1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 13.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • High priest(s), chief priests, Hillel, the School of
Found in books: Ruzer (2020) 121; Sigal (2007) 126
13.1. אֵת כָּל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ׃
13.1. כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה־בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל־הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה׃''. None | 13.1. All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.''. None |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Balberg (2017) 144; Hidary (2017) 188
12.5. וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כָּל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה וְאֶת־אַהֲרֹן כֵּן עָשׂוּ׃
12.5. שֶׂה תָמִים זָכָר בֶּן־שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן־הָעִזִּים תִּקָּחוּ׃''. None | 12.5. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats;''. None |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 9.2, 28.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Balberg (2017) 143; Hidary (2017) 183, 191, 207, 210
9.2. וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן יָמִים מִסְפָּר עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַל־פִּי יְהוָה יַחֲנוּ וְעַל־פִּי יְהוָה יִסָּעוּ׃
9.2. וְיַעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַפָּסַח בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃
28.2. וּמִנְחָתָם סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים לַפָּר וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים לָאַיִל תַּעֲשׂוּ׃
28.2. צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת־קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃''. None | 9.2. ’Let the children of Israel keep the passover in its appointed season.
28.2. Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season.''. None |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 1.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel, House of • Hillel, Rabbi
Found in books: Goodman (2006) 193, 197; Levine Allison and Crossan (2006) 361
1.8. וַיָּשֶׂם דָּנִיֵּאל עַל־לִבּוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִתְגָּאַל בְּפַתְבַּג הַמֶּלֶךְ וּבְיֵין מִשְׁתָּיו וַיְבַקֵּשׁ מִשַּׂר הַסָּרִיסִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִתְגָּאָל׃''. None | 1.8. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the officers that he might not defile himself.''. None |
|
5. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel, House of
Found in books: Jaffee (2001) 48; Schiffman (1983) 205
|
6. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1, 1.4, 1.12-1.14, 1.16, 2.4-2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • High priest(s), chief priests, Hillel, the School of • Hillel • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian) • Hillel the Elder • Hillel, Rabbi
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 61; Goodman (2006) 41; Hidary (2017) 133, 187; Jaffee (2001) 48, 80, 84; Kosman (2012) 193; Rubenstein (2018) 263; Ruzer (2020) 121; Sigal (2007) 49; Simon-Shushan (2012) 88; Smith and Stuckenbruck (2020) 81, 82, 83; Visnjic (2021) 97
1.1. משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה:
1.1. שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֱהֹב אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה, וּשְׂנָא אֶת הָרַבָּנוּת, וְאַל תִּתְוַדַּע לָרָשׁוּת:
1.4. יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה אוֹמֵר, יְהִי בֵיתְךָ בֵית וַעַד לַחֲכָמִים, וֶהֱוֵי מִתְאַבֵּק בַּעֲפַר רַגְלֵיהֶם, וֶהֱוֵי שׁוֹתֶה בְצָמָא אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם:
1.12. הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה:
1.13. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, נָגֵד שְׁמָא, אָבֵד שְׁמֵהּ. וּדְלֹא מוֹסִיף, יָסֵף. וּדְלֹא יָלֵיף, קְטָלָא חַיָּב. וּדְאִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּתָגָא, חָלֵף:
1.14. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי:
1.16. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וְהִסְתַּלֵּק מִן הַסָּפֵק, וְאַל תַּרְבֶּה לְעַשֵּׂר אֹמָדוֹת:
2.4. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה רְצוֹנוֹ כִרְצוֹנְךָ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה רְצוֹנְךָ כִרְצוֹנוֹ. בַּטֵּל רְצוֹנְךָ מִפְּנֵי רְצוֹנוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל רְצוֹן אֲחֵרִים מִפְּנֵי רְצוֹנֶךָ. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּפְרֹשׁ מִן הַצִּבּוּר, וְאַל תַּאֲמִין בְּעַצְמְךָ עַד יוֹם מוֹתְךָ, וְאַל תָּדִין אֶת חֲבֵרְךָ עַד שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְאַל תֹּאמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמֹעַ, שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְהִשָּׁמַע. וְאַל תֹּאמַר לִכְשֶׁאִפָּנֶה אֶשְׁנֶה, שֶׁמָּא לֹא תִפָּנֶה: 2.5. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין בּוּר יְרֵא חֵטְא, וְלֹא עַם הָאָרֶץ חָסִיד, וְלֹא הַבַּיְשָׁן לָמֵד, וְלֹא הַקַּפְּדָן מְלַמֵּד, וְלֹא כָל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִסְחוֹרָה מַחְכִּים. וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין אֲנָשִׁים, הִשְׁתַּדֵּל לִהְיוֹת אִישׁ: 2.6. אַף הוּא רָאָה גֻלְגֹּלֶת אַחַת שֶׁצָּפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. אָמַר לָהּ, עַל דַּאֲטֵפְתְּ, אַטְפוּךְ. וְסוֹף מְטִיפַיִךְ יְטוּפוּן:' '. None | 1.1. Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in the administration of justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.
1.4. Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yoha a man of Jerusalem received the oral tradition from them i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst.
1.12. Hillel and Shammai received the oral tradition from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah.
1.13. He also used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add to his knowledge causes it to cease; one who does not study the Torah deserves death; on who makes unworthy use of the crown of learning shall pass away.
1.14. He also used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self only, what am I? And if not now, when?
1.16. Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork.
2.4. He used to say: do His will as though it were your will, so that He will do your will as though it were His. Set aside your will in the face of His will, so that he may set aside the will of others for the sake of your will. Hillel said: do not separate yourself from the community, Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death, Do not judge not your fellow man until you have reached his place. Do not say something that cannot be understood trusting that in the end it will be understood. Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure. 2.5. He used to say: A brute is not sin-fearing, nor is an ignorant person pious; nor can a timid person learn, nor can an impatient person teach; nor will someone who engages too much in business become wise. In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man. 2.6. Moreover he saw a skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it: because you drowned others, they drowned you. And in the end, they that drowned you will be drowned.' '. None |
|
7. Mishnah, Berachot, 1.3, 5.5, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Beth Hillel • Hillel • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian) • Hillel, House of • House of Hillel
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 29, 123; Hidary (2017) 143; Poorthuis and Schwartz (2014) 72, 77, 150; Schiffman (1983) 205; Sigal (2007) 49
1.3. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בָּעֶרֶב כָּל אָדָם יַטּוּ וְיִקְרְאוּ, וּבַבֹּקֶר יַעַמְדוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כָּל אָדָם קוֹרֵא כְדַרְכּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם שׁוֹכְבִים, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אֲנִי הָיִיתִי בָא בַדֶּרֶךְ, וְהִטֵּתִי לִקְרוֹת, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְסִכַּנְתִּי בְעַצְמִי מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּדַי הָיִיתָ לָחוּב בְּעַצְמְךָ, שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל:
5.5. הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל וְטָעָה, סִימָן רַע לוֹ. וְאִם שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר הוּא, סִימָן רַע לְשׁוֹלְחָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן דּוֹסָא, כְּשֶׁהָיָה מִתְפַּלֵּל עַל הַחוֹלִים וְאוֹמֵר, זֶה חַי וְזֶה מֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם שְׁגוּרָה תְפִלָּתִי בְּפִי, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻבָּל. וְאִם לָאו, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְטֹרָף:
8.1. אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בַּסְּעֻדָּה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם:''. None | 1.3. Bet Shammai say: in the evening every man should recline and recite the Shema, and in the morning he should stand, as it says, “And when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). Bet Hillel say that every man should recite in his own way, as it says, “And when you walk by the way” (ibid). Why then is it said, “And when you lies down and when you get up?” At the time when people lie down and at the time when people rise up. Rabbi Tarfon said: I was once walking by the way and I reclined to recite the Shema according to the words of Bet Shammai, and I incurred danger from robbers. They said to him: you deserved to come to harm, because you acted against the words of Bet Hillel.
5.5. One who is praying and makes a mistake, it is a bad sign for him. And if he is the messenger of the congregation (the prayer leader) it is a bad sign for those who have sent him, because one’s messenger is equivalent to one’s self. They said about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, “This one will die, this one will live.” They said to him: “How do you know?” He replied: “If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.”
8.1. These are the points of difference between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in regard to a meal.Bet Shammai says: first he blesses over the day and then over the wine. Bet Hillel says: first he blesses over the wine and then over the day.''. None |
|
8. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.2, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Hillel
Found in books: Balberg (2017) 145; Jaffee (2001) 80; Sigal (2007) 49, 74
1.2. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הָרְאִיָּה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וַחֲגִיגָה מָעָה כֶסֶף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הָרְאִיָּה מָעָה כֶסֶף, וַחֲגִיגָה שְׁתֵּי כָסֶף:
2.2. יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין:''. None | 1.2. Bet Shammai say: the pilgrimage-offering (re’eyah) must be worth at least two pieces of silver and the hagigah one piece (ma’ah) of silver. But Bet Hillel say: the pilgrimage-offering must be worth at least one ma'ah of silver and the hagigah two pieces of silver." '
2.2. Yose ben Yoezer says that on a festival the laying of the hands on the head of a sacrifice may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former of each pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.'". None |
|
9. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel and Shammai, and extra-scriptural tradition
Found in books: Hayes (2022) 70; Jaffee (2001) 80
2.6. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁזָּרַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאָלוּ. אָמַר נַחוּם הַלַּבְלָר, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבִּי מְיָאשָׁא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מֵאַבָּא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגוֹת, שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, אִם עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת:''. None | 2.6. It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field with two different kinds and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked about the law. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs of sage, who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.''. None |
|
10. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian) • Hillel, Hillel, school of • Hillel, House of
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 61; Goodman (2006) 197; Jaffee (2001) 81; Simon-Shushan (2012) 53
1.4. וְאֵלּוּ מִן הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַעֲלִיַּת חֲנַנְיָה בֶן חִזְקִיָּה בֶן גֻּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁעָלוּ לְבַקְּרוֹ. נִמְנוּ וְרַבּוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עַל בֵּית הִלֵּל, וּשְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים גָּזְרוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם:''. None | 1.4. And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Haiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures.''. None |
|
11. Mishnah, Sukkah, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Hillel • Hillel, sukkah visit
Found in books: Sigal (2007) 74; Simon-Shushan (2012) 4, 146
2.7. מִי שֶׁהָיָה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא כָךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהָלְכוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וְזִקְנֵי בֵית הִלֵּל לְבַקֵּר אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן הַחוֹרָנִי, וּמְצָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לוֹ דָבָר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה, אַף הֵם אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן הָיִיתָ נוֹהֵג, לֹא קִיַּמְתָּ מִצְוַת סֻכָּה מִיָּמֶיךָ:''. None | 2.7. One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoha ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? Bet Shammai said to them: From there you bring proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.''. None |
|
12. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Hillel, House of
Found in books: Goodman (2006) 39; Sigal (2007) 49
4.6. אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ עַל הַפְּרוּשִׁים אֶלָּא זוֹ בִלְבָד. הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹמְרִים, עַצְמוֹת חֲמוֹר טְהוֹרִים וְעַצְמוֹת יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טְמֵאִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ תַּרְוָדוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס, שֶׁאֵינָן חֲבִיבִין, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדָיִם:''. None | 4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.''. None |
|
13. New Testament, Mark, 7.11-7.13 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel, Rabbi • hermeneutical method, Hillel, School of
Found in books: Jaffee (2001) 48; Jassen (2014) 133; Levine Allison and Crossan (2006) 17, 294
7.11. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12. οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13. ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.' '. None | 7.11. But you say, \'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"\ '7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this."' '. None |
|
14. New Testament, Matthew, 5.17-5.20, 5.31-5.32, 19.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • High priest(s), chief priests, Hillel, the School of • hermeneutical method, Hillel, School of
Found in books: Jassen (2014) 133; Ruzer (2020) 110, 121; Sigal (2007) 56, 113, 115, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 140, 141
5.17. Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι· 5.18. ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κερέα οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. 5.19. ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· ὃς δʼ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5.20. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.
