1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 33.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 30| 33.6. "בִּדְבַר יְהוָה שָׁמַיִם נַעֲשׂוּ וּבְרוּחַ פִּיו כָּל־צְבָאָם׃", | 33.6. "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.31 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 22| 15.31. "כִּי דְבַר־יְהוָה בָּזָה וְאֶת־מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא עֲוֺנָה בָהּ׃", | 15.31. "Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken His commandment; that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.1, 2.19-2.20, 9.27, 10.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 11, 30| 1.1. "וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃", 1.1. "בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ׃", 2.19. "וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן־הָאֲדָמָה כָּל־חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל־עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיָּבֵא אֶל־הָאָדָם לִרְאוֹת מַה־יִּקְרָא־לוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא־לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה הוּא שְׁמוֹ׃", 9.27. "יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי־שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן עֶבֶד לָמוֹ׃", 10.2. "אֵלֶּה בְנֵי־חָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לִלְשֹׁנֹתָם בְּאַרְצֹתָם בְּגוֹיֵהֶם׃", 10.2. "בְּנֵי יֶפֶת גֹּמֶר וּמָגוֹג וּמָדַי וְיָוָן וְתֻבָל וּמֶשֶׁךְ וְתִירָס׃", | 1.1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", 2.19. "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.", 2.20. "And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.", 9.27. "God enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be their servant.", 10.2. "The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 32.32 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 31| 32.32. "וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם־אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ׃", | 32.32. "Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.’", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 23.29 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 29| 23.29. "הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם־יְהוָה וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע׃", | 23.29. "Is not My word like as fire? Saith the LORD; And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Lamentations, 3.51 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 13| 3.51. "עֵינִי עוֹלְלָה לְנַפְשִׁי מִכֹּל בְּנוֹת עִירִי׃", | 3.51. "Mine eye affected my soul, Because of all the daughters of my city.", |
|
| 7. Plato, Cratylus, 25 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 29 |
| 8. Plato, Gorgias, 24 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 25, 33 |
9. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 12.11 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 264| 12.11. "דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כַּדָּרְבֹנוֹת וּכְמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים בַּעֲלֵי אֲסֻפּוֹת נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד׃", | 12.11. "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd.", |
|
| 10. Plato, Phaedo, 24 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 25 |
11. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 10.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 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.", |
|
12. Philo of Alexandria, On The Creation of The World, 25 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 31 | 25. this is the doctrine of Moses, not mine. Accordingly he, when recording the creation of man, in words which follow, asserts expressly, that he was made in the image of God--and if the image be a part of the image, then manifestly so is the entire form, namely, the whole of this world perceptible by the external senses, which is a greater imitation of the divine image than the human form is. It is manifest also, that the archetypal seal, which we call that world which is perceptible only to the intellect, must itself be the archetypal model, the idea of ideas, the Reason of God. VII. |
|
| 13. Anon., The Life of Adam And Eve, 15.8 (1st cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 13 |
| 14. Mishnah, Peah, 9.14 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 11 |
15. Mishnah, Megillah, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 11| 1.8. "אֵין בֵּין סְפָרִים לִתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁהַסְּפָרִים נִכְתָּבִין בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן, וּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֵינָן נִכְתָּבוֹת אֶלָּא אַשּׁוּרִית. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּסְּפָרִים לֹא הִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ אֶלָּא יְוָנִית: \n", | 1.8. "There is no difference between scrolls [of the Tanakh] and tefillin and mezuzahs except that scrolls may be written in any language whereas tefillin and mezuzahs may be written only in Assyrian. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.", |
|
| 16. Mishnah, Hulin, 3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 16 |
| 17. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 4.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 13 |
| 18. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 1.1, 10.1, 11.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 22, 27 |
| 19. Palestinian Talmud, Horayot, 8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 12, 13 |
20. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 1.1, 36.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 11, 27, 30| 1.1. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה פָּתַח (משלי ח, ל): וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו', אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, וְאִית דַּאֲמַר אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא. אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יא, יב): כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָֹּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק. אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (איכה ד, ה): הָאֱמֻנִים עֲלֵי תוֹלָע וגו'. אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (אסתר ב, ז): וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה. אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא, כְּמָא דְתֵימָא (נחום ג, ח): הֲתֵיטְבִי מִנֹּא אָמוֹן, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן הַאַתְּ טָבָא מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָא רַבָּתָא דְּיָתְבָא בֵּין נַהֲרוֹתָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. וְאֵין רֵאשִׁית אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (משלי ח, כב): ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ. 1.1. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה סָתוּם מִכָּל צְדָדָיו וּפָתוּחַ מִלְּפָנָיו, כָּךְ אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לוֹמַר, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּפָנִים, מַה לְּאָחוֹר, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם וּלְהַבָּא. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר (דברים ד, לב): כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, לְמִן הַיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְחוֹקֵר, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹקֵר לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים, הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְלָמָּה בְּב' שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְלָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁלֹא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִין לוֹמַר הֵיאַךְ הָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד שֶׁהוּא נִבְרָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה, אֶלָּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֲרֵי אֲנִי בּוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְהַלְּוַאי יַעֲמֹד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה בְּב' אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עוֹקְצִין, אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, אוֹמְרִים לַב' מִי בְּרָאֲךָ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה בְּעוּקְצוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְאוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה בְּרָאָנִי. וּמַה שְּׁמוֹ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה לָהֶן בְּעוּקְצוֹ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו, וְאוֹמֵר ה' שְׁמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר חֲנִינָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֲחָא, עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת הָיְתָה הָאָלֶ"ף קוֹרֵא תִּגָּר לִפְנֵי כִסְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל אוֹתִיּוֹת וְלֹא בָּרָאתָ עוֹלָמְךָ בִּי, אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם וּמְלוֹאוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג, יט): ה' בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ וגו', לְמָחָר אֲנִי בָּא לִתֵּן תּוֹרָה בְּסִינַי וְאֵינִי פּוֹתֵחַ תְּחִלָה אֶלָּא בָּךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ, ב): אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אָלֶ"ף, שֶׁהוּא מַסְכִּים מֵאָלֶ"ף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קה, ח): דָּבָר צִוָּה לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. 36.8. וַיֹּאמֶר בָּרוּךְ ה' אֱלֹהֵי שֵׁם (בראשית ט, כו), אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַף מִיֶּפֶת עָמְדוּ בְּאָהֳלֵי שֵׁם. וַיֹּאמֶר בָּרוּךְ ה' אֱלֹהֵי שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן, יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת, זֶה כֹּרֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא גּוֹזֵר שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי שֵׁם, אֵין שְׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּאָהֳלֵי שֵׁם. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר יִהְיוּ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה נֶאֱמָרִים בִּלְשׁוֹנוֹ שֶׁל יֶפֶת בְּתוֹךְ אָהֳלֵי שֵׁם. רַבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר מִכָּאן לְתַרְגּוּם מִן הַתּוֹרָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (נחמיה ח, ח): וַיִּקְרְאוּ בַסֵּפֶר בְּתוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים, זֶה הַמִּקְרָא. מְפֹרָשׁ, זֶה תַּרְגּוּם. וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל, אֵלּוּ הַטְּעָמִים. וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא, אֵלּוּ רָאשֵׁי הַפְּסוּקִים. רַבִּי הוּנָא בֶּן לוּלְיָאנִי אוֹמֵר אֵלּוּ הַהַכְרָעוֹת וְהָרְאָיוֹת. רַבָּנָן דְּקֵיסָרִין אָמְרֵי מִיכָּן לַמָּסֹרֶת. רַבִּי זְעִירָא וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְאֵל בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֲפִלּוּ אָדָם רָגִיל בַּתּוֹרָה כְּעֶזְרָא, לֹא יְהֵא קוֹרֵא מִפִּיו וְכוֹתֵב, וְהָא תָּנֵי מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאַסְיָא וְלֹא הָיָה שָׁם מְגִלַּת אֶסְתֵּר וְקָרָא לוֹ מִפִּיו וּכְתָבָהּ, תַּמָּן אָמְרִין שְׁתֵּי מְגִלּוֹת כָּתַב, גָּנַז אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְקִיֵּם אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה. | 1.1. "The great Rabbi Hoshaya opened [with the verse (Mishlei 8:30),] \"I [the Torah] was an amon to Him and I was a plaything to Him every day.\" Amon means \"pedagogue\" (i.e. ny). Amon means \"covered.\" Amon means \"hidden.\" And there is one who says amon means \"great.\" Amon means \"ny,\" as in (Bamidbar 11:12) “As a ny (omein) carries the suckling child.\" Amon means \"covered,\" as in (Eichah 4:5) \"Those who were covered (emunim) in scarlet have embraced refuse heaps.\" Amon means \"hidden,\" as in (Esther 2:7) \"He hid away (omein) Hadassah.\" Amon means \"great,\" as in (Nahum 3:8) \"Are you better than No-amon [which dwells in the rivers]?\" which the Targum renders as, \"Are you better than Alexandria the Great (amon), which dwells between the rivers?\" Alternatively, amon means \"artisan.\" The Torah is saying, \"I was the artisan's tool of Hashem.\" In the way of the world, a king of flesh and blood who builds a castle does not do so from his own knowledge, but rather from the knowledge of an architect, and the architect does not build it from his own knowledge, but rather he has scrolls and books in order to know how to make rooms and doorways. So too Hashem gazed into the Torah and created the world. Similarly the Torah says, \"Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth],\" and reishis means Torah, as in \"Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way\" (Mishlei 8:22).", |
