1. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 3.320-3.321, 11.334 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 175, 179 | 3.320. Thus this legislation, which appeared to be divine, made this man to be esteemed as one superior to his own nature. Nay, further, a little before the beginning of this war, when Claudius was emperor of the Romans, and Ismael was our high priest, and when so great a famine was come upon us, that onetenth deal [of wheat] was sold for four drachmae, 3.321. and when no less than seventy cori of flour were brought into the temple, at the feast of unleavened bread, (these cori are thirty-one Sicilian, but forty-one Athenian medimni,) not one of the priests was so hardy as to eat one crumb of it, even while so great a distress was upon the land; and this out of a dread of the law, and of that wrath which God retains against acts of wickedness, even when no one can accuse the actors. 11.334. for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; |
|
2. Mishnah, Berachot, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 176| 4.1. "תְּפִלַּת הַשַּׁחַר, עַד חֲצוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד אַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת. תְּפִלַּת הַמִּנְחָה עַד הָעֶרֶב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד פְּלַג הַמִּנְחָה. תְּפִלַּת הָעֶרֶב אֵין לָהּ קֶבַע. וְשֶׁל מוּסָפִין כָּל הַיּוֹם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁבַע שָׁעוֹת:", | 4.1. "The morning Tefillah (Shacharit) is until midday. Rabbi Judah says until the fourth hour. The afternoon Tefillah (Minhah) until evening. Rabbi Judah says: until the middle of the afternoon. The evening prayer has no fixed time. The time for the additional prayers (musaf) is the whole day. Rabbi Judah says: until the seventh hour.", |
|
3. Mishnah, Eduyot, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 176| 6.1. "רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא הֵעִיד חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים. שֶׁמְּמָאֲנִים אֶת הַקְּטַנּוֹת, וְשֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, וְשֶׁנִּסְקַל תַּרְנְגוֹל בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עַל שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְעַל הַיַּיִן בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ עַל גַּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְעַל תָּמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר שֶׁקָּרַב בְּאַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת: \n", | 6.1. "Rabbi Judah ben Bava testified concerning five things:That women who are minors are made to declare an annulment of their marriage; That a woman is allowed to re-marry on the evidence of one witness; That a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a human being; And about wine forty days old, that it was used as a libation on the altar; And about the morning tamid offering, that it is offered at the fourth hour.", |
|
4. Mishnah, Sotah, 9.14 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 174| 9.14. "בַּפֻּלְמוֹס שֶׁל אַסְפַּסְיָנוּס גָּזְרוּ עַל עַטְרוֹת חֲתָנִים, וְעַל הָאֵרוּס. בַּפֻּלְמוֹס שֶׁל טִיטוּס גָּזְרוּ עַל עַטְרוֹת כַּלּוֹת, וְשֶׁלֹא יְלַמֵּד אָדָם אֶת בְּנוֹ יְוָנִית. בַּפֻּלְמוֹס הָאַחֲרוֹן גָּזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא תֵצֵא הַכַּלָּה בָּאַפִּרְיוֹן בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר, וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא הַכַּלָּה בָּאַפִּרְיוֹן בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר: \n", | 9.14. "During the war with Vespasian they [the rabbis] decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by bridegrooms and against [the use of] the bell. During the war with Quietus they decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by brides and that nobody should teach their child Greek. During the final war they decreed that a bride should not go out in a palanquin inside the city, but our rabbis decreed that a bride may go out in a palanquin inside the city.", |
|
5. Mishnah, Taanit, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 178| 4.6. "חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים אֵרְעוּ אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּתַמּוּז וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּתִשְׁעָה בְאָב. בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּתַמּוּז נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ הַלּוּחוֹת, וּבָטַל הַתָּמִיד, וְהֻבְקְעָה הָעִיר, וְשָׂרַף אַפּוֹסְטֹמוֹס אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, וְהֶעֱמִיד צֶלֶם בַּהֵיכָל. בְּתִשְׁעָה בְאָב נִגְזַר עַל אֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ, וְחָרַב הַבַּיִת בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁנִיָּה, וְנִלְכְּדָה בֵיתָר, וְנֶחְרְשָׁה הָעִיר. מִשֶּׁנִּכְנַס אָב, מְמַעֲטִין בְּשִׂמְחָה: \n", | 4.6. "There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av.On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid (daily) offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple. On the ninth of Av It was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the land, The Temple was destroyed the first And the second time, Betar was captured, And the city was plowed up. When Av enters, they limit their rejoicing.", |
|
6. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 37.11.4 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 178 | 37.11.4. But his associates, on the other hand, became estranged, as the position of the Romans was ever growing more secure and that of Mithridates weaker. Among other things the greatest earthquake ever experienced destroyed many of their cities; the soldiery also mutinied, and some of Mithridates' sons were kidnapped and conveyed to Pompey. |
|
| 7. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 176 |
| 8. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 179 |
9. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 174| 82b. ואתא איהו תיקן חפיפה:,ושיהו רוכלין מחזרין בעיירות משום תכשיטי נשים כדי שלא יתגנו על בעליהם:,ותיקן טבילה לבעלי קריין דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ויקרא טו, טז) ואיש כי תצא ממנו שכבת זרע ורחץ את בשרו במים דאורייתא הוא לתרומה וקדשים אתא הוא תיקן אפילו לדברי תורה:,עשרה דברים נאמרו בירושלים אין הבית חלוט בה ואינה מביאה עגלה ערופה ואינה נעשית עיר הנדחת,ואינה מטמאה בנגעים ואין מוציאין בה זיזין וגזוזטראות ואין עושין בה אשפתות ואין עושין בה כבשונות ואין עושין בה גנות ופרדסות חוץ מגנות וורדין שהיו מימות נביאים הראשונים ואין מגדלים בה תרנגולין ואין מלינין בה את המת,אין הבית חלוט בה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, ל) וקם הבית אשר לו חומה לצמיתות לקונה אותו לדורותיו וקסבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים,ואינה מביאה עגלה ערופה דכתיב (דברים כא, א) כי ימצא חלל באדמה אשר ה' אלהיך נותן לך לרשתה וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים,ואינה נעשית עיר הנדחת דכתיב (דברים יג, יג) עריך וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים,ואינה מטמאה בנגעים דכתיב (ויקרא יד, לד) ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים,ואין מוציאין בה זיזין וגזוזטראות מפני אהל הטומאה ומשום דלא ליתזקו עולי רגלים,ואין עושין בה אשפתות משום שקצים,ואין עושין בה כבשונות משום קוטרא,ואין עושין בה גנות ופרדסין משום סירחא,ואין מגדלין בה תרנגולין משום קדשים,ואין מלינין בה את המת גמרא:,אין מגדלין חזירים בכל מקום תנו רבנן כשצרו בית חשמונאי זה על זה היה הורקנוס מבפנים ואריסטובלוס מבחוץ ובכל יום היו משלשים להם בקופה דינרין והיו מעלין להם תמידים,היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית אמר להם כל זמן שעוסקין בעבודה אין נמסרים בידכם למחר שילשלו דינרין בקופה והעלו להם חזיר כיון שהגיע לחצי החומה נעץ צפרניו בחומה ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה,באותה שעה אמרו ארור האיש שיגדל חזירים וארור האדם שילמד את בנו חכמת יוונית ועל אותה שעה שנינו מעשה שבא עומר מגנות הצריפין ושתי הלחם מבקעת עין סוכר:,וחכמת יוונית מי אסירא והתניא אמר רבי בארץ ישראל | 82b. b And /b Ezra b came /b and added to the Torah’s minimal obligation. He b instituted /b the requirement of b combing /b the hair even when it is known that it is not knotted and contains no repulsive substance.,The Gemara discusses the next of Ezra’s ordices: b And that peddlers should circulate through /b all b the towns. /b This Gemara explains that this is b because /b peddlers supply b women’s cosmetics, /b and therefore Ezra instituted this practice b so that /b women b should not become unattractive to their husbands. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the last of the ten ordices: b And he instituted /b the requirement of b immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission. /b The Gemara asks: But this b is /b required b by Torah law, as it is written: “And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe /b all b his flesh in water” /b (Leviticus 15:16). The Gemara answers: b By Torah law /b immersion b is /b required only if one wishes to partake b of i teruma /i or sacrificial /b meat. Ezra b came /b and further b instituted /b that immersion is necessary b even for /b reciting or studying b matters of Torah. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that one may not raise chickens in Jerusalem. The Gemara cites a i baraita /i that contains a list of other i halakhot /i that are unique to Jerusalem. b Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem: A house /b situated b in /b Jerusalem does b not /b become b irredeemable /b one year after its sale. Those who sell houses in other walled cities have the right to buy back their property for one year after the transaction. If they fail to do so, the house becomes the permanent possession of the buyer (see Leviticus 25:29–30). This i halakha /i does not apply to houses in Jerusalem. b And /b its Elders do b not bring a heifer whose neck is broken /b as required when a murder victim is found near a city and the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9); b and /b it b cannot become an idolatrous city /b (see Deuteronomy 13:13–19).,The i baraita /i continues its list: b And /b a house in Jerusalem b cannot become ritually impure /b with the impurity b of leprous sores; and one may not build out projections or balconies [ i gezuztraot /i ] /b from houses that are b in it; and one may not establish garbage dumps in /b Jerusalem; b and one may not build kilns in it; and one may not plant gardens and orchards [ i pardesot /i ] in it, except for /b the b rose gardens that were /b already there b from the times of the early prophets; and one may not raise chickens in it; and /b finally, b one may not leave a corpse overnight in /b Jerusalem.,The Gemara discusses these ten i halakhot /i pertaining to Jerusalem, one by one: b A house /b situated b in /b it does b not /b become b irredeemable /b one year after its sale. The reason is b that it is written: /b “And if it is not redeemed within the space of a full year, then b the house /b that is in the b walled /b city b shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it, throughout his generations” /b (Leviticus 25:30). b And /b the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i b maintains /b that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any single one of b the tribes /b of Israel; rather, it is considered common property. Since no one has ancestral ownership of any house in Jerusalem, its houses cannot be sold permanently.,The Gemara analyzes the next i halakha /i : b And /b its inhabitants do b not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. /b The reason is b that it is written: “If one is found slain in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it” /b (Deuteronomy 21:1). b And, /b again, the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i b maintains /b that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any one of b the tribes /b of Israel. Therefore, it is not included in the description: “The land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it.”,The i baraita /i states: b And /b it b cannot become an idolatrous city. /b The reason is b that it is written, /b in the introduction of the passage dealing with the i halakha /i of an idolatrous city: “If you shall hear tell concerning one of b your cities, /b which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there” (Deuteronomy 13:13). b And /b the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i maintains that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any one of b the tribes /b of Israel. It is therefore not included in the description “one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there.”,The i baraita /i further teaches: b And /b a house in Jerusalem does b not become ritually impure /b with the impurity b of leprous sores. /b The reason is b that it is written: “And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” /b (Leviticus 14:34). b And /b the i tanna /i who taught this i baraita /i maintains that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to /b any one of b the tribes /b of Israel. It is there-fore not included in the description “a house of the land of your possession.”,The Gemara discusses the next i halakha /i : b And one may not build out projections or balconies /b from houses that are b in /b Jerusalem. The Gemara provides two reasons for this prohibition. First, it is b due to /b the danger of contracting b ritual impurity /b by being in b the /b same b tent /b as a corpse, i.e., under the same roof, in which case the impurity spreads to all items under the roof. If even a small part of a corpse is under a balcony, everyone who passes under that balcony is rendered impure. Many people come to Jerusalem to sacrifice offerings, and they must maintain a state of ritual purity. The other reason is b so that those /b great crowds of b pilgrims not be injured /b by colliding with the projections.,The next i halakha /i pertaining to Jerusalem is: b And one may not establish garbage dumps in it. /b The Gemara explains that the reason is b due to /b the b repugt creatures /b that are attracted to such heaps and impart ritual impurity upon their death.,The i baraita /i states: b And one may not build kilns in /b Jerusalem. The reason is b due to the /b unsightly b smoke /b produced by kilns. The Sages sought to preserve the beauty of Jerusalem and the Temple.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And one may not plant gardens and orchards in it. /b This is b due to the odor /b emitted by these places, either from discarded weeds or from fertilizer.,The next i halakha /i on the list is: b And one may not raise chickens in /b Jerusalem. The Gemara explains that this is b due to the sacrificial /b meat that is consumed in Jerusalem. Since chickens peck in the garbage, they are likely to pick up items that impart ritual impurity and bring them into contact with the consecrated food, which may not be eaten in an impure state.,The Gemara discusses the last i halakha /i : b And one may not leave a corpse overnight in it. /b The Gemara notes that this prohibition is b a tradition; /b there is no known explanation for it.,§ The mishna teaches that b one may not raise pigs anywhere. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i the background for this i halakha /i : b When /b the members of b the house of Hasmonean /b monarchy b were at war with each other, Hyrcanus, /b one of the parties to this war, b was inside /b the besieged Jerusalem, b while /b his brother b Aristobulus, /b the other contender to the throne, was b on the outside. And every day /b the people inside b would lower down money in a box /b from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice, b and /b those on other side b would /b take the money and b send up /b sheep b to them /b over the wall for the b daily offerings. /b , b There was a certain elder there who was familiar with Greek wisdom, /b and b he said /b to those besieging Jerusalem: b As long as they occupy themselves with the /b Temple b service, they will not be delivered into your hands. The next day they lowered down money in a box /b as usual, b but /b this time b they sent up to them a pig. When the pig reached to the midpoint of the /b Temple b wall it stuck its hooves into the wall, and Eretz Yisrael quaked /b over an area of b four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs. /b , b At that time /b the Sages b said: Cursed be the man who raises pigs, and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom. And /b it was b concerning that time /b of siege that b we learned /b in a mishna: There was b an incident /b in which the barley for the b i omer /i offering came from the gardens of Tzerifin, /b far from Jerusalem, b and /b the wheat for b the two loaves /b of i Shavuot /i was brought b from the valley of Ein Sokher. /b Barley and wheat could not be brought from any nearer because the besiegers had destroyed all the produce around Jerusalem. This concludes the i baraita /i .,The Gemara asks a question with regard to this i baraita /i : b And is /b it really b prohibited /b to study b Greek wisdom? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: In Eretz Yisrael, /b |
|
10. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 176| 27a. היינו רבנן,אלא מאי עד ולא עד בכלל אימא סיפא ושל מוספין כל היום ר' יהודה אומר עד שבע שעות ותניא היו לפניו שתי תפלות אחת של מוסף ואחת של מנחה מתפלל של מנחה ואחר כך של מוסף שזו תדירה וזו אינה תדירה רבי יהודה אומר מתפלל של מוסף ואחר כך של מנחה שזו עוברת וזו אינה עוברת,אי אמרת בשלמא עד ועד בכלל היינו דמשכחת להו שתי תפלות בהדי הדדי אלא אי אמרת עד ולא עד בכלל היכי משכחת להו שתי תפלות בהדי הדדי כיון דאתיא לה של מנחה אזלא לה של מוספין,אלא מאי עד ועד בכלל קשיא רישא מאי איכא בין רבי יהודה לרבנן מי סברת דהאי פלג מנחה פלג אחרונה קאמר פלג ראשונה קאמר והכי קאמר אימת נפיק פלג ראשונה ועייל פלג אחרונה מכי נפקי י"א שעות חסר רביע,אמר רב נחמן אף אנן נמי תנינא,רבי יהודה בן בבא העיד חמשה דברים שממאנין את הקטנה ושמשיאין את האשה על פי עד אחד ועל תרנגול שנסקל בירושלים על שהרג את הנפש ועל יין בן ארבעים יום שנתנסך על גבי המזבח ועל תמיד של שחר שקרב בארבע שעות,ש"מ עד ועד בכלל ש"מ,אמר רב כהנא הלכה כרבי יהודה הואיל ותנן בבחירתא כוותיה:,ועל תמיד של שחר שקרב בארבע שעות: מאן תנא להא דתנן (שמות טז, כא) וחם השמש ונמס בארבע שעות,אתה אומר בארבע שעות או אינו אלא בשש שעות כשהוא אומר (בראשית יח, א) כחום היום הרי שש שעות אמור הא מה אני מקיים וחם השמש ונמס בארבע שעות מני לא רבי יהודה ולא רבנן אי רבי יהודה עד ארבע שעות נמי צפרא הוא אי רבנן עד חצות נמי צפרא הוא,אי בעית אימא רבי יהודה אי בעית אימא רבנן אי בעית אימא רבנן אמר קרא בבקר בבקר חלקהו לשני בקרים ואי בעית אימא רבי יהודה האי בקר יתירא להקדים לו שעה אחת דכולא עלמא מיהא וחם השמש ונמס בארבע שעות,מאי משמע אמר רבי אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא וחם השמש ונמס איזו היא שעה שהשמש חם והצל צונן הוי אומר בארבע שעות:,תפלת המנחה עד הערב וכו': אמר ליה רב חסדא לרב יצחק התם אמר רב כהנא הלכה כרבי יהודה הואיל ותנן בבחירתא כוותיה הכא מאי אישתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי אמר רב חסדא נחזי אנן מדרב מצלי של שבת בערב שבת מבעוד יום ש"מ הלכה כרבי יהודה,אדרבה מדרב הונא ורבנן לא הוו מצלו עד אורתא שמע מינה אין הלכה כרבי יהודה השתא דלא אתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר דעבד כמר עבד ודעבד כמר עבד,רב איקלע לבי גניבא וצלי של שבת בערב שבת והוה מצלי רבי ירמיה בר אבא לאחוריה דרב וסיים רב ולא פסקיה לצלותיה דרבי ירמיה שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה מתפלל אדם של שבת בערב שבת ושמע מינה מתפלל תלמיד אחורי רבו ושמע מינה אסור לעבור כנגד המתפללין,מסייע ליה לרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אסור לעבור כנגד המתפללין איני והא רבי אמי ורבי אסי חלפי רבי אמי ורבי אסי חוץ לארבע אמות הוא דחלפי,ורבי ירמיה היכי עביד הכי והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם אל יתפלל אדם | 27a. b is /b identical to the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b as the end of the period that begins with the midpoint of the afternoon is sunset.,The Gemara immediately rejects this proof: b Rather, what /b is the alternative? That b until /b means b until and not including? /b It remains problematic. b Say the latter clause /b of the mishna: b The additional prayer /b may be recited b all day. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b It may be recited b until the seven hours. And it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b the obligation to recite b two prayers was before him, one the additional prayer and one the afternoon prayer, he prays the afternoon prayer /b first b and the additional prayer thereafter, /b because b this, /b the afternoon prayer, b is /b recited on a b frequent /b basis, b and that, /b the additional prayer, b is /b recited on a relatively b infrequent /b basis as it is only recited on Shabbat, the New Moon, and Festivals. The principle states: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. b Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites the additional prayer /b first b and the afternoon prayer thereafter, /b because the time to recite b this, the additional prayer, /b will soon b elapse, and this, /b the time to recite b the afternoon prayer, /b will b not /b soon b elapse, /b as one may recite it until the midpoint of the afternoon.,The relevant point is: b Granted, if you say /b that b until /b means b until and including, that is how you can find /b a situation where the times to recite b two prayers, /b the afternoon prayer and the additional prayer, b overlap. But if you say /b that b until /b means b until and not including, /b and that until seven hours means until the beginning of the seventh hour, noon, then b how can you find /b a situation where the times to recite b two prayers overlap? Once /b the time to recite b the afternoon prayer, /b a half hour past noon, b has arrived, /b the time to recite b the additional prayer /b is already b gone? /b , b Rather, what /b is the alternative? That b until /b means b until and including? /b Then b the first clause /b of the mishna b is difficult, /b as explained above with regard to the midpoint of the afternoon: b What is /b the halakhic difference b between /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda and /b the opinion of b the Rabbis? /b The Gemara answers: b Do you think that /b when b this midpoint of the afternoon /b was mentioned it was b speaking of /b the period following b the midpoint, the last /b part of the afternoon, from an hour-and-a-quarter before sunset until sunset? This was not the intention. Rather, it was b speaking of /b the period prior to b the midpoint, the first /b part of the afternoon, which, as explained above, is from nine-and-a-half hours after sunrise until an hour-and-a-quarter before sunset. Consequently, until the midpoint of the afternoon means until the end of the first half of that afternoon period. b And this is what he is saying: When does the first half leave and the second half enter? From when eleven hours minus a quarter have passed /b since sunrise. Rabbi Yehuda’s use of the term until always means until and including.,Practically speaking, this means that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permissible to recite the morning prayer until the end of the fourth hour. In support of this b Rav Naḥman said: We, too, learned /b this in a mishna:, b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified /b about b five matters of /b i halakha /i : br When an orphan girl, who was married off by her mother or brother before reaching the age of majority, reaches the age of majority, she may refuse to continue living with her husband and thereby retroactively annul their marriage. Normally, marriage refusals are discouraged. However, in specific instances where it is clear that if the marriage were to remain in effect it would engender problems related to levirate marriage and i ḥalitza /i , Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified that b one may persuade the minor girl to refuse /b to continue living with her husband, thereby resolving the complications involved in this case. br b And /b he testified b that one may /b allow b a woman /b who, after hearing of her husband’s death, seeks to remarry, b to marry based on /b the testimony of b one witness, /b as opposed to the two witnesses required for other testimonies of the Torah. br b And /b he testified b about a rooster that was stoned /b to death b in Jerusalem for killing a person, /b in order to teach that the Torah law (Exodus 21:28) which requires the stoning of an ox that killed a person, applies to other animals as well. br b And /b he testified b about forty-day-old wine that was /b used for b libation on the altar. /b br b And /b he testified b about /b the b daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours /b of the day., b Learn from this /b final testimony, which is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that b until /b means b until and including. /b The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from this. /b ,Based on this mishna, b Rav Kahana said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda since we learned /b in a mishna in the b preferred /b tractate, i Eduyyot /i , b in accordance with his /b opinion. Since the i halakha /i is ruled in accordance with all of the i mishnayot /i in i Eduyyot /i , the opinion of a i tanna /i who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in that mishna means that the i halakha /i is in accordance with that opinion., b And about /b the b daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours. /b Based on this, the Gemara attempts to identify b the i tanna /i who taught that which we learned /b in the mishna about the manna that fell for the children of Israel in the desert: “And they gathered it morning by morning, each according to what he eats, b and when the sun grew hot it melted” /b (Exodus 16:21); that took place b four hours /b into the day.,The i baraita /i continues: Do b you say /b that the time when the sun grew hot was b at four hours, or /b perhaps b it was only at six hours /b of the day? b When /b the verse b says: “In the heat of the day” /b (Genesis 18:1), b six hours is /b already b mentioned /b in the Torah as the heat of the day. b How, then, do I establish /b the verse: b “And when the sun grew hot it melted”? /b This must refer to an earlier time, b at four hours. /b The Gemara asks: b Who /b is the i tanna /i of this mishna? It is b neither Rabbi Yehuda nor the Sages. If /b it was in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, until four hours is also /b considered b morning, /b as he holds that the daily morning offering may still be sacrificed then, while here it says that in the morning the manna was gathered and it melted after the morning. b If /b it was in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, until noon is also /b considered b morning, /b since, according to the Sages, the daily morning offering could be sacrificed until noon. Apparently, this is an entirely new position.,The Gemara responds: b If you wish, say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and b if you wish, say /b instead that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b The Gemara explains: b If you wish, say /b in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis. The verse states: Morning by morning, divide it into two mornings. /b Morning, according to the Rabbis, lasts until noon. The repetition of the term morning in the Torah indicates that the period when the manna was gathered ended at the conclusion of the first half of the morning, i.e., the end of the third hour. b And if you wish, say /b instead in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who would say that: b This extra morning /b in the phrase morning by morning comes to b make /b the end of the period when the manna was gathered b an hour earlier. /b In any event, b everyone agrees /b that the verse, b And when the sun grew hot it melted, /b refers to b four hours /b of the day.,The Gemara asks: b From where is the inference /b drawn that this is the meaning of the verse? b Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The verse states: “When the sun grew hot it melted.” Which is the hour that the sun is hot but the shade /b remains b cool, /b before the heat of the day, when even the shade is hot? b You must say at four hours. /b ,We learned in the mishna: The Rabbis