5.31. Ἐρρέθη δέ Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 5.32. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται.
19.3. Καὶ προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ Φαρισαῖοι πειράζοντες αὐτὸν καὶ λέγοντες Εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀπολῦσαι τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν;' '. None | 5.17. "Don\'t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn\'t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5.18. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 5.19. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 5.20. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
5.31. "It was also said, \'Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,\ '5.32. but I tell you that whoever who puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.
19.3. Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?"' '. None |
|
15. Tosefta, Eduyot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian) • Shammai, House of, disputes with Hillel ceased at Yavneh
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 66; Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 24; Jaffee (2001) 81
1.1. חמשה דברים היה ר\\"ע דורש כמין אגדה בחמשה דברים אדם זוכה לבן וחכמים אומרים עד הפרק זכה לו מיכן ואילך הוא זוכה לעצמו אמר ר\\"ע היכן מצינו שהיו חיגרין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפשטו ושהיו חרשין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפקחו ושהיו סומין עד הפרק כשהגיע הפרק נתפתחו והיאך זוכה לו עד אותה השעה אמרו לו כי מצינו שהיו פשוטים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחגרו ושהיו פקחין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחרשו ושהיו פתוחים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נסתמו הא אין זוכה לו אלא עד אותה השעה בלבד.
1.1. כשנכנסו חכמים לכרם ביבנה אמרו עתידה שעה שיהא אדם מבקש דבר מדברי תורה ואינו מוצא מדברי סופרים ואינו מוצא שנאמר (עמוס ח׳:י״ב) <לכן> הנה ימים באים נאם ה\' וגו\' ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה\' ולא ימצאו דבר ה\' זו נבואה דבר ה\' זה הקץ דבר ה\' שלא יהא דבר מד\\"ת דומה לחברו אמרו נתחיל מהלל ומשמאי שמאי אומר מקב חלה הלל אומר מקבים וחכ\\"א לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה שנאמר (במדבר ט״ו:כ׳) ראשית עריסותיכם כדי עיסתכם וכמה עיסתכם כדי עיסת מדבר וכמה עיסת מדבר עומר שנאמר (שמות ט״ז:ל״ו) והעומר עשירית האיפה הוא שיערו חכמים שבעה רבעים ועוד מדברית שהן חמשה רבעי צפורית שהן קב ומחצה ירושלמית.''. None | 1.1. When the Sages entered the Vineyard in Yavneh, they said, \\"In the future, there will come an hour when a person seeks a teaching from the teachings of the Torah and he will not find it, or in the teachings of the Scribes, and he will not find it.\\" As it says, \\"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, etc. they will seek out the word of God and they will not find it (Amos 8).\\" \'The word of God\' refers to prophecy. \'The word of God\' refers to the End (of Days). \'The word of God\', so that there shall not be one word of Torah similar to its fellow. They said, \\"Let us begin from Hillel and Shammai!\\"...''. None |
|
16. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Katzoff(2005) 156; Monnickendam (2020) 138
4.9. דרש הלל הזקן לשון הדיוט כשהיו בני אלכסנדריא מקדשין נשים אחד בא וחוטפה מן השוק ובא מעשה לפני חכמים בקשו לעשות בניהן ממזרין אמר להם הלל הזקן הוציאו לי כתובת אמותיכן הוציאו לו וכתוב בה משתכנסי לביתי תיהוי לי לאנתו כדת משה וישראל.''. None | 4.9. Hillel the Elder would explain lay-language of contracts as if it were the biblical text. When the people of Alexandria would betroth wives, another would come and seize her from the street. The matter came to the Sages. They sought to make their children bastards since the betrothal was valid, so when they are married to others in the meantime their children will be illegitimate. Hillel the Elder said to them: \\"Bring to me the ketubah of your mothers.\\" They brought them for him, and it was written in it \\"When you enter my house, you will be my wife according to the law of Moshe and Yisrael\\" in other words, based on a fine reading of the ketubah text, the betrothal only takes full effect when she enters his house, which means that the other husband was not illegitimate and her children aren\'t bastards.''. None |
|
17. Tosefta, Sukkah, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel, Hillel, House of • Hillel, sukkah visit
Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012) 148; Visnjic (2021) 102
2.4. אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק כשהייתי למד אצל יוחנן בן החרבית ראיתיו שהוא אוכל פת חרבה שהיו שני בצורת באתי ואמרתי לאבא ואמר לי הילך זיתים הולכתי לו זיתים ונטלן והסתכל בהן וראה שהן לחין אמר איני אוכל זיתים לחין באתי ואמרתי לאבא אמר לי לך אמור לו מנוקבת היתה כדברי בית הלל אלא שסתמוה שמרים להודיעך שהיה אוכל חולין בטהרה שאע\\"פ שהוא מתלמידי בית שמאי לא היה נוהג אלא כדברי ב\\"ה לעולם הלכה כדברי ב\\"ה הרוצה להחמיר על עצמו לנהוג כדברי ב\\"ש וכדברי ב\\"ה עליו נאמר (קוהלת ב) הכסיל בחושך הולך התופס קולי ב\\"ה וקולי ב\\"ש הרי זה רשע אלא כדברי ב\\"ש בקוליהון ובחומריהון או כדברי ב\\"ה בקוליהון ובחומריהון.''. None | 2.4. Said Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Zadok: When I was studying Torah with Rabbi Yoha the Horohite, I observed him eating his bread dry, for those were years of scarcity. I went and told my father, who said to me: Take him some olives. So I took some to him. He took them and looked at them; but when he saw that they were moist he said to me, I do not eat moist olives. So I went and told my father, who said to me, go and tell him that the olive (bottle) is perforated according to the laws of the school of Hillel, but the lees have stopped it up, to show that one may eat profane things from no impure motive. So though he was a disciple of the school of Shammai he was guided by the opinions of the school of Hillel.''. None |
|
18. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Shammai, House of, disputes with Hillel ceased at Yavneh
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 246; Balberg (2017) 56; Cohen (2010) 65; Jaffee (2001) 79, 81
|
19. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel and Shammai
Found in books: Balberg (2017) 142, 143; Lavee (2017) 123
|
20. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian) • Hillel the Elder • Shammai, House of, disputes with Hillel ceased at Yavneh
Found in books: Balberg (2017) 142, 143; Cohen (2010) 65; Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 24, 143; Hidary (2017) 175, 184, 186; Jaffee (2001) 79, 81
|
21. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Beth Hillel • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian)
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 60; Hidary (2017) 80
|
22. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian) • Shammai, House of, disputes with Hillel ceased at Yavneh
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 66; Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 146
|
23. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 98; Taylor (2012) 192
|
24. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel, House of • School of Hillel
Found in books: Goodman (2006) 197; Kosman (2012) 52
|
25. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel and Shammai
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 98; Lavee (2017) 123
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Katzoff(2005) 156; Monnickendam (2020) 138
104a. איבעי לך לאתויי בדוולא,אמר רב פפא הני תרתי מתניתא קמייתא משכחת לה בין בחכרנותא בין בקבלנותא מכאן ואילך דאיתא בקבלנותא ליתא בחכרנותא ודאיתא בחכרנותא ליתא בקבלנותא:,אם אמר לו חכור לי שדה בית השלחין זה וכו\': ואמאי לימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך מי לא תניא האומר לחבירו בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו אלא לתך הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי בית כור,כרמא אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו גפנים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי כרמא פרדס אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו רמונים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי פרדסא אלמא אמר ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך הכא נמי נימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך,אמר שמואל לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר הא דאמר ליה חוכר למחכיר אמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר שמא בעלמא א"ל א"ל חוכר למחכיר קפידא,רבינא אמר אידי ואידי דא"ל מחכיר לחוכר מדקאמר זה מכלל דקאי בגוה עסקינן בית השלחין למה ליה למימר דקאמר ליה בית השלחין כדקיימא השתא:,104a. You should have brought water in a bucket.,Rav Pappa said: With regard to these first two mishnayot, you find that they are correct, concerning both tecy, where the tet farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, as well as the case of a contractor, who gives a set proportion, e.g., one-quarter or one-third, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. From this point forward, i.e., from the third mishna of the chapter until its end, that which is relevant to the case of a contractor is not applicable to tecy, and that which is relevant to tecy is not applicable to the case of a contractor.,§ The mishna teaches: If the cultivator said to the landowner explicitly: Lease me this irrigated field, or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tecy. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let the owner say to him: I told you only the name, i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor field of dirt, although the field contains only a half-kor, once the buyer purchases the dirt it has come to him, i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, as the seller sold him the dirt only by the name, and he did not mean that its size was precisely a beit kor. The baraita adds: And this is the halakha only where that field is called by people a beit kor.,The baraita continues: Similarly, if he said: I am selling you a vineyard, then although it does not have vines, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as the seller sold him the field only by the name; and this is the halakha only where it is called a vineyard. Likewise, if he said: I am selling you an orchard, then even though it does not have pomegranates, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as he sold him only by the name; and again this is the case only where it is called an orchard. Apparently, the seller can say to him: I told you only the name. So too here, let the seller say to him: I told you only the name.,Shmuel said: It is not difficult; this baraita is comparable to a case where the owner of the land said to the tet farmer what he was leasing him, while in that mishna the tet farmer said to the owner of the land what he was leasing from him. The reason for the difference is that if the owner of the land said the terms to the tet farmer, then he can claim that he told him only the name, and the tet farmer cannot object. But if the tet farmer said the terms to the owner of the land, then he was clearly particular to receive a field that would be irrigated when he cultivated it.,Ravina said: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to a case where the owner of the land told the tet farmer what he was leasing him, as implied by the mishna, but since the owner said: This irrigated field, by inference we are dealing with one who is standing inside it. Why, then, does the owner need to state the fact that it is an irrigated field? It is obvious simply from looking at it that it is irrigated. Rather, the owner must have said to him by way of emphasis that he is providing an irrigated field as it currently stands.,one who receives a field from another as a contractor and then lets it lie fallow and does not work the land at all, the court appraises it by evaluating how much it was able to produce if cultivated, and he gives his share of this amount to the owner. The reason is that this is what a cultivator writes to the owner in a standard contract: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.,Rabbi Meir would expound common language used in legal documents written by ordinary Jews to deduce halakhic conclusions. Although these formulations were not prescribed by the Sages, one can nevertheless infer halakhot from them if they are used in legal documents. As it is taught in a baraita that presents a similar case to the mishna: Rabbi Meir says he is liable to pay, as the document states: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.,Likewise, Rabbi Yehuda would also expound common language, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where a woman who has given birth is commanded to bring the offering of a childbearing woman and her husband is sufficiently wealthy, a person brings the offering of the rich on behalf of his wife. This is so even if his wife does not possess money of her own and perhaps should have been considered poor. Similarly, he may bring every offering that she is obligated to bring, such as a sin offering or guilt offering. He pays for all these offerings because this is what he writes to her in her marriage contract: I accept upon myself to repay you for all obligations that you have, even those from beforehand. Consequently, he must fund all of her offerings.,Similarly, Hillel the Elder would expound common language as well, as it is taught in a baraita: The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others would come and snatch the women from their husbands. The Sages consequently sought to establish the children of these women as mamzerim. This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are mamzerim, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband.,Hillel the Elder said to the children who came before him for a ruling on their status: Bring me your mother’s marriage contract for examination. They brought him their mother’s marriage contract, and he found that the following formulation was written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife. This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, and therefore these women did not cause their children to be mamzerim by engaging in intercourse with the other man.,The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa would also expound common language. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: One who lends money to another may not take more collateral from him than the value of his debt, as this is what the debtor writes to the creditor if the creditor temporarily returns a deposit for the debtor’s use: The payment to which you have a right, which it is upon me to pay, corresponds to the entire value of this item, indicating that the item cannot be greater in value than the debt itself.,The Gemara infers: The reason the creditor acquires the collateral is that he wrote this to him. But if the creditor did not write this to the debtor, would the creditor not acquire the collateral? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: If a creditor took collateral from the debtor and returned the collateral to him and then the debtor died, the creditor removes the collateral from the debtor’s children. The reason for this is that although movable property of orphans is not acquired by their father’s creditor, the collateral is considered to belong to the creditor, and he can collect the debt from it.''. None | |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Hidary (2017) 185; Sigal (2007) 91