|
| 21. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 4.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 12 |
| 22. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 343 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 22 |
| 23. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, 1.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 13 |
| 24. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 18 |
25. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 12| 82b. ואתא איהו תיקן חפיפה:,ושיהו רוכלין מחזרין בעיירות משום תכשיטי נשים כדי שלא יתגנו על בעליהם:,ותיקן טבילה לבעלי קריין דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ויקרא טו, טז) ואיש כי תצא ממנו שכבת זרע ורחץ את בשרו במים דאורייתא הוא לתרומה וקדשים אתא הוא תיקן אפילו לדברי תורה:,עשרה דברים נאמרו בירושלים אין הבית חלוט בה ואינה מביאה עגלה ערופה ואינה נעשית עיר הנדחת,ואינה מטמאה בנגעים ואין מוציאין בה זיזין וגזוזטראות ואין עושין בה אשפתות ואין עושין בה כבשונות ואין עושין בה גנות ופרדסות חוץ מגנות וורדין שהיו מימות נביאים הראשונים ואין מגדלים בה תרנגולין ואין מלינין בה את המת,אין הבית חלוט בה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, ל) וקם הבית אשר לו חומה לצמיתות לקונה אותו לדורותיו וקסבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים,ואינה מביאה עגלה ערופה דכתיב (דברים כא, א) כי ימצא חלל באדמה אשר ה' אלהיך נותן לך לרשתה וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים,ואינה נעשית עיר הנדחת דכתיב (דברים יג, יג) עריך וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים,ואינה מטמאה בנגעים דכתיב (ויקרא יד, לד) ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים,ואין מוציאין בה זיזין וגזוזטראות מפני אהל הטומאה ומשום דלא ליתזקו עולי רגלים,ואין עושין בה אשפתות משום שקצים,ואין עושין בה כבשונות משום קוטרא,ואין עושין בה גנות ופרדסין משום סירחא,ואין מגדלין בה תרנגולין משום קדשים,ואין מלינין בה את המת גמרא:,אין מגדלין חזירים בכל מקום תנו רבנן כשצרו בית חשמונאי זה על זה היה הורקנוס מבפנים ואריסטובלוס מבחוץ ובכל יום היו משלשים להם בקופה דינרין והיו מעלין להם תמידים,היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית אמר להם כל זמן שעוסקין בעבודה אין נמסרים בידכם למחר שילשלו דינרין בקופה והעלו להם חזיר כיון שהגיע לחצי החומה נעץ צפרניו בחומה ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה,באותה שעה אמרו ארור האיש שיגדל חזירים וארור האדם שילמד את בנו חכמת יוונית ועל אותה שעה שנינו מעשה שבא עומר מגנות הצריפין ושתי הלחם מבקעת עין סוכר:,וחכמת יוונית מי אסירא והתניא אמר רבי בארץ ישראל | 82b. b And /b Ezra b came /b and added to the Torah’s minimal obligation. He b instituted /b the requirement of b combing /b the hair even when it is known that it is not knotted and contains no repulsive substance.,The Gemara discusses the next of Ezra’s ordices: b And that peddlers should circulate through /b all b the towns. /b This Gemara explains that this is b because /b peddlers supply b women’s cosmetics, /b and therefore Ezra instituted this practice b so that /b women b should not become unattractive to their husbands. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the last of the ten ordices: b And he instituted /b the requirement of b immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission. /b The Gemara asks: But this b is /b required b by Torah law, as it is written: “And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe /b all b his flesh in water” /b (Leviticus 15:16). The Gemara answers: b By Torah law /b immersion b is /b required only if one wishes to partake b of i teruma /i or sacrificial /b meat. Ezra b came /b and further b instituted /b that immersion is necessary b even for /b reciting or studying b matters of Torah. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that one may not raise chickens in Jerusalem. The Gemara cites a i baraita /i that contains a list of other i halakhot /i that are unique to Jerusalem. b Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem: A house /b situated b in /b Jerusalem does b not /b become b irredeemable /b one year after its sale. Those who sell houses in other walled cities have the right to buy back their property for one year after the transaction. If they fail to do so, the house becomes the permanent possession of the buyer (see Leviticus 25:29–30). This i halakha /i does not apply to houses in Jerusalem. b And /b its Elders do b not bring a heifer whose neck is broken /b as required when a murder victim is found near a city and the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9); b and /b it b cannot become an idolatrous city /b (see Deuteronomy 13:13–19).,The i baraita /i continues its list: b And /b a house in Jerusalem b cannot become ritually impure /b with the impurity b of leprous sores; and one may not build out projections or balconies [ i gezuztraot /i ] /b from houses that are b in it; and one may not establish garbage dumps in /b Jerusalem; b and one may not build kilns in it; and one may not plant gardens and orchards [ i pardesot /i ] in it, except for /b the b rose gardens that were /b already there b from the times of the early prophets; and one may not raise chickens in it; and /b finally, b one may not leave a corpse overnight in /b Jerusalem.,The Gemara discusses these ten i halakhot /i pertaining to Jerusalem, one by one: b A house /b situated b in /b it does b not /b become b irredeemable /b one year after its sale. The reason is b that it is written: /b “And if it is not redeemed within the space of a full year, then b the house /b that is in the b walled /b city b shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it, throughout his generations” /b (Leviticus 25:30). b And /b the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i b maintains /b that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any single one of b the tribes /b of Israel; rather, it is considered common property. Since no one has ancestral ownership of any house in Jerusalem, its houses cannot be sold permanently.,The Gemara analyzes the next i halakha /i : b And /b its inhabitants do b not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. /b The reason is b that it is written: “If one is found slain in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it” /b (Deuteronomy 21:1). b And, /b again, the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i b maintains /b that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any one of b the tribes /b of Israel. Therefore, it is not included in the description: “The land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it.”,The i baraita /i states: b And /b it b cannot become an idolatrous city. /b The reason is b that it is written, /b in the introduction of the passage dealing with the i halakha /i of an idolatrous city: “If you shall hear tell concerning one of b your cities, /b which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there” (Deuteronomy 13:13). b And /b the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i maintains that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any one of b the tribes /b of Israel. It is therefore not included in the description “one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there.”,The i baraita /i further teaches: b And /b a house in Jerusalem does b not become ritually impure /b with the impurity b of leprous sores. /b The reason is b that it is written: “And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” /b (Leviticus 14:34). b And /b the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i maintains that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any one of b the tribes /b of Israel. It is there-fore not included in the description “a house of the land of your possession.”,The Gemara discusses the next i halakha /i : b And one may not build out projections or balconies /b from houses that are b in /b Jerusalem. The Gemara provides two reasons for this prohibition. First, it is b due to /b the danger of contracting b ritual impurity /b by being in b the /b same b tent /b as a corpse, i.e., under the same roof, in which case the impurity spreads to all items under the roof. If even a small part of a corpse is under a balcony, everyone who passes under that balcony is rendered impure. Many people come to Jerusalem to sacrifice offerings, and they must maintain a state of ritual purity. The other reason is b so that those /b great crowds of b pilgrims not be injured /b by colliding with the projections.,The next i halakha /i pertaining to Jerusalem is: b And one may not establish garbage dumps in it. /b The Gemara explains that the reason is b due to /b the b repugt creatures /b that are attracted to such heaps and impart ritual impurity upon their death.,The i baraita /i states: b And one may not build kilns in /b Jerusalem. The reason is b due to the /b unsightly b smoke /b produced by kilns. The Sages sought to preserve the beauty of Jerusalem and the Temple.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And one may not plant gardens and orchards in it. /b This is b due to the odor /b emitted by these places, either from discarded weeds or from fertilizer.,The next i halakha /i on the list is: b And one may not raise chickens in /b Jerusalem. The Gemara explains that this is b due to the sacrificial /b meat that is consumed in Jerusalem. Since chickens peck in the garbage, they are likely to pick up items that impart ritual impurity and bring them into contact with the consecrated food, which may not be eaten in an impure state.,The Gemara discusses the last i halakha /i : b And one may not leave a corpse overnight in it. /b The Gemara notes that this prohibition is b a tradition; /b there is no known explanation for it.,§ The mishna teaches that b one may not raise pigs anywhere. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i the background for this i halakha /i : b When /b the members of b the house of Hasmonean /b monarchy b were at war with each other, Hyrcanus, /b one of the parties to this war, b was inside /b the besieged Jerusalem, b while /b his brother b Aristobulus, /b the other contender to the throne, was b on the outside. And every day /b the people inside b would lower down money in a box /b from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice, b and /b those on other side b would /b take the money and b send up /b sheep b to them /b over the wall for the b daily offerings. /b , b There was a certain elder there who was familiar with Greek wisdom, /b and b he said /b to those besieging Jerusalem: b As long as they occupy themselves with the /b Temple b service, they will not be delivered into your hands. The next day they lowered down money in a box /b as usual, b but /b this time b they sent up to them a pig. When the pig reached to the midpoint of the /b Temple b wall it stuck its hooves into the wall, and Eretz Yisrael quaked /b over an area of b four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs. /b , b At that time /b the Sages b said: Cursed be the man who raises pigs, and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom. And /b it was b concerning that time /b of siege that b we learned /b in a mishna: There was b an incident /b in which the barley for the b i omer /i offering came from the gardens of Tzerifin, /b far from Jerusalem, b and /b the wheat for b the two loaves /b of i Shavuot /i was brought b from the valley of Ein Sokher. /b Barley and wheat could not be brought from any nearer because the besiegers had destroyed all the produce around Jerusalem. This concludes the i baraita /i .,The Gemara asks a question with regard to this i baraita /i : b And is /b it really b prohibited /b to study b Greek wisdom? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: In Eretz Yisrael, /b |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 12| 53b. ירשיע,ואמר ר' יוחנן מניין שמחל לו הקב"ה על אותו עון שנאמר (שמואל א כח, יט) מחר אתה ובניך עמי עמי במחיצתי,א"ר אבא אי איכא דמשאיל להו לבני יהודה דדייקי לשני מאברין תנן או מעברין תנן אכוזו תנן או עכוזו תנן ידעי,שאילינהו ואמרי ליה איכא דתני מאברין ואיכא דתני מעברין איכא דתני אכוזו ואיכא דתני עכוזו,בני יהודה דייקי לישנא מאי היא דההוא בר יהודה דאמר להו טלית יש לי למכור אמרו ליה מאי גוון טליתך אמר להו כתרדין עלי אדמה,בני גליל דלא דייקי לישנא מאי היא (דתניא) דההוא בר גלילא [דהוה קאזיל] ואמר להו אמר למאן אמר למאן אמרו ליה גלילאה שוטה חמר למירכב או חמר למישתי עמר למילבש או אימר לאיתכסאה,ההיא איתתא דבעיא למימר לחברתה תאי דאוכליך חלבא אמרה לה שלוכתי תוכליך לביא,ההיא אתתא דאתיא לקמיה דדיינא אמרה ליה מרי כירי תפלא הוית לי וגנבוך מין וכדו הוות דכד שדרו לך עילויה לא מטי כרעיך אארעא,אמהתא דבי רבי כי הוה משתעיא בלשון חכמה אמרה הכי עלת נקפת בכד ידאון נישריא לקיניהון,וכד הוה בעי דליתבון הוה אמרה להו יעדי בתר חברתה מינה ותתקפי עלת בכד כאילפא דאזלא בימא,רבי יוסי בר אסיין כי הוה משתעי בלשון חכמה אמר עשו לי שור במשפט בטור מסכן,וכד הוה שאיל באושפיזא אמר הכי גבר פום דין חי מה זו טובה יש,רבי אבהו כי הוה משתעי בלשון חכמה הוה אמר הכי אתריגו לפחמין ארקיעו לזהבין ועשו לי שני מגידי בעלטה איכא דאמרי ויעשו לי בהן שני מגידי בעלטה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרבי אבהו הצפיננו היכן רבי אלעאי צפון אמר להן עלץ בנערה אהרונית אחרונית עירנית והנעירתו,אמרי לה אשה,ואמרי לה מסכתא,אמרי ליה לרבי אלעאי הצפיננו הכין רבי אבהו [צפון] אמר להן נתייעץ במכתיר והנגיב למפיבשת,אמר רבי יהושע בן חנניה מימי לא נצחני אדם חוץ מאשה תינוק ותינוקת אשה מאי היא פעם אחת נתארחתי אצל אכסניא אחת עשתה לי פולין ביום ראשון אכלתים ולא שיירתי מהן כלום שנייה ולא שיירתי מהן כלום ביום שלישי הקדיחתן במלח כיון שטעמתי משכתי ידי מהן,אמרה לי רבי מפני מה אינך סועד אמרתי לה כבר סעדתי מבעוד יום אמרה לי היה לך למשוך ידיך מן הפת,אמרה לי רבי שמא לא הנחת פאה בראשונים ולא כך אמרו חכמים אין משיירין פאה באילפס אבל משיירין פאה בקערה,תינוקת מאי היא פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך והיתה דרך עוברת בשדה והייתי מהלך בה אמרה לי תינוקת אחת רבי לא שדה היא זו אמרתי לה לא דרך כבושה היא אמרה לי ליסטים כמותך כבשוה,תינוק מאי היא פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך וראיתי תינוק יושב על פרשת דרכים ואמרתי לו באיזה דרך נלך לעיר אמר לי זו קצרה וארוכה וזו ארוכה וקצרה והלכתי בקצרה וארוכה כיון שהגעתי לעיר מצאתי שמקיפין אותה גנות ופרדיסין,חזרתי לאחורי אמרתי לו בני הלא אמרת לי קצרה אמר לי ולא אמרתי לך ארוכה נשקתיו על ראשו ואמרתי לו אשריכם ישראל שכולכם חכמים גדולים אתם מגדולכם ועד קטנכם:,רבי יוסי הגלילי הוה קא אזיל באורחא אשכחה לברוריה אמר לה באיזו דרך נלך ללוד אמרה ליה גלילי שוטה לא כך אמרו חכמים אל תרבה שיחה עם האשה היה לך לומר באיזה ללוד,ברוריה אשכחתיה לההוא תלמידא דהוה קא גריס בלחישה | 53b. b he did them mischief” /b (i Samuel 14:47).,The Gemara concludes the mention of Saul on a positive note. b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where /b is it derived b that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgave him for that sin, /b the massacre of Nov, the city of priests? b As it is stated /b that the spirit of Samuel said to him: “And the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines, b and tomorrow shall you and your sons be with me” /b (i Samuel 28:19); the phrase b “with me” /b means b within my partition /b together with me in heaven, i.e., on the same level as the righteous prophet Samuel.,The Gemara returns to the earlier question with regard to the correct reading of the word i me’abberin /i . b Rabbi Abba said: If there is anyone who can ask the people of Judea, who are precise in their language, /b whether the term in the mishna that b we learned /b is b i me’abberin /i /b with an i alef /i b or i me’abberin /i /b with an i ayin /i , he should ask them. Similarly, with regard to the blemishes of a firstborn animal, b was /b the term meaning its hindquarters that b we learned /b in the mishna b i akkuzo /i /b with an i alef /i , b or did we learn i akkuzo /i /b with an i ayin /i ? b They would know. /b ,The Gemara answers: b One asked /b the people of Judea, b and they said to him: Some teach i me’abberin /i /b with an i alef /i , b and some teach i me’abberin /i /b with an i ayin /i . b Some teach i akkuzo /i /b with an i alef /i , b and some teach i akkuzo /i /b with an i ayin /i . Both versions are well founded and neither one is erroneous.,Having mentioned that b the people of Judea are precise in their speech, /b the Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of this? The Gemara answers with an example: b As /b in the case of b a certain person from Judea who said to those /b within earshot: b I have a cloak to sell. They said to him: What color is your cloak? He said to them: Like beets on the ground, /b providing an exceedingly precise description of the exact shade of the cloak, the green tint of beet greens when they first sprout.,The Gemara returns to b the people of the Galilee, who are not precise in their speech. What is /b the meaning of this? The Gemara cites examples: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i b that /b there was b a certain person from the Galilee who would walk and say /b to people: b Who has i amar /i ? Who has i amar /i ? They said to him: Foolish Galilean, /b what do you mean? Galileans did not pronounce the guttural letters properly, so it was unclear whether he sought b a donkey [ i ḥamor /i ] to ride, or wine [ i ḥamar /i ] to drink, wool [ i amar /i ] to wear, or a lamb [ i imar /i ] to slaughter. /b This is an example of the lack of precision in the Galileans’ speech.,The Gemara cites another example of the lack of linguistic precision of the Galileans: There was b a certain woman who wanted to say to her friend: /b My neighbor, b come and I will feed you milk [ i ta’i de’okhlikh ḥelba /i ]; /b however, due to the imprecise articulation of her words, b she said to her: My neighbor, /b may a b lioness eat you [ i tokhlikh lavya /i ]. /b ,The Gemara cites another example of the ignorance and incivility of the Galileans: There was b a certain woman who came before a judge /b intending to say: Master, sir [ i Mari kiri /i , spelled with a i kuf /i ], I had a board, and they stole it from me [ i tavla havet li ugenavuha mimeni /i ]. But instead b she said to him: Master, servant [ i Mari kiri /i , /b spelled with a i kaf /i ], b I had a beam and they stole you from me /b [ b i tafla havet li ugenavukh min /i /b ]. b And it was so /b large, b that when they would hang you upon it, your feet would not reach the ground. /b ,In contrast to the speech of the Galileans, which indicates ignorance and loutishness, the Gemara cites examples of the clever phraseology of the inhabitants of Judea and the Sages: b The maidservant in the house of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b when she would speak enigmatically, /b employing euphemistic terminology or in riddles, b she would say as follows: The ladle /b used for drawing wine from the jug b is /b already b knocking against /b the bottom of b the jug, /b i.e., the wine jug is almost empty. b Let the eagles fly to their nests, /b i.e., let the students return home, as there is nothing left for them to drink., b And when /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b wanted them to sit, she would say to them: Let us remove /b the stopper b from another /b jug, b and let the ladle /b float b in the jug like a ship sailing in the sea. /b ,The Gemara also relates that b when Rabbi Yosei bar Asyan would speak enigmatically, he would say: Prepare for me an ox in judgment on a poor mountain. /b His method was to construct words by combining words from Aramaic translations of Hebrew words or Hebrew translations of Aramaic words. Ox is i tor /i in Aramaic; judgment is i din /i . Combined they form i teradin /i , beets. Mountain in Hebrew is i har /i , which they pronounced i ḥar /i ; poor is i dal /i . Together it spells i ḥardal /i , mustard. Thus, Rabbi Yosei bar Asyan was requesting beets in mustard., b And when he would inquire about an inn, he would say as follows: This man here is raw; what is this good that there is? /b The phrase “this man here is raw” is used in a similar syllable-by-syllable translation: man in Hebrew is i ish /i ; here is i po /i ; this is i zeh /i ; and raw is i na /i . All together, they sound like i ushpazikhna /i , i.e., an innkeeper (Rabbeinu Ḥael). In other words, Rabbi Yosei bar Asyan was asking after the innkeeper., b When Rabbi Abbahu would speak enigmatically, he would say as follows: Make the coals the color of an i etrog /i ; beat the golden ones, /b i.e., spread out the coals, which redden like gold when they glow; b and make me two speakers-in-the-dark, /b i.e., roosters, which announce the dawn when it is still dark. b Some say /b a slightly different version: b And they shall make me in them, /b on the coals, i.e., roast for me on top of the coals, b two speakers-in-the-dark. /b ,In a similarly clever manner, b the Sages said to Rabbi Abbahu: Show us [ i hatzpinenu /i ] where Rabbi Elai is hiding [ i tzafun /i ], /b as we do not know his whereabouts. b He said to them: He rejoiced with the latter [ i aḥaronit /i ] Aharonic [ i Aharonit /i ] girl; she is lively [ i eiranit /i ] and kept him awake [ i vehiniratu /i ]. /b ,There are two ways to understand this cryptic statement: b Some say /b it refers to b a woman, /b i.e., he married a young girl from a priestly family [Aharonic], who is his second [latter] wife, from a village [ i eiranit /i ], and he is sleeping now because she kept him awake during the night., b And some say /b it refers to b a tractate. /b The term girl refers to the tractate; Aharonic indicates that it is a tractate from the order of i Kodashim /i , which deals with the priestly service. The phrase the latter means that it is his latest course of study, and lively alludes to the challenging nature of the subject matter. Since he was awake all night studying, he is presently sleeping.,The Gemara continues: b They said to Rabbi Elai: Show us where Rabbi Abbahu is hiding, /b as we do not know where he is. b He said to them: He has taken counsel with the one who crowns, /b i.e., the i Nasi /i , who appoints the Sages, b and has gone south /b [ b i hingiv /i /b ] b to Mephibosheth, /b i.e., he has headed to the Sages of the south, referred to here as Mephibosheth, who was King Saul’s grandson and a great Sage of his time.,Having discussed the clever speech of various Sages, the Gemara relates that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said /b as follows: b In /b all b my days, no person defeated me /b in a verbal encounter b except for a woman, a young boy, and a young girl. What is /b the encounter in which b a woman /b got the better of me? b One time I was staying at a certain inn /b and the hostess b prepared me beans. On the first day I ate them and left nothing over, /b although proper etiquette dictates that one should leave over something on his plate. On the b second /b day I again ate b and left nothing over. /b On the third day b she over-salted them /b so that they were inedible. b As soon as I tasted /b them, b I withdrew my hands from them. /b , b She said to me: My Rabbi, why aren’t you eating /b beans as on the previous days? Not wishing to offend her, b I said to her: I have already eaten during the daytime. She said to me: You should have withdrawn your hand from bread /b and left room for some beans., b She /b then b said to me: My Rabbi, perhaps you did not