומה מדינים שלא באו אלא לעזור את מואב אמרה תורה (במדבר כה, יז) צרור את המדינים והכיתם אותם | 38a. b Because if so, /b if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, b let the verse write this /b phrase: b “of another,” with regard to /b the case of b a forewarned /b ox. One could then infer that the owner is exempt from liability in the case of an innocuous ox as well, as the liability with regard to an innocuous ox is less severe than with regard to a forewarned ox. The stating of this exemption specifically in the context of an innocuous ox indicates that the exemption is only concerning the leniency stated in the verse, that if the gored ox belongs to another person, the owner of the belligerent ox is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to b an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, /b the owner of the belligerent ox is b exempt /b from liability; whereas if a gentile’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. The Sages b said: /b This statement is difficult b whichever way you /b look at it. b If /b the phrase b “of another” /b is meant in b a precise /b manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, b when a gentile’s /b ox b gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt /b from liability. b And if /b the phrase b “of another” /b is b not /b meant in b a precise /b manner, then b even when a Jew’s /b ox b gores that of a gentile /b the owner of the belligerent ox b should be liable. /b , b Rabbi Abbahu said /b that the reason for this ruling is that b the verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [ i vayyatter /i ]” /b (Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God b saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves /b to fulfill, and b since they did not fulfill /b them, b He arose and permitted [ i vehittir /i ] their money to the Jewish people, /b so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to gentiles., b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b that the source for this i halakha /i is b from here: /b It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: “The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; b He appeared from Mount Paran” /b (Deuteronomy 33:2), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: b From /b the time God came from Mount b Paran, /b when giving the Torah, b the money of /b the gentile nations b appeared, /b i.e., it was revealed and granted b to the Jewish people. /b , b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, /b the owner of the belligerent ox is b exempt /b from liability. By contrast, with regard to b an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether /b it was b innocuous or forewarned, /b the owner of the belligerent ox b pays the full /b cost of the b damage, as it is stated: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.” And /b another verse b states: “He appeared from Mount Paran.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the reason the i baraita /i adds: b And /b another verse b states, /b indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?,The Gemara explains that this is how the i baraita /i is to be understood: b And if you would say /b that b this /b verse: b “He stood and shook the earth” is necessary to /b express b that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef /b derived from the verse, b come /b and b hear /b another source: b “He appeared from Mount Paran,” /b meaning: b From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana’s /b exposition? It is b as Rav Mattana says: “He stood and shook the earth.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah were commanded but did not fulfill, /b and b He arose and exiled them from their land /b on account of their transgressions., b And from where may /b it b be inferred that this /b term b i vayyatter /i is a term of exile? It is written here: “And made the nations tremble [ i vayyatter /i ]” /b (Habakkuk 3:6), b and it is written there: “ i Lenatter /i upon the earth” /b (Leviticus 11:21), b which is translated /b into Aramaic as: b “To leap upon the earth.” /b Apparently, the root i nun /i , i tav /i , i reish /i , common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another., b What is Rav Yosef’s /b exposition? It is b as Rav Yosef says: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves and did not fulfill, /b so b He arose and permitted /b their prohibitions b to them. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Did they /b thereby b profit, /b in that their prohibitions became permitted to them? b If so, we have found a transgressor /b who b is rewarded. Mar, son of Rabbana, says: /b This is not to say that for them to transgress their mitzvot is no longer a sin; rather, it is b to say that even if they fulfill them, they do not receive reward for /b fulfilling b them. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b do they b not /b receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir says: From where /b is it derived b that even a gentile who engages in Torah is /b considered b like a High Priest? The verse states /b with regard to the mitzvot: b “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” /b (Leviticus 18:5). It b is not stated: /b Which if b priests and Levites and Israelites /b do, they shall live by them, b but rather: A person, /b indicating that all people are included. b You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah /b study b is /b considered b like a High Priest. /b ,The Sages b said /b in response: Rav Yosef meant that b they do not receive the reward as /b does b one who is commanded /b to perform a mitzva b and performs /b it, b but as /b does b one who is not commanded /b to perform a mitzva b and performs /b it anyway. b As Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b One who is b commanded and performs /b a mitzva b is greater than /b one who b is not commanded and performs /b it., b The Sages taught /b the following story in the context of the aforementioned i halakha /i : b And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [ i sardeyotot /i ] to the Sages of Israel, /b and ordered them in the name of the king: b Teach us your Torah. /b The officials b read /b the Torah, b and repeated /b it, b and /b repeated it again, reading it for the b third /b time. b At the time of their departure, they said to /b the Sages: b We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this /b one b matter that you state, /b i.e., that with regard to b an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, /b the owner is b exempt /b from liability, whereas with regard to the ox b of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether /b it was b innocuous or forewarned, /b the owner b pays the full /b cost of the b damage. /b ,The officials’ reasoning was that this i halakha /i is difficult b whichever way you /b look at it. b If /b the phrase b “of another” /b is meant in b a precise /b manner, that the owners of both oxen must both be Jewish, then b even when /b the ox b of a gentile gores the ox of a Jew /b the owner of the ox b should be exempt /b from liability. b And if /b the phrase b “of another” /b is b not /b meant in b a precise /b manner, and the oxen of all are included, then b even when /b the ox b of a Jew gores the ox of a gentile /b the owner b should be liable. /b They added: b But we will not inform this matter to the kingdom; /b having acknowledged that the entire Torah is true, we will not reveal this ruling, as it will displease the kingdom.,§ Incidentally, it is related that b the daughter /b of b Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda died. The Sages said to Ulla: Arise; let us go console him. /b Ulla b said to them: What /b business b do I have with the consolation of Babylonians, which is /b actually b heresy? As, they say /b while consoling mourners: b What can be done? /b This seems to suggest that b if it were possible to do /b something, acting against the Almighty’s decree, b they would do /b so, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.,Ulla therefore b went to /b console Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda b by himself, /b and b said to him: /b The verse states: b “And the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” /b (Deuteronomy 2:9). b What entered Moses’s mind, /b that God had to warn him not to undertake a particular action? Did it enter his mind b to wage war /b with the Moabites b without permission? Rather, Moses reasoned an i a fortiori /i /b inference b by himself, saying: And if /b with regard to b the Midianites, who came only to help the Moabites /b harm the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 22), b the Torah said: “Harass the Midianites and smite them” /b (Numbers 25:17), |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 262| 48b. כמין שני חוטמין דקין (ואחד) מעובה ואחד דק כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת מערבו של מים מזרחו של יין עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא,ר' יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה ולמנסך אומר לו הגבה ידך שפעם אחד נסך אחד על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן,כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת אלא שהיה ממלא מערב שבת חבית של זהב שאינה מקודשת מן השילוח ומניחה בלשכה נשפכה נתגלתה היה ממלא מן הכיור שהיין והמים מגולין פסולין לגבי מזבח:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנא הנ"מ אמר רב עינא דאמר קרא (ישעיהו יב, ג) ושאבתם מים בששון וגו',הנהו תרי מיני חד שמיה ששון וחד שמיה שמחה א"ל ששון לשמחה אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (ישעיהו לה, י) ששון ושמחה ישיגו וגו' א"ל שמחה לששון אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (אסתר ח, יז) שמחה וששון ליהודים א"ל ששון לשמחה חד יומא שבקוך ושויוך פרוונקא דכתיב (ישעיהו נה, יב) כי בשמחה תצאו א"ל שמחה לששון חד יומא שבקוך ומלו בך מיא דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון,א"ל ההוא מינא דשמיה ששון לר' אבהו עתידיתו דתמלו לי מים לעלמא דאתי דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון א"ל אי הוה כתיב לששון כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב בששון משכיה דההוא גברא משוינן ליה גודא ומלינן ביה מיא:,עלה בכבש ופנה לשמאלו כו': ת"ר כל העולים למזבח עולין דרך ימין ומקיפין ויורדין דרך שמאל חוץ מן העולה לשלשה דברים הללו שעולין דרך שמאל וחוזרין על העקב ואלו הן ניסוך המים וניסוך היין ועולת העוף כשרבתה במזרח:,אלא שהיו משחירין: בשלמא דיין משחיר דמיא אמאי משחיר כיון דאמר מר עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא של מים אתי לאשחורי:,ומנוקבים כמין ב' חוטמין וכו': לימא מתניתין ר' יהודה היא ולא רבנן דתנן רבי יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה דאי רבנן כי הדדי נינהו,אפי' תימא רבנן חמרא סמיך מיא קליש,הכי נמי מסתברא דאי רבי יהודה רחב וקצר אית ליה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר שני קשוואות היו שם אחד של מים ואחד של יין של יין פיה רחב של מים פיה קצר כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת ש"מ:,מערבו של מים: ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שניסך על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן ואותו היום נפגמה קרן המזבח והביאו בול של מלח וסתמוהו לא מפני שהוכשר לעבודה אלא מפני שלא יראה מזבח פגום | 48b. with b two thin /b perforated b nose-like /b protrusions. b One /b of the basins, used for the wine libation, had a perforation that was b broad, and one, /b used for the water libation, had a perforation that was b thin, so that /b the flow of b both /b the water and the wine, which do not have the same viscosity, would b conclude simultaneously. /b The basin to the b west of /b the altar was b for water, /b and the basin to the b east of /b the altar was b for wine. /b However, if b one poured /b the contents of the basin b of water into /b the basin b of wine, or /b the contents of the basin b of wine into /b the basin b of water, he fulfilled /b his obligation, as failure to pour the libation from the prescribed location does not disqualify the libation after the fact., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The basin for the water libation was not that large; rather, b one would pour /b the water b with /b a vessel that had a capacity of b one i log /i /b on b all eight /b days of the Festival and not only seven. b And /b the appointee b says to the one pouring /b the water into the silver basin: b Raise your hand, /b so that his actions would be visible, b as one time /b a Sadducee priest intentionally b poured /b the water b on his feet, /b as the Sadducees did not accept the oral tradition requiring water libation, and in their rage b all the people pelted him with their i etrogim /i . /b ,Rabbi Yehuda continues: b As its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat, except /b that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, b on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated /b for exclusive use in the Temple b from the Siloam /b pool, b and he /b would b place it in the /b Temple b chamber /b and draw water from there on Shabbat. If the water in the barrel b spilled, /b or if it b was exposed /b overnight, leading to concern that a snake may have deposited poison in the water, b one would fill /b the jug with water b from the basin /b in the Temple courtyard, b as exposed wine or water is unfit for the altar. /b Just as it is prohibited for people to drink them due to the potential danger, so too, they may not be poured on the altar., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the customs accompanying the drawing of the water, the Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Eina said /b that it is b as the verse states: “With joy [ i sason /i ] you shall draw water /b out of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), indicating that the water was to be drawn from the spring and the rite performed in extreme joy.,Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were b these two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simḥa. Sason said to Simḥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy [ i sason /i ] and happiness [ i simḥa /i ], /b and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. b Simḥa said to Sason, /b On the contrary, b I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness [ i simḥa /i ] and joy [ i sason /i ] for the Jews” /b (Esther 8:17). b Sason said to Simḥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger [ i parvanka /i ], as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness [ i simḥa /i ]” /b (Isaiah 55:12). b Simḥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy [ i sason /i ] you shall draw water.” /b ,The Gemara relates a similar incident: b A certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You are /b all b destined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With i sason /i you shall draw water.” /b Rabbi Abbahu b said to him: If it had been written: For i sason /i , /b it would have been b as you say; now that it is written: With i sason /i , /b it means that b the skin of that man, /b you, b will be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it. /b ,§ The mishna continues: The priest b ascended the ramp /b of the altar b and turned to his left. The Sages taught: All who ascend the altar ascend /b and turn b via /b the b right, and circle /b the altar, b and descend via /b the b left. /b This is the case b except for one ascending /b to perform one of b these three tasks, as /b the ones who perform these tasks b ascend via /b the b left, and /b then b turn on /b their b heel and return /b in the direction that they came. b And /b these tasks b are: The water libation, and the wine libation, and the bird /b sacrificed as b a burnt-offering when there were /b too b many /b priests engaged in the sacrifice of these burnt-offerings b in the /b preferred location b east /b of the altar. When that was the case, additional priests engaged in sacrificing the same offering would pinch the neck of the bird west of the altar.,The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda said that they were limestone, not silver, basins, b but they would blacken /b due to the wine. The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b the basin b for wine blackened /b due to the wine; however, b why did the /b basin b for water blacken? /b The Gemara answers: b Since the Master said /b in the mishna: However, if b one /b inadvertently b poured /b the contents of the basin b of water into /b the basin b of wine or /b the contents of the basin b of wine into /b the basin b of water, he fulfilled /b his obligation. Then even the basin b for water /b would b come to blacken /b over the course of time as well.,§ The mishna continues: b And /b the two basins were b perforated /b at the bottom with b two thin, /b perforated, b nose-like /b protrusions, one broad and one thin. The Gemara asks: b Let us say /b that b the mishna is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda and not /b with that of b the Rabbis, as we learned /b in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda says: One would pour /b the water b with /b a vessel that had a capacity of b one i log /i /b on b all eight /b days of the Festival, unlike the wine libation, for which a three- i log /i basin was used. According to his opinion, there is a difference between the capacity of the wine vessel and that of the water vessel; therefore, it is clear why the opening in the wine vessel was broader. b As, if /b the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, they are the same /b as the capacity of the water basin, three i log /i . Why, then, were there different sized openings?,The Gemara answers: b Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b the reason for the different-sized openings is that b wine is thick /b and b water is thin, /b and therefore wine flows more slowly than water. In order to ensure that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously, the wine basin required a wider opening., b So too, it is reasonable /b to establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, b as, if /b it is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b unlike the description of the two openings in the mishna as broad and thin, elsewhere he b is of /b the opinion that the openings b as wide and narrow, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two /b small b pipes there, one for water and one for wine. The mouth of /b the pipe b for wine was wide and the mouth of /b the pipe b for water was narrow, so that /b the emptying of both basins b would conclude simultaneously. /b The disparity between wide and narrow is greater than the disparity between broad and thin, thereby facilitating the simultaneous emptying of the three- i log /i and one- i log /i basins according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from it /b that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,§ The mishna continues: The basin to the b west of /b the altar was b for water, /b and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine, and they would tell the one pouring the water to raise his hand. b The Sages taught: /b There was b an incident involving one Sadducee /b priest b who poured /b the water b on his feet, /b and in anger b all the people pelted him with their i etrogim /i . And that day, the horn of the altar was damaged /b as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. b They brought a fistful of salt and sealed /b the damaged section, b not because it rendered /b the altar b fit for the /b Temple b service, but /b in deference to the altar, b so that the altar would not be seen /b in its b damaged /b state. |
|
54. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 230| 109a. מאן נשדר נשדר בהדי נחום איש גם זו דמלומד בנסים הוא,כי מטא לההוא דיורא בעא למיבת אמרי ליה מאי איכא בהדך אמר להו קא מובילנא כרגא לקיסר קמו בליליא שרינהו לסיפטיה ושקלו כל דהוה גביה ומלנהו עפרא כי מטא להתם אישתכח עפרא אמר אחוכי קא מחייכי בי יהודאי אפקוהו למקטליה אמר גם זו לטובה אתא אליהו ואידמי להו כחד מינייהו אמר להו דילמא האי עפרא מעפרא דאברהם אבינו הוא דהוה שדי עפרא הוו חרבי גילי הוו גירי בדוק ואשכחו הכי,הוה מחוזא דלא הוו קא יכלי ליה למיכבשיה שדו מההוא עפרא עליה וכבשוה עיילוהו לבי גנזא אמרי שקול דניחא לך מלייה לסיפטא דהבא כי הדר אתא אמרו ליה הנך דיורי מאי אמטית לבי מלכא אמר להו מאי דשקלי מהכא אמטאי להתם שקלי אינהו אמטו להתם קטלינהו להנך דיורי:,דור הפלגה אין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו': מאי עבוד אמרי דבי רבי שילא נבנה מגדל ונעלה לרקיע ונכה אותו בקרדומות כדי שיזובו מימיו מחכו עלה במערבא א"כ ליבנו אחד בטורא,(אלא) א"ר ירמיה בר אלעזר נחלקו לג' כיתות אחת אומרת נעלה ונשב שם ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה זו שאומרת נעלה ונשב שם הפיצם ה' וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה נעשו קופים ורוחות ושידים ולילין וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים (בראשית יא, ט) כי שם בלל ה' שפת כל הארץ,תניא רבי נתן אומר כולם לשם עבודת כוכבים נתכוונו כתיב הכא (בראשית יא, ד) נעשה לנו שם וכתיב התם (שמות כג, יג) ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו מה להלן עבודת כוכבים אף כאן עבודת כוכבים,אמר רבי יוחנן מגדל שליש נשרף שליש נבלע שליש קיים אמר רב אויר מגדל משכח אמר רב יוסף בבל ובורסיף סימן רע לתורה מאי בורסיף אמר ר' אסי בור שאפי:,אנשי סדום אין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו': ת"ר אנשי סדום אין להן חלק לעולם הבא שנאמר (בראשית יג, יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה' מאד רעים בעוה"ז וחטאים לעולם הבא,אמר רב יהודה רעים בגופן וחטאים בממונם רעים בגופן דכתיב (בראשית לט, ט) ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלהים וחטאים בממונם דכתיב (דברים טו, ט) והיה בך חטא לה' זו ברכת השם מאד שמתכוונים וחוטאים,במתניתא תנא רעים בממונם וחטאים בגופן רעים בממונם דכתיב (דברים טו, ט) ורעה עינך באחיך האביון וחטאים בגופן דכתיב (בראשית לט, ט) וחטאתי לאלהים לה' זו ברכת השם מאד זו שפיכות דמים שנאמר (מלכים ב כא, טז) גם דם נקי שפך מנשה (בירושלים) הרבה מאד [וגו'],ת"ר אנשי סדום לא נתגאו אלא בשביל טובה שהשפיע להם הקב"ה ומה כתיב בהם (איוב כח, ה) ארץ ממנה יצא לחם ותחתיה נהפך כמו אש מקום ספיר אבניה ועפרות זהב לו נתיב לא ידעו עיט ולא שזפתו עין איה לא הדריכוהו בני שחץ לא עדה עליו שחל,אמרו וכי מאחר שארץ ממנה יצא לחם ועפרות זהב לו למה לנו עוברי דרכים שאין באים אלינו אלא לחסרינו [מממוננו] בואו ונשכח תורת רגל מארצנו שנאמר (איוב כח, ד) פרץ נחל מעם גר הנשכחים מני רגל דלו מאנוש נעו,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים סב, ד) עד אנה תהותתו על איש תרצחו כולכם כקיר נטוי גדר הדחויה מלמד שהיו נותנין עיניהן בבעלי ממון ומושיבין אותו אצל קיר נטוי ודוחין אותו עליו ובאים ונוטלין את ממונו,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (איוב כד, טז) חתר בחשך בתים יומם חתמו למו לא (ראו) [ידעו] אור מלמד שהיו נותנים עיניהם בבעלי ממון ומפקידים אצלו אפרסמון ומניחים אותו בבית גנזיהם לערב באים ומריחין אותו ככלב שנא' (תהלים נט, ז) ישובו לערב יהמו ככלב ויסובבו עיר ובאים וחותרים שם ונוטלין אותו ממון,(איוב כד, י) ערום הלכו מבלי לבוש ואין כסות בקרה חמור יתומים ינהגו יחבלו שור אלמנה גבולות ישיגו עדר גזלו וירעו (איוב כא, לב) והוא לקברות יובל ועל גדיש ישקוד,דרש ר' יוסי בציפורי אחתרין ההיא ליליא תלת מאה מחתרתא בציפורי אתו וקא מצערי ליה אמרו ליה יהבית אורחיה לגנבי אמר להו מי הוה ידענא דאתו גנבי כי קא נח נפשיה דרבי יוסי שפעי מרזבי דציפורי דמא,אמרי דאית ליה חד תורא מרעי חד יומא דלית ליה לירעי תרי יומי ההוא יתמא בר ארמלתא הבו ליה תורי למרעיה אזל שקלינהו וקטלינהו אמר להו | 109a. b whom shall we send /b the gift? They decided: b We will send /b it b with Naḥum of Gam Zo, as he is experienced in miracles. /b , b When he reached a certain lodging, he sought to sleep /b there. The residents of that lodging b said to him: What /b do you b have with you? /b Naḥum b said to them: I am taking the head tax to the emperor. They rose in the night, opened his chest and took everything that was in it, and /b then b filled /b the chest b with dirt. When he arrived there, /b in Rome, b earth was discovered /b in the chest. The emperor b said: The Jews are mocking me /b by giving me this gift. b They took /b Naḥum b out to kill him. /b Naḥum b said: This too is for the best. Elijah /b the prophet b came and appeared to them as one of /b Naḥum’s traveling party. Elijah b said to them: Perhaps this earth is from the earth of Abraham our forefather, who would throw dust /b and b it became swords, /b and who would throw b straw /b and b it became arrows. They examined /b the dust b and discovered /b that it was indeed the dust of Abraham., b There was a province that /b the Romans b were unable to conquer. They threw /b some b of this earth upon /b that province b and they conquered it. /b In appreciation for the gift that Naḥum of Gam Zo had brought on behalf of the Jewish people, b they brought him into the treasury /b and b said: Take /b that b which is preferable to you. He filled his chest /b with b gold. When he returned /b to that lodging, b those residents said to him: What did you bring to the king’s palace? /b Naḥum b said to them: What I took from here, I brought to there. /b The residents concluded that the earth with which they had filled the chest had miraculous properties. b They took /b earth and b brought it to /b the emperor. Once the Romans discovered that the earth was ineffective in battle, b they executed those residents. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that the members of b the generation of the dispersion have no share in the World-to-Come. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b sin b did they perform? /b Their sin is not explicitly delineated in the Torah. b The school of Rabbi Sheila say /b that the builders of the Tower of Babel said: b We will build a tower and ascend to heaven, and we will strike it with axes so that its waters will flow. They laughed at /b this explanation b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and asked: b If /b that was their objective, b let them build /b a tower b on a mountain; /b why did they build it specifically in a valley (see Genesis 11:2)?, b Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Elazar says: They divided into three factions; one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and dwell there. And one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and engage in idol worship. And one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and wage war. /b With regard to b that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and dwell there, God dispersed them. And that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and wage war, became apes, and spirits, and demons, and female demons. And /b with regard to b that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and engage in idol wor-ship, /b it is written: b “Because there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth” /b (Genesis 11:9)., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says: All of /b those factions b intended /b to build the tower b for the sake of idol worship. It is written here: “And let us make a name for us” /b (Genesis 11:4), b and it is written there: “And make no mention of the name of the other gods” /b (Exodus 23:13). b Just as there, /b the connotation of “name” b is idol worship, so too here, /b the connotation of “name” b is idol worship. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa says: The /b uppermost b third /b of the b tower was burned, /b the lowermost b third /b of the tower b was swallowed /b into the earth, and the middle b third remained /b intact. b Rav says: The atmosphere of the tower causes forgetfulness; /b anyone who goes there forgets what he has learned. As a result of the building of the tower, forgetting was introduced into the world. b Rav Yosef says: Babylonia and /b the adjacent place, b Bursif, are /b each b a bad omen for Torah, /b i.e., they cause one to forget his knowledge. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b Bursif? Rabbi Asi says: /b It is an abbreviation of b empty pit [ i bor shafi /i ]. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” /b (Genesis 13:13). b “Wicked” /b indicates b in this world; “and sinners” /b indicates b for the World-to-Come. /b , b Rav Yehuda says: “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies; “and sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money. “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies, as it is written /b with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: b “And how can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God” /b (Genesis 39:9). b “And sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money, as it is written: /b “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother, and you give him nothing… b for it shall be reckoned to you as a sin” /b (Deuteronomy 15:9). b “Before the Lord”; this /b is referring to b blessing, /b a euphemism for cursing, b God. “Exceedingly” /b means b that they had intent and sinned /b and did not sin unwittingly or driven by lust., b It was taught in a i baraita /i : “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money; “and sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies. “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money, as it is written: “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother /b and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). b “And sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies, as it is written /b with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: b “And sin against God” /b (Genesis 39:9). b “Before the Lord”; this /b is referring to b blessing, /b a euphemism for cursing, b God. “Exceedingly [ i meod /i ]” /b is referring to b bloodshed, as it is stated: “Moreover Manasseh shed very [ i meod /i ] much blood” /b (II Kings 21:16)., b The Sages taught: The people of Sodom became haughty /b and sinned b due only to the /b excessive b goodness that the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed upon them. And what is written concerning them, /b indicating that goodness? b “As for the earth, out of it comes bread, and underneath it is turned up as it were by fire. Its stones are the place of sapphires, and it has dust of gold. That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the falcon’s eye seen it. The proud beasts have not trodden it, nor has the lion passed thereby” /b (Job 28:5–8). The reference is to the city of Sodom, which was later overturned, as it is stated thereafter: “He puts forth His hand upon the flinty rock; He overturns the mountains by the roots” (Job 28:9).,The people of Sodom b said: Since /b we live in b a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold, /b we have everything that we need. b Why do we need travelers, as they come only to divest us of our property? Come, let us cause the /b proper b treatment of travelers to be forgotten from our land, as it is stated: “He breaks open a watercourse in a place far from inhabitants, forgotten by pedestrians, they are dried up, they have moved away from men” /b (Job 28:4)., b Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “How long will you seek to overwhelm a man? You will all be murdered like a leaning wall or a tottering fence” /b (Psalms 62:4)? This b teaches that /b the people of Sodom b set their sights on property owners. /b They would take one b and place him alongside an inclined, /b flimsy b wall /b that was about to fall, b and push it upon him /b to kill him, b and /b then b they /b would b come and take his property. /b , b Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “In the dark they dig through houses; by day they shut themselves up; they know not the light” /b (Job 24:16)? This b teaches that they would set their sights on property owners. /b They would take one b and /b they would b give him balsam, /b whose smell diffuses, b and /b the property owner would b place it in his treasury. In the evening, /b the people of Sodom b would come and sniff it /b out b like a dog /b and discover the location of the property owner’s treasury, b as it is stated: “They return at evening; they howl like a dog, and go round about the city” /b (Psalms 59:7). b And /b after discovering the location b they would come and dig there, and they would take that property. /b ,The Gemara cites verses that allude to the practices of the people of Sodom: b “They lie at night naked without clothing, and they have no covering in the cold” /b (Job 24:7). And likewise: b “They drive away the donkey of the fatherless; they take the widow’s ox as a pledge” /b (Job 24:3). And likewise: b “They trespass; they violently steal flocks and graze them” /b (Job 24:2). And likewise: b “For he is brought to the grave, and watch is kept over his tomb” /b (Job 21:32)., b Rabbi Yosei taught in Tzippori /b the methods of theft employed in Sodom. b That night three hundred tunnels were excavated in Tzippori /b in order to employ those methods. Homeowners b came and harassed him; they said to him: You have given a way for thieves /b to steal. Rabbi Yosei b said to them: Did I know that thieves would come /b as a result of my lecture? The Gemara relates: b When Rabbi Yosei died, the gutters of Tzippori /b miraculously b overflowed /b with b blood /b as a sign of his death.,The people of Sodom b would say: /b Anyone b who has one ox shall herd /b the city’s oxen b for one day. /b Anyone b who does not have /b any oxen b shall herd /b the city’s oxen b for two days. /b The Gemara relates: b They gave oxen to a certain orphan, son of a widow, to herd. He went /b and b took them and killed them. /b The orphan b said /b to the people of Sodom: |
|
55. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307| 14a. קודם שנברא העולם ולא נבראו עמד הקב"ה ושתלן בכל דור ודור והן הן עזי פנים שבדור,ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אשר קומטו לברכה הוא דכתיב אלו תלמידי חכמים שמקמטין עצמן על דברי תורה בעולם הזה הקב"ה מגלה להם סוד לעולם הבא שנאמר (איוב כב, טז) נהר יוצק יסודם,אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא אימא לך מילתא מהני מילי מעליותא דהוה אמר אבוך כל יומא ויומא נבראין מלאכי השרת מנהר דינור ואמרי שירה ובטלי שנאמר (איכה ג, כג) חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך ופליגא דר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל דיבור ודיבור שיוצא מפי הקב"ה נברא ממנו מלאך אחד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ו) בדבר ה' שמים נעשו וברוח פיו כל צבאם,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) לבושיה כתלג חיור ושער (רישיה) כעמר נקא וכתיב (שיר השירים ה, יא) קוצותיו תלתלים שחורות כעורב לא קשיא כאן בישיבה כאן במלחמה דאמר מר אין לך נאה בישיבה אלא זקן ואין לך נאה במלחמה אלא בחור,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) כרסיה שביבין דינור וכתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) עד די כרסון רמיו ועתיק יומין יתיב לא קשיא אחד לו ואחד לדוד כדתניא אחד לו ואחד לדוד דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' יוסי הגלילי עקיבא עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול אלא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה,קיבלה מיניה או לא קיבלה מיניה ת"ש אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו ר"א בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלך מדברותיך אצל נגעים ואהלות אלא אחד לכסא ואחד לשרפרף כסא לישב עליו שרפרף להדום רגליו שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי,כי אתא רב דימי אמר שמונה עשרה קללות קילל ישעיה את ישראל ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם המקרא הזה (ישעיהו ג, ה) ירהבו הנער בזקן והנקלה בנכבד,שמונה עשרה קללות מאי נינהו דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, א) כי הנה האדון ה' צבאות מסיר מירושלם ומיהודה משען ומשענה כל משען לחם וכל משען מים גבור ואיש מלחמה שופט ונביא וקוסם וזקן שר חמשים ונשוא פנים ויועץ וחכם חרשים ונבון לחש ונתתי נערים שריהם ותעלולים ימשלו בם וגו',משען אלו בעלי מקרא משענה אלו בעלי משנה כגון ר"י בן תימא וחביריו פליגו בה רב פפא ורבנן חד אמר שש מאות סדרי משנה וחד אמר שבע מאות סדרי משנה,כל משען לחם אלו בעלי תלמוד שנאמר (משלי ט, ה) לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי וכל משען מים אלו בעלי אגדה שמושכין לבו של אדם כמים באגדה גבור זה בעל שמועות ואיש מלחמה זה שיודע לישא וליתן במלחמתה של תורה שופט זה דיין שדן דין אמת לאמיתו נביא כמשמעו קוסם זה מלך שנאמר (משלי טז, י) קסם על שפתי מלך זקן זה שראוי לישיבה,שר חמשים אל תקרי שר חמשים אלא שר חומשין זה שיודע לישא וליתן בחמשה חומשי תורה דבר אחר שר חמשים כדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו מכאן שאין מעמידין מתורגמן על הצבור פחות מחמשים שנה ונשוא פנים זה שנושאין פנים לדורו בעבורו למעלה כגון רבי חנינא בן דוסא למטה כגון רבי אבהו בי קיסר,יועץ שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים וחכם זה תלמיד המחכים את רבותיו חרשים בשעה שפותח בדברי תורה הכל נעשין כחרשין ונבון זה המבין דבר מתוך דבר לחש זה שראוי למסור לו דברי תורה שניתנה בלחש,ונתתי נערים שריהם מאי ונתתי נערים שריהם א"ר אלעזר אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות,ותעלולים ימשלו בם אמר רב (פפא) בר יעקב תעלי בני תעלי ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם ירהבו הנער בזקן (והנקלה בנכבד) אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות ירהבו במי שממולא במצות כרמון והנקלה בנכבד יבא מי שחמורות דומות עליו כקלות וירהבו במי שקלות דומות עליו כחמורות,אמר רב קטינא אפי' בשעת כשלונה של ירושלים לא פסקו מהם בעלי אמנה שנא' (ישעיהו ג, ו) כי יתפש איש באחיו בית אביו (לאמר) שמלה לך קצין תהיה לנו דברים שבני אדם מתכסין כשמלה ישנן תחת ידך,(ישעיהו ג, ו) והמכשלה הזאת מאי והמכשלה הזאת דברים שאין בני אדם עומדין עליהן אא"כ נכשל בהן ישנן תחת ידך (ישעיהו ג, ז) ישא ביום ההוא לאמר לא אהיה חובש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה לא תשימוני קצין עם ישא אין ישא אלא לשון שבועה שנאמר (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לא אהיה חובש לא הייתי מחובשי בית המדרש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה שאין בידי לא מקרא ולא משנה ולא גמרא,ודלמא שאני התם דאי אמר להו גמירנא אמרי ליה אימא לן הוה ליה למימר גמר ושכח מאי לא אהיה חובש לא אהיה חובש כלל,איני והאמר רבא לא חרבה ירושלים עד שפסקו ממנה בעלי אמנה שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, א) שוטטו בחוצות ירושלם וראו נא ודעו ובקשו ברחובותיה אם תמצאו איש אם יש עושה משפט מבקש אמונה ואסלח לה לא קשיא | 14a. b before the creation of the world, but they were not created. /b The Torah was supposed to have been given a thousand generations after the world was created, as it is written: “He commanded His word for a thousand generations” (Psalms 105:8), but God gave it earlier, after only twenty-six generations, so that nine-hundred and seventy-four generations should have been created but were not. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, acted by planting /b a few of b them in each and every generation, and they are the insolent ones of the generation, /b as they belonged to generations that should not have been created at all., b And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said /b that the verse: b “Who were snatched [ i kumtu /i ]” /b (Job 22:16), b is written for a blessing, /b as the verse is not referring to lowly, cursed people, but to the blessed. b These are Torah scholars, who shrivel [ i mekamtin /i ], /b i.e., humble, b themselves over the words of Torah in this world. The Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals a secret to them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Whose foundation [ i yesodam /i ] was poured out as a stream” /b (Job 22:16), implying that He will provide them with an abundant knowledge of secret matters [ i sod /i ]., b Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of great ones, come and I will tell you something of the great things that your father would say: Each and every day, ministering angels are created from the River Dinur, and they recite song /b to God b and /b then immediately b cease /b to exist, b as it is stated: “They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” /b (Lamentations 3:23), indicating that new angels praise God each morning. The Gemara comments: b And /b this opinion b disagrees with /b that b of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: /b With b each and every word that emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created, as it is stated: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts” /b (Psalms 33:6). The hosts of heaven are the angels, who, he claims, are created from the mouth of God, rather than from the River Dinur.,§ The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: b One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure /b white b wool” /b (Daniel 7:9), b and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” /b (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here /b the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is b in the /b heavenly b academy, /b while b there /b the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is b at war, for the Master said: There is no finer /b individual to study Torah b in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer /b individual to wage war b than a youth. /b A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion.,The Gemara poses another question: b One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” /b (Daniel 7:9), b and /b another phrase in the same b verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” /b implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. One /b throne is b for Him and one /b is b for David, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to this issue: b One /b throne b for Him and one for David; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, /b by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? b Rather, /b the two thrones are designated for different purposes: b One for judgment and one for righteousness. /b ,The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva b accept /b this rebuff b from him, or did he not accept /b it b from him? /b The Gemara offers a proof: b Come /b and b hear /b the following teaching of a different i baraita /i : b One /b throne is b for judgment and one /b is b for righteousness; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing /b occupying yourself b with /b the study of b i aggada /i ? /b This is not your field of expertise. b Take [ i kelakh /i ] your words to /b the topics of b plagues and tents. /b Meaning, it is preferable that you teach the i halakhot /i of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity of the dead, which are within your field of expertise. b Rather, /b with regard to the two thrones: b One /b throne is b for a seat and one /b is b for a small seat. /b The b seat /b is b to sit on, /b and the b small seat /b is b for His footstool, as it is stated: “The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” /b (Isaiah 66:1).,§ The Gemara stated earlier that one who studies the secrets of Torah must be “a captain of fifty and a man of favor” (Isaiah 3:3), but it did not explain the meaning of these requirements. It now returns to analyze that verse in detail. b When Rav Dimi came /b from Israel to Babylonia, b he said: Isaiah cursed Israel with eighteen curses, and his mind was not calmed, /b i.e., he was not satisfied, b until he said to them the /b great curse of the b following verse: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” /b (Isaiah 3:5).,The Gemara asks: b What are these eighteen curses? /b The Gemara answers: b As it is written: “For behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, every support of bread, and every support of water; the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will make children their princes, and babes shall rule over them” /b (Isaiah 3:1–4). The eighteen items listed in these verses shall be removed from Israel.,The Gemara proceeds to clarify the homiletical meaning of these terms: b “Support”; these are masters of the Bible. “Staff”; these are masters of Mishna, such as Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima and his colleagues. /b The Gemara interjects: b Rav Pappa and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this. One /b of them b said: /b They were proficient in b six hundred orders of Mishna, and /b the other b one said: /b In b seven hundred orders of Mishna, /b only six of which remain today., b “Every support of bread”; these are masters of Talmud, as it is stated: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled” /b (Proverbs 9:5). b “And every support of water”; these are the masters of i aggada /i , who draw people’s hearts like water by /b means of b i aggada /i . “The mighty man”; this is the master of halakhic tradition, /b one who masters the i halakhot /i transmitted to him from his rabbis. b “And the man of war”; this is one who knows how to engage in the discourse of Torah, /b generating novel teachings b in the war of Torah. “A judge”; this is a judge who judges a true judgment truthfully. “A prophet”; as it literally indicates. “A diviner”; this is a king. /b Why is he called a diviner? b For it is stated: “A divine sentence is on the lips of the king” /b (Proverbs 16:10). b “An elder”; this is one fit for /b the position of head of b an academy. /b , b “A captain of fifty,” do not read /b it as b “ i sar ḥamishim /i ,” rather /b read it as b “ i sar ḥumashin /i ”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse /b with regard to b the five books of [ i ḥamisha ḥumshei /i ] the Torah. Alternatively, “a captain of fifty” /b should be understood b in /b accordance with b Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu said: From here /b we learn b that one may not appoint a disseminator over the public /b to transmit words of Torah or teachings of the Sages if he is b less than fifty years /b of age. b “And the man of favor”; this is /b one b for whose sake favor is shown to his generation. /b The Gemara provides different examples of this: Some garner favor b above, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, /b whose prayers for his generation would invariably be answered. Others gain favor b below, for example: Rabbi Abbahu, /b who would plead Israel’s case b in the house of /b the b emperor. /b , b “The counselor”; /b this is referring to one b who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, /b due to his expertise in the phases of the moon and the calculation of the yearly cycle. b “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise /b through his questions. b “Charmer [ i ḥarashim /i ]”; /b this is referring to one so wise b that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all /b those listening b are as though deaf [ i ḥershin /i ], /b as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. b “The skillful”; this is one who understands