60a. מכלל דכי קנה וחזר וקנה דברי הכל אין צריך לברך,וא"ד אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שלא קנה וחזר וקנה אבל קנה וחזר וקנה אין צריך לברך ור\' יוחנן אמר אפילו קנה וחזר וקנה צריך לברך מכלל דכי יש לו וקנה דברי הכל צריך לברך,מיתיבי בנה בית חדש ואין לו כיוצא בו קנה כלים חדשים ואין לו כיוצא בהם צריך לברך יש לו כיוצא בהם אין צריך לברך דברי ר"מ ר\' יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך צריך לברך,בשלמא ללישנא קמא רב הונא כר"מ ורבי יוחנן כרבי יהודה אלא ללישנא בתרא בשלמא רב הונא כרבי יהודה אלא רבי יוחנן דאמר כמאן לא כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה,אמר לך רבי יוחנן הוא הדין דלרבי יהודה קנה וחזר וקנה נמי צריך לברך והא דקא מיפלגי ביש לו וקנה להודיעך כחו דר"מ דאפי\' קנה ויש לו אין צריך לברך וכל שכן קנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך,וליפלגו בקנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך להודיעך כחו דר\' יהודה כח דהתירא עדיף ליה:,מברך על הרעה כו\':,היכי דמי כגון דשקל בדקא בארעיה אף על גב דטבא היא לדידיה דמסקא ארעא שירטון ושבחא השתא מיהא רעה היא:,ועל הטובה כו\':,היכי דמי כגון דאשכח מציאה אף על גב דרעה היא לדידיה דאי שמע בה מלכא שקיל לה מיניה השתא מיהא טובה היא:,היתה אשתו מעוברת ואמר יהי רצון שתלד כו\' הרי זו תפלת שוא:,ולא מהני רחמי מתיב רב יוסף (בראשית ל, כא) ואחר ילדה בת ותקרא את שמה דינה מאי ואחר אמר רב לאחר שדנה לאה דין בעצמה ואמרה י"ב שבטים עתידין לצאת מיעקב ששה יצאו ממני וארבעה מן השפחות הרי עשרה אם זה זכר לא תהא אחותי רחל כאחת השפחות מיד נהפכה לבת שנא\' ותקרא את שמה דינה אין מזכירין מעשה נסים,ואיבעית אימא מעשה דלאה בתוך ארבעים יום הוה כדתניא שלשה ימים הראשונים יבקש אדם רחמים שלא יסריח משלשה ועד ארבעים יבקש רחמים שיהא זכר מארבעים יום ועד שלשה חדשים יבקש רחמים שלא יהא סנדל משלשה חדשים ועד ששה יבקש רחמים שלא יהא נפל מששה ועד תשעה יבקש רחמים שיצא בשלום,ומי מהני רחמי והא"ר יצחק בריה דרב אמי איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר שנאמר (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהזריעו שניהם בבת אחת:,היה בא בדרך:,ת"ר מעשה בהלל הזקן שהיה בא בדרך ושמע קול צוחה בעיר אמר מובטח אני שאין זה בתוך ביתי ועליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים קיב, ז) משמועה רעה לא יירא נכון לבו בטוח בה\' אמר רבא כל היכי דדרשת להאי קרא מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש משמועה רעה לא יירא מה טעם נכון לבו בטוח בה\' מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש נכון לבו בטוח בה\' משמועה רעה לא יירא,ההוא תלמידא דהוה קא אזיל בתריה דרבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי בשוקא דציון חזייה דקא מפחיד אמר ליה חטאה את דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, יד) פחדו בציון חטאים אמר ליה והכתיב (משלי כח, יד) אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד אמר ליה ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב,יהודה בר נתן הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דרב המנונא אתנח אמר ליה יסורים בעי ההוא גברא לאתויי אנפשיה דכתיב (איוב ג, כה) כי פחד פחדתי ויאתיני ואשר יגורתי יבא לי והא כתיב אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב:,הנכנס לכרך:,תנו רבנן בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה\' אלהי שתכניסני לכרך זה לשלום נכנס אומר מודה אני לפניך ה\' אלהי שהכנסתני לכרך זה לשלום בקש לצאת אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה\' אלהי ואלהי אבותי שתוציאני מכרך זה לשלום יצא אומר מודה אני לפניך ה\' אלהי שהוצאתני מכרך זה לשלום וכשם שהוצאתני לשלום כך תוליכני לשלום ותסמכני לשלום ותצעידני לשלום ותצילני מכף כל אויב ואורב בדרך,אמר רב מתנא ל"ש אלא בכרך שאין דנין והורגין בו אבל בכרך שדנין והורגין בו לית לן בה,א"ד אמר רב מתנא אפילו בכרך שדנין והורגין בו זימנין דלא מתרמי ליה אינש דיליף ליה זכותא,ת"ר הנכנס לבית המרחץ אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי\' אלהי שתצילני מזה ומכיוצא בו ואל יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון ואם יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון תהא מיתתי כפרה לכל עונותי,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דלא לפתח פומיה לשטן דאמר ר"ל וכן תנא משמיה דר\' יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן,אמר רב יוסף מאי קראה דכתיב (ישעיהו א, ט) כמעט כסדום היינו לעמורה דמינו מאי אהדר להו נביא שמעו דבר יי\' קציני סדום וגו\',כי נפיק מאי אומר א"ר אחא מודה אני לפניך יי\' אלהי שהצלתני מן האור,ר\' אבהו על לבי בני אפחית בי בני מתותיה אתרחיש ליה ניסא קם על עמודא שזיב מאה וחד גברי בחד אבריה אמר היינו דר\' אחא,דאמר רב אחא הנכנס להקיז דם אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי\' אלהי שיהא עסק זה לי לרפואה ותרפאני כי אל רופא נאמן אתה ורפואתך אמת לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם לרפאות אלא שנהגו,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל (שמות כא, יט) ורפא ירפא מכאן שניתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות,כי קאי מאי אומר אמר רב אחא ברוך רופא חנם''. None | 60a. The Gemara deduces: This proves by inference that if he purchases a new object and then purchases a similar object, everyone agrees that he is not required to recite a blessing, as he has already recited a blessing over the purchase of that type of item.,Some say a different version of this dispute: Rav Huna said: They only taught that one recites the blessing: Who has given us life, on a new vessel if he did not purchase that item in the past and purchased the item now, for the first time. However, if he purchased that item in the past and purchased the item again, he need not recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even if one purchased that item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. This proves by inference that if one already has a vessel and then purchased similar vessels, everyone agrees that he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: One who built a new house and does not already own a similar house, or purchased new vessels and does not already own similar vessels, must recite a blessing. However, if he already owns a similar one, he need not recite a blessing, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, says: In either case, he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the first version of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥa, one could say that Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and that Rabbi Yoḥa holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. However, according to the latter version of the dispute, granted, Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yoḥa state his opinion? His statement is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa could have said to you: The same is true according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; in a case where one has purchased an item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. The fact that they only disagreed with regard to a case where he already owned similar vessels and he purchased new ones does not indicate that this is their only disagreement. The dispute was presented in this way to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir’s opinion; even in a case where one purchased an item while owning a similar item, he need not recite a blessing; all the more so in a case where he purchased an item and then purchased a similar item again, he need not recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: And if that is the reason for presenting the dispute in this manner, let them disagree with regard to a case where one purchased an item in the past and then purchased a similar item again, where according to Rabbi Meir one need not recite a blessing, in order to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; as Rabbi Yehuda requires a blessing in that case. The Gemara responds: The Gemara preferred the version before us in order to demonstrate the extent to which Rabbi Meir was lenient in not requiring a blessing because the strength of leniency is preferable.,We learned in the mishna: One recites a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he does for the good. This is to say that one recites the blessing appropriate for the present situation even if it is bad, despite the fact that it may develop into a positive situation in the future.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where a dam was breached and water flowed onto one’s land, despite the fact that this will ultimately be beneficial for him, for his land will be covered with sediment from the flowing water which will enhance the quality of his soil, it is nonetheless bad at present.,One must recite a blessing for the good that befalls him just as for the bad.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where one found a lost object, despite the fact that it is ultimately bad for him because if the king heard about it, he would certainly take it from him. At that time, the law deemed all found objects the property of the king’s treasury and one who did not report such an object would be punished. Nevertheless, it is favorable at present.,We learned in the mishna: One whose wife was pregt and he said: May it be God’s will that my wife will give birth to a male child, it is a vain prayer.,Is a prayer in that case ineffective? Rav Yosef raises an objection based on a baraita: It is stated: “And afterwards she bore a daughter, and called her name Dina” (Genesis 30:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by the addition of the word: Afterwards? What does the verse seek to convey by emphasizing that after the birth of Zebulun she gave birth to Dina? Rav said: After Leah passed judgment on herself and said: Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Jacob, six came from me and four from the maidservants, that is ten, and if this fetus is male, my sister Rachel will not even be the equivalent of one the maidservants; immediately the fetus was transformed into a daughter, as it is stated: And she called her name Dina; meaning she named her after her judgment din. The Gemara rejects this: One does not mention miraculous acts to teach general halakha.,The Gemara introduces an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that the story of Leah and her prayer with regard to the fetus was within forty days of conception. As it was taught in a baraita: During the first three days after intercourse, one should pray that the seed not putrefy, that it will fertilize the egg and develop into a fetus. From the third day until the fortieth, one should pray that it will be male. From the fortieth day until three months, one should pray that it will not be deformed, in the shape of a flat fish, as when the fetus does not develop it assumes a shape somewhat similar to a flat sandal fish. From the third month until the sixth, one should pray that it will not be stillborn. And from the sixth month until the ninth, one should pray that it will be emerge safely. Therefore, during the first forty days from conception, one may still pray to affect the gender of the fetus.,The Gemara asks: Is prayer effective for that purpose? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Ami, say: The tradition teaches that the gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the man emits seed first, his wife gives birth to a female; if the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, as it is stated: “When a woman emitted seed and bore a male” (Leviticus 12:2). The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where they both emit seed simultaneously. In that case, the gender is undetermined and prayer may be effectual.,We learned in the mishna: One who was walking along the way and heard a scream from the city, and says: May it be God’s will that this scream will not be from my house, it is a vain prayer.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who was coming on the road when he heard a scream in the city. He said: I am certain that the scream is not coming from my house. And of him, the verse says: “He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord” (Psalms 112:7). Rava said: Any way that you interpret this verse, its meaning is clear. It can be interpreted from beginning to end or it can be interpreted from end to beginning. The Gemara explains: It can be interpreted from beginning to end: Why is it that: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings? Because his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord. The Gemara continues: And it can be interpreted from end to beginning: One whose heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord is a person who shall not be afraid of evil tidings.,The Gemara relates: This student was once walking after Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the marketplace of Zion. Rabbi Yishmael saw that the student was afraid. He said to him: You are a sinner, as it is written: “The transgressors in Zion are afraid, trembling has seized the ungodly” (Isaiah 33:14). The student replied: And is it not written: “Happy is the man that fears always” (Proverbs 28:14)? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah, that one should be afraid lest he forget them. For everything else, one must trust in God.,In a similar vein, the Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Natan was coming and going after Rav Hamnuna. Yehuda bar Natan sighed; Rav Hamnuna said to him: Do you wish to bring suffering upon yourself; as it is stated: “For that which I did fear is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of has overtaken me” (Job 3:25)? He responded: Is it not said: “Happy is the man who fears always”? Rav Hamnuna answered: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah.,We learned in the mishna: One who enters a large city recites two prayers; Ben Azzai says he recites four prayers.,The Sages taught the details of Ben Azzai’s teaching in a baraita: rUpon his entrance to the city what does he recite? rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that You bring me into this city to peace. rAfter he entered the city, he recites: I thank You, O Lord my God, that You brought me into this city to peace. rWhen he seeks to leave the city, he recites: May it be Your will, O Lord my God and God of my ancestors, that You take me out of this city to peace. rAfter he left, he recites: I give thanks before You, O Lord my God, that You took me out of this city to peace; rand just as You took me out to peace, rso too lead me to peace, support me to peace, direct my steps to peace, rand rescue me from the hand of any enemy or those lying in ambush along the way.,Rav Mattana said: This was taught only with regard to a city where criminals are not tried and executed, as in a place like that he may be killed without trial. However, in a city where criminals are tried and executed, these prayers do not apply, as if one is not guilty he will not be harmed.,Some say that Rav Mattana said the opposite: Even in a city where criminals are tried and executed one must pray for mercy, as sometimes he may not encounter a person who will plead in his favor.,The Sages taught: One who enters a Roman bathhouse, where a fire burns beneath the pool of water used for bathing, and where there is the risk of collapse, says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that you save me from this and similar matters, rand do not let ruin or iniquity befall me, rand if ruin or iniquity does befall me, let my death be atonement for all of my transgressions.,Abaye said: One should not say: If ruin befalls me, so as not to open his mouth to Satan and provoke him. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said and as it was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One should never open his mouth to Satan by raising, at his own initiative, the possibility of mishap or death.,Rav Yosef said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “We should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9), after which what did the prophet reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10). After the analogy to Sodom was raised, it was realized.,Returning to the subject of the Roman bathhouse, the Gemara asks: When he emerges from the bathhouse, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: I give thanks to You, Lord, that You saved me from the fire.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu entered a bathhouse when the bathhouse floor collapsed beneath him and a miracle transpired on his behalf. He stood on a pillar and saved one hundred and one men with one arm. He held one or two people in his arm, with others holding on them and so on, so that all were saved. He said: This is confirmation of the statement of Rav Aḥa, who said that one should offer thanks upon leaving the bathhouse safely.,As Rav Aḥa said: One who enters to let blood says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, rthat this enterprise be for healing and that You should heal me. rAs You are a faithful God of healing and Your healing is truth. rBecause it is not the way of people to heal, but they have become accustomed. rRav Aḥa is saying that people should not practice medicine as they lack the ability to heal; rather, healing should be left to God.,Abaye responded and said: One should not say this, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that from the verse, “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exodus 21:19), from here we derive that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. The practice of medicine is in accordance with the will of God.,As for bloodletting, the Gemara asks: When one stands after having let blood, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: He recites in gratitude: Blessed…Who heals without payment.''. None |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Hillel • Hillel (the Elder, aka Hillel the, Babylonian)