leave a remainder /b of food on your plate b on the first /b days, which is why you are leaving over food today. b Isn’t this what the Sages said: One need not leave a remainder in the pot [ i ilpas /i ], but one must leave a remainder on the plate /b as an expression of etiquette ( i Tosafot /i ). This is the incident in which a woman got the better of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya., b What is /b the incident with b a young girl? One time I was walking along the path, and the path passed through a field, and I was walking on it. A certain young girl said to me: My Rabbi, isn’t this a field? /b One should not walk through a field, so as not to damage the crops growing there. b I said to her: Isn’t it a well-trodden path /b in the field, across which one is permitted to walk? b She said to me: Robbers like you have trodden it. /b In other words, it previously had been prohibited to walk through this field, and it is only due to people such as you, who paid no attention to the prohibition, that a path has been cut across it. Thus, the young girl defeated Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya in a debate., b What is /b the incident with b a young boy? One time I was walking along the path, and I saw a young boy sitting at the crossroads. And I said to him: On which path shall we walk /b in order to get b to the city? He said to me: This /b path b is short and long, and that /b path b is long and short. I walked on the /b path that was b short and long. When I approached the city I found that gardens and orchards surrounded it, /b and I did not know the trails leading through them to the city., b I went back /b and met the young boy again and b said to him: My son, didn’t you tell me /b that this way is b short? He said to me: And didn’t I tell you /b that it is also b long? I kissed him on his head and said to him: Happy are you, O Israel, for you are all exceedingly wise, from your old to your young. /b ,Having discussed wise speech and the wisdom of Jewish women, the Gemara cites the following story: b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was walking along the way, /b and b met Berurya. He said to her: On which path shall we walk /b in order to get b to Lod? She said to him: Foolish Galilean, didn’t the Sages say: Do not talk much with women? You should have said /b your question more succinctly: b Which /b way b to Lod? /b ,The Gemara relates more of Berurya’s wisdom: b Berurya came across a certain student who was whispering his studies /b rather than raising his voice. |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 12, 14 | 64b. b as Rabbi Yishmael states only there, /b in the mishna, that three i se’a /i of barley are reaped on Shabbat, b as /b in that case b when /b one b limits /b the amount available b for eating, /b he likewise b limits /b the amount of b reaping. But here, when /b one b limits /b the amount b of eating /b by bringing the two figs, he also b increases /b the amount of b reaping. /b Therefore is it b certain /b that b we bring /b the ill person the b three /b figs attached by a single stem., strong MISHNA: /strong b The mitzva of the i omer /i is to bring /b the barley reaped for the meal offering b from /b fields b proximate /b to Jerusalem. If the barley b did not ripen /b in b the /b fields b proximate to Jerusalem, one brings it from any place /b in Eretz Yisrael. There was b an incident where the i omer /i came from Gaggot Tzerifin and /b the wheat for b the two loaves /b on i Shavuot /i came b from the valley of Ein Sokher. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that the barley reaped for the i omer /i meal offering should ideally be brought from fields proximate to Jerusalem? The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that it is b because /b the verse states: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the b fresh ear [ i karmel /i ]” /b (Leviticus 2:14). This indicates that the grain should be soft and fresh. Consequently it should be brought from close by, not from a place where it might become stale and hardened during a long journey., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the reason is b due to /b the principle that b one does not postpone /b performance of b the mitzvot. /b When presented with the opportunity to perform a mitzva, one should perform it immediately. Therefore, the barley for the mitzva of the i omer /i meal offering in the Temple should be brought from the first crop encountered outside of Jerusalem.,§ The mishna teaches: There was b an incident where the i omer /i came from Gaggot Tzerifin /b and the two loaves on i Shavuot /i came from the valley of Ein Sokher. b The Sages taught /b a i baraita /i that provides the background of this event: b When the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy besieged each other /b in their civil war, b Hyrcanus was outside of /b Jerusalem, besieging it, b and Aristoblus was inside. On each and every day they would lower dinars in a box /b from inside the city, b and /b those on the outside b would send up /b animals for them to bring the b daily offerings /b in the Temple., b A certain elderly man was there, /b in Jerusalem, b who was familiar with Greek wisdom. He communicated to /b those on the outside b by /b using words understood only by those proficient in b Greek wisdom. The elderly man said to them: As long as they are engaged with the /b Temple b service, they will not be delivered into your hands. /b Upon hearing this, b on the following day, /b when b they lowered dinars in a box, they sent up a pig to them. Once /b the pig b reached halfway /b up the b wall, it inserted its hooves /b into the wall and b Eretz Yisrael shuddered four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs. /b ,When the Sages saw this, b they said /b at b that time: Cursed is he who raises pigs, and cursed is he who teaches his son Greek wisdom. And /b it is b with regard to that time /b of civil war, in which the land was destroyed, that b we learned: An incident /b occurred b in which the i omer /i , /b the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, b came from Gaggot Tzerifim, and the two loaves /b offered on i Shavuot /i came b from the valley of Ein Sokher. /b Since no fresh barley grain was found in the fields immediately surrounding Jerusalem, it had to be brought from these outlying areas.,§ The Gemara relates another tradition with regard to that occasion when the i omer /i came from Gaggot Tzerifin and the two loaves from the valley of Ein Sokher: b When it came /b time to bring the b i omer /i /b meal offering, b they did not know from where /b they could b bring /b the b i omer /i /b grain, as all the surrounding fields were looted and ruined. The court publicly b proclaimed /b their difficulty. b A certain deaf-mute [ i ḥersha /i ] came /b forward and b stretched out one hand toward a roof, /b i gag /i in Hebrew, b and one hand toward a hut [ i atzerifa /i ]. Mordekhai said to /b the Sages: b Is there a place that is called Gaggot Tzerifin or Tzerifin Gaggot? They checked and found /b that there was such a place, and it contained fields of barley from which they were able to bring the i omer /i meal offering.,A similar incident occurred b when they needed to bring the two loaves, /b and b they did not know from where to bring /b the grain. Again the court publicly b proclaimed /b their difficulty, and b a certain deaf-mute came /b forward and b stretched out /b one b hand toward his eye [ i a’eineih /i ] and one hand toward a door latch [ i assikhera /i ]. Mordekhai said to /b the Sages: b And is there a place that is called: Ein Sokher, or Sokher Ayin? They checked and found /b that there was such a place, and it contained fields of wheat from which they were able to bring the two loaves.,The Gemara relates another story that demonstrates Mordekhai’s wisdom: Once, b a certain three women brought three nests /b for their obligatory offerings of pairs of pigeons or doves (see Leviticus 15:29). b One /b of them b said: /b This offering is b for my i ziva /i ; and one said: /b This if b for my i yamma /i ; and /b the last b one said: /b This is b for my i ona /i . /b ,The Sages b understood from /b the first woman’s statement: b For my i ziva /i , /b that she had experienced a discharge of uterine blood when not expecting her menstrual period, which would give her the status of b an actual i zava /i . /b From the second woman’s statement: b For my i yamma /i , /b they understood: b My actual i yamma /i , /b i.e., she was also a i ziva /i , as i yam /i can mean: Sea, or a flow of blood. From the third woman’s statement: b For my i ona /i , /b they came to the conclusion that she needed to bring a sacrifice b for her time [ i ona /i ] /b of completing her purification process from being a i zava /i . Accordingly, they understood b that all /b these women were obligated to bring b one sin offering and one burnt offering. /b , b Mordekhai said to /b the other Sages: b Perhaps /b the first woman b was endangered /b in the course b of /b her menstrual b flow [ i zov /i ]. /b Similarly, b perhaps /b the second woman b was endangered at sea [ i yam /i ]. /b Finally, b perhaps /b the third woman b was endangered through her eye [ i ayin /i ], /b as i ayin /i is phonetically similar to i ona /i . According to these explanations, each woman sought to bring a voluntary offering to give thanks to God for being saved from danger. If so, the appropriate offering in each case is not a sin offering, b as they are all burnt offerings. /b It b was checked and /b they b found /b that Mordekhai’s interpretation was in fact correct. |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 27| 85b. מידי דהוה לאחר מיתה,מאי הוה עלה אמר רבה בר רב הונא וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לכל אין הבן נעשה שליח לאביו להכותו ולקללו חוץ ממסית שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המכה אביו ואמו אינו חייב עד שיעשה בהן חבורה זה חומר במקלל מבמכה שהמקלל לאחר מיתה חייב והמכה לאחר מיתה פטור:, big strongגמ' /strong /big ת"ר (ויקרא כ, ט) אביו ואמו קלל לאחר מיתה שיכול הואיל וחייב במכה וחייב במקלל מה מכה אינו חייב אלא מחיים אף המקלל אינו חייב אלא מחיים,ועוד ק"ו ומה מכה שעשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך לא חייב בו לאחר מיתה מקלל שלא עשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך אינו דין שלא חייב בו לאחר מיתה,ת"ל אביו ואמו קלל לאחר מיתה,הניחא לר' יונתן דמייתר ליה קרא אביו ואמו אלא לר' יאשיה מאי איכא למימר,דתניא (ויקרא כ, ב) איש איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו אין לי אלא אביו ואמו אביו שלא אמו אמו שלא אביו מניין ת"ל אביו ואמו קלל אביו קלל אמו קלל דברי ר' יאשיה,ר' יונתן אומר משמע שניהן כאחד ומשמע אחד ואחד בפני עצמו עד שיפרט לך הכתוב יחדיו,מנא ליה נפקא ליה מומקלל אביו ואמו מות יומת,ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לרבות בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס,ותיפוק ליה מאיש איש דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם,וליתני חומר במכה מבמקלל שהמכה עשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך משא"כ במקלל קסבר מקשינן הכאה לקללה,לימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתני חדא כותי אתה מצווה על הכאתו ואי אתה מצווה על קללתו ותניא אידך אי אתה מצווה לא על קללתו ולא על הכאתו,סברוה דכולי עלמא כותים גירי אמת הן מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מקשינן הכאה לקללה ומר סבר לא מקשינן הכאה לקללה,לא דכ"ע לא מקשינן הכאה לקללה והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר כותים גירי אמת הן ומר סבר כותים גירי אריות הן,אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה ושורו כישראל אלא שמע מינה בהיקישא פליגי ש"מ:, big strongמתני' /strong /big הגונב נפש מישראל אינו חייב עד שיכניסנו לרשותו רבי יהודה אומר עד שיכניסנו לרשותו וישתמש בו שנאמר (דברים כד, ז) והתעמר בו ומכרו הגונב את בנו רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין גנב מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין ר' יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ותנא קמא לא בעי עימור א"ר אחא בריה דרבא עימור פחות משוה פרוטה איכא בינייהו,בעי ר' ירמיה גנבו ומכרו ישן מהו מכר אשה לעוברה מהו יש דרך עימור בכך או אין דרך עימור בכך,ותיפוק ליה דליכא עימור כלל לא צריכא ישן דזגא עליה אשה דאוקמא באפי זיקא דרך עימור בכך או אין דרך עימור בכך מאי תיקו,ת"ר (דברים כד, ז) כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו אין לי אלא איש שגנב אשה מניין ת"ל וגונב איש,אין לי אלא איש שגנב בין אשה ובין איש ואשה שגנבה איש אשה שגנבה אשה מניין ת"ל ומת הגנב ההוא מכל מקום,תניא אידך כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו אחד הגונב את האיש ואחד הגונב את האשה ואחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר וקטן חייב גנבו ולא מכרו מכרו ועדיין ישנו ברשותו פטור מכרו לאביו או לאחיו או לאחד מן הקרובים חייב הגונב את העבדים פטור | 85b. The Gemara answers: The i halakha /i here is b just as it is after /b the b death /b of his father, and the son is liable for cursing his father even after his death. Therefore, he is also liable when his father’s death is imminent.,Despite several attempts to cite proof contradicting his opinion, there is no conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sheshet that a son may serve as an agent of the court to punish his father. The Gemara asks: b What /b halakhic conclusion b was /b reached b about /b this matter? b Rabba bar Rav Huna says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to all /b cases b a son is not designated /b as b an agent to strike his father or to curse him, except /b in a case where his father b incites /b others to worship idols, b as the Torah states: “Neither shall you spare, nor shall you conceal him” /b (Deuteronomy 13:9)., strong MISHNA: /strong b One who strikes his father or his mother is not liable /b to be executed b unless he wounds /b one of b them. This is a stringency with regard to one who curses /b his father that is more severe b than /b the i halakha /i b with regard to one who strikes /b his father, b as one who curses /b his father or his mother b after /b his or her b death is liable, but one who strikes /b one of them b after /b his or her b death is exempt, /b as he did not cause a wound.,gemara b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is written: “For any man who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death, he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him who curses his father and his mother shall die; b he has cursed his father and his mother; /b his blood shall be upon him” (Leviticus 20:9). This is referring to one who curses his parents even b after /b their b death, as /b one b might /b have thought: b Since one is liable for striking and one is liable for cursing, just as one who strikes is liable only when /b his father or mother are b alive, so too, one who curses is liable only when /b they are b alive. /b , b Furthermore, /b one may draw an b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b If, /b with regard to one who b strikes /b another, b where /b the Torah b deemed /b the status of striking one who performs actions b not of your people, /b i.e., a sinner, b like /b that of striking one who performs actions that are b of your people, /b yet the Torah b did not deem him liable /b for striking another b after death, /b then with regard to one who b curses, where /b the Torah b deemed /b the status of cursing one who performs actions b not of your people like /b that of cursing one who performs actions that are b of your people, is it not right that /b the Torah b did not deem him liable /b for cursing another b after /b their b death? /b ,Therefore, b the verse states /b the extraneous phrase: b “He has cursed his father and his mother,” /b to include even one who curses his father or mother b after /b that parent’s b death. /b ,The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yonatan, for whom the phrase “his father and his mother” is extraneous. But according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoshiya, /b who disagrees with him, b what is there to say? /b ,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is written: “For b any man [ i ish ish /i ] /b who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death, he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” b What /b is the meaning when b the verse states /b redundantly: b “ i Ish ish /i ”? /b It serves b to include /b not only a son, but also b a daughter, one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [ i tumtum /i ], and a hermaphrodite /b who curse their parent. When the verse states: b “Who curses his father and his mother,” I have /b derived b only /b liability for cursing both b his father and his mother. From where /b is liability derived for one who cursed b his father /b but b who did not /b curse b his mother, /b or one who cursed b his mother /b but b who did not /b curse b his father? The verse states: “He has cursed his father and his mother,” /b from which it is derived that the i halakha /i is as if the verse states: b He cursed his father /b or b he cursed his mother. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. /b , b Rabbi Yonatan says: /b In verses of this kind when two subjects are joined with a prefix of the letter i vav /i , that prefix b indicates /b the conjunction “and,” meaning b both /b subjects b together, and /b it also b indicates /b the conjunction “or,” meaning b each one by itself, unless the verse specifies /b with the word: b “Together,” /b in which case the meaning is both together. Therefore, the phrase “he has cursed his father and his mother” is extraneous.,Since according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, the phrase is not redundant, b from where does he /b derive that one is liable for cursing his father after his death? The Gemara answers: b He derives it from /b that which is written: b “And one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” /b (Exodus 21:17).,The Gemara asks: b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yonatan, what does he derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: b He requires /b the other verse b to include a daughter, a i tumtum /i , and a hermaphrodite /b in the prohibition against cursing a parent.,The Gemara challenges: b But let him derive /b that i halakha /i b from /b the redundant use of b “ i ish ish /i ,” /b as Rabbi Yoshiya does. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yonatan holds that b the Torah spoke in the language of people. /b The repetition of the term i ish /i is merely a rhetorical flourish commonly employed in speech, and no additional i halakhot /i can be derived from it.,§ The Gemara asks with regard to the mishna: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b a second stringency in the mishna: b This is a stringency with regard to one who strikes /b his father that is more severe b than /b the i halakha /i b with regard to one who curses /b his father, b that with regard to one who strikes /b a parent the Torah b deemed /b the status of striking one who performs actions b not of your people /b to be b like /b that of striking one who performs actions b of your people, which is not so with regard to one who curses /b a parent. The Gemara responds: The i tanna /i of the mishna disagrees and b holds /b that b we liken striking to cursing /b based on the juxtaposition of the verses.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the opinions of b these /b following b i tanna’im /i are parallel to /b the opinions of b those /b following b i tanna’im /i , as it is taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : With regard to b a Samaritan, you are commanded /b to refrain from b striking him, but you are not commanded /b to refrain from b cursing him. And it is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b You are commanded neither /b to refrain from b cursing him nor /b to refrain from b striking him. /b ,It is b assumed /b that b everyone, /b i.e., the i tanna /i of each i baraita /i , agrees that b Samaritans are true converts. /b Since their conversion was sincere, their status is that of a Jew who sinned. Based on that assumption, the Gemara suggests: b What, is it not /b that b they disagree about this: That /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the second i baraita /i , b holds /b that b we liken striking to cursing /b and the i halakha /i is the same with regard to both, and therefore it is neither prohibited to strike a Samaritan, nor is it prohibited to curse him; b and /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the first i baraita /i , b holds /b that b we do not liken striking to cursing, /b and there is no prohibition against cursing a sinner, but there is a prohibition against striking him?,The Gemara rejects the parallel between the two tannaitic disputes. b No, everyone, /b i.e., the i tanna’im /i in each i baraita /i , agrees that b we do not liken striking to cursing, and here they disagree about this: /b One b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the first i baraita /i , b holds /b that b Samaritans are true converts /b and their status is that of a Jew who sinned. Therefore, there is no prohibition against cursing him, but there is a prohibition against striking him. b And /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the second i baraita /i , b holds /b that b Samaritans are converts /b who converted under duress b due to /b the threat of b lions /b (see II Kings, chapter 17) and their conversion was never valid. Therefore, their legal status is that of a gentile and it is neither prohibited to strike a Samaritan nor to curse him.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b is b that /b consistent with that b which is taught with regard to /b the second i baraita /i : b And /b in terms of damage caused to b his ox /b his status is b like /b that of b a Jew? /b Apparently, even the i tanna /i of the second i baraita /i holds that the conversion of the Samaritans was sincere. b Rather, learn from it /b that the two i tanna’im /i b disagree with regard to the juxtaposition /b of the two prohibitions, as initially suggested; their dispute is not with regard to the status of a Samaritan. The Gemara affirms: b Conclude from it /b that this is the crux of their dispute.,mishna b One who abducts a Jewish person is not liable /b to be executed b unless he brings /b the abductee b into his domain. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b He is not liable b unless he brings him into his domain and exploits him, as it is stated: /b “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren from the children of Israel, b and he exploited him and sold him, /b then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). The phrase “exploited him” indicates using him for labor. With regard to b one who abducts his /b own b son /b and sells him, b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, deems /b him b liable, and the Rabbis deem /b him b exempt. /b If b one abducted one who is a half-slave half-freeman, /b i.e., a Canaanite slave who belonged to two owners and was emancipated by one of them, b Rabbi Yehuda deems /b him b liable, and the Rabbis deem /b him b exempt. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b And does the first i tanna /i not require exploitation /b as a condition for liability? The Torah states it explicitly in the verse in Deuteronomy. b Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rava, says: /b The difference b between them /b is in a case of b exploitation /b worth b less than the value of one i peruta /i . /b The first i tanna /i holds that one is liable for any exploitation and there is no minimum value in order to establish liability. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is liable only if one derives benefit equal to at least one i peruta /i from his exploitation., b Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: /b If b one abducted /b another b and sold him /b while he was b asleep, what is /b the i halakha /i ? If one abducted and b sold /b a pregt b woman /b solely b for /b benefit from b her fetus, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Is that a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed b or is that not a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed?,The Gemara asks with regard to the dilemmas raised by Rabbi Yirmeya: b But let him derive /b that the abductor is not liable, b as there is no exploitation at all /b of a sleeping individual or a fetus. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to raise the dilemma only with regard to the b sleeping /b individual in a case b where one reclines on him, /b and with regard to the pregt b woman where one stands her in the face of the wind /b to protect himself from the wind. In those cases, b is that a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed b or is that not a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed? b What /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand [ i teiku /i ] /b unresolved., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is written: b “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren /b from the children of Israel, and he exploited him and sold him, then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). b I have /b derived b only /b that b a man who abducted /b another is liable. b From where /b is it derived that b a woman /b who abducts another is liable as well? It is derived from b the verse /b that b states: And one who abducts a man, /b and sells him, if he be found in his hand, he shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16), where the sex of the abductor is not specified., b I have /b derived b only /b that b a man who abducted /b another, b whether a man or a woman, /b is liable, as it is written: “If a man shall be found abducting a person”; the abductor is male but the sex of the abductee is not specified. b And /b I derived that b a woman who abducted a man /b is liable, as it is written: “And one who abducts a man”; the sex of the abductor is not specified but the abductee is male. b From where /b is it derived that b a woman who abducted a woman /b is liable as well? It is derived from b the verse /b that b states: “Then that abductor shall die” /b (Deuteronomy 24:7); the abductor shall die b in any case, /b regardless of the sex of the one who was abducted., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that it is written: b “If a man is found abducting a person of his brethren,” /b from which it is derived that b whether he abducts a man, or /b whether b he abducts a woman, or /b whether he abducts b a convert, or /b whether he abducts b an emancipated slave or a minor, /b he is b liable. /b If he b abducted /b another b but did not sell him, /b or if he b sold him but he remains in his domain, /b the abductor is b exempt. /b If he b sold him to /b the b father of /b the abductee, b or to his brother, or to one of /b his other b relatives, /b the abductor is b liable. One who abducts slaves is exempt. /b |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 17| 13a. ורב זביד אמר אין בנים בלא סימנים ונבדוק חיישינן שמא נשרו הניחא למ"ד חוששין,אלא למ"ד אין חוששין מאי איכא למימר אפי' למ"ד אין חוששין משום צער לידה חיישינן:,כיצד פוטרות צרותיהן וכו': מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא (ויקרא יח, יח) לצרור התורה ריבתה צרות הרבה,רב אשי אמר סברא היא צרה מ"ט אסירא דבמקום ערוה קיימא צרת צרה נמי במקום ערוה קיימא:,כיצד אם מתו הן כו': ואפילו כנס ולבסוף גירש,ורמינהו ג' אחים שנים מהן נשואים ב' אחיות ואחד נשוי נכרית גירש אחד מבעלי אחיות אשתו ומת הנשוי נכרית וכנסה המגרש ומת זו היא שאמרו שאם מתו או נתגרשו צרותיהן מותרות,טעמא דגירש ואח"כ כנס אבל כנס ואח"כ גירש לא,א"ר ירמיה תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו האי תנא סבר מיתה מפלת,והאי תנא סבר נשואין הראשונים מפילים,רבא אמר לעולם חד תנא הוא וזו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני:,וכל שיכולה למאן: ותמאן השתא ותתייבם לימא מסייעא ליה לרבי אושעיא,דא"ר אושעיא ממאנת למאמרו ואינה ממאנת לזיקתו,לא צרת ערוה שאני דתני רמי בר יחזקאל מיאנה בבעל מותרת לאביו מיאנה ביבם אסורה לאביו,אלמא משעת נפילה נראית ככלתו הכא נמי משעת נפילה נראית כצרת בתו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שש עריות חמורות מאלו מפני שנשואות לאחרים צרותיהן מותרו',אמו ואשת אביו ואחות אביו אחותו מאביו ואשת אחי אביו ואשת אחיו מאביו,בית שמאי מתירין הצרות לאחים ובית הלל אוסרים | 13a. § b And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs /b of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definitely possesses the signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b let us examine /b to see whether these physical signs are present, so that there is no need to depend on a presumption. The Gemara answers: b We are concerned lest /b the hairs that constitute the sign b have fallen off. /b The Gemara comments: b This /b works out b well according to the one who said /b that in general b we are concerned /b lest signs fall off, i.e., that there are cases in which she is in fact mature but the hairs have come off., b However, according to the one who said /b that if there are in fact hairs they will certainly be found, and b we are not concerned /b that they may have fallen out, b what is there to say? /b The Gemara answers: b Even according to the one who said /b that in ordinary circumstances b we are not concerned /b that the hairs may have fallen out, in this case, b due to the pain of childbirth we are concerned /b that they might have fallen out, and therefore it is impossible to examine the matter conclusively.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna: b How do they exempt their rival wives /b and the rival wives of their rival wives? The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters, /b that not only is a rival wife exempt but the rival wife of a rival wife is exempt as well, b derived? Rav Yehuda said /b that this is b as the verse states: /b “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, b to be a rival [ i litzror /i ] /b to her” (Leviticus 18:18). The term i litzror /i is written, with the letter i reish /i appearing twice, rather than i latzor /i , with a single i reish /i , which means that b the Torah amplified /b and included b many rival wives. /b In other words, this verse includes not only the rival wife of a forbidden relative, but also the rival wife of a rival wife., b Rav Ashi said: It is a logical inference, /b which does not require a source from the Torah. b What is the reason /b that b a rival wife /b of a forbidden relative b is prohibited? /b The reason is b that she stands in place of a forbidden relative. /b Since the forbidden relative caused her exemption from levirate marriage, she too is considered a forbidden relative who remains categorized as a brother’s wife. Therefore, b the rival wife of a rival wife also stands in place of a forbidden relative, /b as she is like the rival wife of a forbidden relative and is therefore forbidden herself.,§ The mishna taught: b How so? If /b the forbidden relative b died, /b performed refusal, or was divorced, from that moment onward their rival wives are no longer considered the rival wives of a forbidden relative and are permitted. The Gemara remarks: This legal ruling with regard to a divorce is presented as a general principle b and /b is therefore correct b even /b if at the time that the deceased brother b married /b the rival wife he was married to the forbidden relative, b and ultimately divorced /b the relative, which means that for a period of time the women were rival wives. Even under these circumstances the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relative does not apply, and she is permitted to enter into levirate marriage., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a different mishna (30a), which discusses b three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one is married to an unrelated woman. One of the husbands of the sisters /b subsequently b divorced his wife, and the one who was married to the unrelated woman died, and the one who divorced /b his wife b married /b the i yevama /i by levirate marriage b and /b afterward b died /b as well, which means that this i yevama /i once again came for levirate marriage before the remaining brother, who was married to one of the sisters. b It is with /b regard to b this /b case b that they said that if they died or were divorced their rival wives are permitted. /b This concludes the mishna.,The Gemara infers from this mishna: b The reason /b she is permitted is b that /b the i yavam /i first b divorced /b the sister b and /b only b afterward married /b the unrelated woman. In this case, the unrelated woman was never actually the rival wife of a sister, despite the fact that they were, at different times, married to the same man. b However, /b if the i yavam /i first b married /b the unrelated woman b and afterward divorced /b the sister, she would b not /b be permitted to enter into levirate marriage because for a period of time she had been the rival wife of a forbidden relative.,These two i mishnayot /i apparently contradict each other. b Rabbi Yirmeya said: /b This mishna is b disjointed, /b i.e., the i mishnayot /i are truly incompatible, and the i tanna /i b who taught this /b i halakha /i b did not teach that /b i halakha /i . The reason for the difference in opinions is that b this i tanna /i , /b of the mishna here, b maintains /b that b death causes /b her to b come before /b him for levirate marriage. In other words, the decisive moment that determines the obligation in or exemption from levirate marriage is the moment of the childless brother’s death. Since in the case of the mishna here she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative at the time of his death, the prohibition does not apply to her., b And that i tanna /i /b of the mishna dealing with three brothers b maintains /b that b the first marriage causes /b her to b come before /b him for levirate marriage. In other words, the levirate bond is established at the time of the marriage, and since the second wife was the rival wife of a forbidden relative for at least a brief period, her exemption from levirate marriage was determined then., b Rava said: Actually, /b both i mishnayot /i represent the opinion of b a single i tanna /i , but he teaches /b the mishna employing the style: b This and it is unnecessary to say that. /b In other words, the mishna here is referring to a case where he first married and later divorced, while the mishna that deals with three brothers is speaking of a simpler, more obvious case, in which he first divorced and later married the second wife. In that case she is certainly permitted. Accordingly, there is no real contradiction here between the i mishnayot /i , as they utilize different styles of teaching.,§ The mishna taught: b And /b if b any /b of these forbidden relatives was a minor b who could refuse /b her husband, then even if she did not refuse him, her rival wife performs i ḥalitza /i and does not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: b And let /b the minor b perform refusal now, /b thereby annulling the marriage retroactively after the death of her husband, b and let her /b rival wife b enter into levirate marriage. /b Since this option is not accepted, b let us say that it supports /b the opinion b of Rabbi Oshaya. /b , b As Rabbi Oshaya said: /b A i yevama /i who is a minor can b refuse the levirate betrothal of /b the i yavam /i . In other words, if he betrothed her she is free to say that she does not desire to marry him, a declaration that severs any connection between them. b But she cannot refuse his bond. /b Provided that he has not performed a levirate betrothal, this minor i yevama /i cannot annul the ties between them by a refusal, as theirs is not a bond of marriage, and the institution of refusal was established only with regard to marriage. According to this opinion, it is evident that a minor i yevama /i who is a forbidden relative cannot perform refusal so as to enable her rival wife to enter levirate marriage.