something /b new b from something else /b he has learned. b “Enchanter [ i laḥash /i ]”; this /b is referring to one b who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [ i laḥash /i ], /b i.e., the secrets of the Torah, b transmitted to him. /b ,The Gemara continues to interpret this verse: b “And I will make children their princes” /b (Isaiah 3:4). The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of b “And I will make children [ i ne’arim /i ] their princes”? Rabbi Elazar said: These are people who are devoid [ i menu’arin /i ] of mitzvot; /b such people will become the leaders of the nation., b “And babes [ i ta’alulim /i ] shall rule over them”; Rav Pappa bar Ya’akov said: /b i Ta’alulim /i means b foxes [ i ta’alei /i ], sons of foxes. /b In other words, inferior people both in terms of deeds and in terms of lineage. b And /b the prophet Isaiah’s b mind was not calmed until he said to them: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” /b (Isaiah 3:5). “The child” [ i na’ar /i ]; b these are people who are devoid of mitzvot, /b who b will behave insolently toward one who is as filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate. “And the base [ i nikleh /i ] against the honorable [ i nikhbad /i ]”; /b this means that b one for whom major [ i kaved /i ] /b transgressions b are like minor ones [ i kalot /i ] in his mind will come and behave insolently with one for whom /b even b minor /b transgressions b are like major ones in his mind. /b ,§ The Gemara continues its explanation of the chapter in Isaiah. b Rav Ketina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, trustworthy men did not cease to exist /b among its people, b as it is stated: “For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, /b and say: b You have a cloak, be our ruler” /b (Isaiah 3:6). The Gemara explains that they would approach someone and say to him: b Things that people /b are careful to keep b covered as with a cloak, /b i.e., words of Torah that are covered and concealed, b are under your hand, /b as you are an expert with regard to them., b What is /b the meaning of the end of that verse: b “And this stumbling block” /b (Isaiah 3:6)? b Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, /b as they can be understood only with much effort, b are under your hand. Although /b they will approach an individual with these statements, he b “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” /b (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: b “Shall swear [ i yissa /i ],” i yissa /i is none /b other b than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [ i tissa /i ] the name of the Lord your God /b in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: b “I will not be a healer [ i ḥovesh /i ]” /b (Isaiah 3:7), which means: b I was never /b one b of those who sit [ i meḥovshei /i ] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess /b knowledge of b neither /b the b Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. /b This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But perhaps it is different there, for if he had said: I have learned, they would have said to him: Tell us, /b and people do not lie about things that can be easily verified. The Gemara rejects this claim: If he were a liar, b he would have said /b that b he learned and forgot, /b thereby avoiding shame. b What is /b the meaning of b “I will not be a healer,” /b which seems to imply that he had learned in the past? It means: b I will not be a healer at all, /b as I have never learned. Consequently, there were trustworthy men in Jerusalem after all.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased to exist in it, as it is stated: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in its broad places, if you can find a man, if there is any that acts justly, that seeks truth, and I will pardon her” /b (Jeremiah 5:1), implying there were no trustworthy people at that time? The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult: /b |
|
56. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307| 57a. במאי דפסיק אנפשיה כל יומא מכנשי ליה לקיטמיה ודייני ליה וקלו ליה ומבדרו אשב ימי,אזל אסקיה לבלעם בנגידא אמר ליה מאן חשיב בההוא עלמא א"ל ישראל מהו לאידבוקי בהו א"ל (דברים כג, ז) לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם כל הימים א"ל דיניה דההוא גברא במאי א"ל בשכבת זרע רותחת,אזל אסקיה [ליש"ו] בנגידא (לפושעי ישראל) א"ל מאן חשיב בההוא עלמא א"ל ישראל מהו לאדבוקי בהו א"ל טובתם דרוש רעתם לא תדרוש כל הנוגע בהן כאילו נוגע בבבת עינו,א"ל דיניה דההוא גברא במאי א"ל בצואה רותחת דאמר מר כל המלעיג על דברי חכמים נידון בצואה רותחת תא חזי מה בין פושעי ישראל לנביאי אומות העולם עובדי ע"ז,תניא אמר רבי אלעזר בא וראה כמה גדולה כחה של בושה שהרי סייע הקב"ה את בר קמצא והחריב את ביתו ושרף את היכלו:,אתרנגולא ואתרנגולתא חריב טור מלכא דהוו נהיגי כי הוו מפקי חתנא וכלתא מפקי קמייהו תרנגולא ותרנגולתא כלומר פרו ורבו כתרנגולים,יומא חד הוה קא חליף גונדא דרומאי שקלינהו מינייהו נפלו עלייהו מחונהו אתו אמרו ליה לקיסר מרדו בך יהודאי אתא עלייהו הוה בהו ההוא בר דרומא דהוה קפיץ מילא וקטיל בהו שקליה קיסר לתאגיה ואותביה אארעא אמר ריבוניה דעלמא כוליה אי ניחא לך לא תמסריה לההוא גברא לדידיה ולמלכותיה בידיה דחד גברא,אכשליה פומיה לבר דרומא ואמר (תהלים ס, יב) הלא אתה אלהים זנחתנו ולא תצא אלהים בצבאותינו דוד נמי אמר הכי דוד אתמוהי קא מתמה,על לבית הכסא אתא דרקונא שמטיה לכרכשיה ונח נפשיה אמר הואיל ואיתרחיש לי ניסא הא זימנא אישבקינהו שבקינהו ואזל איזדקור ואכלו ושתו ואדליקו שרגי עד דאיתחזי בליונא דגושפנקא ברחוק מילא אמר מיחדא קא חדו בי יהודאי הדר אתא עלייהו,א"ר אסי תלת מאה אלפי שליפי סייפא עיילו לטור. מלכא וקטלו בה תלתא יומי ותלתא לילוותא ובהך גיסא הלולי וחנגי ולא הוו ידעי הני בהני,(איכה ב, ב) בלע ה' ולא חמל את כל נאות יעקב כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן אלו ששים רבוא עיירות שהיו לו לינאי המלך בהר המלך דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי ששים רבוא עיירות היו לו לינאי המלך בהר המלך וכל אחת ואחת היו בה כיוצאי מצרים חוץ משלש שהיו בהן כפלים כיוצאי מצרים,אלו הן כפר ביש כפר שיחליים כפר דכריא כפר ביש דלא יהבי ביתא לאושפיזא כפר שיחליים שהיתה פרנסתן מן שחליים כפר דכריא אמר רבי יוחנן שהיו נשותיהן יולדות זכרים תחלה ויולדות נקבה באחרונה ופוסקות,אמר עולא לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא ואפילו שיתין ריבוותא קני לא מחזיק אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי לרבי חנינא שקורי משקריתו אמר ליה (ירמיהו ג, יט) ארץ צבי כתיב בה מה צבי זה אין עורו מחזיק את בשרו אף ארץ ישראל בזמן שיושבין עליה רווחא ובזמן שאין יושבין עליה גמדא,רב מניומי בר חלקיה ורב חלקיה בר טוביה ורב הונא בר חייא הוו יתבי גבי הדדי אמרי אי איכא דשמיע ליה מילתא מכפר סכניא של מצרים לימא,פתח חד מינייהו ואמר מעשה בארוס וארוסתו שנשבו לבין העובדי כוכבים והשיאום זה לזה אמרה לו בבקשה ממך אל תגע בי שאין לי כתובה ממך ולא נגע בה עד יום מותו,וכשמת אמרה להן סיפדו לזה שפטפט ביצרו יותר מיוסף דאילו ביוסף לא הוה אלא חדא שעתא והאי כל יומא ויומא ואילו יוסף לאו בחדא מטה והאי בחדא מטה ואילו יוסף לאו אשתו והא אשתו,פתח אידך ואמר מעשה ועמדו ארבעים מודיות בדינר נחסר השער מודיא אחת ובדקו ומצאו אב ובנו שבאו על נערה מאורסה ביום הכפורים והביאום לבית דין וסקלום וחזר השער למקומו,פתח אידך ואמר מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשתו לגרשה והיתה כתובתה מרובה מה עשה הלך וזימן את שושביניו והאכילן והשקן שיכרן והשכיבן על מיטה אחת והביא לובן ביצה והטיל ביניהן והעמיד להן עדים ובא לבית דין,היה שם זקן אחד מתלמידי שמאי הזקן ובבא בן בוטא שמו אמר להן כך מקובלני משמאי הזקן לובן ביצה סולד מן האור ושכבת זרע דוחה מן האור בדקו ומצאו כדבריו והביאוהו לב"ד והלקוהו והגבוהו כתובתה ממנו,א"ל אביי לרב יוסף ומאחר דהוו צדיקים כולי האי מאי טעמא איענוש א"ל משום דלא איאבול על ירושלים דכתיב (ישעיהו סו, י) שמחו את ירושלם וגילו בה כל אוהביה שישו אתה משוש כל המתאבלים עליה:,אשקא דריספק חריב ביתר דהוו נהיגי כי הוה מתיליד ינוקא שתלי ארזא ינוקתא שתלי תורניתא וכי הוו מינסבי קייצי להו ועבדו גננא יומא חד הוה קא חלפא ברתיה דקיסר אתבר שקא דריספק קצו ארזא ועיילו לה אתו נפול עלייהו מחונהו אתו אמרו ליה לקיסר מרדו בך יהודאי אתא עלייהו:,(איכה ב, ג) גדע בחרי אף כל קרן ישראל א"ר זירא א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן אלו שמונים [אלף] קרני מלחמה שנכנסו לכרך ביתר בשעה שלכדוה והרגו בה אנשים ונשים וטף עד שהלך דמן ונפל לים הגדול שמא תאמר קרובה היתה רחוקה היתה מיל,תניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר שני נחלים יש בבקעת ידים אחד מושך אילך ואחד מושך אילך ושיערו חכמים שני חלקים מים ואחד דם במתניתא תנא שבע שנים בצרו עובדי כוכבים את כרמיהן מדמן של ישראל בלא זבל | 57a. b That which he decreed against himself, /b as he undergoes the following: b Every day his ashes are gathered, and they judge him, and they burn him, and they scatter him over the seven seas. /b ,Onkelos then b went and raised Balaam /b from the grave b through necromancy. He said to him: Who is /b most b important in that world /b where you are now? Balaam b said to him: The Jewish people. /b Onkelos asked him: b Should I /b then b attach /b myself b to them /b here in this world? Balaam b said to him: You shall not seek their peace or their welfare all the days /b (see Deuteronomy 23:7). Onkelos b said to him: What is the punishment of that man, /b a euphemism for Balaam himself, in the next world? Balaam b said to him: /b He is cooked b in boiling semen, /b as he caused Israel to engage in licentious behavior with the daughters of Moab.,Onkelos then b went /b and b raised Jesus the Nazarene /b from the grave b through necromancy. /b Onkelos b said to him: Who is /b most b important in that world /b where you are now? Jesus b said to him: The Jewish people. /b Onkelos asked him: b Should I /b then b attach /b myself b to them /b in this world? Jesus b said to him: Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, /b for b anyone who touches them is /b regarded b as if he were touching the apple of his eye /b (see Zechariah 2:12).,Onkelos b said to him: What is the punishment of that man, /b a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus b said to him: /b He is punished b with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. /b And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages. The Gemara comments: b Come /b and b see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world. /b As Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm, whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their well-being.,To conclude the story of Kamtza and bar Kamtza and the destruction of Jerusalem, the Gemara cites a i baraita /i . It b is taught: Rabbi Elazar says: Come and see how great is the power of shame, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, assisted bar Kamtza, /b who had been humiliated, b and /b due to this humiliation and shame b He destroyed His Temple and burned His Sanctuary. /b ,§ It was previously mentioned (55b) that the place known as b the King’s Mountain [ i Tur Malka /i ] was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. /b The details of what happened are as follows: b It was customary /b in that place b that when they would lead a bride and groom /b to their wedding, b they would take out a rooster and a hen before them, /b as if b to say /b in the manner of a good omen: b Be fruitful and multiply like chickens. /b , b One day a troop [ i gunda /i ] of Roman /b soldiers b passed by /b there while a wedding was taking place b and took /b the rooster and hen b from them. /b The residents of the city b fell upon them and beat them. /b The soldiers b came and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. /b The emperor then b came against them /b in war. Among the residents of the King’s Mountain b there was a certain man /b named b bar Deroma who could jump /b the distance of b a i mil /i , and he killed /b many of the Romans, who were powerless to stand up against him. b The emperor /b then b took his crown and set it on the ground /b as a sign of mourning. b He said: Master of the Universe, if it is pleasing to You, do not give over that man, /b a euphemism for himself, b and his kingdom into the hands of /b only b one man. /b ,In the end it was the words issuing from b his /b own b mouth /b that b caused bar Deroma to stumble, as he uttered /b this verse in complaint against God: b “Have You not rejected us, O God, so that You go not forth, O God, with our hosts?” /b (Psalms 60:12). The Gemara asks: But did not b David also say this? /b The Gemara answers: b David uttered /b these words b as a question, /b wondering whether they were true, whereas bar Deroma pronounced them as a statement of fact.,The Gemara recounts what happened to bar Deroma: b He entered an outhouse, a snake came /b and b eviscerated him, and he died. /b The emperor b said: Since a miracle was performed for me, /b as I had no part in bar Deroma’s death, b I will let /b the rest of the people b be this time /b and take no further action against them. b He let them be and went /b on his way. b They leapt /b about, b ate, drank, and lit /b so many b candles /b in celebration b that the image [ i bilyona /i ] /b imprinted b on a seal [ i gushpanka /i ] was visible from a distance of a i mil /i . /b The emperor then b said: The Jews are rejoicing over me. /b So b he went back /b and b came against them. /b , b Rav Asi says: Three hundred thousand men with drawn swords entered the King’s Mountain and massacred /b its inhabitants b for three days and three nights. And /b at the same time b on /b the other b side /b of the mountain, b weddings and /b other b festivities /b continued to be celebrated, b and they did not know about each other, /b owing to the enormous size of the place.,§ Concerning the verse: b “The Lord has swallowed up without pity all the habitations of Jacob” /b (Lamentations 2:2), it is related that b when Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b he /b said that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: This /b is referring to the b six hundred thousand cities /b that b King Yannai had in the King’s Mountain. /b As b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav Asi says: King Yannai had six hundred thousand cities in the King’s Mountain, and each of them /b had a population as great b as /b the number of b those who left Egypt, except for three /b of those cities, the population of which b was double /b the number of b those who left Egypt. /b , b These /b are b those /b three cities: b Kefar Bish, Kefar Shiḥalayim, and Kefar Dikhrayya. /b The Gemara explains the meaning of these place-names. b Kefar Bish, /b Evil Town, was called by that name because its inhabitants b would not open /b their b houses to guests. Kefar Shiḥalayim /b was referred to by that name because b their livelihood was /b derived b from /b the cultivation of b cress [ i shaḥalayim /i ]. /b As for b Kefar Dikhrayya, /b Town of Males, b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Their women would first give birth to boys, and afterward give birth to girls, and /b then b they would stop /b having children., b Ulla said: I myself saw that place, and it could not hold even six hundred thousand reeds, /b all the more so that number of people. b A certain heretic said to Rabbi Ḥanina: You lie /b with your exorbitant exaggerations. Rabbi Ḥanina b said to him: With regard to /b Eretz Yisrael b it is written: Land of the deer /b (see Jeremiah 3:19). b Just as the skin of a deer cannot hold its flesh, /b for after the animal is skinned, its hide shrinks, b so too, /b with regard to b Eretz Yisrael, when it is settled, it expands, but when it is not settled, it contracts. /b This explains how a place that is so small today could have been so highly populated prior to the Temple’s destruction.,§ The Gemara relates that b Rav Minyumi bar Ḥilkiya, Rav Ḥilkiya bar Toviya, and Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya were /b once b sitting together. They said: If there is someone who has heard anything about Kefar Sekhanya of Egypt, /b which was in that region, b let him relate /b it., b One of them began /b the discussion b and said: /b There was b an incident involving a betrothed man and woman /b from there b who were taken captive by gentiles and /b the latter b married them off to each other. /b The woman b said to /b the man: b Please do not touch me, as I do not have a marriage contract from you, /b and it is prohibited for us to live together without one. b And until /b the day of b his death /b the man b did not touch /b the woman., b And when he died /b without having touched her, the woman b said to /b the Sages: b Eulogize this /b man b who conquered [ i shepitpet /i ] his passion [ i beyitzro /i ] more than Joseph. As /b in the case of b Joseph it was only for a short time /b that he had to overpower his inclination and resist Potiphar’s wife (see Genesis, chapter 39), b whereas this /b man struggled with his passion b each and every day. /b Furthermore, b Joseph /b was b not in one bed /b with Potiphar’s wife, b whereas this /b man was b in one bed /b with his wife. In addition, with b Joseph /b the woman was b not his wife, whereas /b with b this /b man she was b his wife, /b as she was already betrothed to him., b Another /b Sage b began /b his remarks b and said: It once happened that /b the market price of b forty i se’a /i /b of grain b stood at one dinar. /b And then b the rate went down one i se’a /i [ i modeya /i ], /b so that only thirty-nine i se’a /i were sold for a dinar. b And they checked /b to see what sin had caused this, b and they found a father and son who had engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed young woman on Yom Kippur. They brought /b the offenders b to court and stoned them, and the rate returned to its /b former b level. /b ,Yet b another /b Sage b began /b his remarks b and said: /b There was b an incident /b there b involving a man who set his eyes upon his wife to divorce her, but her marriage contract was large /b and he wished to avoid having to pay it. b What did he do? He went and invited his friends, gave them food and drink, made them drunk, and lay /b his friends and his wife b in one bed. He /b then b brought the white of an egg, /b which has the appearance of semen, b and placed it /b on the sheet b between them. He /b then b stood witnesses over them /b so that they could offer testimony, b and went to court /b claiming that his wife had committed adultery., b A certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta /b was b his name. He said to them: This is /b the tradition that b I received from Shammai the Elder: Egg white /b on a bedsheet b contracts /b and hardens when heated b by fire, whereas semen is absorbed /b into the sheet b by the fire. They checked /b the matter b and found in accordance with his statement /b that the substance on the sheet was not semen but egg white. b They /b then b brought /b the husband b to court, administered lashes to him, and made him pay /b his wife’s b marriage contract /b in full., b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But since /b those in the city b were so righteous, what is the reason that they were punished /b and destroyed? Rav Yosef b said to him: /b It is b because they did not mourn for Jerusalem, as it is written: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all you that love her, rejoice with joy with her, all you that did mourn for her” /b (Isaiah 66:10). The verse teaches that one who mourns for Jerusalem will rejoice in its rebuilding, and one who fails to mourn for Jerusalem is destroyed.,§ It was stated earlier that the city of b Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a carriage. /b The Gemara explains that b it was customary /b in Beitar that b when a boy was born they would plant a cedar /b tree and when b a girl /b was born they b would plant a cypress [ i tornita /i ]. And when they would /b later b marry /b each other b they would cut /b down these trees b and construct /b a wedding b canopy /b for them with their branches. b One day the emperor’s daughter passed by /b there and b the shaft of the carriage /b in which she was riding b broke. /b Her attendants b chopped down a cedar /b from among those trees b and brought it to her. /b Owing to the importance that they attached to their custom, the residents of Beitar b came /b and b fell upon them and beat them. /b The attendants b came /b and b said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. /b The emperor then b came against them /b in war.,It was in connection with the war that ensued that the Sages expounded the following verse: b “He has cut off in His fierce anger all the horn of Israel” /b (Lamentations 2:3). b Rabbi Zeira says /b that b Rabbi Abbahu says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: These are the eighty thousand /b officers bearing b battle trumpets /b in their hands, b who entered the city of Beitar when /b the enemy b took it and killed men, women, and children until their blood flowed into the Great Sea. Lest you say /b that the city b was close /b to the sea, know that b it was a i mil /i away. /b , b It is /b similarly b taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: There are two rivers in the Yadayim Valley /b in that region, b one flowing one way and one flowing the other way. And the Sages estimated /b that in the aftermath of this war these rivers were filled with b two parts water to one part blood. /b Likewise, b it was taught in a i baraita /i : For seven years the gentiles harvested their vineyards /b that had been soaked b with the blood of Israel without /b requiring any additional b fertilizer. /b |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 230| 19b. העומדים בשורה וכו': ת"ר שורה הרואה פנימה פטורה ושאינה רואה פנימה חייבת רבי יהודה אומר הבאים מחמת האבל פטורין מחמת עצמן חייבין:,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב המוצא כלאים בבגדו פושטן אפי' בשוק מ"ט (משלי כא, ל) אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' כ"מ שיש חלול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב,מתיבי קברו את המת וחזרו ולפניהם ב' דרכים אחת טהורה ואחת טמאה בא בטהורה באין עמו בטהורה בא בטמאה באין עמו בטמאה משום כבודו אמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה לנגד ה',תרגמה רבי אבא בבית הפרס דרבנן,דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מנפח אדם בית הפרס והולך ואמר רב יהודה בר אשי משמיה דרב בית הפרס שנדש טהור,ת"ש דאמר ר' אלעזר בר צדוק מדלגין היינו על גבי ארונות של מתים לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אמרו אלא אפי' לקראת מלכי עכו"ם שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עכו"ם אמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה',כדרבא דאמר רבא דבר תורה אהל כל שיש בו חלל טפח חוצץ בפני הטומאה ושאין בו חלל טפח אינו חוצץ בפני הטומאה,ורוב ארונות יש בהן חלל טפח וגזרו על שיש בהן משום שאין בהן ומשום כבוד מלכים לא גזרו בהו רבנן,ת"ש גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה [את] לא תעשה שבתורה,ואמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' תרגמה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא בלאו (דברים יז, יא) דלא תסור אחיכו עליה לאו דלא תסור דאורייתא היא,אמר רב כהנא גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחיכו עליה כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו על לאו דלא תסור ומשום כבודו שרו רבנן,ת"ש (דברים כב, א) והתעלמת מהם פעמים שאתה מתעלם מהם ופעמים שאין אתה מתעלם מהם,הא כיצד אם היה כהן והיא בבית הקברות או היה זקן ואינה לפי כבודו או שהיתה מלאכתו מרובה