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 24; Poorthuis and Schwartz (2014) 72; Sigal (2007) 51
56b. איברא מלכא את דאי לאו מלכא את לא מימסרא ירושלים בידך דכתיב (ישעיהו י, לד) והלבנון באדיר יפול ואין אדיר אלא מלך דכתיב (ירמיהו ל, כא) והיה אדירו ממנו וגו\' ואין לבנון אלא ביהמ"ק שנאמר (דברים ג, כה) ההר הטוב הזה והלבנון ודקאמרת אי מלכא אנא אמאי לא קאתית לגבאי עד האידנא בריוני דאית בן לא שבקינן,אמר ליה אילו חבית של דבש ודרקון כרוך עליה לא היו שוברין את החבית בשביל דרקון אישתיק קרי עליה רב יוסף ואיתימא רבי עקיבא (ישעיהו מד, כה) משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל איבעי ליה למימר ליה שקלינן צבתא ושקלינן ליה לדרקון וקטלינן ליה וחביתא שבקינן לה,אדהכי אתי פריסתקא עליה מרומי אמר ליה קום דמית ליה קיסר ואמרי הנהו חשיבי דרומי לאותיבך ברישא הוה סיים חד מסאני בעא למסיימא לאחרינא לא עייל בעא למשלפא לאידך לא נפק אמר מאי האי,אמר ליה לא תצטער שמועה טובה אתיא לך דכתיב (משלי טו, ל) שמועה טובה תדשן עצם אלא מאי תקנתיה ליתי איניש דלא מיתבא דעתך מיניה ולחליף קמך דכתיב (משלי יז, כב) ורוח נכאה תיבש גרם עבד הכי עייל אמר ליה ומאחר דחכמיתו כולי האי עד האידנא אמאי לא אתיתו לגבאי אמר ליה ולא אמרי לך אמר ליה אנא נמי אמרי לך,אמר ליה מיזל אזילנא ואינש אחרינא משדרנא אלא בעי מינאי מידי דאתן לך אמר ליה תן לי יבנה וחכמיה ושושילתא דרבן גמליאל ואסוותא דמסיין ליה לרבי צדוק קרי עליה רב יוסף ואיתימא רבי עקיבא (ישעיהו מד, כה) משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל איבעי למימר ליה לשבקינהו הדא זימנא,והוא סבר דלמא כולי האי לא עביד והצלה פורתא נמי לא הוי,אסוותא דמסיין ליה לרבי צדוק מאי היא יומא קמא אשקיוה מיא דפארי למחר מיא דסיפוקא למחר מיא דקימחא עד דרווח מיעיה פורתא פורתא,אזל שדריה לטיטוס ואמר (דברים לב, לז) אי אלהימו צור חסיו בו זה טיטוס הרשע שחירף וגידף כלפי מעלה,מה עשה תפש זונה בידו ונכנס לבית קדשי הקדשים והציע ספר תורה ועבר עליה עבירה ונטל סייף וגידר את הפרוכת ונעשה נס והיה דם מבצבץ ויוצא וכסבור הרג את עצמו שנאמר (תהלים עד, ד) שאגו צורריך בקרב מועדיך שמו אותותם אותות,אבא חנן אומר (תהלים פט, ט) מי כמוך חסין יה מי כמוך חסין וקשה שאתה שומע ניאוצו וגידופו של אותו רשע ושותק דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא (שמות טו, יא) מי כמוכה באלים ה\' מי כמוכה באלמים,מה עשה נטל את הפרוכת ועשאו כמין גרגותני והביא כל כלים שבמקדש והניחן בהן והושיבן בספינה לילך להשתבח בעירו שנאמר (קהלת ח, י) ובכן ראיתי רשעים קבורים ובאו וממקום קדוש יהלכו וישתכחו בעיר אשר כן עשו אל תיקרי קבורים אלא קבוצים אל תיקרי וישתכחו אלא וישתבחו,איכא דאמרי קבורים ממש דאפילו מילי דמטמרן איגלייא להון,עמד עליו נחשול שבים לטובעו אמר כמדומה אני שאלהיהם של אלו אין גבורתו אלא במים בא פרעה טבעו במים בא סיסרא טבעו במים אף הוא עומד עלי לטובעני במים אם גבור הוא יעלה ליבשה ויעשה עמי מלחמה יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו רשע בן רשע בן בנו של עשו הרשע בריה קלה יש לי בעולמי ויתוש שמה,אמאי קרי לה בריה קלה דמעלנא אית לה ומפקנא לית לה,עלה ליבשה ותעשה עמה מלחמה עלה ליבשה בא יתוש ונכנס בחוטמו ונקר במוחו שבע שנים יומא חד הוה קא חליף אבבא דבי נפחא שמע קל ארזפתא אישתיק אמר איכא תקנתא כל יומא מייתו נפחא ומחו קמיה לנכרי יהיב ליה ארבע זוזי לישראל אמר ליה מיסתייך דקא חזית בסנאך עד תלתין יומין עבד הכי מכאן ואילך כיון דדש דש,תניא אמר רבי פנחס בן ערובא אני הייתי בין גדולי רומי וכשמת פצעו את מוחו ומצאו בו כצפור דרור משקל שני סלעים במתניתא תנא כגוזל בן שנה משקל שני ליטרין,אמר אביי נקטינן פיו של נחושת וצפורניו של ברזל כי הוה קא מיית אמר להו ליקליוה לההוא גברא ולבדרי לקיטמיה אשב ימי דלא לשכחיה אלהא דיהודאי ולוקמיה בדינא,אונקלוס בר קלוניקוס בר אחתיה דטיטוס הוה בעי לאיגיורי אזל אסקיה לטיטוס בנגידא אמר ליה מאן חשיב בההוא עלמא אמר ליה ישראל מהו לאידבוקי בהו אמר ליה מילייהו נפישין ולא מצית לקיומינהו זיל איגרי בהו בההוא עלמא והוית רישא דכתיב (איכה א, ה) היו צריה לראש וגו\' כל המיצר לישראל נעשה ראש אמר ליה דיניה דההוא גברא במאי א"ל''. None | 56b. in truth, you are a king, if not now, then in the future. As if you are not a king, Jerusalem will not be handed over into your hand, as it is written: “And the Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one” (Isaiah 10:34). And “mighty one” means only a king, as it is written: “And their mighty one shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them” (Jeremiah 30:21), indicating that “mighty one” parallels “ruler.” And “Lebanon” means only the Temple, as it is stated: “That good mountain and the Lebanon” (Deuteronomy 3:25). And as for what you said with your second comment: If I am a king why didn’t you come to me until now, there are zealots among us who did not allow us to do this.,Understanding that Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai was prepared to ask him not to destroy the Temple, Vespasian said to him: If there is a barrel of honey and a snake derakon is wrapped around it, wouldn’t they break the barrel in order to kill the snake? In similar fashion, I am forced to destroy the city of Jerusalem in order to kill the zealots barricaded within it. Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai was silent and did not answer. In light of this, Rav Yosef later read the following verse about him, and some say that it was Rabbi Akiva who applied the verse to Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: “I am the Lord…Who turns wise men backward and makes their knowledge foolish” (Isaiah 44:25). As Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai should have said the following to Vespasian in response: In such a case, we take tongs, remove the snake, and kill it, and in this way we leave the barrel intact. So too, you should kill the rebels and leave the city as it is.,In the meantime, as they were talking, a messenger feristaka arrived from Rome, and said to him: Rise, for the emperor has died, and the noblemen of Rome plan to appoint you as their leader and make you the next emperor. At that time Vespasian was wearing only one shoe, and when he tried to put on the other one, it would not go on his foot. He then tried to remove the other shoe that he was already wearing, but it would not come off. He said: What is this?,Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: Be not distressed or troubled, for good tidings have reached you, as it is written: “Good tidings make the bone fat” (Proverbs 15:30), and your feet have grown fatter out of joy and satisfaction. Vespasian said to him: But what is the remedy? What must I do in order to put on my shoe? Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: Have someone with whom you are displeased come and pass before you, as it is written: “A broken spirit dries the bones” (Proverbs 17:22). He did this, and his shoe went on his foot. Vespasian said to him: Since you are so wise, why didn’t you come to see me until now? Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: But didn’t I already tell you? Vespasian said to him: I also told you what I had to say.,Vespasian then said to Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: I will be going to Rome to accept my new position, and I will send someone else in my place to continue besieging the city and waging war against it. But before I leave, ask something of me that I can give you. Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: Give me Yavne and its Sages and do not destroy it, and spare the dynasty of Rabban Gamliel and do not kill them as if they were rebels, and lastly give me doctors to heal Rabbi Tzadok. Rav Yosef read the following verse about him, and some say that it was Rabbi Akiva who applied the verse to Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: “I am the Lord…Who turns wise men backward and makes their knowledge foolish” (Isaiah 44:25), as he should have said to him to leave the Jews alone this time.,And why didn’t Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai make this request? He maintained that Vespasian might not do that much for him, and there would not be even a small amount of salvation. Therefore, he made only a modest request, in the hope that he would receive at least that much.,The Gemara asks: What was he requesting when he asked for doctors to heal Rabbi Tzadok? How did they heal him? The first day they gave him water to drink that contained bran parei. The next day they gave him water containing flour mixed with bran sipuka. The following day they gave him water containing flour. In this way they slowly restored his ability to eat, allowing his stomach to broaden little by little.,§ Vespasian went back to Rome and sent Titus in his place. The Gemara cites a verse that was expounded as referring to Titus: “And he shall say: Where is their God, their rock in whom they trusted?” (Deuteronomy 32:37). This is the wicked Titus, who insulted and blasphemed God on High.,What did Titus do when he conquered the Temple? He took a prostitute with his hand, and entered the Holy of Holies with her. He then spread out a Torah scroll underneath him and committed a sin, i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse, on it. Afterward he took a sword and cut into the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. And a miracle was performed and blood spurted forth. Seeing the blood, he mistakenly thought that he had killed himself. Here, the term himself is a euphemism for God. Titus saw blood issuing forth from the curtain in God’s meeting place, the Temple, and he took it as a sign that he had succeeded in killing God Himself. As it is stated: “Your enemies roar in the midst of Your meeting place; they have set up their own signs for signs” (Psalms 74:4).,Abba Ḥa says: The verse states: “Who is strong like You, O Lord?” (Psalms 89:9). Who is strong and indurate like You, as You hear the abuse and the blasphemy of that wicked man and remain silent. Similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods elim” (Exodus 15:11), should be read as: Who is like You among the mute ilmim, for You conduct Yourself like a mute and remain silent in the face of Your blasphemers.,What else did Titus do? He took the curtain and formed it like a large basket, and brought all of the sacred vessels of the Temple and placed them in it. And he put them on a ship to go and be praised in his city that he had conquered Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And so I saw the wicked buried, and come to their rest; but those that had done right were gone from the holy place, and were forgotten in the city; this also is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 8:10). Do not read the word as “buried kevurim.” Rather, read it as collected kevutzim. And do not read the word as “and were forgotten veyishtakeḥu.” Rather, read it as: And they were praised veyishtabeḥu. According to this interpretation, the verse speaks of those who will gather and collect items “from the holy place,” the Temple, and be praised in their city about what they had done.,There are those who say that the verse is to be read as written, as it is referring to items that were actually buried. This is because even items that had been buried were revealed to them, i.e., Titus and his soldiers, as they found all of the sacred vessels.,It is further related about Titus that he was once traveling at sea and a wave rose up against him and threatened to drown him. Titus said: It seems to me that their God, the God of Israel, has power only in water. Pharaoh rose against them and He drowned him in water. Sisera rose against them and He drowned him in water. Here too, He has risen up against me to drown me in water. If He is really mighty, let Him go up on dry land and there wage war against me. A Divine Voice issued forth and said to him: Wicked one, son of a wicked one, grandson of Esau the wicked, for you are among his descendants and act just like him, I have a lowly creature in My world and it is called a gnat.,The Gemara interjects: Why is it called a lowly creature? It is called this because it has an entrance for taking in food, but it does not have an exit for excretion.,The Gemara resumes its story about Titus. The Divine Voice continued: Go up on dry land and make war with it. He went up on dry land, and a gnat came, entered his nostril, and picked at his brain for seven years. Titus suffered greatly from this until one day he passed by the gate of a blacksmith’s shop. The gnat heard the sound of a hammer and was silent and still. Titus said: I see that there is a remedy for my pain. Every day they would bring a blacksmith who hammered before him. He would give four dinars as payment to a gentile blacksmith, and to a Jew he would simply say: It is enough for you that you see your enemy in so much pain. He did this for thirty days and it was effective until then. From that point forward, since the gnat became accustomed to the hammering, it became accustomed to it, and once again it began to pick away at Titus’s brain.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova said: I was at that time among the noblemen of Rome, and when Titus died they split open his head and found that the gnat had grown to the size of a sparrow weighing two sela. It was taught in another baraita: It was like a one-year-old pigeon weighing two litra.,Abaye said: We have a tradition that its mouth was made of copper and its claws were fashioned of iron. When Titus was dying, he said to his attendants: Burn that man, i.e., me, and scatter his ashes across the seven seas, so that the God of the Jews should not find me and stand me for judgment.,§ The Gemara relates: Onkelos bar Kalonikos, the son of Titus’s sister, wanted to convert to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the grave through necromancy, and said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Titus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them here in this world? Titus said to him: Their commandments are numerous, and you will not be able to fulfill them. It is best that you do as follows: Go out and battle against them in that world, and you will become the chief, as it is written: “Her adversaries tzareha have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), which means: Anyone who distresses meitzer Israel will become the chief. Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Titus himself, in the next world? Titus said to him:''. None |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 98; Sigal (2007) 49; Taylor (2012) 192