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b No; /b it is possible that a minor i yevama /i can indeed refuse a levirate bond, but b the rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, /b as she is not permitted in levirate marriage even if the forbidden relative herself can perform refusal. Why? b As Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b she refused the husband, /b thereby annulling the marriage, b she is permitted to his father, /b as the marriage bond was entirely nullified retroactively and she is not considered his daughter-in-law at all. If, however, b she refused /b only b the i yavam /i , she is forbidden to his father. /b , b Apparently, /b the reason is that b at the moment /b of her b coming before /b him for levirate marriage b she had the appearance of his daughter-in-law. /b Since people will think she is his daughter-in-law, she is forbidden to the father. b Here, too, at the moment /b of her b coming before /b him for levirate marriage b she had the appearance of his daughter’s rival wife. /b Consequently, the Sages did not permit her to enter into levirate marriage even if the other wife refuses the husband., strong MISHNA: /strong b Six /b women b with whom relations are forbidden /b who were not enumerated in the first mishna b are /b forbidden by prohibitions that are b more severe than those /b listed in that mishna b because they may be married /b only b to others /b and may never be married to any of the brothers, due to the closeness of their relationship. However, this stringency entails a corresponding leniency: Since the i halakha /i of levirate marriage is entirely inapplicable in these cases, b their rival wives are permitted. /b The rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden herself only if the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, but where it is not in effect she is permitted.,The six women with whom relations are forbidden are as follows: b His mother, and his father’s wife, and his father’s sister, and his paternal /b half b sister, and the wife of his father’s brother, and the wife of his paternal /b half b brother. /b Each of these women with whom relations are forbidden is forbidden equally to all of the brothers, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is inapplicable. Therefore, her rival wife is permitted.,§ Up to this point, the discussions were based on the assumption that not only may a forbidden relative not enter into levirate marriage, but her rival wife is also exempt. However, this issue is subject to a long-standing dispute. b Beit Shammai permit the rival wives to the brothers, /b as they did not accept the interpretation of the verses that indicates that rival wives are prohibited. b And Beit Hillel forbid /b them. The previous i mishnayot /i are in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 15| 28b. רב אויא חלש ולא אתא לפרקא דרב יוסף למחר כי אתא בעא אביי לאנוחי דעתיה דרב יוסף א"ל מ"ט לא אתא מר לפרקא א"ל דהוה חליש לבאי ולא מצינא א"ל אמאי לא טעמת מידי ואתית א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אסור לו לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיתפלל תפלת המוספין א"ל איבעי ליה למר לצלויי צלותא דמוספין ביחיד ולטעום מידי ולמיתי א"ל ולא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר יוחנן אסור לו לאדם שיקדים תפלתו לתפלת הצבור א"ל לאו אתמר עלה א"ר אבא בצבור שנו,ולית הלכתא לא כרב הונא ולא כריב"ל כרב הונא הא דאמרן כריב"ל דאריב"ל כיון שהגיע זמן תפלת המנחה אסור לו לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיתפלל תפלת המנחה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר' נחוניא בן הקנה היה מתפלל בכניסתו לבית המדרש וביציאתו תפלה קצרה אמרו לו מה מקום לתפלה זו אמר להם בכניסתי אני מתפלל שלא יארע דבר תקלה על ידי וביציאתי אני נותן הודאה על חלקי:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שלא יארע דבר תקלה על ידי ולא אכשל בדבר הלכה וישמחו בי חברי ולא אומר על טמא טהור ולא על טהור טמא ולא יכשלו חברי בדבר הלכה ואשמח בהם,ביציאתו מהו אומר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי ששמת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ולא שמת חלקי מיושבי קרנות שאני משכים והם משכימים אני משכים לדברי תורה והם משכימים לדברים בטלים אני עמל והם עמלים אני עמל ומקבל שכר והם עמלים ואינם מקבלים שכר אני רץ והם רצים אני רץ לחיי העולם הבא והם רצים לבאר שחת:,ת"ר כשחלה ר' אליעזר נכנסו תלמידיו לבקרו אמרו לו רבינו למדנו אורחות חיים ונזכה בהן לחיי העולם הבא,אמר להם הזהרו בכבוד חבריכם ומנעו בניכם מן ההגיון והושיבום בין ברכי תלמידי חכמים וכשאתם מתפללים דעו לפני מי אתם עומדים ובשביל כך תזכו לחיי העולם הבא,וכשחלה רבי יוחנן בן זכאי נכנסו תלמידיו לבקרו כיון שראה אותם התחיל לבכות אמרו לו תלמידיו נר ישראל עמוד הימיני פטיש החזק מפני מה אתה בוכה,אמר להם אילו לפני מלך בשר ודם היו מוליכין אותי שהיום כאן ומחר בקבר שאם כועס עלי אין כעסו כעס עולם ואם אוסרני אין איסורו איסור עולם ואם ממיתני אין מיתתו מיתת עולם ואני יכול לפייסו בדברים ולשחדו בממון אעפ"כ הייתי בוכה ועכשיו שמוליכים אותי לפני ממ"ה הקב"ה שהוא חי וקיים לעולם ולעולמי עולמים שאם כועס עלי כעסו כעס עולם ואם אוסרני איסורו איסור עולם ואם ממיתני מיתתו מיתת עולם ואיני יכול לפייסו בדברים ולא לשחדו בממון ולא עוד אלא שיש לפני שני דרכים אחת של גן עדן ואחת של גיהנם ואיני יודע באיזו מוליכים אותי ולא אבכה,אמרו לו רבינו ברכנו אמר להם יהי רצון שתהא מורא שמים עליכם כמורא בשר ודם אמרו לו תלמידיו עד כאן אמר להם ולואי תדעו כשאדם עובר עבירה אומר שלא יראני אדם.,בשעת פטירתו אמר להם פנו כלים מפני הטומאה והכינו כסא לחזקיהו מלך יהודה שבא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big רבן גמליאל אומר בכל יום ויום מתפלל אדם שמנה עשרה רבי יהושע אומר מעין י"ח ר"ע אומר אם שגורה תפלתו בפיו מתפלל י"ח ואם לאו מעין י"ח,ר"א אומר העושה תפלתו קבע אין תפלתו תחנונים,ר' יהושע אומר ההולך במקום סכנה מתפלל תפלה קצרה ואומר הושע ה' את עמך את שארית ישראל בכל פרשת העבור יהיו צרכיהם לפניך ברוך אתה ה' שומע תפלה,היה רוכב על החמור ירד ויתפלל ואם אינו יכול לירד יחזיר את פניו ואם אינו יכול להחזיר את פניו יכוין את לבו כנגד בית קדשי הקדשים היה מהלך בספינה או באסדא יכוין את לבו כנגד בית קדשי הקדשים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big הני י"ח כנגד מי,א"ר הלל בריה דר' שמואל בר נחמני כנגד י"ח אזכרות שאמר דוד (תהלים כט, א) בהבו לה' בני אלים רב יוסף אמר כנגד י"ח אזכרות שבקריאת שמע א"ר תנחום אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כנגד שמונה עשרה חוליות שבשדרה.,ואמר ר' תנחום אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי המתפלל צריך שיכרע עד שיתפקקו כל חוליות שבשדרה,עולא אמר עד כדי שיראה איסר כנגד לבו רבי חנינא אמר כיון שנענע ראשו שוב אינו צריך אמר רבא והוא דמצער נפשיה ומחזי כמאן דכרע,הני תמני סרי תשסרי הוויין,אמר רבי לוי ברכת הצדוקים ביבנה תקנוה כנגד מי תקנוה,א"ר לוי לרבי הלל בריה דרבי שמואל בר נחמני כנגד (תהלים כט, ג) אל הכבוד הרעים לרב יוסף כנגד אחד שבקריאת שמע לר' תנחום א"ר יהושע בן לוי כנגד חוליא קטנה שבשדרה:,ת"ר שמעון הפקולי הסדיר י"ח ברכות לפני רבן גמליאל על הסדר ביבנה אמר להם ר"ג לחכמים כלום יש אדם שיודע לתקן ברכת הצדוקים עמד שמואל הקטן ותקנה,לשנה אחרת שכחה | 28b. After mentioning until when the additional prayer may be recited, the Gemara relates: b Rav Avya was ill and did not come to Rav Yosef’s Shabbat lecture. When /b Rav Avya b came the following day, Abaye sought to placate Rav Yosef, /b and through a series of questions and answers sought to make clear to him that Rav Avya’s failure to attend the lecture was not a display of contempt for Rav Yosef. br To this end, he asked him: b Why did the Master not attend the Shabbat lecture? /b br Rav Avya b said to him: Because my heart was faint and I was unable /b to attend. br Abaye b said to him: Why did you not eat something and come? /b br Rav Avya b said to him: /b Does b the Master not hold /b in accordance with b that /b statement b of Rav Huna? As Rav Huna said: A person may not taste anything before he recites the additional prayer. /b br Abaye b said to him: My Master should have recited the additional prayer individually, eaten something, and /b then b come /b to the lecture. br Rav Avya b said to him: /b Does b my Master not hold /b in accordance with b that /b statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa: A person may not recite his /b individual b prayer prior to the communal prayer? /b br Abaye b said to him: /b Was b it not stated regarding this /b i halakha /i , b Rabbi Abba said: They taught /b this b in a communal /b setting? br In other words, only one who is part of a congregation is prohibited from praying alone prior to the prayer of the congregation. Even though Rav Avya was incorrect, the reason for his failure to attend the lecture was clarified through this discussion., b And /b the Gemara summarizes: b The i halakha /i is neither in accordance with /b the statement of b Rav Huna nor in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. /b The Gemara explains: It is not b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rav Huna, as we said /b above with regard to the prohibition to eat prior to the additional prayer. It is not b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once the time /b to recite b the afternoon prayer has arrived, a person may not taste anything before he recites the afternoon prayer. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In addition to the i halakhot /i relating to the fixed prayers, the Gemara relates: b Rabbi Neḥunya ben Hakana would recite a brief prayer upon his entrance into the study hall and upon his exit. They said to him: /b The study hall is not a dangerous place that would warrant a prayer when entering and exiting, so b what room is there for this prayer? He said to them: Upon my entrance, I pray that no mishap will transpire /b caused b by me /b in the study hall. b And upon my exit, I give thanks for my portion. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i the complete formula of Rabbi Neḥunya ben Hakana’s prayer: b Upon his entrance, what does he say? May it be Your will, Lord my God, that no mishap /b in determining the i halakha /i b transpires /b caused b by me, and that I not fail in any matter of i halakha /i , and that my colleagues, /b who together with me engage in clarifying the i halakha, /i b will rejoice in me. /b He specified: b And that I will neither declare pure that which is impure, nor /b declare b impure that which is pure and that my colleagues will not fail in any matter of i halakha /i , and that I will rejoice in them. /b , b Upon his exit, what did he say? I give thanks before You, Lord my God, that You have placed my lot among those who sit in the study hall, and that you have not given me my portion among those who sit /b idly b on /b street b corners. I rise early, and they rise early. I rise early to /b pursue b matters of Torah, and they rise early to /b pursue b frivolous matters. I toil and they toil. I toil and receive a reward, and they toil and do not receive a reward. I run and they run. I run to the life of the World-to-Come and they run to the pit of destruction. /b ,On a similar note, the Gemara recounts related stories with different approaches. b The Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer fell ill, his students entered to visit him. They said to him: Teach us paths of life, /b guidelines by which to live, b and we will thereby merit the life of the World-to-Come. /b , b He said to them: Be vigilant in the honor of your counterparts, and prevent your children from logic /b when studying verses that tend toward heresy ( i ge /i ’ i onim /i ), b and place /b your children, while they are still young, b between the knees of Torah scholars, and when you pray, know before Whom you stand. For /b doing b that, you will merit the