hold that b the afternoon prayer /b may be recited b until the evening. /b Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon. b Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Yitzḥak: There, /b with regard to the morning prayer, b Rav Kahana said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, since we learned /b in a mishna in the b preferred /b tractate, i Eduyyot /i , b in accordance with his /b opinion. b Here, what /b is the ruling? b He was silent and said nothing to him, /b as he was familiar with no established ruling in this matter. b Rav Ḥisda said: Let us see /b and try to resolve this ourselves b from /b the fact b that Rav prayed /b the b Shabbat /b prayers on the eve of Shabbat b while it was still day. Learn from this /b that b the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and the time for the afternoon prayer ends at the midpoint of the afternoon, after which time one may recite the evening prayer.,The Gemara immediately rejects the proof based on Rav’s practice: b On the contrary, from /b the fact b that Rav Huna and the Sages, /b students of Rav, b would not pray until evening, learn from that /b that b the i halakha /i is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. /b The Gemara concludes: b Now that the i halakha /i was stated neither in accordance with /b the opinion of this b Sage nor in accordance with /b the opinion of that b Sage, one who acted in accordance with /b the opinion of this b Sage has acted /b legitimately, b and one who acted in accordance with /b the opinion of that b Sage has acted /b legitimately, as this i halakha /i is left to the decision of each individual.,The Gemara relates: b Rav happened by the house of /b the Sage, b Geniva, and he prayed /b the b Shabbat /b prayer b on the eve of Shabbat /b before nightfall. b Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba was praying behind Rav, and Rav finished /b his prayer b but did not /b take three steps back and b interrupt the prayer /b of b Rabbi Yirmeya. Derive from this /b incident b three /b i halakhot /i : b Derive from this /b that b one may pray the Shabbat /b prayer b on the eve of Shabbat /b before nightfall. b And derive from this that a student /b may b pray behind his rabbi. And derive from this /b that it is b prohibited to pass before those who are praying. /b ,The Gemara responds: This b supports /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b as b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited to pass before those who are praying. /b The Gemara asks: b Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi pass /b before those who were praying? The Gemara responds: b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi /b were b beyond four cubits /b from those who were praying b when they passed. /b ,One particular detail was surprising: b How did Rabbi Yirmeya act that way /b and pray behind Rav? b Didn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav said: A person should never pray /b |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 175 | 28b. b that Moses fashioned /b were b fit for his /b generation b and /b were b fit for /b future b generations. /b Yet the b trumpets /b that Moses fashioned were b fit for his /b generation b but /b were b unfit for /b future b generations. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that the b trumpets /b were unfit for future generations? b If we say that /b it is because b the verse states: “Make for you /b two silver trumpets” (Numbers 10:2), meaning that they are fit b for you, but not for /b future b generations, /b that is difficult; b if that is so, /b then the verse: b “Make for you an Ark of wood” /b (Deuteronomy 10:1), should b also /b teach b that /b the Ark is fit only b for you, but not for /b future b generations. /b This cannot be the i halakha /i , as the i baraita /i stated explicitly that all vessels, other than the trumpets, that were fashioned by Moses were fit for future generations., b Rather, /b the term “for you” that is written with regard to the fashioning of the Ark should be understood b either according to the one who says /b that b “for you” /b means b from your own /b property, b or according to the one who says /b that God said to Moses: b I desire, as it were, /b that the Ark be fashioned b from your /b property b more than /b I desire that it be fashioned b from /b the property b of /b the rest of the nation (see i Yoma /i 3b). Accordingly, b here too, /b with regard to the trumpets, the term “for you” b should be /b understood in b this /b manner. The Gemara responds: b There, /b with regard to the trumpets, b it is different, as the verse states “for you” twice: “Make for you /b two trumpets of silver, of beaten work you shall make them, b and they shall be for you /b for the calling of the congregation” (Numbers 10:2).,§ The Gemara relates: b Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanin, taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rav Yosef: /b The b Candelabrum /b could be b fashioned from /b a complete b block /b and b from gold. /b If one b fashioned it from silver, /b it is b fit. /b If one fashioned it b from tin, or from lead, or from other types of metal [ i gisteron /i ], Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b deems /b it b unfit, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems /b it b fit. /b If one fashioned it b from wood, or from bone, or from glass, everyone agrees /b that it is b unfit. /b ,Rav Yosef b said to him: What, /b in b your opinion, /b is the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanin, b said to him: Both /b this b Sage and /b that b Sage interpret /b the verse: “And you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of b generalizations and details. /b The verse begins with a generalization: “And you will make a Candelabrum,” followed by a detail: “of pure gold,” which is then followed by a generalization: “Will the Candelabrum be made.” According to the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details, this teaches that any item that is similar to the detail is also deemed fit., b But /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, b holds /b that b just as /b the item mentioned in b the detail /b is clearly b defined /b as a type b of metal, so too, all /b other types b of metal /b may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b holds /b that b just as /b the item mentioned in b the detail /b is clearly b defined /b as b an item of substantial value, so too, all items of substantial value /b may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum. Rav Yosef b said to him: Remove your /b i baraita /i b in light of my /b i baraita /i .,Rav Yosef continued: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to Temple b service vessels that /b one b fashioned from wood, Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b deems /b them b unfit and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems /b them b fit. /b According to this i baraita /i , their dispute was with regard to a Candelabrum fashioned from wood, not from metal. Rav Yosef explains: b With regard to what /b principle b do they disagree? Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b interprets /b verses by means of the principle of b generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets /b verses by means of the principle of b amplifications and restrictions. /b , b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b interprets /b the verse: “And you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of b generalizations and details. “And you will make a Candelabrum of” /b is b a generalization, /b as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; b “pure gold” /b is b a detail, /b limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: b “of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,” /b the verse b then makes a generalization. /b The result is b a generalization and a detail and a generalization, /b from which b you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail, /b leading to this conclusion: b Just as /b the item mentioned in b the detail /b is clearly b defined /b as a type b of metal, so too, all /b other types b of metal /b may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum.,By contrast, b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets /b the verse by means of the principle of b amplifications and restrictions. “And you will make a Candelabrum of” /b is b an amplification, /b as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; b “pure gold” /b is b a restriction, /b limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: b “of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,” /b the verse b repeated and amplified. /b There is a hermeneutical principle that when a verse b amplified and /b then b restricted and /b then b amplified, it amplified /b the relevant category to include b everything /b except the specific matter excluded in the restriction. b And what did /b the verse b include? It includes all materials, /b even wood. b And what did /b the verse b exclude /b with this restriction? b It excluded /b a Candelabrum fashioned b from earthenware, /b which is furthest in quality from gold.,Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanin, said to him: b On the contrary, remove your /b i baraita /i b in light of my /b i baraita /i . Rav Yosef responded: That b cannot enter your mind, as it is taught /b in another i baraita /i : If the one who is fashioning the Candelabrum b has no gold, he may bring even /b a Candelabrum made b of silver, of copper, of iron, of tin, or of lead. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems /b it b fit even /b if it was fashioned b from wood. /b It is evident from this i baraita /i that the dispute pertains only to a Candelabrum fashioned from wood, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees that it may be fashioned from other types of metal., b And it is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b A person may not construct a house /b in the exact b form of /b the b Sanctuary, /b nor b a portico [ i akhsadra /i ] corresponding to /b the b Entrance Hall /b of the Sanctuary, nor b a courtyard corresponding to /b the Temple b courtyard, /b nor b a table corresponding to /b the b Table /b in the Temple, nor b a candelabrum corresponding to /b the b Candelabrum /b in the Temple. b But one may fashion /b a candelabrum b of five or of six or of eight /b branches. b And /b one b may not fashion /b a candelabrum b of seven /b branches, b and /b this is the i halakha /i b even /b if he constructs it b from other kinds of metal /b rather than gold, since the Candelabrum used in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals.,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: /b One b may not even fashion /b a candelabrum b from wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy did /b in the Temple. The Candelabrum used in the Temple in the time of the Hasmonean kings was fashioned from wood. The Rabbis b said to /b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring b a proof from there? /b In the time of the Hasmoneans the Candelabrum was not fashioned from wood but from b spits [ i shappudim /i ] of iron, and they covered them with tin. /b Later, when b they grew richer /b and could afford to fashion a Candelabrum of higher-quality material, b they fashioned /b the Candelabrum b from silver. /b When b they again grew richer, they fashioned /b the Candelabrum b from gold. /b ,§ b Shmuel says in the name of /b a certain b elder: The height of /b the b Candelabrum /b was b eighteen handbreadths. The base and the flower /b that was upon the base were a height of b three handbreadths; and two handbreadths /b above that were b bare; and /b there was above that b one handbreadth, which /b had b a goblet, knob, and flower on it. And two handbreadths /b above that were b bare, and /b there was above that b one handbreadth /b that had b a knob. /b , b And two branches emerge from /b the knob, b one toward this /b direction b and one toward that /b direction, b and they extend and rise up to the height of the Candelabrum. And one handbreadth /b above that was b bare, and /b there was above that b one handbreadth /b that had b a knob. And two branches emerge from /b the knob, b one toward this /b direction b and one toward that /b direction, b and they extend and rise up to the height of /b the b Candelabrum. And /b one b handbreadth /b above that was b bare, and /b there was above that one b handbreadth /b that had b a knob. And two branches emerge from /b the knob, b one toward this /b direction b and one toward that /b direction, b and they extend and rise up to the height of /b the b Candelabrum. And two handbreadths /b above that were b bare. /b There then b remained there three handbreadths in which /b there were b three goblets, and a knob, and a flower. /b , b And /b the b goblets /b of the Candelabrum, b to what are they similar? /b They were b like Alexandrian goblets, /b which are long and narrow. The b knobs, to what are they similar? /b They were b like /b the shape of b the apples of the Cherethites. /b The b flowers, to what are they similar? /b They were b like the ornaments /b that are etched in b columns. And /b there b are found to be /b a total of b twenty-two goblets, eleven knobs, /b and b nine flowers /b on the Candelabrum.,With regard to the b goblets, /b the absence of b each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others; /b with regard to the b knobs, /b the absence of b each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others; /b with regard to the b flowers, /b the absence of b each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. /b With regard to the b goblets, knobs, and flowers, /b the absence of b each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b there were b twenty-two goblets /b on the Candelabrum, b as it is written: “And in the Candelabrum four goblets /b made like almond blossoms” (Exodus 25:34), b and it is written: “Three goblets made like almond blossoms in one branch, a knob, and a flower; /b and three goblets made like almond blossoms in the other branch, a knob, and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the Candelabrum” (Exodus 25:33). Therefore, the Candelabrum contains the b four /b goblets b of its /b main shaft, |
|
12. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 175| 24b. של חמשה ושל ששה ושל שמונה ושל שבעה לא יעשה אפי' של שאר מיני מתכות רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר אף של עץ לא יעשה כדרך שעשו מלכי בית חשמונאי,אמרו לו משם ראייה שפודין של ברזל היו וחיפום בבעץ העשירו עשאום של כסף חזרו העשירו עשאום של זהב,ושמשין שאי אפשר לעשות כמותן מי שרי והתניא (שמות כ, יט) לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות שמשיי המשמשין לפני במרום אמר אביי לא אסרה תורה אלא דמות ארבעה פנים בהדי הדדי,אלא מעתה פרצוף אדם לחודיה תשתרי אלמה תניא כל הפרצופות מותרין חוץ מפרצוף אדם א"ר הונא בריה דרב אידי מפרקיה דאביי שמיעא לי לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון אותי,ושאר שמשין מי שרי והא תניא לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות שמשיי המשמשין לפני במרום כגון אופנים ושרפים וחיות הקודש ומלאכי השרת אמר אביי לא אסרה תורה אלא שמשין שבמדור העליון,ושבמדור התחתון מי שרי והתניא (שמות כ, ג) אשר בשמים לרבות חמה ולבנה כוכבים ומזלות ממעל לרבות מלאכי השרת כי תניא ההיא לעבדם,אי לעבדם אפילו שלשול קטן נמי אין ה"נ דתניא (שמות כ, ג) אשר בארץ לרבות הרים וגבעות ימים ונהרות אפיקים וגאיות מתחת לרבות שלשול קטן,ועשייה גרידתא מי שרי והתניא לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות שמשיי המשמשין לפני כגון חמה ולבנה כוכבים ומזלות,שאני ר"ג דאחרים עשו לו והא רב יהודה דאחרים עשו לו וא"ל שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא סמי עיניה דדין,התם חותמו בולט הוה ומשום חשדא כדתניא טבעת חותמו בולט אסור להניחה ומותר לחתום בה חותמו שוקע מותר להניחה ואסור לחתום בה,ומי חיישינן לחשדא והא ההיא בי כנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא דהוה ביה אנדרטא והוו עיילי רב ושמואל ואבוה דשמואל ולוי ומצלו התם ולא חיישי לחשדא רבים שאני,והא ר"ג יחיד הוא כיון דנשיא הוא שכיחי רבים גביה איבעית אימא דפרקים הוה,ואיבעית אימא להתלמד עבד וכתיב (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מעשה שבאו שנים ואמרו ראינוהו שחרית במזרח | 24b. a candelabrum b of five or of six or of eight /b lamps. b But one may not fashion /b a candelabrum with b seven /b lamps b even /b if he constructs it b from other kinds of metal /b rather than gold, as in exigent circumstances the candelabrum in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals. b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Also, one may not fashion /b a candelabrum b of wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy fashioned /b it. When they first purified the Temple they had to prepare the candelabrum out of wood, as no other material was available. Since this candelabrum is fit for the Temple, it is prohibited to fashion one of this kind for oneself.,The other Sages b said to /b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda: b From there /b you seek to bring b a proof? /b There the branches of the candelabrum b were /b comprised of b spits [ i shippudin /i ] of iron and they covered them with tin. /b Later, when b they grew richer /b and could afford a candelabrum of higher-quality material, b they fashioned them from silver. /b When b they grew even richer, they fashioned them from gold. /b Still, Abaye proves from this i baraita /i that the prohibition against forming an image applies only to items that can be reconstructed in an accurate manner. Since this is not possible in the case of the moon, Rabban Gamliel’s forms were permitted.,The Gemara asks: b And is it /b really b permitted /b to form images of b those attendants /b concerning b which it is impossible to reproduce their likeness? Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse: b “You shall not make with Me /b gods of silver” (Exodus 20:19), comes to teach: b You shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high. /b Apparently, this includes the sun and the moon. b Abaye said: /b This does not include the sun and the moon, as b the Torah prohibited only /b the fashioning of b an image of /b all b four faces /b of the creatures of the Heavenly Chariot b together /b (see Ezekiel, chapter 1). However, all other images, which are not the likeness of the ministering angels, are permitted.