16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:,16b. The first members of each pair served as Nasi, and their counterparts served as deputy Nasi.,The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as Nasi, and their counterparts served as deputy Nasi; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say the opposite: Yehuda ben Tabbai was deputy Nasi and Shimon ben Shataḥ was the Nasi.,The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said: I swear that I will not see the consolation of Israel if I did not kill a conspiring witness. This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order to counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed. Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed.,Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: I swear that I will not see the consolation of Israel if you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators; if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. And they are not flogged if they are liable to such a penalty, unless they are both found to be conspirators. And if they testified falsely that someone owed money, they do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators.,Hearing this, Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule on any matter of law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ, as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The baraita further relates: All of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed individual, to request forgiveness, and his voice was heard weeping. The people thought that it was the voice of that executed person, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai said to them: It is my voice, and you shall know that it is so, for tomorrow, i.e., sometime in the future, he will die, and his voice will no longer be heard. Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms.,Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as perhaps ben Tabbai appeased the executed individual in the World-to-Come. Or, alternatively, the latter may have prosecuted him by the law of Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: Whose opinion does this baraita follow? Granted, if you say it is in accordance with that of Rabbi Meir, who said that Shimon ben Shataḥ was deputy Nasi while Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was Nasi, that explains why he had previously issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ to execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. But if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbai was deputy Nasi and Shimon ben Shataḥ the Nasi, why did he need to make such a commitment? May the deputy Nasi issue a halakhic ruling in the presence of the Nasi?,The Gemara refutes this: No; what did he mean by accepting upon himself not to rule on his own? He spoke with regard to joining the ruling of others: Even with regard to joining the ruling of others, I will also not join until I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: Menaḥem departed and Shammai entered. The Gemara asks: To where did Menaḥem depart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray. Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. Rava said: He departed for the king’s service. He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. This is also taught in a baraita: Menaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with him to work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree shevut should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing hands on the head of an offering on a Festival is prohibited only as a rabbinic decree because it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet the greatest scholars of each generation disputed it.,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This is obvious. Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state it because it is a rabbinic decree related to a mitzva. In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: This too is obvious. In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes to exclude the opinion of the one who said that they disagree with regard to the actual obligation of placing hands, i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. He therefore teaches us that it is a rabbinic decree that is the subject of their dispute, not the requirement itself.,Rami bar Ḥama said: You can learn from here, from this dispute, that the mitzva of placing hands requires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but we also require that one places his hands with all his strength. For if it enters your mind that we do not require all his strength, what prohibition does one violate by placing his hands? Let him place them on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all.,The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: “Speak to the children of benei Israel” (Leviticus 1:2). The word benei literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that the sons of Israel place their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not place them. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so.,Rabbi Yosei said: The Sage Abba Elazar related to me the following incident: On one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placed their hands on it. We did this not because there is an obligation of placing hands in the case of women, but in order to please the women, by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, if it enters your mind that we require placing hands with all one’s strength, would we perform work with consecrated offerings in order to please the women? Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that we do not require placing hands with all one’s strength?,The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that we do require placing hands with all one’s strength, but here they allowed women to place their hands by saying to them: Ease your hands and do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: If so, then the reason formulated as: Not because there is an obligation to place hands in the case of women, is irrelevant to this law. Let him derive the permission for women to do so from the reason that it is not considered placing hands at all. If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands.,Rabbi Ami said: He stated one reason and another. One reason is that it is not considered placing hands at all, as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; and another reason is that they allowed it in order to please the women.,Rav Pappa said: Learn from this that anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its sides are likewise prohibited, for if it enters your mind to say that the sides are permitted, they could have told the women to place their hands on the sides, i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the sides are prohibited?''. None | |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel and Shammai
Found in books: Lavee (2017) 123; Visnjic (2021) 94
62b. אכולהו והא ששה חדשים קאמר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,א"ל רבה בר רב חנן לאביי חמר ונעשה גמל מאי א"ל רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות מעשרה קבין ופרישות:,הספנים אחת לששה חדשים דברי ר\' אליעזר: אמר רב ברונא אמר רב הלכה כר"א אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב זו דברי ר\' אליעזר אבל חכמים אומרים התלמידים יוצאין לת"ת ב\' וג\' שנים שלא ברשות אמר רבא סמכו רבנן אדרב אדא בר אהבה ועבדי עובדא בנפשייהו,כי הא דרב רחומי הוה שכיח קמיה דרבא במחוזא הוה רגיל דהוה אתי לביתיה כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא הוה מסכיא דביתהו השתא אתי השתא אתי לא אתא חלש דעתה אחית דמעתא מעינה הוה יתיב באיגרא אפחית איגרא מתותיה ונח נפשיה,עונה של תלמידי חכמים אימת אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מע"ש לע"ש (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב הונא ואיתימא רב נחמן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,יהודה בריה דר\' חייא חתניה דר\' ינאי הוה אזיל ויתיב בבי רב וכל בי שמשי הוה אתי לביתיה וכי הוה אתי הוה קא חזי קמיה עמודא דנורא יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא כיון דלא חזי ההוא סימנא אמר להו רבי ינאי כפו מטתו שאילמלי יהודה קיים לא ביטל עונתו הואי (קהלת י, ה) כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ונח נפשיה,רבי איעסק ליה לבריה בי רבי חייא כי מטא למיכתב כתובה נח נפשה דרביתא אמר רבי ח"ו פסולא איכא יתיבו ועיינו במשפחות רבי אתי משפטיה בן אביטל ורבי חייא אתי משמעי אחי דוד,אזיל איעסק ליה לבריה בי ר\' יוסי בן זימרא פסקו ליה תרתי סרי שנין למיזל בבי רב אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו ניהוו שית שנין אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו איכניס והדר איזיל הוה קא מכסיף מאבוה א"ל בני דעת קונך יש בך,מעיקרא כתיב (שמות טו, יז) תביאמו ותטעמו ולבסוף כתיב (שמות כה, ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם,אזיל יתיב תרתי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתא איעקרא דביתהו אמר רבי היכי נעביד נגרשה יאמרו ענייה זו לשוא שימרה נינסיב איתתא אחריתי יאמרו זו אשתו וזו זונתו בעי עלה רחמי ואיתסיאת:,רבי חנניה בן חכינאי הוה קאזיל לבי רב בשילהי הלוליה דר"ש בן יוחאי א"ל איעכב לי עד דאתי בהדך לא איעכבא ליה אזל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתי אישתנו שבילי דמתא ולא ידע למיזל לביתיה,אזל יתיב אגודא דנהרא שמע לההיא רביתא דהוו קרו לה בת חכינאי בת חכינאי מלי קולתך ותא ניזיל אמר ש"מ האי רביתא דידן אזל בתרה הוה יתיבא דביתהו קא נהלה קמחא דל עינה חזיתיה סוי לבה פרח רוחה אמר לפניו רבש"ע ענייה זו זה שכרה בעא רחמי עלה וחייה,רבי חמא בר ביסא אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי מדרשא כי אתא אמר לא איעביד כדעביד בן חכינאי עייל יתיב במדרשא שלח לביתיה אתא ר\' אושעיא בריה יתיב קמיה הוה קא משאיל ליה שמעתא חזא דקא מתחדדי שמעתיה חלש דעתיה אמר אי הואי הכא הוה לי זרע כי האי,על לביתיה על בריה קם קמיה הוא סבר למשאליה שמעתתא קא בעי אמרה ליה דביתהו מי איכא אבא דקאים מקמי ברא קרי עליה רמי בר חמא (קהלת ד, יב) החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק זה ר\' אושעיא בנו של רבי חמא בר ביסא,ר"ע רעיא דבן כלבא שבוע הוה חזיתיה ברתיה דהוה צניע ומעלי אמרה ליה אי מקדשנא לך אזלת לבי רב אמר לה אין איקדשא ליה בצינעה ושדרתיה שמע אבוה אפקה מביתיה אדרה הנאה מנכסיה אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שנין בבי רב כי אתא אייתי בהדיה תרי סרי אלפי תלמידי שמעיה לההוא סבא דקאמר לה עד כמה''. None | 62b. the tanna taught us a halakha with regard to all of them, not only a man of leisure or a laborer. He asked him: But with regard to a sailor it said that the set interval for conjugal relations is six months; why, then, should he have to divorce her if he vowed to forbid these relations for only a week? He answered him: It is well known that one who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket. On a fast day, one who does not have bread available in his basket suffers more than one who does have bread available and knows that he will be able to eat later. In this case as well, when a woman knows that marital relations are forbidden to her due to a vow, her suffering from waiting for her husband to return is increased.,Rabba bar Rav Ha said to Abaye: If a donkey driver who is already married wants to become a camel driver, what is the halakha? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? He answered him: A woman prefers a kav, i.e., modest means, with conjugal relations to ten kav with abstinence. Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.,§ The mishna stated: For sailors, the set interval for conjugal relations is once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leave their homes to study Torah for as long as two or three years without permission from their wives. Rava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’s opinion and performed an action like this themselves, but the results were sometimes fatal.,This is as it is related about Rav Reḥumi, who would commonly study before Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to come back to his home every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he was particularly engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. His wife was expecting him that day and continually said to herself: Now he is coming, now he is coming. But in the end, he did not come. She was distressed by this and a tear fell from her eye. At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died. This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.,§ When is the ideal time for Torah scholars to fulfill their conjugal obligations? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The appropriate time for them is from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve, i.e., on Friday nights. Similarly, it is stated with regard to the verse “that brings forth its fruit in its season” (Psalms 1:3): Rav Yehuda said, and some say that it was Rav Huna, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman: This is referring to one who engages in marital relations, bringing forth his fruit, from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve.,It is related further that Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and every Shabbat eve at twilight he would come to his house. When he would come, Rabbi Yannai would see a pillar of fire preceding him due to his sanctity. One day he was engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. When Rabbi Yannai did not see that sign preceding him, he said to the family: Turn his bed over, as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that if Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set interval for conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said became “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, died.,It is related further that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother.,He went and arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for him that they would support him for twelve years to go to study in the study hall. It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. They passed the girl in front of the groom and when he saw her he said: Let it be just six years. They passed her in front of him again and he said to them: I will marry her now and then go to study. He was then ashamed to see his father, as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and said to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception, meaning you acted the same way that God does.,The proof for this is that initially it is written: “You bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place that You, O Lord, have made for You to dwell in” (Exodus 15:17), which indicates that God’s original intention was to build a Temple for the Jewish people after they had entered Eretz Yisrael. And ultimately it is written: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), i.e., even while they were still in the desert, which indicates that due to their closeness to God, they enjoyed greater affection and He therefore advanced what would originally have come later.,After his wedding he went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back his wife had become infertile, as a consequence of spending many years without her husband. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: What should we do? If he will divorce her, people will say: This poor woman waited and hoped for naught. If he will marry another woman to beget children, people will say: This one, who bears him children, is his wife and that one, who lives with him, is his mistress. Therefore, her husband pleaded with God to have mercy on her and she was cured.,Rabbi Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Wait for me until I can come with you, after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, he did not wait and went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home.,He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter, meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥaya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this.,Rabbi Ḥama went in to his house and his son went in with him. Rabbi Ḥama then stood up before him to honor a Torah scholar, since he thought that he wanted to ask him a matter of halakha. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son? The Gemara comments: Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is referring to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa, as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family.,The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The daughter of Ben Kalba Savua saw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hall to learn Torah? He said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent him off to study. Her father heard this and became angry. He removed her from his house and took a vow prohibiting her from benefiting from his property. Rabbi Akiva went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house he brought twelve thousand students with him, and as he approached he heard an old man saying to his wife: For how long''. None |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 99; Hidary (2017) 180
