1. Septuagint, Tobit, 12.8 (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 464 | 12.8. Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 10.2, 14.13, 17.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 149, 320, 437| 10.2. "אֵלֶּה בְנֵי־חָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לִלְשֹׁנֹתָם בְּאַרְצֹתָם בְּגוֹיֵהֶם׃", 10.2. "בְּנֵי יֶפֶת גֹּמֶר וּמָגוֹג וּמָדַי וְיָוָן וְתֻבָל וּמֶשֶׁךְ וְתִירָס׃", 14.13. "וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר וְהֵם בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית־אַבְרָם׃", 17.1. "זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל־זָכָר׃", 17.1. "וַיְהִי אַבְרָם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל־אַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי־אֵל שַׁדַּי הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים׃", | 10.2. "The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.", 14.13. "And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew—now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram.", 17.1. "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: ‘I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 19.10-19.15, 21.2, 30.17-30.21, 34.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114, 129, 136, 149, 168| 19.11. "וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים לַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי כִּי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי יֵרֵד יְהוָה לְעֵינֵי כָל־הָעָם עַל־הַר סִינָי׃", 19.12. "וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ אֶת־הָעָם סָבִיב לֵאמֹר הִשָּׁמְרוּ לָכֶם עֲלוֹת בָּהָר וּנְגֹעַ בְּקָצֵהוּ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהָר מוֹת יוּמָת׃", 19.13. "לֹא־תִגַּע בּוֹ יָד כִּי־סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל אוֹ־יָרֹה יִיָּרֶה אִם־בְּהֵמָה אִם־אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה בִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיֹּבֵל הֵמָּה יַעֲלוּ בָהָר׃", 19.14. "וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר אֶל־הָעָם וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת־הָעָם וַיְכַבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם׃", 19.15. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָעָם הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים אַל־תִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל־אִשָּׁה׃", 21.2. "כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם׃", 21.2. "וְכִי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם׃", 30.17. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 30.18. "וְעָשִׂיתָ כִּיּוֹר נְחֹשֶׁת וְכַנּוֹ נְחֹשֶׁת לְרָחְצָה וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ בֵּין־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּבֵין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנָתַתָּ שָׁמָּה מָיִם׃", 30.19. "וְרָחֲצוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם וְאֶת־רַגְלֵיהֶם׃", 30.21. "וְרָחֲצוּ יְדֵיהֶם וְרַגְלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם חָק־עוֹלָם לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ לְדֹרֹתָם׃", 34.15. "פֶּן־תִּכְרֹת בְּרִית לְיוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ וְזָנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְזָבְחוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְקָרָא לְךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ מִזִּבְחוֹ׃", | 19.10. "And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments,", 19.11. "and be ready against the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.", 19.12. "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death;", 19.13. "no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram’s horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.’", 19.14. "And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments.", 19.15. "And he said unto the people: ‘Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.’", 21.2. "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.", 30.17. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 30.18. "’Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and the base thereof of brass, whereat to wash; and thou shalt put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.", 30.19. "And Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat;", 30.20. "when they go into the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to cause an offering made by fire to smoke unto the LORD;", 30.21. "so they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not; and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.’", 34.15. "lest thou make a covet with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee, and thou eat of their sacrifice;", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 5.13, 6.10, 8.7, 8.17, 9.29-9.31, 10.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 146, 192| 5.13. "וְכָל־זֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁוֶה לִי בְּכָל־עֵת אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי רֹאֶה אֶת־מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", 8.7. "וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וּלְמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי הִנֵּה בֵית־הָמָן נָתַתִּי לְאֶסְתֵּר וְאֹתוֹ תָּלוּ עַל־הָעֵץ עַל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַח יָדוֹ ביהודיים [בַּיְּהוּדִים׃]", 8.17. "וּבְכָל־מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וּבְכָל־עִיר וָעִיר מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר דְּבַר־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ מַגִּיעַ שִׂמְחָה וְשָׂשׂוֹן לַיְּהוּדִים מִשְׁתֶּה וְיוֹם טוֹב וְרַבִּים מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מִתְיַהֲדִים כִּי־נָפַל פַּחַד־הַיְּהוּדִים עֲלֵיהֶם׃", 9.29. "וַתִּכְתֹּב אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה בַת־אֲבִיחַיִל וּמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי אֶת־כָּל־תֹּקֶף לְקַיֵּם אֵת אִגֶּרֶת הַפּוּרִים הַזֹּאת הַשֵּׁנִית׃", 9.31. "לְקַיֵּם אֵת־יְמֵי הַפֻּרִים הָאֵלֶּה בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר קִיַּם עֲלֵיהֶם מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי וְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וְכַאֲשֶׁר קִיְּמוּ עַל־נַפְשָׁם וְעַל־זַרְעָם דִּבְרֵי הַצֹּמוֹת וְזַעֲקָתָם׃", 10.3. "כִּי מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי מִשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְגָדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו דֹּרֵשׁ טוֹב לְעַמּוֹ וְדֹבֵר שָׁלוֹם לְכָל־זַרְעוֹ׃", | 5.13. "Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.’", 6.10. "Then the king said to Haman: ‘Make haste, and take the apparel and the horse, as thou hast said, and do even so to Mordecai the Jew, that sitteth at the king’s gate; let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken.’", 8.7. "Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew: ‘Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews.", 8.17. "And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness and joy, a feast and a good day. And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them.", 9.29. "Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote down all the acts of power, to confirm this second letter of Purim.", 9.30. "And he sent letters unto all the Jews, to the hundred twenty and seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth,", 9.31. "to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had ordained for themselves and for their seed, the matters of the fastings and their cry.", 10.3. "For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren; seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his seed.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.9, 15.12, 23.7, 23.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44, 129, 146, 149| 4.9. "רַק הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ מְאֹד פֶּן־תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר־רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ וּפֶן־יָסוּרוּ מִלְּבָבְךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ וְהוֹדַעְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֵי בָנֶיךָ׃", 15.12. "כִּי־יִמָּכֵר לְךָ אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת תְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ׃", 23.7. "לֹא־תִדְרֹשׁ שְׁלֹמָם וְטֹבָתָם כָּל־יָמֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם׃", 23.18. "לֹא־תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", | 4.9. "Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes saw, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life; but make them known unto thy children and thy children’s children;", 15.12. "If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.", 23.7. "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.", 23.18. "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Jonah, 1.9 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 149| 1.9. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם עִבְרִי אָנֹכִי וְאֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲנִי יָרֵא אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה אֶת־הַיָּם וְאֶת־הַיַּבָּשָׁה׃", | 1.9. "And he said unto them: ‘I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, who hath made the sea and the dry land.’", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 21.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44| 21.7. "אִשָּׁה זֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה לֹא יִקָּחוּ וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ לֹא יִקָּחוּ כִּי־קָדֹשׁ הוּא לֵאלֹהָיו׃", | 21.7. "They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband; for he is holy unto his God.", |
|
| 8. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 2.64 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114 |
9. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 45.3, 119.126 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 30, 320| 45.3. "יָפְיָפִיתָ מִבְּנֵי אָדָם הוּצַק חֵן בְּשְׂפְתוֹתֶיךָ עַל־כֵּן בֵּרַכְךָ אֱלֹהִים לְעוֹלָם׃", 119.126. "עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַיהוָה הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ׃", | 45.3. "Thou art fairer than the children of men; Grace is poured upon thy lips; Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.", 119.126. "It is time for the LORD to work; They have made void Thy law.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 20.26 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 136, 149| 20.26. "וְלֹא־דִבֶּר שָׁאוּל מְאוּמָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּי אָמַר מִקְרֶה הוּא בִּלְתִּי טָהוֹר הוּא כִּי־לֹא טָהוֹר׃", | 20.26. "Nevertheless Sha᾽ul spoke not anything that day: for he thought, It is an accidental pollution, he is not clean; yes, indeed, he is not clean.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 34.9, 34.14 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 149| 34.9. "לְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ וְאִישׁ אֶת־שִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִי וְהָעִבְרִיָּה חָפְשִׁים לְבִלְתִּי עֲבָד־בָּם בִּיהוּדִי אָחִיהוּ אִישׁ׃", 34.14. "מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים תְּשַׁלְּחוּ אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו הָעִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר־יִמָּכֵר לְךָ וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים וְשִׁלַּחְתּוֹ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ וְלֹא־שָׁמְעוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם אֵלַי וְלֹא הִטּוּ אֶת־אָזְנָם׃", | 34.9. "that every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, go free; that none should make bondmen of them, even of a Jew his brother;", 34.14. "’At the end of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that hath been sold unto thee, and hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee’; but your fathers hearkened not unto Me, neither inclined their ear.", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 1.3 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 115| 1.3. "הָיֹה הָיָה דְבַר־יְהוָה אֶל־יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן־בּוּזִי הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים עַל־נְהַר־כְּבָר וַתְּהִי עָלָיו שָׁם יַד־יְהוָה׃", | 1.3. "the word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.", |
|
13. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 7.13 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 146| 7.13. "מִנִּי שִׂים טְעֵם דִּי כָל־מִתְנַדַּב בְּמַלְכוּתִי מִן־עַמָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָהֲנוֹהִי וְלֵוָיֵא לִמְהָךְ לִירוּשְׁלֶם עִמָּךְ יְהָךְ׃", | 7.13. "I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites, in my realm, that are minded of their own free will to go with thee to Jerusalem, go.", |
|
14. Septuagint, Tobit, 12.8 (4th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 464 | 12.8. Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold. |
|
15. Anon., 1 Enoch, 37-62, 64-71, 63 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 39, 44 | 63. In those days shall the mighty and the kings who possess the earth implore (Him) to grant them a little respite from His angels of punishment to whom they were delivered, that they might fall,down and worship before the Lord of Spirits, and confess their sins before Him. And they shall bless and glorify the Lord of Spirits, and say:,Blessed is the Lord of Spirits and the Lord of kings, And the Lord of the mighty and the Lord of the rich, And the Lord of glory and the Lord of wisdom,,And splendid in every secret thing is Thy power from generation to generation, And Thy glory for ever and ever:Deep are all Thy secrets and innumerable, And Thy righteousness is beyond reckoning.,We have now learnt that we should glorify And bless the Lord of kings and Him who is king over all kings.'",And they shall say: ' Would that we had rest to glorify and give thanks And confess our faith before His glory !",And now we long for a little rest but find it not: We follow hard upon and obtain (it) not:And light has vanished from before us, And darkness is our dwelling-place for ever and ever:,For we have not believed before Him Nor glorified the name of the Lord of Spirits, [nor glorified our Lord]But our hope was in the sceptre of our kingdom, And in our glory.,And in the day of our suffering and tribulation He saves us not, And we find no respite for confessionThat our Lord is true in all His works, and in His judgements and His justice, And His judgements have no respect of persons.And we pass away from before His face on account of our works, And all our sins are reckoned up in righteousness.',Now they shall say unto themselves: ' Our souls are full of unrighteous gain, but it does not prevent us from descending from the midst thereof into the burden of Sheol.',And after that their faces shall be filled with darkness And shame before that Son of Man, And they shall be driven from his presence, And the sword shall abide before his face in their midst.,Thus spake the Lord of Spirits: ' This is the ordice and judgement with respect to the mighty and the kings and the exalted and those who possess the earth before the Lord of Spirits.'" |
|
| 16. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 7.6, 10.11, 19.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 127, 437 |
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 7.6, 10.11, 19.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 127, 437 |
18. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 8.23 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 146 | 8.23. May all go well with the Romans and with the nation of the Jews at sea and on land for ever, and may sword and enemy be far from them. |
|
19. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 7.31, 11.13, 15.37 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 149 | 7.31. But you, who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will certainly not escape the hands of God.' 11.13. And as he was not without intelligence, he pondered over the defeat which had befallen him, and realized that the Hebrews were invincible because the mighty God fought on their side. So he sent to them' 15.37. This, then, is how matters turned out with Nicanor. And from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews. So I too will here end my story.' |
|
| 20. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 7.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 464 |
21. Septuagint, Wisdom of Solomon, 7.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 464 | 7.10. I loved her more than health and beauty,and I chose to have her rather than light,because her radiance never ceases. |
|
| 22. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 9.3-9.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 135 |
23. Septuagint, Judith, 12.7-12.9, 12.19 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114 | 12.7. So Holofernes commanded his guards not to hinder her. And she remained in the camp for three days, and went out each night to the valley of Bethulia, and bathed at the spring in the camp. 12.8. When she came up from the spring she prayed the Lord God of Israel to direct her way for the raising up of her people. 12.9. So she returned clean and stayed in the tent until she ate her food toward evening. 12.19. Then she took and ate and drank before him what her maid had prepared. |
|
24. Philo of Alexandria, On The Embassy To Gaius, 373 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 146 | 373. We have now related in a concise and summary manner the cause of the hatred of Gaius to the whole nation of the Jews; we must now proceed to make our palinode to Gaius. |
|
25. Philo of Alexandria, Against Flaccus, 120-123 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114 | 123. "O most mighty King of all mortal and immortal beings, we have come to offer thanks unto thee, to invoke earth and sea, and the air and the heaven, and all the parts of the universe, and the whole world in which alone we dwell, being driven out by men and robbed of everything else in the world, and being deprived of our city, and of all the buildings both private and public within the city, and being made houseless and homeless by the treachery of our governor, the only men in the world who are so treated. |
|
| 26. Philo of Alexandria, Hypothetica, 11.1 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 437 |
27. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 2.138 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 136 | 2.138. The maker then thought it well to accept these offerings, and to melt them down, and to make nothing except the laver of them, in order that the priests who were about to enter the temple might be supplied from it, with water of purification for the purpose of performing the sacred ministrations which were appointed for them; washing their feet most especially, and their hands, as a symbol of their irreproachable life, and of a course of conduct which makes itself pure in all kinds of praiseworthy actions, proceeding not along the rough road of wickedness which one may more properly call no road at all, but keeping straight along the level and direct path of virtue. |
|
28. Philo of Alexandria, On The Virtues, 108 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 146 | 108. And if any of them should be willing to forsake their old ways and to come over to the customs and constitutions of the Jews, they are not to be rejected and treated with hostility as the children of enemies, but to be received in such a manner that in the third generation they may be admitted into the assembly, and may have a share of the divine words read to them, being instructed in the will of God equally with the natives of the land, the descendants of God's chosen people. XXII. |
|
29. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.258 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 136 | 1.258. And it has appointed a burning purification for both these things; for the soul, by means of the animals which are duly fit for sacrifices; and for the body, by ablutions and sprinklings; concerning which we will speak presently; for it is fit to assign the pre-eminence in honour in every point to the superior and domit part of the qualities existing in us, namely, to the soul. |
|
30. Philo of Alexandria, On The Migration of Abraham, 20 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 149 | 20. so that such a man is not a subject but a ruler of Egypt, that is to say of the whole region of the body; so that "he boasted of being of the race of the Hebrews," who were accustomed to rise up and leave the objects of the outward senses, and to go over to those of the intellect; for the name Hebrew, being interpreted, means "one who passes over," because he boasted that "here he had done Nothing." For to do nothing of those things which are thought much of among the wicked, but to hate them all and reject them, is praiseworthy in no slight degree; |
|
| 31. Philo of Alexandria, On The Decalogue, 158, 45 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114, 136 |
| 32. Anon., Sibylline Oracles, 3.591-3.593 (1st cent. BCE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 109 |
33. Mishnah, Taanit, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 650| 3.8. "עַל כָּל צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָבֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר, מַתְרִיעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, חוּץ מֵרוֹב גְּשָׁמִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ לְחוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל, הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, צְאוּ וְהַכְנִיסוּ תַנּוּרֵי פְסָחִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִמּוֹקוּ. הִתְפַּלֵּל, וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. מֶה עָשָׂה, עָג עוּגָה וְעָמַד בְּתוֹכָהּ, וְאָמַר לְפָנָיו, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בָּנֶיךָ שָׂמוּ פְנֵיהֶם עָלַי, שֶׁאֲנִי כְבֶן בַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ. נִשְׁבָּע אֲנִי בְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן, עַד שֶׁתְּרַחֵם עַל בָּנֶיךָ. הִתְחִילוּ גְּשָׁמִים מְנַטְּפִין. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי בוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. הִתְחִילוּ לֵירֵד בְּזָעַף. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי רָצוֹן, בְּרָכָה וּנְדָבָה. יָרְדוּ כְתִקְנָן, עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִתְפַּלַלְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ כָּךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ לָהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן, צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם נִמְחֵת אֶבֶן הַטּוֹעִים. שָׁלַח לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח, אִלְמָלֵא חוֹנִי אַתָּה, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ נִדּוּי. אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לְּךָ, שֶׁאַתָּה מִתְחַטֵּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וְעוֹשֶׂה לְךָ רְצוֹנְךָ כְּבֵן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַטֵּא עַל אָבִיו וְעוֹשֶׂה לוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ. וְעָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (משלי כג), יִשְׂמַח אָבִיךָ וְאִמֶּךָ וְתָגֵל יוֹלַדְתֶּךָ: \n", | 3.8. "For every trouble that should not come upon the community they sound a blast except on account of too much rain. It happened that they said to Honi the circle drawer: “Pray for rain to fall.” He replied: “Go and bring in the pesah ovens so that they do not dissolve.” He prayed and no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed before Him: “Master of the universe, Your children have turned their faces to me because I am like one who was born in Your house. I swear by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children.” Rain then began to drip, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but rain [which can fill] cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but pleasing rain of blessing and abudance.” Rain then fell in the normal way until the Jews in Jerusalem had to go up Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: “In the same way that you prayed for [the rain] to fall pray [now] for the rain to stop.” He replied: “Go and see if the stone of people claiming lost objects has washed away.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah sent to him: “Were you not Honi I would have excommunicated you, but what can I do to you, for you are spoiled before God and he does your will like a son that is spoiled before his father and his father does his request. Concerning you it is written, “Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let she that bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).", |
|
34. New Testament, 1 Thessalonians, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 103| 4.1. Λοιπὸν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦ μεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, [ἵνα] καθὼς παρελάβετε παρʼ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε,— ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον. | 4.1. Finally then, brothers, we beg and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, that you abound more and more. |
|
| 35. New Testament, 2 Corinthians, 6.14-7.1, 8, 8.4, 9, 9.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 135 |
36. New Testament, Acts, 6.9, 10.4, 10.22, 10.31, 10.36, 15.13, 15.21, 16.12, 20.4, 21.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 103, 108, 146, 168, 319, 464| 6.9. Ἀνέστησαν δέ τινες τῶν ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης Λιβερτίνων καὶ Κυρηναίων καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέων καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ Ἀσίας συνζητοῦντες τῷ Στεφάνῳ, 10.4. ὁ δὲ ἀτενίσας αὐτῷ καὶ ἔμφοβος γενόμενος εἶπεν Τί ἐστιν, κύριε; εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Αἱ προσευχαί σου καὶ αἱ ἐλεημοσύναι σου ἀνέβησαν εἰς μνημόσυνον ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ· 10.22. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν Κορνήλιος ἑκατοντάρχης, ἀνὴρ δίκαιος καὶ φοβούμενος τὸν θεὸν μαρτυρούμενός τε ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἐχρηματίσθη ὑπὸ ἀγγέλου ἁγίου μεταπέμψασθαί σε εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκοῦσαι ῥήματα παρὰ σοῦ. 10.31. καί φησι Κορνήλιε, εἰσηκούσθη σου ἡ προσευχὴ καὶ αἱ ἐλεημοσύναι σου ἐμνήσθησαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ· 10.36. τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εὐαγγελιζόμενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων κύριος. 15.13. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ σιγῆσαι αὐτοὺς ἀπεκρίθη Ἰάκωβος λέγων Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, ἀκούσατέ μου. 15.21. Μωυσῆς γὰρ ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων κατὰ πόλιν τοὺς κηρύσσοντας αὐτὸν ἔχει ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς κατὰ πᾶν σάββατον ἀναγινωσκόμενος. 16.12. κἀκεῖθεν εἰς Φιλίππους, ἥτις ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς μερίδος Μακεδονίας πόλις, κολωνία. Ἦμεν δὲ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πόλει διατρίβοντες ἡμέρας τινάς. 20.4. συνεί πετο δὲ αὐτῷ Σώπατρος Πύρρου Βεροιαῖος, Θεσσαλονικέων δὲ Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ Σέκουνδος καὶ Γαῖος Δερβαῖος καὶ Τιμόθεος, Ἀσιανοὶ δὲ Τύχικος καὶ Τρόφιμος· 21.18. τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ εἰσῄει ὁ Παῦλος σὺν ἡμῖν πρὸς Ἰάκωβον, πάντες τε παρεγένοντο οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. | 6.9. But some of those who were of the synagogue called "The Libertines," and of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia arose, disputing with Stephen. 10.4. He, fastening his eyes on him, and being frightened, said, "What is it, Lord?"He said to him, "Your prayers and your gifts to the needy have gone up for a memorial before God. 10.22. They said, "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous man and one who fears God, and well spoken of by all the nation of the Jews, was directed by a holy angel to invite you to his house, and to listen to what you say. 10.31. and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer is heard, and your gifts to the needy are remembered in the sight of God. 10.36. The word which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ -- he is Lord of all -- 15.13. After they were silent, James answered, "Brothers, listen to me. 15.21. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." 16.12. and from there to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a Roman colony. We were staying some days in this city. 20.4. These accompanied him as far as Asia: Sopater of Beroea; Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians; Gaius of Derbe; Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. 21.18. The day following, Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present. |
|
37. New Testament, Apocalypse, 14.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 437| 14.4. οὗτοί εἰσιν οἳ μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν, παρθένοι γάρ εἰσιν· οὗτοι οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγει· οὗτοι ἠγοράσθησαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπαρχὴ τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ, | 14.4. These are those who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed by Jesus from among men, the first fruits to God and to the Lamb. |
|
38. New Testament, Matthew, 6.2-6.4, 23.8 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 464, 660| 6.2. Ὅταν οὖν ποιῇς ἐλεημοσύνην, μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου, ὥσπερ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ποιοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις, ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν. 6.3. σοῦ δὲ ποιοῦντος ἐλεημοσύνην μὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου τί ποιεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου, 6.4. ὅπως ᾖ σου ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ· καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι. 23.8. ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε Ῥαββεί, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε· | 6.2. Therefore when you do merciful deeds, don't sound a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may get glory from men. Most assuredly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6.3. But when you do merciful deeds, don't let your left hand know what your right hand does, 6.4. so that your merciful deeds may be in secret, then your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 23.8. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. |
|
39. New Testament, Romans, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 135| 12.1. Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν τῷ θεῷ εὐάρεστον, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν· | 12.1. Therefore I urge you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. |
|
40. New Testament, Mark, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 530, 535| 9.5. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ Ῥαββεί, καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι, καὶ ποιήσωμεν τρεῖς σκηνάς, σοὶ μίαν καὶ Μωυσεῖ μίαν καὶ Ἠλείᾳ μίαν. | 9.5. Peter answered Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let's make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." |
|
41. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 1.16, 11.23, 15.1-15.3, 16.3, 16.15 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 103, 464| 1.16. λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα εἴ τινα ἄλλον ἐβάπτισα. 11.23. ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν 15.1. Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε, 15.2. διʼ οἷ καὶ σώζεσθε, τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, εἰ κατέχετε, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε. 15.3. παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, 16.3. ὅταν δὲ παραγένωμαι, οὓς ἐὰν δοκιμάσητε διʼ ἐπιστολῶν, τούτους πέμψω ἀπενεγκεῖν τὴν χάριν ὑμῶν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ· 16.15. Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί· οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαίας καὶ εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς· | 1.16. (I alsobaptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don't know whetherI baptized any other.) 11.23. For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered toyou, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed tookbread. 15.1. Now I declare to you, brothers, the gospel which I preachedto you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 15.2. bywhich also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preachedto you -- unless you believed in vain. 15.3. For I delivered to youfirst of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sinsaccording to the Scriptures, 16.3. When I arrive, I will sendwhoever you approve with letters to carry your gracious gift toJerusalem. 16.15. Now I beg you, brothers (you know the house of Stephanas,that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have setthemselves to minister to the saints), |
|
| 42. Pliny The Elder, Natural History, 5.73 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 437 |
43. New Testament, Galatians, 1.18-1.19, 2.7-2.9, 2.11-2.14, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 103, 109| 1.18. Ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ἔτη ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε· 1.19. ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. 2.7. ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς, 2.8. ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, 2.9. καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάνης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν· 2.11. Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν· 2.12. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. 2.13. καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρνάβας συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. 2.14. ἀλλʼ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν; 5.2. Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. | 1.18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem tovisit Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. 1.19. But of the otherapostles I saw no one, except James, the Lord's brother. 2.7. but to the contrary, when they saw that Ihad been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcision, even asPeter with the gospel for the circumcision 2.8. (for he who appointedPeter to the apostleship of the circumcision appointed me also to theGentiles); 2.9. and when they perceived the grace that was given tome, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars,gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should goto the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. 2.11. But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face,because he stood condemned. 2.12. For before some people came fromJames, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back andseparated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 2.13. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that evenBarnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 2.14. But when I sawthat they didn't walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, Isaid to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live as theGentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles tolive as the Jews do? 5.2. Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you receive circumcision, Christ willprofit you nothing. |
|
| 44. Anon., Didache, 15.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 464 |
45. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 166| 4.8. "אָמַר צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, קוֹבֵל אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם משֶׁה בַּגֵּט. אוֹמְרִים פְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ, צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִים אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם הַשֵּׁם בַּדַּף, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל מִלְמַעְלָן וְאֶת הַשֵּׁם מִלְּמַטָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ה) וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה מִי ה' אֲשֶׁר אֶשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ לְשַׁלַּח אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁלָּקָה מַהוּ אוֹמֵר (שם ט), ה' הַצַּדִּיק: \n", | 4.8. "A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27).", |
|
46. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 2.317, 3.249, 3.276, 4.206, 4.245, 11.123, 12.106, 13.1, 13.62-13.72, 13.258, 14.8-14.9, 14.22, 14.187, 14.255, 14.258, 15.409, 20.97-20.215, 20.266 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44, 103, 108, 109, 114, 146, 149, 192, 535, 650 | 2.317. Whence it is that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread. Now the entire multitude of those that went out, including the women and children, was not easy to be numbered, but those that were of an age fit for war, were six hundred thousand. 3.249. The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. 3.276. 2. As for the priests, he prescribed to them a double degree of purity for he restrained them in the instances above, and moreover forbade them to marry harlots. He also forbade them to marry a slave, or a captive, and such as got their living by cheating trades, and by keeping inns; as also a woman parted from her husband, on any account whatsoever. 4.206. 9. You are not to offer sacrifices out of the hire of a woman who is a harlot for the Deity is not pleased with any thing that arises from such abuses of nature; of which sort none can be worse than this prostitution of the body. In like manner no one may take the price of the covering of a bitch, either of one that is used in hunting, or in keeping of sheep, and thence sacrifice to God. 4.245. And further, no one ought to marry a harlot, whose matrimonial oblations, arising from the prostitution of her body, God will not receive; for by these means the dispositions of the children will be liberal and virtuous; I mean, when they are not born of base parents, and of the lustful conjunction of such as marry women that are not free. 11.123. Accordingly, the king wrote the following epistle to those governors: “Xerxes, king of kings, to Esdras the priest, and reader of the divine law, greeting. I think it agreeable to that love which I bear to mankind, to permit those of the Jewish nation that are so disposed, as well as those of the priests and Levites that are in our kingdom, to go together to Jerusalem. 12.106. But in the morning they came to the court and saluted Ptolemy, and then went away to their former place, where, when they had washed their hands, and purified themselves, they betook themselves to the interpretation of the laws. 13.1. 1. By what means the nation of the Jews recovered their freedom when they had been brought into slavery by the Macedonians, and what struggles, and how many great battles, Judas, the general of their army, ran through, till he was slain as he was fighting for them, hath been related in the foregoing book; 13.62. 1. But then the son of Onias the high priest, who was of the same name with his father, and who fled to king Ptolemy, who was called Philometor, lived now at Alexandria, as we have said already. When this Onias saw that Judea was oppressed by the Macedonians and their kings, 13.63. out of a desire to purchase to himself a memorial and eternal fame he resolved to send to king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra, to ask leave of them that he might build a temple in Egypt like to that at Jerusalem, and might ordain Levites and priests out of their own stock. 13.64. The chief reason why he was desirous so to do, was, that he relied upon the prophet Isaiah, who lived above six hundred years before, and foretold that there certainly was to be a temple built to Almighty God in Egypt by a man that was a Jew. Onias was elevated with this prediction, and wrote the following epistle to Ptolemy and Cleopatra: 13.65. “Having done many and great things for you in the affairs of the war, by the assistance of God, and that in Celesyria and Phoenicia, I came at length with the Jews to Leontopolis, and to other places of your nation, 13.66. where I found that the greatest part of your people had temples in an improper manner, and that on this account they bare ill-will one against another, which happens to the Egyptians by reason of the multitude of their temples, and the difference of opinions about divine worship. Now I found a very fit place in a castle that hath its name from the country Diana; this place is full of materials of several sorts, and replenished with sacred animals; 13.67. I desire therefore that you will grant me leave to purge this holy place, which belongs to no master, and is fallen down, and to build there a temple to Almighty God, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions, that may be for the benefit of thyself, and thy wife and children, that those Jews which dwell in Egypt may have a place whither they may come and meet together in mutual harmony one with another, and he subservient to thy advantages; 13.68. for the prophet Isaiah foretold that, ‘there should be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God;’” and many other such things did he prophesy relating to that place. 13.69. 2. And this was what Onias wrote to king Ptolemy. Now any one may observe his piety, and that of his sister and wife Cleopatra, by that epistle which they wrote in answer to it; for they laid the blame and the transgression of the law upon the head of Onias. And this was their reply: 13.70. “King Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra to Onias, send greeting. We have read thy petition, wherein thou desirest leave to be given thee to purge that temple which is fallen down at Leontopolis, in the Nomus of Heliopolis, and which is named from the country Bubastis; on which account we cannot but wonder that it should be pleasing to God to have a temple erected in a place so unclean, and so full of sacred animals. 13.71. But since thou sayest that Isaiah the prophet foretold this long ago, we give thee leave to do it, if it may be done according to your law, and so that we may not appear to have at all offended God herein.” 13.72. 3. So Onias took the place, and built a temple, and an altar to God, like indeed to that in Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer. I do not think it proper for me now to describe its dimensions or its vessels, which have been already described in my seventh book of the Wars of the Jews. 13.258. and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews. 14.8. 3. But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his good-will to Hyrcanus. 14.9. It is true that Nicolatls of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews, whose history we shall give you in its proper place hereafter. 14.22. Now there was one, whose name was Onias, a righteous man he was, and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and whose prayers God had heard, and had sent them rain. This man had hid himself, because he saw that this sedition would last a great while. However, they brought him to the Jewish camp, and desired, that as by his prayers he had once put an end to the drought, so he would in like manner make imprecations on Aristobulus and those of his faction. 14.187. for whereas many will not believe what hath been written about us by the Persians and Macedonians, because those writings are not every where to be met with, nor do lie in public places, but among us ourselves, and certain other barbarous nations, 14.255. as justly expecting to receive proper requitals from us; and desiring them to remember that our ancestors were friendly to the Jews even in the days of Abraham, who was the father of all the Hebrews, as we have [also] found it set down in our public records.” 14.258. we have decreed, that as many men and women of the Jews as are willing so to do, may celebrate their Sabbaths, and perform their holy offices, according to the Jewish laws; and may make their proseuchae at the sea-side, according to the customs of their forefathers; and if any one, whether he be a magistrate or private person, hindereth them from so doing, he shall be liable to a fine, to be applied to the uses of the city.” 15.409. And that these things were so, the afflictions that happened to us afterwards [about them] are sufficient evidence. But for the tower itself, when Herod the king of the Jews had fortified it more firmly than before, in order to secure and guard the temple, he gratified Antonius, who was his friend, and the Roman ruler, and then gave it the name of the Tower of Antonia. 20.97. 1. Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; 20.98. and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. 20.99. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government. 20.100. 2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. 20.101. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. 20.102. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. 20.103. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Aias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; 20.104. as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother’s daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior. 20.105. 3. Now while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cureanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein. But I shall first explain the occasion whence it was derived. 20.106. When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; 20.107. and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals. 20.108. But on the fourth day of the feast, a certain soldier let down his breeches, and exposed his privy members to the multitude, which put those that saw him into a furious rage, and made them cry out that this impious action was not done to reproach them, but God himself; nay, some of them reproached Cumanus, and pretended that the soldier was set on by him, 20.109. which, when Cumanus heard, he was also himself not a little provoked at such reproaches laid upon him; yet did he exhort them to leave off such seditious attempts, and not to raise a tumult at the festival. 20.110. But when he could not induce them to be quiet for they still went on in their reproaches to him, he gave order that the whole army should take their entire armor, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as we have said already, which overlooked the temple; 20.111. but when the multitude saw the soldiers there, they were affrighted at them, and ran away hastily; but as the passages out were but narrow, and as they thought their enemies followed them, they were crowded together in their flight, and a great number were pressed to death in those narrow passages; 20.112. nor indeed was the number fewer than twenty thousand that perished in this tumult. So instead of a festival, they had at last a mournful day of it; and they all of them forgot their prayers and sacrifices, and betook themselves to lamentation and weeping; so great an affliction did the impudent obsceneness of a single soldier bring upon them. 20.113. 4. Now before this their first mourning was over, another mischief befell them also; for some of those that raised the foregoing tumult, when they were traveling along the public road, about a hundred furlongs from the city, robbed Stephanus, a servant of Caesar, as he was journeying, and plundered him of all that he had with him; 20.114. which things when Cureanus heard of, he sent soldiers immediately, and ordered them to plunder the neighboring villages, and to bring the most eminent persons among them in bonds to him. 20.115. Now as this devastation was making, one of the soldiers seized the laws of Moses that lay in one of those villages, and brought them out before the eyes of all present, and tore them to pieces; and this was done with reproachful language, and much scurrility; 20.116. which things when the Jews heard of, they ran together, and that in great numbers, and came down to Caesarea, where Cumanus then was, and besought him that he would avenge, not themselves, but God himself, whose laws had been affronted; for that they could not bear to live any longer, if the laws of their forefathers must be affronted after this manner. 20.117. Accordingly Cumanus, out of fear lest the multitude should go into a sedition, and by the advice of his friends also, took care that the soldier who had offered the affront to the laws should be beheaded, and thereby put a stop to the sedition which was ready to be kindled a second time. 20.118. 1. Now there arose a quarrel between the Samaritans and the Jews on the occasion following: It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans; and at this time there lay, in the road they took, a village that was called Ginea, which was situated in the limits of Samaria and the great plain, where certain persons thereto belonging fought with the Galileans, and killed a great many of them. 20.119. But when the principal of the Galileans were informed of what had been done, they came to Cumanus, and desired him to avenge the murder of those that were killed; but he was induced by the Samaritans, with money, to do nothing in the matter; 20.120. upon which the Galileans were much displeased, and persuaded the multitude of the Jews to betake themselves to arms, and to regain their liberty, saying that slavery was in itself a bitter thing, but that when it was joined with direct injuries, it was perfectly intolerable, 20.121. And when their principal men endeavored to pacify them, and promised to endeavor to persuade Cureanus to avenge those that were killed, they would not hearken to them, but took their weapons, and entreated the assistance of Eleazar, the son of Dineus, a robber, who had many years made his abode in the mountains, with which assistance they plundered many villages of the Samaritans. 20.122. When Cumanus heard of this action of theirs, he took the band of Sebaste, with four regiments of footmen, and armed the Samaritans, and marched out against the Jews, and caught them, and slew many of them, and took a great number of them alive; 20.123. whereupon those that were the most eminent persons at Jerusalem, and that both in regard to the respect that was paid them, and the families they were of, as soon as they saw to what a height things were gone, put on sackcloth, and heaped ashes upon their heads, and by all possible means besought the seditious, and persuaded them that they would set before their eyes the utter subversion of their country, the conflagration of their temple, and the slavery of themselves, their wives, and children, which would be the consequences of what they were doing; and would alter their minds, would cast away their weapons, and for the future be quiet, and return to their own homes. These persuasions of theirs prevailed upon them. 20.124. So the people dispersed themselves, and the robbers went away again to their places of strength; and after this time all Judea was overrun with robberies. 20.125. 2. But the principal of the Samaritans went to Ummidius Quadratus, the president of Syria, who at that time was at Tyre, and accused the Jews of setting their villages on fire, and plundering them; 20.126. and said withal, that they were not so much displeased at what they had suffered, as they were at the contempt thereby shown to the Romans; while if they had received any injury, they ought to have made them the judges of what had been done, and not presently to make such devastation, as if they had not the Romans for their governors; 20.127. on which account they came to him, in order to obtain that vengeance they wanted. This was the accusation which the Samaritans brought against the Jews. But the Jews affirmed that the Samaritans were the authors of this tumult and fighting, and that, in the first place, Cumanus had been corrupted by their gifts, and passed over the murder of those that were slain in silence;— 20.128. which allegations when Quadratus heard, he put off the hearing of the cause, and promised that he would give sentence when he should come into Judea, and should have a more exact knowledge of the truth of that matter. 20.129. So these men went away without success. Yet was it not long ere Quadratus came to Samaria, where, upon hearing the cause, he supposed that the Samaritans were the authors of that disturbance. But when he was informed that certain of the Jews were making innovations, he ordered those to be crucified whom Cumanus had taken captives. 20.130. From whence he came to a certain village called Lydda, which was not less than a city in largeness, and there heard the Samaritan cause a second time before his tribunal, and there learned from a certain Samaritan that one of the chief of the Jews, whose name was Dortus, and some other innovators with him, four in number, persuaded the multitude to a revolt from the Romans; 20.131. whom Quadratus ordered to be put to death: but still he sent away Aias the high priest, and Aus the commander [of the temple], in bonds to Rome, to give an account of what they had done to Claudius Caesar. 20.132. He also ordered the principal men, both of the Samaritans and of the Jews, as also Cumanus the procurator, and Ceier the tribune, to go to Italy to the emperor, that he might hear their cause, and determine their differences one with another. 