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b However, if /b that is b so, let /b the fashioning of an image of b a human face [ i partzuf /i ] alone be permitted. Why, /b then, b is it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b All faces are permitted /b for ornamental purposes, b except for the face of a person? Rav Huna, son of Rav Idi, said: From a lecture of Abaye I heard /b that there is a different reason why one may not form an image of a human face, as the verse states: b “You shall not make with Me [ i iti /i ]” /b (Exodus 20:19). This can be read as: b You shall not make Me [ i oti /i ]. /b Since man is created in the image of God, it is prohibited to form an image of a human being.,The Gemara asks: b And is it permitted /b to form images of b other attendants? Isn’t it taught /b in another i baraita /i that the verse: b “You shall not make with Me /b gods of silver” (Exodus 20:19), teaches that b you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high, for example, i ofanim /i and seraphim and the sacred i ḥayyot /i and the ministering angels. Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only /b those b attendants that are /b found b in the upper Heaven, /b i.e., the supreme angels in the highest firmament, but not the celestial bodies, e.g., the sun and the moon, despite the fact that they too are located in heaven.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b And is it permitted /b to form images of b those /b bodies found b in the lower heaven? Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : “You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:3). The phrase b “that is in heaven” /b comes b to include /b the b sun, /b the b moon, /b the b stars, and /b the b constellations. /b The term b “above” /b serves b to include the ministering angels. /b Apparently, it is prohibited to form an image even of the celestial bodies found in the lower Heaven. The Gemara answers: b When that /b i baraita /i b is taught, /b it is in reference to the prohibition b against worshipping them. /b However, there is no prohibition against forming an image in their likeness.,The Gemara asks: b If /b that i baraita /i is referring to b the prohibition against worshipping them, /b then b even a tiny worm /b should b also /b be prohibited. The Gemara answers: b Yes, it is indeed so, as it is taught /b in the same i baraita /i with regard to the continuation of the verse, b “in the earth” /b comes b to include mountains and hills, seas and rivers, streams and valleys; “beneath” /b comes b to include a tiny worm. /b If so, it is indeed possible to explain that the entire i baraita /i is referring to the prohibition against idol worship.,The Gemara raises yet another objection: b And is the mere fashioning /b of images of the celestial bodies b permitted? Isn’t it taught /b in another i baraita /i : b “You shall not make with Me /b gods of silver” (Exodus 20:19). This verse teaches that b you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me, for example /b the b sun, /b the b moon, /b the b stars and /b the b constellations. /b This is explicit proof that it is prohibited to form images of the sun and the moon; consequently, the solution proposed by Abaye is rejected, leaving the difficulty with Rabban Gamliel’s diagram unresolved.,The Gemara proposes an alternative resolution: The case of b Rabban Gamliel is different, as others, /b i.e., gentiles, b fashioned /b those images b for him, /b and it is prohibited only for a Jew to fashion such images; there is no prohibition against having them in one’s possession. The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b there is the case of b Rav Yehuda, as others fashioned for him /b a seal in the form of a human being, b and Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, /b who was his student: b Sharp-witted one, blind this one’s eyes, /b i.e., disfigure the image, as it is prohibited even to have the image of a human being in one’s possession.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b in the case of Rav Yehuda, b his was a protruding seal, /b i.e., the image projected from the ring, and Shmuel prohibited it b due to /b the potential b suspicion /b that he had an object of idol worship in his hand. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b a ring, /b if b its seal protrudes it is prohibited to place it /b on one’s finger, due to the suspicion of idol worship, b but it is permitted to seal /b objects b with it. /b In this case, the act of sealing creates an image that is sunken below the surface, which is not prohibited. However, if b its seal is sunken, it is permitted to place it /b on one’s finger, b but it is prohibited to seal /b objects b with it, /b as that creates a protruding image.,The Gemara asks: b And are we concerned about /b arousing b suspicion /b in a case of this kind? b But /b what about that b certain synagogue that had been /b destroyed in Eretz Yisrael and its stones were b relocated and /b it was rebuilt so that it b sat in Neharde’a, /b and b there was a statue [ i andarta /i ] /b of the king b in it. And /b nevertheless b Rav and Shmuel and Shmuel’s father and Levi would /b all b enter and pray there and they were not concerned about /b arousing b suspicion. /b The Gemara answers: When b many /b Jews are present it b is different, /b as a large group is not suspected of having idolatrous intentions. Rather, it is assumed that the statue is there exclusively for purposes of ornamentation.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t Rabban Gamliel an individual? /b According to this reasoning, his images of the moon should have been prohibited, as they would have aroused suspicion. The Gemara answers: b Since he is the i Nasi /i , /b the head of the Great Sanhedrin, b many /b people b were /b always b found with him, /b and therefore there was no room for suspicion. The Gemara suggests an alternative answer: b If you wish, say /b that these images were not whole; rather, they b were /b formed b from pieces /b of images that had to be put together. Only complete images are prohibited.,The Gemara suggests yet another answer: b If you wish, say: /b Rabban Gamliel b did /b this b to teach himself, /b which is not prohibited, as b it is written: “You shall not learn to do /b after the abominations of those nations” (Deuteronomy 18:9), which indicates: b However, you may learn to understand and to teach. /b In other words, it is permitted to do certain things for the sake of Torah study which would otherwise be prohibited., strong MISHNA: /strong There was b an incident /b in b which two /b witnesses b came /b to testify about the new moon, b and they said: We saw /b the waning moon b in the morning in the east, /b |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 175| 21b. אין זקוק לה ומותר להשתמש לאורה א"ר זירא אמר רב מתנה ואמרי לה א"ר זירא אמר רב פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת מדליקין בהן בחנוכה בין בחול בין בשבת א"ר ירמיה מאי טעמא דרב קסבר כבתה אין זקוק לה ואסור להשתמש לאורה,אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמיה דר' ירמיה ולא קיבלה כי אתא רבין אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמיה דר' יוחנן וקיבלה אמר אי זכאי גמירתיה לשמעתיה מעיקרא והא גמרה נפקא מינה לגירסא דינקותא,וכבתה אין זקוק לה ורמינהו מצותה משתשקע החמה עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק מאי לאו דאי כבתה הדר מדליק לה לא דאי לא אדליק מדליק וא"נ לשיעורה:,עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק ועד כמה אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן עד דכליא ריגלא דתרמודאי:,ת"ר מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד והמהדרין מן המהדרין ב"ש אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמנה מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך וב"ה אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחת מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך,אמר עולא פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא ר' יוסי בר אבין ור' יוסי בר זבידא חד אמר טעמא דב"ש כנגד ימים הנכנסין וטעמא דב"ה כנגד ימים היוצאין וחד אמר טעמא דב"ש כנגד פרי החג וטעמא דבית הלל דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן שני זקנים היו בצידן אחד עשה כב"ש ואחד עשה כדברי ב"ה זה נותן טעם לדבריו כנגד פרי החג וזה נותן טעם לדבריו דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין,ת"ר נר חנוכה מצוה להניחה על פתח ביתו מבחוץ אם היה דר בעלייה מניחה בחלון הסמוכה לרה"ר ובשעת הסכנה מניחה על שלחנו ודיו,אמר רבא צריך נר אחרת להשתמש לאורה ואי איכא מדורה לא צריך ואי אדם חשוב הוא אע"ג דאיכא מדורה צריך נר אחרת:,מאי חנוכה דתנו רבנן בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה,תנן התם גץ היוצא מתחת הפטיש ויצא והזיק חייב גמל שטעון פשתן והוא עובר ברשות הרבים ונכנסה פשתנו לתוך החנות ודלקה בנרו של חנוני והדליק את הבירה בעל הגמל חייב הניח חנוני את נרו מבחוץ חנוני חייב,רבי יהודה אומר בנר חנוכה פטור אמר רבינא (משום דרבה) זאת אומרת נר חנוכה מצוה להניחה בתוך עשרה דאי ס"ד למעלה מעשרה לימא ליה היה לך להניח למעלה מגמל ורוכבו ודילמא אי מיטרחא ליה טובא אתי לאימנועי ממצוה:,אמר רב כהנא דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משמיה דרבי תנחום | 21b. b one is not bound /b to attend b to it. /b Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that b it is permitted to use its light. /b As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which b Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rav Mattana said, and others say /b that b Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, /b nevertheless, b light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav’s reason? He holds /b that if b it is extinguished, one is not bound /b to attend b to it /b and relight it, b and it is prohibited to use its light. /b Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light.,The Gemara relates that b