| 93b. The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of another offering of an individual, such as the burnt offering of appearance, and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of a communal offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.,The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the burnt offering of appearance? The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of a matter concerning which the requirement of placing hands is explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, from another matter concerning which placing hands is also explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves to exclude the possibility of deriving the halakhot from those of the burnt offering of appearance, as the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather it itself is derived from the requirement stated with regard to a voluntary burnt offering.,This is as a tanna taught in a baraita in the presence of Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: “And the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordice” (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: In accordance with the ordice of a voluntary burnt offering. Accordingly, this verse teaches about every obligatory burnt offering, including the burnt offering of appearance, that it requires placing hands, just as a voluntary burnt offering does.,§ The mishna states: A Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, and a woman do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these halakhot, the Sages taught in a baraita: The term “his hand” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. “His hand” (Leviticus 3:2), but not the hand of his Canaanite slave; “his hand” (Leviticus 3:8), but not the hand of his agent; “his hand” (Leviticus 3:13), but not the hand of his wife.,The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only a Canaanite slave, as since he is not commanded in mitzvot it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. But with regard to an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and there is a principle that the halakhic status of a person’s agent is like that of himself, one might say that he could place his hands on the offering of the owner on the owner’s behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent.,And had the Merciful One taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, as they are not considered like his own flesh. But with regard to his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, one might say that she places her hands on her husband’s offering. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.,§ The mishna states: The requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught in a baraita: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). The baraita asks: But does the rite of placing hands effect atonement? Isn’t atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated with regard to blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated placing hands as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering atones for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.,And it is taught in a baraita with regard to waving in this way: “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 14:21). The baraita asks: Does waving the offering effect atonement? Isn’t atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated: “For it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated waving as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering effects atonement for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.,§ The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase “his hand upon the head” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal’s body. Placing hands is performed with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:2), but not with his hand on the neck of the animal; with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:8), but not with his hand on the back of the animal; with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:13), but not with his hand on the breast of the animal.,The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only the animal’s neck, as it is not level with the head of the animal. But with regard to its back, which is level with its head, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude the animal’s back.,And had the Torah taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only the neck and the back, as those parts are not included in the waving of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. But with regard to the animal’s breast, which is included in the waving of the offering, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal’s breast.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one placed his hand on the sides of the animal’s head, what is the halakha; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Bira’a, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, says that the verse: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand on the top of its head and not with his hand on the sides of its head.,Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one’s hands were wrapped in a cloth, what is the halakha as to whether the cloth is regarded as an interposition between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita, which states: The rite is valid provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering.,§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed with two hands. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And Aaron shall place both his hands yadav upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word yadav, meaning: His hands, is written without a second yod, and so if read without vowels it reads as: His hand. But it is also written “both,” which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. This established a paradigm that in any place where it is stated in the Torah: His hand, there are here two hands, unless the verse explicitly specifies that there is only one.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar went and stated this halakha in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard about this and became angry. He said to Rabbi Elazar: If it enters your mind that wherever it is written: His hand, the meaning is that there are actually two hands, then why do I ever need the Torah to write: His hands, his hands, i.e., yadav in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?,Reish Lakish raised objections against him from twenty-four occasions where the Torah writes: His hands, for example: “His own hands yadav shall bring the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); “his hands yadav shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); “Guiding his hands yadav wittingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar was silent, as he had no response.,After Reish Lakish had calmed down, he said to Rabbi Elazar: What is the reason that you did not say to me the following: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands yadav, with regard to placing hands. But with regard to other halakhot, when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.”,The Gemara asks: But also with regard to placing hands it is written, concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: “And he placed his hands yadav upon him and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” yadav instead of: His hand yado. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands yadav, with regard to placing hands on an animal offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.,§ The mishna teaches: And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: In the same location in the Temple that one places hands one slaughters the animal, because immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first.,stringency with regard to placing hands than there is with regard to waving, and there is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to waving than there is with regard to placing hands. The stringency with regard to placing hands is that if several people are partners in bringing an offering, one of them waves the offering on behalf of all the other partners, but one cannot fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone places hands on behalf of all the other partners; rather, each member must place hands himself. The stringency with regard to waving is that waving is practiced in the cases of both offerings of an individual, e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, and in the cases of communal offerings, e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot, which are waved together with the two loaves;''. None |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel and Shammai • Hillel the Elder
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 107; Balberg (2017) 142; Hidary (2017) 194, 195; Lavee (2017) 123
66a. אמר לו רבי עקיבא או חלוף מה אם הזאה שהיא משום שבות אינה דוחה את השבת שחיטה שהיא משום מלאכה אינו דין שלא תדחה את השבת אמר לו ר\' אליעזר עקיבא עקרת מה שכתוב בתורה (במדבר ט, ב) במועדו בין בחול בין בשבת,אמר לו רבי הבא לי מועד לאלו כמועד לשחיטה כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לעשותה מערב שבת אינה דוחה את השבת שחיטה שאי אפשר לעשותה מע"ש דוחה את השבת:,66a. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: Or perhaps we can reverse the order of your argument and say the opposite: If, as we know by accepted tradition, sprinkling the purifying water on Shabbat, which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat, then with regard to slaughter, which is prohibited as a biblically prohibited labor, is it not right that it should not override Shabbat? Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, how can you say this? You have thus uprooted what is written in the Torah: “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2); the phrase “at its appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, whether it is a weekday or Shabbat.,Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: My teacher, bring me an appointed time stated in the Torah for these tasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, like the appointed time stated with respect to slaughter. The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple, and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.,The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?,They said to him: From where do you know this? He said to them: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is also stated with regard to the daily offering, for the verse says: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2). From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty Shabbatot over the course of the year, and two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. Just as the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat.,And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference: If the daily offering, the neglect of which is not punishable by karet, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat?,After Hillel brought these proofs, they immediately seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day. In the course of his teaching, he began rebuking them mekanteran them with words. He said to them: What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become Nasi over you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the generation living in Eretz Yisrael, Shemaya and Avtalyon.,They said to Hillel: Our teacher, if one forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbat and cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, what is the law? Since he could have brought the knife before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? He said to them: I once heard this halakha from my teachers but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons of prophets, and will certainly do the right thing on their own.,The next day, on Shabbat that was the eve of Passover, one whose Paschal offering was a lamb took the knife and stuck it in its wool; and one whose Paschal offering was a goat, which does not have wool, stuck it between its horns. Hillel saw the incident and remembered the halakha that he had once learned and said: This is the tradition I received from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, meaning that this is in fact the proper course of action. This concludes the text of the baraita and the Gemara will begin to elucidate it.,The Master said above: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is stated with regard to the daily offering. Just as “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat. And from where do we derive that the daily offering itself overrides Shabbat? If we say because “in its appointed time” is written in its regard, “in its appointed time” is also written with regard to the Paschal lamb. Were it possible to derive from this expression that the sacrifice is offered even on Shabbat, it would not be necessary to derive the law governing the Paschal lamb from a verbal analogy between the daily offering and the Paschal lamb.,Rather, you must conclude that the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, does not indicate to Hillel that the Torah was so particular about the timing of the Paschal lamb that its slaughter overrides Shabbat. Here too, with regard to the daily offering, you must say that “its appointed time” does not indicate to him that it is brought on Shabbat, and so this expression is not the source of this law. Rather, the law is derived from the verse that states: “The burnt-offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat, beside the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10), from which it may be inferred that the daily burnt-offering is brought even on Shabbat.,The Gemara raises another question: The Master said in that same baraita: And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference: If the daily offering, the neglect of which is not punishable by karet, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat? The Gemara points out that there is room to refute the logic of this argument: What is unique about the daily offering that enables it to override Shabbat? That it is frequent, and something that is frequent always takes precedence; and also that it is totally consumed on the altar, unlike the Paschal lamb, most of which is eaten by human beings. The Gemara explains that this is what happened: Hillel first told them the a fortiori inference, but they refuted it and proved that it was not reliable, as explained above; and then he told them the verbal analogy, and a verbal analogy is based on an oral tradition originating from Moses at Sinai and must be accepted.,The Gemara asks: But since Hillel learned this verbal analogy from his teachers, why do I need an a fortiori inference? Why did he add a logical argument of his own if he had an explicit verbal tradition that this was the halakha? The Gemara answers: Rather, he said it for them, to show that they had not sufficiently exerted themselves in clarifying this halakha: Granted, you did not learn the verbal analogy on your own, because you acted according to the principle that one may not expound a verbal analogy on one’s own. Since there is no limit to the laws that one can extract using this method of derivation, such a derivation is only legitimate if it has been transmitted as part of the oral tradition, and apparently they did not learn this verbal analogy from their teachers. But an a fortiori inference, which one can derive on one’s own, you should have derived and you would then have known how to resolve this question. They said to him: It is a faulty a fortiori inference, as we have shown that it can be easily refuted.,The Master said further in the baraita: The next day, one whose Paschal offering was a lamb stuck the knife in its wool, and one whose Paschal offering was a goat stuck it between its horns so as to avoid carrying the knife on Shabbat.''. None | |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bet Hillel • Hillel • Hillel and Shammai • Hillel the Elder, Ḥisda, Rav • Hillel, the Elder • Non-Jews, Hillel and • hermeneutical method, Hillel, School of