20.133. But he came again to the city of Jerusalem, out of his fear that the multitude of the Jews should attempt some innovations; but he found the city in a peaceable state, and celebrating one of the usual festivals of their country to God. So he believed that they would not attempt any innovations, and left them at the celebration of the festival, and returned to Antioch. 20.134. 3. Now Cumanus, and the principal of the Samaritans, who were sent to Rome, had a day appointed them by the emperor whereon they were to have pleaded their cause about the quarrels they had one with another. 20.135. But now Caesar’s freed-men and his friends were very zealous on the behalf of Cumanus and the Samaritans; and they had prevailed over the Jews, unless Agrippa, junior, who was then at Rome, had seen the principal of the Jews hard set, and had earnestly entreated Agrippina, the emperor’s wife, to persuade her husband to hear the cause, so as was agreeable to his justice, and to condemn those to be punished who were really the authors of this revolt from the Roman government:— 20.136. whereupon Claudius was so well disposed beforehand, that when he had heard the cause, and found that the Samaritans had been the ringleaders in those mischievous doings, he gave order that those who came up to him should be slain, and that Cureanus should be banished. He also gave order that Celer the tribune should be carried back to Jerusalem, and should be drawn through the city in the sight of all the people, and then should be slain. 20.137. 1. So Claudius sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to take care of the affairs of Judea; 20.138. and when he had already completed the twelfth year of his reign, he bestowed upon Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea, and added thereto Trachonites, with Abila; which last had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias; but he took from him Chalcis, when he had been governor thereof four years. 20.139. And when Agrippa had received these countries as the gift of Caesar, he gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of Emesa, upon his consent to be circumcised; for Epiphanes, the son of king Antiochus, had refused to marry her, because, after he had promised her father formerly to come over to the Jewish religion, he would not now perform that promise. 20.140. He also gave Mariamne in marriage to Archelaus, the son of Helcias, to whom she had formerly been betrothed by Agrippa her father; from which marriage was derived a daughter, whose name was Bernice. 20.141. 2. But for the marriage of Drusilla with Azizus, it was in no long time afterward dissolved upon the following occasion: 20.142. While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty; and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician, and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him; and promised, that if she would not refuse him, he would make her a happy woman. 20.143. Accordingly she acted ill, and because she was desirous to avoid her sister Bernice’s envy, for she was very ill treated by her on account of her beauty, was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix; and when he had had a son by her, he named him Agrippa. 20.144. But after what manner that young man, with his wife, perished at the conflagration of the mountain Vesuvius, in the days of Titus Caesar, shall be related hereafter. 20.145. 3. But as for Bernice, she lived a widow a long while after the death of Herod [king of Chalcis], who was both her husband and her uncle; but when the report went that she had criminal conversation with her brother, [Agrippa, junior,] she persuaded Poleme, who was king of Cilicia, to be circumcised, and to marry her, as supposing that by this means she should prove those calumnies upon her to be false; 20.146. and Poleme was prevailed upon, and that chiefly on account of her riches. Yet did not this matrimony endure long; but Bernice left Poleme, and, as was said, with impure intentions. So he forsook at once this matrimony, and the Jewish religion; 20.147. and, at the same time, Mariamne put away Archelaus, and was married to Demetrius, the principal man among the Alexandrian Jews, both for his family and his wealth; and indeed he was then their alabarch. So she named her son whom she had by him Agrippinus. But of all these particulars we shall hereafter treat more exactly. 20.148. 1. Now Claudius Caesar died when he had reigned thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days; and a report went about that he was poisoned by his wife Agrippina. Her father was Germanicus, the brother of Caesar. Her husband was Domitius Aenobarbus, one of the most illustrious persons that was in the city of Rome; 20.149. after whose death, and her long continuance in widowhood, Claudius took her to wife. She brought along with her a son, Domtitus, of the same name with his father. He had before this slain his wife Messalina, out of jealousy, by whom he had his children Britannicus and Octavia; 20.150. their eldest sister was Antonia, whom he had by Pelina his first wife. He also married Octavia to Nero; for that was the name that Caesar gave him afterward, upon his adopting him for his son. 20.151. 2. But now Agrippina was afraid, lest, when Britannicus should come to man’s estate, he should succeed his father in the government, and desired to seize upon the principality beforehand for her own son [Nero]; upon which the report went that she thence compassed the death of Claudius. 20.152. Accordingly, she sent Burrhus, the general of the army, immediately, and with him the tribunes, and such also of the freed-men as were of the greatest authority, to bring Nero away into the camp, and to salute him emperor. 20.153. And when Nero had thus obtained the government, he got Britannicus to be so poisoned, that the multitude should not perceive it; although he publicly put his own mother to death not long afterward, making her this requital, not only for being born of her, but for bringing it so about by her contrivances that he obtained the Roman empire. He also slew Octavia his own wife, and many other illustrious persons, under this pretense, that they plotted against him. 20.154. 3. But I omit any further discourse about these affairs; for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favor, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned. 20.155. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred, since those writers lived a long time after them. 20.156. But as to those that have no regard to truth, they may write as they please; for in that they take delight: 20.157. but as to ourselves, who have made truth our direct aim, we shall briefly touch upon what only belongs remotely to this undertaking, but shall relate what hath happened to us Jews with great accuracy, and shall not grudge our pains in giving an account both of the calamities we have suffered, and of the crimes we have been guilty of. I will now therefore return to the relation of our own affairs. 20.158. 4. For in the first year of the reign of Nero, upon the death of Azizus, king of Emesa, Soemus, his brother, succeeded in his kingdom, and Aristobulus, the son of Herod, king of Chalcis, was intrusted by Nero with the government of the Lesser Armenia. 20.159. Caesar also bestowed on Agrippa a certain part of Galilee, Tiberias, and Tarichae, and ordered them to submit to his jurisdiction. He gave him also Julias, a city of Perea, with fourteen villages that lay about it. 20.160. 5. Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. 20.161. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers. He also caught Eleazar, the son of Dineas, who had gotten together a company of robbers; and this he did by treachery; for he gave him assurance that he should suffer no harm, and thereby persuaded him to come to him; but when he came, he bound him, and sent him to Rome. 20.162. Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest he should himself have complaints made of him by the multitude, since he it was who had desired Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. So Felix contrived a method whereby he might get rid of him, now he was become so continually troublesome to him; for such continual admonitions are grievous to those who are disposed to act unjustly. 20.163. Wherefore Felix persuaded one of Jonathan’s most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem, whose name was Doras, to bring the robbers upon Jonathan, in order to kill him; and this he did by promising to give him a great deal of money for so doing. Doras complied with the proposal, and contrived matters so, that the robbers might murder him after the following manner: 20.164. Certain of those robbers went up to the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers under their garments, and by thus mingling themselves among the multitude they slew Jonathan, 20.165. and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time; and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. 20.166. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men’s wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities. 20.167. 6. These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, 20.168. and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. 20.169. Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. 20.170. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. 20.171. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. 20.172. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them. 20.173. 7. And now it was that a great sedition arose between the Jews that inhabited Caesarea, and the Syrians who dwelt there also, concerning their equal right to the privileges belonging to citizens; for the Jews claimed the pre-eminence, because Herod their king was the builder of Caesarea, and because he was by birth a Jew. Now the Syrians did not deny what was alleged about Herod; but they said that Caesarea was formerly called Strato’s Tower, and that then there was not one Jewish inhabitant. 20.174. When the presidents of that country heard of these disorders, they caught the authors of them on both sides, and tormented them with stripes, and by that means put a stop to the disturbance for a time. 20.175. But the Jewish citizens depending on their wealth, and on that account despising the Syrians, reproached them again, and hoped to provoke them by such reproaches. 20.176. However, the Syrians, though they were inferior in wealth, yet valuing themselves highly on this account, that the greatest part of the Roman soldiers that were there were either of Caesarea or Sebaste, they also for some time used reproachful language to the Jews also; and thus it was, till at length they came to throwing stones at one another, and several were wounded, and fell on both sides, though still the Jews were the conquerors. 20.177. But when Felix saw that this quarrel was become a kind of war, he came upon them on the sudden, and desired the Jews to desist; and when they refused so to do, he armed his soldiers, and sent them out upon them, and slew many of them, and took more of them alive, and permitted his soldiers to plunder some of the houses of the citizens, which were full of riches. 20.178. Now those Jews that were more moderate, and of principal dignity among them, were afraid of themselves, and desired of Felix that he would sound a retreat to his soldiers, and spare them for the future, and afford them room for repentance for what they had done; and Felix was prevailed upon to do so. 20.179. 8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. 20.180. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. 20.181. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice. 20.182. 9. Now when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix; and he had certainly been brought to punishment, unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas, who was at that time had in the greatest honor by him. 20.183. Two of the principal Syrians in Caesarea persuaded Burrhus, who was Nero’s tutor, and secretary for his Greek epistles, by giving him a great sum of money, to disannul that equality of the Jewish privileges of citizens which they hitherto enjoyed. 20.184. So Burrhus, by his solicitations, obtained leave of the emperor that an epistle should be written to that purpose. This epistle became the occasion of the following miseries that befell our nation; for when the Jews of Caesarea were informed of the contents of this epistle to the Syrians, they were more disorderly than before, till a war was kindled. 20.185. 10. Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. 20.186. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; 20.187. for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. 20.188. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also. 20.189. 11. About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. 20.190. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; 20.191. which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, 20.192. which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. 20.193. At these doings both king Agrippa, and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; 20.194. and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. 20.195. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. 20.196. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest. 20.197. 1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Aus, who was also himself called Aus. 20.198. Now the report goes that this eldest Aus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. 20.199. But this younger Aus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; 20.200. when, therefore, Aus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: 20.201. but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Aus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; 20.202. nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Aus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. 20.203. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Aus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. 20.204. 2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. 20.205. But as for the high priest, Aias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; 20.206. he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. 20.207. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food. 20.208. 3. But now the Sicarii went into the city by night, just before the festival, which was now at hand, and took the scribe belonging to the governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Aus [Aias] the high priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them; 20.209. after which they sent to Aias, and said that they would send the scribe to him, if he would persuade Albinus to release ten of those prisoners which he had caught of their party; so Aias was plainly forced to persuade Albinus, and gained his request of him. 20.210. This was the beginning of greater calamities; for the robbers perpetually contrived to catch some of Aias’s servants; and when they had taken them alive, they would not let them go, till they thereby recovered some of their own Sicarii. And as they were again become no small number, they grew bold, and were a great affliction to the whole country. 20.211. 4. About this time it was that king Agrippa built Caesarea Philippi larger than it was before, and, in honor of Nero, named it Neronias. And when he had built a theater at Berytus, with vast expenses, he bestowed on them shows, to be exhibited every year, and spent therein many ten thousand [drachmae]; 20.212. he also gave the people a largess of corn, and distributed oil among them, and adorned the entire city with statues of his own donation, and with original images made by ancient hands; nay, he almost transferred all that was most ornamental in his own kingdom thither. This made him more than ordinarily hated by his subjects, because he took those things away that belonged to them to adorn a foreign city. 20.213. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Aias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. 20.214. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us. 20.215. 5. But when Albinus heard that Gessius Florus was coming to succeed him, he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be the most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers. 20.266. 3. And now it will not be perhaps an invidious thing, if I treat briefly of my own family, and of the actions of my own life while there are still living such as can either prove what I say to be false, or can attest that it is true; |
|
47. Mishnah, Sotah, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 320| 7.1. "אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָרִין בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן, פָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה, וּוִדּוּי מַעֲשֵׂר, קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וּתְפִלָּה, וּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן, וּשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, וּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן: \n", | 7.1. "The following may be recited in any language:the section concerning the sotah, the confession made at the presentation of tithes, the shema, the prayer (the amidah), the grace after meals, the oath concerning testimony, the oath concerning a deposit.", |
|
48. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 290| 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: \n", | 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.", |
|
49. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 10.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 33| 10.4. "אַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אֵין לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יג) יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת ישְׁבֵי עִירָם. וְאֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִים עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מֵאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט, וְעַד שֶׁיֻּדַּח רֻבָּהּ, וְעַד שֶׁיַּדִּיחוּם אֲנָשִׁים. הִדִּיחוּהָ נָשִׁים וּקְטַנִּים אוֹ שֶׁהֻדַּח מִעוּטָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ חוּצָה לָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִיחִידִים. וּצְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּיְּחִידִים מִבַּמְּרֻבִּים, שֶׁהַיְּחִידִים בִּסְקִילָה, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם פָּלֵט. וְהַמְּרֻבִּים בְּסַיִף, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד: \n", | 10.4. "The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each [offender]. In this [the penalty of] individuals is severer than [that of] the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed.", |
|
50. Mishnah, Nedarim, 11.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 168| 11.12. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים יוֹצְאוֹת וְנוֹטְלוֹת כְּתֻבָּה, הָאוֹמֶרֶת טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לְךָ, שָׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינֶךָ, נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא אִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת עֵינֶיהָ בְאַחֵר וּמְקַלְקֶלֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ. אֶלָּא הָאוֹמֶרֶת טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לְךָ, תָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ. שָׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינֶךָ, יַעֲשׂוּ דֶרֶךְ בַּקָּשָׁה. נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים, יָפֵר חֶלְקוֹ, וּתְהֵא מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, וּתְהֵא נְטוּלָה מִן הַיְּהוּדִים: \n", | 11.12. "At first they would say that three women must be divorced and receive their ketubah: She who says: “I am defiled to you”; “Heaven is between me and you”; “I have been removed from the Jews.” But subsequently they changed the ruling to prevent her from setting her eye on another and spoiling herself to her husband: She who said, “I am defiled unto you” must bring proof. “Heaven is between me and you” they [shall appease them] by a request. “I have been removed from the Jews” he [the husband] must annul his portion, and she may have relations with him, and she shall be removed from other Jews.", |
|
51. Mishnah, Moed Qatan, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •israel, land of (palestine) Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 108| 3.1. "וְאֵלּוּ מְגַלְּחִין בַּמּוֹעֵד, הַבָּא מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וּמִבֵּית הַשִּׁבְיָה, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין, וְהַמְנֻדֶּה שֶׁהִתִּירוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים, וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וְהֻתַּר, וְהַנָּזִיר, וְהַמְּצֹרָע הָעוֹלֶה מִטֻּמְאָתוֹ לְטָהֳרָתוֹ: \n", | 3.1. "And these may shave during the festival: one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released. And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released, and a nazirite or a leper on emerging from his state of impurity to his state of purification.", |
|
52. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 4.9, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 124| 8.1. "אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל טְהוֹרָה, וּמִקְוְאוֹתֶיהָ טְהוֹרִים. מִקְוְאוֹת הָעַמִּים שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, כְּשֵׁרִים לְבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְמַלְּאוּ בְקִילוֹן. שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁחוּץ לַמַּפְתֵּחַ, כְּשֵׁרִים אַף לְנִדּוֹת. מִלִּפְנִים מִן הַמַּפְתֵּחַ, כְּשֵׁרִים לְבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין, וּפְסוּלִים לְכָל הַטְּמֵאִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַקְּרוֹבִים לָעִיר וְלַדֶּרֶךְ, טְמֵאִים, מִפְּנֵי הַכְּבִיסָה. וְהָרְחוֹקִים, טְהוֹרִים:", | 8.1. "The land of Israel is clean and its mikvaot are clean. The mikvaot of the nations outside the land are valid for those who had a seminal emission even though they have been filled by a pump-beam; Those in the land of Israel: when outside the entrance [to the city] are valid even for menstruants, and those within the entrance [to the city] are valid for those who had a seminal emission but invalid for all [others] who are unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: those which are near to a city or to a road are unclean because of laundering; but those at a distance are clean.", |
|
53. Mishnah, Middot, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 650| 2.2. "כָּל הַנִּכְנָסִין לְהַר הַבַּיִת נִכְנָסִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין וּמַקִּיפִין וְיוֹצְאִין דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל, חוּץ מִמִּי שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ דָבָר, שֶׁהוּא מַקִּיף לִשְׂמֹאל. מַה לְּךָ מַקִּיף לִשְׂמֹאל, שֶׁאֲנִי אָבֵל, הַשּׁוֹכֵן בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה יְנַחֲמֶךָּ. שֶׁאֲנִי מְנֻדֶּה, הַשּׁוֹכֵן בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה יִתֵּן בְּלִבָּם וִיקָרְבוּךָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, עֲשִׂיתָן כְּאִלּוּ עָבְרוּ עָלָיו אֶת הַדִּין. אֶלָּא, הַשּׁוֹכֵן בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה יִתֵּן בְּלִבְּךָ וְתִשְׁמַע לְדִבְרֵי חֲבֵרֶיךָ וִיקָרְבוּךָ: \n", | 2.2. "All who entered the Temple Mount entered by the right and went round [to the right] and went out by the left, save for one to whom something had happened, who entered and went round to the left. [He was asked]: “Why do you go round to the left?” [If he answered] “Because I am a mourner,” [they said to him], “May He who dwells in this house comfort you.” [If he answered] “Because I am excommunicated” [they said]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire them to draw you near again,” the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose to him: you make it seem as if they treated him unjustly. Rather [they should say]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire you to listen to the words of your colleagues so that they may draw you near again.”", |
|
54. Mishnah, Menachot, 13.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114| 13.10. "הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה, יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, לֹא יָצָא. שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵין זוֹ עוֹלָה. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר, יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, לֹא יָצָא. שֶׁאֲגַלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵין זֶה נָזִיר. הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁשִּׁמְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, לֹא יְשַׁמְּשׁוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְדָבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים ב כג), אַךְ לֹא יַעֲלוּ כֹּהֲנֵי הַבָּמוֹת אֶל מִזְבַּח ה' בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם כִי אִם אָכְלוּ מַצּוֹת בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵיהֶם, הֲרֵי הֵם כְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, חוֹלְקִין וְאוֹכְלִין, אֲבָל לֹא מַקְרִיבִין: \n", | 13.10. "[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.", |
|
55. Mishnah, Yevamot, 16.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 168| 16.5. "אֲפִלּוּ שָׁמַע מִן הַנָּשִׁים אוֹמְרוֹת, מֵת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, דַּיּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ שָׁמַע מִן הַתִּינוֹקוֹת אוֹמְרִים, הֲרֵי אָנוּ הוֹלְכִין לִסְפֹּד וְלִקְבֹר אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא מִתְכַּוֵּן וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בָּבָא אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּן. וּבְגוֹי, אִם הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן, אֵין עֵדוּתוֹ עֵדוּת: \n", | 16.5. "Even if he only heard from women saying, “so-and-so is dead”, this is enough. Rabbi Judah says: even if he only heard children saying, “behold we are going to mourn for a man named so-and-so and to bury him” [it is enough]. Whether [such statement was made] with the intention [of providing evidence] or was made with no such intention [it is valid]. Rabbi Judah ben Bava says: with an Israelite [the evidence is valid] only if the man had the intention [of acting as witness]. In the case of a non-Jew the evidence is invalid if his intention was [to act as witness].", |
|
56. Mishnah, Toharot, 4.7, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 124, 127| 4.7. "אֵלּוּ סְפֵקוֹת שֶׁטִּהֲרוּ חֲכָמִים. סְפֵק מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים לַמִּקְוֶה. סְפֵק טֻמְאָה צָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. סְפֵק מַשְׁקִין, לִטָּמֵא, טָמֵא, וּלְטַמֵּא, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק יָדַיִם, לִטָּמֵא וּלְטַמֵּא וְלִטַּהֵר, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. סְפֵק הַחֻלִּין. סְפֵק שְׁרָצִים. סְפֵק נְגָעִים. סְפֵק נְזִירוּת. סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת. וּסְפֵק קָרְבָּנוֹת: \n", 7.8. "מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר, וְהִסִּיעַ אֶת לִבּוֹ מִלֶּאֱכֹל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ טְמֵאִין פּוֹרְשִׁין מִמֶּנוּ. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִים. הָיוּ יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת וְהִסִּיעַ אֶת לִבּוֹ מִלֶּאֱכֹל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאוּ יָדָי, יָדָיו טְמֵאוֹת, שֶׁהַיָּדַיִם עַסְקָנִיּוֹת: \n", | 4.7. "These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh, A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water. A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean. A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean. A doubt that arose in a public domain; A doubt concerning an ordice of the scribes; A doubt concerning non-sacred food; A doubt concerning a sheretz; A doubt concerning negaim; A doubt concerning a nazirite vow; A doubt concerning a first-born; A doubt concerning sacrifices.", 7.8. "One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean. If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, \"I know that my hands have not become unclean,\" his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy.", |
|
57. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 138| 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: \n", | 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.", |
|
58. Mishnah, Eduyot, 5.2, 7.7, 9.3, 9.6, 9.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 31, 166, 168, 535, 660| 5.2. "רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. תּוֹרְמִין זֵיתִים עַל שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲנָבִים עַל יַיִן, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין תּוֹרְמִין. הַזּוֹרֵעַ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שׁוּרָה אַחַת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת. הַמְּעִיסָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין. מַטְבִּילִין בְּחַרְדָּלִית, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מַטְבִּילִין. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר עַרְבֵי פְסָחִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקָּבֶר: \n", 7.7. "הֵם הֵעִידוּ עַל אֲרוּכוֹת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים, שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאוֹת. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. הֵם הֵעִידוּ עַל תַּנּוּר שֶׁחִתְּכוֹ חֻלְיוֹת וְנָתַן חֹל בֵּין חֻלְיָא לְחֻלְיָא, שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. הֵם הֵעִידוּ שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בְּכָל אֲדָר. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עַד הַפּוּרִים. הֵם הֵעִידוּ שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִים אֶת הַשָּׁנָה עַל תְּנָאי. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָלַךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מֵהֶגְמוֹן בְּסוּרְיָא וְשָׁהָה לָבֹא, וְעִבְּרוּ אֶת הַשָּׁנָה עַל תְּנַאי לִכְשֶׁיִּרְצֶה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וּכְשֶׁבָּא אָמַר רוֹצֶה אָנִי, וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה מְעֻבָּרֶת: \n", | 5.2. "Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.", 7.7. "They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated.", |
|
59. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.4, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 115, 127, 129, 136| 3.4. "בַּעַל קֶרִי מְהַרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. וְעַל הַמָּזוֹן מְבָרֵךְ לְאַחֲרָיו, וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לְפָנָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְבָרֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם: \n", 3.6. "זָב שֶׁרָאָה קְרִי, וְנִדָּה שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה, צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר: \n", | 3.4. "One who has had a seminal emission utters the words [of the Shema] in his heart and he doesn’t say a blessing, neither before nor after. Over food he says a blessing afterwards, but not the blessing before. Rabbi Judah says: he blesses both before them and after them.", 3.6. "A zav who has had a seminal emission and a niddah from whom semen escapes and a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse require a mikveh. Rabbi Judah exempts them.", |
|
60. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 9.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •israel, land of (palestine) Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 168| 9.2. "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהִיא בֵית הַשְּׁלָחִין אוֹ בֵית הָאִילָן, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן, אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ חֲכֹר לִי שְׂדֵה בֵית הַשְּׁלָחִין זֶה אוֹ שְׂדֵה בֵית הָאִילָן זֶה, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן, מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ: \n", | 9.2. "If one leased a field from his fellow and it was an irrigated field or a field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may not give [the owner] less than his agreed rental. But if he had said, “Lease me this irrigated field, or this field with trees”, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may give less than the prescribed rental.", |
|
61. Mishnah, Avot, 1.12-1.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 138| 1.12. "הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה: \n", 1.13. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, נָגֵד שְׁמָא, אָבֵד שְׁמֵהּ. וּדְלֹא מוֹסִיף, יָסֵף. וּדְלֹא יָלֵיף, קְטָלָא חַיָּב. וּדְאִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּתָגָא, חָלֵף: \n", 1.14. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי: \n", 1.15. "שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה תוֹרָתְךָ קֶבַע. אֱמֹר מְעַט וַעֲשֵׂה הַרְבֵּה, וֶהֱוֵי מְקַבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת: \n", | 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?", 1.15. "Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countece.", |
|
| 62. Josephus Flavius, Life, 430 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 535 |
| 63. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 41 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44 |
64. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.124, 2.223-2.407, 7.45-7.53, 7.420-7.432 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 103, 114, 290, 437 | 2.124. 4. They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. 2.223. 1. Now after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle’s kingdom, while Cumanus took upon him the office of procurator of the rest, which was a Roman province, and therein he succeeded Alexander; under which Cumanus began the troubles, and the Jews’ ruin came on; 2.224. for when the multitude were come together to Jerusalem, to the feast of unleavened bread, and a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple(for they always were armed, and kept guard at the festivals, to prevent any innovation which the multitude thus gathered together might make), one of the soldiers pulled back his garment, and cowering down after an indecent manner, turned his breech to the Jews, and spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture. 2.225. At this the whole multitude had indignation, and made a clamor to Cumanus, that he would punish the soldier; while the rasher part of the youth, and such as were naturally the most tumultuous, fell to fighting, and caught up stones, and threw them at the soldiers. 2.226. Upon which Cumanus was afraid lest all the people should make an assault upon him, and sent to call for more armed men, who, when they came in great numbers into the cloisters, the Jews were in a very great consternation; and being beaten out of the temple, they ran into the city; 2.227. and the violence with which they crowded to get out was so great, that they trod upon each other, and squeezed one another, till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and every family lamented [their own relations]. 2.228. 2. Now there followed after this another calamity, which arose from a tumult made by robbers; for at the public road of Bethhoron, one Stephen, a servant of Caesar, carried some furniture, which the robbers fell upon and seized. 2.229. Upon this Cumanus sent men to go round about to the neighboring villages, and to bring their inhabitants to him bound, as laying it to their charge that they had not pursued after the thieves, and caught them. Now here it was that a certain soldier, finding the sacred book of the law, tore it to pieces, and threw it into the fire. 2.230. Hereupon the Jews were in great disorder, as if their whole country were in a flame, and assembled themselves so many of them by their zeal for their religion, as by an engine, and ran together with united clamor to Caesarea, to Cumanus, and made supplication to him that he would not overlook this man, who had offered such an affront to God, and to his law; but punish him for what he had done. 2.231. Accordingly, he, perceiving that the multitude would not be quiet unless they had a comfortable answer from him, gave order that the soldier should be brought, and drawn through those that required to have him punished, to execution, which being done, the Jews went their ways. 2.232. 3. After this there happened a fight between the Galileans and the Samaritans; it happened at a village called Geman, which is situated in the great plain of Samaria; where, as a great number of Jews were going up to Jerusalem to the feast [of tabernacles,] a certain Galilean was slain; 2.233. and besides, a vast number of people ran together out of Galilee, in order to fight with the Samaritans. But the principal men among them came to Cumanus, and besought him that, before the evil became incurable, he would come into Galilee, and bring the authors of this murder to punishment; for that there was no other way to make the multitude separate without coming to blows. However, Cumanus postponed their supplications to the other affairs he was then about, and sent the petitioners away without success. 2.234. 4. But when the affair of this murder came to be told at Jerusalem, it put the multitude into disorder, and they left the feast; and without any generals to conduct them, they marched with great violence to Samaria; nor would they be ruled by any of the magistrates that were set over them, 2.235. but they were managed by one Eleazar, the son of Dineus, and by Alexander, in these their thievish and seditious attempts. These men fell upon those that were in the neighborhood of the Acrabatene toparchy, and slew them, without sparing any age, and set the villages on fire. 2.236. 5. But Cumanus took one troop of horsemen, called the troop of Sebaste, out of Caesarea, and came to the assistance of those that were spoiled; he also seized upon a great number of those that followed Eleazar, and slew more of them. 2.237. And as for the rest of the multitude of those that went so zealously to fight with the Samaritans, the rulers of Jerusalem ran out, clothed with sackcloth, and having ashes on their heads, and begged of them to go their ways, lest by their attempt to revenge themselves upon the Samaritans they should provoke the Romans to come against Jerusalem; to have compassion upon their country and temple, their children and their wives, and not bring the utmost dangers of destruction upon them, in order to avenge themselves upon one Galilean only. 2.238. The Jews complied with these persuasions of theirs, and dispersed themselves; but still there were a great number who betook themselves to robbing, in hopes of impunity; and rapines and insurrections of the bolder sort happened over the whole country. 2.239. And the men of power among the Samaritans came to Tyre, to Ummidius Quadratus, the president of Syria, and desired that they that had laid waste the country might be punished: 2.240. the great men also of the Jews, and Jonathan the son of Aus the high priest, came thither, and said that the Samaritans were the beginners of the disturbance, on account of that murder they had committed; and that Cumanus had given occasion to what had happened, by his unwillingness to punish the original authors of that murder. 2.241. 6. But Quadratus put both parties off for that time, and told them, that when he should come to those places, he would make a diligent inquiry after every circumstance. After which he went to Caesarea, and crucified all those whom Cumanus had taken alive; 2.242. and when from thence he was come to the city Lydda, he heard the affair of the Samaritans, and sent for eighteen of the Jews, whom he had learned to have been concerned in that fight, and beheaded them; 2.243. but he sent two others of those that were of the greatest power among them, and both Jonathan and Aias, the high priests, as also Aus the son of this Aias, and certain others that were eminent among the Jews, to Caesar; as he did in like manner by the most illustrious of the Samaritans. 2.244. He also ordered that Cumanus [the procurator] and Celer the tribune should sail to Rome, in order to give an account of what had been done to Caesar. When he had finished these matters, he went up from Lydda to Jerusalem, and finding the multitude celebrating their feast of unleavened bread without any tumult, he returned to Antioch. 2.245. 7. Now when Caesar at Rome had heard what Cumanus and the Samaritans had to say (where it was done in the hearing of Agrippa, who zealously espoused the cause of the Jews, as in like manner many of the great men stood by Cumanus), he condemned the Samaritans, and commanded that three of the most powerful men among them should be put to death; he banished Cumanus, 2.246. and sent Celer bound to Jerusalem, to be delivered over to the Jews to be tormented; that he should be drawn round the city, and then beheaded. 2.247. 8. After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed. 2.248. But Claudius himself, when he had administered the government thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days, died, and left Nero to be his successor in the empire, whom he had adopted by his Wife Agrippina’s delusions, in order to be his successor, although he had a son of his own, whose name was Britannicus, by Messalina his former wife, and a daughter whose name was Octavia, 2.249. whom he had married to Nero; he had also another daughter by Petina, whose name was Antonia. 2.250. 1. Now as to the many things in which Nero acted like a madman, out of the extravagant degree of the felicity and riches which he enjoyed, and by that means used his good fortune to the injury of others; and after what manner he slew his brother, and wife, and mother, from whom his barbarity spread itself to others that were most nearly related to him; 2.251. and how, at last, he was so distracted that he became an actor in the scenes, and upon the theater,—I omit to say any more about them, because there are writers enough upon those subjects everywhere; but I shall turn myself to those actions of his time in which the Jews were concerned. 2.252. 2. Nero therefore bestowed the kingdom of the Lesser Armenia upon Aristobulus, Herod’s son, and he added to Agrippa’s kingdom four cities, with the toparchies to them belonging; I mean Abila, and that Julias which is in Perea, Taricheae also, and Tiberias of Galilee; but over the rest of Judea he made Felix procurator. 2.253. This Felix took Eleazar the arch-robber, and many that were with him, alive, when they had ravaged the country for twenty years together, and sent them to Rome; but as to the number of robbers whom he caused to be crucified, and of those who were caught among them, and whom he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated. 2.254. 3. When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the daytime, and in the midst of the city; 2.255. this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. 2.256. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; 2.257. and while everybody expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance. 2.258. 4. There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. 2.259. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. 2.260. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them. 2.261. 5. But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; 2.262. these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. 2.263. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves. 2.264. 6. Now, when these were quieted, it happened, as it does in a diseased body, that another part was subject to an inflammation; for a company of deceivers and robbers got together, and persuaded the Jews to revolt, and exhorted them to assert their liberty, inflicting death on those that continued in obedience to the Roman government, and saying, that such as willingly chose slavery ought to be forced from such their desired inclinations; 2.265. for they parted themselves into different bodies, and lay in wait up and down the country, and plundered the houses of the great men, and slew the men themselves, and set the villages on fire; and this till all Judea was filled with the effects of their madness. And thus the flame was every day more and more blown up, till it came to a direct war. 2.266. 7. There was also another disturbance at Caesarea:—those Jews who were mixed with the Syrians that lived there, raising a tumult against them. The Jews pretended that the city was theirs, and said that he who built it was a Jew, meaning king Herod. The Syrians confessed also that its builder was a Jew; but they still said, however, that the city was a Grecian city; for that he who set up statues and temples in it could not design it for Jews. 2.267. On which account both parties had a contest with one another; and this contest increased so much, that it came at last to arms, and the bolder sort of them marched out to fight; for the elders of the Jews were not able to put a stop to their own people that were disposed to be tumultuous, and the Greeks thought it a shame for them to be overcome by the Jews. 2.268. Now these Jews exceeded the others in riches and strength of body; but the Grecian part had the advantage of assistance from the soldiery; for the greatest part of the Roman garrison was raised out of Syria; and being thus related to the Syrian part, they were ready to assist it. 2.269. However, the governors of the city were concerned to keep all quiet, and whenever they caught those that were most for fighting on either side, they punished them with stripes and bonds. Yet did not the sufferings of those that were caught affright the remainder, or make them desist; but they were still more and more exasperated, and deeper engaged in the sedition. 2.270. And as Felix came once into the marketplace, and commanded the Jews, when they had beaten the Syrians, to go their ways, and threatened them if they would not, and they would not obey him, he sent his soldiers out upon them, and slew a great many of them, upon which it fell out that what they had was plundered. And as the sedition still continued, he chose out the most eminent men on both sides as ambassadors to Nero, to argue about their several privileges. 2.271. 1. Now it was that Festus succeeded Felix as procurator, and made it his business to correct those that made disturbances in the country. So he caught the greatest part of the robbers, and destroyed a great many of them. 2.272. But then Albinus, who succeeded Festus, did not execute his office as the other had done; nor was there any sort of wickedness that could be named but he had a hand in it. 2.273. Accordingly, he did not only, in his political capacity, steal and plunder every one’s substance, nor did he only burden the whole nation with taxes, but he permitted the relations of such as were in prison for robbery, and had been laid there, either by the senate of every city, or by the former procurators, to redeem them for money; and nobody remained in the prisons as a malefactor but he who gave him nothing. 2.274. At this time it was that the enterprises of the seditious at Jerusalem were very formidable; the principal men among them purchasing leave of Albinus to go on with their seditious practices; while that part of the people who delighted in disturbances joined themselves to such as had fellowship with Albinus; 2.275. and everyone of these wicked wretches were encompassed with his own band of robbers, while he himself, like an arch-robber, or a tyrant, made a figure among his company, and abused his authority over those about him, in order to plunder those that lived quietly. 2.276. The effect of which was this, that those who lost their goods were forced to hold their peace, when they had reason to show great indignation at what they had suffered; but those who had escaped were forced to flatter him that deserved to be punished, out of the fear they were in of suffering equally with the others. Upon the whole, nobody durst speak their minds, but tyranny was generally tolerated; and at this time were those seeds sown which brought the city to destruction. 2.277. 2. And although such was the character of Albinus, yet did Gessius Florus who succeeded him, demonstrate him to have been a most excellent person, upon the comparison; for the former did the greatest part of his rogueries in private, and with a sort of dissimulation; but Gessius did his unjust actions to the harm of the nation after a pompous manner; and as though he had been sent as an executioner to punish condemned malefactors, he omitted no sort of rapine, or of vexation; 2.278. where the case was really pitiable, he was most barbarous, and in things of the greatest turpitude he was most impudent. Nor could anyone outdo him in disguising the truth; nor could anyone contrive more subtle ways of deceit than he did. He indeed thought it but a petty offense to get money out of single persons; so he spoiled whole cities, and ruined entire bodies of men at once, and did almost publicly proclaim it all the country over, that they had liberty given them to turn robbers, upon this condition, that he might go shares with them in the spoils they got. 2.279. Accordingly, this his greediness of gain was the occasion that entire toparchies were brought to desolation, and a great many of the people left their own country, and fled into foreign provinces. 2.280. 3. And truly, while Cestius Gallus was president of the province of Syria, nobody durst do so much as send an embassage to him against Florus; but when he was come to Jerusalem, upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread, the people came about him not fewer in number than three millions: these besought him to commiserate the calamities of their nation, and cried out upon Florus as the bane of their country. 2.281. But as he was present, and stood by Cestius, he laughed at their words. However, Cestius, when he had quieted the multitude, and had assured them that he would take care that Florus should hereafter treat them in a more gentle manner, returned to Antioch. 2.282. Florus also conducted him as far as Caesarea, and deluded him, though he had at that very time the purpose of showing his anger at the nation, and procuring a war upon them, by which means alone it was that he supposed he might conceal his enormities; 2.283. for he expected that if the peace continued, he should have the Jews for his accusers before Caesar; but that if he could procure them to make a revolt, he should divert their laying lesser crimes to his charge, by a misery that was so much greater; he therefore did every day augment their calamities, in order to induce them to a rebellion. 2.284. 4. Now at this time it happened that the Grecians at Caesarea had been too hard for the Jews, and had obtained of Nero the government of the city, and had brought the judicial determination: at the same time began the war, in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, and the seventeenth of the reign of Agrippa, in the month of Artemisius [Jyar]. 2.285. Now the occasion of this war was by no means proportionable to those heavy calamities which it brought upon us. For the Jews that dwelt at Caesarea had a synagogue near the place, whose owner was a certain Cesarean Greek: the Jews had endeavored frequently to have purchased the possession of the place, and had offered many times its value for its price; 2.286. but as the owner overlooked their offers, so did he raise other buildings upon the place, in way of affront to them, and made workingshops of them, and left them but a narrow passage, and such as was very troublesome for them to go along to their synagogue. Whereupon the warmer part of the Jewish youth went hastily to the workmen, and forbade them to build there; 2.287. but as Florus would not permit them to use force, the great men of the Jews, with John the publican, being in the utmost distress what to do, persuaded Florus, with the offer of eight talents, to hinder the work. 2.288. He then, being intent upon nothing but getting money, promised he would do for them all they desired of him, and then went away from Caesarea to Sebaste, and left the sedition to take its full course, as if he had sold a license to the Jews to fight it out. 2.289. 5. Now on the next day, which was the seventh day of the week, when the Jews were crowding apace to their synagogue, a certain man of Caesarea, of a seditious temper, got an earthen vessel, and set it with the bottom upward, at the entrance of that synagogue, and sacrificed birds. This thing provoked the Jews to an incurable degree, because their laws were affronted, and the place was polluted. 2.290. Whereupon the sober and moderate part of the Jews thought it proper to have recourse to their governors again, while the seditious part, and such as were in the fervor of their youth, were vehemently inflamed to fight. The seditious also among [the Gentiles of] Caesarea stood ready for the same purpose; for they had, by agreement, sent the man to sacrifice beforehand [as ready to support him] so that it soon came to blows. 2.291. Hereupon Jucundus, the master of the horse, who was ordered to prevent the fight, came thither, and took away the earthen vessel, and endeavored to put a stop to the sedition; but when he was overcome by the violence of the people of Caesarea, the Jews caught up their books of the law, and retired to Narbata, which was a place to them belonging, distant from Caesarea sixty furlongs. 