the Sages said this /b i halakha /i b before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, /b as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, b when Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b the Sages said /b this i halakha /i b before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa, and he accepted it. /b Then Abaye b said /b regretfully: b Had I merited, I would have learned this i halakha /i from the outset. /b The Gemara wonders: b Didn’t he /b ultimately b learn it /b and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: b The practical difference /b is with regard to b knowledge /b acquired in one’s b youth, /b which is better remembered.,With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: b And /b is it true that if the Hanukkah light b is extinguished one is not bound /b to attend b to it? /b The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which was taught in a i baraita /i : b The mitzva /b of kindling the Hanukkah lights b is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not /b mean b that if /b the light b is extinguished, he /b must b rekindle it /b so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: b No, /b the i baraita /i can be understood otherwise: b That if one did not /b yet b light /b at sunset, b he /b may still b light /b the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. b Alternatively, /b one could say that this is referring to the matter of b its measure. /b One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it.,The expression b until traffic in the marketplace ceases /b is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: b Until when /b exactly is this time? b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Until /b the b traffic of /b the people of b Tadmor [ i tarmoda /i ’ i ei /i ] ceases. /b They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The /b basic b mitzva of Hanukkah /b is each day to have b a light /b kindled by b a person, /b the head of the household, for himself b and his household. And the i mehadrin /i , /b i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle b a light for each and every one /b in the household. b And the i mehadrin min hamehadrin /i , /b who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. b Beit Shammai say: /b On b the first day one kindles eight /b lights and, from b there on, gradually decreases /b the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. b And Beit Hillel say: /b On b the first day one kindles one /b light, and from b there on, gradually increases /b the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights., b Ulla said: /b There were b two i amora /i ’ i im /i in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, who b disagreed /b with regard to b this /b dispute, b Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said /b that b the reason /b for b Beit Shammai’s /b opinion is that the number of lights b corresponds to the incoming days, /b i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. b The reason /b for b Beit Hillel’s /b opinion is that the number of lights b corresponds to the outgoing days. /b Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. b And one said /b that b the reason /b for b Beit Shammai’s /b opinion is that the number of lights b corresponds to the bulls of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i : Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). b The reason /b for b Beit Hillel’s /b opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: b One elevates /b to a higher level b in /b matters of b sanctity and one does not downgrade. /b Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day., b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: There were two Elders in Sidon, /b and b one /b of them b acted /b in accordance with the opinion of b Beit Shammai, and one /b of them b acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel. /b Each provided a reason for his actions: b One gave a reason for his actions: /b The number of lights b corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: /b The number of lights is based on the principle: b One elevates /b to a higher level b in /b matters of b sanctity and one does not downgrade. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one’s house on the outside, /b so that all can see it. b If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, /b when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, b he places it on the table and /b that is b sufficient /b to fulfill b his /b obligation., b Rava said: /b One b must /b kindle b another light /b in addition to the Hanukkah lights b in order to use its light, /b as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. b And if there is a bonfire, he need not /b light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, b if he is an important person, /b who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, b even though there is a bonfire, he must /b kindle b another light. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is Hanukkah, /b and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: b The Sages taught /b in i Megillat Ta /i ’ i anit /i : b On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. /b What is the reason? b When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary /b by touching them. b And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame /b them b and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, /b undisturbed by the Greeks. b And there was /b sufficient oil b there to light /b the candelabrum for b only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit /b the candelabrum b from it eight days. The next year /b the Sages b instituted /b those days b and made them holidays with /b recitation of b i hallel /i and /b special b thanksgiving /b in prayer and blessings., b We learned there /b in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of b a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out /b of the artisan’s workshop, b and caused damage, /b the one who struck the hammer is b liable. /b Similarly, in the case of b a camel that is laden with flax and /b it b passed /b through b the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. /b Since his flax entered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the b storekeeper placed his lamp outside /b the store and it set fire to the flax, b the storekeeper is liable, /b as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If the flax was set on fire b by the /b storekeeper’s b Hanukkah lamp /b that he placed outside the entrance to his store, b he is not liable, /b as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. b Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say /b that it is a b mitzva to place /b the b Hanukkah lamp within ten /b handbreadths of the ground. b As if it should enter your mind /b to say that he may place it b above ten handbreadths, /b why is the storekeeper exempt? b Let /b the camel owner b say to /b the storekeeper: b You should have placed /b the lamp b above /b the height b of a camel and its rider, /b and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: b And perhaps /b one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that b if you burden /b one b excessively, he will come to refrain from /b performing the b mitzva /b of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions.,With regard to the essence of the matter b Rav Kahana said /b that b Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name /b of b Rabbi Tanḥum: /b |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •jerusalem talmud (yt), additional versions of the siege tradition in Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 175| 43a. הני אין צורת דרקון לא,אלא פשיטא במוצא וכדתנן המוצא כלים ועליהם צורת חמה,רישא וסיפא במוצא ומציעתא בעושה,אמר אביי אין רישא וסיפא במוצא ומציעתא בעושה,רבא אמר כולה במוצא ומציעתא רבי יהודה היא דתניא רבי יהודה מוסיף אף דמות מניקה וסר אפיס מניקה על שם חוה שמניקה כל העולם כולו סר אפיס על שם יוסף שסר ומפיס את כל העולם כולו והוא דנקיט גריוא וקא כייל והיא דנקטא בן וקא מניקה:,תנו רבנן איזהו צורת דרקון פירש רשב"א כל שיש לו ציצין בין פרקיו מחוי רבי אסי בין פרקי צואר אמר ר' חמא ברבי חנינא הלכה כר"ש בן אלעזר,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי פעם אחת הייתי מהלך אחר ר' אלעזר הקפר בריבי בדרך ומצא שם טבעת ועליה צורת דרקון ומצא עובד כוכבים קטן ולא אמר לו כלום מצא עובד כוכבים גדול ואמר לו בטלה ולא בטלה סטרו ובטלה,ש"מ תלת ש"מ עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חבירו וש"מ יודע בטיב של עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה מבטל ושאינו יודע בטיב עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה אינו מבטל וש"מ עובד כוכבים מבטל בעל כרחו,מגדף בה רבי חנינא ולית ליה לרבי אלעזר הקפר בריבי הא דתנן המציל מן הארי ומן הדוב ומן הנמר ומן הגייס ומן הנהר ומזוטו של ים ומשלוליתו של נהר והמוצא בסרטיא ופלטיא גדולה ובכל מקום שהרבים מצוין שם הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין מהן,אמר אביי נהי דמינה מייאש מאיסורא מי מייאש מימר אמר אי עובד כוכבים משכח לה מפלח פלח לה אי ישראל משכח לה איידי דדמיה יקרין מזבין לה לעובד כוכבים ופלח לה:,תנן התם דמות צורות לבנות היה לו לר"ג בעלייתו בטבלא בכותל שבהן מראה את ההדיוטות ואומר להן כזה ראיתם או כזה ראיתם,ומי שרי והכתיב (שמות כ, כג) לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות שמשי המשמשים לפני,אמר אביי לא אסרה תורה אלא שמשין שאפשר לעשות כמותן,כדתניא לא יעשה