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 98; Hasan Rokem (2003) 50; Hidary (2017) 119; Jassen (2014) 114; Lavee (2017) 117, 118, 119, 130, 143; Rubenstein (2018) 254; Sigal (2007) 126
31a. שהמרו זה את זה אמרו כל מי שילך ויקניט את הלל יטול ד\' מאות זוז אמר אחד מהם אני אקניטנו אותו היום ע"ש היה והלל חפף את ראשו הלך ועבר על פתח ביתו אמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה ראשיהן של בבליים סגלגלות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שאין להם חיות פקחות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה עיניהן של תרמודיין תרוטות אמר לו בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין החולות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו א"ל בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה רגליהם של אפרקיים רחבות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין בצעי המים,אמר לו שאלות הרבה יש לי לשאול ומתירא אני שמא תכעוס נתעטף וישב לפניו א"ל כל שאלות שיש לך לשאול שאל א"ל אתה הוא הלל שקורין אותך נשיא ישראל א"ל הן א"ל אם אתה הוא לא ירבו כמותך בישראל א"ל בני מפני מה א"ל מפני שאבדתי על ידך ד\' מאות זוז א"ל הוי זהיר ברוחך כדי הוא הלל שתאבד על ידו ד\' מאות זוז וד\' מאות זוז והלל לא יקפיד:,ת"ר מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי אמר לו כמה תורות יש לכם אמר לו שתים תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה א"ל שבכתב אני מאמינך ושבעל פה איני מאמינך גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני תורה שבכתב גער בו והוציאו בנזיפה בא לפני הלל גייריה יומא קמא א"ל א"ב ג"ד למחר אפיך ליה א"ל והא אתמול לא אמרת לי הכי א"ל לאו עלי דידי קא סמכת דעל פה נמי סמוך עלי:,שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי א"ל גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני כל התורה כולה כשאני עומד על רגל אחת דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה אמר לו דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד זו היא כל התורה כולה ואידך פירושה הוא זיל גמור.,שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שהיה עובר אחורי בית המדרש ושמע קול סופר שהיה אומר (שמות כח, ד) ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו חושן ואפוד אמר הללו למי אמרו לו לכהן גדול אמר אותו נכרי בעצמו אלך ואתגייר בשביל שישימוני כהן גדול בא לפני שמאי אמר ליה גיירני על מנת שתשימני כהן גדול דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה,א"ל כלום מעמידין מלך אלא מי שיודע טכסיסי מלכות לך למוד טכסיסי מלכות הלך וקרא כיון שהגיע (במדבר א, נא) והזר הקרב יומת אמר ליה מקרא זה על מי נאמר א"ל אפי\' על דוד מלך ישראל נשא אותו גר קל וחומר בעצמו ומה ישראל שנקראו בנים למקום ומתוך אהבה שאהבם קרא להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל כתיב עליהם והזר הקרב יומת גר הקל שבא במקלו ובתרמילו על אחת כמה וכמה,בא לפני שמאי א"ל כלום ראוי אני להיות כהן גדול והלא כתיב בתורה והזר הקרב יומת בא לפני הלל א"ל ענוותן הלל ינוחו לך ברכות על ראשך שהקרבתני תחת כנפי השכינה לימים נזדווגו שלשתן למקום אחד אמרו קפדנותו של שמאי בקשה לטורדנו מן העולם ענוותנותו של הלל קרבנו תחת כנפי השכינה:,אמר ר"ל מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, ו) והיה אמונת עתיך חוסן ישועות חכמת ודעת וגו\' אמונת זה סדר זרעים עתיך זה סדר מועד חוסן זה סדר נשים ישועות זה סדר נזיקין חכמת זה סדר קדשים ודעת זה סדר טהרות ואפ"ה (ישעיהו לג, ו) יראת ה\' היא אוצרו,אמר רבא בשעה שמכניסין אדם לדין אומרים לו נשאת ונתת באמונה קבעת עתים לתורה עסקת בפו"ר צפית לישועה פלפלת בחכמה הבנת דבר מתוך דבר ואפ"ה אי יראת ה\' היא אוצרו אין אי לא לא משל לאדם שאמר לשלוחו העלה לי כור חיטין לעלייה הלך והעלה לו א"ל עירבת לי בהן קב חומטון א"ל לאו א"ל מוטב אם לא העליתה,תנא דבי ר"י מערב אדם קב חומטון בכור של תבואה ואינו חושש:,אמר רבה בר רב הונא כל אדם שיש בו תורה ואין בו 150a. מדוד והבא ואיכא דאמרי שאמרה מאד מאד הביא בלא מדה,(דניאל ד, לג) ורבו יתירה הוספת לי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא מלמד שרכב על ארי זכר וקשר תנין בראשו לקיים מה שנא\' (ירמיהו כז, ו) וגם את חית השדה נתתי לו לעבדו:,31a. who wagered with each other and said: Anyone who will go and aggravate Hillel to the point that he reprimands him, will take four-hundred zuz. One of them said: I will aggravate him. That day that he chose to bother Hillel was Shabbat eve, and Hillel was washing the hair on his head. He went and passed the entrance to Hillel’s house and in a demeaning manner said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Hillel wrapped himself in a dignified garment and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. Hillel said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked him: Why are the heads of Babylonians oval? He was alluding to and attempting to insult Hillel, who was Babylonian. He said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The reason is because they do not have clever midwives. They do not know how to shape the child’s head at birth.,That man went and waited one hour, a short while, returned to look for Hillel, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Again, Hillel wrapped himself and went out to greet him. Hillel said to him: My son, what do you seek? The man said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked: Why are the eyes of the residents of Tadmor bleary terutot? Hillel said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The reason is because they live among the sands and the sand gets into their eyes.,Once again the man went, waited one hour, returned, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Again, he, Hillel, wrapped himself and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked: Why do Africans have wide feet? Hillel said to him: You have asked a significant question. The reason is because they live in marshlands and their feet widened to enable them to walk through those swampy areas.,That man said to him: I have many more questions to ask, but I am afraid lest you get angry. Hillel wrapped himself and sat before him, and he said to him: All of the questions that you have to ask, ask them. The man got angry and said to him: Are you Hillel whom they call the Nasi of Israel? He said to him: Yes. He said to him: If it is you, then may there not be many like you in Israel. Hillel said to him: My son, for what reason do you say this? The man said to him: Because I lost four hundred zuz because of you. Hillel said to him: Be vigilant of your spirit and avoid situations of this sort. Hillel is worthy of having you lose four hundred zuz and another four hundred zuz on his account, and Hillel will not get upset.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai. The gentile said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The gentile said to him: With regard to the Written Torah, I believe you, but with regard to the Oral Torah, I do not believe you. Convert me on condition that you will teach me only the Written Torah. Shammai scolded him and cast him out with reprimand. The same gentile came before Hillel, who converted him and began teaching him Torah. On the first day, he showed him the letters of the alphabet and said to him: Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet. The next day he reversed the order of the letters and told him that an alef is a tav and so on. The convert said to him: But yesterday you did not tell me that. Hillel said to him: You see that it is impossible to learn what is written without relying on an oral tradition. Didn’t you rely on me? Therefore, you should also rely on me with regard to the matter of the Oral Torah, and accept the interpretations that it contains.,There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.,There was another incident involving one gentile who was passing behind the study hall and heard the voice of a teacher who was teaching Torah to his students and saying the verse: “And these are the garments which they shall make: A breastplate, and an efod, and a robe, and a tunic of checkered work, a mitre, and a girdle” (Exodus 28:4). The gentile said: These garments, for whom are they designated? The students said to him: For the High Priest. The gentile said to himself: I will go and convert so that they will install me as High Priest. He came before Shammai and said to him: Convert me on condition that you install me as High Priest. Shammai pushed him with the builder’s cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel; he converted him.,Hillel said to him, to the convert: Is it not the way of the world that only one who knows the protocols takhsisei of royalty is appointed king? Go and learn the royal protocols by engaging in Torah study. He went and read the Bible. When he reached the verse which says: “And the common man that draws near shall be put to death” (Numbers 1:51), the convert said to Hillel: With regard to whom is the verse speaking? Hillel said to him: Even with regard to David, king of Israel. The convert reasoned an a fortiori inference himself: If the Jewish people are called God’s children, and due to the love that God loved them he called them: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22), and nevertheless it is written about them: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death; a mere convert who came without merit, with nothing more than his staff and traveling bag, all the more so that this applies to him, as well.,The convert came before Shammai and told him that he retracts his demand to appoint him High Priest, saying: Am I at all worthy to be High Priest? Is it not written in the Torah: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death? He came before Hillel and said to him: Hillel the patient, may blessings rest upon your head as you brought me under the wings of the Divine Presence. The Gemara relates: Eventually, the three converts gathered together in one place, and they said: Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience brought us beneath the wings of the Divine Presence.,The Gemara continues discussing the conduct of the Sages, citing that Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the faith of your times shall be a strength of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge, the fear of the Lord is his treasure” (Isaiah 33:6)? Faith; that is the order of Zera’im, Seeds, in the Mishna, because a person has faith in God and plants his seeds (Jerusalem Talmud). Your times; that is the order of Moed, Festival, which deals with the various occasions and Festivals that occur throughout the year. Strength; that is the order of Nashim, Women. Salvations; that is the order of Nezikin, Damages, as one who is being pursued is rescued from the hands of his pursuer. Wisdom; that is the order of Kodashim, Consecrated Items. And knowledge; that is the order of Teharot, Purity, which is particularly difficult to master. And even if a person studies and masters all of these, “the fear of the Lord is his treasure,” it is preeminent.,With regard to the same verse, Rava said: After departing from this world, when a person is brought to judgment for the life he lived in this world, they say to him in the order of that verse: Did you conduct business faithfully? Did you designate times for Torah study? Did you engage in procreation? Did you await salvation? Did you engage in the dialectics of wisdom or understand one matter from another? And, nevertheless, beyond all these, if the fear of the Lord is his treasure, yes, he is worthy, and if not, no, none of these accomplishments have any value. There is a parable that illustrates this. A person who said to his emissary: Bring a kor of wheat up to the attic for me to store there. The messenger went and brought it up for him. He said to the emissary: Did you mix a kav of ḥomton, a preservative to keep away worms, into it for me? He said to him: No. He said to him: If so, it would have been preferable had you not brought it up. of what use is worm-infested wheat? Likewise, Torah and mitzvot without the fear of God are of no value.,On a related note, the Gemara cites a halakha that was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person who sells wheat may, ab initio, mix a kav of ḥomton into a kor of grain and need not be concerned that by selling it all at the price of grain he will be guilty of theft, as the kav of ḥomton is essential for the preservation of the wheat.,Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Any person who has Torah in him but does not have 150a. Measure and bring a lot of money, has ceased. And some say that the meaning of the statement is that this nation said: Bring very, very much, without measure.,The Gemara cites another verse pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar: “And surpassing greatness was added unto me” (Daniel 4:33), about which Rav Yehuda said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: This teaches that Nebuchadnezzar rode atop a male lion and tied a serpent to its head, fulfilling what was said of him: “And the beasts of the field I have also given him to serve him” (Jeremiah 27:6).,A person may not hire workers on Shabbat to work for him after Shabbat because even speaking about weekday matters is prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, a person may not tell another on Shabbat to hire workers for him. One may not even wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to leave the boundary immediately after Shabbat to hire workers for himself or to bring produce from his field. But he may wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to guard his produce that is outside the Shabbat boundary, and he may then bring produce back in his hand, since he did not initially intend to wait at the edge of the boundary for this purpose. Abba Shaul stated a general principle: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for its sake.,obvious. What is the difference between him and another? Just as he is prohibited from hiring workers on Shabbat, others are also prohibited from doing so. Rav Pappa said: Another is referring to a gentile. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: This is itself a prohibition, for telling a gentile to do something that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a rabbinic prohibition.,Rather, Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to another Jew, it can be said that the novel element of this ruling is not the statement itself but what can be derived from it. This is what it is teaching us: One may not say to another explicitly on Shabbat: Hire workers for me, but one may say to another: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is permitted even though both of them understand that the questioner intends to hire the other person to work for him. And in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa; as it was taught in a baraita: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening?,Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa’s ruling? As it is written in the verse from which we derive the prohibition to speak on Shabbat about activities that one may not perform on that day: “And you shall honor it by not doing your ways, nor pursuing your business, nor speaking of it” (Isaiah 58:13). We derive from this verse that speaking is prohibited, but merely contemplating these matters is permitted.,Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna raised a contradiction to Rava: Did Rabbi Yoḥa really state as a general principle that speaking is prohibited, but contemplating is permitted? Consequently, we can derive from here that contemplation is not tantamount to speech. But Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: It is permitted to think about Torah in any place except for a bathhouse and a bathroom. This statement indicates that contemplation is tantamount to speech, as even thought is prohibited in these locations. The Gemara answers: It is different there, for with regard to Torah we need to fulfill the verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to give your enemies before you; therefore, your camp shall be sacred so that He see no unseemly thing in you and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15); and the requirement to be sacred is not fulfilled if one thinks about Torah while in the bathhouse or bathroom.,The Gemara challenges this: But here, too, with regard to a bathhouse and a bathroom, it is written: “So that He see no unseemly thing davar in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). We can infer that this prohibits speech dibbur but not contemplation. The Gemara answers: That verse is not referring to speech. It is needed for the ruling of Rav Yehuda, for Rav Yehuda said: Opposite a naked gentile, it is prohibited to recite Shema, as this is included in the prohibition of unseemly things mentioned above.,The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Yehuda teach this prohibition particularly with regard to a gentile? Even in the presence of a naked Jew, reciting Shema is also prohibited. The Gemara answers: That ruling is stated employing the style of: There is no need. The Gemara explains: There is no need to state this halakha with regard to a Jew, as it is certainly prohibited to recite Shema in the presence of a naked Jew. However, with regard to a gentile, since it is written about him: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20), perhaps his flesh is not considered nakedness, and one may say that it seems well and permitted. Therefore, Rav Yehuda teaches us that it is also prohibited to recite Shema before a naked gentile.,The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is indeed so, that gentile flesh is not considered nakedness? The Gemara rejects this idea: The verse already said with regard to the sons of Noah: “And they walked backward and covered their father’s nakedness, and their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness” (Genesis 9:23). The verse uses the term nakedness with regard to Noah, who was a gentile.,The Gemara addresses the basis of the halakha mentioned above: And is it speaking about proscribed activities prohibited on Shabbat? But Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna both said: It is permitted to make calculations pertaining to a mitzva on Shabbat, and Rabbi Elazar said that this means that one may apportion charity for the poor on Shabbat. And Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One may attend to activities necessary for saving a life or for communal needs on Shabbat, and one may go to a synagogue to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat.,And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One may go to theaters tarteiot, and circus performances kirkesaot, and courthouses basilkaot to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat. And one of the Sages in the school of Menashe taught: One may make the necessary arrangements to pair off children so that they will be betrothed on Shabbat, and one may likewise make arrangements for a child by finding someone to teach him how to read books and to teach him a craft. If speaking about monetary matters is prohibited on Shabbat, how is it possible to participate in all these activities? The Gemara answers that although speaking about similar things is generally prohibited on Shabbat, it is permitted in these cases because the verse said: “Nor pursuing your business, nor speaking of it” (Isaiah 58:13), which indicates that your business matters are prohibited to speak of on Shabbat, but the business of Heaven, matters which have religious significance, is permitted to speak of.,Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to calculations of: What is it to you, mallakh, calculations that are in no way relevant to the person making them, and of: What significance does it have ma bekhakh, calculations that do not have any practical significance, it is permitted to make them on Shabbat. This was also taught in the Tosefta: Calculations with regard to matters that have passed or that will be in the future may not be calculated on Shabbat. However, with regard to calculations of: What is it to you,''. None | |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel the Elder, Ḥisda, Rav
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 98; Hidary (2017) 119
81b. הוא גופיה שבת איקרי דכתיב תשבתו שבתכם בשלמא רב פפא לא אמר כרב אחא בר יעקב דקרא דכתיב בגופיה עדיף אלא רב אחא בר יעקב מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב פפא,מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא כג, לב) ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה לחודש יכול יתחיל ויתענה בתשעה ת"ל בערב אי בערב יכול משתחשך ת"ל בתשעה הא כיצד מתחיל ומתענה מבעוד יום מכאן שמוסיפין מחול על הקודש,ואין לי אלא בכניסתו ביציאתו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) מערב עד ערב ואין לי אלא יוה"כ (ימים טובים) מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) תשבתו אין לי אלא (ימים טובים שבתות) מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) שבתכם הא כיצד כל מקום שנאמר שבות (מכאן שמוסיפין) מחול על הקודש,ותנא דעצם עצם האי בתשעה לחודש מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי דתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה וכי בתשעה מתענין והלא בעשור מתענין אלא לומר לך כל האוכל ושותה בתשיעי מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו התענה תשיעי ועשירי,אכל אוכלין שאין ראוין לאכילה אמר רבא כס פלפלי ביומא דכפורי פטור כס זנגבילא ביומא דכפורי פטור,מיתיבי היה רבי מאיר אומר ממשמע שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כג) וערלתם ערלתו את פריו איני יודע שעץ מאכל הוא אלא מה תלמוד לומר עץ מאכל עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה הוי אומר זה פלפלין ללמדך שהפלפלין חייבין בערלה ואין ארץ ישראל חסרה כלום שנא\' (דברים ח, ט) לא תחסר כל בה,ל"ק הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא,א"ל רבינא למרימר והאמר רב נחמן האי הימלתא דאתי מבי הנדואי שריא ומברכינן עליה בורא פרי האדמה לא קשיא הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא,ת"ר אכל עלי קנים פטור לולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים אמר רבי יצחק מגדלאה כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ ורב כהנא אמר כל שלשים יום תניא כוותיה דר\' יצחק מגדלאה אכל עלי קנים פטור ולולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ,שתה ציר או מורייס פטור הא חומץ חייב מתני\' מני רבי היא דתניא ר\' אומר חומץ משיב את הנפש,דרש רב גידל בר מנשה מבירי דנרש אין הלכה כרבי לשנה נפקי כולי עלמא מזגו ושתו חלא שמע רב גידל ואיקפד אמר אימר דאמרי אנא דיעבד לכתחלה מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא פורתא טובא מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא חי מזוג מי אמרי''. None | 81b. Yom Kippur itself is called “Shabbat,” as it is written: “From evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat” (Leviticus 23:32). The Gemara compares the various opinions. Granted, Rav Pappa did not say as Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov did because a verse that is written about the matter itself is preferable to a verbal analogy. But what is the reason that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa?,The Gemara answers: He requires this verse of “keep your Shabbat” for that which was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat” (Leviticus 23:32). One might have thought that one should start to afflict oneself on the ninth of Tishrei; therefore, the verse states “at evening.” If the Torah had stated only “at evening,” one might have thought that the fast starts only when darkness falls; therefore, the verse states “on the ninth,” implying that one begins to fast on the ninth of Tishrei. How can these verses be reconciled? One begins to fast while it is still daytime; from here it is derived that one sanctifies and extends from the non-sacred weekday to the sacred day of Yom Kippur.,I have derived only that one must add time at the beginning of Yom Kippur. From where do I derive that one adds time at the conclusion of Yom Kippur? The verse states: “From evening until evening” (Leviticus 23:32), implying that one adds at the end as well, just as he does at the beginning. And I have derived only the mitzva of adding to Yom Kippur; from where is it derived that one must also sanctify and append time before and after Festivals? The verse states: “You shall rest” (Leviticus 23:32), to teach that this rule applies even to Festivals, on which one is commanded to rest. I have derived only that one adds an extension to Festivals; from where do I derive that one must also sanctify and append to Shabbatot? The verse states: “Your Shabbat” (Leviticus 23:32). How so? Every place the term: Rest shevut is stated, it teaches from here that one sanctifies and appends from the non-sacred weekday to the sacred.,The Gemara asks: And the tanna who learns a verbal analogy from the words “that same day,” “that same day,” what does he do with the phrase: “On the ninth day of the month”? The Gemara answers: He requires it, in accordance with that which Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught. As Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: It states: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month” (Leviticus 23:32). But does one afflict oneself on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one in fact afflict oneself on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, the verse comes to tell you: Anyone who eats and drinks on the ninth of Tishrei and then fasts on the tenth, the verse ascribes him credit as though he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth. The verse alludes to this when it states that the fast is on the ninth.,§ It was taught in the mishna: If one ate food that is not fit for eating, he is exempt. Rava said: If one chews raw pepper on Yom Kippur, he is exempt, since this is not considered eating. Similarly, if one chews ginger zangvila on Yom Kippur, he is exempt.,The Gemara raises an objection to this. Rabbi Meir would say about the verse: “And when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden orla; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 19:23). From the implication of what is stated: “Then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden,” do I not know that the verse is referring to “trees for food,” since it uses the word “fruit”? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states “trees for food”? It includes a tree whose wood and fruit taste the same, i.e., a tree that is itself eaten in addition to its fruit. One must say that this is referring to pepper that grows on a tree, to teach you that even pepper is subject to the halakha of orla. And this also teaches that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as even pepper can grow there, as it is stated among the listed praises of Eretz Yisrael: “You will not lack anything in it” (Deuteronomy 8:9). In any event, it has been derived that pepper is called food, which contradicts Rava’s statement.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement about edible pepper is referring to fresh pepper, which is moist; and that halakha pertaining to Yom Kippur is referring to dry pepper, which is not considered food.,Ravina said to Mareimar: But didn’t Rav Naḥman say that it is permitted to eat this cooked ginger himalta that comes from India, and there is no concern that gentiles may have cooked it. And we recite the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground, over it. Apparently, ginger is edible. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This statement is referring to wet ginger, which is considered food; and that earlier statement pertaining to Yom Kippur, which maintained that ginger is not food, is referring to dry ginger.,The Sages taught in a baraita: If one ate leaves of reeds on Yom Kippur, he is exempt, but if one ate grapevine shoots he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: What are these grapevine shoots? Rabbi Yitzḥak from the city of Migdal said: All shoots that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur and are still very soft are considered food. And Rav Kahana said: All shoots that sprouted up to thirty days before Yom Kippur are considered food. The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal: If one ate leaves of reeds he is exempt, but if one ate grapevine shoots he is liable. What are these grapevine shoots? They are all those that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.,It was taught in the mishna that if on Yom Kippur one drank fish brine or the briny liquid in which fish are pickled, he is exempt. The Gemara comments: From the language of the mishna it may be inferred that if one drank vinegar, he is liable. Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Vinegar revives the spirit and is therefore considered a beverage.,The Gemara relates: Rav Giddel bar Menashe from the town of Birei DeNeresh taught in a public lecture that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and vinegar is not considered a beverage. The next year everyone went out and mixed vinegar with water and drank vinegar on Yom Kippur. Rav Giddel heard this and became angry with them for their actions. He said: Say that I said one is not liable for drinking vinegar only after the fact; however, did I say it is permitted to drink it ab initio? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement with regard to one who drinks a little, but did I say it is permitted to drink a lot? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement in reference to pure vinegar, which is very strong, but did I say anything about diluted vinegar? That is certainly prohibited.''. None |
|
35. None, None, nan (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hillel • Hillel and Shammai • Hillel, Rabbi • Non-Jews, Hillel and
Found in books: Jaffee (2001) 133; Lavee (2017) 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141; Poorthuis Schwartz and Turner (2009) 60
|