2.292. But John, and twelve of the principal men with him, went to Florus, to Sebaste, and made a lamentable complaint of their case, and besought him to help them; and with all possible decency, put him in mind of the eight talents they had given him; but he had the men seized upon and put in prison, and accused them for carrying the books of the law out of Caesarea. 2.293. 6. Moreover, as to the citizens of Jerusalem, although they took this matter very ill, yet did they restrain their passion; but Florus acted herein as if he had been hired, and blew up the war into a flame, and sent some to take seventeen talents out of the sacred treasure, and pretended that Caesar wanted them. 2.294. At this the people were in confusion immediately, and ran together to the temple, with prodigious clamors, and called upon Caesar by name, and besought him to free them from the tyranny of Florus. 2.295. Some also of the seditious cried out upon Florus, and cast the greatest reproaches upon him, and carried a basket about, and begged some spills of money for him, as for one that was destitute of possessions, and in a miserable condition. Yet was not he made ashamed hereby of his love of money, but was more enraged, and provoked to get still more; 2.296. and instead of coming to Caesarea, as he ought to have done, and quenching the flame of war, which was beginning thence, and so taking away the occasion of any disturbances, on which account it was that he had received a reward [of eight talents], he marched hastily with an army of horsemen and footmen against Jerusalem, that he might gain his will by the arms of the Romans, and might, by his terror, and by his threatenings, bring the city into subjection. 2.297. 7. But the people were desirous of making Florus ashamed of his attempt, and met his soldiers with acclamations, and put themselves in order to receive him very submissively. 2.298. But he sent Capito, a centurion, beforehand, with fifty soldiers, to bid them go back, and not now make a show of receiving him in an obliging manner, whom they had so foully reproached before; 2.299. and said that it was incumbent on them, in case they had generous souls, and were free speakers, to jest upon him to his face, and appear to be lovers of liberty, not only in words, but with their weapons also. 2.300. With this message was the multitude amazed; and upon the coming of Capito’s horsemen into the midst of them, they were dispersed before they could salute Florus, or manifest their submissive behavior to him. Accordingly, they retired to their own houses, and spent that night in fear and confusion of face. 2.301. 8. Now at this time Florus took up his quarters at the palace; and on the next day he had his tribunal set before it, and sat upon it, when the high priests, and the men of power, and those of the greatest eminence in the city, came all before that tribunal; 2.302. upon which Florus commanded them to deliver up to him those that had reproached him, and told them that they should themselves partake of the vengeance to them belonging, if they did not produce the criminals; but these demonstrated that the people were peaceably disposed, and they begged forgiveness for those that had spoken amiss; 2.303. for that it was no wonder at all that in so great a multitude there should be some more daring than they ought to be, and, by reason of their younger age, foolish also; and that it was impossible to distinguish those that offended from the rest, while every one was sorry for what he had done, and denied it out of fear of what would follow: 2.304. that he ought, however, to provide for the peace of the nation, and to take such counsels as might preserve the city for the Romans, and rather for the sake of a great number of innocent people to forgive a few that were guilty, than for the sake of a few of the wicked to put so large and good a body of men into disorder. 2.305. 9. Florus was more provoked at this, and called out aloud to the soldiers to plunder that which was called the Upper Market-place, and to slay such as they met with. So the soldiers, taking this exhortation of their commander in a sense agreeable to their desire of gain, did not only plunder the place they were sent to, but forcing themselves into every house, they slew its inhabitants; 2.306. o the citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also caught many of the quiet people, and brought them before Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes, and then crucified. 2.307. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children (for they did not spare even the infants themselves), was about three thousand and six hundred. 2.308. And what made this calamity the heavier was this new method of Roman barbarity; for Florus ventured then to do what no one had done before, that is, to have men of the equestrian order whipped and nailed to the cross before his tribunal; who, although they were by birth Jews, yet were they of Roman dignity notwithstanding. 2.309. 1. About this very time king Agrippa was going to Alexandria, to congratulate Alexander upon his having obtained the government of Egypt from Nero; 2.310. but as his sister Bernice was come to Jerusalem, and saw the wicked practices of the soldiers, she was sorely affected at it, and frequently sent the masters of her horse and her guards to Florus, and begged of him to leave off these slaughters; 2.311. but he would not comply with her request, nor have any regard either to the multitude of those already slain, or to the nobility of her that interceded, but only to the advantage he should make by this plundering; 2.312. nay, this violence of the soldiers broke out to such a degree of madness, that it spent itself on the queen herself; for they did not only torment and destroy those whom they had caught under her very eyes, but indeed had killed herself also, unless she had prevented them by flying to the palace, and had staid there all night with her guards, which she had about her for fear of an insult from the soldiers. 2.313. Now she dwelt then at Jerusalem, in order to perform a vow which she had made to God; for it is usual with those that had been either afflicted with a distemper, or with any other distresses, to make vows; and for thirty days before they are to offer their sacrifices, to abstain from wine, and to shave the hair of their head. 2.314. Which things Bernice was now performing, and stood barefoot before Florus’s tribunal, and besought him [to spare the Jews]. Yet could she neither have any reverence paid to her, nor could she escape without some danger of being slain herself. 2.315. 2. This happened upon the sixteenth day of the month Artemisius [Jyar]. Now, on the next day, the multitude, who were in a great agony, ran together to the Upper Marketplace, and made the loudest lamentations for those that had perished; and the greatest part of the cries were such as reflected on Florus; 2.316. at which the men of power were affrighted, together with the high priests, and rent their garments, and fell down before each of them, and besought them to leave off, and not to provoke Florus to some incurable procedure, besides what they had already suffered. 2.317. Accordingly, the multitude complied immediately, out of reverence to those that had desired it of them, and out of the hope they had that Florus would do them no more injuries. 2.318. 3. So Florus was troubled that the disturbances were over, and endeavored to kindle that flame again, and sent for the high priests, with the other eminent persons, and said, the only demonstration that the people would not make any other innovations should be this,—that they must go out and meet the soldiers that were ascending from Caesarea, whence two cohorts were coming; 2.319. and while these men were exhorting the multitude so to do, he sent beforehand, and gave directions to the centurions of the cohorts, that they should give notice to those that were under them not to return the Jews’ salutations; and that if they made any reply to his disadvantage, they should make use of their weapons. 2.320. Now the high priests assembled the multitude in the temple, and desired them to go and meet the Romans, and to salute the cohorts very civilly, before their miserable case should become incurable. Now the seditious part would not comply with these persuasions; but the consideration of those that had been destroyed made them incline to those that were the boldest for action. 2.321. 4. At this time it was that every priest, and every servant of God, brought out the holy vessels, and the ornamental garments wherein they used to minister in sacred things.—The harpers also, and the singers of hymns, came out with their instruments of music, and fell down before the multitude, and begged of them that they would preserve those holy ornaments to them, and not provoke the Romans to carry off those sacred treasures. 2.322. You might also see then the high priests themselves, with dust sprinkled in great plenty upon their heads, with bosoms deprived of any covering but what was rent; these besought every one of the eminent men by name, and the multitude in common, that they would not for a small offense betray their country to those that were desirous to have it laid waste; 2.323. aying, “What benefit will it bring to the soldiers to have a salutation from the Jews? or what amendment of your affairs will it bring you, if you do not now go out to meet them? 2.324. and that if they saluted them civilly, all handle would be cut off from Florus to begin a war; that they should thereby gain their country, and freedom from all further sufferings; and that, besides, it would be a sign of great want of command of themselves, if they should yield to a few seditious persons, while it was fitter for them who were so great a people to force the others to act soberly.” 2.325. 5. By these persuasions, which they used to the multitude and to the seditious, they restrained some by threatenings, and others by the reverence that was paid them. After this they led them out, and they met the soldiers quietly, and after a composed manner, and when they were come up with them, they saluted them; but when they made no answer, the seditious exclaimed against Florus, which was the signal given for falling upon them. 2.326. The soldiers therefore encompassed them presently, and struck them with their clubs; and as they fled away, the horsemen trampled them down, so that a great many fell down dead by the strokes of the Romans, and more by their own violence in crushing one another. 2.327. Now there was a terrible crowding about the gates, and while everybody was making haste to get before another, the flight of them all was retarded, and a terrible destruction there was among those that fell down, for they were suffocated, and broken to pieces by the multitude of those that were uppermost; nor could any of them be distinguished by his relations in order to the care of his funeral; 2.328. the soldiers also who beat them, fell upon those whom they overtook, without showing them any mercy, and thrust the multitude through the place called Bezetha, as they forced their way, in order to get in and seize upon the temple, and the tower Antonia. Florus also being desirous to get those places into his possession, brought such as were with him out of the king’s palace, and would have compelled them to get as far as the citadel [Antonia]; 2.329. but his attempt failed, for the people immediately turned back upon him, and stopped the violence of his attempt; and as they stood upon the tops of their houses, they threw their darts at the Romans, who, as they were sorely galled thereby, because those weapons came from above, and they were not able to make a passage through the multitude, which stopped up the narrow passages, they retired to the camp which was at the palace. 2.330. 6. But for the seditious, they were afraid lest Florus should come again, and get possession of the temple, through Antonia; so they got immediately upon those cloisters of the temple that joined to Antonia, and cut them down. 2.331. This cooled the avarice of Florus; for whereas he was eager to obtain the treasures of God [in the temple], and on that account was desirous of getting into Antonia, as soon as the cloisters were broken down, he left off his attempt; he then sent for the high priests and the Sanhedrin, and told them that he was indeed himself going out of the city, but that he would leave them as large a garrison as they should desire. 2.332. Hereupon they promised that they would make no innovations, in case he would leave them one band; but not that which had fought with the Jews, because the multitude bore ill will against that band on account of what they had suffered from it; so he changed the band as they desired, and, with the rest of his forces, returned to Caesarea. 2.333. 1. However, Florus contrived another way to oblige the Jews to begin the war, and sent to Cestius, and accused the Jews falsely of revolting [from the Roman government], and imputed the beginning of the former fight to them, and pretended they had been the authors of that disturbance, wherein they were only the sufferers. Yet were not the governors of Jerusalem silent upon this occasion, but did themselves write to Cestius, as did Bernice also, about the illegal practices of which Florus had been guilty against the city; 2.334. who, upon reading both accounts, consulted with his captains [what he should do]. Now some of them thought it best for Cestius to go up with his army, either to punish the revolt, if it was real, or to settle the Roman affairs on a surer foundation, if the Jews continued quiet under them; but he thought it best himself to send one of his intimate friends beforehand, to see the state of affairs, and to give him a faithful account of the intentions of the Jews. 2.335. Accordingly, he sent one of his tribunes, whose name was Neopolitanus, who met with king Agrippa as he was returning from Alexandria, at Jamnia, and told him who it was that sent him, and on what errand he was sent. 2.336. 2. And here it was that the high priests, and men of power among the Jews, as well as the Sanhedrin, came to congratulate the king [upon his safe return]; and after they had paid him their respects, they lamented their own calamities, and related to him what barbarous treatment they had met with from Florus. 2.337. At which barbarity Agrippa had great indignation, but transferred, after a subtle manner, his anger towards those Jews whom he really pitied, that he might beat down their high thoughts of themselves, and would have them believe that they had not been so unjustly treated, in order to dissuade them from avenging themselves. 2.338. So these great men, as of better understanding than the rest, and desirous of peace, because of the possessions they had, understood that this rebuke which the king gave them was intended for their good; but as to the people, they came sixty furlongs out of Jerusalem, and congratulated both Agrippa and Neopolitanus; 2.339. but the wives of those that had been slain came running first of all and lamenting. The people also, when they heard their mourning, fell into lamentations also, and besought Agrippa to assist them: they also cried out to Neopolitanus, and complained of the many miseries they had endured under Florus; and they showed them, when they were come into the city, how the marketplace was made desolate, and the houses plundered. 2.340. They then persuaded Neopolitanus, by the means of Agrippa, that he would walk round the city, with one only servant, as far as Siloam, that he might inform himself that the Jews submitted to all the rest of the Romans, and were only displeased at Florus, by reason of his exceeding barbarity to them. So he walked round, and had sufficient experience of the good temper the people were in, and then went up to the temple, 2.341. where he called the multitude together, and highly commended them for their fidelity to the Romans, and earnestly exhorted them to keep the peace; and having performed such parts of Divine worship at the temple as he was allowed to do, he returned to Cestius. 2.342. 3. But as for the multitude of the Jews, they addressed themselves to the king, and to the high priests, and desired they might have leave to send ambassadors to Nero against Florus, and not by their silence afford a suspicion that they had been the occasion of such great slaughters as had been made, and were disposed to revolt, alleging that they should seem to have been the first beginners of the war, if they did not prevent the report by showing who it was that began it; 2.343. and it appeared openly that they would not be quiet, if anybody should hinder them from sending such an embassage. But Agrippa, although he thought it too dangerous a thing for them to appoint men to go as the accusers of Florus, yet did he not think it fit for him to overlook them, as they were in a disposition for war. 2.344. He therefore called the multitude together into a large gallery, and placed his sister Bernice in the house of the Asamoneans, that she might be seen by them (which house was over the gallery, at the passage to the upper city, where the bridge joined the temple to the gallery), and spake to them as follows:— 2.345. 4. “Had I perceived that you were all zealously disposed to go to war with the Romans, and that the purer and more sincere part of the people did not propose to live in peace, I had not come out to you, nor been so bold as to give you counsel; for all discourses that tend to persuade men to do what they ought to do are superfluous, when the hearers are agreed to do the contrary. 2.346. But because some are earnest to go to war because they are young, and without experience of the miseries it brings, and because some are for it out of an unreasonable expectation of regaining their liberty, and because others hope to get by it, and are therefore earnestly bent upon it, that in the confusion of your affairs they may gain what belongs to those that are too weak to resist them, I have thought it proper to get you all together, and to say to you what I think to be for your advantage; that so the former may grow wiser, and change their minds, and that the best men may come to no harm by the ill conduct of some others. 2.347. And let not anyone be tumultuous against me, in case what they hear me say does not please them; for as to those that admit of no cure, but are resolved upon a revolt, it will still be in their power to retain the same sentiments after my exhortation is over; but still my discourse will fall to the ground, even with a relation to those that have a mind to hear me, unless you will all keep silence. 2.348. I am well aware that many make a tragical exclamation concerning the injuries that have been offered you by your procurators, and concerning the glorious advantages of liberty; but before I begin the inquiry, who you are that must go to war, and who they are against whom you must fight,—I shall first separate those pretenses that are by some connected together; 2.349. for if you aim at avenging yourselves on those that have done you injury, why do you pretend this to be a war for recovering your liberty? but if you think all servitude intolerable, to what purpose serve your complaints against your particular governors? for if they treated you with moderation, it would still be equally an unworthy thing to be in servitude. 2.350. Consider now the several cases that may be supposed, how little occasion there is for your going to war. Your first occasion is the accusations you have to make against your procurators; now here you ought to be submissive to those in authority, and not give them any provocation; 2.351. but when you reproach men greatly for small offenses, you excite those whom you reproach to be your adversaries; for this will only make them leave off hurting you privately, and with some degree of modesty, and to lay what you have waste openly. 2.352. Now nothing so much damps the force of strokes as bearing them with patience; and the quietness of those who are injured diverts the injurious persons from afflicting. But let us take it for granted that the Roman ministers are injurious to you, and are incurably severe; yet are they not all the Romans who thus injure you; nor hath Caesar, against whom you are going to make war, injured you: it is not by their command that any wicked governor is sent to you; for they who are in the west cannot see those that are in the east; nor indeed is it easy for them there even to hear what is done in these parts. 2.353. Now it is absurd to make war with a great many for the sake of one: to do so with such mighty people for a small cause; and this when these people are not able to know of what you complain: 2.354. nay, such crimes as we complain of may soon be corrected, for the same procurator will not continue forever; and probable it is that the successors will come with more moderate inclinations. But as for war, if it be once begun, it is not easily laid down again, nor borne without calamities coming therewith. 2.355. However, as to the desire of recovering your liberty, it is unseasonable to indulge it so late; whereas you ought to have labored earnestly in old time that you might never have lost it; for the first experience of slavery was hard to be endured, and the struggle that you might never have been subject to it would have been just; 2.356. but that slave who hath been once brought into subjection, and then runs away, is rather a refractory slave than a lover of liberty; for it was then the proper time for doing all that was possible, that you might never have admitted the Romans [into your city], when Pompey came first into the country. 2.357. But so it was, that our ancestors and their kings, who were in much better circumstances than we are, both as to money, and [strong] bodies, and [valiant] souls, did not bear the onset of a small body of the Roman army. And yet you, who have now accustomed yourselves to obedience from one generation to another, and who are so much inferior to those who first submitted, in your circumstances will venture to oppose the entire empire of the Romans. 2.358. While those Athenians, who, in order to preserve the liberty of Greece, did once set fire to their own city; who pursued Xerxes, that proud prince, when he sailed upon the land, and walked upon the sea, and could not be contained by the seas, but conducted such an army as was too broad for Europe; and made him run away like a fugitive in a single ship, and brake so great a part of Asia as the Lesser Salamis; are yet at this time servants to the Romans; and those injunctions which are sent from Italy become laws to the principal governing city of Greece. 2.359. Those Lacedemonians also who got the great victories at Thermopylae and Platea, and had Agesilaus [for their king], and searched every corner of Asia, are contented to admit the same lords. 2.360. These Macedonians, also, who still fancy what great men their Philip and Alexander were, and see that the latter had promised them the empire over the world, these bear so great a change, and pay their obedience to those whom fortune hath advanced in their stead. 2.361. Moreover, ten thousand other nations there are who had greater reason than we to claim their entire liberty, and yet do submit. You are the only people who think it a disgrace to be servants to those to whom all the world hath submitted. What sort of an army do you rely on? What are the arms you depend on? Where is your fleet, that may seize upon the Roman seas? and where are those treasures which may be sufficient for your undertakings? 2.362. Do you suppose, I pray you, that you are to make war with the Egyptians, and with the Arabians? Will you not carefully reflect upon the Roman empire? Will you not estimate your own weakness? Hath not your army been often beaten even by your neighboring nations, while the power of the Romans is invincible in all parts of the habitable earth? 2.363. nay, rather they seek for somewhat still beyond that; for all Euphrates is not a sufficient boundary for them on the east side, nor the Danube on the north; and for their southern limit, Libya hath been searched over by them, as far as countries uninhabited, as is Cadiz their limit on the west; nay, indeed, they have sought for another habitable earth beyond the ocean, and have carried their arms as far as such British islands as were never known before. 2.364. What therefore do you pretend to? Are you richer than the Gauls, stronger than the Germans, wiser than the Greeks, more numerous than all men upon the habitable earth? What confidence is it that elevates you to oppose the Romans? 2.365. Perhaps it will be said, It is hard to endure slavery. Yes; but how much harder is this to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under the sun! These, though they inhabit in a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty than you have. 2.366. What is the case of five hundred cities of Asia? Do they not submit to a single governor, and to the consular bundle of rods? What need I speak of the Heniochi, and Colchi and the nation of Tauri, those that inhabit the Bosphorus, and the nations about Pontus, and Meotis, 2.367. who formerly knew not so much as a lord of their own, but are now subject to three thousand armed men, and where forty long ships keep the sea in peace, which before was not navigable, and very tempestuous? 2.368. How strong a plea may Bithynia, and Cappadocia, and the people of Pamphylia, the Lycians, and Cilicians, put in for liberty! But they are made tributary without an army. What are the circumstances of the Thracians, whose country extends in breadth five days’ journey, and in length seven, and is of a much more harsh constitution, and much more defensible, than yours, and by the rigor of its cold sufficient to keep off armies from attacking them? do not they submit to two thousand men of the Roman garrisons? 2.369. Are not the Illyrians, who inhabit the country adjoining, as far as Dalmatia and the Danube, governed by barely two legions? by which also they put a stop to the incursions of the Dacians. And for the 2.370. Dalmatians, who have made such frequent insurrections in order to regain their liberty, and who could never before be so thoroughly subdued, but that they always gathered their forces together again, and revolted, yet are they now very quiet under one Roman legion. 2.371. Moreover, if great advantages might provoke any people to revolt, the Gauls might do it best of all, as being so thoroughly walled round by nature; on the east side by the Alps, on the north by the river Rhine, on the south by the Pyrenean mountains, and on the west by the ocean. 2.372. Now, although these Gauls have such obstacles before them to prevent any attack upon them, and have no fewer than three hundred and five nations among them, nay have, as one may say, the fountains of domestic happiness within themselves, and send out plentiful streams of happiness over almost the whole world, these bear to be tributary to the Romans, and derive their prosperous condition from them; 2.373. and they undergo this, not because they are of effeminate minds, or because they are of an ignoble stock, as having borne a war of eighty years in order to preserve their liberty; but by reason of the great regard they have to the power of the Romans, and their good fortune, which is of greater efficacy than their arms. These Gauls, therefore, are kept in servitude by twelve hundred soldiers, which are hardly so many as are their cities; 2.374. nor hath the gold dug out of the mines of Spain been sufficient for the support of a war to preserve their liberty, nor could their vast distance from the Romans by land and by sea do it; nor could the martial tribes of the Lusitanians and Spaniards escape; no more could the ocean, with its tide, which yet was terrible to the ancient inhabitants. 2.375. Nay, the Romans have extended their arms beyond the pillars of Hercules, and have walked among the clouds, upon the Pyrenean mountains, and have subdued these nations. And one legion is a sufficient guard for these people, although they were so hard to be conquered, and at a distance so remote from Rome. 2.376. Who is there among you that hath not heard of the great number of the Germans? You have, to be sure, yourselves seen them to be strong and tall, and that frequently, since the Romans have them among their captives everywhere; 2.377. yet these Germans, who dwell in an immense country, who have minds greater than their bodies, and a soul that despises death, and who are in a rage more fierce than wild beasts, have the Rhine for the boundary of their enterprises, and are tamed by eight Roman legions. Such of them as were taken captive became their servants; and the rest of the entire nation were obliged to save themselves by flight. 2.378. Do you also, who depend on the walls of Jerusalem, consider what a wall the Britons had; for the Romans sailed away to them, and subdued them while they were encompassed by the ocean, and inhabited an island that is not less than [the continent of] this habitable earth; and four legions are a sufficient guard to so large an island: 2.379. And why should I speak much more about this matter, while the Parthians, that most warlike body of men, and lords of so many nations, and encompassed with such mighty forces, send hostages to the Romans? whereby you may see, if you please, even in Italy, the noblest nation of the East, under the notion of peace, submitting to serve them. 2.380. Now, when almost all people under the sun submit to the Roman arms, will you be the only people that make war against them? and this without regarding the fate of the Carthaginians, who, in the midst of their brags of the great Hannibal, and the nobility of their Phoenician original, fell by the hand of Scipio. 2.381. Nor indeed have the Cyrenians, derived from the Lacedemonians, nor the Marmaridae, a nation extended as far as the regions uninhabitable for want of water, nor have the Syrtes, a place terrible to such as barely hear it described, the Nasamons and Moors, and the immense multitude of the Numidians, been able to put a stop to the Roman valor. 2.382. And as for the third part of the habitable earth [Africa], whose nations are so many that it is not easy to number them, and which is bounded by the Atlantic Sea and the pillars of Hercules, and feeds an innumerable multitude of Ethiopians, as far as the Red Sea, these have the Romans subdued entirely. 2.383. And besides the annual fruits of the earth, which maintain the multitude of the Romans for eight months in the year, this, over and above, pays all sorts of tribute, and affords revenues suitable to the necessities of the government. Nor do they, like you, esteem such injunctions a disgrace to them, although they have but one Roman legion that abides among them. 2.384. And indeed what occasion is there for showing you the power of the Romans over remote countries, when it is so easy to learn it from Egypt, in your neighborhood? 2.385. This country is extended as far as the Ethiopians, and Arabia the Happy, and borders upon India; it hath seven million five hundred thousand men, besides the inhabitants of Alexandria, as may be learned from the revenue of the poll tax; yet it is not ashamed to submit to the Roman government, although it hath Alexandria as a grand temptation to a revolt, by reason it is so full of people and of riches, and is besides exceeding large, 2.386. its length being thirty furlongs, and its breadth no less than ten; and it pays more tribute to the Romans in one month than you do in a year; nay, besides what it pays in money, it sends corn to Rome that supports it for four months [in the year]: it is also walled round on all sides, either by almost impassable deserts, or seas that have no havens, or by rivers, or by lakes; 2.387. yet have none of these things been found too strong for the Roman good fortune; however, two legions that lie in that city are a bridle both for the remoter parts of Egypt, and for the parts inhabited by the more noble Macedonians. 2.388. Where then are those people whom you are to have for your auxiliaries? Must they come from the parts of the world that are uninhabited? for all that are in the habitable earth are [under the] Romans. Unless any of you extend his hopes as far as beyond the Euphrates, and suppose that those of your own nation that dwell in Adiabene will come to your assistance 2.389. (but certainly these will not embarrass themselves with an unjustifiable war, nor, if they should follow such ill advice, will the Parthians permit them so to do); for it is their concern to maintain the truce that is between them and the Romans, and they will be supposed to break the covets between them, if any under their government march against the Romans. 2.390. What remains, therefore, is this, that you have recourse to Divine assistance; but this is already on the side of the Romans; for it is impossible that so vast an empire should be settled without God’s providence. 2.391. Reflect upon it, how impossible it is for your zealous observation of your religious customs to be here preserved, which are hard to be observed even when you fight with those whom you are able to conquer; and how can you then most of all hope for God’s assistance, when, by being forced to transgress his law, you will make him turn his face from you? 2.392. and if you do observe the custom of the Sabbath days, and will not be prevailed on to do anything thereon, you will easily be taken, as were your forefathers by Pompey, who was the busiest in his siege on those days on which the besieged rested. 2.393. But if in time of war you transgress the law of your country, I cannot tell on whose account you will afterward go to war; for your concern is but one, that you do nothing against any of your forefathers; 2.394. and how will you call upon God to assist you, when you are voluntarily transgressing against his religion? Now, all men that go to war do it either as depending on Divine or on human assistance; but since your going to war will cut off both those assistances, those that are for going to war choose evident destruction. 2.395. What hinders you from slaying your children and wives with your own hands, and burning this most excellent native city of yours? for by this mad prank you will, however, escape the reproach of being beaten. 2.396. But it were best, O my friends, it were best, while the vessel is still in the haven, to foresee the impending storm, and not to set sail out of the port into the middle of the hurricanes; for we justly pity those who fall into great misfortunes without foreseeing them; but for him who rushes into manifest ruin, he gains reproaches [instead of commiseration]. 2.397. But certainly no one can imagine that you can enter into a war as by an agreement, or that when the Romans have got you under their power, they will use you with moderation, or will not rather, for an example to other nations, burn your holy city, and utterly destroy your whole nation; for those of you who shall survive the war will not be able to find a place whither to flee, since all men have the Romans for their lords already, or are afraid they shall have hereafter. 2.398. Nay, indeed, the danger concerns not those Jews that dwell here only, but those of them which dwell in other cities also; for there is no people upon the habitable earth which have not some portion of you among them, 2.399. whom your enemies will slay, in case you go to war, and on that account also; and so every city which hath Jews in it will be filled with slaughter for the sake only of a few men, and they who slay them will be pardoned; but if that slaughter be not made by them, consider how wicked a thing it is to take arms against those that are so kind to you. 2.400. Have pity, therefore, if not on your children and wives, yet upon this your metropolis, and its sacred walls; spare the temple, and preserve the holy house, with its holy furniture, for yourselves; for if the Romans get you under their power, they will no longer abstain from them, when their former abstinence shall have been so ungratefully requited. 2.401. I call to witness your sanctuary, and the holy angels of God, and this country common to us all, that I have not kept back anything that is for your preservation; and if you will follow that advice which you ought to do, you will have that peace which will be common to you and to me; but if you indulge your passions, you will run those hazards which I shall be free from.” 2.402. 5. When Agrippa had spoken thus, both he and his sister wept, and by their tears repressed a great deal of the violence of the people; but still they cried out, that they would not fight against the Romans, but against Florus, on account of what they had suffered by his means. 2.403. To which Agrippa replied, that what they had already done was like such as make war against the Romans; “for you have not paid the tribute which is due to Caesar and you have cut off the cloisters [of the temple] from joining to the tower Antonia. 2.404. You will therefore prevent any occasion of revolt if you will but join these together again, and if you will but pay your tribute; for the citadel does not now belong to Florus, nor are you to pay the tribute money to Florus.” 2.405. 1. This advice the people hearkened to, and went up into the temple with the king and Bernice, and began to rebuild the cloisters; the rulers also and senators divided themselves into the villages, and collected the tributes, and soon got together forty talents, which was the sum that was deficient. 2.406. And thus did Agrippa then put a stop to that war which was threatened. Moreover, he attempted to persuade the multitude to obey Florus, until Caesar should send one to succeed him; but they were hereby more provoked, and cast reproaches upon the king, and got him excluded out of the city; nay, some of the seditious had the impudence to throw stones at him. 2.407. So when the king saw that the violence of those that were for innovations was not to be restrained, and being very angry at the contumelies he had received, he sent their rulers, together with their men of power, to Florus, to Caesarea, that he might appoint whom he thought fit to collect the tribute in the country, while he retired into his own kingdom. 7.45. and as the succeeding kings treated them after the same manner, they both multiplied to a great number, and adorned their temple gloriously by fine ornaments, and with great magnificence, in the use of what had been given them. They also made proselytes of a great many of the Greeks perpetually, and thereby, after a sort, brought them to be a portion of their own body. 7.46. But about this time when the present war began, and Vespasian was newly sailed to Syria, 7.47. and all men had taken up a great hatred against the Jews, then it was that a certain person, whose name was Antiochus, being one of the Jewish nation, and greatly respected on account of his father, who was governor of the Jews at Antioch came upon the theater at a time when the people of Antioch were assembled together, and became an informer against his father, and accused both him and others that they had resolved to burn the whole city in one night;; he also delivered up to them some Jews that were foreigners, as partners in their resolutions. 7.48. When the people heard this, they could not refrain their passion, but commanded that those who were delivered up to them should have fire brought to burn them, who were accordingly all burnt upon the theater immediately. 7.49. They did also fall violently upon the multitude of the Jews, as supposing that by punishing them suddenly they should save their own city. 7.50. As for Antiochus, he aggravated the rage they were in, and thought to give them a demonstration of his own conversion, and of his hatred of the Jewish customs, by sacrificing after the manner of the Greeks; 7.51. he persuaded the rest also to compel them to do the same, because they would by that means discover who they were that had plotted against them, since they would not do so; and when the people of Antioch tried the experiment, some few complied, but those that would not do so were slain. 7.52. As for Antiochus himself, he obtained soldiers from the Roman commander, and became a severe master over his own citizens, not permitting them to rest on the seventh day, but forcing them to do all that they usually did on other days; 7.53. and to that degree of distress did he reduce them in this matter, that the rest of the seventh day was dissolved not only at Antioch, but the same thing which took thence its rise was done in other cities also, in like manner, for some small time. 7.420. 2. Now Lupus did then govern Alexandria, who presently sent Caesar word of this commotion; 7.421. who having in suspicion the restless temper of the Jews for innovation, and being afraid lest they should get together again, and persuade some others to join with them, gave orders to Lupus to demolish that Jewish temple which was in the region called Onion, 7.422. and was in Egypt, which was built and had its denomination from the occasion following: 7.423. Onias, the son of Simon, one of the Jewish high priests, fled from Antiochus the king of Syria, when he made war with the Jews, and came to Alexandria; and as Ptolemy received him very kindly, on account of his hatred to Antiochus, he assured him, that if he would comply with his proposal, he would bring all the Jews to his assistance; 7.424. and when the king agreed to do it so far as he was able, he desired him to give him leave to build a temple somewhere in Egypt, and to worship God according to the customs of his own country; 7.425. for that the Jews would then be so much readier to fight against Antiochus who had laid waste the temple at Jerusalem, and that they would then come to him with greater goodwill; and that, by granting them liberty of conscience, very many of them would come over to him. 7.426. 3. So Ptolemy complied with his proposals, and gave him a place one hundred and eighty furlongs distant from Memphis. That Nomos was called the Nomos of Heliopoli 7.427. where Onias built a fortress and a temple, not like to that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower. He built it of large stones to the height of sixty cubits; 7.428. he made the structure of the altar in imitation of that in our own country, and in like manner adorned with gifts, excepting the make of the candlestick, 7.429. for he did not make a candlestick, but had a [single] lamp hammered out of a piece of gold, which illuminated the place with its rays, and which he hung by a chain of gold; 7.430. but the entire temple was encompassed with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone. The king also gave him a large country for a revenue in money, that both the priests might have a plentiful provision made for them, and that God might have great abundance of what things were necessary for his worship. 7.431. Yet did not Onias do this out of a sober disposition, but he had a mind to contend with the Jews at Jerusalem, and could not forget the indignation he had for being banished thence. Accordingly, he thought that by building this temple he should draw away a great number from them to himself. 7.432. There had been also a certain ancient prediction made by [a prophet] whose name was Isaiah, about six hundred years before, that this temple should be built by a man that was a Jew in Egypt. And this is the history of the building of that temple. |
|
65. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.12, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 31, 168| 4.12. "אַתְּ תְּהֵא יָתְבָא בְּבֵיתִי וּמִתְּזָנָא מִנִּכְסַי, כָּל יְמֵי מִגַּד אַלְמְנוּתִיךְ בְּבֵיתִי, חַיָּב, שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֵּית דִּין. כָּךְ הָיוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם כּוֹתְבִין. אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין כְּאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלָיִם. אַנְשֵׁי יְהוּדָה הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין, עַד שֶׁיִּרְצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים לִתֵּן לִיךְ כְּתֻבְּתִיךְ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וּפוֹטְרִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", 6.6. "יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאַתָּה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הִשִּׂיא אֶת הַבַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ: \n", | 4.12. "If he did not write for her, “You shall live in my house and be maintained from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. Thus did the men of Jerusalem write. The men of Galilee wrote as did the men of Jerusalem. The men of Judea used to write: “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah”. Therefore if the heirs wish to, they may pay her her ketubah and dismiss her.", 6.6. "If an orphan was given in marriage by her mother or her brothers with her consent and they gave her a dowry of a hundred, or fifty zuz, she may, when she reaches majority age, legally claim from them the amount that was due to her. Rabbi Judah says: if the father had given his first daughter in marriage, the second must receive as much as the first. The Sages say: sometimes a man is poor and becomes rich or rich and becomes poor. Rather the estate should evaluated and [the appropriate amount] given to her.", |
|
66. Mishnah, Megillah, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 320| 1.8. "אֵין בֵּין סְפָרִים לִתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁהַסְּפָרִים נִכְתָּבִין בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן, וּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֵינָן נִכְתָּבוֹת אֶלָּא אַשּׁוּרִית. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּסְּפָרִים לֹא הִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ אֶלָּא יְוָנִית: \n", | 1.8. "There is no difference between scrolls [of the Tanakh] and tefillin and mezuzahs except that scrolls may be written in any language whereas tefillin and mezuzahs may be written only in Assyrian. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.", |
|
| 67. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 1.15-2.1, 3.5, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 173 |
68. Mishnah, Temurah, 1.4, 2.1, 5.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 30, 124| 1.4. "אֵין הַמְדֻמָּע מְדַּמֵּעַ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֵין הַמְחֻמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֵין הַמַּיִם הַשְּׁאוּבִים פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן: \n", 2.1. "יֵשׁ בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר, וְיֵשׁ בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד. שֶׁקָּרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵינָם עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה. קָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד נוֹהֲגִין בִּזְכָרִים וּבִנְקֵבוֹת, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר אֵינָן נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִזְכָרִים. קָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן וּבְאַחֲרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶם, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵין חַיָּבִין לֹא בְאַחֲרָיוּתָן וְלֹא בְאַחֲרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶן, אֲבָל חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶן מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַזָּבַח. יֵשׁ בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד. שֶׁקָּרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד אֵינָן דּוֹחִים לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַהֲלֹא חֲבִתֵּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, קָרְבַּן יָחִיד וְדוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטֻּמְאָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁזְּמַנָּן קָבוּעַ: \n", 5.6. "הֲרֵי זוֹ תַחַת חַטָּאת, וְתַחַת עוֹלָה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. תַּחַת חַטָּאת זוֹ, וְתַחַת עוֹלָה זוֹ, תַּחַת חַטָּאת וְתַחַת עוֹלָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְתוֹךְ הַבָּיִת, הָיָה לוֹ, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. אִם אָמַר עַל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וְעַל בַּעֲלַת מוּם, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָה, יִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִדְמֵיהֶם עוֹלָה: \n", | 1.4. "[Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through] a mixture can affect a [second] mixture only in proportion. [Dough] leavened [through terumah] can affect [other dough] only in proportion. Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion.", 2.1. "There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.", 5.6. "[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.", |
|
69. Tosefta, Berachot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 124| 3.6. "המתפלל צריך שיכוין את לבו אבא שאול אומר סימן לדבר (תהילים י) תכין לבם תקשיב אזנך.", | |
|
70. Tosefta, Eduyot, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 124| 1.3. "נשאל לחכם וטמא לו לא ישאל לחכם אחר היו שנים אחד אוסר ואחד מתיר אחד מטמא ואחד מטהר אם יש חכם אחר נשאלין לו ואם לאו הולכין אחר המחמיר ר\"י בן קרחה אומר דבר מדברי תורה הולכין אחר המחמיר. מדברי סופרים הולכין אחר המיקל.", | 1.3. "If a matter was asked to one Master, and he rendered it impure, he should not ask another Master. If there were two, and one prohibited and the other permitted, one rendered it pure and the other impure -- if there is another Master, we ask him. If not, we follow the stricter ruling. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says, \"In teachings of Scripture, we follow the stricter opinion. In teachings of the Scribes, we follow the more lenient opinion.\"", |
|
71. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 5.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 33| 5.1. "הבוגרת [בתביעה נותנים] לה שנים עשר חודש אם היתה קטנה בין היא בין אביה יכולין לעכב ר\"ט אומר נותנין לה הכל תרומה בד\"א מן האירוסין אבל מן הנישואין מודה ר\"ט שנותנין לה מחצה חולין ומחצה תרומה במה ד\"א בבת כהן לכהן אבל בת ישראל לכהן [הכל מודים שמעלין לה כל מזונותיה מן החולין] ר' יהודה בן בתירה אומר שתי ידות תרומה ואחד חולין ר' יהודה אומר [מוכרת את התרומה ולוקחת בדמיה חולין] רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל מקום שהוזכרו [שם] תרומה נותנין [כפול] חולין. זו משנה ראשונה רבותינו אמרו אין האשה אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה והיבמה עד שתבעל ואם מתה בעלה יורשה אמר ר' מנחם בן נפח [משם] ר' אליעזר הקפר מעשה בר' טרפון שקדש ג' מאות נשים להאכילן בתרומה שהיו שני בצורת וכבר שלח יוחנן בן בג בג אצל ר' יהודה בן בתירה לנציבים אמר לו שמעתי עליך שאתה אומר בת ישראל המאורסת לכהן אוכלת בתרומה שלח לו [ואמר לו] מוחזק הייתי בך שאתה בקי בחדרי תורה לדון קל וחומר אי אתה יודע ומה שפחה כנענית שאין ביאתה קונה אותה לאכול בתרומה [כסף] קונה אותה להאכילה בתרומה בת ישראל שהביאה קונה אותה להאכילה בתרומה אינו דין שיהא כסף קונה אותה להאכילה בתרומה אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים אין ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה [אם] מתה בעלה יורשה.", | 5.1. "The adult woman is like (sic!) one claimed—they give her 12 months. If she were a minor, either she or her father is able to delay [the marriage until she is of majority age]. Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her everything terumah [if she is claimed by a priest and the time limit of 12 months is up and they are still not married, she eats entirely terumah]. When does this apply? From betrothal [i.e. when the claiming 12 months is up, she is betrothed but still not married], but from marriage, Rabbi Tarfon agrees that they give her half hullin and half terumah. When does this apply? With a kohen's daughter [married to a] kohen, but an Israelite's daughter to a kohen, everyone agrees they raise all of her food from hullin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Betera says: Two parts terumah and one hullin. Rabbi Yehudah says: She should sell the terumah and buy with its value hullin. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any place where they [the sages] mention \"terumah\", he gives double hullin. This was the original mishnah. Our rabbis said: A wife who is an Israelite's daughter doesn't eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber, and a yevamah doesn't [eat terumah] until she has sex [with her levir]. If her husband dies [after the time of claiming has passed], he inherits her. Said Rabbi Menahem ben Nafah in the name of Rabbi Liezer Ha-Kappar: A case, that Rabbi Tarfon who betrothed 300 wives for them to eat terumah, for they were years of famine. But Yoha ben Bagbag already sent to Rabbi Yehudah ben Beterah to Netzivin, he said to him: I heard about you that you say a betrothed Israelite's daughter betrothed to a kohen can eat terumah. He replied to him and said to him: I had assumed that you were an expert in the chambers of Torah, but you don't know how to do a kal va-homer! Just as a Canaanite slavegirl, whose sex [with a kohen] does not acquire her to allow her to eat terumah, isn't it logical that money would acquire her to eat terumah!? But what can I do? For the Hakhamim said: A betrothed Israelite's daughter can't eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber. If she dies, her father inherits her.", |
|
72. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 168| 5.4. "בת חלל זכר פסולה מן הכהונה לעולם רבי יהודה אומר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר ופסולה מן הכהונה עיסה פסולה [לכהונה] נשאת לישראל בתה כשרה לכהונה גיורת וחללה פסולה לכהונה נשאת לישראל בתה כשרה לכהונה שבויה פסולה לכהונה נשאת לישראל בתה כשרה לכהונה שפחה פסולה לכהונה נשאת לישראל בתה כשרה לכהונה נמצאו ישראל מקוה לכהנים ושפחה מקוה לכל הפסולין.", | 5.4. "A daughter of a male disqualified priest (halal) is disqualified from [marrying into] the priesthood forever. Rabbi (sic!, based on Ehrfurt manuscript) says: A daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male halal and disqualified from the priesthood. An isah is disqualified from the priesthood (see previous halakhah); if she [the isah] got married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit [to marry into] the priesthood. A captive woman is disqualified from the priesthood; if she got married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit for the priesthood. A freed handmaid is disqualified from the priesthood; if she is married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit for the priesthood. It turns out that Yisrael is a mikveh for priests [since the daughter of a pesulah with a male Yisrael is no longer pesulah] and a handmaid is a mikveh for all disqualifications.", |
|
| 73. Tosefta, Makkot, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 660 |
74. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 320| 3.13. "א' קורא בתורה וא' מתרגם לא יהא א' קורא ושנים מתרגמין ולא שנים קורין וא' מתרגם ולא שנים קורין ושנים מתרגמין אחד קורא בנביא וא' מתרגם א' קורא ושנים מתרגמין אבל לא שנים קורין וא' מתרגם ולא שנים קורין ושנים מתרגמין אחד קורא מגילה וא' מתרגם א' קורא ושנים מתרגמין שנים קורין וא' מתרגם שנים קורין ושנים מתרגמין קטן מתרגם על ידי גדול אבל אין כבוד שיתרגם גדול על ידי קטן שנאמר (שמות ז׳:א׳) ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך חזן הכנסת לא יקרא עד שיאמרו לו אחרים וכן ראש בהכ\"נ לא יקרא עד שיאמרו לו אחרים שאין אדם [מבזבזהו בידיו] לעצמו חזן הכנסת העומד לקרות אחד עומד ומחזן לו עד שעה שיקרא.", | |
|
75. Tosefta, Nedarim, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 168| 7.8. "חומר בהקם שאין בהפר ובהפר שאין בהקם שהשתיקה מקיימת ואין שתיקה מבטלת האיש מקים בלבו ואין האשה [מבטל בלבו] יש בהקם שאין בהפר ויש בהפר שאין בהקם משהקם אין יכול להפר ומשהפר אין יכול להקם.", | |
|
76. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 2.6, 11.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 33| 2.6. "אין מעברין את השנה מפני הטומאה רבי יהודה אומר מעברין את השנה מפני הטומאה אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בחזקיה המלך שעיבר את השנה מפני הטומאה שנאמר (דברי הימים ב ל׳:י״ח) כי מרבית העם רבת מאפרים ומנשה יששכר וזבולון לא הטהרו וגו' ר\"ש אומר אם לעבר אותה מפני הטומאה כבר מעוברת היא אלא עבר ניסן בניסן ואין מעברין אלא אדר ר\"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר\"ש אף מפני שהעשו את הצבור לעשות פסח שני אין מעברין את השנה אא\"כ היתה צריכה מעברין אותו מפני הצרכים ומפני הדרכים מפני התנורין ומפני הגליות שלא יצאו ממקומם אבל אין מעברין אותה לא מפני הצנה ולא מפני השלגים ולא מפני הגליות שעלו ועדיין לא הגיעו וכולן סעד לשנה ואם עברוה הרי זו מעוברת אין מעברין את השנה אלא ביהודה ואם עברוה בגליל הרי זו מעוברת העיד חנינא איש אונו לפני ר\"ג שאין מעברין את השנה אלא ביהודה ואם עברוה בגליל שהיא מעוברת ומעברין את השנה כל אדר שבראשונה היו אומרים אין מעברין אלא עד הפורים עד שבאו ר' יהושע ור' פפייס והעידו שכל אדר ואדר כשר לעבר רשב\"ג ור' אלעזר בן ר' צדוק אומרים אין מעברין את השנה ואין עושין כל צרכי צבור אלא על תנאי כדי שיקבלו רוב הצבור עליהם.", | |
|
| 77. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 138, 290 |
| 78. Tosefta, Sotah, 15.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 660 |
79. Tosefta, Yevamot, 14.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 168| 14.7. "נפל [לבור שמלא נחשים ועקרבים] מעידין עליו ר' יהודה בן בתירה אומר [חוששין שמא חבר הוא נפל ליורה של שמן ושל יין] מעידין עליו ר' אחא [אומר] של שמן מעידין עליו ושל יין אין מעידין עליו אליעזר בן מהבאי אומר מעידין על השומא מת פלוני אבד פלוני נהרג פלוני אין פלוני בעולם אין ממנו כלום [תנשא אשתו] אין מעידין עליו.", | |
|
| 80. Tosefta, Zevahim, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 127 |
81. Tosefta, Terumot, 2.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114| 2.12. "ספינה הבאה מחו\"ל והיו בה פירות מחוט ולפנים אם היא גוששת חייבת לפי חשבון והיוצא לחוץ לארץ אין חייבת לפי חשבון ר' אליעזר אומר עפר ארץ ישראל כל [שהוא] חייב [לפי חשבון].", | |
|
| 82. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.17-2.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 168 |
83. Plutarch, Mark Antony, 61.3, 71.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 146| 61.3. ἦρχον δὲ Ἀντώνιος μὲν τῆς ἀπʼ Εὐφράτου καὶ Ἀρμενίας μέχρι πρὸς τὸν Ἰόνιον καὶ Ἰλλυριούς, Καῖσαρ δὲ ἀπʼ Ἰλλυριῶν τῆς ἐπὶ τὸν ἑσπέριον ὠκεανὸν καθηκούσης καὶ τῆς ἀπʼ ὠκεανοῦ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ Τυρρηνικὸν καὶ Σικελικὸν πέλαγος. Λιβύης δὲ τὴν Ἰταλία καὶ Γαλατίᾳ καὶ Ἰβηρίᾳ μέχρι στηλῶν Ἡρακλείων ἀντιπαρήκουσαν εἶχε Καῖσαρ· τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ Κυρήνης μέχρις Αἰθιοπίας Ἀντώνιος. 71.1. ταῦτα μὲν περὶ Τίμωνος ἀπὸ πολλῶν ὀλίγα. τῷ δὲ Ἀντωνίῳ Κανίδιός τε τῆς ἀποβολῆς τῶν ἐν Ἀκτίῳ δυνάμεων αὐτάγγελος ἦλθε, καὶ τὸν Ἰουδαῖον Ἡρώδην ἔχοντά τινα τάγματα καὶ σπείρας ἤκουσε Καίσαρι προσκεχωρηκέναι, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ὁμοίως δυνάστας ἀφίστασθαι καὶ μηδὲν ἔτι συμμένειν τῶν ἐκτός. | 61.3. 71.1. |
|
84. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 18.1, 22.4, 25.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 115, 127, 660| 18.1. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ וגו' (ויקרא טו, ב), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (קהלת יב, א): וּזְכֹר אֶת בּוֹרְאֶיךָ בִּימֵי בְּחוּרֹתֶיךָ, תְּנַן (משנה אבות ג-א): עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהַלַּלְאֵל אוֹמֵר הִסְתַּכֵּל בִּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים וְאֵין אַתָּה בָּא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה, דַּע מֵאַיִן בָּאתָ מִטִּפָּה סְרוּחָה, וּלְאָן אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ, לֶעָפָר רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה, וְלִפְנֵי מִי אַתָּה עָתִיד לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וכו', רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַב פַּפֵּי וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִתּוֹךְ פָּסוּק אֶחָד, וּזְכֹר אֶת בּוֹרְאֶךָ, בְּאֵרְךָ זוֹ לֵיחָה סְרוּחָה, בּוֹרְךָ זוֹ רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה, בּוֹרְאֶךָ זֶה מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁעָתִיד לִתֵּן לְפָנָיו דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. בִּימֵי בְּחוּרֹתֶיךָ, בְּיוֹמֵי טַלְיוּתָךְ עַד דְּחֵילָךְ עֲלָךְ. (קהלת יב, א): עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבֹאוּ יְמֵי הָרָעָה, אֵלּוּ יְמֵי זִקְנָה, (קהלת יב, א): וְהִגִּיעוּ שָׁנִים אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵין לִי בָהֶם חֵפֶץ, אֵלּוּ יְמֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם לֹא זְכוּת וְלֹא חוֹבָה, (קהלת יב, ב): עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֶחְשַׁךְ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהָאוֹר וגו', הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ זֶה קְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים, וְהָאוֹר זֶה הַמֵּצַח, וְהַיָּרֵחַ זֶה הַחוֹטֶם, וְהַכּוֹכָבִים אֵלּוּ רָאשֵׁי לְסָתוֹת, (קהלת יב, ב): וְשָׁבוּ הֶעָבִים אַחַר הַגָּשֶׁם, רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר תַּרְתֵּי חָדָא לְחַבְרַיָיא וְחָדָא לְבוּרַיָא. חָדָא לְחַבְרַיָא, בָּא לִבְכּוֹת זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת. חָדָא לְבוּרַיָא, בָּא לְהַטִּיל מַיִם הַגְּלָלִין מְקַדְּמִין אוֹתוֹ. (קהלת יב, ג): בַּיּוֹם שֶׁיָּזֻעוּ שֹׁמְרֵי הַבַּיִת וגו', בַּיּוֹם שֶׁיָּזֻעוּ שֹׁמְרֵי הַבַּיִת אֵלּוּ אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו, (קהלת יב, ג): וְהִתְעַוְתוּ אַנְשֵׁי הֶחָיִל אֵלּוּ צְלָעוֹתָיו. רַבִּי חִיָא בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר אֵלּוּ זְרוֹעוֹתָיו, (קהלת יב, ג): וּבָטְלוּ הַטֹּחֲנוֹת זֶה הַמַּסָּס, (קהלת יב, ג): כִּי מִעֵטוּ אֵלּוּ הַשִּׁנַּיִם, (קהלת יב, ג): וְחָשְׁכוּ הָרֹאוֹת בָּאֲרֻבּוֹת אֵלּוּ הָעֵינַיִם. רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר אֵלּוּ כַּנְפֵי הָרֵאָה, שֶׁמִּשָּׁם יוֹצֵא הַקּוֹל, (קהלת יב, ד): וְסֻגְּרוּ דְלָתַיִם בַּשּׁוּק אֵלּוּ נְקָבָיו שֶׁל אָדָם, שֶׁהֵן כְּמוֹ דֶּלֶת הַפּוֹתֵחַ וְהַסּוֹגֵר, (קהלת יב, ד): בִּשְׁפַל קוֹל הַטַּחֲנָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֵין הַמַּסָּס טוֹחֵן, (קהלת יב, ד): וְיָקוּם לְקוֹל הַצִּפּוֹר, הָדֵין סָבָא כַּד שָׁמַע קוֹל צִפֳּרִין מְצַיְצִין אֲמַר בְּלִיבֵּיהּ לִיסְטִין אָתָאן לִמְקַפְּחָא יָתִי, (קהלת יב, ד): וְיִשַּׁחוּ כָּל בְּנוֹת הַשִּׁיר אֵלּוּ שִׂפְתוֹתָיו, רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר אֵלּוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת, שֶׁהֵן חוֹשְׁבוֹת וְהַלֵּב גּוֹמֵר, (קהלת יב, ה): גַּם מִגָּבֹהַּ יִרָאוּ וגו', גַּם מִגָּבֹהַּ יִרָאוּ הָדֵין סָבָא דְּצָוְחִין לֵיהּ זִיל לַאֲתַר פְּלַן וְהוּא שָׁאֵיל וַאֲמַר אִית תַּמָּן מַסְּקִין, אִית תַּמָּן מַחֲתִין, (קהלת יב, ה): וְחַתְחַתִּים בַּדֶּרֶךְ, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְרַבִּי לֵוִי, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא חִתִּיתָא שֶׁל דֶּרֶךְ נוֹפֵל עָלָיו, וָחֳרָנָא אֲמַר הִתְחִיל מַתְוֶוה תְּוָואִים, אֲמַר עַד אֲתַר פְּלַן אִית לִי מַהֲלַךְ בַּאֲתַר פְּלַן לֵית לִי מַהֲלַךְ. (קהלת יב, ה): וְיָנֵאץ הַשָּׁקֵד אִילֵּין קַרְסוּלוֹת, (קהלת יב, ה): וְיִסְתַּבֵּל הֶחָגָב זֶה לוּז שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה. אַדְרִיָּנוּס שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּר חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר לוֹ מֵהֵיכָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵצִיץ אֶת הָאָדָם לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, אָמַר לוֹ מִלּוּז שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה, אָמַר לוֹ מִן הֵן אַתְּ מוֹדַע לִי, אַיְיתֵי יָתֵיהּ קוֹמוֹי נְתָנוֹ בַּמַּיִם וְלֹא נִמְחָה, טְחָנוֹ בָּרֵיחַיִם וְלֹא נִטְחַן, נְתָנוֹ בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא נִשְׂרַף, נְתָנוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן הִתְחִיל מַכֶּה עָלָיו בַּפַּטִּישׁ, נֶחְלַק הַסַּדָּן וְנִבְקַע הַפַּטִּישׁ וְלֹא הוֹעִיל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם. (קהלת יב, ה): וְתָפֵר הָאֲבִיּוֹנָה זוֹ הַתַּאֲוָה שֶׁהִיא מַטִּילָה שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא הֲוָה סָלֵיק שָׁאֵיל בִּשְׁלָמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי בְּכָל יֶרַח וְיֶרַח, כֵּיוָן דְּסָב יָתֵיב לֵיהּ וְלָא יָכוֹל לְמֵיסַק, יוֹם חַד סָלֵיק אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ דְּלֵית אַתְּ סָלֵיק לְגַבִּי הֵיךְ דַּהֲוֵית יָלֵיף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רְחוֹקוֹת נַעֲשׂוּ קְרוֹבוֹת, קְרוֹבוֹת נַעֲשׂוּ רְחוֹקוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם נַעֲשׂוּ שָׁלשׁ, וּמֵטִיל שָׁלוֹם בַּבַּיִת בָּטֵל, [ופרושו: רחוקות נעשו קרובות, אילין עיניא דהוו חמיין מרחוק כדו אפלו מקרוב לית אינון חמיין. קרובות נעשו רחוקות, אילין אודני דהוו שמעין בחד זמן בתרי זמני, כדו אפלו במאה זימנין לית אינון שמעין. שתים נעשו שלש, חוטרא ותרתין ריגלי. ומטיל שלום בבית בטל, זו התאוה שמטיל שלום בין איש לאשתו]. (קהלת יב, ה): כִּי הֹלֵךְ הָאָדָם אֶל בֵּית עוֹלָמוֹ, בֵּית הָעוֹלָם לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא בֵּית עוֹלָמוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל צַדִּיק וְצַדִּיק יֵשׁ לוֹ עוֹלָם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמְּדִינָה וְעִמּוֹ דֻּכָּסִין וְאִפַּרְכִין וְאִיסְטְרַטְיוֹטִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכֹּל נִכְנָסִין בְּפוֹלִין אֶחָד, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שָׁרוּי לְפִי כְבוֹדוֹ, כָּךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכֹּל טוֹעֲמִין טַעַם מִיתָה, כָּל צַדִּיק וְצַדִּיק יֵשׁ לוֹ עוֹלָם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. (קהלת יב, ה): וְסָבְבוּ בַשּׁוּק הַסּוֹפְדִים אֵלּוּ הַתּוֹלָעִים, (קהלת יב, ו): עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵרָתֵק חֶבֶל הַכֶּסֶף זֶה חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה, (קהלת יב, ו): וְתָרֻץ גֻּלַּת הַזָּהָב זוֹ גֻּלְגֹּלֶת. רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר נְחֶמְיָא אָמַר זוֹ גַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁמְכַלָּה אֶת הַזָּהָב וּמֵרִיקָה אֶת הַכָּסֶף. (קהלת יב, ו): וְתִשָּׁבֶר כַּד עַל הַמַּבּוּעַ זוֹ כָּרֵס. רַבִּי חִיָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי פַּפֵּי וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי לְאַחַר שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים כְּרֵיסוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם נִבְקַעַת וּמוֹסֶרֶת לַפֶּה וְאוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ הֵילָךְ מַה שֶּׁגָּזַלְתָּ וְחָמַסְתָּ וְנָתַתָּ לִי. רַבִּי חַגַּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק מַיְיתֵי לָהּ מִן הָדֵין קְרָיָא (מלאכי ב, ג): וְזֵרִיתִי פֶרֶשׁ עַל פְּנֵיכֶם פֶּרֶשׁ חֲגֵיכֶם. רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפֵּי וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי כָּל תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין נַפְשָׁא טָיְיסָא עַל גּוּפָה סָבְרָה דְּהִיא חָזְרָה לֵיהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּהִיא חָמְיָא לֵיהּ דְּאִישְׁתַּנֵּי זִיוְהוֹן דְּאַפּוֹי, הִיא אָזְלַת לָהּ, דִּכְתִיב (איוב יד, כב): אַךְ בְּשָׂרוֹ וגו'. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר עַד שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים תָּקְפּוֹ שֶׁל אֵבֶל קַיָּם, לָמָּה שֶׁצּוּרַת הַפָּנִים נִכֶּרֶת, דִּתְנַן אֵין מְעִידִין אֶלָּא עַל פַּרְצוּף פָּנִים עִם הַחֹטֶם, וְאֵין מְעִידִין לְאַחַר שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים. (קהלת יב, ו): וְנָרֹץ הַגַּלְגַּל אֶל הַבּוֹר, תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרָאִין, חַד אָמַר כְּאִילֵּין גַּלְגְּלַיָא דְצִפּוֹרִי, וְחוֹרָנָא אֲמַר כְּאִילֵּין רִגְבַיָּיא דִּטְבֶרְיָא, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (איוב כא, לג): מָתְקוּ לוֹ רִגְבֵי נָחַל. (קהלת יב, ז): וְיָשֹׁב הֶעָפָר עַל הָאָרֶץ כְּשֶׁהָיָה וגו', רַבִּי פִּנְחָס וְרַבִּי חִלְקִיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי סִימוֹן אֵימָתַי הָרוּחַ תָּשׁוּב אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר נְתָנָהּ, כְּשֶׁשָּׁב הֶעָפָר אֶל הָאָרֶץ כְּשֶׁהָיָה, וְאִם לָאו (שמואל א כה, כט): וְאֶת נֶפֶשׁ אֹיְבֶיךָ יְקַלְּעֶנָּה וגו'. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר נַחְמָן מַתְנֵי לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַבְדִּימֵי דְמִן חֵיפָא לְכֹהֵן חָבֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ כִּכָּר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, אָמַר לוֹ רְאֵה שֶׁאֲנִי טָהוֹר וּבֵיתִי טָהוֹר וְכִכָּר שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ טָהוֹר, אִם אַתָּה נוֹתְנָהּ לִי כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵינִי זוֹרְקָהּ לְפָנֶיךָ. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאָדָם זֶה, רְאֵה שֶׁאֲנִי טָהוֹר וּמְעוֹנִי טָהוֹר וּמְשָׁרְתַי טְהוֹרִים וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ טְהוֹרָה, אִם אַתָּה מַחֲזִירָהּ לִי כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתְנָהּ לְךָ, מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵינִי טוֹרְפָהּ לְפָנֶיךָ, כָּל אֵלּוּ בִּימֵי זִקְנוּתוֹ אֲבָל בִּימֵי בַּחֲרוּתוֹ אִם חָטָא לוֹקֶה בְּזִיבוּת וּבְצָרַעַת, לְפִיכָךְ משֶׁה מַזְהִיר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם: אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ. 22.4. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְיִתְרוֹן אֶרֶץ, עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּחַד גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָאֵים עַל גַּבֵּי נַהֲרָא וְחָמָא חָדָא אוּרְדְּעָן טָעֲנָא חָדָא עַקְרָב וּמְגִזְתֵּיהּ נַהֲרָא, אָמַר זוֹ מוּכֶנֶת לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָא אַגִּיזְתָּא נַהֲרָא וַאֲזָלַת וַעֲבָדַת שְׁלִיחוּתָהּ וַחֲזָרַת יָתָהּ לְאַתְרָהּ, וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹל יְלָלָה בָּעִיר פְּלוֹנִי נְשָׁכוֹ עַקְרָב וָמֵת. רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָנִין דְּצִפּוֹרִי אָמַר עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּחַד גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָאֵים וְחָפַר בַּהֲדָא בִּקְעַת בֵּית שׁוֹפָרֵי, חָמָא חַד עֵשֶׂב וְלָקֵיט יָתֵיהּ וְעָבְדָא כְּלִילָא לְרֵאשֵׁיהּ, אָזַל חַד חִוְיָא וּמָחָא יָתֵיהּ וְקָטַל יָתֵיהּ, אָתָא חַד חָבֵר וְקָם לֵיהּ סָקַר בְּהַהוּא חִוְיָא אָמַר תָּמַהּ אֲנָא עַל מַאן דְּקָטַל הֲדָא חִוְיָא, אֲמַר הַהוּא גַבְרָא אֲנָא קְטָלִית יָתֵיהּ, תָּלָה אַפּוֹי וְחָמָא הַהוּא עִשְׂבָּא עָבֵיד בָּהּ כְּלִילָא עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִן קוּשְׁטָא אֲנָא קְטָלִית יָתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַתְּ יָכֵיל מֵרִים הָדֵין עִשְׂבָּא מִן רֵישָׁא, אָמַר לֵיהּ אִין, כֵּיוָן דְּאָרֵים יָתֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַתְּ יָכֵיל קָרֵב הָדֵין חִוְיָא בְּהָדֵין חוּטְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין, כֵּיוָן דְּקָרַב לְהַהוּא חִוְיָא מִיָּד נָשְׁלוּ אֵבָרָיו. רַבִּי יַנַּאי הֲוָה יָתֵיב מַתְנֵי עַל תְּרַע קַרְתָּא, וְרָאָה נָחָשׁ אֶחָד מַרְתִּיעַ וּבָא וַהֲוָה מְרַדֵּף לֵיהּ מִן הָדֵין סִטְרָא וְהוּא חָזַר מִן הָדֵין סִטְרָא, אָמַר זֶה מוּכָן לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, מִיָּד נָפְלָה הֲבָרָה בָּעִיר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נְשָׁכוֹ נָחָשׁ וָמֵת. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֲוָה יָתֵיב וּמְטַיֵּיל בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, אָתָא חַד רוֹמִי וּמְקִים יָתֵיהּ וִיתֵיב, אֲמַר הֲדָא לָא עַל מַגָּן, מִיָּד נָפְקָא חַד חִוְיָא וּמָחָא יָתֵיהּ וְקָטְלֵיהּ, קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ (ישעיה מג, ד): וְאֶתֵּן אָדָם תַּחְתֶּיךָ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֲוָה קָאֵים עַל חָדָא שׁוּנִיתָא דְּיַמָּא דְקֵיסָרִין וְרָאָה קוּלְיָא אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה מִתְגַּלְגֶּלֶת וּבָאָה וַהֲוָה מַצְנַע לָהּ וְהָא מִתְגַּלְגְּלָא, אָמַר זוֹ מוּכֶנֶת לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָא, לְבָתַר יוֹמִין עָבַר חַד בַּלְדָּר, אִתְגַּלְגְּלַת בֵּין רַגְלָיו וְנִכְשַׁל בָּהּ וְנָפַל וּמֵת, אָזְלִין וּפַשְׁפְּשׁוּנֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכְּחוּן יָתֵיהּ טָעַן כְּתָבִין בִּישִׁין עַל יְהוּדָאי דְקֵיסָרִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֲוָה עַסְקָן בִּדְבָרִים, הֲוָה לֵיהּ חַד פַּרְדֵּס, חַד זְמַן הֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּיהּ וַהֲוָה בֵּיהּ חַד סַדָּן, חָמָא הֲדָא דוּכִיפַת דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ קֵן בְּגַוָּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַה בָּעֵי הָדֵין עוֹפָא מְסָאֲבָא בַּהֲדֵין פַּרְדֵּס, אָזַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְסָתְרֵיהּ לְהַהוּא קִנָּא, אָזַל הַהוּא דוּכִיפַת וְתַקְנֵיהּ, מָה עֲבַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָזַל אַיְיתֵי חַד לוּחַ וְיַהֲבָהּ בְּאַפּוֹי דְהַהוּא קִנָּא וִיהַב בֵּיהּ חַד מַסְמֵר. מָה עֲבַד הַהוּא דוּכִיפַת אָזַל אַיְיתֵי חַד עֵשֶׂב וְיַהֲבֵיהּ עַל הַהוּא מַסְמְרָא וְשָׂרְפֵהּ. מָה עֲבַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר טוֹב לְמִגְנְזָא הָדֵין עִשְׂבָּא דְּלָא יֵילְפוּן גַּנָּבַיָא לְמֶעְבַּד כֵּן וְיַחְרְבוּן בְּרִיָּיתָא. חֲמַרְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אֲכָלַת עִשְׂבָּא וְאִיסְתַּמֵּית וַאֲכָלַת עִשְׂבָּא אָחֳרִי וְאִתְפַּתְּחַת. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּתְרֵין גַּבְרֵי דַּהֲווֹ עָיְלִין בְּאִילֵין שְׁבִילַיָּא דִּטְבֶרְיָא, חַד סַמְיָא וְחַד מְפַתַּח, וַהֲוָה הַהִיא פְּתִיחָה גָּדֵישׁ לֵיהּ לְהַהוּא סַמְיָא, יָתְבוּן לְמִקַרְטָא בְּאוֹרְחָא וַאֲרָעַת שַׁעְתָּא וְאָכְלִין מִן עִשְׂבָּא, דֵין דַּהֲוָה סַמֵּי אִתְפַּתַּח וְדֵין דַּהֲוָה פָּתִיחַ אִסְתַּמֵּי, וְלָא עָלוּן מִן תַּמָּן עַד דִּגְדַשׁ הַהוּא סַמְיָא לִפְתִיחָא. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּחַד גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה סָלֵיק מִן בָּבֶל, יָתֵיב לְמִקַרְטָא בְּאוֹרְחָא, וְחָמָא תַּרְתֵּין צִפֳּרִין מִתְנַצְיָין חָדָא עִם חָדָא, וְקָטְלַת חָדָא מִנְּהוֹן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אָזְלַת הַהִיא אַחְרִיתֵּי וְאַתְיָא עִשְׂבָּא וִיהַב עֲלָהּ וְאַחְיַית יָתָהּ, אֲמַר טַב לִי נְסַב מִן הָדֵין עִשְׂבָּא וְאַחְיֵה בֵּיהּ מֵתַיָא דְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּי פָרֵי וְסָלַק חָמָא חַד תַּעֲלָא מִית מִקְלַק בְּאוֹרְחָא, אֲמַר טַב לִי מְנַסְיָא בַּהֲדֵין תַּעֲלָא, וִיהַב עֲלֵיהּ וְאַחְיֵיהּ, וְסָלֵיק עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלַמֵּי צוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלַמֵּי צוֹר חָמֵי חַד אֲרִי קְטֵיל וּמִקְלַק בְּאָרְחָא, אֲמַר טַב לִי מְנַסְיָא בַּהֲדֵין אֲרִי, וִיהַב עֲלוֹהִי מִן עִשְׂבָּא וַחֲיָה, וְקָם וַאֲכַל יָתֵיהּ, הוּא דִּבְרִיָּתָא אָמְרֵי טַב לְבִישׁ עֲבַדְתְּ בִּישָׁא עֲבַדְתְּ, טַב לְבִישׁ לָא תַעֲבֵיד וּבִישׁ לָא מָטֵי לָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַיִם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמֻכֶּה שְׁחִין אֶחָד שֶׁיָּרַד לִטְבֹּל בִּטְבֶרְיָא וַאֲרָעַת שַׁעְתָּא וְטָפַת לְבֵירָא דְמִרְיָם וְאַסְחֵי וְאִתְּסֵי, וְהֵיכָן הִיא בְּאֵרָהּ שֶׁל מִרְיָם אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַבָּא כְּתִיב (במדבר כא, כ): וְנִשְׁקָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַיְשִׁימֹן, שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה עַל רֹאשׁ הַר יְשִׁימוֹן וְרוֹאֶה כְּמִין כְּבָרָה קְטַנָּה בְּיַם טְבֶרְיָא, זוֹ הִיא בְּאֵרָהּ שֶׁל מִרְיָם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי שַׁעֲרוּתָא רַבָּנָן וְהוּא מְכַוְּנָא כָּל קְבֵיל תַּרְעֵי מְצִיעַיָא דִכְנִשְׁתָּא עַתִּיקָא דִטְבֶרְיָא. 25.5. מִי שָׁת בַּטֻּחוֹת חָכְמָה (איוב לח, לו), מַהוּ בַּטֻחוֹת, בַּטָּוָיָא, (איוב לח, לו): אוֹ מִי נָתַן לַשֶּׂכְוִי בִינָה, הֲדָא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּעֲרָבְיָא צָוְחִין לְתַרְנְגוֹלְתָּא שֶׂכְוִיא, הֲדָא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא כַּד אֶפְרוֹחֶיהָ דַּקִּיקִין הִיא מְכַנְשָׁא לְהוֹן וְיַהֲבַת לְהוֹן תְּחוֹת אֲגַפַּיָּא וּמְשַׁחֲנָה לְהוֹן וּמַעֲדַרְנָה קֳדָמֵיהוֹן, וְכַד אִינוּן רַבְיָה חַד מִנְהוֹן בָּעֵי לְמִקְרַב לְוָתֵיהּ וְהִיא נָקְרָה לֵיהּ בְּגוֹ רֵישֵׁיהּ, וַאֲמָרַת לֵיהּ זִיל עֲדוֹר בְּקוּקַלְתָּךְ, כָּךְ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה הָיָה הַמָּן יוֹרֵד וְהַבְּאֵר עוֹלֶה לָהֶן וְהַשְּׂלָיו מָצוּי לָהֶן, וְעַנְנֵי כָבוֹד מַקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָן, וְעַמּוּד עָנָן מַסִּיעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאָרֶץ אָמַר לָהֶם משֶׁה כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִכֶּם יִטְעוֹן מַכּוּשֵׁיהּ וְיִפּוֹק וְיִנְצוֹב לֵיהּ נְצִיבִין, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם. אַדְרִיָּנוּס שְׁחִיק טְמַיָּא הֲוָה עָבַר בְּאִלֵּין שְׁבִילַיָיא דִּטְבֶרְיָא וְחָמָא חַד גְּבַר סַב קָאֵים וְחָצֵיב חֲצוּבָן לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ סָבָא סָבָא אִי קָרַצְתְּ לָא חֲשַׁכְתְּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ קְרִיצַת וַחֲשִׁיכַת, וּמַה דְּהַנֵּי לְמָרֵי שְׁמַיָא עֲבֵיד, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּחַיֶּיךָ סָבָא בַּר כַּמָּה שְׁנִין אַתְּ יוֹמָא דֵין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר מְאָה שְׁנִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְאַתְּ בַּר מְאָה שְׁנִין וְקָאֵים וְחָצֵיב חֲצוּבִין לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, סָבַר דְּאַתְּ אָכֵיל מִנְּהוֹן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין זָכִית אֲכָלִית, וְאִם לָאו כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיָּגְעוּ לִי אֲבָהָתִי, כָּךְ אֲנִי יָגֵעַ לְבָנַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּחַיָּיךְ, אִם זָכִית אָכוֹל מִנְהוֹן תֶּהֱוֵה מוֹדַע לִי. לְסוֹף יוֹמִין עָבְדִין תְּאֵנַיָא, אֲמַר הָא עָנָתָה נוֹדַע לְמַלְכָּא, מָה עֲבַד מְלָא קַרְטְלָא תְּאֵינִין וְסָלַק וְקָם לֵיהּ עַל תְּרַע פָּלָטִין, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לוֹן עֲלוֹן קֳדָם מַלְכָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּעָל אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא סָבָא דַּעֲבַרְתְּ עָלַי וַאֲנָא חָצֵיב חֲצִיבִין לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, וַאֲמַרְתְּ לִי אִין זָכִית תֵּיכוֹל מִנְּהוֹן תְּהֵא מוֹדַע לִי, הָא זָכִיתִי וַאֲכֵילִית מִנְּהוֹן וְהֵילֵין תְּאֵינַיָא מִן פֵּרֵיהוֹן. אֲמַר אַדְרִיָּנוּס בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא קְלָווֹנִין אֲנָא תִּתְּנוּן סֵילוֹן דְּדַהֲבָא וִיתֵיב לֵיהּ, אֲמַר קְלַווֹנִין אֲנָא דִּתְפַנּוּן הָדֵין קַרְטַל דִּידֵיהּ וּתְמַלּוּן יָתֵיהּ דִּינָרִין. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ עַבְדוֹהִי כָּל הָדֵין מוֹקְרָא תְּיַקְרִינֵיהּ לְהָדֵין סָבָא דִּיהוּדָאֵי, אֲמַר לְהוֹן בָּרְיֵה אוֹקְרֵיא וַאֲנָא לָא אֲנָא מוֹקַר לֵיהּ. אִנְתְּתֵיהּ דִּמְגֵירָא הֲוַת בְּרַת פַּחִין, אָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ בַּר קַבָּלוּי חָמֵי דַּהֲדָא מַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, מָה עֲבַד מְלָא מַרְעֲלֵיהּ תֵּינִין וַאֲזַל וְקָם קֳדָם פָּלָטִין, אֲמָרוּן לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לוֹן שְׁמָעֵית דְּמַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, עָלוֹן וְאָמְרִין לְמַלְכָּא חַד סָבָא קָאֵים עַל תְּרַע פָּלָטִין טָעֵין מְלָא מַרְעֲלֵיהּ תֵּינִין, וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ אֲמַר לָן שְׁמָעֵית דְּמַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, אֲמַר קְלָווֹנִין אֲנָא דִּתְקִימוּן יָתֵיהּ קֳדָם תְּרַע פָּלָטִין וְכָל מַאן דְּעָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק יְהֵי טָרֵי עַל אַפֵּיהּ. בְּאַפְתֵּי רַמְשָׁא פַּנּוּן יָתֵיהּ וַאֲזַל לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְאִנְתְּתֵיהּ כְּכָל הָדֵין יְקָרָא אֲנָא שְׁלִים לָךְ, אֲמַרָה אָזֵיל גְּלוֹג לְאִמָּךְ דַּהֲווֹן אִינוּן תֵּינִין וְלָא הֲווֹן אֶתְרוֹגִין, דַּהֲווֹן בְּשִׁילָן וְלָא פְגִינָן. | |
|
| 85. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 2.12 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •israel, land of (palestine) Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 108 |
| 86. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 117 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 33 |
| 87. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, 5.6, 7.3, 8.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •israel, land of (palestine) Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 106, 116, 129 |
88. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, 3.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 660| 3.8. חַסְדֵּי ה' כִּי לֹא תָמְנוּ כִּי לֹא כָלוּ רַחֲמָיו, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשֶּׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְיָאֵשׁ מִן הַצַּדִּיקִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, הוּא חוֹזֵר וּמְרַחֵם עֲלֵיהֶם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: חַסְדֵּי ה' כִּי לֹא תָמְנוּ. חֲדָשִׁים לַבְּקָרִים רַבָּה אֱמוּנָתֶךָ, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי עַל שֶׁאַתָּה מְחַדְּשֵׁנוּ בְּכָל בֹּקֶר וּבֹקֶר, אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֱמוּנָתְךָ רַבָּה לִתְחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא עַל שֶׁאַתָּה מְחַדְּשֵׁנוּ בְּבָקְרָן שֶׁל מַלְכֻיּוֹת, אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֱמוּנָתְךָ רַבָּה לְגָאֳלֵנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם בּוֹרֵא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כַּת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים חֲדָשִׁים וְאוֹמְרִין שִׁירָה חֲדָשָׁה וְהוֹלְכִין לָהֶם. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה הֵשַׁבְתִּי לְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְהָא כְתִיב (בראשית לב, כו): וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר, אָמַר לִי חֲנוֹקָה סְבַרְתְּ לַחֲנוֹקֵנִי, גַּבְרִיאֵל וּמִיכָאֵל הֵן הֵן שָׂרִים שֶׁל מַעְלָה, דְּכֻלָּם מִתְחַלְּפִין וְאִינוּן לָא מִתְחַלְפִין. אַדְרִיָּאנוּס שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה, אָמַר לוֹ, אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם בּוֹרֵא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כַּת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים חֲדָשִׁים וְאוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה חֲדָשָׁה וְהוֹלְכִין לָהֶם, אָמַר לוֹ אִין. אָמַר לוֹ וּלְאָן אִינוּן אָזְלִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ מִן הָן דְּמִתְבְּרִיאוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ מִנַּיִן מִתְבָּרְיָין. אָמַר לוֹ מִן הָדֵין נְהַר דְּנוּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה עִיסְקֵיהּ דִּנְהַר דְּנוּר, אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּהָדֵין יַרְדְּנָא דְּלָא פָּסֵיק לָא בְּלֵילְיָא וְלָא פָּסֵיק בִּימָמָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהִינִין יַרְדְּנָא מְהַלֵּךְ בִּימָמָא וּפָסֵיק בְּלֵילְיָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ נָטֵר הֲוֵינָא בְּבֵית פְּעוֹר וְהָדֵין יַרְדְּנָא כְּמָה דִּמְהַלֵּךְ בִּימָמָא כָּךְ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּלֵילְיָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ וּמִנַּיִן אוֹתוֹ נְהַר דִּינוּר נָפֵיק, אָמַר לֵיהּ מִן זֵיעַתְהוֹן דְּחֵיוָתָא מִמַּה דִּטְעוּנִין בְּכוּרְסְיָא. חֶלְקִי ה' אָמְרָה נַפְשִׁי, רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִמְדִינָה וְהָיוּ עִמּוֹ דֻּכָּסִין וְאִפַּרְכִין וְאִיסְטְרַטִילוּטִין, וְהָיוּ גְּדוֹלֵי מְדִינָה יוֹשְׁבִים בְּאֶמְצַע הַמְּדִינָה, חַד אֲמַר אֲנָא נָסֵיב דֻּכָּסִין לְגַבִּי. וְחַד אֲמַר אֲנָא נָסֵיב אִפַּרְכִין לְגַבִּי, וְחַד אֲמַר אֲנָא נָסֵיב אִיסְטְרַטִילוּטִין לְגַבִּי. הָיָה פִּקֵּחַ אֶחָד לְשָׁם אֲמַר אֲנָא נָסֵיב לְמַלְכָּא, דְּכוֹלָּא מִתְחַלְּפִין וּמַלְכָּא אֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּף. כֵּן עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים, מֵהֶן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה, וּמֵהֶן עוֹבְדִין לַלְּבָנָה, וּמֵהֶן עוֹבְדִין לְעֵץ וָאֶבֶן, אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן עוֹבְדִין אֶלָּא לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: חֶלְקִי ה' אָמְרָה נַפְשִׁי, שֶׁאֲנִי מְיַחֵד אוֹתוֹ שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים בְּכָל יוֹם, וְאוֹמֵר (דברים ו, ד): שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה' אֶחָד. | |
|
| 89. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 3.5.3, 5.34.2 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 320 |
90. Mishna, Challah, 4.8, 4.10-4.11 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114| 4.8. "רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחַלָּה. מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַד כְּזִיב, חַלָּה אֶחָת. מִכְּזִיב וְעַד הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר. מִן הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה וְלִפְנִים, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר. וּטְבוּל יוֹם אוֹכְלָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה. וַאֲסוּרָה לַזָּבִים וְלַזָּבוֹת לַנִּדָּה וְלַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְנִתֶּנֶת לְכָל כֹּהֵן: \n", 4.10. "נִתַּאי אִישׁ תְּקוֹעַ הֵבִיא חַלּוֹת מִבֵּיתָר, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אַנְשֵׁי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא הֵבִיאוּ חַלּוֹתֵיהֶן מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. אַנְשֵׁי הַר צְבוֹעִים הֵבִיאוּ בִכּוּרֵיהֶם קֹדֶם עֲצֶרֶת, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם, מִפְּנֵי הַכָּתוּב שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כג), וְחַג הַקָּצִיר בִּכּוּרֵי מַעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה: \n", 4.11. "בֶּן אַנְטִינוֹס הֶעֱלָה בְכוֹרוֹת מִבָּבֶל, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. יוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן הֵבִיא בִכּוּרֵי יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אַף הוּא הֶעֱלָה אֶת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח קָטָן בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהֶחֱזִירוּהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא יִקָּבַע הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה. אֲרִיסְטוֹן הֵבִיא בִכּוּרָיו מֵאַפַּמְיָא, וְקִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, הַקּוֹנֶה בְסוּרְיָא, כְּקוֹנֶה בְּפַרְוָר שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלָיִם: \n", | 4.8. "Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion. From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure. From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure. And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth; It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table; And it may be given to any priest.", 4.10. "Nittai of Tekoa brought hallah-portions from Be-Yitur, but they did not accept from him. The people of Alexandria brought hallah, but they did not accept from them. The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (Shavuot), but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).", 4.11. "Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him. Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him. He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation. Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.", |
|
| 91. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Greeks, 6.70 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 109 |
92. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Metsia, 5.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 127| 5.1. "כלי גללים וכלי אבנים וכלי אדמה הבאין במדה ר' מאיר אומר הרי הן ככלים וחכמים אומרין הרי הן כאהלין רבי נחמיה אומר קופות גדולות וסוגין הגדולים שיש להן שוליים והן מחזיקין מ' סאין בלח שהם כוריים ביבש אע\"פ שאין מטלטלין במשתייר בהן וכמה הן אמה על אמה על רום שליש ישנן שש מאות ארבעים ושמונה טפח ראיה לדבר ממדת השלחן. ר' יוסי אומר בים שעשה שלמה הוא אומר (דברי הימים ב ד׳:ה׳) מחזיק בתים שלשת אלפים יכיל במקום אחר הוא אומר (מלכים א ז׳:כ״ו) אלפים בת יכיל א\"א לומר אלפים שכבר נאמר שלשת אלפים ואי אפשר לומר שלשת אלפים שכבר נאמר אלפים אמור מעתה אלפים בלח שלשת אלפים ביבש. החזיונות שבטרקלין בעלי בתים האוכלים עליהם שאע\"פ שחולקים כצפורן טמאין מפני שהן כטבלא ומעשה בבעל הבית אחד שהיו לו נצרים בתוך והיו שואלין אותן לבית האבל ולבית המשתה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטמאום.", 5.1. "חומר בכלי פפיר מכלי נצרין שאין מקבלין טומאה אלא משתגמר מלאכתן וכלי פפיר כיון שעשה חור אחד על גבי הרחב שלהן טמאין. ", | |
|
93. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 10.3, 11.5, 28.3, 63.7, 78.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 146, 173, 660| 10.3. כֵּיצַד בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָטַל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁתֵּי פְּקָעִיּוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל אֵשׁ וְאַחַת שֶׁל שֶׁלֶג, וּפְתָכָן זֶה בָּזֶה וּמֵהֶן נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר, אַרְבַּע, לְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם. רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר, שֵׁשׁ, אַרְבַּע לְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת, וְאַחַת מִלְּמַעְלָן וְאַחַת מִלְּמַטָּן. אַדְרַיָּינוּס שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת שָׁאֲלֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּר חֲנַנְיָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ כֵּיצַד בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּהַהוּא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֶפְשָׁר כֵּן, אֶתְמְהָא. הִכְנִיסוֹ לְבַיִת קָטָן, אָמַר לֵיהּ, פְּשֹׁט יָדֶךָ לְמִזְרָח וּלְמַעֲרָב לְצָפוֹן וּלְדָרוֹם. אָמַר לֵיהּ, כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. 11.5. טוּרְנוֹסְרוּפּוּס הָרָשָׁע שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר מַה יּוֹם מִיּוֹמַיִם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמַה גְּבַר מִן גּוּבְרִין. אֲמַר מָה אֲמָרִית לָךְ, וּמָה אֲמַרְתְּ לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲמַרְתְּ לִי מַה יּוֹם מִיּוֹמַיִם, מַאי שְׁנָא יוֹמָא דְשַׁבַּתָּא מִכָּל יוֹמָא, וַאֲמָרִית לָךְ וּמָן גֶּבֶר מִגּוּבְרִין, מַאי שְׁנָא טוּרְנוּסְרוּפּוֹס מִכָּל גּוּבְרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שֶׁרָצָה הַמֶּלֶךְ לְכַבְּדֵנִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַף זוֹ שֶׁרָצָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְכַבְּדָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְנָאן אַתְּ מוֹדַע לִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲרֵי נְהַר סַמְבַּטְיוֹן יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁמּוֹשֵׁךְ אֲבָנִים כָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת, וּבְשַׁבָּת הוּא נָח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְנַגְדָא אַתְּ נָגֵיד לִי, אֶתְמְהָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וַהֲרֵי הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶת הַמֵּת בִּזְכוּרוֹ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה כָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת וּבְשַׁבָּת אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה, וְהַהוּא גַּבְרָא לֶהֱוֵי בָּדַק בַּאֲבוּהִי. חַד זְמַן צָרִיךְ וּבָדַק בַּאֲבוּהוֹ, וּסְלֵק כָּל יוֹמָא דְּשַׁבַּתָּא, וּבְשַׁבַּתָּא לָא סְלֵק. בְּחַד שַׁבַּתָּא אַסְקֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּא מִן דְּמִיתַת אִתְעַבְדֵית יְהוּדִי, אֶתְמְהָא. מִפְּנֵי מָה עָלִיתָ כָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְשַׁבָּת לֹא עָלִיתָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ כָּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּר אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֶצְלְכֶם בִּרְצוֹנוֹ, כָּאן הוּא מְשַׁמֵּר אוֹתוֹ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְכִי עָמָל יֵשׁ לָכֶם שֶׁאַתֶּם עֲמֵלִים כָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת, וּבְשַׁבָּת אַתֶּם נוֹחִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ כָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת אָנוּ נִדּוֹנִין וּבְשַׁבָּת אָנוּ נוֹחִין. חָזַר אֵצֶל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר לוֹ אִם כִּדְבָרֶיךָ שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְכַבֵּד אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אַל יַשֵּׁב בָּהּ רוּחוֹת, אַל יוֹרִיד בָּהּ גְּשָׁמִים, אַל יַצְמִיחַ בָּהּ עֵשֶׂב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ תִּפַּח רוּחֵיהּ דְּהַהוּא גַבְרָא, אֶמְשֹׁל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ דָּרִין בְּחָצֵר אַחַת, אִם אֵין זֶה נוֹתֵן עֵרוּב וְזֶה נוֹתֵן עֵרוּב, שֶׁמָּא מֻתָּרִין לְטַלְטֵל בֶּחָצֵר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה אֶחָד דָּר בֶּחָצֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא מֻתָּר בְּכָל הֶחָצֵר כֻּלָּהּ, אַף כָּאן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ, וְכָל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, מֻתָּר בְּכָל עוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹכְלֵי הַמָּן מְעִידִין עָלָיו, שֶׁכָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת הָיָה יוֹרֵד וּבְשַׁבָּת לֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד. 28.3. וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם, רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ אִסְטְרוֹבִּלִּין שֶׁל רֵחַיִּים נִמְחֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ עֲפָרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן נִמְחֶה. כַּד דָּרְשָׁה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּצִפּוֹרִי בְּצִבּוּרָא וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִינֵיהּ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ לוּז שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה, שֶׁמִּמֶּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵצִיץ אֶת הָאָדָם לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, נִמְחָה. אַדְרִיָּאנוֹס שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר לוֹ מֵהֵיכָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵצִיץ אֶת הָאָדָם לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, אָמַר לוֹ מִלּוּז שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה, אָמַר לוֹ מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַיְתִיתֵיהּ לְיָדִי וַאֲנָא מוֹדַע לָךְ, טָחֲנוֹ בָּרֵחַיִם וְלֹא נִטְחַן, שְׂרָפוֹ בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא נִשְׂרַף, נְתָנוֹ בְּמַיִם וְלֹא נִמְחֶה, נְתָנוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְהִתְחִיל מַכֶּה עָלָיו בְּפַטִּישׁ, נֶחְלַק הַסַּדָּן וְנִבְקַע הַפַּטִּישׁ וְלֹא חָסַר כְּלוּם. 63.7. וַיֹּאמֶר ה' לָהּ (בראשית כה, כג), רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר רַבִּי סִימוֹן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מֵעוֹלָם לֹא נִזְקַק הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהָשִׂיחַ עִם אִשָּׁה אֶלָּא עִם אוֹתָהּ הַצַּדֶּקֶת, וְאַף הִיא עַל יְדֵי עִלָּה. רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אוֹמֵר כַּמָּה כִּרְכּוּרִין כִּרְכֵּר בִּשְׁבִיל לְהָשִׂיחַ עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יח, טו): וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא כִּי צָחָקְתְּ. וְהָכְתִיב (בראשית טז, יג): וַתִּקְרָא שֵׁם ה' הַדֹּבֵר אֵלֶיהָ, רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַבָּא חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר עַל יְדֵי מַלְאָךְ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר עַל יְדֵי שֵׁם בֶּן נֹחַ. (בראשית טז, יג): שְׁנֵי גוֹיִם בְּבִטְנֵךְ, שְׁנֵי גֵאֵי גוֹיִם בְּבִטְנֵךְ, זֶה מִתְגָּאֶה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ וְזֶה מִתְגָּאֶה בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ. שְׁנֵי גֵאֵי גוֹיִם בְּבִטְנֵךְ, אַדְרִיָּאנוֹס בְּעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים, שְׁלֹמֹה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר שְׁנֵי שׂוֹנְאֵי גוֹיִם בְּבִטְנֵךְ, כָּל הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים שׂוֹנְאִים אֶת עֵשָׂו, וְכָל הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים שׂוֹנְאִים אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, סְנָאֵיהוֹן דִּבְנַיָא בְּמֵעַיִךְ, דִּכְתִיב (מלאכי א, ג): וְאֶת עֵשָׂו שָׂנֵאתִי. וּשְׁנֵי לְאֻמִּים מִמֵּעַיִךְ יִפָּרֵדוּ, אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה מִכָּאן שֶׁנּוֹלַד מָהוּל. וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ, רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר עַד כָּאן קְרָיָין (בראשית י, ז): סַבְתָּה וְרַעְמָה וְסַבְתְּכָא, מִינָךְ יְקוּמוּן יְהוּדָאִין וְאַרְמָאִין. וְרַב יַעֲבֹד צָעִיר, אָמַר רַבִּי הוּנָא אִם זָכָה יַעֲבֹד, וְאִם לָאו יֵעֲבֵד. 78.1. וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר (בראשית לב, כז), כְּתִיב (איכה ג, כג): חֲדָשִׁים לַבְּקָרִים רַבָּה אֱמוּנָתֶךָ, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא עַל שֶׁאַתָּה מְחַדְּשֵׁנוּ בְּכָל בֹּקֶר וָבֹקֶר אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים שֶׁאֱמוּנָתְךָ רַבָּה לְהַחֲיוֹת לָנוּ אֶת הַמֵּתִים. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי מִמַּה שֶּׁאַתָּה מְחַדְּשֵׁנוּ בְּבוֹקְרָן שֶׁל מַלְכֻיּוֹת אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים שֶׁאֱמוּנָתְךָ רַבָּה לְגָאֳלֵנוּ. רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר לְעוֹלָם אֵין כַּת שֶׁל מַעְלָה מְקַלֶּסֶת וְשׁוֹנָה אֶלָּא בְּכָל יוֹם בּוֹרֵא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כַּת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים חֲדָשָׁה וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה חֲדָשָׁה לְפָנָיו וְהוֹלְכִין לָהֶם. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה הֵשַׁבְתִּי אֶת רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְהָא כְתִיב: וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר, וְהִגִּיעַ זְמַנִּי לוֹמַר שִׁירָה, אָמַר לִי חָנוֹקָא סְבַרְתְּ לְמֶחֶנְקֵנִי, אֲמָרִית מָה הוּא דֵין דִּכְתִיב: וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר, אָמַר לִי זֶה מִיכָאֵל וְגַבְרִיאֵל שֶׁהֵן שָׂרִים שֶׁל מַעְלָה, דְּכוּלָּא מִתְחַלְּפִין וְאִינוּן לָא מִתְחַלְּפִין. אַנְדְּרִיָּנוֹס שְׁחִיק טְמַיָּא שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה, אָמַר לוֹ, אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים אֵין כַּת שֶׁל מַעְלָה מְקַלֶּסֶת וְשׁוֹנָה, אֶלָּא בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בּוֹרֵא כַּת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים חֲדָשִׁים וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה לְפָנָיו וְהוֹלְכִין לָהֶן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הֵין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּלְאָן אִינוּן אָזְלִין, אָמַר מִן הָן דְּאִתְבָּרְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמִן אָן הֵן אִתְבָּרְיָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִן נְהַר דִּינוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה עֵסֶק דִּנְהַר דִּינוּר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ כַּהֲדֵין יַרְדְּנָא דְּלָא פָסֵיק לָא בִימָמָא וְלָא בְלֵילְיָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמִן אָן הוּא אָתֵי, אָמַר לֵיהּ מִן זֵיעָתְהוֹן דְּחַיָּתָא דְּאִינוּן מְזִיעִין מִן טְעִינוּן כּוּרְסַיָּא דְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ סוּנְקַתֶּדְרוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ וְהָא הָדֵין יַרְדְּנָא מְהַלֵּךְ בִּימָמָא וְלֵית הוּא מְהַלֵּךְ בְּלֵילְיָא, אֲמַר נָטַר הֲוֵינָא בְּבֵית פְּעוֹר כְּמָה דַּהֲוָה מְהַלֵּךְ בִּימָמָא מְהַלֵּךְ בְּלֵילְיָא. רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מִי גָּדוֹל הַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹ הַנִּשְׁמָר, מִן מַה דִּכְתִיב (תהלים צא, יא): כִּי מַלְאָכָיו יְצַוֶּה לָךְ לִשְׁמָרְךָ, הֱוֵי הַנִּשְׁמָר גָּדוֹל מִן הַשּׁוֹמֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִי גָּדוֹל הַנּוֹשֵׂא אוֹ הַנִּשָֹּׂא, מִן מַה דִּכְתִיב (תהלים צא, יב): עַל כַּפַּיִם יִשָֹּׂאוּנְךָ, הֱוֵי הַנִּשָֹּׂא גָּדוֹל מִן הַנּוֹשֵׂא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר מִן מַה דִּכְתִיב: וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי, הֱוֵי הַמְּשַׁלֵּחַ גָּדוֹל מִן הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. 78.1. וַיִּשָֹּׂא עֵינָיו (בראשית לג, ה), אָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר לֵוִי, לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁמַעְנוּ חֲנִינָה בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּשֵׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִין, וְהֵיכָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, לְהַלָּן (בראשית מג, כט): וַיֹּאמַר אֱלֹהִים יָחְנְךָ בְּנִי. (בראשית לג, ו ז): וַתִּגַּשְׁן הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הֵנָּה וְיַלְדֵיהֶן וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶין, וַתִּגַּשׁ גַּם לֵאָה וִילָדֶיהָ וגו'. בְּיוֹסֵף כְּתִיב (בראשית לג, ז): וְאַחַר נִגַּשׁ יוֹסֵף וְרָחֵל וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ, אֶלָּא אָמַר יוֹסֵף הָרָשָׁע הַזֶּה עֵינוֹ רָמָה, שֶׁלֹא יִתְלֶה עֵינָיו וְיַבִּיט אֶת אִמִּי, וְגָבְהָה קוֹמָתוֹ וְכִסָּה אוֹתָהּ, הוּא דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ (בראשית מט, כב): בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן, בֵּן פֹּרָת רְבִיָּת עֲלֵי עָיִן, בֵּן פֹּרָת רְבִיַּת יוֹסֵף, בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן, בֵּן פֹּרָת רְבִיַּת יוֹסֵף. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר עָלַי לִפְרֹעַ לְךָ מִן אוֹתָהּ הָעָיִן. | |
|
| 94. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 30, 35 |
95. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 650| 23a. בעתם בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות,שכן מצינו בימי שמעון בן שטח שירדו להם גשמים בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות עד שנעשו חטים ככליות ושעורים כגרעיני זיתים ועדשים כדינרי זהב וצררו מהם דוגמא לדורות להודיע כמה החטא גורם שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, כה) עונותיכם הטו אלה וחטאתיכם מנעו הטוב מכם,וכן מצינו בימי הורדוס שהיו עוסקין בבנין בהמ"ק והיו יורדין גשמים בלילה למחר נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם למלאכתן וידעו שמלאכת שמים בידיהם:,מעשה ששלחו לחוני המעגל וכו': ת"ר פעם אחת יצא רוב אדר ולא ירדו גשמים שלחו לחוני המעגל התפלל וירדו גשמים התפלל ולא ירדו גשמים עג עוגה ועמד בתוכה כדרך שעשה חבקוק הנביא שנאמר (חבקוק ב, א) על משמרתי אעמדה ואתיצבה על מצור וגו',אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך נשבע אני בשמך הגדול שאיני זז מכאן עד שתרחם על בניך התחילו גשמים מנטפין אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא להתיר שבועתך,אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי בורות שיחין ומערות ירדו בזעף עד שכל טפה וטפה כמלא פי חבית ושיערו חכמים שאין טפה פחותה מלוג אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא לאבד העולם,אמר לפניו לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי רצון ברכה ונדבה ירדו כתיקנן עד שעלו כל העם להר הבית מפני הגשמים אמרו לו רבי כשם שהתפללת שירדו כך התפלל וילכו להם אמר להם כך מקובלני שאין מתפללין על רוב הטובה,אעפ"כ הביאו לי פר הודאה הביאו לו פר הודאה סמך שתי ידיו עליו ואמר לפניו רבש"ע עמך ישראל שהוצאת ממצרים אינן יכולין לא ברוב טובה ולא ברוב פורענות כעסת עליהם אינן יכולין לעמוד השפעת עליהם טובה אינן יכולין לעמוד יהי רצון מלפניך שיפסקו הגשמים ויהא ריוח בעולם מיד נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם לשדה והביאו להם כמהין ופטריות,שלח לו שמעון בן שטח אלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נידוי שאילו שנים כשני אליהו שמפתחות גשמים בידו של אליהו לא נמצא שם שמים מתחלל על ידך,אבל מה אעשה לך שאתה מתחטא לפני המקום ועושה לך רצונך כבן שמתחטא על אביו ועושה לו רצונו ואומר לו אבא הוליכני לרחצני בחמין שטפני בצונן תן לי אגוזים שקדים אפרסקים ורמונים ונותן לו ועליך הכתוב אומר (משלי כג, כה) ישמח אביך ואמך ותגל יולדתך,תנו רבנן מה שלחו בני לשכת הגזית לחוני המעגל (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך ועל דרכיך נגה אור,ותגזר אומר אתה גזרת מלמטה והקדוש ברוך הוא מקיים מאמרך מלמעלה ועל דרכיך נגה אור דור שהיה אפל הארת בתפלתך,כי השפילו ותאמר גוה דור שהיה שפל הגבהתו בתפלתך ושח עינים יושיע דור ששח בעונו הושעתו בתפלתך ימלט אי נקי דור שלא היה נקי מלטתו בתפלתך ונמלט בבור כפיך מלטתו במעשה ידיך הברורין,אמר ר' יוחנן כל ימיו של אותו צדיק היה מצטער על מקרא זה (תהלים קכו, א) שיר המעלות בשוב ה' את שיבת ציון היינו כחולמים אמר מי איכא דניים שבעין שנין בחלמא,יומא חד הוה אזל באורחא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה נטע חרובא אמר ליה האי עד כמה שנין טעין אמר ליה עד שבעין שנין אמר ליה פשיטא לך דחיית שבעין שנין אמר ליה האי [גברא] עלמא בחרובא אשכחתיה כי היכי דשתלי לי אבהתי שתלי נמי לבראי,יתיב קא כריך ריפתא אתא ליה שינתא נים אהדרא ליה משוניתא איכסי מעינא ונים שבעין שנין כי קם חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מלקט מינייהו אמר ליה את הוא דשתלתיה א"ל בר בריה אנא אמר ליה שמע מינה דניימי שבעין שנין חזא לחמריה דאתיילידא ליה רמכי רמכי,אזל לביתיה אמר להו בריה דחוני המעגל מי קיים אמרו ליה בריה ליתא בר בריה איתא אמר להו אנא חוני המעגל לא הימנוהו אזל לבית המדרש שמעינהו לרבנן דקאמרי נהירן שמעתתין כבשני חוני המעגל דכי הוי עייל לבית מדרשא כל קושיא דהוו להו לרבנן הוה מפרק להו אמר להו אנא ניהו לא הימנוהו ולא עבדי ליה יקרא כדמבעי ליה חלש דעתיה בעי רחמי ומית אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברותא או מיתותא,אבא חלקיה בר בריה דחוני המעגל הוה וכי מצטריך עלמא למיטרא הוו משדרי רבנן לגביה ובעי רחמי ואתי מיטרא זימנא חדא איצטריך עלמא למיטרא שדור רבנן זוגא דרבנן לגביה למבעי רחמי דניתי מיטרא אזול לביתיה ולא אשכחוהו אזול בדברא ואשכחוהו דהוה קא רפיק יהבו ליה שלמא | 23a. b “In their season” /b means b on Wednesday eves, /b i.e., Tuesday nights, b and on Shabbat eves, /b i.e., Friday nights, because at these times people are not out in the streets, either due to fear of demonic forces that were thought to wander on Tuesday nights or due to the sanctity of Shabbat., b As we found /b in b the days of Shimon ben Shetaḥ that rain /b invariably b fell for them on Wednesday eves and on Shabbat eves, until wheat grew /b as big b as kidneys, and barley /b as big b as olive pits, and lentils as golden dinars. And they tied /b up some b of /b these crops as b an example [ i dugma /i ] for /b future b generations, to convey /b to them b how much /b damage b sin causes, as it is stated: /b “The Lord our God, Who gives rain, the former rain and the latter rain, in its season that keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest. b Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withheld the good from you” /b (Jeremiah 5:24–25)., b And we likewise found /b that b in the days of Herod /b that b they were occupied in the building of the Temple, and rain would fall at night. And the next day the wind would blow, the clouds would disperse, the sun would shine, and the people would go out to their work. And /b as rain would fall only at a time when it would not interfere with their labor, the nation b knew /b that b the work of Heaven /b was being performed b by their hands. /b ,§ The mishna taught: b An incident /b occurred in b which /b the people b sent /b a message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. /b This event is related in greater detail in the following i baraita /i . b The Sages taught: Once, most of /b the month of b Adar had passed but rain had /b still b not fallen. They sent /b this message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Pray, and rain will fall. He prayed, but no rain fell. He drew a circle /b in the dust b and stood inside it, in the manner that the prophet Habakkuk did, as it is stated: “And I will stand upon my watch and set myself upon the tower, /b and I will look out to see what He will say to me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved” (Habakkuk 2:1). This verse is taken to mean that Habakkuk fashioned a kind of prison for himself where he sat.,Ḥoni b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your children have turned their faces toward me, as I am like a member of Your household. /b Therefore, b I take an oath by Your great name that I will not move from here until you have mercy upon Your children /b and answer their prayers for rain. b Rain began to trickle /b down, but only in small droplets. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can perform great wonders, b but /b this quantity of rain is not enough to ensure that b we will not die. It appears to us that /b a small amount of b rain is falling only /b to enable you b to dissolve your oath, /b but it is not nearly enough to save us.,Ḥoni b said /b to God: b I did not ask for this, but /b for b rain to /b fill the b cisterns, ditches, and caves. /b Rain b began to fall furiously, until each and every drop /b was as big b as the mouth of a barrel, and the Sages estimated that no drop was less than a i log /i /b in size. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can call on God to perform miracles b and we will not die, /b but now b it appears to us that rain is falling only to destroy the world. /b ,Ḥoni again b said before /b God: b I did not ask for this /b harmful rain either, b but /b for b rain of benevolence, blessing, and generosity. /b Subsequently, the rains b fell in their standard manner, until all of the people /b sought higher ground and b ascended to the Temple Mount due to the rain. They said to him: Rabbi, just as you prayed that /b the rains b should fall, so too, pray that they should stop. He said to them: This is /b the tradition that b I received, that one does not pray over an excess of good. /b ,Ḥoni continued: b Nevertheless, bring me a bull. /b I will sacrifice it as b a thanks-offering /b and pray at the same time. b They brought him a bull /b for b a thanks-offering. He placed his two hands on its /b head b and said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your nation Israel, whom You brought out of Egypt, cannot /b bear b either an excess of good or an excess of punishment. You grew angry with them /b and withheld rain, b and they are unable to bear /b it. b You bestowed upon them /b too much b good, and they were /b also b unable to bear /b it. b May it be Your will that the rain stop and that there be relief for the world. Immediately, the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, the sun shone, and everyone went out to the fields and gathered for themselves truffles and mushrooms /b that had sprouted in the strong rain., b Shimon ben Shetaḥ relayed to /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: b If you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you. For were /b these b years like the years of Elijah, when the keys of rain /b were entrusted b in Elijah’s hands, /b and he swore it would not rain, b wouldn’t the name of Heaven have been desecrated by your /b oath not to leave the circle until it rained? Once you have pronounced this oath, either yours or Elijah’s must be falsified., b However, what can I do to you, as you nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and /b his father b does his bidding. And /b the son b says to /b his father: b Father, take me to be bathed in hot water; wash me with cold water; give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pomegranates. And /b his father b gives him. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” /b (Proverbs 23:25)., b The Sages taught: What /b message did b the members of the Chamber of the Hewn Stone, /b the Great Sanhedrin, b send to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel? /b About you, the verse states: b “You shall also decree a matter, and it shall be established for you; and the light shall shine upon your ways. /b When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up, for He saves the humble person. He will deliver the one who is not innocent and he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands” (Job 22:28–30).,They interpreted: b “You shall also decree a matter”; you, /b Ḥoni, b decree from below, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, fulfills your statement from above. “And the light shall shine upon your ways”; a generation that was in darkness, you have illuminated /b it b with your prayer. /b , b “When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up”; a generation that was cast down, you lifted it up with your prayer. “For He saves the humble person”; a generation that was humble in its transgression, you saved it through your prayer. “He will deliver the one who is not innocent”; a generation that was not innocent, you have delivered it through your prayer. “And he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands”; you have delivered /b an undeserving generation b through the clean work of your hands. /b ,§ The Gemara relates another story about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: All the days /b of the life b of that righteous man, /b Ḥoni, b he was distressed over /b the meaning of b this verse: “A song of Ascents: When the Lord brought back those who returned to Zion, we were like those who dream” /b (Psalms 126:1). b He said /b to himself: b Is there /b really a person b who can sleep and dream for seventy years? /b How is it possible to compare the seventy-year exile in Babylonia to a dream?, b One day, he was walking along the road /b when b he saw a certain man planting a carob tree. /b Ḥoni b said to him: This /b tree, b after how many years /b will it b bear /b fruit? The man b said to him: /b It will not produce fruit b until seventy years /b have passed. Ḥoni b said to him: Is it obvious to you that you will live seventy years, /b that you expect to benefit from this tree? b He said to him: That man /b himself b found a world /b full b of carob trees. Just as my ancestors planted for me, I too am planting for my descendants. /b ,Ḥoni b sat and ate bread. Sleep overcame him and he slept. A cliff formed around him, and he disappeared from sight and slept for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw a certain man gathering /b carobs from that tree. Ḥoni b said to him: /b Are b you the one who planted /b this tree? The man b said to him: I am his son’s son. /b Ḥoni b said to him: /b I can b learn from this that I /b have b slept for seventy years, /b and indeed b he saw that his donkey had sired several herds /b during those many years.,Ḥoni b went home and said to /b the members of the household: b Is the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel alive? They said to him: His son is no /b longer with us, but b his son’s son is /b alive. b He said to them: I am Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. They did not believe him. He went to the study hall, /b where he b heard the Sages say /b about one scholar: b His i halakhot /i are as enlightening /b and as clear b as in the years of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, for when /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel b would enter the study hall he would resolve for the Sages any difficulty they had. /b Ḥoni b said to them: I am he, but they did not believe him and did not pay him proper respect. /b Ḥoni b became very upset, prayed for mercy, and died. Rava said: This /b explains the folk saying b that people say: Either friendship or death, /b as one who has no friends is better off dead.,§ The Gemara relates another story, this time about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s descendants, who were also renowned for their righteous deeds. b Abba Ḥilkiyya was the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s son. And when the world was in need of rain they would send Sages to him, and he would pray for mercy, and rain would fall. Once the world was in need of rain, /b and b the Sages sent a pair of Sages to him /b so b that he would pray for mercy and rain would fall. They went to his house but they did not find him /b there. b They went to the field and found him hoeing /b the ground. b They greeted him, /b |
|
96. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 5.20.5 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 320 | 5.20.5. For when I was a boy, I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation. |
|
97. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 2| 63b. מן החטא מקרי ליה רב יהודה לרב יצחק בריה (קהלת ז, כו) ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה א"ל כגון מאן כגון אמך,והא מתני ליה רב יהודה לרב יצחק בריה אין אדם מוצא קורת רוח אלא מאשתו ראשונה שנאמר (משלי ה, יח) יהי מקורך ברוך ושמח מאשת נעוריך וא"ל כגון מאן כגון אמך מתקיף תקיפא ועבורי מיעברא במלה,היכי דמי אשה רעה אמר אביי מקשטא ליה תכא ומקשטא ליה פומא רבא אמר מקשטא ליה תכא ומהדרא ליה גבא,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא כיון שנשא אדם אשה עונותיו מתפקקין שנאמר (משלי יח, כב) מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה' במערבא כי נסיב אינש איתתא אמרי ליה הכי מצא או מוצא מצא דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב מוצא דכתיב ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה,אמר רבא אשה רעה מצוה לגרשה דכתיב (משלי כב, י) גרש לץ ויצא מדון וישבות דין וקלון ואמר רבא אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה צרתה בצדה דאמרי אינשי בחברתה ולא בסילתא ואמר רבא קשה אשה רעה כיום סגריר שנאמר (משלי כז, טו) דלף טורד ביום סגריר ואשת מדינים נשתוה,ואמר רבא בא וראה כמה טובה אשה טובה וכמה רעה אשה רעה כמה טובה אשה טובה דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב אי בגוה משתעי קרא כמה טובה אשה טובה שהכתוב משבחה אי בתורה משתעי קרא כמה טובה אשה טובה שהתורה נמשלה בה כמה רעה אשה רעה דכתיב ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה אי בגוה משתעי קרא כמה רעה אשה רעה שהכתוב מגנה אי בגיהנם משתעי קרא כמה רעה אשה רעה שגיהנם נמשלה בה,(ירמיהו יא, יא) הנני מביא רעה אשר לא יוכלו לצאת ממנה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה (איכה א, יד) נתנני ה' בידי לא אוכל קום אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא בר חייא זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה במערבא אמרו זה שמזונותיו תלוין בכספו,(דברים כח, לב) בניך ובנותיך נתונים לעם אחר אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב זו אשת האב (דברים לב, כא) בגוי נבל אכעיסם אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה רבי אליעזר אומר אלו הצדוקים וכן הוא אומר (תהלים יד, א) אמר נבל בלבו אין אלהים וגו',במתניתא תנא אלו אנשי ברבריא ואנשי מרטנאי שמהלכין ערומים בשוק שאין לך משוקץ ומתועב לפני המקום יותר ממי שמהלך בשוק ערום רבי יוחנן אמר אלו חברים אמרו ליה לר' יוחנן אתו חברי לבבל שגא נפל אמרו ליה מקבלי שוחדא תריץ יתיב,גזרו על ג' מפני ג' גזרו על הבשר מפני המתנות גזרו על המרחצאות מפני הטבילה,קא מחטטי שכבי מפני ששמחים ביום אידם שנאמר (שמואל א יב, טו) והיתה יד ה' בכם ובאבותיכם אמר רבה בר שמואל זו חטוטי שכבי דאמר מר בעון חיים מתים מתחטטין,א"ל רבא לרבה בר מארי כתיב (ירמיהו ח, ב) לא יאספו ולא יקברו לדומן על פני האדמה יהיו וכתיב (ירמיהו ח, ג) ונבחר מות מחיים אמר ליה נבחר מות לרשעים שלא יחיו בעולם הזה ויחטאו ויפלו בגיהנם,כתוב בספר בן סירא אשה טובה מתנה טובה לבעלה וכתיב טובה בחיק ירא אלהים תנתן אשה רעה צרעת לבעלה מאי תקנתיה יגרשנה ויתרפא מצרעתו אשה יפה אשרי בעלה מספר ימיו כפלים,העלם עיניך מאשת חן פן תלכד במצודתה אל תט אצל בעלה למסוך עמו יין ושכר כי בתואר אשה יפה רבים הושחתו ועצומים כל הרוגיה רבים היו פצעי רוכל המרגילים לדבר ערוה כניצוץ מבעיר גחלת ככלוב מלא עוף כן בתיהם מלאים מרמה,אל תצר צרת מחר כי לא תדע מה ילד יום שמא מחר בא ואיננו נמצא מצטער על העולם שאין שלו מנע רבים מתוך ביתך ולא הכל תביא ביתך רבים יהיו דורשי שלומך גלה סוד לאחד מאלף,אמר רבי אסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל הנשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף ונשמות אני עשיתי תניא רבי אליעזר אומר כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים שנאמר (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך וכתיב בתריה ואתם פרו ורבו,רבי יעקב אומר כאילו ממעט הדמות שנאמר (בראשית ט, ו) כי בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם וכתיב בתריה ואתם פרו וגו' בן עזאי אומר כאילו שופך דמים וממעט הדמות שנאמר ואתם פרו ורבו,אמרו לו לבן עזאי יש נאה דורש ונאה מקיים נאה מקיים ואין נאה דורש ואתה נאה דורש ואין נאה מקיים אמר להן בן עזאי ומה אעשה שנפשי חשקה בתורה אפשר לעולם שיתקיים על ידי אחרים,תניא אידך רבי אליעזר אומר כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים שנאמר שופך דם האדם וסמיך ליה ואתם פרו וגו' רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר כאילו ממעט הדמות בן עזאי אומר וכו' אמרו לו לבן עזאי יש נאה דורש וכו',ת"ר (במדבר י, לו) ובנחה יאמר שובה ה' רבבות אלפי ישראל | 63b. b from sin. /b We should therefore show our gratitude to them. The Gemara cites a related incident: b Rav Yehuda /b was b teaching /b Torah b to Rav Yitzḥak, his son, /b and they encountered the verse: b “And I find more bitter than death the woman” /b (Ecclesiastes 7:26). His son b said to him: For example, whom? /b His father replied: b For example, your mother. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Didn’t Rav Yehuda teach Rav Yitzḥak, his son, /b the following i baraita /i : b A man finds peace of mind only with his first wife, as it is stated: “Let your fountain be blessed, and have joy from the wife of your youth” /b (Proverbs 5:18), b and /b his son b said to him: For example, whom, /b and his father responded in this case as well: b For example, your mother. /b This indicates that Rav Yehuda did find peace of mind with his wife. The Gemara answers: She was aggressive and b forceful, but /b she was b easily appeased. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b when a woman is considered b a bad wife? Abaye said: She arranges a table for him and arranges /b her b mouth for him /b at the same time. In other words, although she prepares food for him, she verbally abuses him while he eats. b Rava said: She arranges a table for him and /b then b turns /b her b back to him, /b displaying her lack of interest in his company., b Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Once a man marries a woman his iniquities crumble [ i mitpakekin /i ], as it is stated: “Whoever finds a wife finds good, and obtains [ i veyafek /i ] favor of the Lord” /b (Proverbs 18:22). b In the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, b when a man married a woman they would say to him as follows: i Matza /i or i motze /i ? /b In other words, they would ask the groom if the appropriate passage for his wife is that verse, which begins with the word b i matza /i , as it is written: Whoever finds [ i matza /i ] a wife finds good, /b or whether the more appropriate verse is the one beginning with the word b i motze /i , as it is written: “And I find [ i motze /i ] more bitter than death the woman” /b (Ecclesiastes 7:26)., b Rava said: It is a mitzva to divorce a bad wife, as it is written: “Cast out the scorner and contention will depart; strife and shame will cease” /b (Proverbs 22:10). b And Rava said: A bad wife whose marriage contract /b settlement b is /b too b large /b for her husband to pay in the event of a divorce, b her rival wife is at her side. /b In other words, the only way for him to improve matters is to take another wife. b As people say /b in the well-known adage: The way to trouble a woman is b with her peer and not with a thorn. And Rava said: A bad wife is as troublesome as a day of heavy rain, as it is stated: “A continual dropping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike” /b (Proverbs 27:15)., b And Rava said: Come and see how good a good wife is and how bad a bad wife is. How good is a good wife? As it is written: Whoever finds a wife finds good. If the verse speaks of her, /b a wife, this demonstrates b how good a good wife is, as the Bible praises her. If the verse speaks /b metaphorically b of the Torah, /b it nevertheless indicates b how good a good wife is, as the Torah is compared to her. /b Conversely, b how bad is a bad wife? As it is written: “And I find more bitter than death the woman.” If the verse speaks of her, /b this demonstrates b how bad a bad wife is, as the Bible condemns her. If the verse speaks /b metaphorically b of Gehenna, /b it still demonstrates b how bad a bad wife is, as Gehenna is compared to her. /b ,The Gemara cites further statements on the same issue. The verse states: b “Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape” /b (Jeremiah 11:11). b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rabba bar Avuh said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. /b Similarly, with regard to the verse: b “The Lord has given me into the hands of those against whom I cannot stand” /b (Lamentations 1:14), b Rav Ḥisda said /b that b Mar Ukva bar Ḥiyya said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. In the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b they said this /b verse is referring to one b whose food is dependent on his money. /b He is forced to purchase his food with cash, as he does not possess land of his own.,With regard to the verse: b “Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people” /b (Deuteronomy 28:32), b Rav Ḥa bar Rava said /b that b Rav said: This is /b a reference to the children’s b father’s wife, /b their stepmother. With regard to the verse: b “I will provoke them with a vile nation” /b (Deuteronomy 32:21), b Rav Ḥa bar Rava said /b that b Rav said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. Rabbi Eliezer says /b that b these are apostates, and so too /b the verse b states: “The vile man has said in his heart: There is no God, /b they have dealt corruptly” (Psalms 14:1), which proves that an apostate is called vile., b It was taught in a i baraita /i /b with regard to the verse: “I will provoke them with a vile nation,” that b these are the inhabitants of Barbarya and the inhabitants of Martenai, who walk naked in the marketplace, as none is more despised and abominable before the Omnipresent than one who walks naked in the marketplace. Rabbi Yoḥa said: These are /b the b i Ḥabbarim /i , /b a sect of Persian priests. The Gemara relates: When b they said to Rabbi Yoḥa: /b The b i Ḥabbarim /i have come to Babylonia, he shuddered and fell /b of his chair, out of concern for the Jews living there. b They said to him: /b There is a way to deal with their persecution, as b they accept bribes. /b Upon hearing that not all was lost, b he straightened himself /b and b sat /b in his place once again.,Apropos the i Ḥabbarim /i , the Gemara cites the following statement of the Sages: The i Ḥabbarim /i were able to b issue decrees against /b the Jewish people with regard to b three /b matters, b due to three /b transgressions on the part of the Jewish people. b They decreed against meat, /b i.e., they banned ritual slaughter, b due to /b the failure of the Jewish people to give the priests b the gifts /b of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. b They decreed against /b Jews bathing in b bathhouses, due to /b their neglect of ritual b immersion. /b ,Third, b they exhumed the dead /b from their graves b because /b the Jews b rejoice on /b the b holidays /b of the gentiles, b as it is stated: “Then shall the hand of the Lord be against you and against your fathers” /b (I Samuel 12:15). b Rabba bar Shmuel said: This /b verse is referring to b exhuming the dead, /b which upsets both the living and the dead, b as the Master said: /b Due b to the iniquity of the living, the dead are exhumed. /b , b Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: It is written: “They shall not be gathered nor buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth” /b (Jeremiah 8:2), b and it is written: “And death shall be chosen rather than life” /b (Jeremiah 8:3). If death will be so indecent that their bodies will not even be buried, why would people choose death over life? Rabba bar Mari b said to him: /b The latter verse does not refer to the previously described state of affairs, but rather it means: b Death is preferable for the wicked, /b as it is better b that they not live in this world and sin and /b consequently b descend into Gehenna. /b ,The Gemara cites more statements concerning women. b It is written in the book of Ben Sira: A good wife is a good gift for her husband. And it is written: A good one will be placed in the bosom of a God-fearing man; a bad wife is a plague to her husband. What is his remedy? He should divorce her and he will be cured of his plague. A beautiful wife, happy is her husband; the number of his days are doubled. /b His pleasure in her beauty makes him feel as though he has lived twice as long., b Turn your eyes from a graceful woman /b who is married to another man, b lest you be caught in her trap. Do not turn to her husband to mix wine and strong drink with him, /b which can lead to temptation. b For on /b account of b the countece of a beautiful woman many have been destroyed, and her slain is a mighty host. /b Furthermore, b many have been the wounded peddlers. /b This is referring to men who travel from place to place to sell women’s jewelry. Their frequent dealings with women lead their husbands to harm the peddlers. b Those who accustom /b themselves b to licentious matters are like a spark that ignites a coal. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit. /b ,The Gemara quotes additional statements from the book of Ben Sira: b Do not suffer from tomorrow’s trouble, /b that is, do not worry about problems that might arise in the future, b as you do not know what a day will bring. Perhaps /b when b tomorrow comes, /b the individual who was so worried will b not /b be among the living, and b he /b was b consequently upset over a world that is not his. Prevent a crowd from inside your house, /b do not let many people enter, b and do not /b even b bring all /b your friends into b your house. /b Make sure, however, that b a crowd seeks your welfare, /b and that you have many allies. b Reveal a secret to /b only b one in a thousand, /b since most people are unable to keep a secret., b Rabbi Asi said: The /b Messiah, b son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, /b i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so. b As it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made” /b (Isaiah 57:16). b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who does not engage in /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply /b is considered b as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” /b (Genesis 9:6), b and it is written /b immediately b afterward: “And you, be fruitful and multiply” /b (Genesis 9:7)., b Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is as though he diminishes the /b Divine b Image, as it is stated: “For in the image of God He made man” /b (Genesis 9:6), b and it is written /b immediately b afterward: “And you, be fruitful /b and multiply” (Genesis 9:7). b Ben Azzai says: /b It is b as though he sheds blood and /b also b diminishes the /b Divine b Image, as it is stated: “And you, be fruitful and multiply,” /b after the verse that alludes to both shedding blood and the Divine Image., b They said to ben Azzai: There /b is a type of scholar who b expounds well and fulfills /b his own teachings b well, /b and another who b fulfills well and does not expound well. But you, /b who have never married, b expound well /b on the importance of procreation, b and /b yet b you do not fulfill well /b your own teachings. b Ben Azzai said to them: What shall I do, as my soul yearns for Torah, /b and I do not wish to deal with anything else. b It is possible for the world to be maintained by others, /b who are engaged in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply., b It is /b similarly b taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who does not engage in /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply /b is considered b as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man,” and /b it is stated b near it: “And you, be fruitful /b and multiply.” b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: /b It is b as though he diminishes the /b Divine b Image. Ben Azzai says: /b It is as though he both sheds blood and diminishes the Divine Image. b They said to ben Azzai: There is /b a type of scholar who b expounds well, etc. /b , b The Sages taught /b with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply: b “And when it rested, he would say: Return, Lord, to the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel” /b (Numbers 10:36). |
|
98. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 106| 39a. בא למדוד נפט אומר לו מדוד אתה לעצמך בא למדוד אפרסמון אומר לו המתן לי עד שאמדוד עמך כדי שנתבסם אני ואתה,תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל עבירה מטמטמת לבו של אדם שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מג) ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אל תקרי ונטמאתם אלא ונטמטם,תנו רבנן (אל) תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אדם מטמא עצמו מעט מטמאין אותו הרבה מלמטה מטמאין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מטמאין אותו לעולם הבא,תנו רבנן (ויקרא יא, מד) והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים אדם מקדש עצמו מעט מקדשין אותו הרבה מלמטה מקדשין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מקדשין אותו לעולם הבא, br br big strongהדרן עלך אמר להם הממונה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongטרף /strong /big בקלפי והעלה שני גורלות אחד כתוב עליו לשם ואחד כתוב עליו לעזאזל הסגן בימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו אם של שם עלה בימינו הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם של שם עלה בשמאלו ראש בית אב אומר לו אישי כ"ג הגבה שמאלך,נתנן על שני השעירים ואומר לה' חטאת רבי ישמעאל אומר לא היה צריך לומר חטאת אלא לה' והן עונין אחריו ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big למה לי טרף בקלפי כי היכי דלא ניכוין ולישקול,אמר רבא קלפי של עץ היתה ושל חול היתה ואינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים,מתקיף לה רבינא בשלמא אינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים כי היכי דלא ליכוין ולישקול אלא של חול נקדשה אם כן הוה לה כלי שרת של עץ וכלי שרת דעץ לא עבדינן ונעבדה דכסף ונעבדה דזהב התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל,מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר הסגן וכהן גדול מכניסין ידן בקלפי אם בימינו של כהן גדול עולה הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם בימינו של סגן עולה ראש בית אב אומר לו לכהן גדול דבר מילך,ונימא ליה סגן כיון דלא סליק בידיה חלשא דעתיה,במאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר ימינא דסגן עדיף משמאליה דכהן גדול ומר סבר כי הדדי נינהו,ומאן האי תנא דפליג עליה דרבי יהודה רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים הוא דתניא רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר למה סגן מימינו שאם אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול נכנס סגן ומשמש תחתיו,תנו רבנן ארבעים שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק היה גורל עולה בימין מכאן ואילך פעמים עולה בימין פעמים עולה בשמאל והיה לשון של זהורית מלבין מכאן ואילך פעמים מלבין פעמים אינו מלבין והיה נר מערבי דולק מכאן ואילך פעמים דולק פעמים כבה,והיה אש של מערכה מתגבר ולא היו כהנים צריכין להביא עצים למערכה חוץ משני גזירי עצים כדי לקיים מצות עצים מכאן ואילך פעמים מתגבר פעמים אין מתגבר ולא היו כהנים נמנעין מלהביא עצים למערכה כל היום כולו,ונשתלחה ברכה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן שמגיעו כזית יש אוכלו ושבע ויש אוכלו ומותיר מכאן ואילך נשתלחה מאירה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן מגיעו כפול הצנועין מושכין את ידיהן והגרגרנין נוטלין ואוכלין ומעשה באחד שנטל חלקו וחלק חבירו והיו קורין אותו בן | 39a. In the case of one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b naphtha, /b the merchant b says to him: Measure /b it b for yourself, /b as I prefer to keep my distance from the foul odor. With regard to one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b balsam, /b the merchant b says to him: Wait for me until I /b can b measure /b it b with you, so that you and I will /b both b be perfumed. /b Similarly, with regard to sin God merely provides an opening, whereas with regard to mitzvot God assists the individual in their performance.,In b the school of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught: Sin stupefies the heart of a person /b who commits it, b as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified” /b (Leviticus 11:43) b Do not read /b that term as: b “And be impurified [ i venitmetem /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b And your /b hearts will b be stupefied /b [ b i venitamtem /i ]. /b , b The Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified”; a person who impurifies himself a bit, they impurify him greatly. /b If a person impurifies himself of his own volition b below, /b on earth, b they impurify him /b even more so b above, /b in Heaven. If a person impurifies himself b in this world, they impurify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,Conversely, b the Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “Sanctify yourselves and you will be sanctified” /b (Leviticus 11:44); b a person /b who b sanctifies himself a bit, they sanctify him /b and assist him b greatly. /b If a person sanctifies himself b below, they sanctify him above. /b If a person sanctifies himself b in this world, they sanctify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,, strong MISHNA: /strong The High Priest b would mix /b the lots b in the /b lottery b receptacle /b used to hold them b and draw /b the b two lots /b from it, one in each hand. b Upon one was written: For God. And upon /b the other b one was written: For Azazel. The deputy /b High Priest would stand b to /b the High Priest’s b right, and the head of the patrilineal family /b would stand b to his left. If /b the lot b for the name /b of God b came up in his right /b hand, b the Deputy would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand so that all can see with which hand the lot for God was selected. b And if /b the lot for the b name /b of God b came up in his left /b hand, b the head of the patrilineal family would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your left /b hand.,Then b he would place /b the two lots b upon the two goats, /b the lot that arose in his right hand on the goat standing to his right side and the lot in his left hand on the goat to his left. b And /b upon placing the lot for God upon the appropriate goat, b he would say: For God, /b as b a sin-offering. Rabbi Yishmael says: He need not say: /b As b a sin-offering. Rather, /b it is sufficient to say: b For God. And /b upon saying the name of God, the priests and the people b respond after him: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Why do I /b need the High Priest to have b mixed /b the lots in b a receptacle /b before he draws the lots? b In order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. Since it is a fortuitous omen for the lot for God to arise in his right hand, there is a concern that he might force the result, in contravention of the requirement that the designation of the goats be made through a random lottery., b Rava said: /b The b receptacle was /b made out b of wood and /b did not have the status of a sacred vessel. Rather, it b was unconsecrated, and it had enough /b space inside b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b , b Ravina strongly objects to this: Granted, /b it was constructed so that it b had enough /b space inside it b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b This was done so that he could not maneuver his hands inside the box to feel and examine the lots, b in order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. b But /b why was the receptacle b unconsecrated? Let it be consecrated /b as a sacred vessel. b If so, /b if it were to be consecrated, b it would be a sacred vessel /b made b of wood, and /b the i halakha /i is that b we do not make a sacred vessel from wood. /b But if this is the only issue, b let it be made /b out b of silver /b or b let it be made /b out b of gold. /b However, b the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people /b and did not want to burden them with the expense of having to make the receptacle from expensive materials. Therefore, it is made from wood, and as such it is precluded from being a sacred vessel.,The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i /b whose opinion b was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The Deputy and the High Priest insert their hands into the receptacle. If /b the lot for God b comes up in the High Priest’s right /b hand, b the Deputy says to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand. b And if /b the lot for God b comes up in the right /b hand b of the Deputy, the head of the patrilineal family says to the High Priest: Speak your word /b and declare the goat to your left side to be the sin-offering for God.,The Gemara asks: Why should the head of the patrilineal family instruct the High Priest to speak? b Let the Deputy say /b this b to him. /b The Gemara answers: b Since the lot /b for God b did not come up in /b the High Priest’s b hand, /b rather in the Deputy’s, b he /b might b be discouraged /b if the Deputy himself instructs him to speak, as it may appear that he is mocking him., b With regard to what do /b the i tanna’im /i of the mishna and i baraita /i b disagree? /b One b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i , b holds /b that b the Deputy’s right /b hand b is preferable to the High Priest’s left /b hand. As such, the ideal way for the lots to be drawn is for both the Deputy and High Priest to use their right hands. b And /b the other b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna, b holds they are equivalent. /b Therefore, there is no reason for the Deputy to be involved, and the entire process is performed by the High Priest., b And who is this i tanna /i who argues with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, says: Why /b did the b Deputy /b remain b at the /b High Priest’s b right /b side throughout the day’s service? b Because if some disqualification befalls the High Priest, the Deputy can step in and serve in his stead. /b It is apparent from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that as long as the High Priest remains qualified, the Deputy has no role in the day’s service, which disputes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.,§ b The Sages taught: /b During all b forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served /b as High Priest, b the lot /b for God arose in b the right /b hand. b From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right /b hand and b sometimes it arose in the left /b hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, b the strip of crimson /b wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel b turned white, /b indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven, as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). b From then onward, it sometimes turned white /b and b sometimes it did not turn white. /b Furthermore, b the western lamp /b of the candelabrum b would burn /b continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. b From then onward, it sometimes burned /b and b sometimes it went out. /b , b And /b during the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, b the fire on the arrangement /b of wood on the altar b kept going strongly, /b perpetually by itself, b such that the priests did not need to bring /b additional b wood to the arrangement /b on a daily basis, b except for the two logs /b that were brought b in order to fulfill the mitzva of /b placing b wood /b upon the arrangement. b From then onward, /b the fire b sometimes kept going strongly /b and b sometimes it did not, and so the priests could not avoid bringing wood to the arrangement throughout the entire day. /b , b And a blessing was sent upon the /b offering of the b i omer /i ; and to the /b offering of b the two loaves /b from the new wheat, which was sacrificed on i Shavuot /i ; b and to the shewbread, /b which was placed on the table in the Temple. b And /b due to that blessing, b each priest that received an olive-bulk /b of them, b there were those /b who b ate it and were satisfied, and there were those /b who b ate /b only a part b of it and left over /b the rest because they were already satisfied from such a small amount. b From then onward, a curse was sent upon the i omer /i , and to the two loaves, and to the shewbread, /b that there were not sufficient quantities to give each priest a full measure. Therefore, b each priest received /b just an amount the b size of a bean; the discreet, /b pious b ones would withdraw their hands, /b a bean-bulk being less that the quantity needed to properly fulfill the mitzva, b and /b only b the voracious ones would take and eat /b it. b And an incident occurred with one who took his portion and that of his fellow, and they called him: Son of /b |
|
99. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 96| 37b. הא קיימא שניה,אמר רבינא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה שניה בשעת כפירת הראשונה קרובין בנשותיהן ונשותיהן גוססות מהו דתימא רוב גוססין למיתה קמ"ל השתא מיהת חיי נינהו ולא שכיבי,תא שמע בעל הבית שטען טענת גנב בפקדון ונשבע והודה ובאו עדים אם עד שלא באו עדים הודה משלם קרן וחומש ואשם אם משבאו עדים הודה משלם תשלומי כפל ואשם,הכא נמי כדרבינא,אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תא שמע חמורה ממנה שבועת הפקדון שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים מדקאמר לוקה מכלל דאיכא עדים וקאמר על שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים,אמר להו רב מרדכי בר מינה דההיא דהאמר להו רב כהנא אנא תנינא לה והכי תנינא לה אחד זדונה ואחד שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים,תא שמע לא אם אמרת בנזיר טמא שכן לוקה תאמר בשבועת הפקדון שאינו לוקה היכי דמי אי דליכא עדים אמאי לוקה אלא פשיטא דאיכא עדים וקתני תאמר בשבועת הפקדון שאינו לוקה מלקא הוא דלא לקי אבל קרבן מייתי תיובתא דרבה תיובתא,רבי יוחנן אמר הכופר בממון שיש עליו עדים חייב בשטר פטור אמר רב פפא מאי טעמיה דרבי יוחנן עדים עבידי דמייתי שטר הא מנח,אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא שטרא נמי עביד דמרכס אלא אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע היינו טעמיה דרבי יוחנן משום דהוה שטר שעבוד קרקעות ואין מביאין קרבן על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות,איתמר משביע עדי קרקע פליגי רבי יוחנן ור"א חד אמר חייב וחד אמר פטור תסתיים דרבי יוחנן דאמר פטור מדאמר רבי יוחנן הכופר בממון שיש עליו עדים חייב שטר פטור וכדרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע תסתיים,א"ל רבי ירמיה לר' אבהו לימא רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר בפלוגתא דרבי אליעזר ורבנן קא מיפלגי דתנן הגוזל שדה מחבירו ושטפה נהר חייב להעמיד לו שדה דברי רבי אליעזר וחכ"א אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך,ואמרינן במאי קמיפלגי רבי אליעזר דריש רבויי ומיעוטי ורבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי,רבי אליעזר דריש רבויי ומיעוטי (ויקרא ה, כא) וכחש בעמיתו ריבה בפקדון או בתשומת יד מיעט או מכל אשר ישבע חזר וריבה,ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי ריבה ריבה כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט שטרות,ורבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי וכחש בעמיתו כלל בפקדון או בתשומת יד או בגזל פרט או מכל אשר ישבע עליו חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט,מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון יצאו קרקעות שאין מטלטל יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאף על פי שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון,מאן דמחייב כרבי אליעזר ומאן דפטר כרבנן,אמר ליה לא מאן דמחייב כרבי אליעזר ומאן דפטר אמר לך בהא אפילו רבי אליעזר מודה דרחמנא אמר מכל ולא הכל,אמר רב פפא משמיה דרבא מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני גנבת את שורי והוא אומר לא גנבתי משביעך אני ואמר אמן חייב ואילו גנבת את עבדי לא קתני מ"ט לאו משום דעבד איתקש לקרקעות ואין מביאין קרבן על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות,אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא אימא סיפא זה הכלל כל המשלם על פי עצמו חייב ושאינו משלם על פי עצמו פטור זה הכלל לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי גנבת את עבדי | 37b. b Doesn’t the second /b set b stand /b ready to testify, so that the refusal of the first set of witnesses does not affect a monetary claim? Evidently, a denial of a monetary claim to which there are witnesses is still considered a denial., b Ravina said: Here we are dealing with /b a case b where at the time of the denial by the first /b set, b the second /b set of witnesses b were related /b to one another b through their wives, /b so that the second set was unfit to provide testimony; b and their wives were moribund. Lest you say: Most moribund people /b actually b die /b soon thereafter, and the witnesses are considered fit to provide testimony, the i baraita /i b teaches us /b that b in any event they are currently alive and have not died. /b The second set was therefore unfit to provide testimony.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a homeowner /b acting as a bailee b who /b falsely b claimed /b that b a thief /b stole b a deposit /b from him, b and /b the homeowner b took an oath /b to that effect b and /b then b admitted /b that he was lying, b and witnesses came /b and testified that the item was not stolen from the homeowner, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. b If he admitted /b to his lie b before /b the b witnesses came /b and testified, he b pays /b the b principal /b value of the item b and /b the additional b one-fifth /b payment for denying that he possessed the deposit, b and /b he brings b a guilt-offering /b as atonement for a false oath on a deposit. b If he admitted /b his guilt b after /b the b witnesses came /b and testified, b he pays /b the b double payment and /b brings b a guilt-offering. /b The i baraita /i indicates that even in the case of a monetary claim to which there are witnesses, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering.,The Gemara responds: b Here, too, /b explain this i baraita /i b as Ravina /b explained the previous i baraita /i , that at the time the homeowner took his oath, the witnesses were related through their moribund wives and were unfit to provide testimony., b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come /b and b hear /b another proof from that which is taught in a i baraita /i : The i halakhot /i of b an oath on a deposit are more stringent than /b the i halakhot /i of an oath of testimony, b as /b one is b liable /b to receive b lashes for intentionally /b taking a false oath on a deposit, b and /b one is liable to bring b a guilt-offering worth /b at least two b silver shekels for /b taking the oath b unwittingly. /b Ravina infers: b From /b the fact b that /b the i baraita /i b states /b that one b is flogged, by inference /b it can be understood that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where there are witnesses /b to the fact that the deposit is in the defendant’s possession and the defendant was forewarned, b and /b yet it b states: /b One is liable to bring b a guilt-offering worth /b at least two b silver shekels for /b taking the oath b unwittingly. /b , b Rav Mordekhai said to them: Apart from this, /b you cannot cite this i baraita /i as a proof. b As, didn’t Rav Kahana already say to /b the students (37a): b I /b am the one who b teaches /b this i baraita /i b and this /b is how b I teach it: /b An oath on a deposit is more stringent than an oath of testimony, since for taking a false oath on a deposit b either intentionally or unwittingly /b one is liable to bring b a guilt-offering worth /b at least two b silver shekels. /b The i baraita /i is not referring to a case in which there were witnesses who forewarned him.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from another i baraita /i : b No, if you said /b that the i halakha /i that i baraita /i discusses is true b with regard to an impure nazirite, who is indeed flogged /b for intentionally becoming impure, b shall you /b also b say /b that this is the case b with regard to /b one who took b an oath on a deposit, who is not flogged? /b The Gemara elaborates: b What are the circumstances /b of the i baraita /i ? b If /b it is a case b where there were no witnesses, why is /b the nazirite b flogged? Rather, /b isn’t it b obvious that there are witnesses, and /b yet, the i baraita /i b teaches: Shall you /b also b say /b that this is the case b with regard to /b one who took b an oath on a deposit, who is not flogged? /b It may be inferred that b he does not receive lashes but /b does b bring an offering, /b even though there are witnesses. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rabba /b is indeed b a conclusive refutation. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yoḥa says: One who denies a monetary /b claim b to which there are witnesses /b is b liable /b to bring a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit. But if he denies a debt b concerning /b which there is a promissory b note, /b he is b exempt. Rav Pappa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥa? /b It b occurs that witnesses die, /b and it is therefore possible that he would not be found liable through their testimony; he is therefore considered to have denied a monetary claim. By contrast, a promissory b note remains /b in its place, and his denial would never have exempted him from payment., b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: /b This cannot be the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥa, as it b also occurs that a promissory note becomes lost. Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b It is b because /b a promissory b note /b comprises b a lien on land, /b since the promissory note places a lien on the debtor’s property, b and one does not bring an offering /b for an oath on a deposit b for denying a lien on land, /b since one does not take an oath concerning land.,It b was stated: /b In a case where one b administers an oath to witnesses /b who deny knowing information with regard to ownership b of land /b and they deny knowledge of the matter, b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar disagree: One says /b that the witnesses are b liable /b to bring a sin-offering for a false oath of testimony, b and one says /b that they are b exempt. /b The Gemara notes: b It may be concluded that /b it is b Rabbi Yoḥa who says /b they are b exempt. /b This can be inferred b from /b the fact b that Rabbi Yoḥa says: One who denies a monetary /b claim b to which there are witnesses /b is b liable, /b but one who denies a claim concerning which there is a promissory b note /b is b exempt. And /b this conclusion is b in accordance with /b the explanation b of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, /b that the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥa is that a promissory note comprises a lien on land, and one does not bring an offering for denying a lien on land. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, b it may be concluded. /b , b Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abbahu: Shall we say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar disagree with regard to /b the issue that is the subject of b the dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis? As we learned /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who robbed another of a field and /b then b a river flooded it, /b he is b liable to provide /b the field’s owner with b a different field, /b since the value of the flooded field was significantly decreased and the robber must return the value of that which he stole; this is b the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: /b He is exempt from doing so, as b he /b can b say to /b the owner: b That which is yours is before you. /b The robber may return the flooded field to its owner without reimbursing him for the loss in its value, since according to the Rabbis, land cannot be stolen. Consequently, the field is considered to be in the possession of its owner, and the thief is not obligated in the mitzva of returning a stolen item.,Rabbi Yirmeya continues: b And we say: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer interprets /b the verses that discuss an oath on a deposit and the mitzva to return stolen items according to the hermeneutical principle of b amplifications and restrictions, and the Rabbis interpret /b them according to the hermeneutical principle of b generalizations and details. /b ,He explains: b Rabbi Eliezer interprets /b the verses: “If anyone sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor…or of anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full” (Leviticus 5:21–24), according to the hermeneutical principle of b amplifications and restrictions. /b The phrase “if anyone sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, b and deal falsely with his neighbor” amplified /b the i halakha /i . When the verse states: b “In a matter of deposit or of pledge,” /b it has b restricted /b the i halakha /i to the case of a deposit. When the verse then states: b “Or of anything about which he has sworn falsely, /b he shall restore it in full,” b it /b has b then amplified /b the i halakha /i again.,Accordingly, as the Torah b amplified and /b then b restricted and /b then b amplified /b again, it has b amplified /b the i halakha /i to include b everything /b except for the specific matter excluded by the restriction. b What /b is included due to the fact that the verse b has amplified /b the i halakha /i ? The verse b has amplified /b the i halakha /i to include b everything /b that one steals. b And what /b is excluded due to the fact that the verse b restricted /b the i halakha /i ? b It restricted /b the i halakha /i to exclude ficial b documents, /b which are dissimilar to a deposit in that their value is not intrinsic but rather due to their function. Consequently, according to Rabbi Eliezer, land that was stolen is included in the i halakhot /i stated in these verses, and one who steals land must reimburse the field’s owner., b And the Rabbis interpreted /b these verses according to the hermeneutical principle of b generalizations and details. /b The phrase b “and deal falsely with his neighbor” /b is b a generalization, /b while the subsequent phrase, b “in a matter of deposit or of pledge, or of robbery,” /b is b a detail. /b When the verse then states: b “Or of anything about which he has sworn /b falsely, he shall restore it in full,” b it /b has b then generalized /b again. In the case of b a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. /b ,Accordingly, b just as the detail, /b i.e., a deposit, b is explicitly /b a case of b movable property and /b has b intrinsic monetary /b value, b so too, /b the verse includes b anything that is movable property and /b has b intrinsic monetary /b value. Consequently, b land has been excluded, as it is not movable property. /b Canaanite b slaves have been excluded, as they are compared to land /b with regard to many areas of i halakha /i . Ficial b documents have been excluded because although they /b are b movable property, they do not /b have b intrinsic monetary /b value.,Rabbi Yirmeya concludes: Shall we say that the b one who deems /b the witnesses b liable /b in a case of an oath of testimony concerning land, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer, /b that land is included in the mitzva of returning stolen property and in the i halakhot /i of an oath on a deposit, and by extension, in the i halakhot /i of an oath of testimony; b and the one who deems /b them b exempt, /b i.e., Rabbi Yoḥa, holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b that land is excluded from these i halakhot /i ?,Rabbi Abbahu b said to /b Rabbi Yirmeya: b No, /b the two disagreements do not completely correspond. The b one who deems /b the witnesses b liable /b must in fact hold b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer. But the one who deems /b them b exempt /b could have b said to you: In this /b case of an oath of testimony, b even Rabbi Eliezer concedes /b that they are exempt from bringing an offering, b as the Merciful One states: “of anything /b about which he has sworn falsely,” b and not: Everything /b about which he has sworn falsely. The verse indicates that only certain items are included in the i halakhot /i of an oath of testimony. Therefore, land is excluded, since it is dissimilar to the specific instances mentioned in the verse., b Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: The mishna is also precisely /b formulated, b as it teaches: /b In a case where one accuses another: b You stole my ox, and /b the defendant b says: I did not steal /b your ox, if the claimant replied: b I administer an oath to you, and /b the defendant b said: Amen, /b he is b liable. /b The mishna discusses a claim of a stolen ox, b whereas /b it b does not teach /b a claim of: b You stole my /b Canaanite b slave. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that /b a Canaanite b slave is compared to land, and one is not liable to bring an offering for a denial /b in a matter of b a lien on land? /b , b Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: /b There is no proof from the mishna, as b say the last clause /b of the mishna: b This is the principle: /b For b any /b claim b that /b the defendant would have to b pay based on his own /b admission, he is b liable. And /b for any claim that he would b not pay based on his own /b admission, but by the testimony of witnesses, he is b exempt, /b even if he denies the claim against him and takes an oath to that effect. Rav Pappi asks: b What is added /b by the phrase: b This is the principle? Is it not to include /b even an accusation of: b You stole my /b Canaanite b slave, /b in the i halakha /i of oaths on a deposit? |
|
100. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 660| 49b. אזלא ודלדלה ואין שואל ואין מבקש על מי יש להשען על אבינו שבשמים,בעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגא ויוקר יאמיר הגפן תתן פריה והיין ביוקר ומלכות תהפך למינות ואין תוכחת בית וועד יהיה לזנות והגליל יחרב והגבלן ישום ואנשי הגבול יסובבו מעיר לעיר ולא יחוננו,וחכמות סופרים תסרח ויראי חטא ימאסו והאמת תהא נעדרת נערים פני זקנים ילבינו זקנים יעמדו מפני קטנים בן מנוול אב בת קמה באמה כלה בחמותה אויבי איש אנשי ביתו פני הדור כפני הכלב הבן אינו מתבייש מאביו ועל מה יש לנו להשען על אבינו שבשמים, big strong(גמ׳) /strong /big אמר רב לא שנו אלא של מלח וגפרית אבל של הדס ושל וורד מותר ושמואל אומר אף של הדס ושל וורד אסור של קנים ושל חילת מותר ולוי אמר אף של קנים ושל חילת אסור וכן תני לוי במתניתיה אף של קנים ושל חילת אסור,ועל האירוס מאי אירוס א"ר אלעזר טבלא דחד פומא רבה בר רב הונא עבד ליה לבריה טנבורא אתא אבוה תבריה אמר ליה מיחלף בטבלא דחד פומא זיל עביד ליה אפומא דחצבא או אפומא דקפיזא,בפולמוס של טיטוס גזרו על עטרות כלות וכו' מאי עטרות כלות אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן עיר של זהב תניא נמי הכי איזהו עטרות כלות עיר של זהב אבל עושה אותה כיפה של מילת,תנא אף על חופת חתנים גזרו מאי חופת חתנים זהורית המוזהבות תניא נמי הכי אלו הן חופת חתנים זהורית המוזהבות אבל עושה פפירית ותולה בה כל מה שירצה,ושלא ילמד את בנו יוונית ת"ר כשצרו מלכי בית חשמונאי זה על זה היה הורקנוס מבחוץ ואריסטובלוס מבפנים בכל יום ויום היו משלשלין דינרים בקופה ומעלין להן תמידים,היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית לעז להם בחכמת יוונית אמר להן כל זמן שעוסקים בעבודה אין נמסרין בידכם למחר שלשלו להם דינרים בקופה והעלו להם חזיר כיון שהגיע לחצי חומה נעץ צפרניו נזדעזעה א"י ארבע מאות פרסה,אותה שעה אמרו ארור אדם שיגדל חזירים וארור אדם שילמד לבנו חכמת יוונית ועל אותה שנה שנינו מעשה ובא עומר מגגות צריפים ושתי הלחם מבקעת עין סוכר,איני והאמר רבי בא"י לשון סורסי למה אלא אי לשון הקודש אי לשון יוונית ואמר רב יוסף בבבל לשון ארמי למה אלא או לשון הקודש או לשון פרסי,לשון יוונית לחוד וחכמת יוונית לחוד,וחכמת יוונית מי אסירא והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רשב"ג מאי דכתיב (איכה ג, נא) עיני עוללה לנפשי מכל בנות עירי אלף ילדים היו בבית אבא חמש מאות למדו תורה וחמש מאות למדו חכמת יוונית ולא נשתייר מהן אלא אני כאן ובן אחי אבא בעסיא,שאני של בית ר"ג דקרובין למלכות הוו דתניא מספר קומי הרי זה מדרכי האמורי אבטולוס בן ראובן התירו לספר קומי שהוא קרוב למלכות של בית רבן גמליאל התירו להן חכמה יוונית מפני שקרובין למלכות,בפולמוס האחרון גזרו שלא תצא כלה באפריון וכו' מ"ט משום צניעותא,משמת רבן יוחנן בטלה החכמה ת"ר משמת רבי אליעזר נגנז ס"ת משמת רבי יהושע בטלה עצה ומחשבה משמת ר"ע בטלו זרועי תורה ונסתתמו מעיינות החכמה,משמת רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בטלו עטרות חכמה (משלי יד, כד) שעטרת חכמים עשרם משמת רבי חנינא בן דוסא בטלו אנשי מעשה משמת אבא יוסי בן קטונתא בטלו חסידים ולמה נקרא שמו אבא יוסי בן קטונתא שהיה מקטני חסידים,משמת בן עזאי בטלו השקדנין משמת בן זומא בטלו הדרשנין משמת רשב"ג עלה גובאי ורבו צרות משמת רבי הוכפלו צרות,משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ויראת חטא אמר ליה רב יוסף לתנא לא תיתני ענוה דאיכא אנא אמר ליה רב נחמן לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא דאיכא אנא, br br big strongהדרן עלך ערופה וסליקא לן מסכת סוטה /strong /big br br | |
|
101. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 168| 22a. קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ומודה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ברוכלין המחזירין בעיירות דלא מצי מעכב דאמר מר עזרא תקן להן לישראל שיהו רוכלין מחזירין בעיירות כדי שיהו תכשיטין מצויין לבנות ישראל,והני מילי לאהדורי אבל לאקבועי לא ואי צורבא מרבנן הוא אפילו לאקבועי נמי כי הא דרבא שרא להו לר' יאשיה ולרב עובדיה לאקבועי דלא כהלכתא מאי טעמא כיון דרבנן נינהו אתו לטרדו מגירסייהו,הנהו דיקולאי דאייתו דיקלאי לבבל אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרבינא אמר להו מעלמא אתו ולעלמא ליזבנו והני מילי ביומא דשוקא אבל בלא יומא דשוקא לא וביומא דשוקא נמי לא אמרינן אלא לזבוני בשוקא אבל לאהדורי לא,הנהו עמוראי דאייתו עמרא לפום נהרא אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרב כהנא אמר להו דינא הוא דמעכבי עלייכו אמרו ליה אית לן אשראי אמר להו זילו זבנו שיעור חיותייכו עד דעקריתו אשראי דידכו ואזליתו,רב דימי מנהרדעא אייתי גרוגרות בספינה א"ל ריש גלותא לרבא פוק חזי אי צורבא מרבנן הוא נקיט ליה שוקא א"ל רבא לרב אדא בר אבא פוק תהי ליה בקנקניה,נפק [אזל] בעא מיניה פיל שבלע כפיפה מצרית והקיאה דרך בית הרעי מהו לא הוה בידיה א"ל מר ניהו רבא טפח ליה בסנדליה א"ל בין דידי לרבא איכא טובא מיהו על כרחך אנא רבך ורבא רבה דרבך,לא נקטו ליה שוקא פסיד גרוגרות דידיה אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל חזי מר מאי עבדו לי אמר ליה מאן דלא שהייה לאוניתא דמלכא דאדום לא נשהייה לאוניתיך דכתיב (עמוס ב, א) כה אמר ה' על שלשה פשעי מואב ועל ארבעה לא אשיבנו על שרפו עצמות מלך אדום לסיד,נח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא רב יוסף אמר אנא ענישתיה דאנא לטייתיה רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר אנא ענישתיה דאפסיד גרוגרות דידי אביי אמר אנא ענישתיה דאמר להו לרבנן אדמגרמיתו גרמי בי אביי תו אכלו בישרא [שמינא] בי רבא ורבא אמר אנא ענישתיה [דכי הוה אזיל לבי טבחא למשקל אומצא] אמר להו לטבחי אנא שקילנא בישרא מיקמי שמעיה דרבא דאנא עדיפנא מיניה,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אנא ענישתיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק ריש כלה הוה כל יומא מיקמי דניעול לכלה מרהיט בהדיה רב אדא בר אבא לשמעתיה והדר עייל לכלה,ההוא יומא נקטוה רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב אדא בר אבא משום דלא הוו בסיומא אמרו ליה אימא לן הני שמעתתא דמעשר בהמה היכי אמרינהו רבא אמר להו הכי אמר רבא והכי אמר רבא אדהכי נגה ליה [לרב נחמן בר יצחק] (ולא אתי רב אדא בר אבא),אמרו ליה רבנן לרב נחמן בר יצחק קום דנגה לן למה יתיב מר אמר להו יתיבנא וקא מנטרא לערסיה דרב אדא בר אבא אדהכי נפק קלא דנח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא ומסתברא דרב נחמן בר יצחק ענשיה: , big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שהיה כותלו סמוך לכותל חבירו לא יסמוך לו כותל אחר אא"כ הרחיק ממנו ארבע אמות החלונות בין מלמעלן בין מלמטן בין כנגדן ארבע אמות: , big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וקמא היכי סמיך אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר | 22a. b Jealousy among teachers increases wisdom. /b , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, /b who said that townspeople can bar craftsmen who come from other cities, b concedes with regard to /b perfume b salesmen who travel from /b one b town /b to another b that /b the townspeople b cannot prevent /b them from entering their town. b As the Master said: Ezra instituted /b an ordice b for the Jewish people that /b perfume b salesmen shall travel from town to town so that cosmetics will be available to Jewish women. /b Since this ordice was instituted on behalf of Jewish women, the Sages ruled that these peddlers could not be barred from entering a town.,The Gemara continues: b And this matter /b applies only to one who seeks b to travel /b from town to town as a salesman. b But /b if he wants b to establish /b a shop, this ruling was b not /b stated, and the townspeople can prevent him from doing so. b And if he is a Torah scholar he may even establish /b a shop as a perfume salesman. This is b like that /b incident in b which Rava permitted Rabbi Yoshiya and Rav Ovadya to establish /b a shop b not /b in accordance b with the i halakha /i . What is the reason /b for this ruling? The reason is that b since they are rabbis, they are likely to be distracted from their studies /b should they be required to travel from place to place.,§ The Gemara relates: There were b these basket sellers who brought baskets to Babylonia. The townspeople came /b and b prevented them /b from selling there. The two parties b came before Ravina /b for a ruling. Ravina b said to them: /b The basket sellers b came from outside /b the town, b and they sell to /b those from b outside /b the town, i.e., to guests who are not residents of the town. The Gemara comments: b And this statement /b applies only b on a market day, /b when people from other towns come to shop, b but /b they may b not /b sell their wares b on non-market days. And even with regard to market days, we say /b so b only /b with regard b to selling in the market, but /b this i halakha /i does b not /b apply b to circulating /b around the town.,The Gemara further relates: There were b these wool sellers who brought wool to /b the city of b Pum Nahara. The townsfolk came /b and b prevented them /b from selling it. The two parties b came before Rav Kahana /b for a ruling. Rav Kahana b said to them: The i halakha /i is that they may prevent you /b from selling your wares. The wool sellers b said to him: We have debts /b to collect in the city, and we must sell our wares in the meantime to sustain ourselves until we are paid. Rav Kahana b said to them: Go /b and b sell the amount /b needed b to sustain yourselves until you have collected your debts, and /b then b leave. /b ,§ The Gemara relates: b Rav Dimi of Neharde’a brought dried figs on a ship /b to sell them. b The Exilarch said to Rava: Go /b and b see; if he is a Torah scholar, reserve the market for him, /b i.e., declare that he has the exclusive right to sell dried figs. b Rava said to /b his student b Rav Adda bar Abba: Go /b and b smell his jar, /b i.e., determine whether or not Rav Dimi is a Torah scholar.,Rav Adda bar Abba b went /b and b asked /b Rav Dimi a question: With regard to b an elephant that swallowed a wicker basket and excreted it /b intact along b with its waste, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the vessel still susceptible to ritual impurity or is it considered digested and not susceptible to impurity? An answer b was not available to /b Rav Dimi. Rav Dimi b said to /b Rav Adda bar Abba: b Is the Master Rava, /b i.e., are you Rava, as you have asked me such a difficult question? Rav Adda bar Abba b struck him on his shoe /b in a disparaging way and b said to him: There is a great /b difference b between me and Rava; but I am perforce your teacher, and Rava is your teacher’s teacher. /b ,Based on this exchange, Rav Adda bar Abba decided that Rav Dimi was not a great Torah scholar, and therefore b he did not reserve the market for him, and /b Rav Dimi b lost his dried figs, /b as they rotted. Rav Dimi b came before Rav Yosef /b to complain, and b said to him: The Master /b should b see what they did to me. /b Rav Yosef b said to him: He Who did not delay /b retribution for b the humiliation of the King of Edom should not delay /b His response to b your humiliation, /b but should punish whoever distressed you, b as it is written: “So says the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, indeed for four I will not reverse for him, because he burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime” /b (Amos 2:1).,The Gemara reports that b Rav Adda bar Abba died. Rav Yosef said: I punished him, /b i.e., I am to blame for his death, b as I cursed him. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: I punished him, as he caused my loss of dried figs. Abaye said: I punished him, /b i.e., he was punished on my account because he did not exhibit the proper respect for me. b As /b Rav Adda bar Abba b said to the Sages: Instead of gnawing the bones in the school of Abaye, you /b would do b better /b to b eat fatty meat in the school of Rava, /b i.e., it is preferable to study with Rava than with Abaye. b And Rava said: I punished him, as when he would go to the butcher to buy a piece of meat, he would say to the butchers: I will take meat before Rava’s servant, as I am greater than he is. /b , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I punished him, /b i.e., he was punished because of me, b as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the head of the i kalla /i /b lectures, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach the students immediately following the lesson taught by the head of the academy. b Every day, before he went in for the i kalla /i /b lecture, b he reviewed his lecture with Rav Adda bar Abba, and then he would enter /b the study hall b for the i kalla /i /b lecture.,On b that day Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, seized Rav Adda bar Abba, because they had not been present at the conclusion /b of Rava’s lecture. b They said to him: Tell us how Rava stated these i halakhot /i of animal tithe. /b Rav Adda bar Abba b said to them: Rava said this and Rava said that. Meanwhile, it grew late for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and Rav Adda bar Abba /b had b not /b yet b arrived. /b , b The Sages said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Arise /b and teach us, b as it is late for us. Why does the Master sit /b and wait? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak b said to them: I am sitting and waiting for the bier of Rav Adda bar Abba, /b who has presumably died. b Meanwhile, a rumor emerged that Rav Adda bar Abba had /b indeed b died. /b The Gemara comments: b And so too, it is reasonable /b to conclude that b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak punished him, /b i.e., he died as a result of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, as the unfortunate event occurred just as he announced that Rav Adda bar Abba’s bier was on its way., strong MISHNA: /strong b One whose wall was close to the wall of another may not /b build b another wall close /b to the neighbor’s wall b unless he distances it four cubits from /b the wall of the neighbor. And one who desires to build a wall opposite b the windows /b of a neighbor’s house must distance the wall b four cubits /b from the windows, b whether above, below, or opposite. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara comments: Before addressing the construction of the second wall, one could ask: b And /b with regard to the b first /b man, b how did he place /b his wall b close /b to the neighbor’s wall in the first place? b Rav Yehuda said /b that b this is what /b the i tanna /i b is saying: /b |
|
102. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 142, 169| 52b. טהורות,א"ר יצחק (נפחא) בבאין מנוי אדם לנוי בהמה,ורב יוסף אמר הואיל ואדם מושך בהם את הבהמה מי לא תניא מקל של בהמה של מתכת מקבל טומאה מה טעם הואיל ואדם רודה בהן ה"נ הואיל ואדם מושך בהן:,וטובלן במקומן: והאיכא חציצה,א"ר אמי בשריתכן,לימא ר' אמי כרב יוסף סבירא ליה דאי כר' יצחק (נפחא) דאמר בבאין מנוי אדם לנוי בהמה כיון דריתכן עבד בהו מעשה ופרחה לה טומאה מינייהו,דתנן כל הכלים יורדין לידי טומאתן במחשבה ואין עולין מטומאתן אלא בשינוי מעשה,סבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר מעשה לתקן לאו מעשה הוא דתניא ר' יהודה אומר לא אמר שינוי מעשה לתקן אלא לקלקל,במתניתא תני במחוללין,שאל תלמיד אחד מגליל העליון את ר"א שמעתי שחולקין בין טבעת לטבעת אמר לו שמא לא שמעת אלא לענין שבת דאי לענין טומאה דא ודא חדא היא,ולענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן טבעת אדם טמאה וטבעת בהמה וכלים ושאר כל הטבעות טהורות כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי דאדם קאמר ליה,ודאדם דא ודא אחת היא והתניא טבעת שהתקינה לחגור בה מתניו ולקשר בה בין כתפיו טהורה ולא אמרו טמאה אלא של אצבע בלבד כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי דאצבע קאמר ליה,ודאצבע דא ודא אחת היא והתנן טבעת של מתכת וחותמה של אלמוג טמאה היא של אלמוג וחותמה של מתכת טהורה כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי כולה של מתכת קאמר ליה,ועוד שאל שמעתי שחולקין בין מחט למחט אמר ליה שמא לא שמעת אלא לענין שבת דאי לענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא,ולענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן מחט שניטל חורה או עוקצה טהורה כי קאמר ליה בשלימה,ובשלימה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן מחט שהעלתה חלודה אם מעכב את התפירה טהורה ואם לאו טמאה ואמרי דבי ר' ינאי והוא שרישומה ניכר כי קאמר ליה בשיפא קאמר לי',ובשיפא דא ודא אחת היא והתניא מחט בין נקובה בין אינה נקובה מותר לטלטלה בשבת ולא אמרינן נקובה אלא לענין טומאה בלבד,הא תרגמא אביי אליבא דרבא בגלמי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חמור יוצא במרדעת בזמן שהיא קשורה בו זכרים יוצאין לבובין רחלות יוצאות שחוזות כבולות וכבונות העזים יוצאות צרורות רבי יוסי אוסר בכולן חוץ מן הרחלין הכבונות,רבי יהודה אומר עזים יוצאות צרורות ליבש אבל לא לחלב: | 52b. are b ritually pure. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: /b Our mishna is referring to ornaments that were b transformed from /b their original designation for b a person’s adornment to /b an ornament designated for b an animal’s adornment. /b They had once belonged to a person who later affixed them in order to attach a strap to an animal. Their original ritual impurity does not cease when they are attached to the animal., b And Rav Yosef said: /b Animals’ rings can become ritually impure b since a person pulls his animal with them. /b Consequently, they are considered utensils used by people. b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The metal animal prod becomes ritually impure? What is the reason /b that it becomes ritually impure even though it is an animal’s utensil? b Since a person subjugates /b his animal b with it, /b it is regarded as a utensil for use by a person; therefore, it can become ritually impure. b Here too /b , with regard to chains, b since a person pulls /b his animal b with them, /b they are regarded as utensils for use by a person.,And we learned in our mishna: If the animals’ chains became ritually impure, b one may immerse them while they are in their place /b on the animal, and they need not first be removed. The Gemara raises a question: b Isn’t this an obstruction /b that renders the immersion invalid? The rings of the chain are firmly attached to the chain, and there is no room for the water of the ritual bath to completely surround the chain., b Rabbi Ami said: /b The mishna is referring to a case where b he struck /b the rings of the chain with a hammer, widening them and thereby creating sufficient space to allow the water to surround the chain on all sides.,The Gemara asks: b Let us say /b that b Rabbi Ami holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Yosef. As, if /b he held b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, /b who b said /b that our mishna is referring to ornaments that were b transformed from /b their original designation for b a person’s adornment /b to an ornament designated for b an animal’s adornment, /b and therefore they can be ritually impure with impurity contracted while it was still a person’s ornament, it is difficult. b Since he struck /b the chain, b he performed an action /b which altered b its /b identity, b and the impurity would have ceased /b even without immersion., b As we learned /b in a mishna: b All vessels descend into their /b state of b ritual impurity by means of thought. /b Even though an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to complete it, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. b However, they only ascend from their /b state of b ritual impurity by means of a change /b resulting from an b action. /b A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change. Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.,The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, Rabbi Ami could interpret the mishna just as Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa did, as he b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who b said /b that b an action /b performed b to enhance /b a utensil b is not an action /b capable of ridding that utensil of its ritual impurity, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b He b did not say /b that b an action that effects a /b physical b change /b purifies a utensil of its ritual impurity with regard to an action performed b to enhance /b a utensil; b rather, /b he made his statement with regard to an action performed b to ruin /b the utensil., b It was taught in a i baraita /i : /b The mishna is referring to a case where the rings attached to the chain are well b spaced /b so that the water completely surrounds the rings of the chain with no obstruction.,It was taught in the i Tosefta /i : b A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between /b one type of b ring and /b another type of b ring. /b However, I do not know with regard to what i halakha /i this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Perhaps you only heard /b that distinction with regard b to the matter of Shabbat; /b a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not. b As, /b with regard b to the matter of ritual impurity, this /b ring b and that /b ring b are one /b and the same, and there is no distinction between them.,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b with regard b to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one /b and the same? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b A ring /b worn by b a person is ritually impure; however, the ring of an animal, and /b that of b utensils, and all other rings /b not worn by people b are ritually pure? /b Apparently, a distinction is made between different types of rings with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity as well. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he too was saying to him /b that with regard to ritual impurity there is no distinction between different types b of /b rings worn by b a person. /b ,The Gemara raises another objection: b And /b with regard b to /b rings worn by b a person /b , b are this and that one /b and the same? b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A ring that one fashioned /b into a buckle at the end of a belt b to wear it around his waist, or /b into a clasp b to tie /b garments b between his shoulders, is ritually pure? /b The Sages b only said /b that a ring is b ritually impure /b with regard to a ring b worn on a /b person’s b finger. /b Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between different rings worn by a person. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he too was saying to him /b that there is no distinction between different types of rings worn on a person’s b finger. /b ,The Gemara raises yet another objection: b And /b with regard b to /b rings worn on a person’s b finger, are this and that one /b and the same? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b A ring /b made b of metal and its seal /b is made b of coral, is ritually impure? /b The primary component of the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can become ritually impure. However, a ring that is made b of coral and its seal is /b made b of metal is ritually pure. /b Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he too was saying to him /b that there is no distinction between different types of rings b that /b are made b entirely of metal. /b , b And furthermore, /b that same disciple b asked: I heard that one distinguishes between /b one type of b needle and /b another type of b needle. /b Still, I do not know with regard to what i halakha /i this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Perhaps you only heard /b that distinction b with regard to Shabbat. /b With regard to the prohibition of carrying from a private to a public domain, or vice versa, there is a distinction between a needle with an eye, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one without an eye, for which one is not. b As, if /b you were to suggest that the distinction is b with regard to ritual impurity, this, /b a needle with an eye, b and that, /b a needle without an eye, b are one /b and the same, and there is no distinction between them.,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b with regard b to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one /b and the same? Are all needles alike? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b A needle whose eye or whose point was removed is ritually pure, /b as it is no longer fit for use? Apparently, there is a distinction between an intact needle and a broken one with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, he was referring b to a whole /b needle. Indeed, there is no distinction between different types of whole needles with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity.,The Gemara raises another objection: b And with regard to whole /b needles, b are this and that one /b and the same? Is there no distinction between them? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: With regard to b a needle that became rusty /b ; b if /b the rust b inhibits the sewing, /b the needle b is ritually pure; and if /b it does b not /b inhibit the sewing, b it is ritually impure. And the /b Sages b of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is /b the i halakha /i that the needle cannot become ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle through the fabric, but even b when /b the b mark /b of rusty needle is b conspicuous /b in the stitching. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of whole needles. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he was saying to him /b that there is no distinction between different types b of /b needles that were b smoothed /b and filed. He was not referring to rusty needles.,The Gemara raises yet another objection: b And with regard to smoothed /b needles, b are this and that one /b and the same? b Wasn’t it taught in /b a i baraita /i : b A needle, whether it has an eye /b and b whether it does not have an eye, may be moved on Shabbat? And we only said /b that a needle b with an eye /b is different b with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b ritual impurity. /b Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity.,The Gemara answers: b Didn’t Abaye /b already b interpret /b that i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rava /b as referring b to unfinished /b needles? If a needle is unfinished, and it has not been perforated to create an eye, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not yet a utensil. However, if the needle is finished, whether it has an eye and is used for sewing, or it does not have an eye and is used as a pin, it is regarded as a utensil and therefore can become ritually impure., strong MISHNA: /strong b A donkey may go out /b on Shabbat b with a saddlecloth /b that protects it from the cold b when it is tied to /b the animal, and there is no room for concern lest it fall. b Rams may go out i levuvin /i . Ewes may go out i sheḥuzot, kevulot, /i and i kevunot /i /b . All of these terms are discussed and explained in the Gemara. b She-goats may go out /b with their udders b bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits /b the animals from going out b with all /b of b these /b items, as he considers them burdens, b except for the ewes that are i kevunot /i . /b , b Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out /b on Shabbat with their udders b bound to dry /b their milk supply and discontinue their lactation, in order to facilitate conception. In that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot, and there is no concern lest it fall in the public domain. b However, /b they may b not /b go out with their udders bound b to /b conserve their b milk, /b as in that case they are bound loosely. |
|
103. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 27, 30| 117a. אי דינא אי קנסא א"ל אי דינא גמרינן מיניה אי קנסא לא גמרינן מיניה,ומנא תימרא דמקנסא לא גמרינן דתניא בראשונה היו אומרים המטמא והמנסך חזרו לומר אף המדמע,חזרו אין לא חזרו לא מאי טעמא לאו משום דקנסא הוא וקנסא לא גמרינן מיניה,לא מעיקרא סברי להפסד מרובה חששו להפסד מועט לא חששו ולבסוף סברי להפסד מועט נמי חששו,איני והא תני אבוה דרבי אבין בראשונה היו אומרים המטמא והמדמע חזרו לומר אף המנסך חזרו אין לא חזרו לא,מאי טעמא לאו משום דלא גמרינן מקנסא,לא מעיקרא סברי כרבי אבין ולבסוף סברי כרבי ירמיה,מעיקרא סברי כרבי אבין דאמר רבי אבין זרק חץ מתחילת ארבע ולבסוף ארבע וקרע שיראין בהליכתו פטור שהרי עקירה צורך הנחה היא ומתחייב בנפשו,ולבסוף סברי כר' ירמיה דא"ר ירמיה משעת הגבהה קנייה איחייב ליה ממון מתחייב בנפשו לא הוי עד שעת ניסוך,רב הונא בר יהודה איקלע לבי אביוני אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל כלום מעשה בא לידך א"ל ישראל שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והראה ממון חבירו בא לידי וחייבתיו,א"ל אהדר עובדא למריה דתני ישראל שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והראה ממון חבירו פטור ואם נטל ונתן ביד חייב,אמר רבה אם הראה מעצמו כנשא ונתן ביד דמי,ההוא גברא דאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים ואחוי אחמרא דרב מרי בריה דרב פנחס בריה דרב חסדא א"ל דרי ואמטי בהדן דרא ואמטי בהדייהו אתא לקמיה דרב אשי פטריניה,א"ל רבנן לרב אשי והתניא אם נשא ונתן ביד חייב א"ל הני מילי היכא דלא אוקמיה עילויה מעיקרא אבל היכא דאוקמיה עילויה מעיקרא מיקלי קלייה,איתיביה רבי אבהו לרב אשי אמר לו אנס הושיט לי פקיע עמיר זה או אשכול ענבים זה והושיט לו חייב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דקאי בתרי עברי נהרא,דיקא נמי דקתני הושיט ולא תני תן ש"מ:,ההוא שותא דהוו מנצו עלה בי תרי האי אמר דידי הוא והאי אמר דידי הוא אזל חד מנייהו ומסרה לפרהגנא דמלכא אמר אביי יכול לומר אנא כי מסרי דידי מסרי א"ל רבא וכל כמיניה אלא אמר רבא משמתינן ליה עד דמייתי ליה וקאי בדינא,ההוא גברא דהוה בעי אחוויי אתיבנא דחבריה אתא לקמיה דרב א"ל לא תחוי ולא תחוי א"ל מחוינא ומחוינא יתיב רב כהנא קמיה דרב שמטיה לקועיה מיניה,קרי רב עילויה (ישעיהו נא, כ) בניך עולפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא מכמר מה תוא זה כיון שנפל במכמר אין מרחמין עליו אף ממון של ישראל כיון שנפל ביד עובדי כוכבים אין מרחמין עליו,א"ל רב כהנא עד האידנא הוו פרסאי דלא קפדי אשפיכות דמים והשתא איכא יוונאי דקפדו אשפיכות דמים ואמרי מרדין מרדין קום סק לארעא דישראל וקביל עלך דלא תקשי לרבי יוחנן שבע שנין,אזיל אשכחיה לריש לקיש דיתיב וקא מסיים מתיבתא דיומא לרבנן אמר להו ריש לקיש היכא אמרו ליה אמאי אמר להו האי קושיא והאי קושיא והאי פירוקא והאי פירוקא אמרו ליה לריש לקיש אזל ריש לקיש א"ל לרבי יוחנן ארי עלה מבבל לעיין מר במתיבתא דלמחר,למחר אותבוה בדרא קמא קמיה דר' יוחנן אמר שמעתתא ולא אקשי שמעתתא ולא אקשי אנחתיה אחורי שבע דרי עד דאותביה בדרא בתרא א"ל רבי יוחנן לר"ש בן לקיש ארי שאמרת נעשה שועל,אמר יהא רעוא דהני שבע דרי להוו חילוף שבע שנין דאמר לי רב קם אכרעיה א"ל נהדר מר ברישא אמר שמעתתא ואקשי אוקמיה בדרא קמא אמר שמעתתא ואקשי,ר' יוחנן הוה יתיב אשבע בסתרקי שלפי ליה חדא בסתרקא מתותיה אמר שמעתתא ואקשי ליה עד דשלפי ליה כולהו בסתרקי מתותיה עד דיתיב על ארעא רבי יוחנן גברא סבא הוה ומסרחי גביניה אמר להו דלו לי עיני ואחזייה דלו ליה במכחלתא דכספא,חזא דפרטיה שפוותיה סבר אחוך קמחייך ביה חלש דעתיה ונח נפשיה למחר אמר להו רבי יוחנן לרבנן חזיתו לבבלאה היכי עביד אמרו ליה דרכיה הכי על לגבי מערתא חזא דהוה | 117a. b if /b it is b the i halakha /i /b or b if /b it is b a fine? /b Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya b said to him: If /b it is b the i halakha /i , we learn from it /b and apply this ruling to other cases, but b if /b it is b a fine, we do not learn from it, /b as it is possible that Rav Naḥman had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.,The Gemara asks: b And from where do you say that we do not learn from /b the imposition of b a fine /b in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Initially, /b the Sages b would say /b that b one who renders /b another’s food b ritually impure, /b thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, b and one who pours /b another’s wine as b a libation /b for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the ficial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. b Subsequently, /b they added to this list, b to say /b that b even one who intermingles /b i teruma /i , the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another’s non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.,The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the i baraita /i that it is only because the Sages b subsequently /b added to the list that b yes, /b one who intermingles i teruma /i with another’s non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if b they had not subsequently /b added to the list, he would b not /b be liable. b What is the reason /b that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? b Is it not due to /b the fact that his payment b is a fine, and /b with regard to b a fine, we do not learn from /b one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?,The Gemara answers: b No, /b this is not the reason. Rather, b initially /b the Sages b maintained /b that they b were concerned /b with regard b to a large /b ficial b loss, /b e.g., the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard b to a small /b ficial b loss, /b e.g., one who intermingles i teruma /i with another’s non-sacred produce, b they were not concerned. And ultimately /b the Sages b maintained /b that they b were concerned /b with regard b to a small loss as well /b and imposed liability.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But didn’t the father of Rabbi Avin teach /b the i baraita /i as follows: b Initially they would say /b that b one who renders /b another’s produce b impure and one who intermingles /b i teruma /i with another’s non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the ficial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. b Subsequently, /b they added to this list, b to say /b that b even one who pours /b another’s wine as b a libation /b for idol worship is b also /b liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages b subsequently /b added to the list, that b yes, /b one who pours the libation is liable. But if b they had not subsequently /b added to the list, he would b not /b be liable.,The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large ficial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the i baraita /i . Accordingly, b what is the reason /b that the liability for pouring another’s wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another’s food impure or intermingling it with i teruma /i ? Is it b not due to /b the fact that b we do not learn from /b the imposition of b a fine /b in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?,The Gemara answers: b No, /b this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that b initially /b the Sages b held in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yirmeya. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b Initially they held in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says: /b If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and b shot an arrow from the beginning of /b an area measuring b four /b cubits b to the end of /b an area measuring b four /b cubits, b and /b the arrow b tore /b another’s b silks [ i shira’in /i ] in /b the course of b its travel /b through the air, the one who threw it is b exempt /b from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is b that lifting /b an item b is a necessity for placing /b it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is b liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine., b And ultimately they held /b that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting, /b the thief b acquires /b the wine and is therefore immediately b liable /b to pay b money to /b the owner. But b he is not liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty b until the time /b that he pours the b libation. /b Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.,§ The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another’s field to thugs. b Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened /b to come b to /b the town of b Bei Abiyonei /b and b came before Rava, /b who b said to him: Did any /b legal b incident come to you /b for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda b said to him: /b There was a case of b a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, /b as a result b he showed /b them b property /b belonging to b another, /b which the gentiles later seized. He b came to me /b for judgment, b and I deemed /b him b liable /b to compensate the owner for the loss.,Rava b said to /b Rav Huna bar Yehuda: b Reverse /b your decision in this b case /b and return the money b to its owner, /b i.e., the thug, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, /b as a result b he showed /b them b property /b belonging to b another /b that the gentiles later seized, he is b exempt /b from reimbursing the owner of the property. b But if he /b actively b took /b the property b and gave /b it to the gentiles b by /b his own b hand, /b he is b liable /b to compensate the owner.,The Gemara adds that b Rabba says: If he showed /b the gentiles the property b of his own /b volition, it is b as though he /b actively b took /b the property b and gave /b it to the gentiles b by /b his own b hand, /b and he is liable to compensate the owner.,The Gemara recounts another incident: There was b a certain man that gentiles /b had b coerced and /b so b he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and /b the gentiles b said to him: Carry /b the wine b and bring it with us. /b Complying with the gentiles, b he carried and brought /b it b with them. /b The case b came before Rav Ashi, /b and he b exempted /b the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine., b The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b he b took /b the property b and manually transferred /b it to the gentiles, he is b liable /b to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi b said to them: That statement applies /b only in a case b where /b the Jew b did not bring /b the gentiles b to /b the property b at the outset; but if he brought /b the gentiles b to /b the property b at the outset, /b it is as though b he /b already b burned /b it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands., b Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to /b the opinion of b Rav Ashi /b from a i baraita /i : In a case where b a ruffian said to /b a Jew: b Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and /b the Jew b passed it to him, /b the Jew is b liable /b to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this i baraita /i that one who hands over another’s property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with a case b where /b the Jew and the ruffian were b standing on two /b different b sides of a river, /b so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.,The Gemara points out that the language of the i baraita /i b is also precise /b according to this explanation, b as it teaches /b its ruling using the term: b Pass, /b which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, b and /b it b did not teach /b using the term: b Give, /b which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: b Learn from /b the language of the i baraita /i that Rav Ashi’s interpretation is correct.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain /b fishing b net over which two /b people b were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [ i lefarhagna /i ] of the king. Abaye said: /b He is exempt from payment because b he can say /b to the court: b When I gave /b it to the official, b I gave /b what is b mine. Rava said to /b Abaye: b And is it in his /b power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? b Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings /b the net back b and stands in court /b for adjudication.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain man who desired to show another /b individual’s b straw /b to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. b He came before Rav, /b who b said to him: Do not show /b it b and do not show /b it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man b said to him: I will show /b it b and I will show /b it, i.e., I will certainly show it. b Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, /b and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response, b he dislodged /b the man’s b neck from him, /b i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.,Seeing Rav Kahana’s action, b Rav read /b the following verse b about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” /b (Isaiah 51:20). b Just as /b with regard to b this antelope, once it falls into the net, /b the hunter b does not have mercy upon it, so too /b with regard to b the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, /b i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew’s money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant’s neck, as he protected the Jew’s property and, by extension, the Jew himself., b Rav /b then b said to /b Rav Kahana: b Kahana, until now there were Persian /b rulers b who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they /b will b say: Murder [ i meradin /i ], murder, /b and they will press charges against you. Therefore, b get up /b and b ascend to Eretz Yisrael /b to study there under Rabbi Yoḥa, b and accept upon yourself that you will not raise /b any b difficulties to /b the statements of b Rabbi Yoḥa /b for b seven years. /b ,Rav Kahana b went /b to Eretz Yisrael and b found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing /b Rabbi Yoḥa’s b daily /b lecture in the b academy for the Rabbis, /b i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana b said to /b the students: b Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why /b do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana b said to them: /b I have b this difficulty and that difficulty /b with his review of Rabbi Yoḥa’s lecture, b and this resolution and that resolution /b to the questions he raised. b They told /b this to b Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish /b then b went and said to Rabbi Yoḥa: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, /b and b the Master /b ought b to examine /b the discourse he will deliver b in the academy tomorrow, /b as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material., b The next day, they seated /b Rav Kahana b in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Rabbi Yoḥa b stated a i halakha /i and /b Rav Kahana b did not raise a difficulty, /b in accordance with Rav’s instruction. Rabbi Yoḥa stated another b i halakha /i and /b again, Rav Kahana b did not raise a difficulty. /b As a result, b they placed /b Rav Kahana further b back /b by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back b seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yoḥa said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, /b i.e., he is not knowledgeable.,Rav Kahana b said /b to himself: b May it be /b God’s b will that these seven rows /b I have been moved b should replace the seven years that Rav told me /b to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥa. b He stood up on his feet and said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: Let the b Master go back to the beginning /b of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yoḥa b stated a i halakha /i and /b Rav Kahana b raised a difficulty. /b Therefore, b they placed him in the first row, /b and again, Rav Yoḥa b stated a i halakha /i , and he raised a difficulty. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa was sitting upon seven cushions [ i bistarkei /i ] /b so that he could be seen by all the students, b and /b since he could not answer Rav Kahana’s questions, b he removed one cushion from under himself /b to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then b stated /b another b i halakha /i and /b Rav Kahana b raised /b another b difficulty. /b This happened repeatedly b until /b Rabbi Yoḥa b removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yoḥa was an old man and his eyebrows drooped /b over his eyes. b He said to /b his students: b Uncover my eyes for me and I will see /b Rav Kahana, so b they uncovered /b his eyes b for him with a silver eye brush. /b ,Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yoḥa b saw that /b Rav Kahana’s b lips were split /b and b thought /b that Rav Kahana b was smirking at him. /b As a result, Rabbi Yoḥa b was offended, and /b Rav Kahana b died /b as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yoḥa. b The next day, Rabbi Yoḥa said to the Rabbis, /b his students: b Did you see how that Babylonian, /b Rav Kahana, b behaved /b in such a disrespectful manner? b They said to him: His /b usual b manner /b of appearance b is such, /b and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥa b went up to /b Rav Kahana’s burial b cave /b and b saw /b that b it was /b |
|
104. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 168, 169, 170| 14a. בטלו דיני קנסות מישראל שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזירה על ישראל שכל הסומך יהרג וכל הנסמך יהרג ועיר שסומכין בה תיחרב ותחומין שסומכין בהן יעקרו,מה עשה יהודה בן בבא הלך וישב לו בין שני הרים גדולים ובין שתי עיירות גדולות ובין שני תחומי שבת בין אושא לשפרעם וסמך שם חמשה זקנים ואלו הן ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' שמעון ור' יוסי ור' אלעזר בן שמוע רב אויא מוסיף אף ר' נחמיה,כיון שהכירו אויביהם בהן אמר להן בניי רוצו אמרו לו רבי מה תהא עליך אמר להן הריני מוטל לפניהם כאבן שאין לה הופכים אמרו לא זזו משם עד שנעצו בו שלש מאות לונביאות של ברזל ועשאוהו ככברה,רבי יהודה בן בבא אחריני הוו בהדיה והאי דלא חשיב להו משום כבודו דרבי יהודה בן בבא ור"מ ר' יהודה בן בבא סמכיה והא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל האומר ר"מ לא סמכו ר' עקיבא אינו אלא טועה סמכיה ר' עקיבא ולא קיבלו סמכיה ר' יהודה בן בבא וקיבלו,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אין סמיכה בחוצה לארץ מאי אין סמיכה אילימא דלא דייני דיני קנסות כלל בחוצה לארץ והא תנן סנהדרין נוהגת בין בארץ ובין בחוצה לארץ אלא דלא סמכינן בחוצה לארץ,פשיטא סומכין בחוצה לארץ ונסמכין בארץ הא אמרינן דלא אלא סומכין בארץ ונסמכין בחוצה לארץ מאי,ת"ש דרבי יוחנן הוה מצטער עליה דרב שמן בר אבא דלא הוה גבייהו דליסמכיה ר"ש בן זירוד וחד דעימיה ומנו ר' יונתן בן עכמאי ואמרי לה רבי יונתן בן עכמאי וחד דעימיה ומנו ר"ש בן זירוד חד דהוה גבייהו סמכוהו וחד דלא הוה גבייהו לא סמכוהו,ר' חנינא ורבי הושעיא הוה קא משתקיד רבי יוחנן למיסמכינהו לא הוה מסתייעא מילתא הוה קא מצטער טובא אמרו ליה לא נצטער מר דאנן מדבית עלי קאתינן,דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן מניין שאין נסמכין לבית עלי שנאמר (שמואל א ב, לב) לא יהיה זקן בביתך כל הימים מאי זקן אילימא זקן ממש והכתיב (שמואל א ב, לג) כל מרבית ביתך ימותו אנשים אלא סמיכה,רבי זירא הוה מיטמר למיסמכיה דאמר רבי אלעזר לעולם הוי קבל וקיים כיון דשמעה להא דא"ר אלעזר אין אדם עולה לגדולה אלא א"כ מוחלין לו על כל עונותיו אמצי ליה אנפשיה,כי סמכוה לר' זירא שרו ליה הכי לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן כי סמכוה לרבי אמי ולרבי אסי שרו להו הכי כל מן דין כל מן דין סמוכו לנא לא תסמכו לנא לא מסרמיטין ולא מסרמיסין ואמרי לה לא מחמיסין ולא מטורמיסין,ר' אבהו כי הוה אתי ממתיבתא לבי קיסר נפקי מטרוניתא דבי קיסר ומשריין ליה רבה דעמיה מדברנא דאומתיה בוצינא דנהורא בריך מתייך לשלם:,עריפת עגלה בשלשה: ת"ר (דברים כא, ב) ויצאו זקניך ושופטיך זקניך שנים שופטיך שנים ואין ב"ד שקול מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד הרי כאן חמשה דברי ר' יהודה רבי שמעון אומר זקניך שנים ואין ב"ד שקול מוסיפין עליהם עוד אחד הרי כאן שלשה,ור"ש האי שופטיך מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה למיוחדין שבשופטיך ור' יהודה מזקני זקניך נפקא,ור"ש אי מזקני הוה אמינא זקני השוק כתב רחמנא זקניך ואי כתיב זקניך הוה אמינא סנהדרי קטנה כתב רחמנא ושופטיך ממיוחדין שבשופטיך ורבי יהודה גמר זקני זקני מוסמכו זקני העדה את ידיהם מה להלן מיוחדין שבעדה אף כאן מיוחדין שבזקניך,אי יליף לילף כולה מהתם זקניך ושופטיך למה לי אלא וי"ו ושופטיך למניינא ורבי שמעון וי"ו לא דריש,אלא מעתה ויצאו שנים ומדדו שנים לרבי יהודה הרי תשעה לרבי שמעון שבעה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ויצאו הן ולא שלוחן ומדדו שאפילו נמצא | 14a. b the laws of fines would have ceased /b to be implemented b from /b among b the Jewish people, /b as they would not have been able to adjudicate cases involving these laws due to a lack of ordained judges. This is b because /b at b one time the wicked kingdom /b of Rome b issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people /b with the aim of abolishing the chain of ordination and the authority of the Sages. They said b that anyone who ordains /b judges b will be killed, and anyone who is ordained will be killed, and the city in which they ordain /b the judges b will be destroyed, and /b the signs identifying b the boundaries /b of the city b in which they ordain /b judges b will be uprooted. /b These measures were intended to discourage the Sages from performing or receiving ordination due to fear for the welfare of the local population., b What did /b Rabbi b Yehuda ben Bava do? He went and sat between two large mountains, between two large cities, and between two Shabbat boundaries: Between Usha and Shefaram, /b i.e., in a desolate place that was not associated with any particular city so that he not endanger anyone not directly involved, b and there he ordained five elders. And they were: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Rav Avya adds /b that b Rabbi Neḥemya /b was b also /b among those ordained. This incident indicates that ordination can be performed by a single Sage., b When their enemies discovered them, /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava b said to /b the newly ordained Sages: b My sons, run /b for your lives. b They said to him: My teacher, what will be with you? /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was elderly and unable to run. He b said to them: /b In any case, b I am cast before them like a stone that cannot be overturned; /b even if you attempt to assist me I will not be able to escape due to my frailty, but if you do not escape without me you will also be killed. People b say /b about this incident: The Roman soldiers b did not move from there until they had inserted three hundred iron spears /b [ b i lunkhiyot /i /b ] b into him, making him /b appear b like a sieve /b pierced with many holes.,This proof is refuted: There may b have been other /b Sages performing the ordination b with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, /b who were added in order to reach the quota of three Sages, b and this /b fact b that they were not mentioned is due to the honor of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, /b who was the greatest among them. The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b Rabbi Meir, /b did b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava /b actually b ordain him? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Anyone who says that Rabbi Akiva did not ordain Rabbi Meir is nothing other than mistaken. /b The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Akiva /b in fact b ordained /b Rabbi Meir, b but /b the people b did not accept /b the appointment, as Rabbi Meir was still very young. Therefore, some time later, b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava ordained him /b a second time, b and they accepted it. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There is no ordination outside of Eretz /b Yisrael. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b There is no ordination? If we say that they may not adjudicate /b cases involving b laws of fines at all outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, that is difficult: b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Makkot /i 7a): The b Sanhedrin /b and its authority b functions both in Eretz /b Yisrael b and outside of Eretz /b Yisrael? b Rather, /b the intention is b that we do not ordain /b judges b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael.,The Gemara comments: It is b obvious /b that if b those ordaining /b the new judges were b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b and those being ordained /b were b inside Eretz /b Yisrael, b we say that /b they may b not /b perform the ordination. b But /b if b those ordaining /b the new judges were b inside Eretz /b Yisrael, b and those being ordained /b were b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? May ordination be conferred from a distance in this situation?,The Gemara clarifies: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to the dilemma from the fact b that Rabbi Yoḥa was distressed concerning Rav Shemen bar Abba, as /b the latter b was not with /b the other Sages at the time they received the consent of the i Nasi /i b so that /b Rabbi Yoḥa b could ordain him. /b In addition, concerning b Rabbi Shimon ben Zeirud and one who was with him, /b the Gemara interjects: b And who is he? Rabbi Yoḥa ben Akhmai. And some say /b that it was b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Akhmai and one who was with him; /b the Gemara interjects: b And who is he? Rabbi Shimon ben Zeirud. /b The Gemara continues: Although these two Sages were equal in stature, the Sages b ordained /b only the b one who was with them /b in Eretz Yisrael, b and they did not ordain /b the other b one, who was not with them. /b This indicates that ordination can be granted only in Eretz Yisrael.,The Gemara relates several other incidents with regard to ordination. b Rabbi Yoḥa persistently tried to ordain Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Hoshaya, /b as they were scholars and righteous people. But b he was not successful /b with regard to b the matter, /b as various incidents repeatedly interfered with his plan, and b he was very distressed /b about this. b They said to him: Do not be distressed, /b our b Master, as we come from, /b i.e., are descendants of, b the house of /b the High Priest b Eli. /b , b As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says /b that b Rabbi Yonatan says: From where /b is it known b that there /b are b not /b to be b ordained /b Sages b from the house of Eli? As it is stated /b with regard to the house of Eli: b “And there shall not be an elder in your house forever” /b (I Samuel 2:32). The Gemara explains: b What /b is the meaning of b “elder” /b in this verse? b If we say /b it means b an actual elder, /b meaning an old person, b but isn’t it /b already b written: “And all those raised in your house shall die young men” /b (I Samuel 2:33)? b Rather, /b the term “elder” is an honorary term for a Sage, and it means that b ordination /b will not be granted to descendants of the House of Eli.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Zeira would /b habitually b hide /b himself b so /b that b they would /b not b ordain him. /b He did this due to the fact b that Rabbi Elazar said: Always be obscure and /b remain b alive, /b meaning the more humble and unknown you make yourself, the longer you will live. b When he heard that /b which b Rabbi Elazar /b also b said: A person does not rise to greatness unless all his sins are forgiven, /b he understood that there are also benefits to greatness, and b he presented himself /b to the i Nasi /i in order that he would ordain him.,The Gemara relates: b When they ordained Rabbi Zeira /b the Sages who were present at the ceremony b sang to him this /b paean of praise traditionally sung to a bride at her wedding: She wears b no blue eye shadow and no rouge /b on her face b and no hair dye, and /b nevertheless b she radiates grace. /b The bride is described as so beautiful that she does not need any cosmetics or adornments, and metaphorically Rabbi Zeira is praised as exceptionally and recognizably qualified for his appointment. Similarly, b when they ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, they sang to them this /b paean of praise: b Anyone like these, anyone like these, ordain for us, /b as they epitomized the ideal candidate for ordination. But b do not ordain for us /b those counted b among the rags [ i misarmitin /i ] or among the distorters [ i misarmisin /i ]. And some say /b that they said: Do b not /b ordain for us those counted b among the robbers [ i meḥamisin /i ] or among the tramplers [ i miturmisin /i ]. /b ,Since the songs composed for various Sages were mentioned, the Gemara also recounts that b when Rabbi Abbahu would come from the yeshiva to the house of the emperor, the ladies from the emperor’s house would go out and sing before him: O great one of his people, leader of his nation, illuminating candle, may your arrival be blessed in peace. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b the breaking of the heifer’s neck /b is performed b in /b front of a panel of b three /b judges, and that Rabbi Yehuda says there must be five judges. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And your elders and your judges shall go out /b and they shall measure to the cities that are around the corpse” (Deuteronomy 21:2). b “Your elders” /b is in the plural, which indicates a minimum of b two, /b and b “your judges” /b is also plural, indicating another b two, and /b as b a court may not /b be composed of b an even /b number of judges, b they add an additional one to them, /b so b there are five /b judges b here; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: “Your elders,” /b indicate b two, and /b as b a court may not /b be composed of b an even /b number of judges, b they add an additional one to them, /b so b there are three /b judges b here. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b according to b Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with this /b extra expression: b “Your judges”? /b The Gemara answers: b He requires it to /b teach that these judges must be of b the unique ones among your judges, /b meaning that they must be members of the Sanhedrin. The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Yehuda /b derive the i halakha /i that the judges must be members of the Sanhedrin? He b derives /b it b from /b the fact that the verse did not merely state: b “Elders,” /b but rather: b “Your elders,” /b which indicates the elders that are unique to all of the Jewish people, meaning the Sages of the Sanhedrin., b And /b how does b Rabbi Shimon /b respond to this claim? He holds that b had /b the verse written only: b “Elders,” I would say /b that the verse is referring to any b elders /b in b the marketplace /b who are not members of the Sanhedrin. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “Your elders.” And if it was written: “Your elders,” I would say /b that it is referring to members of b a lesser Sanhedrin. /b Therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “And your judges,” /b to indicate that they must be of b the unique ones among your judges. And /b how would b Rabbi Yehuda /b respond to this claim? b He learns /b it by means of a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “elders” /b written in this verse and the word b “elders” /b written in the verse: b “And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands /b on the head of the bull” (Leviticus 4:15). b Just as there /b it is referring to b the unique ones of the congregation, so too here, /b it is referring to b the unique ones among your elders. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If he learns /b this verbal analogy, b he should learn all of it, /b i.e., the entire i halakha /i , including the number of judges as well as their rank, b from there, /b i.e., the verse in Leviticus, and if so b why do I /b need the extra expressions: b “Your elders” /b and: b “And your judges”? Rather, /b certainly he does not accept this verbal analogy. Rather, he holds that the additional letter b i vav /i , /b corresponding to the word “and” in the expression: b “And your judges,” /b is there b for the tally, /b meaning that the expression “your judges” teaches that they must be members of the Great Sanhedrin, and the additional i vav /i serves to add an additional two to the number of judges. b And /b how does b Rabbi Shimon /b respond to that? b He does not expound /b the additional letter b i vav /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b if the verbs in the plural form are each understood as adding an additional two judges, then the expression: b “And they shall go out,” /b in the continuation of the verse (Deuteronomy 21:2) indicates another b two, /b and the expression: b “And they shall measure,” /b adds another b two, /b meaning that according b to Rabbi Yehuda there /b should be b nine /b judges, and according b to Rabbi Shimon, seven. /b The Gemara answers: b He needs this /b exposition b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And they shall go out,” /b to emphasize that b they /b must go out, b and not their agents, /b and the verse states: b “And they shall measure,” /b to teach that this measurement is itself a mitzva, such b that even /b if the corpse b is found /b |