משל חברו לכך נאמר והתעלמת אמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה',שאני התם דכתיב והתעלמת מהם וליגמר מינה איסורא מממונא לא ילפינן,ת"ש,(במדבר ו, ז) ולאחותו מה תלמוד לומר הרי שהיה הולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ושמע שמת לו מת יכול יחזור ויטמא אמרת לא יטמא,יכול כשם שאינו מטמא להם כך אינו מטמא למת מצוה ת"ל ולאחותו לאחותו הוא דאינו מטמא | 19b. We learned in the mishna that b those standing in the row, /b those in the interior row, are exempt from reciting i Shema /i and the others are obligated. b The Sages taught /b this more expansively in the i Tosefta /i : The consolers standing in b a row /b from b which /b one b sees inside /b the area where the mourners are passing b are exempt, and /b those standing in a row from which b one does not see inside are obligated. And Rabbi Yehuda /b elaborates and b says: /b The consolers standing in the row b who come on account of the bereaved are exempt, /b while those who come b on account of their own /b curiosity b are obligated /b to recite i Shema /i .,We learned that some who come to console the bereaved are exempt from i Shema /i as a means of honoring the deceased. The Gemara expands the discussion to raise the general question: To what degree does preserving human dignity takes precedence over mitzvot enumerated in the Torah? b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: One who discovers diverse kinds [ i kilayim /i ], /b i.e., a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, b in his garment, must remove them even in the /b public b marketplace. /b He may not wait until he reaches home. b What is the reason /b for this? As it is stated: b “There is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord” /b (Proverbs 21:30). From here, the general principle: b Anywhere that there is desecration of the Lord’s name, one does not show respect to the teacher, /b is derived.,The Gemara cites several sources to challenge this principle. The Gemara b raised an objection /b from a i baraita /i : After b they buried the deceased and returned, and /b on their way b there are two paths before them, one ritually pure and one ritually impure, /b e.g., it passes through a cemetery, if the mourner b comes on the pure /b path, b they come with him on the pure /b path; if b he comes on the impure /b path, all of the funeral participants b accompany /b him b on the impure /b path in order to show b him respect. Why /b would they do this? b Let us say /b here too that, b “There is neither wisdom, nor understanding…against the Lord!” /b , b Rabbi Abba explained /b that the i baraita /i is referring to a path that passes b through an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse /b [ b i beit haperas /i ]. /b For example, with regard to a field in which there is a grave that was plowed and no longer intact, the entire field is deemed impure due to concern that the plow scattered bones throughout the field. The field is impure only b by rabbinic law /b but not according to Torah law. Since it is only prohibited by rabbinic law, one is permitted to walk through the field to show the mourner respect.,The Gemara cites proof that the legal status of a i beit haperas /i is unlike the legal status of impurity by Torah law: b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: One /b who passes through b a i beit haperas /i may blow /b on the dust before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust, he will expose it, avoid it, b and walk. /b One may not rely on that method of examination with regard to impurity by Torah law. b And Rav Yehuda bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: A i beit haperas /i that has been trodden /b underfoot, creating a path, b is pure, /b and one no longer need be concerned about bones. Clearly, the entire prohibition is a stringency decreed by the Sages.,The Gemara cites additional proof with regard to the extent to which human dignity overrides mitzvot in the Torah. b Come /b and b hear, as Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok /b the priest b said: /b I and my fellow priests b would jump over coffins of the deceased /b in order to hurry b towards kings of Israel /b to greet them. b And they did not say /b this b only towards kings of Israel, but /b they said this b even towards kings of the nations of the world, so that if one will be privileged /b to witness the redemption of Israel, b he will distinguish between kings of Israel and kings of the nations of the world. /b The priest violated the Torah prohibition to become ritually impure through contact with the dead, in order to show respect for a king. And b why /b is this? b Let us say /b here too: b “There is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.” /b ,The Gemara responds to this challenge by saying that it must be understood b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rava, as Rava said: By Torah law, a tent /b over a corpse, b as long as there is a handbreadth of space /b between the corpse and the tent over it, b constitutes a barrier before /b the spread of b impurity /b and nothing above the tent can become ritually impure due to impurity imparted by the corpse. b And when there is not a handbreadth of space /b between the corpse and the tent over it, the tent b does not constitute a barrier before /b the spread of b impurity /b and the “pressed” ritual impurity, can reach the heavens., b Most coffins have a handbreadth of space. /b Consequently, their impurity does not spread above the coffin. However, the Sages b issued a decree regarding /b coffins b in which there is /b a handbreadth of space b because of /b those coffins b in which there is not. /b Nevertheless, b due to respect for kings, /b the Sages b did not issue a decree /b in a case involving b them /b and the priests were permitted to jump over the coffins, as it is permitted by Torah law. Therefore, there is no proof from here regarding the question of whether or not human dignity overrides Torah law.,The Gemara cites an additional proof from a i baraita /i : b Come and hear: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why? Let us /b also b say /b here: b “There is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.” Rav bar Shaba interpreted this /b prohibition, which is overridden by human dignity, b before Rav Kahana /b as referring b to the prohibition of: /b “According to the Torah taught to you and the ruling handed down to you, you shall do, b you shall not deviate /b to the left or the right from that which they tell you” (Deuteronomy 17:11). The Yeshiva students b laughed at him, /b as the b prohibition of “you shall not deviate” is by Torah law, /b like all other Torah prohibitions. Why should human dignity override it any more than any other Torah prohibition?, b Rav Kahana replied /b to them: b A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. /b The Sages b based all rabbinic law on the prohibition of “you shall not deviate”; however, due to /b concern for human b dignity, the Sages permitted /b suspension of rabbinic law in cases where the two collide. All rabbinic decrees are predicated on the mitzva in the Torah to heed the judges in each generation and to never stray from their words. Therefore, when the Sages suspend a decree in the interest of preserving human dignity, human dignity is overriding a Torah prohibition. In any case, it only overrides rabbinic decrees.,The Gemara cites an additional proof from a i baraita /i : b Come and hear: /b With regard to the laws of returning a lost object, it is stated: “You shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep go astray and ignore them; return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1). The i baraita /i explains that the seemingly extraneous expression b and disregard them /b must be understood to give license that b at times you disregard /b lost objects b and at times you do not disregard them. /b , b How so? If he was a priest and /b the lost object b was in the cemetery, or /b if b he was an elder and it is beneath his dignity /b to tend to a lost object of that kind, b or if he had more work to do than another person /b and he does not want to set it all aside when another person is available to tend to the lost object. b Therefore, /b with regard to those cases b it is stated: And disregard them /b to permit one to refrain from returning the object. b Why? Let us say /b here, too: Although handling the lost object would be beneath his dignity, b “there is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.” /b ,The Gemara answers: b There it is different, as it is written: “And disregard them,” /b indicating that under certain circumstances one is permitted to disregard a lost object. In that case, there is a biblical directive that creates an exception to the prohibition: “You may not disregard” (Deuteronomy 22:3). We found a case in which human dignity overrides a Torah prohibition. The Gemara suggests: b Let us derive /b a general principle that human dignity takes precedence over all mitzvot in the Torah b from this /b case. This possibility is rejected: b We do not derive /b i halakhot /i pertaining to b prohibitions /b from b monetary /b laws, and the case of the lost object merely entails a monetary loss, unlike other prohibitions.,The Gemara cites an additional proof from a i baraita /i . b Come /b and b hear /b what was said in the Torah with regard to the Nazirite: “He shall not become impure for his father or his mother or his brother or his sister in their death, for the crown of his God is on his head” (Numbers 6:7). Since it was already written with regard to the Nazirite: “He shall not come upon a dead body” (Numbers 6:6), why is it necessary to elaborate and specify his parents and siblings?,The Sages derived through halakhic midrash that each of these relationships come to teach a specific nuance of the law. They learned: To b what /b purpose b did the verse state: And his sister? /b To teach that one b who was going to slaughter his Paschal /b lamb b and to circumcise his son, /b both of which are positive mitzvot that if he fails to fulfill them, he is punished with i karet /i , b and he heard that /b a relative b of his died, I might have thought /b that b he /b should b return and become ritually impure /b with the impurity imparted by a corpse. b You said: “He shall not become impure”; /b the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.,I b might /b have thought: b Just as he does not become impure for /b his relatives, b so he does not become impure for a corpse with no one to bury it [ i met mitzva /i ]. The verse states: “And his sister”; he may not become impure for his sister, /b as someone else can attend to her burial, |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 302| 89a. שנתן לה אחרון גט לא פסלה מן הכהונה מכלל דלא בעיא גט דאי בעיא גט אמאי לא פסלה מן הכהונה אלא סיפא אמרי קידושי טעות הוו,רישא נמי אמרי נישואי טעות הוו קנסוה רבנן סיפא נמי ליקנסוה רישא דעבדא איסורא קנסוה סיפא דלא עבדא איסורא לא קנסוה רבנן:,אין לה כתובה: מאי טעמא תקינו לה רבנן כתובה כדי שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה הא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה:,אין לה פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות: תנאי כתובה ככתובה דמי:,נטלה מזה ומזה: פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דתפשה לא מפקינן מינה קמ"ל:,הולד ממזר: תנן התם אין תורמין מן הטמא על הטהור ואם תרם בשוגג תרומתו תרומה במזיד לא עשה ולא כלום מאי לא עשה ולא כלום א"ר חסדא לא עשה ולא כלום כל עיקר דאפילו ההיא גריוא הדר לטיבליה,רב נתן ברבי אושעיא אמר לא עשה ולא כלום לתקן את השירים אבל תרומה הוי רב חסדא לא אמר כרב נתן בר' אושעיא דאי אמרת הוי תרומה זימנין דפשע ולא מפריש,מאי שנא מהא דתנן התורם קישות ונמצאת מרה אבטיח ונמצאת סרוח תרומה ויחזור ויתרום שוגג אמזיד קרמית שוגג לא עבד איסורא מזיד קעבד איסורא,ורמי שוגג אשוגג הכא קתני בשוגג תרומתו תרומה התם קתני תרומה ויחזור ויתרום,התם שוגג קרוב למזיד דאיבעי ליה למיטעמיה,ורמי מזיד אמזיד הכא קתני במזיד לא עשה כלום התם תנן התורם משאין נקוב על נקוב תרומה ויחזור ויתרום,בתרי מאני ציית בחד מנא לא ציית,ולרב נתן ברבי אושעיא דאמר לא עשה ולא כלום לתקן שירים אבל תרומה הוי | 89a. the b last one gave her a bill of divorce, he has not disqualified her from /b marrying into b the priesthood, /b as she is not considered a divorcée at all, this proves b by inference that she does not require a bill of divorce /b from him. The reason is b that if she requires a bill of divorce, /b even if it is only due to uncertainty, b why /b has he b not disqualified her from /b marrying into b the priesthood? /b A bill of divorce of any validity would bar her from marrying a priest. b Rather, /b a bill of divorce given by a man to a woman who is not his wife is clearly of no account, and the reason for the ruling in b the latter clause, /b with regard to betrothal, is that people will b say /b there was no need for a bill of divorce because b it was a mistaken betrothal. /b ,The Gemara asks: If so, in b the first clause too, /b they will b say it was a mistaken marriage. /b The Gemara answers: b The Sages penalized her /b by requiring her to receive a bill of divorce, lest people say she divorced this man and went back and married the first one. The Gemara counters: If so, in b the latter clause /b of the mishna b let us also penalize her. /b The Gemara responds: b The first clause /b involves a situation b where she violated a prohibition /b through her intercourse, and therefore the Sages b penalized her. /b Conversely, in b the latter clause, when she did not violate a prohibition, /b as she simply became betrothed, b the Sages did not penalize her. /b ,§ The mishna taught that this woman b does not have, /b i.e., she is not entitled to, the payment of her b marriage contract. /b The Gemara explains: b What is the reason /b that b the Sages instituted a marriage contract /b in general, b for /b an ordinary woman? b So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that /b he will easily b divorce her. /b The necessity to find money for her marriage contract will prevent a hasty decision to divorce her. However, in the case of b this /b woman, on the contrary, the Sages actually prefer that b she will be demeaned in his eyes such that /b he will easily b divorce her, /b as the marriage was forbidden and she may not remain with him. Consequently, they eliminated her marriage contract to encourage him to divorce her.,§ The mishna further states that b she does not have /b claim to b profits, or sustece, or worn clothes. /b Why not? Because the b stipulations in the marriage contract, /b i.e., all the rights of a wife stemming from the stipulations that are part of a marriage contract, b are considered like /b the b marriage contract /b itself. Since she has no marriage contract, she does not have the stipulations in a marriage contract either.,§ The mishna also teaches that if b she took /b any of the above b from this /b man b or from that /b one she must return anything she took. The Gemara comments: This b is obvious. /b Since she is not entitled to these articles, of course she must give them back. The Gemara explains: It is necessary, b lest you say /b that b since she has /b already b taken hold /b of them b we do not remove /b them b from her /b possession, as this is merely a penalty and she obtained nothing that did not legally belong to her. The i tanna /i therefore b teaches us /b that the court requires her to return even these items.,§ The mishna taught that b the child /b of either of the men is b a i mamzer /i . /b To clarify this issue, the Gemara cites a different discussion. b We learned /b in a mishna b elsewhere /b ( i Terumot /i 2:2): b One may not separate /b i teruma /i b from ritually impure /b produce in order b to /b exempt b ritually pure /b food, b and if he separated /b i teruma /i from impure food b unwittingly, his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i . /b If he acted b intentionally, he has done nothing, /b that is, his action is of no effect. The Sages debated: b What /b is the meaning of the expression: b He has done nothing? Rav Ḥisda said: He has done nothing at all, /b meaning b that even that i griva /i /b of produce he set aside as i teruma /i b returns to /b its former b untithed /b state, as his entire act is completely disregarded., b Rav Natan, son of Rabbi Oshaya, said: He has done nothing /b with regard to b preparing the remaining /b produce from which he separated i teruma /i , b but /b the fruit he separated b is /b itself b i teruma /i . /b Although the portion he set aside is sanctified as i teruma /i , this does not exempt him from separating more i teruma /i from ritually pure produce. The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: b Rav Ḥisda did not say /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Natan, son of Rabbi Oshaya, as, if you say it is i teruma /i , on occasion /b he b will be negligent and not separate /b anything more, assuming that if the portion he set aside has the status of i teruma /i he must certainly have done everything required.,The Gemara asks: In b what /b way b is /b this case b different from that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Terumot /i 3:1): With regard to b one who separates /b i teruma /i from b a serpent melon [ i kishut /i ] and it was discovered /b to be b bitter, /b or from b a watermelon and it was discovered /b to be b spoiled, /b it is b i teruma /i , and /b yet he must b go back and separate /b i teruma /i from another serpent melon or watermelon. No concern is expressed in this mishna that one might neglect to set aside i teruma /i a second time. The Gemara answers: b Are you raising a contradiction /b between the case of b an unwitting /b sinner and that b of an intentional /b sinner? There is a difference between them, as one who was b unwitting did not commit a transgression /b and consequently does not deserve to be penalized, whereas one who was b an intentional /b sinner b did commit a transgression. /b , b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b between this ruling involving b an unwitting /b sinner and another i halakha /i b of an unwitting /b sinner: b Here, it is taught /b that if the one who separated ritually impure produce instead of ritually pure produce was b unwitting, his i teruma /i is i teruma /i , /b which indicates that he does not have to separate i teruma /i again. However, b there, /b with regard to rotten fruit, b it is taught /b that it is b i teruma /i and /b yet he must b separate /b i teruma /i b again. /b ,The Gemara explains: b There, /b his was b an unwitting /b act that is b close to an intentional /b one, b as he should have tasted it /b first to ensure that he was separating quality fruit. His failure to do so renders him virtually a willful sinner, and therefore the Sages penalized him by obligating him to set aside i teruma /i again. In the case of impure i teruma /i , in contrast, he may not have been able to investigate the matter when he separated the portion., b And /b the Gemara also b raises a contradiction /b between one case involving b an intentional /b sinner and another case b of an intentional /b sinner. b Here, it /b is b taught /b that in the case of b an intentional /b sinner who separates i teruma /i , b he has done nothing. There, we learned /b in a mishna ( i Demai /i 5:10), that with regard to b one who separates /b i teruma /i b from /b produce growing in a vessel b that is not perforated, for /b produce that grew in b a perforated /b vessel, which is considered connected to the ground, it is b i teruma /i , but he must go back and separate /b i teruma /i a second time. This ruling is based on the principle that anything that grew in a pot without a hole does not require separation of i teruma /i by Torah law. In this case, the fact that he must again set aside i teruma /i does not mean that the portion he separated is not consecrated at all.,The Gemara answers: b In /b a case involving b two vessels he will listen. /b Since the difference between the two vessels is clear to the eye, if the owner is told he must separate i teruma /i again, it can be assumed that he will comply. In contrast, b in /b the case of b one vessel he will not listen, /b as ritually impure and pure produce look the same to him. Consequently, if he is informed that he must set aside i teruma /i a second time despite the fact that the produce he already set aside has the status of i teruma /i , he will take no notice.,The Gemara asks another question: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rav Natan, son of Rabbi Oshaya, who said /b that b he has done nothing /b with regard to b preparing the remaining /b produce b but it is /b nevertheless b i teruma /i , /b |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307| 18a. ומאי ארבע או חמש לרבנן דאמרי נכנס נוטל שש ויוצא נוטל שש ושכר הגפת דלתות לא משתים עשרה בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא חמש שקיל,לר' יהודה דאמר נכנס נוטל שבע שתים בשכר הגפת דלתות ויוצא נוטל חמש מעשר בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא ושקיל ארבע,רבא אמר כולה רבי היא וסבר לה כר' יהודה ואלא מאי ארבע הא חמש בעי למשקל,לא קשיא הא דאיכא משמר המתעכב הא דליכא משמר המתעכב,אי איכא משמר המתעכב משמנה בעי למפלג ושקיל ארבע אי ליכא משמר המתעכב מעשר בעי למפלג ושקיל חמש,אי הכי מאי רבי אומר לעולם חמש קשיא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מסרו לו זקנים מזקני בית דין וקורין לפניו בסדר היום ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול קרא אתה בפיך שמא שכחת או שמא לא למדת ערב יום כפורים שחרית מעמידין אותו בשער מזרח ומעבירין לפניו פרים ואילים וכבשים כדי שיהא מכיר ורגיל בעבודה כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין ממנו מאכל ומשתה ערב יוה"כ עם חשיכה לא היו מניחין אותו לאכול הרבה מפני שהמאכל מביא את השינה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלמא שמא שכח לחיי אלא שמא לא למד מי מוקמינן כי האי גוונא,והתניא (ויקרא כא, י) והכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בכח בנוי בחכמה ובעושר אחרים אומרים מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו ת"ל והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו,אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא כאן במקדש ראשון כאן במקדש שני דאמר ר' אסי תרקבא דדינרי עיילא ליה מרתא בת בייתוס לינאי מלכא על דאוקמיה ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי,ערב יום הכפורים שחרית וכו' תנא אף השעירים ותנא דידן מאי טעמא לא תנא שעירים כיון דעל חטא קא אתו חלשא דעתיה,אי הכי פר נמי על חטא הוא דאתי פר כיון דעליו ועל אחיו הכהנים הוא דאתי באחיו הכהנים אי איכא איניש דאית ביה מילתא מידע ידע ליה ומהדר ליה בתשובה בכולהו ישראל לא ידע,אמר רבינא היינו דאמרי אינשי אי בר אחתיך דיילא הוי חזי בשוקא קמיה לא תחליף,כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין וכו' תניא רבי יהודה בן נקוסא אומר מאכילין אותו סלתות וביצים כדי למסמסו אמרו לו כל שכן שאתה מביאו לידי חימום,תניא סומכוס אמר משום ר' מאיר אין מאכילין אותו לא אב"י ואמרי לה לא אבב"י ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן לא אב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא יין ישן ואמרי לה לא אבב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא בשר שמן ולא יין ישן ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן מפני שהיין לבן מביא את האדם לידי טומאה,תנו רבנן זב תולין לו במאכל וכל מיני מאכל אלעזר בן פנחס אומר משום רבי יהודה בן בתירא אין מאכילין אותו לא חגב"י ולא גב"ם ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לא חגב"י לא חלב ולא גבינה ולא ביצה ולא יין ולא גב"ם מי גריסין של פול ובשר שמן ומרייס,ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דת"ר חמשה דברים מביאים את האדם לידי טומאה ואלו הן השום | 18a. b And what /b is the meaning of b four or five; /b i.e., when does the High Priest take four loaves and when does he take five? According b to the Rabbis, who say: /b The priestly watch that is b incoming /b on Shabbat b takes six /b of the loaves, b and /b the b outgoing /b watch b takes six, and /b the incoming watch receives b no /b greater portion as b payment for closing the doors, /b it is b from twelve /b loaves that the High Priest b must divide /b and take his share, but he receives b half /b of the loaves b less one, /b meaning that b he takes five. /b According to the Rabbis, the High Priest receives less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of a loaf, less than half is five whole loaves.,According b to Rabbi Yehuda, who said: /b The priestly watch that is b incoming /b on Shabbat b takes seven /b of the loaves, b two /b of which b are payment for closing the doors; /b and the b outgoing /b watch b takes five /b loaves, it is b from ten /b that b he must divide /b the loaves. Those two of the twelve loaves are a separate payment and are not factored into the tally of those designated for distribution. b Subtract one from half /b of that total, as subtracting less than one loaf would lead to a situation where the High Priest receives a piece of a loaf, which is inappropriate. b And /b therefore, the High Priest b takes four. /b , b Rava said /b that the i baraita /i should be explained differently. The b entire /b i baraita /i b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he holds /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda /b that only ten loaves are divided. b Rather, what /b then is the meaning of the statement that the High Priest takes b four /b loaves? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b doesn’t he need to take five? /b ,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. This /b i halakha /i that the High Priest takes four loaves is in a case b where there is a watch that is detained. /b When the start of a Festival occurs on a Sunday night and one of the priestly watches was forced to arrive before Shabbat to ensure that they would arrive in time for the Festival; or, alternatively, if the Festival ended on a Thursday and one of the priestly watches was detained until the conclusion of Shabbat and only then departed, that priestly watch takes two loaves. b That /b i halakha /i that the High Priest takes five loaves is in a case b where there is not a watch that is detained, /b and the shewbread in divided only between the watch that concludes its service that Shabbat and the watch that begins its service that Shabbat., b If there is a watch that is detained, /b that detained watch takes two loaves, and the outgoing watch takes two loaves as payment for closing the doors. Therefore, it is b from eight /b that the High Priest b must divide /b the loaves, and he b takes four. If there is not a watch that is detained, /b it is b from ten /b that b he must divide /b the loaves and the High Priest b takes five. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b that even the middle statement of the i baraita /i is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and it is referring to a watch that is detained, b what /b is the meaning of the last clause in the i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b The High Priest b always /b takes b five /b loaves? That statement indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the middle clause, while according to Rava’s interpretation Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that in certain circumstances the High Priest takes only four loaves. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is b difficult /b to reconcile Rava’s interpretation with the language of the i baraita /i ., strong MISHNA: /strong The Sages b provided /b the High Priest b with Elders /b selected b from the Elders of the court, and they /b would b read before him the order /b of the service b of the day /b of Yom Kippur. b And they /b would b say to him: My Master, High Priest. Read /b the order of the service b with your own mouth, /b as b perhaps you forgot /b this reading b or perhaps you did not learn /b to read. b On Yom Kippur eve /b in the b morning, /b the Elders b stand him at /b the b eastern gate /b of the courtyard b and pass before him bulls and rams and sheep so that he will be familiar /b with the animals b and /b grow b accustomed to the service, /b as these were the animals sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Throughout b all the seven days /b that the High Priest was in the i Parhedrin /i chamber, b they would not withhold from him /b any b food or drink /b that he desired. However, b on Yom Kippur eve at nightfall, they would not allow him to eat a great deal because food induces sleep /b and they did not allow him to sleep, as will be explained., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara wonders about the depiction in the mishna of the Elders questioning the High Priest as to whether he forgot this reading or perhaps did not learn to read. b Granted, perhaps he forgot, /b that is b fine, /b as it is conceivable that he is not accustomed to reading the Torah and might have forgotten this portion. b However, /b is it conceivable that b perhaps /b the High Priest b did not learn /b to read? b Do we appoint /b a High Priest b of that sort /b who never learned the Bible?, b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is stated: b “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” /b (Leviticus 21:10); this teaches b that he /b must b be greater than his /b priestly b brethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth. i Aḥerim /i say: /b Wealth is not a prerequisite for selecting a High Priest, but b from where /b is it derived b that if he does not have /b property of his own b that his brethren the priests elevate him /b and render him wealthy from their own property? b The verse states: “And the priest who is greater [ i haggadol /i ] than his brethren”; elevate him [ i gaddelehu /i ] from /b the property b of his brethren. /b In any event, there is a consensus that wisdom is a prerequisite for his selection., b Rav Yosef said: /b This is b not difficult. There, /b the i baraita /i that lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to b the First Temple, /b where this i halakha /i was observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. b Here, /b the mishna is referring to b the Second Temple, /b where this i halakha /i was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. b As Rav Asi said: /b The wealthy b Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half- i se’a /i of dinars in to King Yannai for /b the fact b that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest. /b This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.,§ It was taught in the mishna: b On Yom Kippur eve /b in the b morning, /b the elders pass different animals before the High Priest. A i tanna /i b taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b Even goats /b were brought before him. The Gemara asks: b And the i tanna /i /b of b our /b mishna, b what is the reason /b that b he did not teach /b that b goats /b were among the animals that passed before the High Priest? The Gemara answers: b Since /b goats b come /b as atonement b for sins, /b passing them before the High Priest will evoke transgressions and he will b become distraught. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, a bull /b should not be passed before him, b as it too comes /b to atone b for sin. /b The Gemara answers that there is a difference in the case of b a bull, since /b it is to atone b for his /b sins b and for /b the sins of b his brethren the priests that it comes; among his brethren the priests, if there is a person who has a /b sinful b matter, /b the High Priest b would know /b about it b and /b lead b him back to /b the path of righteousness b through repentance. /b Therefore, passing a bull before the High Priest will not render him distraught, as it will merely remind him of his responsibility toward his priestly brethren. On the other hand, b with regard to the entire Jewish people, he does not know /b of their sinful matters and is unable to facilitate their repentance. Passing goats before the High Priest will evoke their sins as well as his inability to correct the situation, leaving him distraught.,Apropos the High Priest being privy to the sinful behavior of his fellow priests, b Ravina said /b that b this /b explains the folk saying b that people say: If /b the beloved b son of your /b beloved b sister becomes a policeman [ i dayyala /i ], see /b to it that b in the marketplace you do not pass before him. /b Be wary of him because he knows your sins.,§ We learned in the mishna: Throughout b all the seven days /b that the High Priest was in the i Parhedrin /i chamber, b they would not withhold /b from him any food or drink that he desired. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa says: /b On Yom Kippur eve b they feed him fine flour and eggs in order to loosen his /b bowels, so that he will not need to relieve himself on Yom Kippur. b They said to /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa: In feeding him those foods, b all the more so that you bring him to a state of arousal. /b Feeding him those foods is antithetical to the efforts to prevent the High Priest from becoming impure, as they are liable to cause him to experience a seminal emission., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One does not feed him /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Alef /i , i beit /i , i yod /i ; and some say /b that one does b not /b feed him foods represented by the acrostic: b i Alef /i , i beit /i , i beit /i , i yod /i ; and some say neither /b does one feed him b white wine. /b The Gemara elaborates: b Not i alef /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither i etrog /i , nor eggs [ i beitzim /i ], nor old wine [ i yayin /i ]. And some say: Not i alef /i , i beit /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither i etrog /i , nor eggs [ i beitzim /i ], nor fatty meat [ i basar /i ], nor old wine [ i yayin /i ]. And some say neither /b does one feed him b white wine because white wine brings /b a b man to /b the b impurity /b of a seminal emission.,Similarly, b the Sages taught: /b If a man experienced an emission that could render him b a i zav /i , one attributes /b the emission not to his being a i zav /i but perhaps to a different cause, e.g., b to food, or to all kinds of food, /b i.e., he may have eaten too much food, which could have caused the emission. b Elazar ben Pineḥas says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: /b During the days that a i zav /i is examining himself to determine whether or not he is impure, b one feeds him neither /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Ḥet /i , i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i yod /i , nor /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Gimmel /i , i beit /i , i mem /i , nor any /b food b items that /b might b bring him to impurity /b caused by an emission. The Gemara explains: b Not i ḥet /i , i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither milk [ i ḥalav /i ], nor cheese [ i gevina /i ], nor egg [ i beitza /i ], nor wine [ i yayin /i ]. And not i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i mem /i /b means b neither soup of pounded beans [ i mei gerisin /i ], nor fatty meat [ i basar /i ], nor /b small b fish /b pickled b in brine [ i muryas /i ]. /b ,The Gemara asks about the phrase: b Nor any /b food b items that /b might b bring him to impurity; what does it /b come b to include? It /b comes b to include that which the Sages taught: Five /b food b items bring /b a b man to /b a state of b impurity /b due to emission. b And these are: Garlic, /b |
|
| 60. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307 |
61. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 230| 50b. צריכות מחשבה לכשיתלשו קסבר מחשבת חבור לא שמה מחשבה,אמר רבא אף אנן נמי תנינא י"ג דברים נאמרו בנבלת עוף טהור וזה אחד מהן צריכה מחשבה ואינה צריכה הכשר אלמא מחשבת חיים לא שמה מחשבה הכא נמי מחשבת חבור לא שמה מחשבה,רבי זירא אמר הכא בגוזל שנפל מן הרום עסקינן דלא הוה קמן דלחשוב עליה,א"ל אביי תרנגולת שביבנה מאי איכא למימר א"ל תרנגול ברא הוה,אחיכו עליה תרנגול ברא עוף טמא הוא ועוף טמא מי קמטמא אמר להו אביי גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחיכו עליה בתרנגולת שמרדה ומאי ברא דאיבראי ממרה,רב פפא אמר תרנגולתא דאגמא הואי רב פפא לטעמיה דאמר רב פפא תרנגול דאגמא אסור תרנגולתא דאגמא שריא,וסימניך עמוני ולא עמונית דרש מרימר תרנגולתא דאגמא אסירא חזיוה רבנן דדרסה ואכלה והיינו גירותא,ת"ר גוזל שנפל לגת וחשב עליו להעלותו לכותי טמא לכלב טהור ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר אף לכלב טמא,א"ר יוחנן בן נורי ק"ו אם מטמא טומאה חמורה שלא במחשבה לא יטמא טומאה קלה שלא במחשבה,אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בטומאה חמורה שכן אינה יורדת לכך תאמר בטומאה קלה שכן יורדת לכך,אמר להן תרנגולת שביבנה תוכיח שיורדת לכך וטמאוה שלא במחשבה אמרו לו משם ראיה כותים היו שם וחשבו עליה לאכילה,במאי עסקינן אילימא בכרכים למה לה מחשבה והתנן נבלת בהמה טהורה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף טהור והחלב בכרכים אין צריכין לא מחשבה ולא הכשר,אלא בכפרים ומי איכא למ"ד דלא בעיא מחשבה והתנן נבלת בהמה טמאה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף טהור בכפרים צריכה מחשבה ואינה צריכה הכשר,א"ר זעירא בר חנינא לעולם בכרך וגתו מאסתו ועשאתו ככפר,א"ר יוחנן בן נורי קל וחומר אם מטמאה טומאה חמורה שלא במחשבה לא תטמא טומאה קלה שלא במחשבה,אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בטומאה חמורה שכן אינה יורדת לכך,מאי אינה יורדת לכך אמר רבא הכי קאמרי ליה לא אם אמרת | 50b. b they require intent /b to be used for human consumption b once they are detached /b from the ground, in order for them to be susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Yoḥa rules in this manner because he b holds /b that b intent /b to designate produce while it is b attached /b to the ground b is not considered intent. /b , b Rava said: We learn /b in a mishna ( i Teharot /i 1:1) b as well: Thirteen matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird, and this is one of them: /b In order for such a carcass to be susceptible to impurity and to be capable of imparting impurity to food through contact, it b requires /b a person’s b intention /b to eat it, b but it does not require /b exposure to liquid to be b rendered susceptible /b to impurity. Even if one had intent to eat the bird while it was still alive, intent is still required after it became a carcass for it to transmit impurity. Rava concludes: b Evidently, intent /b that the bird be eaten while the bird is b alive is not considered intent. Here too, intent /b to designate produce while it is b attached /b to the ground b is not considered intent. /b , b Rabbi Zeira said: /b Rava’s proof is inconclusive, as b here we are dealing with a young bird that fell from a height, where /b the bird b was not before us /b prior to it becoming a carcass, b so that /b one could have had b intent that it /b is food. Consequently, it requires intent afterward for it to impart impurity, but had there been intent while it was still alive, that would have sufficed., b Abaye said to /b Rabbi Zeira: b What is there to say /b about the case of the b chicken in Yavne? /b In that instance the Sages deemed the chicken impure due to intent only after it became a carcass, despite the fact that it was present before them while it was alive. This apparently indicates that intent which occurred while the bird was alive is not considered intent. Rabbi Zeira b said to /b Abaye: That b was /b actually b a wild chicken, /b which was not before them while it was alive, and therefore there was no intent that it should be food while it was alive.,Those who heard this comment b laughed at /b Rabbi Zeira’s interpretation: b A wild chicken is a non-kosher bird, and does a non-kosher bird impart impurity? Abaye said to them: A great man has stated a matter; do not laugh at him. /b Rabbi Zeira means that this is referring b to a chicken that rebelled /b against its owner, ran away to the wild, and raised its kosher chicks there. One of those chicks subsequently returned from the wild. Consequently, it had not been present before the Sages while it was alive. b And what /b did Rabbi Zeira mean when he mentioned b a wild [ i bara /i ] /b chicken? He meant one b that was created [ i de’ivrai /i ] from /b a chicken b that rebelled. /b , b Rav Pappa stated /b an alternative interpretation: b It was a marsh [ i de’agma /i ] hen. /b Since no one lives in a marsh, there was no opportunity for intent while it was alive, and therefore intent was necessary afterward. The Gemara adds: b Rav Pappa /b conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning /b in this regard, b as Rav Pappa said: /b The animal called b the marsh rooster is prohibited, /b as it is a non-kosher bird, whereas b the marsh hen is /b kosher and b permitted. /b , b And your mnemonic /b to remember which animal is permitted and which is prohibited is the well-known statement of the Sages with regard to the verse: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4). b An Ammonite /b man is unfit to enter the assembly b but not an Ammonite woman. /b Here too, the animal with a female name is permitted, whereas the one with a male name is prohibited. b Mareimar taught: The marsh hen is prohibited, /b contrary to the opinion of Rav Pappa, as b the Sages saw that it mauled and ate /b its prey. b And this is /b the b i geiruta /i , /b a non-kosher bird.,§ Apropos the case of a young kosher bird that fell and died, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A young /b kosher b bird that fell into a winepress /b and died there, b where /b the owner b intended to draw it up /b from the press b for a Samaritan /b to eat, is b ritually impure, /b like any carcass of a kosher bird. If he intended to draw it up from the press b for a dog /b to eat, it is b ritually pure. Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri says: Even /b if he intended to draw it up from the press b for a dog /b to eat, it is b impure, /b as the bird does not require intent for it to be impure., b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri says /b in explanation of his opinion: This i halakha /i can be derived by the following b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b If /b the carcass of a kosher bird b transmits severe /b ritual b impurity, /b i.e., it renders one’s garments impure when an olive-bulk of it is in the throat, b without thought, /b i.e., even if no one had intent that a person should eat it, should it b not transmit a lenient impurity /b of food, by touch alone, likewise b without thought? /b ,The Rabbis b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri: b No, /b this is not a valid i a fortiori /i inference. b If you said /b that there is no requirement of intent b with regard to severe /b ritual b impurity, that /b is because severe ritual impurity b does not assume /b its status b with that /b requirement of thought, i.e., intent is not relevant to that type of impurity. b Shall you /b also b say /b that there is no requirement of thought b with regard to lenient impurity, which does assume /b its status b with that /b requirement of thought? The Gemara will soon explain the precise meaning of this concept of assuming its status with the requirement of thought.,Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri b said to /b the Rabbis: The case of the b chicken in Yavne can prove /b that the question of whether or not intent is required does not depend on that factor. The case in Yavne involved an item b that does assume /b its status b with that /b requirement of thought, b and /b yet the Sages b declared it impure without intent. /b The Rabbis b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri: Will you cite b proof from there? /b In that case b there were Samaritans there, and /b the people in Yavne b intended that it be eaten /b by the Samaritans.,The Gemara analyzes the case of a young kosher bird that fell into a winepress: b What /b type of situation b are we dealing with? If we say /b that we are dealing b with cities, /b where there are many people available to consume all sorts of food, including the carcass of a kosher bird, b why does it /b require b intent? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Okatzin /i 3:3): b An unslaughtered carcass of a kosher animal in any location, /b whether the population is large or small, b and the carcass of a kosher bird or the fat /b of a kosher animal found b in cities [ i bakerakim /i ], require neither intent /b for human consumption b nor /b contact with liquid for them to be rendered b susceptible /b to impurity?, b Rather, /b it must be referring b to villages, /b where the population is small and there are not many people who would eat the carcass. b But /b this too is difficult: b Is there anyone who said that intent is not required /b in the case of a carcass of a non-kosher bird for the impurity of food? b Didn’t we learn /b in the beginning of that same mishna: b A carcass of a non-kosher animal /b found b in any location, and an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird in the villages /b both b require intent /b to consume them, b but they do not require /b contact with a liquid to become b susceptible /b to ritual impurity?, b Rabbi Zeira bar Ḥanina says: Actually, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case that occurred b in a city, /b and even so intent is required. The reason is that the young bird fell into a winepress, b and /b the b winepress rendered it disgusting and /b thereby b rendered it like /b the carcass of a kosher bird in b a village, /b where there are few people who would eat it.,The Gemara analyzes the exchange cited above. b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri says /b that this i halakha /i can be derived by b an i a fortiori /i /b inference: b If /b the carcass of a kosher bird b transmits severe /b ritual b impurity without thought, /b should it b not transmit lenient impurity without thought? /b ,The Rabbis b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri: b No, /b this is not a valid i a fortiori /i inference. b If you said /b so b with regard to severe ritual impurity, that /b is because it b does not assume /b its status b with that /b requirement of thought.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the clause: It b does not assume /b its status b with that /b requirement of thought? In what manner is thought required for the lenient impurity of food it imparts in the case of a bird carcass but not required for the severe impurity it imparts when it is in the throat? b Rava said /b that b this is what /b the Rabbis b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri: b No, if you said /b that there is no requirement of thought |