אדם בית תבנית היכל אכסדרה תבנית אולם חצר תבנית עזרה שולחן תבנית שולחן מנורה תבנית מנורה אבל הוא עושה של ה' ושל ו' ושל ח' ושל ז' לא יעשה אפילו של שאר מיני מתכות,רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר אף של עץ לא יעשה כדרך שעשו בית חשמונאי,אמרו לו משם ראיה שפודין של ברזל היו וחופין בבעץ העשירו עשאום של כסף חזרו והעשירו עשאום של זהב,ושמשין שאי אפשר לעשות כמותן מי שרי והתניא לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות שמשי המשמשים לפני במרום,אמר אביי | 43a. The Sages interpret this verse as referring to the heavenly constellations, which indicates that it b is /b prohibited to form only b these /b figures, but it is b not /b prohibited to form b a figure of a dragon. /b , b Rather, /b the Gemara concludes, it is b obvious /b that this i halakha /i is referring to a case b where /b one b finds /b a vessel with the figure of a dragon, b and /b this is b as we learned /b in the mishna: In the case of b one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, /b a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea.,The Gemara asks about the lack of consistency between the clauses of Rav Sheshet’s statement: Can it be that b the first clause and the last clause are /b referring to a case b where one finds /b vessels with the specified figures, b and the middle clause is /b referring to a case b where one forms /b these figures?, b Abaye said: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are /b referring to cases b where one finds /b vessels with figures, b and the middle clause is /b referring to a case b where one forms /b figures., b Rava said: The entire /b statement of Rav Sheshet is referring to a case b where one finds /b vessels with these figures, b and the middle clause is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda adds /b to the list of forbidden figures b even a figure of a nursing woman and i Sar Apis /i . /b The figure of b a nursing woman /b is worshipped as it b symbolizes Eve, who nurses the entire world. /b The figure of b i Sar Apis /i /b is worshipped as it b symbolizes Joseph, who ruled over [ i sar /i ] and appeased [ i mefis /i ] the entire world /b by distributing food during the seven years of famine (see Genesis, chapter 41). b But /b the figure of i Sar Apis /i is forbidden b only when it is holding a dry measure and measuring /b with it; b and /b the figure of a nursing woman is forbidden b only when she is holding a child and nursing /b it.,§ b The Sages taught: What is a figure of a dragon? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explained: /b It is b any /b figure b that has scales between its joints. Rabbi Asi motioned /b with his hands to depict scales b between the joints of the neck. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. /b , b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Once, I was following Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished on the road, and he found a ring there, and there was a figure of a dragon on it. And he /b then b encountered a minor gentile boy, but did not say anything to him. He /b then b encountered an adult gentile, and said to him: Revoke /b the ring’s idolatrous status. b But /b the gentile b did not revoke it. /b Rabbi Elazar HaKappar then b slapped him /b across his face, whereupon the gentile succumbed b and revoked /b its idolatrous status.,The Gemara comments: b Learn from /b this incident the following b three /b i halakhot /i : b Learn from it /b that b a gentile can revoke /b the idolatrous status of both b his /b object of b idol worship and that of another /b gentile. b And learn from /b the fact that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar waited to find an adult gentile, that only one who b is aware of the nature of idol worship and its accessories can revoke /b the idol’s status, b but /b one b who is not aware of the nature of idol worship and its accessories, /b such as a minor, b cannot revoke /b the idol’s status. b And /b finally, b learn from it /b that b a gentile can revoke /b the status of an idol even b against his will. /b , b Rabbi Ḥanina ridiculed /b this ruling and asked: b But /b why was it necessary to have a gentile actively revoke the idolatrous status of the ring? b Doesn’t Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished maintain /b in accordance with b that which we learned /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who saves /b an object b from a lion, or from a bear, or from a cheetah, or from a troop /b of soldiers, b or from a river, or from the tide of the sea, or from the flooding of a river, or /b similarly b one who finds /b an object b in a main thoroughfare or /b in b a large plaza, or /b for that matter, b anywhere frequented by the public, /b in all these cases, the objects belong b to him, because the owners despair of /b recovering b them? /b Therefore, in the case of a lost ring with an idolatrous figure on it, its idolatrous status is automatically revoked, as its owner despairs of recovering it., b Abaye said: Granted, /b the owner b despairs of /b recovering the object b itself, but does he despair of /b its b forbidden [ i me’issura /i ] /b idolatrous status? The owner does not assume that the object will never be worshipped again; rather, b he says /b to himself: b If a gentile finds it, he will worship it. If a Jew finds it, since it is valuable, he will sell it to a gentile who will /b then b worship it. /b Therefore, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar had to have the ring’s idolatrous status revoked.,§ b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Rosh HaShana /i 24a): b Rabban Gamliel had /b diagrams of the different b figures of moons /b drawn b on a tablet /b that hung b on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the ordinary /b people b [ i hahedyotot /i ] /b who came to testify about sighting the new moon but who were unable to adequately describe what they had seen. b And he would say to them: Did you see /b an image b like this, or did you see /b an image b like that? /b ,The Gemara asks: b And is /b it b permitted /b to form these figures? b But isn’t it written: “You shall not make with Me /b gods of silver, or gods of gold” (Exodus 20:20), which is interpreted to mean: b You shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me, /b i.e., those celestial bodies that were created to serve God, including the sun and the moon.,In answering, b Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only /b the figures of those b attendants that /b one can b possibly reproduce /b something that is truly b in their likeness. /b Since it is impossible to reproduce the sun and the moon, the prohibition does not apply to these entities., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A person may not construct a house /b in the exact b image of the Sanctuary, /b nor b a portico /b in the exact b image of the Entrance Hall /b of the Sanctuary, nor b a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, /b nor b a table corresponding to the Table /b in the Temple, nor b a candelabrum corresponding to the Candelabrum /b in the Temple. b But /b one b may fashion /b a candelabrum b of five or of six or of eight /b lamps. b And /b one b may not fashion /b a candelabrum b of seven /b lamps b even /b if he constructs it b from other kinds of metal /b rather than gold, as in extenuating circumstances the Candelabrum in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals.,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may not fashion a candelabrum of wood either, in the manner that /b the kings of b the Hasmonean monarchy fashioned /b it. When they first purified the Temple they had to fashion the Candelabrum out of wood as no other material was available. Since a wooden candelabrum is fit for the Temple, it is prohibited to fashion one of this kind for oneself.,The Rabbis b said to /b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda: Do you seek to cite b a proof from there, /b i.e., from the Hasmonean era, that a candelabrum fashioned of wood is fit for the Temple? During that era the branches of the Candelabrum b were /b fashioned from b spits [ i shappudin /i ] of iron, and they covered /b them b with tin [ i beva’atz /i ]. /b Later, when b they grew richer /b and could afford a Candelabrum of higher-quality material, b they fashioned /b the Candelabrum b from silver. /b When b they grew even richer, they fashioned /b the Candelabrum b from gold. /b In any event, Abaye proves from this i baraita /i that the prohibition against forming a figure applies only to items that can be reconstructed in an accurate manner. Since this is not possible in the case of the moon, Rabban Gamliel’s figures were permitted.,The Gemara asks: b And is it /b actually b permitted /b to fashion figures of those b attendants /b of God concerning b which it is impossible to reproduce their likeness? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse: b “You shall not make with Me /b gods of silver” (Exodus 20:20), is interpreted to mean: b You shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me on high? /b Apparently, this includes the sun and the moon., b Abaye said: /b |
|
| 15. Megillat Ta‘Anit (Scroll of Fasting), Scholion P, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 175 |
| 16. Megillat Ta‘Anit (Scroll of Fasting), Scholion O, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 175 |