|
105. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 93| 30a. הוה אמינא לשטן גירא בעיניך א"ל רבא לר' נתן בר אמי אדידך על צוארי דבריך משיתסר ועד עשרים ותרתי ואמרי לה מתמני סרי עד עשרים וארבעה,כתנאי (משלי כב, ו) "חנ(ו)ך לנער על פי דרכו" ר' יהודה ורבי נחמיה חד אמר משיתסר ועד עשרים ותרתין וחד אמר מתמני סרי ועד עשרים וארבעה,עד היכן חייב אדם ללמד את בנו תורה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כגון זבולון בן דן שלימדו אבי אביו מקרא ומשנה ותלמוד הלכות ואגדות מיתיבי למדו מקרא אין מלמדו משנה ואמר רבא מקרא זו תורה,כזבולון בן דן ולא כזבולון בן דן כזבולון בן דן שלמדו אבי אביו ולא כזבולון בן דן דאילו התם מקרא משנה ותלמוד הלכות ואגדות ואילו הכא מקרא לבד,ואבי אביו מי מיחייב והתניא (דברים יא, יט) ולמדתם אותם את בניכם ולא בני בניכם ומה אני מקיים (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך לומר לך שכל המלמד את בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו למדו לו ולבנו ולבן בנו עד סוף כל הדורות, הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא ולמדתם אותם את בניכם אין לי אלא בניכם, בני בניכם מנין ת"ל והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך א"כ מה ת"ל בניכם בניכם ולא בנותיכם,אמר ריב"ל כל המלמד את בן בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קבלה מהר סיני שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב (דברים ד, י),רבי חייא בר אבא אשכחיה לריב"ל דשדי דיסנא ארישיה וקא ממטי ליה לינוקא לבי כנישתא א"ל מאי כולי האי א"ל מי זוטר מאי דכתיב והודעתם לבניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב מכאן ואילך רבי חייא בר אבא לא טעים אומצא עד דמקרי לינוקא ומוספיה רבה בר רב הונא לא טעים אומצא עד דמייתי לינוקא לבית מדרשא,אמר רב ספרא משום ר' יהושע בן חנניא מאי דכתיב (דברים ו, ז) ושננתם לבניך אל תקרי ושננתם אלא ושלשתם,לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו שליש במקרא שליש במשנה שליש בתלמוד מי יודע כמה חיי לא צריכא ליומי,לפיכך נקראו ראשונים סופרים שהיו סופרים כל האותיות שבתורה שהיו אומרים וא"ו (ויקרא יא, מב) דגחון חציין של אותיות של ס"ת (ויקרא י, טז) דרש דרש חציין של תיבות (ויקרא יג, לג) "והתגלח" של פסוקים (תהלים פ, יד) יכרסמנה חזיר מיער עי"ן דיער חציין של תהלים (תהלים עח, לח) והוא רחום יכפר עון חציו דפסוקים,בעי רב יוסף וא"ו דגחון מהאי גיסא או מהאי גיסא א"ל ניתי ס"ת ואימנינהו מי לא אמר רבה בר בר חנה לא זזו משם עד שהביאו ספר תורה ומנאום א"ל אינהו בקיאי בחסירות ויתרות אנן לא בקיאינן,בעי רב יוסף והתגלח מהאי גיסא או מהאי גיסא א"ל אביי פסוקי מיהא ליתו לימנוי' בפסוקי נמי לא בקיאינן דכי אתא רב אחא בר אדא אמר במערבא פסקי ליה להאי קרא לתלתא פסוקי (שמות יט, ט) ויאמר ה' אל משה הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן,תנו רבנן חמשת אלפים ושמונה מאות ושמונים ושמונה פסוקים הוו פסוקי ס"ת יתר עליו תהלים שמונה חסר ממנו דברי הימים שמונה,תנו רבנן ושננתם שיהו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך שאם ישאל לך אדם דבר אל תגמגם ותאמר לו אלא אמור לו מיד שנאמר | 30a. b I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, /b i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. b Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, /b i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? b From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four. /b ,The Gemara notes that this is b like /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , /b based on the verse: b “Train a child in the way that he should go” /b (Proverbs 22:6). b Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya /b disagreed about the age in which the verse instructs the parent to educate his child: b One said /b that the verse is referring to the ages b from sixteen until twenty-two, and one said /b it is referring to the ages b from eighteen until twenty-four. /b The dispute concerning the correct age for marriage and the dispute about educating a child are the same, as while a father still has a large measure of influence over his son, he must both teach him and find him a wife.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of a father’s obligation to teach his son Torah. b To what /b extent b is a person obligated to teach his son Torah? Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: /b One should emulate the education of, b for example, Zevulun ben Dan, /b a contemporary of Shmuel, b whose father’s father taught him Bible, Mishna, Talmud, i halakhot /i , and i aggadot /i . The Gemara raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : If a father b taught /b his son b Bible, /b he is b not /b required to b teach him Mishna. And Rava said /b in explanation of this i baraita /i : b Bible is /b the b Torah, /b not the Prophets or Writings, i.e., he is not required to teach him anything else, including Mishna.,The Gemara answers that Shmuel’s statement should be understood as follows: One should teach his son b like Zevulun ben Dan was taught /b in certain aspects, b but not like Zevulun ben Dan /b in other respects. One should teach his son b like Zevulun ben Dan /b in b that his father’s father taught him; but not like Zevulun ben Dan, as there /b he was taught b Bible, Mishna, Talmud, i halakhot /i , and i aggadot /i , while here, /b in this i baraita /i , one is required to teach his son b Bible alone. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But is one’s father’s father obligated /b to teach him Torah? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i , that the verse: b “And you shall teach them to your sons” /b (Deuteronomy 11:19), indicates: b But not your sons’ sons? And how do I realize, /b i.e., understand, the meaning of the verse: b “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9)? This serves b to say to you /b that b whoever teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he taught him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the end of all generations. /b ,The Gemara answers that the i tanna /i of this i baraita /i b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b that i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in another i baraita /i : From the verse b “And you shall teach them to your sons” I have /b derived b only /b that you must teach b your sons. From where do /b I derive that there is an obligation to teach b your sons’ sons? The verse states: “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons.” If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “Your sons” /b (Deuteronomy 11:19), which implies only sons? This limitation teaches: b Your sons, but not your daughters. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Anyone who teaches his son’s son Torah, the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he received it from Mount Sinai, as it is stated: “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons,” and juxtaposed to it /b is the phrase in the verse: b “The day when you stood before the Lord your God in Horeb” /b (Deuteronomy 4:10), as Horeb is Mount Sinai.,The Gemara relates: Once b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba encountered Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b and saw b that he had placed /b an inexpensive b covering on his head and brought /b his b child to the synagogue /b to study. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba b said to him: What /b is the reason for b all this /b fuss, as you are in such a hurry that you do not have time to dress yourself properly? b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Is it insignificant, that which is written: “But make them known to your sons,” and juxtaposed to it /b is the phrase in the verse that states: b “The day when you stood before the Lord your God in Horeb”? /b The Gemara comments: b From this /b moment b onward, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would not taste meat [ i umtza /i ], /b meaning he would not eat breakfast, b before he had read to /b his b child and added to /b the child’s studies from the day before. Similarly, b Rabba bar Rav Huna would not taste meat before he had brought /b his b child to the study hall. /b ,§ b Rav Safra says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “And you shall teach them diligently [ i veshintam /i ] to your sons” /b (Deuteronomy 6:7)? b Do not read /b this as b “ i veshintam /i ,” /b with the root i shin /i , i nun /i , i nun /i , which indicates a repetition. b Rather, /b read it as b i veshillashtam /i , /b with the root i shin /i , i lamed /i , i shin /i , related to the word three, i shalosh /i . This means that one must study, review, and study again, thereby dividing one’s studies into three parts.,In light of this statement, the Sages said that b a person should always divide his years into three /b parts, as follows: b A third for Bible, a third for Mishna, and a third for Talmud. /b The Gemara asks: How can a person divide his life this way? b Who knows the length of his life, /b so that he can calculate how long a third will be? The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary for /b one’s b days, /b i.e., one should divide each day of his life in this manner., b Therefore, /b because they devoted so much time to the Bible, the b first /b Sages b were called: Those who count [ i soferim /i ], /b because b they would count all the letters in the Torah, as they would say /b that the letter b i vav /i /b in the word b “belly [ i gaḥon /i ]” /b (Leviticus 11:42) b is the midpoint of the letters in a Torah scroll. /b The words: b “Diligently inquired [ i darosh darash /i ]” /b (Leviticus 10:16), b are the midpoint of the words /b in a Torah scroll. And the verse that begins with: b “Then he shall be shaven” /b (Leviticus 13:33), is the midpoint b of /b the b verses. /b Similarly, in the expression: b “The boar out of the wood [ i miya’ar /i ] ravages it” /b (Psalms 80:14), b the i ayin /i in /b the word wood b [ i ya’ar /i ] /b is the b midpoint of Psalms, /b with regard to its number of letters. The verse: b “But He, being full of compassion, forgives iniquity” /b (Psalms 78:38), b is the midpoint /b of b verses /b in the book of Psalms., b Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: /b Does the b i vav /i of /b the word b “belly [ i gaḥon /i ]” /b belong b to this side or to this side? /b Is it part of the first or second half of the Torah? The Sages b said to him: Let us bring a Torah scroll and count /b the letters. b Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say /b with regard to a different issue: b They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted /b the letters? Therefore we can do the same. Rav Yosef b said to them: They /b were b experts /b in the b deficient and plene /b forms of words and therefore could count the letters precisely. b We are not experts /b in this regard, and therefore we would be unable to resolve the question even if we were to count the letters.,Similarly, b Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: /b Does the midpoint of the verses in the Torah, which is b “then he shall be shaven,” /b belong b to this side or to this side? Abaye said to him: /b Even if we cannot count the letters, b we can at least bring /b a Torah scroll b to count the verses. /b Rav Yosef explained: b We are not experts about verses either, as when Rav Aḥa bar Adda came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b he said: In the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, b they divide this /b following b verse into three /b separate b verses: “And the Lord said to Moses, behold I come to you in a thick cloud, /b that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever; And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord” (Exodus 19:9). Perhaps there are other verses that we do not know how to divide properly., b The Sages taught: Five thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight verses are the verses in a Torah scroll. Psalms has eight more /b verses b than that, /b and b Chronicles /b has b eight fewer /b verses b than that. /b ,§ b The Sages taught: /b The verse states: b “And you shall teach them diligently [ i veshintam /i ]” /b (Deuteronomy 6:7). The root i shin /i , i nun /i , i nun /i , of i veshintam /i should be understood as meaning sharp, i.e., b that matters of Torah should be sharp /b and clear b in your mouth, /b so b that if a person asks you something, do not stutter /b in uncertainty b and say /b an uncertain response b to him. Rather, answer him immediately, as it is stated: /b |
|
106. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 93| 74b. מידב דייבי,נימא מסייע ליה הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בישולו ומותר מ"ט לאו משום דאמרינן כבולעו כך פולטו,שאני לב דשיע,(איני) והא רבין סבא טפליה ההיא בר גוזלא לרב ואמר ליה אי מעלי טפליה הב לי ואיכול ההיא בסמידא דמפריר,והא רבא איקלע לבי ריש גלותא וטפלו ליה בר אווזא אמר אי לא דחזיתיה דזיג כזוזא חיורא לא אכלי מיניה ואי סלקא דעתך כבולעו כך פולטו מאי איריא כי זיג אפילו כי לא זיג נמי התם בחיורתא דשריר,והילכתא דסמידא בין אסמיק בין לא אסמיק שריא דחיורתא אי זיג כזוזא חיורא שריא אי לא אסיר דשאר קמחים אסמיק אסור לא אסמיק שרי,האי מולייתא מאן דאסר אפילו פומא לתחת ומאן דשרי אפילו פומא לעיל והילכתא מולייתא שרי אפילו פומא לעיל,אומצא ביעי ומיזרקי פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא בכל התורה כולה רב אחא לחומרא ורבינא לקולא והילכתא כרבינא לקולא לבר מהני תלת דרב אחא לקולא ורבינא לחומרא והלכתא כרב אחא לקולא,האי אומצא דאסמיק חתכיה ומלחיה אפילו לקדרה שרי שפדיה בשפודא שרי מידב דייב אחתיה אגומרי פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר מצמית צמית ומאן דשרי מישאב שאיב והלכתא מישאב שאיב,וכן ביעי חתכינהו ומלחינהו אפילו לקדרה שריין תלינהו בשפודא שריין מידב דייב אחתינהו אגומרי פליגי ביה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר מצמית צמית ומאן דשרי מישאב שאיב,וכן מיזרקי חתכיה ומלחיה אפילו לקדרה שרי תלייה בשפודא בית השחיטה לתתאי שרי מידב דאיב אחתיה אגומרי פליגי רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר מצמית צמית ומאן דשרי מישאב שאיב והלכתא מישאב שאיב,האי אומצא דאסמיק חלייה אסיר לא אסמיק חלייה שרי רבינא אמר אפילו לא אסמיק נמי חלייה אסיר אי אפשר דלית בה שורייקי דמא אמר ליה מר בר אמימר לרב אשי אבא מגמע ליה גמועי איכא דאמרי רב אשי גופיה מגמע ליה גמועי,אמר ליה מר בר אמימר לרב אשי אבא האי חלא דחליט ביה חדא זימנא תו לא תאני חליט ביה מאי שנא מחלא מתמהא דחלטינן ביה התם איתיה | 74b. the blood b flows /b out. However, in the case of regular stuffing, which is closed on all sides, there is no way for the blood to drain.,The Gemara suggests further: b Let us say /b that the following mishna b supports him: /b With regard to b the heart /b of an animal, one must b tear it and remove its blood /b before one roasts or cooks it. And if b he did not tear it /b beforehand, b he tears it after it is cooked, /b i.e., roasted, b and it is permitted. What is the reason /b the heart is permitted although there is presumably still blood inside? b Is it not because we say /b that b as it absorbs it, so it emits it, /b and therefore as the heart is roasted the blood is absorbed in the meat and then discharged, so that no blood is left in the meat, and whatever is still inside the hollow part of the heart can be removed when it is torn open? This would support the opinion of Rabba.,The Gemara refutes the proof: b A heart is different /b because b it is smooth /b and does not absorb much blood. However, generally one does not necessarily rely on the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? Didn’t Ravin the Elder wrap a particular young dove in dough for Rav /b and roast it, b and /b Rav b said to him: If its dough /b tastes b good, give me /b some b and I will eat? /b Apparently, according to Rav, although the breading absorbed blood, it also certainly discharged it during the roasting. The Gemara refutes this point: b That /b incident involved b fine flour [ i semida /i ], which is crumbly /b and allows the blood to flow through it.,The Gemara asks: b Didn’t Rava happen /b to come b to the house of the Exilarch, and they breaded a young goose for him, /b and b he said: If I had not seen that /b the breading b is /b as b clear as a white, /b i.e., new, b coin, I /b would b not eat from it /b out of concern that it absorbed some of the blood? b And if it should enter your mind /b to accept the principle that b as it absorbs it so it emits it, why /b note that he ate it b particularly because it was clear? Even if it was not clear, /b it should b also /b be permitted. The Gemara responds: b There, /b it was talking about b white /b flour, b which is firm /b and does not allow the blood to pass through; Rava ate it only because its color indicated that no blood remained in the breading.,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is /b that if one makes the breading b of fine flour, whether it turned red /b from blood b or did not turn red, it is permitted. /b The following rule applies to breading b of white /b flour: b If it is clear like a white coin, it is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. /b With regard to breading b of other /b types of b flour, /b which are not especially firm or crumbly, if the breading b turned red, it is prohibited; /b if b it did not turn red, it is permitted. /b ,With regard to b this /b meat b stuffing /b in an animal: b The one who prohibits /b one to eat it, Abaye, does so b even /b if b the opening /b is facing b downward, /b allowing the blood to escape more easily. b And the one who permits /b one to eat it, Rabba, does so b even /b if b the opening /b is facing b upward. /b The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is that stuffing is permitted even /b if b the opening /b is facing b upward, /b in accordance with the lenient opinion.,The Gemara quotes a further discussion concerning the topic of blood absorbed in meat and the preparation of meat permitted for eating. The Gemara addresses three cases: b Raw meat [ i umtza /i ] /b that is eaten without being salted, b testicles /b of an animal, b and /b the large b veins /b of the neck. b Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this. /b The Gemara points out: b In all /b their discussions about b the Torah, /b whenever there is a dispute between them and there is no explanation as to which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of b Rav Aḥa is stringent and /b the opinion of b Ravina is lenient, and the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Ravina to be lenient. /b This applies to all their disputes b except for these three, /b in which b Rav Aḥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Aḥa to be lenient. /b ,The Gemara explains: With regard to b this /b piece of b raw meat that became red /b from the blood inside it, if b one cut it and salted it, /b it is b permitted even to /b cook them in b a pot /b because it is clear that salt removes blood from meat. If one b put it on a spit /b in order to roast it, b it is permitted /b because the blood b flows /b out. With regard to a case where one b placed it on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about /b the i halakha /i in b this /b case; b one prohibited /b it b and one permitted /b it. b The one who prohibited /b it reasoned that the coals cause the meat b to shrivel /b and harden, trapping the blood inside. b And the one who permitted /b it reasoned that the heat of the coals b draws out /b the blood, leaving only the meat. b And the halakha /b is that the heat of the coals b draws out /b the blood., b And, so too, /b with regard to b testicles: /b If one b cut them and salted them, they are permitted even to /b be cooked in b a pot. /b If one b hung them on a spit /b in order to roast them, b they are permitted /b because the blood b flows /b out. With regard to a case where one b placed them on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this; one prohibited /b it b and one permitted /b it. b The one who prohibited /b it reasoned that b it shrivels, and the one who permitted /b it reasoned that the heat b draws out /b the blood., b And, so too, /b with regard to large b veins: /b If one b cut them and salted them, it is permitted even to /b cook them in b a pot. /b If one b hung them on a spit /b and b the place of the /b incision of the b slaughter is /b facing b downward, it is permitted /b because the blood b flows /b out. With regard to a case where one b placed it on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this /b matter; b one prohibited /b it b and one permitted /b it. b The one who prohibited /b it reasoned that b it shrivels, and the one who permitted /b it reasoned that the heat b draws out /b the blood. b And the i halakha /i /b is that the heat of the coals b draws out /b the blood, and it is permitted.,The Gemara raises another discussion with regard to blood absorbed in meat. People would soak raw meat ( i Tosafot /i ) in vinegar in order to ensure that none of the blood would separate from its original place and prohibit the meat from being eaten, as it is permitted to eat blood that has not separated from its original place. b This /b piece of b raw meat, whose vinegar became red /b due to the blood absorbed in it, b is forbidden. /b If b its vinegar did not become red, it is permitted. Ravina said: Even /b if b its vinegar did not become red, it is forbidden; it is impossible that it does not have streaks of blood. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Father, /b i.e., Ameimar, b would swallow /b the vinegar and was unconcerned that there may be blood in it. b Some say Rav Ashi himself would swallow it. /b , b Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: /b The practice of my b father, /b Ameimar, was that with regard to b vinegar in which he had soaked /b meat b one time /b to keep in its blood, b he would not soak /b meat b in it again. /b It could no longer keep the blood in the meat. The Gemara asks: In b what /b way is vinegar that has been used once b different from weak vinegar, in which we soak /b meat without concern that it will be unable to keep the blood in the meat? The Gemara explains: b There, the /b |
|
107. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 148, 150| 25a. big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ואפי' חכם והתניא חכם שמת הכל קרוביו,הכל קרוביו סלקא דעתך אלא הכל כקרוביו הכל קורעין עליו והכל חולצין עליו והכל מברין עליו ברחבה לא צריכא דלאו חכם הוא,ואי אדם כשר הוא חיובי מיחייב למיקרע דתניא מפני מה בניו ובנותיו של אדם מתים כשהן קטנים כדי שיבכה ויתאבל על אדם כשר,יבכה ויתאבל ערבונא קא שקיל מיניה אלא מפני שלא בכה והתאבל על אדם כשר שכל הבוכה ומתאבל על אדם כשר מוחלין לו על כל עונותיו בשביל כבוד שעשה לו דלאו אדם כשר הוא,אי דקאי התם בשעת יציאת נשמה חיובי מיחייב דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר העומד על המת בשעת יציאת נשמה חייב לקרוע למה זה דומה לספר תורה שנשרף שחייב לקרוע,דלא קאי התם בשעת יציאת נשמה,כי נח נפשיה דרב ספרא לא קרעו רבנן עליה אמרי לא גמרינן מיניה אמר להו אביי מי תניא הרב שמת חכם שמת תניא ועוד כל יומא שמעתתיה בפומין בבי מדרשא,סבור מה דהוה הוה אמר להו אביי תנינא חכם כל זמן שעוסקין בהספד חייבין לקרוע סבור למיקרע לאלתר אמר להו אביי תניא חכם כבודו בהספידו,כי נח נפשיה דרב הונא סבור לאותובי ספר תורה אפורייה אמר להו רב חסדא מילתא דבחייה לא סבירא ליה השתא ליקום (ליה) ליעבד ליה דאמר רב תחליפא אנא חזיתיה לרב הונא דבעי למיתב אפוריי' והוה מנח ספר תורה עליה וכף כדא אארעא ואותיב ספר תורה עילויה אלמא קסבר אסור לישב על גבי מטה שספר תורה מונח עליה,לא הוה נפיק פוריא מבבא סבור לשלשולי דרך גגין אמר להו רב חסדא הא גמירנא מיניה חכם כבודו דרך פתח,סבור לאשנויי מפוריא לפוריא אמר להו רב חסדא הכי גמירנא מיניה חכם כבודו במטה ראשונה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מנין לחכם שכבודו במטה ראשונה שנאמר (שמואל ב ו, ג) וירכיבו את ארון האלהים אל עגלה חדשה פרוס בבא ואפקוה,פתח עליה רבי אבא ראוי היה רבינו שתשרה עליו שכינה אלא שבבל גרמה ליה,מתיב רב נחמן בר חסדא ואמרי לה רב חנן בר חסדא (יחזקאל א, ג) היה היה דבר ה' אל יחזקאל בן בוזי הכהן בארץ כשדים,טפח ליה אבוה בסנדליה א"ל לאו אמינא לך לא תיטרוד עלמא מאי היה שהיה כבר,כי אסקוה להתם אמרו ליה לר' אמי ולר' אסי רב הונא אתי אמרו כי הוינן התם לא הוה לן לדלויי רישין מיניה השתא אתינן הכא אתא בתרין,אמרו (ליה) ארונו בא ר' אמי ור' אסי נפוק ר' אילא ור' חנינא לא נפוק איכא דאמרי רבי אילא נפק ר' חנינא לא נפק,דנפק מאי טעמיה דתניא ארון העובר ממקום למקום עומדים עליו בשורה ואומרים עליו ברכת אבלים ותנחומי אבלים דלא נפק מאי טעמא דתניא ארון העובר ממקום למקום אין עומדין עליו בשורה ואין אומרים עליו ברכת אבלים ותנחומי אבלים,קשיין אהדדי לא קשיא כאן ששלדו קיימת כאן בשאין שלדו קיימת ורב הונא שלדו קיימת הוה דלא נפק לא סיימוה קמיה,אמרי היכא נינחיה רב הונא ריבץ תורה בישראל ור' חייא ריבץ תורה בישראל הוה,מאן מעייל ליה אמר להו רב חגא אנא מעיילנא ליה דאוקמתיה לתלמודאי כי הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין ולא חזי לי קרי ומשמע ליה קמיה וידעי בעובדיה דיומא חד אתהפיכא ליה רצועה דתפילין ויתיב עלה ארבעין תעניתא,עייליה הוה גני יהודה מימיניה דאבוה וחזקיה משמאליה אמר ליה יהודה לחזקיה קום מדוכתיך דלאו אורח ארעא דקאים רב הונא בהדי דקאים קם בהדיה עמודא דנורא חזייה רב חגא איבעית זקפיה לארוניה ונפק אתא והאי דלא איענש ענש משום דזקפיה לארוניה דרב הונא,כי נח נפשיה דרב חסדא סבור לאותובי ספר תורה אפורייה אמר להו ר' יצחק מילתא דלרביה לא סבירא ליה אנן ניקום נעביד ליה,סבור דלא למישלל קרעייהו אמר להו ר' יצחק בר אמי חכם כיון שהחזירו פניהם מאחורי המטה שוללין,כי נח נפשי' דרבה בר הונא ורב המנונא אסקינהו להתם | 25a. strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that only the relatives of the deceased rend their clothes. The Gemara asks: b And /b is this the case b even /b if the deceased was a Torah b Sage? But isn’t it taught /b otherwise in a i baraita /i : When a Torah b scholar dies, everyone is his relative. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b Does it enter your mind /b to say that b everyone is his relative? Rather, /b this i baraita /i should be understood as follows: b Everyone is /b considered to be b like his relative /b in the sense that b everyone rends his /b garment in anguish b over him, and everyone bares /b his shoulder b over him /b in mourning, b and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square /b as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. So why is the mishna limited to only relatives? The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i in a case b where /b the deceased b is not a /b Torah b scholar. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And if /b the deceased b was an upright person /b who feared Heaven and performed good deeds, then aren’t all those present at his death b obligated to rend /b their garments over his death? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b For what /b reason b do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young? /b They die b so that he will cry and mourn /b over the death of b an upright person. /b ,The Gemara questions the formulation: They die so that b he will cry and mourn? Is security, /b i.e., his children, b taken from him /b in advance to ensure that in the future he will mourn over the death of an upright person? b Rather /b the i baraita /i means as follows: His children died b because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person /b who died. b As /b with regard to b anyone who cries and mourns over an upright person /b who died, b they forgive him /b for b all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded /b to the deceased. If this is the case, one also rends his clothes over an upright person. The Gemara answers: Rather, the mishna is referring only to one b who /b was b not an upright person. /b ,The Gemara challenges: But b if one was standing there at the time of the soul’s departure, /b i.e., at the time of death, he b is /b also b obligated /b to rend his clothes. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the deceased at the time of the soul’s departure is obligated to rend /b his clothes. b To what may this be likened? To a Torah scroll that is burned, /b for which anyone present b is obligated to rend /b his clothes.,The Gemara answers: The mishna must be referring to a person b who was not standing there at the time of the soul’s departure /b but who heard that someone who is not a close relative died, and the deceased was neither a Torah scholar nor an upright person.,§ The Gemara relates that b when Rav Safra passed away the /b other b Sages did not rend /b their garments b over him. They said: We did not learn from him, /b as he did not disseminate his Torah knowledge to the public. b Abaye /b berated them and b said to them: Is it taught /b in the i baraita /i : If one’s b teacher died? It is taught: /b If a Torah b scholar died, /b and Rav Safra was certainly a Torah scholar. b And furthermore, every day his teachings are in our mouths in the study hall, /b so that even if we did not learn directly from him, we should still be considered his students.,The other Sages b thought that what was /b done b was /b done, and it was now too late for them to rend their garments. b Abaye said to them: We learned: /b With regard to a Torah b scholar, as long as they are engaged in eulogizing /b him, then people b are obligated to rend /b their garments, even after the time of his death. b They /b then b thought to rend /b their garments b immediately. Abaye said to them: It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A /b Torah b scholar’s honor is at /b the time of b his eulogy, /b and so you should wait until the time of the eulogy before rending your garments.,§ The Gemara relates another incident: b When Rav Huna died they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier, /b as was commonly done after the death of a Torah scholar, as if to say that the deceased fulfilled everything written in the scroll. b Rav Ḥisda said to them: /b This is b a practice that he did not hold with during his lifetime; now should we stand up and do /b it b for him /b when he is dead? b As Rav Taḥlifa said: I /b myself b saw Rav Huna, who wished to sit on his bed, and there was a Torah scroll placed on it. And he turned a jug over and placed the Torah scroll on it /b so that he could then sit on the bed. b Apparently he holds /b that b it is prohibited to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll lies. /b Therefore, it would be inappropriate to lay a Torah scroll next to his body after he died.,When they tried to remove his corpse from his house for the burial, b the bier would not /b fit b through the /b narrow b door. They /b then b thought to lower /b the bier b from the roof. Rav Ḥisda said to them: This I learned from him, /b Rav Huna himself: b A scholar’s honor /b is for him to be taken out b through the /b main b opening, /b and not in any other manner., b They /b then b thought to move him from /b his b bier to /b a narrower b bier /b so that it would fit through the door. But b Rav Ḥisda said to them: I learned from him, /b Rav Huna himself, b as follows: A scholar’s honor is /b for him to be taken out b on the first bier. As Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: From where /b is it derived that b a scholar’s honor is /b for him to be taken out b on the first bier? As it is stated: “And they set the Ark of God upon a new cart” /b (II Samuel 6:3). When taking the Ark to Jerusalem, King David had it placed back on the cart upon which it had been returned by the Philistines, and a Torah scholar is considered to be similar to the Ark of the Covet. When they saw that there was nothing else that they could do, b they broke the doorway and took him out /b through it., b Rabbi Abba opened /b his eulogy for b him: Our Rabbi was worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, except /b for the fact b that Babylonia caused it /b not to rest. In other words, it was only because he lived in Babylonia and not in Eretz Yisrael that the Divine Presence did not rest upon him., b Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda raised an objection /b against this, b and some say /b that it was b Rav Ḥa bar Ḥisda: /b Is it not stated: b “The word of the Lord came [ i hayo haya /i ] to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans” /b (Ezekiel 1:3), thereby implying that a prophet can prophesy outside of Eretz Yisrael?, b His father tapped him with his sandal /b on his foot, thereby hinting to him that he should be quiet. b He said to him: Have I not told you not to trouble everyone /b with questions in the middle of a eulogy? The Gemara answers the question: b What /b is the meaning of the doubling of the word b “came [ i hayo haya /i ]”? /b It implies b that it had already come /b before, i.e., that Ezekiel had already begun to prophesy in Eretz Yisrael, and his prophecy in Babylonia was merely a continuation of that prophecy.,§ The Gemara relates that b when they took /b Rav Huna b there, /b to Eretz Yisrael, for burial b they said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Rav Huna has come, /b and they misunderstood and thought that he was still alive. b They said: When we were there, /b in Babylonia, we b did not have strength to lift our heads before him. Now /b that b we have come here, has he come after us? /b , b They said to them: His coffin has come. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi went out /b to meet his funeral procession. b Rabbi Ila and Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out. Some say /b that b Rabbi Ila went out, /b but b Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out. /b ,The Gemara asks: Those who b went out, what is /b the b reason /b that they went? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : When b a coffin is passing from place to place, /b the people b stand in a line /b to show respect b for /b the deceased, b and they recite the mourners’ blessing and the consolation of the mourners over it. /b Those b who did not go out, what is the reason /b that they did not? b As it is taught /b in another i baraita /i : When a b coffin is passing from place to place, they do not stand in a line /b to show respect b for /b the deceased, b and they do not recite the mourners’ blessing or /b the b consolation of the mourners for him. /b ,The Gemara asks: If so, b these /b two tannaitic statements b contradict each other. /b The Gemara answers: b It is not difficult: Here, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where the skeleton /b of the deceased b is /b still b intact, /b and the mourning practices must be observed. b And there /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where the skeleton /b of the deceased b is no longer intact, /b and it is not necessary to observe the customs of mourning. b And Rav Huna’s skeleton was /b still b intact. /b The reason that the b one /b Sage b did not go out /b was that b they did not confirm for him /b that the skeleton was still intact.,The Sages of Eretz Yisrael b said: Where shall we bury him? /b They concluded: b Rav Huna disseminated Torah to /b the people of b Israel, and /b similarly b Rabbi Ḥiyya disseminated Torah to /b the people of b Israel; /b therefore, it is appropriate to bury Rav Huna next to Rabbi Ḥiyya.,They asked: b Who will take him in /b to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s burial cave, as few are fit to enter it? b Rav Ḥagga said to them: I will take him into /b the cave, b for I presented my studies /b before him b when I was /b just b eighteen, never having experienced a seminal emission. And /b so too b I attended to him and knew his /b great b deeds. /b For example, b one day one of the straps of his phylacteries turned around, /b the unpainted side being turned outward, b and he observed forty fasts for this, /b as he had acted negligently, allowing the black side to face inward.,Rav Ḥagga b took him in. /b The body of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s son b Yehuda lay /b buried b to the right of his father, and /b the body of his other son b Ḥizkiyya /b lay b to his left. /b The spirit of b Yehuda said to /b the spirit of b Ḥizkiyya: Rise from your place, as /b it is b not proper conduct /b to remain lying when the body of b Rav Huna is standing here. When /b Ḥizkiyya’s corpse stood b up, a pillar of fire rose with him. /b When b Rabbi Ḥagga saw this, he was frightened /b by what he saw, and so b he stood up /b Rav Huna’s b coffin and went away. /b The Gemara comments: b And he was not punished /b or harmed by this pillar of fire b because he set up Rav Huna’s coffin /b as protection for himself.,§ The Gemara relates another story about the burial of one of the Sages: b When Rav Ḥisda died they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to them: /b This is b a practice that this Rabbi did not hold with during his lifetime; should we stand up and do /b it b for him /b now that he is dead?, b They /b then b thought not to tack, /b i.e., sew up, b the tears /b that they had made in their clothes. b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ami said to them: /b When the deceased is b a Torah Sage, they may tack /b the tears b once they turn their faces from the bier. /b ,The Gemara relates that b when Rabba bar Huna and Rav Hamnuna died, they took them /b both b up there, /b to Eretz Yisrael. |
|
108. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 168| 103b. בזמורות ובקנים ושניהם מספקין את הקנים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא מקום שנהגו לקצור אינו רשאי לעקור לעקור אינו רשאי לקצור ושניהם מעכבין זה על זה,לקצור אינו רשאי לעקור האי אמר בעינא דתתבן לי ארעאי והאי אמר לא מצינא לעקור אינו רשאי לקצור האי אמר בעינא דתינקר ארעאי והאי אמר בעינא תיבנא,ושניהם מעכבין זה על זה למה לי מה טעם קאמר מה טעם לקצור אינו רשאי לעקור לעקור אינו רשאי לקצור משום דשניהם מעכבין זה על זה:,לחרוש אחריו יחרוש: פשיטא לא צריכא באתרא דלא מנכשי ואזל איהו ונכיש מהו דתימא אמר ליה האי דנכישנא אדעתא דלא כריבנא לה קמ"ל דאיבעי ליה לפרושי ליה:,הכל כמנהג המדינה: הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דת"ר מקום שנהגו להשכיר אילנות על גבי קרקע משכירין מקום שאין נהגו להשכיר אין משכירין,מקום שנהגו להשכיר משכירין פשיטא לא צריכא דכ"ע יהבי בתילתא ואזל איהו ויהביה בריבעא מהו דתימא דאמר ליה האי דבצרי לך אדעתא דלא יהיבנא לך באילנות קמ"ל דאיבעי ליה לפרושי ליה:,מקום שנהגו שלא להשכיר אין משכירין: פשיטא לא צריכא דכ"ע מקבלי בריבעא ואזל איהו וקיבלה בתילתא מהו דתימא א"ל האי דטפאי לך אדעתא דיהבת לי באילנות קמ"ל דאיבעי ליה לפרושי ליה:,כשם שחולקין בתבואה כך חולקין בתבן ובקש: אמר רב יוסף בבבל נהיגו דלא יהיבי תיבנא לאריסא למאי נפקא מינה דאי איכא איניש דיהיב עין יפה הוא ולא גמרינן מיניה,אמר רב יוסף בוכרא וטפתא וארכבתא וקני דחיזרא דבעל הבית וחיזרא גופיה דאריסא כללא דמילתא כל עיקר בלמא דבעל הבית נטירותא יתירתא דאריסא ואמר רב יוסף מרא וזבילא ודוולא וזרנוקא דבעל הבית אריסא עביד בי יאורי:,כשם שחולקין ביין כך חולקין בזמורות ובקנים: קנים מאי עבידתייהו אמרי דבי רבי ינאי קנים המוחלקין שבהן מעמידין את הגפנים:,ושניהם מספקין את הקנים: למה לי מה טעם קאמר מה טעם שניהם חולקין בקנים משום דשניהם מספקין את הקנים:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המקבל שדה מחבירו והיא בית השלחין או בית האילן יבש המעין ונקצץ האילן אינו מנכה לו מן חכורו אם אמר לו חכור לי שדה בית השלחין זו או שדה בית האילן זה יבש המעין ונקצץ האילן מנכה לו מן חכורו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big היכי דמי אילימא דיבש נהרא רבה אמאי אינו מנכה לו מן חכורו נימא ליה מכת מדינה היא אמר רב פפא דיבש נהרא זוטא דאמר ליה | 103b. b the branches /b pruned from the vines b and the poles. And the two of them, /b i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both b supply the poles. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : In b a location where /b those cultivating the land b were accustomed to cut /b the produce, the one cultivating this field b is not permitted to uproot /b it, and in a location where they were accustomed b to uproot /b the produce, b he is not permitted to cut /b it. b And the two of them, /b i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each b prevent the other /b from deviating from the custom.,The Gemara explains the i baraita /i : In a location where those cultivating the land b were accustomed to cut /b the produce, the one cultivating this field b is not permitted to uproot /b the produce even if he wants to, because b this /b one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce cut, can b say: I want my land to be fertilized with stubble, /b i.e., the remains of the plants. b And /b if the owner wants him to uproot the produce, b that /b one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can b say: I cannot /b uproot the produce, since that is too labor intensive. Similarly, if the custom is b to uproot /b the produce, the one cultivating this field b is not permitted to cut /b it even if he wants to, because b this /b one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce uprooted, can b say: I want my land to be cleared /b of stubble. b And /b if the owner wants him to cut the produce, b that /b one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can b say: I want /b to uproot what remains so that I can use b the stubble. /b ,The i baraita /i teaches: b And the two of them, /b i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each b prevent the other /b from deviating from the custom. The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need this statement and what is its purpose? The Gemara answers that the i baraita /i b is saying what /b the b reason /b is for its ruling: b What is the reason /b that in a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed b to cut /b the produce, the one cultivating this field b is not permitted to uproot /b the produce, and in a location where they were accustomed b to uproot /b the produce, b he is not permitted to cut /b it? It is b because the two of them /b can each b prevent the other /b from deviating from the custom, as each has a justified reason for opposing the deviation desired by the other.,The mishna teaches: If they were accustomed b to plow /b the land b after /b harvesting the produce, this cultivator b must plow /b as well. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious /b that he cannot deviate from the custom? The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary for /b the situation of b a place where /b the custom is b not /b to b weed /b the fields, b and /b the one cultivating this field b went and weeded /b anyway. b Lest you say /b that he could b say to /b the landowner: When b I weeded /b the field, I did so b with the intention of not plowing it /b subsequently. Therefore, he should not be obligated to plow it. To counter this, the mishna b teaches us that /b the renter b should have specified /b this intention explicitly b to /b the landowner beforehand in order to exempt him from the requirement to plow.,The mishna teaches: b All /b farming of the land shall be conducted b in accordance with regional custom. /b The Gemara asks: b What is added /b by the use of the term b all? /b The Gemara answers: It serves b to add that which the Sages taught: /b In b a location where /b landowners b were accustomed to rent out the trees /b in a field b together with the land /b so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruits despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be b rented out. /b In b a location where /b landowners b were not accustomed to rent out /b the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are b not /b presumed to be b rented out. /b ,The i baraita /i teaches: In b a location where /b landowners b were accustomed to rent out the trees /b in a field b together with the land /b so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruit despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be b rented out. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t this b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to state this ruling in order to include the case b where everyone /b in that region b gives /b land to sharecroppers to cultivate in return b for one-third /b of the yield, b and he, /b the landowner, b went and gave it for one-quarter. Lest you say that /b the landowner can b say to him: This /b concession on my part, b that I reduced /b my portion of the yield b for you, /b was done b with the intention that I would not give you /b a share of the fruits b of the trees /b in the field, the i baraita /i b teaches us that /b the landowner b should have specified /b this b to him /b in advance.,The i baraita /i teaches: In b a location where /b landowners b were not accustomed to rent out /b the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are b not /b presumed to be b rented out. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t this b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to state this ruling in order to include the case b where all /b the cultivators in that region b receive /b land in return b for /b giving b one-quarter /b of the yield to the owner, b and /b this cultivator b went and received /b the land in return b for /b giving b one-third /b of the yield to the owner. b Lest you say /b that the cultivator can b say to him: This /b concession on my part, b that I added to your /b portion, was done b with the intention that you /b would also b give me /b a share of the fruit b from the trees, /b the i baraita /i b teaches us that /b the cultivator b should have specified /b this b to him /b in advance.,§ The mishna teaches: b Just as /b the i halakha /i is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it b divide the produce, so /b too the i halakha /i is that b they divide the stubble and the straw. Rav Yosef said /b with regard to this statement: b In Babylonia /b those who enter into such arrangements b are accustomed not to give stubble to the sharecropper. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the /b practical b difference /b resulting from the assertion that this is the practice in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: The difference is b that if there is a person /b in Babylonia b who gives /b the sharecropper the stubble in addition to the produce, b it is /b considered merely as though he has b a generous disposition, but we do not learn from his /b actions that this is the general practice., b Rav Yosef says: The first, second, and third /b elements of the earthen barrier surrounding the field b and the poles /b used b to /b support b a thorn /b fence are the responsibility b of the owner /b of the land, b but the fashioning of the thorn /b fence b itself /b is the responsibility b of the sharecropper. /b The Gemara explains: b The principle of the matter /b is that the b main /b part of b the boundary /b of the field is the responsibility b of the owner /b of the land, while any b additional protection /b required is the responsibility b of the sharecropper. Rav Yosef says: The hoe and the shovel and the bucket and the irrigation device /b must be provided b by the owner /b of the land, while b the sharecropper /b must b make the irrigation channels. /b ,The mishna teaches: b Just as /b the i halakha /i is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it b divide the wine, so /b too the i halakha /i is that b they divide the branches /b pruned from the vines b and the poles. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the b purpose /b of the b poles /b used for the vines? b They said /b in b the school of Rabbi Yannai: /b This is referring to long b poles that were divided /b in half, b with which they support the vines. /b ,The mishna teaches: b And the two of them, /b i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both b supply the poles. /b The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the mishna to state this? The Gemara answers that the mishna b is saying what /b the b reason /b is for its ruling: b What is the reason /b that b the two of them divide the poles? /b It is b because the two of them supply the poles. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b one who receives a field from another /b to cultivate b and it is an irrigated /b field b or a field with trees, /b if b the spring /b that irrigated the field b dried up or the trees were cut down, /b he does b not subtract from /b the produce b he /b owes the owner as part of b his tecy, /b despite the fact that he presumably considered these factors when agreeing to cultivate the field. But b if /b the cultivator b said to /b the landowner explicitly: b Lease me this irrigated field, or /b he said: Lease me b this field with trees, /b and b the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he /b may b subtract from /b the produce b he /b owes as part of b his tecy. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of the ruling of the mishna? b If we say that the large river /b from which all the channels originate b dried up, why /b does he b not subtract from /b the produce b he /b owes as part of b his tecy? Let /b the cultivator b say /b that it b is /b the result of b a regional disaster. /b Consequently, he should be able to subtract from the produce he owes. b Rav Pappa said: /b The case in the mishna is b where a small river /b that irrigates this field alone b dried up, as /b the landowner can b say to him: /b |