|
62. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307 | 27b. to teach b that if one omitted one of the placements /b of blood, b he has done nothing. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : If the priest b performed the seven sprinklings of /b the blood of b the /b red b heifer /b improperly, b either /b by performing them b not for their /b own b sake or /b performing them b not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting /b of the Tabernacle (Numbers 19:4), which corresponds to the Sanctuary in the Temple, b they are not valid. /b , b But /b with regard to the sprinkling of the blood b that /b takes place b inside /b the Sanctuary, of inner sin offerings, the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the blood of the bull of the anointed priest, the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the blood of the goats of idol worship, which are to be sprinkled “before the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 4:6), b and /b the sprinkling of the oil b that /b takes place during the purification b of the leper, /b which is done “seven times before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16), if these are performed b not for their /b own b sake, /b then b they are not valid. /b But if they are performed b not precisely /b toward the direction where they should be sprinkled, b they are valid. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i b concerning /b the sprinklings of the blood of the red b heifer /b that if they were performed b not for their /b own b sake, they are not valid, /b but if they were performed b not precisely /b toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary, b they are valid? Rav Ḥisda said: /b This is b not difficult; this /b second i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b whereas b that /b first i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Kelim /i 1:10): With regard to b those who have not yet /b brought b an atonement /b offering to complete the purification process, and therefore are not permitted to enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial meat, b who entered the /b Temple b courtyard unwittingly, /b they are b liable /b to bring b a sin offering. /b If they entered b intentionally, /b then this is b punishable by i karet /i . And needless to say, /b the same applies to b one /b who was ritually impure b who immersed that day /b and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed b and all the others who are ritually impure /b and have not yet immersed., b And /b with regard to those who are b pure who entered beyond their boundaries, /b i.e., beyond where it is permitted for them to enter, such as a priest who enters the Sanctuary for a purpose other than performing the Temple service, if one entered b any /b part b of the Sanctuary, /b he is liable b to /b receive b forty /b lashes. If he entered b within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, i.e., into the Holy of Holies, or he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was b before the Ark Cover, /b he is liable b to /b receive b death /b at the hand of Heaven. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If he entered b any /b part b of the Sanctuary or within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, he is liable b to /b receive b forty /b lashes; b but /b if he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was b before the Ark Cover, /b he is liable b to /b receive b death /b at the hand of Heaven., b With regard to what /b issue b do /b the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda b disagree? /b They disagree b with regard to /b the proper understanding of b this verse: “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place, within the Curtain, before the Ark Cover which is upon the Ark, that he not die” /b (Leviticus 16:2). b The Rabbis hold /b that entering b into the holy place, /b i.e., the Sanctuary, is b subject to /b the prohibition of: b He shall not come, /b and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering b within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies b and before the Ark Cover /b is b subject to /b the warning of: b He shall not die, /b and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven., b And Rabbi Yehuda holds /b that entering b into the holy place, /b i.e., the Sanctuary, b and within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies is b subject to /b the prohibition of: b He shall not come, /b and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering b before the Ark Cover /b is b subject to /b the warning of: b He shall not die, /b and entering there is punished by death at the of Heaven.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the interpretation b of the Rabbis? /b The Gemara answers: b If /b it should b enter your mind /b to explain the verse b as Rabbi Yehuda says, /b then b let the Merciful One write: /b That he not come at all times b into the holy place and before the Ark Cover /b that he not die, b and there is no need /b to write b “within the Curtain,” and I would say: /b If one b becomes liable /b to receive lashes for even entering the b Sanctuary, is /b it b necessary /b to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering b within the Curtain? Why do I /b need the phrase b “within the Curtain” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from /b that seemingly extraneous term that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable b by death /b at the hand of Heaven., b And Rabbi Yehuda /b understands: b If the Merciful One had written /b only that it is prohibited to come b “into the holy place” and did not write “within the Curtain,” I would say: What /b is the b holy place? /b It is b within the Curtain, /b i.e., the Holy of Holies, and one who enters it violates a prohibition, b but /b if one enters the b Sanctuary /b he does b not even /b violate b a prohibition. And the Rabbis /b respond to this claim: b You cannot say that, as the entire Sanctuary is called /b “the b holy place,” as it is stated: “And the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holies” /b (Exodus 26:33)., b And what is the reason /b for the interpretation b of Rabbi Yehuda? /b Why does he hold that one who enters the Holy of Holies violates a prohibition but is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that b if /b it should b enter your mind /b to explain b as the Rabbis say, /b that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, b let the Merciful One write: /b That he not come at all times b into the holy place and within the Curtain /b that he not die, b and there is no need /b to write b “before the Ark Cover.” And I would say: /b If entering b within the Curtain, /b i.e., the Holy of Holies, is punished b with death /b at the hand of Heaven, b is /b it b necessary /b to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering b before the Ark Cover? Why do I /b need the phrase b “before the Ark Cover” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from /b that seemingly extraneous term that entering b before the Ark Cover /b is punishable b by death /b at the hand of Heaven, but entering b within the Curtain /b merely violates b a prohibition. /b , b And the Rabbis /b understand: b Indeed, /b it is so b that /b in order to teach the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven it b is not necessary /b for the verse to also state “before the Ark Cover.” b And /b the reason b that the Merciful One wrote “before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover” /b was in order b to exclude /b one who entered the Holy of Holies through b a roundabout path, /b as one who did not enter facing the Ark Cover, i.e., from the east, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven.,This is b as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught: /b With regard to the verse: “And he shall sprinkle it with his finger b before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover to the east” /b (Leviticus 16:14), b this established a paradigm /b that b any place /b in the Torah b where it is stated: “Before [ i penei /i ],” /b it is referring to b nothing other than before /b the b eastern /b side.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Yehuda /b respond to this, as it is clear that the term “before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover” is necessary to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the purpose was for that reason, b let the verse say: Before [ i penei /i ] /b the Ark Cover. b What /b is the purpose of the word b i el /i ? Learn from /b that seemingly extraneous term that one is punished with death at the hand of Heaven b specifically /b if he entered directly b before /b the Ark, but not if he merely entered the Holy of Holies. b And the Rabbis /b hold that the term b “ i el /i ” /b does b not /b mean b specifically /b one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.,The Gemara now returns to its suggestion that the contradiction between the two i baraitot /i with regard to whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or not when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting can be resolved by explaining that one i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the other is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. b And Rabbi Yehuda, who says /b that the expression b “before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover” /b teaches that the punishment is limited to one who b specifically /b entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: b “And sprinkle /b of its blood b toward [ i el /i ] the front” /b (Numbers 19:4), b also /b means that the sprinklings must be performed b specifically /b toward the front of the Sanctuary., b And the Rabbis /b are of the opinion that b from /b the fact b that there /b the term i el /i does b not /b mean b specifically /b that one is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven only if he enters directly before the Ark Cover, b here too /b they hold that it is b not /b meant b specifically, /b and therefore the sprinklings are valid even when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting., b Rav Yosef objects to this /b explanation: b According to Rabbi Yehuda, from /b the fact b that /b there the term b i el /i /b is used b specifically, /b the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood b before [ i al /i /b i penei /i ] the Ark Cover” (Leviticus 16:14) should b also /b mean that the sprinkling must be performed b specifically /b upon the Ark Cover. b But /b in the time b of the Second Temple, where there was no Ark or Ark Cover, /b would Rabbi Yehuda then say that b indeed /b the b sprinklings were not performed? /b This is clearly not correct, as all agree that the sprinklings were performed in the Second Temple (see i Yoma /i 53b)., b Rabba bar Ulla said /b in response: b The verse states /b with regard to the Yom Kippur service: b “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place [ i mikdash hakodesh /i ]” /b (Leviticus 16:33), which is interpreted as follows: He will sprinkle the blood to make atonement not specifically on the Ark [ i hakodesh /i ], but even on b the place that is dedicated [ i hamkudash /i ] for the Ark [ i lakodesh /i ]. /b ,The Gemara offers another resolution of the contradiction between the i baraitot /i concerning whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or invalid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. b Rava said: /b Both b this /b i baraita /i b and that /b i baraita /i are in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis: /b |
|
63. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 178| 97a. אם במתנה נוטלן לא כך יפה כחו,כיצד מוכרת אמר רבי דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב הונא מוכרת אחת לשנים עשר חדש ולוקח מפרנס אחת לשלשים יום ורב יהודה אמר מוכרת לששה חדשים ולוקח מפרנס אחת לשלשים יום,תניא כוותיה דרב הונא מוכרת לשנים עשר חדש ולוקח מפרנס אחת לשלשים יום תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה מוכרת לששה חדשים ולוקח מפרנס אחת לשלשים יום,אמר אמימר הלכתא מוכרת לששה חדשים ולוקח מפרנס אחת לשלשים יום אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר דרב הונא מאי אמר ליה לא שמיע לי כלומר לא סבירא לי,בעו מיניה מרב ששת מוכרת למזונות מהו שתחזור ותטרוף לכתובה,קמיבעיא להו בדרב יוסף דאמר רב יוסף ארמלתא דזבין אחריות איתמי ובי דינא דזבין אחריות איתמי מאי,כיון דאחריות איתמי טרפא או דלמא מצי אמרי לה נהי דאחריות דעלמא לא קבילת עילוך אחריות דנפשך מי לא קבולי קבילת,אמר ליה תניתוה מוכרת והולכת עד כדי כתובתה וסמך לה שתגבה כתובתה מן השאר שמע מינה שיירא אין לא שיירא לא,ודלמא עצה טובה קא משמע לן דלא ליקרו לה הדרינתא א"כ ליתני גובה כתובתה מן השאר מאי סמך לה שמע מינה שיירא אין לא שיירא לא,איבעיא להו זבין ולא איצטריכו ליה זוזי הדרי זביני או לא הדרי זביני,תא שמע דההוא גברא דזבין ארעא לרב פפא דאצטריכו ליה זוזי למיזבן תורי לסוף לא איצטריכו ליה ואהדריה ניהליה רב פפא לארעיה רב פפא לפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד,ת"ש דההוא בצורתא דהוה בנהרדעא זבנינהו כולי עלמא לאפדנייהו לסוף אתו חיטי אמר להו רב נחמן דינא הוא דהדרי אפדני למרייהו,התם נמי זביני בטעות הוו דאיגלאי מילתא דארבא בעקולי הוה קיימא,אי הכי היינו דאמר ליה רמי בר שמואל לרב נחמן אם כן נמצאת מכשילן לעתיד לבא אמר ליה אטו כל יומא בצורתא שכיחא אמר ליה אין בצורתא בנהרדעא משכח שכיחא,והלכתא זבין ולא איצטריכו ליה זוזי הדרי זביני:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אלמנה בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנשואין מוכרת שלא בבית דין,ר' שמעון אומר מן הנשואין מוכרת שלא בבית דין מן האירוסין לא תמכור אלא בבית דין מפני שאין לה מזונות וכל שאין לה מזונות לא תמכור אלא בבית דין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלמא מן הנשואין משום מזוני | 97a. b If he takes it as a gift, his power /b as a creditor b is not enhanced /b in b this manner. /b He is not served well because he would not be able to seize property sold to a third party in order to receive his gift. So too, the widow can sell property and then decide later for what purpose she sold it.,§ The Gemara asks: b How does /b a widow b sell /b property to earn money for her support? b Rabbi Daniel bar Rav Ketina said /b that b Rav Huna said: She sells /b her late husband’s property b once every twelve months and the buyer /b who purchased the property from her b provides /b her with money b once every thirty days. And Rav Yehuda said: She sells /b once b every six months and the buyer provides /b her with money b once every thirty days. /b ,The Gemara notes: It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Huna: She sells /b once b every twelve months, and the buyer provides /b her with support b once every thirty days. /b So too, it b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Yehuda: She sells /b once b every six months, and the buyer provides /b her with money b once every thirty days. /b , b Ameimar said: The i halakha /i /b is that b she sells /b once b every six months and the buyer provides /b her with money b once every thirty days, /b in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. b Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What /b do you have to say about the opinion b of Rav Huna? He said to him: I did not hear /b about this statement; b that is to say, I do not hold /b in accordance with it.,§ The students b raised a dilemma to Rav Sheshet: /b If a woman b sells /b property b for /b her b sustece, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Can she return and seize /b those very properties that she had sold, as payment b for /b her b marriage contract? /b ,The Gemara explains: b They raised this dilemma in /b reference to a i halakha /i established b by Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said: /b In the case of b a widow who sold /b liened property to a third party, b the /b property b guarantee /b rests b upon the orphans. /b If the property was seized from the purchasers in payment of a previous debt, then the purchasers are reimbursed by the orphans. b And /b so too, in the case of b a court that sold /b property belonging to the deceased, b the /b property b guarantee /b rests b upon the orphans. /b It is in light of this i halakha /i that the dilemma was raised to Rav Sheshet: b What /b is the i halakha /i in this case?,Is the i halakha /i that b since the /b property b guarantee /b rests b on the orphans, she /b is able to b seize /b the property? b Or perhaps /b the buyers b are able to say to her: Granted, you did not accept upon yourself /b a property b guarantee for everyone, /b and it is the heirs and not you who have to reimburse us if our property is seized; however, b did you not accept a guarantee /b about b your own /b actions, that you as the seller will not return and seize the property from us?,Rav Sheshet b said to /b the one who raised the dilemma: b You learned /b in a i baraita /i : A widow b sells /b the deceased’s property for her sustece, and b she continues /b to do so b until /b there is nothing left except b the value of her marriage contract, and she relies upon /b the fact b that she will collect /b payment of b her marriage contract from the remainder /b of the property. b Learn from this /b that if b she left /b property equal in value to her marriage contract, then b yes, /b she can sell it as payment of her marriage contract; but if b she did not leave /b property, then b no, /b she cannot collect her marriage contract. If she could simply seize the land from the buyers, she would not need to set aside part of her husband’s property to use as payment for her marriage contract. She could sell all the land for sustece and afterward return and seize the property from the purchasers.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But perhaps /b the i baraita /i b teaches us good advice, so that they will not call her a retractor /b and say that she is an untrustworthy individual who goes back on agreements into which she entered. However, legally, she is able to seize the property from the buyers. The Gemara answers: b If /b that is b so, /b and the i baraita /i intended only to give advice, b let it /b simply b teach: She collects /b payment of b her marriage contract from the remainder. What /b is the purpose of the added emphasis of: b She relies? Learn from /b this that the i baraita /i is worded in a precise manner and teaches that if b she left /b property, b yes, /b she can collect payment of her marriage contract. If b she did not leave over, no, /b she cannot collect payment of her marriage contract.,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the scholars: If someone b sold /b properties because he needed money for a certain purpose b and /b in the end b he did not need the money /b for that purpose, is this considered a sale conducted in error, so that the seller can renege on the deal and b the sale is reversed? Or, is the sale not reversed /b and what is done is done?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof: There was b a certain man who sold land to Rav Pappa because he needed money to buy oxen. In the end, he did not need /b the money and regretted having sold the land, b and Rav Pappa returned his land to him. /b The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, as b Rav Pappa acted /b in a manner that was b beyond the letter of the law. /b , b Come /b and b hear /b another proof: There b was a certain drought in Neharde’a /b during which b everyone sold his mansion [ i appadna /i ] /b in order to buy wheat. b In the end, wheat arrived, /b driving down the price, rendering their sale unnecessary. b Rav Naḥman said to them: The i halakha /i is that the mansions are returned to their /b previous b owners. /b It is evident that he holds that a sale that was prompted by the need for money is voided if it becomes clear that the seller no longer needs the money.,The Gemara answers: b There too, the sale was /b conducted b in error, as it became known that the ship /b with the wheat b was /b already b in the bays of the river /b at the time when the mansions were sold. Had they known that the ship was so close, they would not have sold their property. This is a case of an error at the time of the sale, which is different from a case where the circumstances changed after the sale.,The Gemara offers proof that the error was already present at the time of the transaction: b If so, this is what Rami bar Shmuel said to Rav Naḥman /b when he questioned his ruling: b If /b this is b so, /b and the mansions need to be restored to their previous owners, b you find yourself obstructing them for the future. /b As a result of this ruling, people will not want to buy land because they will worry that the seller will change his mind. Rav Naḥman b said to him: Is that to say /b that it is so b common, /b that there is b a drought every day? /b I said that the properties are returned only in these specific circumstances. b He said to him: Yes, in Neharde’a drought is a frequent /b occurrence.,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is /b that if one b sold /b properties for a certain purpose b and /b in the end b did not need the money /b for that reason, b the sale is reversed. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b A widow, whether /b widowed b from betrothal or from marriage, sells /b her husband’s property b when not in court. /b , b Rabbi Shimon says: /b A widow b from marriage sells when not in court, /b but a widow b from betrothal may sell only in court, because she does not receive sustece /b from her husband’s property. She receives only her marriage contract, b and anyone who does not receive sustece may sell only in court. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara elaborates: b Granted, /b a widow b from marriage /b may sell when not in court b due to /b the fact that b her sustece /b is a pressing concern, so one does not make her wait until she finds a court that will oversee her sale. |
|
64. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 262| 12a. ומי הוה שמן המשחה והתניא משנגנז ארון נגנז שמן המשחה וצנצנת המן ומקלו של אהרן שקדיה ופרחיה וארגז ששלחו פלשתים דורון לישראל שנאמר (שמואל א ו, ח) ואת כלי הזהב אשר השבותם לו אשם תשימו בארגז מצדו ושלחתם אותו והלך,ומי גנזו יאשיהו מלך יהודה גנזו שראה שכתוב בתורה (דברים כח, לו) יולך ה' אותך ואת מלכך וגו' צוה וגנזום שנאמר (דברי הימים ב לה, ג) ויאמר ללוים המבינים לכל ישראל הקדושים לה' תנו את ארון הקדש בבית אשר בנה שלמה בן דוד מלך ישראל אין לכם משא בכתף עתה עבדו את ה' אלהיכם ואת עמו ישראל,ואמר רבי אלעזר אתיא שם שם אתיא משמרת משמרת אתיא דורות דורות אמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא,ת"ר כיצד מושחין את המלכים כמין נזר ואת הכהנים כמין כי מאי כמין כי אמר רב מנשיא בר גדא כמין כף יוני,תני חדא בתחלה מוצקין שמן על ראשו ואח"כ נותנין לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ותניא אחריתי בתחלה נותנין לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ואח"כ מוצקים לו שמן על ראשו תנאי היא איכא דאמרי משיחה עדיפא ואיכא דאמרי יציקה עדיפא,מ"ט דמאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא דכתיב (ויקרא ח, יב) ויצוק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן וימשח אותו לקדשו ומאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא מ"ט קסבר שכן אתה מוצא אצל כלי שרת והכתיב ויצוק ובסוף וימשח הכי קאמר מאי טעם ויצוק משום דוימשח,ת"ר (תהלים קלג, ב) כשמן הטוב [וגו'] יורד על הזקן זקן אהרן וגו' כמין שני טפי מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו אמר רב פפא תנא כשהוא מספר עולות ויושבות לו בעיקר זקנו ועל דבר זה היה משה דואג אמר שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה יצתה בת קול ואמרה כשמן הטוב וגו' (תהלים קלג, ג) כטל חרמון מה טל חרמון אין בו מעילה אף שמן המשחה שבזקן אהרן אין בו מעילה,ועדיין היה אהרן דואג אמר שמא משה לא מעל אבל אני מעלתי יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו (תהלים קלג, א) הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד מה משה לא מעל אף אתה לא מעלת,ת"ר אין מושחים את המלכים אלא על המעיין כדי שתמשך מלכותם שנא' (מלכים א א, לג) ויאמר המלך להם קחו עמכם את עבדי אדוניכם [וגו'] והורדתם אותו אל גחון,אמר רבי אמי האי מאן דבעי לידע אי מסיק שתיה אי לא ניתלי שרגא בעשרה יומי דבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים בביתא דלא נשיב זיקא אי משיך נהוריה נידע דמסיק שתיה,ומאן דבעי למיעבד בעיסקא ובעי למידע אי מצלח אי לא מצלח לירבי תרנגולא אי שמין ושפר מצלח,האי מאן דבעי למיפק [לאורחא] ובעי למידע אי חזר ואתי לביתא אי לא ניקום בביתא דחברא אי חזי בבואה דבבואה לידע דהדר ואתי לביתא ולאו מלתא היא דלמא חלשא דעתיה ומיתרע מזליה אמר אביי השתא דאמרת סימנא מילתא היא [לעולם] יהא רגיל למיחזי בריש שתא קרא ורוביא כרתי וסילקא ותמרי,אמר להו רב משרשיא לבריה כי בעיתו מיעל ומיגמרי קמי רבייכו גרסו מתניתא ועלו לקמי רבייכו וכי יתביתו קמיה חזו לפומיה דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך וכי גרסיתו גרסו על נהרא דמיא דכי היכי דמשכן מיא משכן שמעתתייכו ותיבו אקילקלי דמתא מחסיא ולא תיבו אפדני דפומבדיתא טב גלדנא סריא [דמתא מחסיא למיכל] מכותחא דרמי כיפי,(שמואל א ב, א) רמה קרני באלהי רמה קרני ולא רמה פכי דוד ושלמה שנמשחו בקרן נמשכה מלכותן שאול ויהוא שנמשחו בפך לא נמשכה מלכותן:,המשוח בשמן המשחה וכו': ת"ר משיח יכול מלך ת"ל כהן אי כהן יכול מרובה בגדים ת"ל משיח אי משיח יכול משוח מלחמה תלמוד לומר והכהן המשיח שאינו משיח על גביו,מאי משמע כדאמר רבא הירך המיומנת שבירך הכא נמי המשיח המיומן שבמשוחים,אמר מר משיח יכול מלך מלך פר הוא דמייתי שעיר הוא דמייתי איצטריך ס"ד אמינא על שגגת מעשה יביא שעיר על העלם דבר יביא פר קמ"ל:,אין בין משוח בשמן המשחה כו': מתניתין דלא כרבי מאיר דאי ר"מ הא תניא מרובה בגדים מביא פר הבא על כל המצות דברי ר"מ ולא הודו לו חכמים,מ"ט דר"מ דתניא (ויקרא ד, ג) משיח אין לי אלא משוח בשמן המשחה מרובה בגדים מנין תלמוד לומר הכהן המשיח,במאי אוקימתיה כרבנן | 12a. The Gemara asks with regard to the fact that Jehoahaz was anointed: b And was there anointing oil /b during the days of Jehoahaz? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b When the Ark of the Covet was sequestered, the anointing oil, and the jar of i manna /i /b (see Exodus 16:33), b and Aaron’s staff /b with b its almonds and blossoms /b (see Numbers 17:23), b and the chest that the Philistines sent /b as b a gift to Israel, /b were all b sequestered /b with it, b as it is stated: /b “And you shall take the Ark of the Lord, and lay it upon the cart, b and put the vessels of gold that you return Him as a guilt-offering in a chest by its side and send it away that it may go” /b (I Samuel 6:8)., b And who sequestered /b the Ark? b Josiah, king of Judea, sequestered it, as he saw that it is written in the Torah /b in the portion of rebuke: b “The Lord will lead you, and your king /b whom you shall establish over you, unto a nation that you have not known” (Deuteronomy 28:36). b He commanded and /b the people b sequestered them, as it is stated: “And he said to the Levites who taught all Israel, and who were sacred unto the Lord: Place the sacred Ark in the room that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel built; there shall be no more burden upon your shoulders. Now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel” /b (II Chronicles 35:3)., b And Rabbi Elazar says: One derives /b a verbal analogy between the term: b There, /b written with regard to the Ark (see Exodus 29:43), and the term: b There, /b written with regard to the jar of i manna /i (see Exodus 16:33); and between the term: b Keepsake, /b written with regard to the jar of i manna /i (see Exodus 16:33), and the term: b Keepsake, /b written with regard to Aaron’s staff (see Numbers 17:25–26); and between the term: b Generations, /b written with regard to the jar of i manna /i (see Exodus 16:33), and the term: b Generations, /b written with regard to the anointing oil (see Exodus 30:31). By means of these verbal analogies it is derived that all of these items were sequestered. b Rav Pappa said: /b They anointed Jehoahaz b with pure balsam /b oil, not with anointing oil.,§ b The Sages taught: How does one anoint the kings? /b One smears the oil in a manner that is b similar to /b the form of b a crown /b around his head. b And /b how does one anoint b the priests? /b One smears the oil in a shape b like /b the Greek letter b chi. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b Like /b the Greek letter b chi? Rav Menashya bar Gadda said: Like /b the b Greek /b equivalent of the Hebrew letter b i kaf /i . /b , b It is taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : b Initially, they pour oil on /b the priest’s b head, and thereafter, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes. And it is taught /b in b a different /b i baraita /i : b Initially, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes, and thereafter, they pour oil on his head. /b The Gemara explains: b It is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i . Some say: Anointing /b with oil between his eyes b is preferable /b and takes precedence, b and some say: Pouring /b oil on his head b is preferable /b and takes precedence., b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the one who said /b that b pouring /b oil on his head b is preferable? /b It is b as it is written: “And he poured from the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him to sanctify him” /b (Leviticus 8:12), indicating that pouring precedes anointing. b And the one who said /b that b anointing is preferable /b and takes precedence, b what is the reason /b for his opinion? b He holds: /b Anointing takes precedence b as /b that is what b you find with regard to service vessels /b (see Numbers 7:1). They were anointed, but the anointing oil was not poured on them. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it written /b with regard to the priests: b “And he poured,” and ultimately: “And anointed”? /b The Gemara answers: b This /b is what the verse b is saying: What is the reason /b that b he poured /b the oil? It is b due to /b the fact b that he /b had already b anointed /b them. Anointing is the primary component of the process., b The Sages taught: “It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, /b that comes down upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). b Two drops /b of anointing oil, b shaped like pearls, were suspended for Aaron from his beard. Rav Pappa said /b that it is b taught: When /b Aaron would b speak /b and his beard would move, those drops would miraculously b rise and settle on the roots of his beard /b so that they would not fall. b Moses was concerned about this matter. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, I misused /b the consecrated b anointing oil /b and poured more than necessary, as two additional drops remain? b A Divine Voice emerged and said: “It is like the precious oil /b upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that comes down upon the collar of his garments. b Like the dew of Hermon” /b (Psalms 133:2–3). This analogy teaches: b Just as there is no misuse of the dew of Hermon, /b which is not consecrated, b so too, /b with regard to b the anointing oil that is on Aaron’s beard, there is no misuse /b of consecrated property., b And still Aaron was concerned. He said: Perhaps Moses did not misuse /b consecrated property; b but /b perhaps b I misused /b consecrated property, as the additional oil is on my beard and I enjoy it. b A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” /b (Psalms 133:1). b Just as /b your brother b Moses did not misuse /b consecrated property, b so too, you did not misuse /b consecrated property., b The Sages taught: One anoints the kings only upon a spring, /b as an omen, b so that their kingdom will continue /b like a spring, b as it is stated /b with regard to the coronation of Solomon before the death of David: b “And the king said unto them: Take with you the servants of your lord, /b and let Solomon my son ride upon my own mule, b and bring him down to Gihon. /b And let Tzadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel and sound the shofar and say: Long live King Solomon” (I Kings 1:33–34).,§ Apropos good omens, the Gemara cites a statement that b Rabbi Ami said: This /b person b who seeks to know if he will complete his year or if /b he will b not, /b i.e., whether or not he will remain alive in the coming year, b let him light a lamp, during the ten days that are between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, in a house in which wind does not blow. If its light continues /b to burn, b he knows that he /b will b complete his year. /b , b And one who seeks to conduct a business venture and wishes to know if he will succeed /b or b if /b he will b not succeed, let him raise a rooster. If /b the rooster b grows fat and healthy, he will succeed. /b , b One who seeks to embark on a journey and wishes to know if he /b will b return and come to /b his b home /b or b if /b he will b not, let him go to a dark [ i daḥavara /i ] house. If he sees the shadow of a shadow he shall know that he /b will b return and come home. /b The Sages reject this: This omen b is not /b a significant b matter. Perhaps he will be disheartened /b if the omen fails to appear, b and his fortune will suffer /b and it is this that causes him to fail. b Abaye said: Now that you said /b that b an omen is /b a significant b matter, a person should always be accustomed to seeing /b these b on Rosh HaShana: Squash, and fenugreek, leeks, and chard, and dates, /b as each of these grows quickly and serves as a positive omen for one’s actions during the coming year.,Apropos good omens, b Rav Mesharshiyya said to his son: When you seek to enter and study before your teacher, study the i baraita /i /b first, b and /b only then b enter before your teacher. And when you are sitting before him, look to his mouth, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” /b (Isaiah 30:20). b And when you study, study adjacent to a river of water; just as the water flows, your studies will flow /b unimpeded. He added: b And /b it is preferable for you to b sit on the rubbish heaps [ i akilkelei /i ] of Mata Meḥasya, and do not sit in the palaces [ i appadnei /i ] of Pumbedita. Better to eat the rotten fish [ i gildana /i ] of Mata Meḥasya than /b to eat b i kutḥa /i , which displaces rocks, /b a metaphor for how potent it is.,Apropos good omens for anointing, it is stated in the prayer of Hannah, Samuel’s mother: b “My horn is exalted in my God” /b (I Samuel 2:1). The Gemara infers: b My horn is exalted, and my jug is not exalted. David and Solomon were anointed with /b oil from b a horn. /b This was a good omen for them and b their reign endured. Saul and Jehu were anointed with /b oil from b a jug and their reign did not endure. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest b who is anointed with the anointing oil, /b not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments. b The Sages taught: “Anointed” /b is written in the verse (Leviticus 6:15). One b might /b have thought that the reference is to b a king. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Priest.” If /b the reference is to b a priest, /b one b might /b have thought that the reference is to a priest consecrated by donning b multiple garments. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Anointed.” If /b the reference is to one who is b anointed, /b one b might /b have thought that the reference is even to a priest b anointed for war. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “And the anointed priest,” /b indicating b that there is no anointed /b priest b over him; /b rather, he is the highest-ranking priest.,The Gemara asks: b From where /b is this b inferred? /b The Gemara answers: It is b as Rava said /b with regard to the term b “the thigh” /b in the verse: “The sciatic nerve that is on the hollow of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33); the reference is to b the stronger of the thighs. Here too, /b where the verse states: b “The anointed,” /b the reference is to b the /b most b distinguished of /b those b anointed, /b i.e., the High Priest.,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i : b The Master said: “Anointed” /b is written in the verse. One b might /b have thought that the reference is to b a king. /b The Gemara asks: b Is it a bull that a king brings /b for a sin-offering? b It is a male goat that he brings, /b as the Torah states explicitly, later in that passage. The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b for the i tanna /i to say this, as it may b enter your mind to say: /b It is b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action /b for which all people are liable to bring a sin-offering that a king b shall bring /b a male goat as his offering; but b for absence /b of awareness b of the matter /b with the unwitting performance of an action, a king b shall bring a bull. /b Therefore, the i tanna /i b teaches us /b that it is only the High Priest who brings a bull.,§ The mishna teaches: b The difference between /b a High b Priest anointed with the anointing oil /b and one consecrated by donning multiple garments is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot. The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, as, if it was /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : A priest who is consecrated by donning b multiple garments brings a bull that comes for /b the transgression of b any of the mitzvot; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis did not concede /b that point b to him. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Meir? /b It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “Anointed” /b is written in the verse. b I have /b derived b only a priest anointed with the anointing oil. From where /b do I derive the i halakha /i of a priest who is consecrated by donning b multiple garments? The verse states: “The anointed priest,” /b from which it is derived that anyone who is appointed as the High Priest is included, even if he was not anointed.,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with which /b opinion b did you interpret /b the mishna? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b |
|
65. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 178; Klawans (2009) 307| 30b. לא יהיה בך אביון שלך קודם לשל כל אדם,אלא לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו,אמר רבה הכישה חייב בה אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזא להנך עיזי דקיימו שקל קלא ושדא בהו א"ל איחייבת בהו קום אהדרינהו,איבעיא להו דרכו להחזיר בשדה ואין דרכו להחזיר בעיר מהו מי אמרינן השבה מעליא בעינן וכיון דלאו דרכיה להחזיר בעיר לא לחייב או דלמא בשדה מיהת הוא דאיחייב ליה וכיון דאיחייב ליה בשדה איחייב ליה בעיר תיקו,אמר רבא כל שבשלו מחזיר בשל חבירו נמי מחזיר וכל שבשלו פורק וטוען בשל חבירו נמי פורק וטוען,רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הוה קאזיל באורחא פגע ביה ההוא גברא הוה דרי פתכא דאופי אותבינהו וקא מיתפח א"ל דלי לי אמר ליה כמה שוין א"ל פלגא דזוזא יהיב ליה פלגא דזוזא ואפקרה,הדר זכה בהו הדר יהיב ליה פלגא דזוזא ואפקרה חזייה דהוה קא בעי למיהדר למזכיה בהו א"ל לכולי עלמא אפקרנהו ולך לא אפקרנהו,ומי הוי הפקר כי האי גוונא והתנן בש"א הפקר לעניים הפקר וב"ה אומרים אינו הפקר עד שיהא הפקר לעניים ולעשירים כשמיטה,אלא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לכולי עלמא אפקרינהו ובמלתא בעלמא הוא דאוקמיה,והא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי זקן ואינו לפי כבודו הוה ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד,דתני רב יוסף (שמות יח, כ) והודעת להם זה בית חייהם את הדרך זו גמילות חסדים [(אשר) ילכו זה ביקור חולים בה זו קבורה ואת המעשה זה הדין אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין:,אמר מר (אשר) ילכו זה ביקור חולים היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לבן גילו דאמר מר בן גילו נוטל אחד מששים בחליו ואפי' הכי מבעי ליה למיזל לגביה,בה זו קבורה היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו,אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין דאמר ר' יוחנן לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שדנו בה דין תורה אלא דיני דמגיזתא לדיינו אלא אימא שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ולא עבדו לפנים משורת הדין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אי זו היא אבידה מצא חמור או פרה רועין בדרך אין זו אבידה חמור וכליו הפוכין פרה רצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה החזירה וברחה החזירה וברחה אפי' ארבעה וחמשה פעמים חייב להחזירה שנאמר (דברים כב, א) השב תשיבם,היה בטל מסלע לא יאמר לו תן לי סלע אלא נותן לו שכרו כפועל אם יש שם בית דין מתנה בפני ב"ד אם אין שם ב"ד בפני מי יתנה שלו קודם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אטו כל הני דאמרינן לאו אבידה הוו אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אי זו היא כלל אבידה שהוא חייב בה מצא חמור ופרה רועין בדרך אין זו אבידה ולא מיחייב בה חמור וכליו הפוכים פרה ורצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה ומיחייב בה,ולעולם אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עד שלשה ימים היכי דמי אי בלילותא אפי' חדא שעתא נמי אי ביממא אפי' טובא נמי לא,לא צריכא דהוה חזי לה בקדמתא ובחשכתא תלתא יומי אמרינן איתרמויי אתרמי לה ונפקא טפי ודאי אבידה היא,תניא נמי הכי מצא טלית וקרדום | 30b. b there shall be no needy among you” /b (Deuteronomy 15:4). This verse can be understood as a command, indicating that it is incumbent upon each individual to ensure that he will not become needy. Therefore, b your /b assets b take precedence over /b the assets b of any /b other b person. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b Rather, /b the verse is necessary b to /b derive the exemption from returning the lost item in the case where he was b an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity /b to tend to the item., b Rabba says: /b If there was a lost animal and the elderly person began the process of returning it, e.g., if he b struck it /b even once to guide it in a certain direction, he is b obligated /b to tend b to it /b and return it. The Gemara relates: b Abaye was sitting before Rabba /b and b saw these goats standing /b nearby. b He picked up a clod of dirt and threw it at them, /b causing them to move. Rabba b said to him: You have /b thereby b obligated yourself to /b return b them. Arise and return them /b to their owner., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: In a case of a person for whom it b is his /b typical b manner to return /b an item of that type b in the field, /b where there are fewer onlookers, b but it is not his /b typical b manner to return /b an item of that type b in the city, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do b we say /b that for one to be obligated to return a lost item b we need an unequivocal /b obligation to b return /b it that applies in all cases, b and since it is not his /b typical b manner to return /b an item of that sort b in the city, let him not be obligated /b to return such an item at all? b Or perhaps, he is obligated in any event /b to return the item b in the field, and once he is obligated /b to return b it in the field, he is /b also b obligated in the city. /b The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., b Rava says: /b In b any /b case b where he would recover his own /b item and would consider it to be in keeping with his dignity, he is b also /b obligated to b return another’s /b item. b And any /b case where b he unloads and loads his own /b animal’s burden, he is b also /b obligated to b unload and load /b the burden of b another’s /b animal.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was walking on the road. A certain man encountered him, /b and that man b was carrying a burden /b that consisted of sticks b of wood. He set down /b the wood b and was resting. /b The man b said to him: Lift /b them b for me /b and place them upon me. Since it was not in keeping with the dignity of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, to lift the wood, Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: How much are they worth? /b The man b said to him: A half-dinar. /b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b gave him a half-dinar, /b took possession of the wood, b and declared /b the wood b ownerless. /b ,The man b then reacquired /b the wood b and /b again requested that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, lift the wood for him. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b again gave him a half-dinar, /b again took possession of the wood, b and /b again b declared /b the wood b ownerless. He /b then b saw that /b the man b desired to reacquire /b the sticks of wood. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b said to him: I declared /b the sticks of wood b ownerless with regard to everyone /b else, b but I did not declare them ownerless with regard to you. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But is /b property b rendered ownerless in a case like this? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Pe’a /i 6:1) that b Beit Shammai say: /b Property b declared ownerless for the poor is /b thereby rendered b ownerless. And Beit Hillel say: It is not ownerless, until /b the property b will be ownerless for the poor and for the rich, like /b produce during b the Sabbatical Year, /b which is available for all. As the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, how could Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, declare the wood ownerless selectively, excluding the prior owner of the wood?, b Rather, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b actually b declared /b the wood b ownerless to everyone /b without exception, b and /b it b was with a mere statement that he prevented him /b from reacquiring the wood, i.e., he told the man not to reacquire the wood even though there was no legal impediment to that reacquisition.,The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, an elderly person and it was not in keeping with his dignity /b to tend to the item? Why did he purchase the wood and render it ownerless in order to absolve himself of the obligation to lift the burden if he had no obligation to do so in the first place? The Gemara answers: In the case of b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, he conducted /b himself b beyond the letter of the law, /b and he could have simply refused the request for help.,The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. b As Rav Yosef taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must perform” (Exodus 18:20). The i baraita /i parses the various directives in the verse. b “And you shall teach them,” that /b is referring to b the structure of their livelihood, /b i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; b “the path,” that /b is referring to b acts of kindness; “they shall walk,” that /b is referring to b visiting the ill; “wherein,” that /b is referring to b burial; “and the action,” that /b is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the b law; “that they must perform,” that /b is referring to acting b beyond the letter of the law. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i . b The Master said: /b With regard to the phrase b “they shall walk,” that /b is referring to b visiting the ill. /b The Gemara asks: b That is /b a detail of b acts of kindness; /b why does the i baraita /i list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to visiting the ill is b necessary only for the contemporary of /b the ill person, b as the Master said: /b When b one who is a contemporary /b of an ill person visits him, he b takes one-sixtieth of his illness. /b Since visiting an ill contemporary involves contracting a bit of his illness, a special derivation is necessary to teach that b even so, he is required to go /b and visit b him. /b ,It was taught in the i baraita /i : With regard to the phrase b “wherein,” that /b is referring to b burial. /b The Gemara asks: b That is /b a detail of b acts of kindness; /b why does the i baraita /i list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to burial is b necessary only to /b teach the i halakha /i of b an elderly person, and /b it is in a circumstance where b it is not in keeping with his dignity /b to bury the dead. Therefore, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to participate in the burial.,It was taught in the i baraita /i : b “That they must perform”; that /b is referring to acting b beyond the letter of the law, as Rabbi Yoḥa says: Jerusalem was destroyed only for /b the fact b that they adjudicated /b cases on the basis of b Torah law in /b the city. The Gemara asks: b Rather, /b what else should they have done? b Should they rather have adjudicated /b cases on the basis of b arbitrary decisions [ i demagizeta /i ]? Rather, say: That they established their rulings on /b the basis of b Torah law and did not go beyond the letter of the law. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b Which is /b the item that is considered b lost property? /b If b one found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, /b as presumably the owners are nearby and are aware of the animals’ whereabouts. If one found b a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow /b that b ran through the vineyards, that is lost property. /b In a case where b one returned /b the lost animal b and it fled, /b and he again b returned it and it fled, even /b if this scenario repeats itself b four or five times, /b he is b obligated to return it /b each time, as it b is stated: /b “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; b you shall return them /b to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1).,If in the course of tending to and returning the lost item, the finder b was idle from /b labor that would have earned him b a i sela /i , he shall not say to /b the owner of the item: b Give me a i sela /i /b to compensate me for my lost income. b Rather, /b the owner b gives him his wage as /b if he were b a laborer, /b a payment that is considerably smaller. b If there are /b three men b there /b who can convene as b a court, /b he b may stipulate before the court /b that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. b If there is no court there before whom can he stipulate /b his condition, b his /b ficial interests b take precedence /b and he need not return the lost item., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the question in the mishna: Which is the item that is considered lost property, the Gemara asks: b Is that to say that all those other /b cases b that we stated /b in this chapter b are not lost property? Rav Yehuda said /b that b this /b is what the i tanna /i b is saying: What is the principle /b employed in defining b a lost item that one is obligated to /b return? The mishna cites examples to illustrate the principle: If one b found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, and he is not obligated to /b return b it. /b But if one found b a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow that was running through the vineyards, that is lost property, and he is obligated to /b return b it. /b ,With regard to the ruling in the mishna that a donkey and cow grazing on the path are not considered lost property, the Gemara asks: b And /b is that the case even if they graze there untended b forever? Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: Until three days /b pass they are not lost. Thereafter, they are considered lost. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances? If /b the animal is found grazing b at night, even /b if it is untended for b even one hour /b it can be presumed to be lost, as an owner never grazes his animals untended at night. b If /b the animal is found grazing b during the day, even /b if it is untended for b more /b than three days, it is b also not /b presumed to be lost.,The Gemara answers: b No, /b the measure of three days b is necessary /b only in a case b where one saw /b the animal grazing b in the early /b hours in the morning b and in the dark /b of nightfall. For the first b three days, we say: It happened /b that the animal b went out /b a bit earlier or a bit later than usual, but nevertheless, it was with the owner’s knowledge. Once this is observed for b more /b than three days, it is b certainly a lost item. /b , b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b one found a cloak or an ax /b |
|
66. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 18.3 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine, x Found in books: Hidary (2017) 202| 18.3. וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, מַה כְּתִיב לְמַעְלָה מִן הָעִנְיָן (במדבר טו, לח): וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת, קָפַץ קֹרַח וְאָמַר לְמשֶׁה טַלִּית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית, אָמַר לוֹ חַיֶּיבֶת בְּצִיצִית. אָמַר לוֹ קֹרַח טַלִית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת אֵין פּוֹטֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ, אַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין פּוֹטְרוֹת אוֹתָהּ. בַּיִת מָלֵא סְפָרִים מַהוּ שֶׁיְהֵא פָּטוּר מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, אָמַר לוֹ חַיָּב בִּמְּזוּזָה, אָמַר לוֹ, כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּה מָאתַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים וְחָמֵשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַבַּיִת, פָּרָשָׁה אַחַת שֶׁבַּמְּזוּזָה פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַבַּיִת, אָמַר לוֹ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ לֹא נִצְטַוֵּיתָ עֲלֵיהֶן, וּמִלִּבְּךָ אַתָּה בּוֹדְאָן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, אֵין וַיִּקַּח אֶלָּא לָשׁוֹן פְּלִיגָא, שֶׁלִּבּוֹ לְקָחוֹ. וְכָעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב טו, יב): מַה יִּקָּחֲךָ לִבֶּךָ, הוּא שֶׁמּשֶׁה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז, ט): הַמְעַט כִּי הִבְדִּיל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים חָכָם גָּדוֹל הָיָה קֹרַח וּמִטּוֹעֲנֵי הָאָרוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ז, ט): וְלִבְנֵי קְהָת לֹא נָתָן כִּי עֲבֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֲלֵהֶם, וְקֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת, וּכְשֶׁאָמַר משֶׁה (במדבר טו, לח): וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, מִיָּד צִוָּה וְעָשׂוּ מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים טַלִּיתוֹת תְּכֵלֶת וְנִתְעַטְּפוּ בָּהֶן אוֹתָן מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְרָאוֹת שֶׁקָּמוּ עַל משֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז, ב): וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי משֶׁה וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד. עָמַד קֹרַח וְעָשָׂה לָהֶם מִשְׁתֶּה וְנִתְעַטְּפוּ בְּטַלִּיתוֹת שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת, בָּאוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִטֹּל מַתְּנוֹתֵיהֶם חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק, עָמְדוּ כְּנֶגְדָן, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן מִי צִוָּה אֶתְכֶם לִטֹּל כָּךְ, לֹא משֶׁה, לֹא נִתֵּן כְּלוּם, לֹא דִּבֵּר הַמָּקוֹם כָּךְ. בָּאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּ אֶת משֶׁה, הָלַךְ לְפַיְסָן, מִיָּד עָמְדוּ כְּנֶגְדוֹ לְקַדְּמוֹ לִפְנֵי משֶׁה. וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, מִי הֵם, אֱלִיצוּר בֶּן שְׁדֵיאוּר וַחֲבֵרָיו, (במדבר א, יז): הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹא פִּרְסְמָן הַכָּתוּב נָתַן סִימָנֵיהֶן, וּמִתּוֹךְ הַמִּקְרָאוֹת אַתְּ מֵבִין אוֹתָם. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה, לְבֶן טוֹבִים שֶׁנִּמְצָא גוֹנֵב כֵּלִים מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְלֹא הָיָה רוֹצֶה בַּעַל הַגְּנֵבָה לְפַרְסְמוֹ, הִתְחִיל נוֹתֵן סִימָנָיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִי גָנַב כֵּלֶיךָ, אָמַר לָהֶם אוֹתוֹ בֶּן טוֹבִים בַּעַל קוֹמָה וְשִׁנָּיו נָאוֹת וְשַׂעֲרוֹ שָׁחוֹר וְחָטְמוֹ נָאֶה, מִשָּׁנָּתַן סִימָנָיו יָדְעוּ מִי הוּא. אַף כָּאן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסְּתָמָן הַכָּתוּב, בָּא וְנָתַן סִימָנֵיהֶן וְאַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ מִי הֵם, נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר א, טז יז): אֵלֶּה קְרוּאֵי הָעֵדָה נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם, וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן (במדבר טז, ב ג): נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם, וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל משֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן. | 18.3. "3 (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)? “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels ( i zizit /i ) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl ( i tallit /i ) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five i parashiot /i in it sup 2 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Cf. i yShab. /i 16:1 (15c); i Soferim /i 16:10; M. Pss. 22:19, according to which there are 175 i parashiot /i in the Torah where an expression of speaking, saying, or commanding occurs. See also i Alfa Beta deRabbi ‘Aqiva, /i longer recension, i Tsade /i ( i Eisenstein, p. 421 /i ). /i and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the one i parasha /i which is in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.” Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: i lqh /i ). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: i lqh /i ) […].” This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9), “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated [you from the congregation to draw you near unto Himself, to perform the service of the Lord's tabernacle …]?” The sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of i sanhedraot /i who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh, sup 3 /sup i class=\"footnote\" I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. /i they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.” They came and informed Moses. He went to placate sup 4 /sup i class=\"footnote\" i Rt /i .: PYS. See the Gk.: i peithein, peisai /i in the aroist. /i them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized sup 5 /sup i class=\"footnote\" From i PRSM /i . Cf. Gk: i parresiazesthai. /i /i their [names], it has given clues sup 6 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Gk.: i semeia. /i /i to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16-17), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel. So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”", |
|
| 67. Anon., Abot De Rabbi Nathan, None (7th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017) 27 |
| 68. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 15.7 Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307 |
| 69. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q183, 1 Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine e. Found in books: Klawans (2009) 294 |
| 70. Paul of Elusa, Encomium, None Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine, x Found in books: Hidary (2017) 27 |
| 71. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q Sam B, 1.3-1.4 Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 143 |
| 72. Palestinian Talmud, Sota 8.3, 22C,, 8.3 Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 262 |
| 73. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Hayes (2015) 369 |
| 74. Anon., Leges Publicae, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009) 307 |
| 75. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma 1.5, 39A,, 1.5 Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 262 |
76. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 262| 62a. ולא על גבי מחילות,אמר רב יוסף לאו היינו דתניא (עזרא ג, ג) ויכינו (את) המזבח על מכונותיו שהגיעו לסוף מדותיו והכתיב (דברי הימים א כח, יט) הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל,אלא אמר רב יוסף קרא אשכח ודרש (דברי הימים א כב, א) ויאמר דויד זה הוא בית ה' האלהים וזה מזבח לעולה לישראל כי בית מה בית ששים אמה אף מזבח ששים אמה,בשלמא בית מינכרא צורתו אלא מזבח מנא ידעי,אמר רבי אלעזר ראו מזבח בנוי ומיכאל השר הגדול עומד ומקריב עליו ור' יצחק נפחא אמר אפרו של יצחק ראו שמונח באותו מקום ור' שמואל בר נחמני אמר מכל הבית כולו הריחו ריח קטרת משם הריחו ריח אברים,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן שלשה נביאים עלו עמהם מן הגולה אחד שהעיד להם על המזבח ואחד שהעיד להם על מקום המזבח ואחד שהעיד להם שמקריבין אף על פי שאין בית,במתניתא תנא ר"א בן יעקב אומר שלשה נביאים עלו עמהן מן הגולה אחד שהעיד להם על המזבח ועל מקום המזבח ואחד שהעיד להם שמקריבין אף על פי שאין בית ואחד שהעיד להם על התורה שתכתב אשורית,ת"ר קרן וכבש ויסוד וריבוע מעכבין מדת ארכו ומדת רחבו ומדת קומתו אין מעכבין מנה"מ אמר רב הונא אמר קרא (שמות כז, א) המזבח כל מקום שנאמר המזבח לעכב,אלא מעתה כיור לרבי וסובב לרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה הכי נמי דמעכב דכתי' (שמות כז, ה) ונתתה אותה תחת כרכוב המזבח מלמטה ותניא איזהו כרכוב רבי אומר זה כיור רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר זה הסובב,אין דתניא אותו היום נפגמה קרן מזבח והביאו בול של מלח וסתמוהו ולא מפני שכשר לעבודה אלא שלא יראה מזבח פגום שכל מזבח שאין לו קרן וכבש ויסוד וריבוע פסול רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר אף הסובב,ת"ר איזהו כרכוב בין קרן לקרן מקום הילוך רגלי הכהנים אמה אטו הכהנים בין קרן לקרן הוו אזלי אלא אימא ומקום הילוך רגלי הכהנים אמה,והכתיב (שמות לח, ד) תחת כרכובו מלמטה עד חציו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תרי הוו חד לנוי וחד לכהנים דלא נשתרקו,מדת ארכו ומדת רחבו ומדת קומתו אין מעכבין א"ר מני ובלבד שלא יפחתנו ממזבח שעשה משה וכמה אמר רב יוסף אמה מחכו עליה (שמות כז, א) חמש אמות ארך וחמש אמות רוחב רבוע יהיה המזבח,אמר ליה אביי דלמא מקום מערכה קאמר מר א"ל מר דגברא רבה הוא ידע מאי קאמינא קרי עלייהו | 62a. b and /b one may b not /b build it b on top of tunnels. /b ,The Gemara relates that after reconsidering the reason for the expansion of the altar, b Rav Yosef said: Is this not as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “And they set the altar upon its bases” /b (Ezra 3:3), which teaches b that /b in the Second Temple the size of the altar b reached its full measure, /b i.e., that it was the ideal size, whereas in the First Temple it was not the ideal size? The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it written /b with regard to the instructions David gave Solomon about how to build the Temple: b “All this in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, /b even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19), indicating that the design of the First Temple was dictated by God?, b Rather, Rav Yosef said: /b The size of the altar in the First Temple was ideal, but in the Second Temple era there was a need to expand the altar, and they b found a verse and interpreted /b it as follows. The verse states: b “Then David said: This is the House of the Lord God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel” /b (I Chronicles 22:1). The verse juxtaposes the House, i.e., the Temple, with the altar, which indicates that the altar is b like /b the b Temple: Just as /b the b House /b was b sixty cubits /b (see I Kings 6:2), b so too, /b the b altar /b may be extended up to a length of b sixty cubits. /b ,§ The Gemara discusses the construction of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b with regard to the location of the b House, its shape /b was b discernable /b from the vestiges of its foundations; b but how did they know /b the proper location of the b altar? /b ,The Gemara answers that b Rabbi Elazar says: They saw /b a vision of the b altar /b already b built and Michael the archangel standing and sacrificing /b offerings b upon it. And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: They saw /b a vision of b the ashes of Isaac /b that were b placed in that location. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: From the entire House they smelled the scent of incense, /b yet b from there, /b the location of the altar, b they smelled a scent of /b burned animal b limbs. /b , b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Three prophets ascended with them from the exile: One who testified to them about /b the size and shape of b the altar, and one who testified to them about the /b proper b location of the altar, and one who testified to them that one sacrifices /b offerings b even if there is no Temple, /b provided that there is a proper altar.,It b was taught in a i baraita /i /b that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Three prophets ascended with /b the Jewish people b from the exile: One who testified to them about /b the size and shape of b the altar and about the /b proper b location of the altar, and one who testified to them that one sacrifices /b offerings b even if there is no Temple, and one who testified to them about the Torah /b and instructed b that it be written /b in b Assyrian script [ i Ashurit /i ] /b rather than the ancient Hebrew script used in the times of Moses.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The b corner /b built at each point where the edges of the altar meet, the b ramp /b upon which the priests ascended the altar, the b base /b of the altar, b and /b the requirement that the altar must be exactly b square, are /b all b indispensable /b in order for the altar to be fit for use. But b the measurement of its length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Huna says: /b In reference to each of these characteristics b the verse states /b the term b “the altar,” /b and there is a principle that b wherever /b the term b “the altar” is stated, /b it serves b to /b indicate that the halakhic detail mentioned is b indispensable. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b then the b engraving [ i kiyyur /i ] /b that was on the altar b according to Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b or /b the b surrounding ledge /b of the altar b according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, /b should b also be indispensable, as it is written: “And you shall put it under the i karkov /i of the altar beneath” /b (Exodus 27:5). b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b What is /b the b i karkov /i ? Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: This is /b the b engraving /b on the altar. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This is the surrounding ledge. /b ,The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b the i karkov /i is also indispensable, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : On b that day /b when i etrogim /i were pelted at a Sadducee priest who poured the water libation of i Sukkot /i on his feet rather than on the altar (see i Sukka /i 48b), b the corner of the altar was damaged /b as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. b They brought a fistful of salt and sealed /b the damaged section. They did this b not because /b it rendered the altar b fit for the /b Temple b service, but /b in deference to the altar, b so that the altar would not be seen /b in its b damaged /b state. The reason the altar is disqualified is b because any altar that does not have a corner, a ramp, and a base, and /b any altar that is not b square, /b is b disqualified. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even the surrounding ledge /b is indispensable.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b What is /b the b i karkov /i /b of the altar? It is the area b between /b one b corner and /b the next b corner, /b which is the b cubit- /b wide b place /b on top of the altar where b the priests /b would b walk. /b The Gemara asks: b Is that to say /b that b the priests would walk between /b one b corner and /b the next b corner? /b The Gemara answers: b Rather, say: /b The i karkov /i is the cubit-wide area between one corner and the other, b and /b there was an additional b cubit /b that was b the place /b where b the priests /b would b walk. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it written: /b “And he made for the altar a grating of network of brass, b under the i karkov /i beneath, reaching halfway up” /b (Exodus 38:4), which indicates that the i karkov /i was on the side of the altar and not on top of it? The Gemara answers: b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There were two /b entities called i karkov /i . b One /b was a slight protrusion above the midway point of the altar b for aesthetic /b purposes, b and one /b was an indentation on top of the altar b for /b the benefit of b the priests, /b to ensure b that they /b would b not slip /b off the top of the altar.,It was taught in a i baraita /i cited above that b the measurement of /b the altar’s b length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. Rabbi Mani says: /b This is the i halakha /i b provided that one does not decrease its /b size so that it is smaller b than /b the b altar constructed by Moses. /b The Gemara asks: b And how /b large was the altar constructed by Moses? b Rav Yosef says: /b One b cubit. /b Those in the study hall b mocked /b Rav Yosef, as it is written explicitly: b “Five cubits long and five cubits wide; the altar shall be square” /b (Exodus 27:1)., b Abaye said to /b Rav Yosef: b Perhaps the Master is speaking /b about b the area of the arrangement /b of wood? Since the corners took up one cubit on each side and there was an additional cubit on each side for the priests to walk, only one cubit was left for the arrangement of wood. Rav Yosef b said to /b Abaye: b The Master, /b i.e., Abaye, b who is a great man, knows what I /b mean to b say. /b Rav Yosef b read, /b i.e., applied, the following verse b to those /b who mocked him: |
|
| 77. Palestinian Talmud, Sukkah 4.8, 45D,, 4.8 Tagged with subjects: •hayes, christine Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 262 |