life of the World-to-Come. /b ,A similar story is told about Rabbi Eliezer’s mentor, Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: When b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Zakkai fell ill his students entered to visit him. When he saw them, he began to cry. His students said to him: Lamp of Israel, the right pillar, the mighty hammer, /b the man whose life’s work is the foundation of the future of the Jewish people, b for what /b reason b are you crying? /b With a life as complete as yours, what is upsetting you?, b He said to them: /b I cry in fear of heavenly judgment, as the judgment of the heavenly court is unlike the judgment of man. b If they were leading me before a flesh and blood king /b whose life is temporal, b who is here today and /b dead b in the grave tomorrow; if he is angry with me, his anger is not eternal /b and, consequently, his punishment is not eternal; b if he incarcerates me, his incarceration is not an eternal incarceration, /b as I might maintain my hope that I would ultimately be freed. b If he kills me, his killing is not for eternity, /b as there is life after any death that he might decree. Moreover, b I am able to appease him with words and /b even b bribe him with money, /b and b even so I would cry /b when standing before royal judgment. b Now that they are leading me before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who lives and endures forever and all time; if He is angry with me, His anger is eternal; if He incarcerates me, His incarceration is an eternal incarceration; and if He kills me, His killing is for eternity. I am unable to appease Him with words and bribe him with money. Moreover, but I have two paths before me, one of the Garden of Eden and one of Gehenna, and I do not know on which they are leading me; and will I not cry? /b ,His students b said to him: Our teacher, bless us. He said to them: May it be /b His b will that the fear of Heaven shall be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood. His students /b were puzzled b and said: To that point /b and not beyond? Shouldn’t one fear God more? b He said to them: Would that /b a person achieve that level of fear. b Know that when one commits a transgression, he says /b to himself: I hope b that no man will see me. /b If one is as concerned about avoiding shame before God as he is before man, he will never sin.,The Gemara relates that b at the time of his death, /b immediately beforehand, b he said to them: Remove the vessels /b from the house and take them outside b due to the ritual impurity /b that will be imparted by my corpse, which they would otherwise contract. b And prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the King of Judea, who is coming /b from the upper world to accompany me., strong MISHNA: /strong The mishna cites a dispute with regard to the obligation to recite the i Amida /i prayer, also known as i Shemoneh Esreh /i , the prayer of eighteen blessings, or simply as i tefilla /i , prayer. b Rabban Gamliel says: Each and every day a person recites the /b prayer of b eighteen blessings. Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b A short prayer is sufficient, and one only recites b an abridged /b version of the prayer of b eighteen blessings. Rabbi Akiva says /b an intermediate opinion: b If he is fluent in his prayer, he recites the /b prayer of b eighteen blessings, and if not, /b he need only recite b an abridged /b version of the prayer of b eighteen blessings. /b , b Rabbi Eliezer says: One whose prayer is fixed, his prayer is not supplication /b and is flawed. The Gemara will clarify the halakhic implications of this flaw., b Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who /b cannot recite a complete prayer because he b is walking in a place of danger, recites a brief prayer and says: Redeem, Lord, Your people, the remt of Israel, at every transition [ i parashat ha’ibur /i ], /b the meaning of which will be discussed in the Gemara. b May their needs be before You. Blessed are You, Lord, Who listens to prayer. /b ,While praying, one must face toward the direction of the Holy Temple. b One who was riding on a donkey should dismount and pray /b calmly. b If he is unable to dismount, he should turn his face /b toward the direction of the Temple. b If he is unable to turn his face, /b it is sufficient that b he focus his heart opposite the Holy of Holies. /b Similarly, b one who was traveling in a ship or on a raft [ i asda /i ] /b and is unable to turn and face in the direction of Jerusalem, b should focus his heart opposite the Holy of Holies. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong Since the mishna deals with the fundamental obligation to recite the i Amida /i prayer, the Gemara seeks to resolve fundamental problems pertaining to this prayer. b Corresponding to what were these eighteen /b blessings instituted? When the i Shemoneh Esreh /i was instituted by the Sages, on what did they base the number of blessings?, b Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, said: Corresponding to the eighteen mentions of God’s name /b that King b David said /b in the psalm: b “Give unto the Lord, O you sons of might” /b (Psalms 29). b Rav Yosef said: Corresponding to the eighteen mentions of God’s name in i Shema /i . Rabbi Tanḥum said /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine /b beneath the ribs.,Since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s opinion based the i Amida /i prayer on the spinal vertebrae, the Gemara cites another statement of his that connects the two: b Rabbi Tanḥum said /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: /b In those blessings where one is required to bow, b one who prays must bow until all the vertebrae in the spine protrude. /b ,Establishing a different indicator to determine when he has bowed sufficiently, b Ulla said: /b Until b he can see a small coin [ i issar /i ], /b on the ground before him b opposite his heart /b (Rav Hai Gaon). b Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b There is room for leniency; b once he moves his head /b forward, b he need not /b bow any further. b Rava said: But that /b applies only if b he is exerting himself /b when doing so, b and he appears like one who is bowing. /b However, if he is able, he should bow further.,Until now, the prayer of eighteen blessings has been discussed as if it was axiomatic. The Gemara wonders: Are b these eighteen /b blessings? b They are nineteen. /b , b Rabbi Levi said: The blessing of the heretics, /b which curses informers, b was instituted in Yavne /b and is not included in the original tally of blessings. Nevertheless, since the number of blessings corresponds to various allusions, the Gemara attempts to clarify: b Corresponding to what was /b this nineteenth blessing b instituted? /b , b Rabbi Levi said: According to Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, /b who said that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen mentions of God’s name that King David said in the psalm, the nineteenth blessing b corresponds to /b a reference to God in that psalm, where a name other than the tetragrammaton was used: b “The God of glory thunders” ( /b Psalms 29:3). b According to Rav Yosef, /b who said that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen mentions of God’s name in i Shema /i , the additional blessing b corresponds to /b the word b one that is in i Shema /i . /b Although it is not the tetragrammaton, it expresses the essence of faith in God. b According to /b what b Rabbi Tanḥum /b said that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, /b that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine, the additional blessing b corresponds to the small vertebra that is /b at the bottom b of the spine. /b ,In light of the previous mention of the blessing of the heretics, the Gemara explains how this blessing was instituted: b The Sages taught: Shimon HaPakuli arranged /b the b eighteen blessings, /b already extant during the period of the Great Assembly, b before Rabban Gamliel, /b the i Nasi /i of the Sanhedrin, b in order in Yavne. /b Due to prevailing circumstances, there was a need to institute a new blessing directed against the heretics. b Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who knows to institute the blessing of the heretics, /b a blessing directed against the Sadducees? b Shmuel HaKatan, /b who was one of the most pious men of that generation, b stood and instituted it. /b ,The Gemara relates: b The next year, /b when Shmuel HaKatan served as the prayer leader, b he forgot /b that blessing, |
|
| 31. Jerome, Praecepta Ac Leges S. Pachomii, 1.1 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 11 |
| 32. Anon., Abot De Rabbi Nathan, None (7th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 27 |
| 33. Nilus, De Mon. Ex., 1.1.1, 1.1.13 Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 33 |
| 34. Paul of Elusa, Encomium, None Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 27 |
36. Anon., Esther Rabbah, 4.12 Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 11| 4.12. וַיִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים אֶל כָּל מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ (אסתר א, כב), אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ דַּעַת סְרוּחָה הָיְתָה לוֹ, מִנְהָג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אָדָם מְבַקֵּשׁ לֶאֱכֹל עֲדָשִׁים וְאִשְׁתּוֹ מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לֶאֱכֹל אֲפוּנִים, יָכוֹל הוּא לְכוּפָהּ, לָא מַה דְּהִיא בָּעְיָא עָבְדָה. אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה שְׂחוֹק בָּעוֹלָם, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מָדִיִּי נוֹשֵׂא פַּרְסִית וְהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּלָשׁוֹן מָדִיִּי, פַּרְסִי נוֹשֵׂא מָדִיִּית וְהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּלָשׁוֹן פַּרְסִי, אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא דִּבֶּר עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּלָּשׁוֹן שֶׁלָּמְדוּ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות כ, ב): אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לָשׁוֹן יָחֳנָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן דְּבֵית גּוּבְרִין, אַרְבַּע לְשׁוֹנוֹת נָאִין הֵן שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עוֹלָם, לַעַז לְזֶמֶר, פַּרְסִי לְאֶלְיָה, עִבְרִי לְדִבּוּר, רוֹמִים לְקָרֵב. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אַף אַשּׁוּרִית לִכְתָב. עִבְרִית, יֵשׁ לָהּ דִּבּוּר וְאֵין לָהּ כְּתָב. אַשּׁוּרִית. יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתָב וְאֵין לָהּ דִּבּוּר, בָּחֲרוּ לָהֶם כְּתַב אַשּׁוּרִית וְלָשׁוֹן עִבְרִית. בּוּרְגָנִי אֶחָד אָמַר בָּרְרוּ לְהוֹן לָשׁוֹן רוֹמִי מִלָּשׁוֹן יְוָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר גְּנַאי הוּא לָהּ שֶׁחוֹתֶמֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּה. וְרַב חָנִין בַּר אָדָא אָמַר אַף עַל פִּי כֵן (דניאל ז, יט): וְטִפְרַהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ, אֵינָהּ חוֹתֶמֶת אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹנָהּ. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן מִכָּאן אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִשְׁנוֹת אֶת פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתָיו, אִלּוּ לֹא שָׁנָה לָנוּ משֶׁה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מֵהֵיכָן אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין (דברים יד, ז): הַשְּׁסוּעָה, וְאִלּוּ לֹא שָׁנָה לָנוּ דָּנִיֵּאל אֶת הַחֲלוֹם, מֵהֵיכָן אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין וְטִפְרַהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ. | |
|
| 37. Faustus of Riez, Hom., 1.9 Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 11 |
| 38. Papyri, Sm, 1.1-2.2 Tagged with subjects: •hellenism, summary of rabbinic interaction with Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 17 |