|
109. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 56, 61, 62| 14b. מורד במלכות הוא ולא צריך למידייניה אמרה לו עדיין שאול קיים ולא יצא טבעך בעולם אמר לה (שמואל א כה, לג) ברוך טעמך וברוכה את אשר כליתני [היום הזה] מבא בדמים,דמים תרתי משמע אלא מלמד שגילתה את שוקה והלך לאורה ג' פרסאות אמר לה השמיעי לי אמרה לו (שמואל א כה, לא) לא תהיה זאת לך לפוקה זאת מכלל דאיכא אחריתי ומאי ניהו מעשה דבת שבע ומסקנא הכי הואי,(שמואל א כה, כט) והיתה נפש אדוני צרורה בצרור החיים כי הוות מיפטרא מיניה אמרה ליה (שמואל א כה, לא) והטיב ה' לאדוני וזכרת את אמתך,אמר רב נחמן היינו דאמרי אינשי איתתא בהדי שותא פילכא איכא דאמרי שפיל ואזיל בר אווזא ועינוהי מיטייפי,חולדה דכתיב (מלכים ב כב, יד) וילך חלקיהו הכהן ואחיקם ועכבור וגו' ובמקום דקאי ירמיה היכי מתנביא איהי אמרי בי רב משמיה דרב חולדה קרובת ירמיה היתה ולא הוה מקפיד עליה,ויאשיה גופיה היכי שביק ירמיה ומשדר לגבה אמרי דבי רבי שילא מפני שהנשים רחמניות הן,ר' יוחנן אמר ירמיה לא הוה התם שהלך להחזיר עשרת השבטים ומנלן דאהדור דכתיב (יחזקאל ז, יג) כי המוכר אל הממכר לא ישוב אפשר יובל בטל ונביא מתנבא עליו שיבטל אלא מלמד שירמיה החזירן,ויאשיהו בן אמון מלך עליהן דכתיב (מלכים ב כג, יז) ויאמר מה הציון הלז אשר אני רואה ויאמרו אליו אנשי העיר הקבר איש האלהים אשר בא מיהודה ויקרא את הדברים האלה אשר עשית על המזבח בבית אל וכי מה טיבו של יאשיהו על המזבח בבית אל אלא מלמד שיאשיהו מלך עליהן רב נחמן אמר מהכא (הושע ו, יא) גם יהודה שת קציר לך בשובי שבות עמי,אסתר דכתיב (אסתר ה, א) ויהי ביום השלישי ותלבש אסתר מלכות בגדי מלכות מיבעי ליה אלא שלבשתה רוח הקדש כתיב הכא ותלבש וכתיב התם (דברי הימים א יב, יט) ורוח לבשה את עמשי וגו',אמר רב נחמן לא יאה יהירותא לנשי תרתי נשי יהירן הויין וסניין שמייהו חדא שמה זיבורתא וחדא שמה כרכושתא זיבורתא כתיב בה (שופטים ד, ו) ותשלח ותקרא לברק ואילו איהי לא אזלה לגביה כרכושתא כתיב בה (מלכים ב כב, טו) אמרו לאיש ולא אמרה אמרו למלך,אמר רב נחמן חולדה מבני בניו של יהושע היתה כתיב הכא (מלכים ב כב, יד) בן חרחס וכתיב התם (שופטים ב,ט) בתמנת חרס,איתיביה רב עינא סבא לרב נחמן שמונה נביאים והם כהנים יצאו מרחב הזונה ואלו הן נריה ברוך ושריה מחסיה ירמיה חלקיה חנמאל ושלום רבי יהודה אומר אף חולדה הנביאה מבני בניה של רחב הזונה היתה כתיב הכא בן תקוה (מלכים ב כב, יד) וכתיב התם (יהושע ב, יח) את תקות חוט השני,אמר ליה עינא סבא ואמרי לה פתיא אוכמא מיני ומינך תסתיים שמעתא דאיגיירא ונסבה יהושע ומי הוו ליה זרעא ליהושע והכתיב (דברי הימים א ז, כז) נון בנו יהושע בנו בני לא הוו ליה בנתן הוו ליה | 14b. Nabal, your husband, b is a rebel against the throne, /b as David had already been anointed as king by the prophet Samuel, and Nabal refused his orders. b And /b therefore b there is no need to try him, /b as a rebel is not accorded the ordinary prescriptions governing judicial proceedings. Abigail b said to him: /b You lack the authority to act in this manner, as b Saul is still alive. /b He is the king in actual practice, and b your seal [ i tivakha /i ] has not /b yet b spread across the world, /b i.e., your kingship is not yet known to all. Therefore, you are not authorized to try someone for rebelling against the monarchy. David accepted her words and b said to her: /b “And b blessed be your discretion and blessed be you who have kept me this day from coming to bloodguiltiness [ i damim /i ]” /b (I Samuel 25:33).,The Gemara asks: The plural term b i damim /i , /b literally, bloods, b indicates two. /b Why did David not use the singular term i dam /i ? b Rather, this teaches that /b Abigail b revealed her thigh, /b and he lusted after her, b and he went three parasangs by the fire /b of his desire for her, and b said to her: Listen to me, /b i.e., listen to me and allow me to be intimate with you. Abigail then b said to him: “Let this not be a stumbling block for you” /b (I Samuel 25:31). b By inference, /b from the word b “this,” /b it can be understood that b there is someone else /b who will in fact be a stumbling block for him, b and what is /b this referring to? b The incident involving Bathsheba. And in the end this is what was, /b as indeed he stumbled with Bathsheba. This demonstrates that Abigail was a prophetess, as she knew that this would occur. This also explains why David blessed Abigail for keeping him from being responsible for two incidents involving blood that day: Abigail’s menstrual blood and the shedding of Nabal’s blood.,Apropos Abigail, the Gemara explains additional details in the story. Abigail said to David: b “Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bond of life /b with the Lord your God” (I Samuel 25:29), and b when she parted from him she said to him: “And when the Lord shall have dealt well with my lord, and you shall remember your handmaid” /b (I Samuel 25:31)., b Rav Naḥman said /b that b this /b explains the folk saying b that people say: While a woman is engaged in conversation /b she also holds b the spindle, /b i.e., while a woman is engaged in one activity she is already taking steps with regard to another. Abigail came to David in order to save her husband Nabal, but at the same time she indicates that if her husband dies, David should remember her and marry her. And indeed, after Nabal’s death David took Abigail for his wife. b Some say /b that Rav Naḥman referred to a different saying: b The goose stoops /b its head b as it goes /b along, b but its eyes look on from afar /b to find what it is looking for. So too, Abigail acted in similar fashion., b Huldah /b was a prophetess, b as it is written: “So Hilkiah the priest and Ahikam and Achbor /b and Shaphan and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess” (II Kings 22:14) as emissaries of King Josiah. The Gemara asks: b But if Jeremiah was found there, how could she prophesy? /b Out of respect for Jeremiah, who was her superior, it would have been fitting that she not prophesy in his presence. The Sages of b the school of Rav say in the name of Rav: Huldah was a /b close b relative of Jeremiah, and he did not object to her /b prophesying in his presence.,The Gemara asks: b But how could Josiah himself ignore Jeremiah and send /b emissaries b to /b Huldah? The Sages of b the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Because women are /b more b compassionate, /b and he hoped that what she would tell them would not be overly harsh., b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b a different answer: b Jeremiah was not there /b at the time, because b he went to bring back the ten tribes /b from their exile. b And from where do we derive that he brought them back? As it is written: “For the seller shall not return to that which he has sold” /b (Ezekiel 7:13), i.e., Ezekiel prophesied that in the future the Jubilee Year would no longer be in effect. Now b is it possible that the Jubilee had /b already been b annulled? /b The i halakhot /i of the Jubilee Year apply only when all of the tribes of Israel are settled in their respective places, which could not have happened since the exile of the ten tribes more than a century earlier, b but the prophet is prophesying that it will cease /b only in the future. b Rather, this teaches that Jeremiah brought back /b the ten tribes from their exile., b And Josiah the son of Amon ruled over the /b ten tribes, b as it is written: “Then he said: What monument is that which I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel” /b (II Kings 23:17). b Now what connection did Josiah, /b king of Judea, b have with the altar at Bethel, /b a city in the kingdom of Israel? b Rather, this teaches that Josiah ruled over the /b ten tribes of Israel. b Rav Naḥman said: /b Proof that the tribes returned may be adduced b from /b the verse b here: “Also, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would return the captivity of My people” /b (Hosea 6:11), which indicates that they returned to their places., b Esther /b was also a prophetess, b as it is written: “And it came to pass on the third day that Esther clothed herself in royalty” /b (Esther 5:1). b It should have said: /b Esther clothed herself in b royal garments. Rather, /b this alludes to the fact b that she clothed herself with a divine /b spirit of b inspiration. It is written here: “And she clothed herself,” and it is written elsewhere: “And the spirit clothed Amasai” /b (I Chronicles 12:19). Just as there the reference is to being enclothed by a spirit, so too Esther was enclothed by a spirit of divine inspiration.,An additional point is mentioned with regard to the prophetesses. b Rav Naḥman said: Haughtiness is not befitting a woman. /b And a proof to this is that b there were two haughty women, whose names were /b identical to the names of b loathsome /b creatures. b One, /b Deborah, b was called a hornet, /b as her Hebrew name, Devorah, means hornet; b and one, /b Huldah, b was called a marten, /b as her name is the Hebrew term for that creature. From where is it known that they were haughty? b With regard to /b Deborah, b the hornet, it is written: “And she sent and called Barak” /b (Judges 4:6), b but she herself did not go to him. /b And b with regard to /b Huldah, b the marten, it is written: “Say to the man /b that sent you to me” (II Kings 22:15), b but she did not say: Say to the king. /b ,Furthermore, b Rav Naḥman said: Huldah was a descendant of Joshua. /b An allusion to this b is written here: /b “Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum, the son of Tikvah, b the son of Harhas [ i ḥarḥas /i ]” /b (II Kings 22:14), b and it says elsewhere /b with regard to Joshua: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance b in Timnath-heres [ i ḥeres /i ]” /b (Judges 2:9), therefore intimating that there is a certain connection between them., b Rav Eina the Elder raised an objection /b from a i baraita /i b to Rav Naḥman’s /b teaching. The i baraita /i indicates that Huldah was in fact a descendant of Rahab, and seemingly not of Joshua: b Eight prophets, who were /b also b priests, descended from Rahab the prostitute, and they are: Neriah; /b his son b Baruch; Seraiah; Mahseiah; Jeremiah; /b his father, b Hilkiah; /b Jeremiah’s cousin b Hanamel; and /b Hanamel’s father, b Shallum. Rabbi Yehuda said: So too, Huldah the prophetess was a descendant of Rahab the prostitute, /b as b it is written here /b with regard to Huldah: b “The son of Tikvah,” and it is written elsewhere /b in reference to Rahab’s escape from the destruction of Jericho: b “This cord of [ i tikvat /i ] scarlet thread” /b (Joshua 2:18).,Rav Naḥman responded to Eina the Elder and b said to him: Eina the Elder, and some say /b that he said to him: b Blackened pot, /b i.e., my colleague in Torah, who has toiled and blackened his face in Torah study, b from me and from you the matter may be concluded, /b i.e., the explanation lies in a combination of our two statements. b For /b Rahab b converted and married Joshua, /b and therefore Huldah descended from both Joshua and Rahab. The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But did Joshua have any descendants? But isn’t it written /b in the genealogical list of the tribe of Ephraim: b “Nun his son, Joshua his son” /b (I Chronicles 7:27)? The listing does not continue any further, implying that Joshua had no sons. The Gemara answers: Indeed, b he did not have sons, /b but b he did have daughters. /b |
|
110. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •israel, land of (palestine) Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 93 | 30a. b I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, /b i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. b Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, /b i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? b From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four. /b ,The Gemara notes that this is b like /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , /b based on the verse: b “Train a child in the way that he should go” /b (Proverbs 22:6). b Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya /b disagreed about the age in which the verse instructs the parent to educate his child: b One said /b that the verse is referring to the ages b from sixteen until twenty-two, and one said /b it is referring to the ages b from eighteen until twenty-four. /b The dispute concerning the correct age for marriage and the dispute about educating a child are the same, as while a father still has a large measure of influence over his son, he must both teach him and find him a wife.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of a father’s obligation to teach his son Torah. b To what /b extent b is a person obligated to teach his son Torah? Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: /b One should emulate the education of, b for example, Zevulun ben Dan, /b a contemporary of Shmuel, b whose father’s father taught him Bible, Mishna, Talmud, i halakhot /i , and i aggadot /i . The Gemara raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : If a father b taught /b his son b Bible, /b he is b not /b required to b teach him Mishna. And Rava said /b in explanation of this i baraita /i : b Bible is /b the b Torah, /b not the Prophets or Writings, i.e., he is not required to teach him anything else, including Mishna.,The Gemara answers that Shmuel’s statement should be understood as follows: One should teach his son b like Zevulun ben Dan was taught /b in certain aspects, b but not like Zevulun ben Dan /b in other respects. One should teach his son b like Zevulun ben Dan /b in b that his father’s father taught him; but not like Zevulun ben Dan, as there /b he was taught b Bible, Mishna, Talmud, i halakhot /i , and i aggadot /i , while here, /b in this i baraita /i , one is required to teach his son b Bible alone. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But is one’s father’s father obligated /b to teach him Torah? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i , that the verse: b “And you shall teach them to your sons” /b (Deuteronomy 11:19), indicates: b But not your sons’ sons? And how do I realize, /b i.e., understand, the meaning of the verse: b “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9)? This serves b to say to you /b that b whoever teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he taught him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the end of all generations. /b ,The Gemara answers that the i tanna /i of this i baraita /i b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b that i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in another i baraita /i : From the verse b “And you shall teach them to your sons” I have /b derived b only /b that you must teach b your sons. From where do /b I derive that there is an obligation to teach b your sons’ sons? The verse states: “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons.” If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “Your sons” /b (Deuteronomy 11:19), which implies only sons? This limitation teaches: b Your sons, but not your daughters. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Anyone who teaches his son’s son Torah, the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he received it from Mount Sinai, as it is stated: “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons,” and juxtaposed to it /b is the phrase in the verse: b “The day when you stood before the Lord your God in Horeb” /b (Deuteronomy 4:10), as Horeb is Mount Sinai.,The Gemara relates: Once b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba encountered Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b and saw b that he had placed /b an inexpensive b covering on his head and brought /b his b child to the synagogue /b to study. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba b said to him: What /b is the reason for b all this /b fuss, as you are in such a hurry that you do not have time to dress yourself properly? b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Is it insignificant, that which is written: “But make them known to your sons,” and juxtaposed to it /b is the phrase in the verse that states: b “The day when you stood before the Lord your God in Horeb”? /b The Gemara comments: b From this /b moment b onward, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would not taste meat [ i umtza /i ], /b meaning he would not eat breakfast, b before he had read to /b his b child and added to /b the child’s studies from the day before. Similarly, b Rabba bar Rav Huna would not taste meat before he had brought /b his b child to the study hall. /b ,§ b Rav Safra says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “And you shall teach them diligently [ i veshintam /i ] to your sons” /b (Deuteronomy 6:7)? b Do not read /b this as b “ i veshintam /i ,” /b with the root i shin /i , i nun /i , i nun /i , which indicates a repetition. b Rather, /b read it as b i veshillashtam /i , /b with the root i shin /i , i lamed /i , i shin /i , related to the word three, i shalosh /i . This means that one must study, review, and study again, thereby dividing one’s studies into three parts.,In light of this statement, the Sages said that b a person should always divide his years into three /b parts, as follows: b A third for Bible, a third for Mishna, and a third for Talmud. /b The Gemara asks: How can a person divide his life this way? b Who knows the length of his life, /b so that he can calculate how long a third will be? The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary for /b one’s b days, /b i.e., one should divide each day of his life in this manner., b Therefore, /b because they devoted so much time to the Bible, the b first /b Sages b were called: Those who count [ i soferim /i ], /b because b they would count all the letters in the Torah, as they would say /b that the letter b i vav /i /b in the word b “belly [ i gaḥon /i ]” /b (Leviticus 11:42) b is the midpoint of the letters in a Torah scroll. /b The words: b “Diligently inquired [ i darosh darash /i ]” /b (Leviticus 10:16), b are the midpoint of the words /b in a Torah scroll. And the verse that begins with: b “Then he shall be shaven” /b (Leviticus 13:33), is the midpoint b of /b the b verses. /b Similarly, in the expression: b “The boar out of the wood [ i miya’ar /i ] ravages it” /b (Psalms 80:14), b the i ayin /i in /b the word wood b [ i ya’ar /i ] /b is the b midpoint of Psalms, /b with regard to its number of letters. The verse: b “But He, being full of compassion, forgives iniquity” /b (Psalms 78:38), b is the midpoint /b of b verses /b in the book of Psalms., b Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: /b Does the b i vav /i of /b the word b “belly [ i gaḥon /i ]” /b belong b to this side or to this side? /b Is it part of the first or second half of the Torah? The Sages b said to him: Let us bring a Torah scroll and count /b the letters. b Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say /b with regard to a different issue: b They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted /b the letters? Therefore we can do the same. Rav Yosef b said to them: They /b were b experts /b in the b deficient and plene /b forms of words and therefore could count the letters precisely. b We are not experts /b in this regard, and therefore we would be unable to resolve the question even if we were to count the letters.,Similarly, b Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: /b Does the midpoint of the verses in the Torah, which is b “then he shall be shaven,” /b belong b to this side or to this side? Abaye said to him: /b Even if we cannot count the letters, b we can at least bring /b a Torah scroll b to count the verses. /b Rav Yosef explained: b We are not experts about verses either, as when Rav Aḥa bar Adda came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b he said: In the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, b they divide this /b following b verse into three /b separate b verses: “And the Lord said to Moses, behold I come to you in a thick cloud, /b that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever; And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord” (Exodus 19:9). Perhaps there are other verses that we do not know how to divide properly., b The Sages taught: Five thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight verses are the verses in a Torah scroll. Psalms has eight more /b verses b than that, /b and b Chronicles /b has b eight fewer /b verses b than that. /b ,§ b The Sages taught: /b The verse states: b “And you shall teach them diligently [ i veshintam /i ]” /b (Deuteronomy 6:7). The root i shin /i , i nun /i , i nun /i , of i veshintam /i should be understood as meaning sharp, i.e., b that matters of Torah should be sharp /b and clear b in your mouth, /b so b that if a person asks you something, do not stutter /b in uncertainty b and say /b an uncertain response b to him. Rather, answer him immediately, as it is stated: /b |
|
111. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 61| 10b. גיהוץ שלנו ככיבוס שלהם ואי אמרת ניעבד גיהוץ מעברא ליה חומרתא,ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבן גמליאל ב"ר אמר ליה רבי בעלתי ולא מצאתי דם אמרה ליה רבי עדיין בתולה אני אמר להן הביאו לי שתי שפחות אחת בתולה ואחת בעולה הביאו לו והושיבן על פי חבית של יין בעולה ריחה נודף בתולה אין ריחה נודף אף זו הושיבה ולא היה ריחה נודף אמר לו לך זכה במקחך,ונבדוק מעיקרא בגווה גמרא הוה שמיע ליה מעשה לא הוה חזי וסבר דלמא לא קים ליה בגווה דמלתא שפיר ולאו אורח ארעא לזלזולי בבנות ישראל,ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבן גמליאל הזקן אמר לו רבי בעלתי ולא מצאתי דם אמרה לו רבי ממשפחת דורקטי אני שאין להן לא דם נדה ולא דם בתולים בדק רבן גמליאל בקרובותיה ומצא כדבריה אמר לו לך זכה במקחך אשריך שזכית למשפחת דורקטי,מאי דורקטי דור קטוע אמר רבי חנינא תנחומים של הבל ניחמו רבן גמליאל לאותו האיש דתני רבי חייא כשם שהשאור יפה לעיסה כך דמים יפים לאשה ותנא משום רבי מאיר כל אשה שדמיה מרובין בניה מרובים,אתמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר זכה במקחך אמר ליה ורבי יוסי בר אבין אמר נתחייב במקחך אמר ליה בשלמא למאן דאמר נתחייב היינו דרבי חנינא אלא למאן דאמר זכה מאי זכותא דלא אתי לידי ספק נדה,ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה רבי בעלתי ולא מצאתי דם אמרה לו רבי עדיין בתולה הייתי ושני בצורת הוה ראה רבי שפניהם שחורים צוה עליהן והכניסום למרחץ והאכילום והשקום והכניסום לחדר בעל ומצא דם אמר לו לך זכה במקחך קרי רבי עליהם (איכה ד, ח) צפד עורם על עצמם יבש היה כעץ:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בתולה כתובתה מאתים ואלמנה מנה בתולה אלמנה גרושה וחלוצה מן האירוסין כתובתן מאתים ויש להן טענת בתולים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי אלמנה אמר רב חנא בגדתאה אלמנה על שם מנה אלמנה מן האירוסין מאי איכא למימר איידי דהא קרי לה אלמנה הא נמי קרי לה אלמנה,אלמנה דכתיבא באורייתא מאי איכא למימר דעתידין רבנן דמתקני לה מנה ומי כתב קרא לעתיד אין דכתיב (בראשית ב, יד) ושם הנהר השלישי חדקל הוא ההולך קדמת אשור ותנא רב יוסף אשור זו סליקא ומי הואי אלא דעתידה הכא נמי דעתידה,ואמר רב חנא בגדתאה מטר משקה מרוה ומזבל ומעדן וממשיך אמר רבא בר רבי ישמעאל ואיתימא רב יימר בר שלמיא מאי קרא (תהלים סה, יא) תלמיה רוה נחת גדודיה ברביבים תמוגגנה צמחה תברך,אמר רבי אלעזר מזבח מזיח ומזין מחבב מכפר היינו מכפר היינו מזיח מזיח גזירות ומכפר עונות,ואמר רב חנא בגדתאה תמרי משחנן משבען משלשלן מאשרן ולא מפנקן אמר רב אכל תמרים אל יורה מיתיבי תמרים שחרית וערבית יפות במנחה רעות בצהרים אין כמותן ומבטלות שלשה דברים מחשבה רעה וחולי מעים ותחתוניות,מי אמרינן דלא מעלו עלויי מעלו ולפי שעתא טרדא מידי דהוה אחמרא דאמר מר השותה רביעית יין אל יורה ואיבעית אימא לא קשיא הא מקמי נהמא הא לבתר נהמא דאמר אביי אמרה לי אם תמרי מקמי נהמא כי נרגא לדיקולא בתר נהמא כי עברא לדשא,דשא אמר רבא דרך שם דרגא אמר רבא דרך גג פוריא א"ר פפא שפרין ורבין עליה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק | 10b. b Our calendering /b in Babylonia, which includes passing an abrasive stone over the garments to scrape off dirt, b is like their laundering /b in Eretz Israel, and only in that manner do the garments in Babylonia reach that level of cleanliness. b And if you say: Let us perform /b the process of b calendering /b on cloths brought as proof that she was not a virgin, b the stone removes /b any trace of blood. Therefore, the process would be ineffective.,The Gemara relates: b A certain /b man b who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. /b The bride b said to him: My teacher, I am still a virgin. /b Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to them: Bring me two maidservants, one a virgin and one a non-virgin, /b to conduct a trial. b They brought him /b the two maidservants, b and he seated them on the opening of a barrel of wine. /b From b the non-virgin, /b he discovered that the b scent /b of the wine in the barrel b diffuses /b from her mouth; from b the virgin /b he discovered that the b scent does not diffuse /b from her mouth. Then, b he also seated that /b bride on the barrel, b and /b the scent of the wine b did not diffuse /b from her mouth. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b the groom: b Go take possession of your acquisition, /b as she is a virgin.,The Gemara asks: Since Rabban Gamliel was familiar with this method of examination, b let him /b use it to b examine her initially. /b Why was the trial with the maidservants necessary? The Gemara answers: b He learned /b that it was effective through b tradition; /b however, b he had never seen it in action, and he thought perhaps he was not sufficiently expert in /b that b manner /b of examination, b and /b it is b improper conduct to demean Jewish women /b by subjecting them to that indignity for naught. Once he established the effectiveness of that method, he proceeded to examine the bride to resolve the matter.,The Gemara relates: b A certain /b man b who came before Rabban Gamliel the Elder said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. /b The bride b said to him: My teacher, I am from the family of Dorketi, who have neither menstrual blood nor blood /b from the rupture of b the hymen. Rabban Gamliel investigated among her relatives /b to determine whether the claim with regard to her family was true, b and discovered /b that the truth was b in accordance with her statement. He said to him: Go take possession of your acquisition. Happy are you that you were privileged /b to marry a member of b the Dorketi family, /b as those forms of blood will never pose a problem for you.,The Gemara elaborates: b What is /b the meaning of b Dorketi? /b It means b truncated generation [ i dor katua /i ]. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Rabban Gamliel consoled that man with vain /b words of b consolation, /b because the absence of blood in this woman is a drawback. b As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Just as leaven is fortuitous for dough, so /b too, b blood is fortuitous for a woman. And /b it was b taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful. /b This bride, who lacks blood, will not produce many children., b It was stated /b that there is a dispute with regard to Rabban Gamliel’s reply. b Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said /b that Rabban Gamliel b said to /b the groom: b Exercise your privilege /b and take possession b of your acquisition. And Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said /b that Rabban Gamliel b said to him: /b It is your b misfortune /b to take possession b of your acquisition. Granted, according to the one who says: /b It is your b misfortune, that is /b in accordance with the opinion b of Rabbi Ḥanina, /b who said the consolation was vain. b However, according to the one who says: Exercise your privilege, what is the privilege /b to which he is referring? The Gemara answers: The privilege is b that /b thanks to the condition of the women of this family, b he will not come to a situation of uncertainty /b whether she has the halakhic status of a b menstruating woman. /b ,The Gemara relates: b A certain /b man b who came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. /b The bride b said to him: My teacher, I was still a virgin. And /b the Gemara comments that this incident b was /b during b years of drought. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b saw that their faces were black /b due to hunger. b He instructed /b his attendants to tend b to them and they took them into the bathhouse /b and bathed them b and they fed them and gave them drink. /b Then b they took them into a room, /b and the groom b engaged in intercourse /b with her b and found blood, /b as it was due to the famine that there was no blood. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: Go take possession of your acquisition. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b read /b this verse b in their regard: “Their skin is shriveled upon their bones, it is withered, it has become like a stick” /b (Lamentations 4:8), in the sense that no blood flows from them., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b a virgin, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and /b with regard to b a widow, /b her marriage contract b is one hundred /b dinars. With regard to b a virgin /b who is b a widow, a divorcée, or a i ḥalutza /i /b who achieved that status b from /b a state of b betrothal, /b before marriage and before consummation of the marriage, for all of these b their marriage contract is two hundred /b dinars, b and they are subject /b to b a claim concerning /b their b virginity, /b as their presumptive status of virginity is intact., strong GEMARA: /strong b What is /b the relationship between the term b i almana /i /b and its meaning, widow? b Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said: /b A widow is called b an i almana /i after /b the b i maneh /i , /b one hundred dinars, which is the sum of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: With regard to b a widow from betrothal, /b whose marriage contract is two hundred dinars and not a i maneh /i , b what is there to say? /b The Gemara answers: b Since they called this /b widow from marriage b i almana /i , this /b widow from betrothal b they also called i almana /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: That explains the use of i almana /i in the terminology of the Sages. However, with regard to the term b i almana /i that is written in the Torah, what is there to say? /b The rabbinic ordice that the marriage contract of a widow is a i maneh /i was not yet instituted. The Gemara answers: The Torah employs the term i almana /i b because the Sages are destined to institute /b the sum of a b i maneh /i for her /b in her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: b And is a verse written for the future? /b The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b indeed it is, b as it is written: “And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goes toward the east of Asshur” /b (Genesis 2:14). b And Rav Yosef taught: Asshur, that is Seleucia. And did /b that city b exist /b when the Torah was written? b Rather, /b the Torah is referring to that city b because /b it was b destined /b to exist in the future. b Here too, /b the Torah employs the term i almana /i b because /b a widow was b destined /b to have a marriage contract of a i maneh /i instituted for her.,Apropos the statement of Rav Ḥana of Baghdad, the Gemara cites additional statements of his. b And Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said: Rain irrigates, saturates, and fertilizes /b the land, b and refines /b the fruit b and /b causes it to b proliferate. Rava bar Rabbi Yishmael, and some say /b it was b Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya /b who b said: What is the verse /b that alludes to this? b “Watering its ridges abundantly, settling its furrows, You make it soft with showers, You bless its growth” /b (Psalms 65:11). “Watering its ridges abundantly” indicates that the rain irrigates and saturates the land, “You make it soft with showers” indicates that it fertilizes the land, and “You bless its growth” indicates that it refines the fruit and causes it to proliferate., b Rabbi Elazar said: /b The term b i mizbe’aḥ /i , /b altar, is a rough acrostic representing its qualities. b It moves [ i meziaḥ /i ] /b sins b and sustains [ i mezin /i ], /b because as a result of the offerings sacrificed on the altar, sustece is provided to all. It b endears [ i meḥabev /i ], /b and b atones [ i mekhapper /i ]. /b i Mizbe’aḥ /i evokes the letters i mem /i and i zayin /i from the first two qualities, i bet /i from i meḥabev /i and the i kaf /i from i mekhapper /i . The Gemara asks: b This /b quality, that the altar b atones, is /b the same as b that /b quality, that it b moves /b sins. Why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: The altar b moves /b evil b decrees, and atones /b for b sins. /b , b And Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said: Dates warm and satiate, loosen the bowels, strengthen, but do not pamper. Rav said: /b If b one ate dates he should not issue /b halakhic b rulings, /b as dates are intoxicating. The Gemara b raises an objection: /b With regard to b dates, /b in the b morning and evening /b they have a b positive /b effect on one who eats them; b in the afternoon, /b they have a b negative /b effect on one who eats them. b At noon, their /b positive effect is b unparalleled, and they negate three matters: A troubling thought, intestinal illness, and hemorrhoids. /b Apparently, the effect of dates is primarily a positive one.,The Gemara answers that there is no contradiction. b Did we say that they are not exemplary? They are exemplary, and /b at the same time b cause temporary distraction /b and b intoxication, just as it is /b in the case b of wine, as the Master said: One who drinks a quarter /b i -log /i b of wine should not issue /b halakhic b rulings. And if you wish, say /b instead: This apparent contradiction is b not difficult. This /b statement, which prohibits issuing a ruling under the influence of dates, is referring to one eating dates b before /b he eats b bread, /b when eating them can lead to intoxication. b That /b statement, which enumerates the salutary effects of dates, is referring b to /b one eating dates b after /b he eats b bread. As Abaye said: My mother told me /b that b dates /b eaten b before /b eating b bread /b are destructive b like an ax to a palm tree; /b dates eaten b after /b eating b bread /b they are beneficial b like a bolt to a door, /b which provides support.,Apropos the term door [ i dasha /i ], the Gemara cites statements referring to its etymology as well as that of several other Aramaic terms. With regard to the word b i dasha /i , /b door, b Rava said: /b It is an acrostic for b i derekh sham /i , /b meaning through there. With regard to the word b i darga /i , /b ladder or stair, b Rava said: /b It is an acrostic for b i derekh gag /i , /b meaning way to the roof. With regard to the word b i purya /i , /b bed, b Rav Pappa said: /b It is an acrostic for b i parin veravin aleha /i , /b meaning one procreates upon it. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b |
|
112. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 127 | 18a. b And Rabbi Yehuda holds /b that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer b disagree /b only b in those /b cases, where one’s intention is to drink the blood or burn the meat of the offering. In those cases, the Rabbis deem the offering fit, since the improper intention involves making use of the item in an unusual manner. But if one’s intention is b to leave /b of its blood until the next day, b everyone agrees /b that the offering is b unfit. What is the reason /b for this? It is a rabbinic b decree /b disqualifying the offering when b some of its blood /b is left over until the next day b due to /b the concern that a priest may intend to leave over b all of its blood, and /b if one’s intention is to leave b all of its blood /b until the next day, the offering is rendered b unfit by Torah law. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda said to /b the Rabbis: b Do you not concede to me that if he left /b the blood b until the next day /b without presenting it, b that /b the offering is b unfit? /b Therefore, if b he intended to leave /b the blood b until the next day, /b it is b also unfit. /b , b And Rabbi Elazar comes to say /b that b even in this /b case b Rabbi Eliezer deems /b the offering b unfit and the Rabbis deem /b it b fit, /b as there is no distinction between a case where one intended to drink of the blood on the next day and where one intended to merely leave the blood until the next day.,The Gemara asks: b And /b does b Rabbi Yehuda /b in fact b hold /b that if one’s intention is b to leave /b some b of the blood until the next day, everyone agrees /b that the offering is b unfit? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: When I went to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua to clarify my knowledge, and some say /b that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went b to clarify the knowledge of, /b i.e., study under, b Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, I found Yosef the Babylonian sitting before /b Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. b And /b every ruling that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua taught b was especially dear to him, until /b they began discussing b one /b i halakha /i , when Yosef the Babylonian b said to him: My teacher, /b with regard to b one who slaughters the offering /b with the intention b to leave /b some b of its blood for the next day, what is /b the i halakha /i ?,Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b said to him: /b The offering is b fit. /b Yosef the Babylonian repeated this question that b evening, /b and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b said to him /b that the offering is b fit. /b He asked again the following b morning, /b and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b said to him /b that the offering is b fit. /b Once again, he asked this question at b noon, /b and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b said to him /b that the offering is b fit. /b When he asked the question a further time that late b afternoon, /b Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b said to him: /b I hold that the offering is b fit, but Rabbi Eliezer deems /b it b unfit. Yosef the Babylonian’s face lit up [ i tzahavu panav /i ] /b with joy.,Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b said to him: Yosef, it seems to me that our, /b i.e., my, b i halakhot /i were not accurate until now, /b when I said that the offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian b said to him: My teacher, yes, /b I agree that the offering is fit, as you said. b But /b my reluctance to accept your statement was due to the fact b that Rabbi Yehuda taught me /b that the offering is b unfit, and I went around to all of /b Rabbi Yehuda’s b disciples, seeking another /b disciple who had also heard this from him, b but I could not find /b one, and thought that I must have been mistaken. b Now that you have taught me /b that Rabbi Eliezer deems it b unfit, you have returned to me that which I had lost. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: Upon hearing this, b Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s eyes streamed with tears, /b and b he said: Happy are you, Torah scholars, for whom matters of Torah are exceedingly dear. /b Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b recited this verse about /b Yosef the Babylonian: b “O how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day” /b (Psalms 119:97). He continued: b Because Rabbi Yehuda /b is b the son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Elai /b is b the student of Rabbi Eliezer, therefore /b Rabbi Yehuda b taught you the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer /b that the offering is unfit.,The Gemara explains its objection: b And if it enters your mind /b that Rabbi Yehuda b taught /b Yosef the Babylonian that b all agree /b that the offering is b unfit, what /b did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: b You have returned to me that which I had lost? /b Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b had said to him /b only that whether the offering is rendered unfit is subject to b a dispute, /b and Yosef the Babylonian would have been taught that all agree that it is unfit., b Rather, what /b is it that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian? Did he b teach him /b that the Rabbis deem the offering b fit and Rabbi Eliezer deems /b it b unfit? If that is so, what /b did Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua mean when he said b that /b it was only b because /b Rabbi Yehuda was the son of Rabbi Elai, who was the student of Rabbi Eliezer, that Rabbi Yehuda taught this b dispute? /b According to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, b we too teach /b this b dispute. /b The fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught both opinions in a dispute does not require justification., b Rather, /b it must be that b actually, /b Rabbi Yehuda b taught /b Yosef the Babylonian that b all agree /b that the offering is b unfit; and what /b did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said: b You have returned to me that which I had lost? /b He meant b that /b Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua b had in any event returned to him /b that there is b some /b opinion b in the world /b concerning the b unfitness /b of the offering if one’s intention was to leave over the blood until the next day. His answer reassured Yosef the Babylonian that there is in fact such an opinion., strong MISHNA: /strong If one b did not pour /b the oil onto the meal offering, or b did not mix /b the oil into the meal offering, b or did not break /b the loaves into pieces, b or did not /b add b salt, or did not wave /b the i omer /i meal offering or the meal offering of a i sota /i , or b did not bring /b the meal offering to the altar, b or /b if it happened b that /b the priest b broke /b the meal offerings that require breaking into b greater pieces /b than appropriate, b or did not smear /b oil on the wafers requiring this (see Leviticus 2:4), in all these cases the meal offering is b fit. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What /b does the mishna mean when it states that if one b did not pour /b the oil onto the meal offering, the meal offering is fit? b If we say /b that it means that b he did not pour /b oil b at all, /b that is difficult: Doesn’t the verse b write with regard to /b the pouring of the oil that doing so is b indispensable? Rather, /b the mishna must be referring to a case where b a priest did not pour /b the oil onto the meal offering, b but a non-priest /b did pour it. The Gemara notes: b If so, /b that the first clause of the mishna is understood in this manner, then the next i halakha /i in the mishna: If one b did not mix /b the oil into the meal offering, should b also /b be understood as referring to a case where b a priest did not mix /b the oil into the meal offering, b but a non-priest /b did mix it, so it is fit. b This /b would indicate that if one b did not mix /b the oil into the meal offering b at all, /b the meal offering is b unfit. /b |
|
| 113. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 31, 35 |
114. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •israel, land of (palestine) Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 27| 14a. קודם שנברא העולם ולא נבראו עמד הקב"ה ושתלן בכל דור ודור והן הן עזי פנים שבדור,ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אשר קומטו לברכה הוא דכתיב אלו תלמידי חכמים שמקמטין עצמן על דברי תורה בעולם הזה הקב"ה מגלה להם סוד לעולם הבא שנאמר (איוב כב, טז) נהר יוצק יסודם,אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא אימא לך מילתא מהני מילי מעליותא דהוה אמר אבוך כל יומא ויומא נבראין מלאכי השרת מנהר דינור ואמרי שירה ובטלי שנאמר (איכה ג, כג) חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך ופליגא דר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל דיבור ודיבור שיוצא מפי הקב"ה נברא ממנו מלאך אחד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ו) בדבר ה' שמים נעשו וברוח פיו כל צבאם,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) לבושיה כתלג חיור ושער (רישיה) כעמר נקא וכתיב (שיר השירים ה, יא) קוצותיו תלתלים שחורות כעורב לא קשיא כאן בישיבה כאן במלחמה דאמר מר אין לך נאה בישיבה אלא זקן ואין לך נאה במלחמה אלא בחור,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) כרסיה שביבין דינור וכתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) עד די כרסון רמיו ועתיק יומין יתיב לא קשיא אחד לו ואחד לדוד כדתניא אחד לו ואחד לדוד דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' יוסי הגלילי עקיבא עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול אלא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה,קיבלה מיניה או לא קיבלה מיניה ת"ש אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו ר"א בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלך מדברותיך אצל נגעים ואהלות אלא אחד לכסא ואחד לשרפרף כסא לישב עליו שרפרף להדום רגליו שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי,כי אתא רב דימי אמר שמונה עשרה קללות קילל ישעיה את ישראל ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם המקרא הזה (ישעיהו ג, ה) ירהבו הנער בזקן והנקלה בנכבד,שמונה עשרה קללות מאי נינהו דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, א) כי הנה האדון ה' צבאות מסיר מירושלם ומיהודה משען ומשענה כל משען לחם וכל משען מים גבור ואיש מלחמה שופט ונביא וקוסם וזקן שר חמשים ונשוא פנים ויועץ וחכם חרשים ונבון לחש ונתתי נערים שריהם ותעלולים ימשלו בם וגו',משען אלו בעלי מקרא משענה אלו בעלי משנה כגון ר"י בן תימא וחביריו פליגו בה רב פפא ורבנן חד אמר שש מאות סדרי משנה וחד אמר שבע מאות סדרי משנה,כל משען לחם אלו בעלי תלמוד שנאמר (משלי ט, ה) לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי וכל משען מים אלו בעלי אגדה שמושכין לבו של אדם כמים באגדה גבור זה בעל שמועות ואיש מלחמה זה שיודע לישא וליתן במלחמתה של תורה שופט זה דיין שדן דין אמת לאמיתו נביא כמשמעו קוסם זה מלך שנאמר (משלי טז, י) קסם על שפתי מלך זקן זה שראוי לישיבה,שר חמשים אל תקרי שר חמשים אלא שר חומשין זה שיודע לישא וליתן בחמשה חומשי תורה דבר אחר שר חמשים כדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו מכאן שאין מעמידין מתורגמן על הצבור פחות מחמשים שנה ונשוא פנים זה שנושאין פנים לדורו בעבורו למעלה כגון רבי חנינא בן דוסא למטה כגון רבי אבהו בי קיסר,יועץ שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים וחכם זה תלמיד המחכים את רבותיו חרשים בשעה שפותח בדברי תורה הכל נעשין כחרשין ונבון זה המבין דבר מתוך דבר לחש זה שראוי למסור לו דברי תורה שניתנה בלחש,ונתתי נערים שריהם מאי ונתתי נערים שריהם א"ר אלעזר אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות,ותעלולים ימשלו בם אמר רב (פפא) בר יעקב תעלי בני תעלי ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם ירהבו הנער בזקן (והנקלה בנכבד) אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות ירהבו במי שממולא במצות כרמון והנקלה בנכבד יבא מי שחמורות דומות עליו כקלות וירהבו במי שקלות דומות עליו כחמורות,אמר רב קטינא אפי' בשעת כשלונה של ירושלים לא פסקו מהם בעלי אמנה שנא' (ישעיהו ג, ו) כי יתפש איש באחיו בית אביו (לאמר) שמלה לך קצין תהיה לנו דברים שבני אדם מתכסין כשמלה ישנן תחת ידך,(ישעיהו ג, ו) והמכשלה הזאת מאי והמכשלה הזאת דברים שאין בני אדם עומדין עליהן אא"כ נכשל בהן ישנן תחת ידך (ישעיהו ג, ז) ישא ביום ההוא לאמר לא אהיה חובש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה לא תשימוני קצין עם ישא אין ישא אלא לשון שבועה שנאמר (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לא אהיה חובש לא הייתי מחובשי בית המדרש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה שאין בידי לא מקרא ולא משנה ולא גמרא,ודלמא שאני התם דאי אמר להו גמירנא אמרי ליה אימא לן הוה ליה למימר גמר ושכח מאי לא אהיה חובש לא אהיה חובש כלל,איני והאמר רבא לא חרבה ירושלים עד שפסקו ממנה בעלי אמנה שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, א) שוטטו בחוצות ירושלם וראו נא ודעו ובקשו ברחובותיה אם תמצאו איש אם יש עושה משפט מבקש אמונה ואסלח לה לא קשיא | 14a. b before the creation of the world, but they were not created. /b The Torah was supposed to have been given a thousand generations after the world was created, as it is written: “He commanded His word for a thousand generations” (Psalms 105:8), but God gave it earlier, after only twenty-six generations, so that nine-hundred and seventy-four generations should have been created but were not. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, acted by planting /b a few of b them in each and every generation, and they are the insolent ones of the generation, /b as they belonged to generations that should not have been created at all., b And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said /b that the verse: b “Who were snatched [ i kumtu /i ]” /b (Job 22:16), b is written for a blessing, /b as the verse is not referring to lowly, cursed people, but to the blessed. b These are Torah scholars, who shrivel [ i mekamtin /i ], /b i.e., humble, b themselves over the words of Torah in this world. The Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals a secret to them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Whose foundation [ i yesodam /i ] was poured out as a stream” /b (Job 22:16), implying that He will provide them with an abundant knowledge of secret matters [ i sod /i ]., b Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of great ones, come and I will tell you something of the great things that your father would say: Each and every day, ministering angels are created from the River Dinur, and they recite song /b to God b and /b then immediately b cease /b to exist, b as it is stated: “They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” /b (Lamentations 3:23), indicating that new angels praise God each morning. The Gemara comments: b And /b this opinion b disagrees with /b that b of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: /b With b each and every word that emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created, as it is stated: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts” /b (Psalms 33:6). The hosts of heaven are the angels, who, he claims, are created from the mouth of God, rather than from the River Dinur.,§ The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: b One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure /b white b wool” /b (Daniel 7:9), b and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” /b (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here /b the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is b in the /b heavenly b academy, /b while b there /b the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is b at war, for the Master said: There is no finer /b individual to study Torah b in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer /b individual to wage war b than a youth. /b A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion.,The Gemara poses another question: b One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” /b (Daniel 7:9), b and /b another phrase in the same b verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” /b implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. One /b throne is b for Him and one /b is b for David, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to this issue: b One /b throne b for Him and one for David; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, /b by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? b Rather, /b the two thrones are designated for different purposes: b One for judgment and one for righteousness. /b ,The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva b accept /b this rebuff b from him, or did he not accept /b it b from him? /b The Gemara offers a proof: b Come /b and b hear /b the following teaching of a different i baraita /i : b One /b throne is b for judgment and one /b is b for righteousness; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing /b occupying yourself b with /b the study of b i aggada /i ? /b This is not your field of expertise. b Take [ i kelakh /i ] your words to /b the topics of b plagues and tents. /b Meaning, it is preferable that you teach the i halakhot /i of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity of the dead, which are within your field of expertise. b Rather, /b with regard to the two thrones: b One /b throne is b for a seat and one /b is b for a small seat. /b The b seat /b is b to sit on, /b and the b small seat /b is b for His footstool, as it is stated: “The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” /b (Isaiah 66:1).,§ The Gemara stated earlier that one who studies the secrets of Torah must be “a captain of fifty and a man of favor” (Isaiah 3:3), but it did not explain the meaning of these requirements. It now returns to analyze that verse in detail. b When Rav Dimi came /b from Israel to Babylonia, b he said: Isaiah cursed Israel with eighteen curses, and his mind was not calmed, /b i.e., he was not satisfied, b until he said to them the /b great curse of the b following verse: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” /b (Isaiah 3:5).,The Gemara asks: b What are these eighteen curses? /b The Gemara answers: b As it is written: “For behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, every support of bread, and every support of water; the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will make children their princes, and babes shall rule over them” /b (Isaiah 3:1–4). The eighteen items listed in these verses shall be removed from Israel.,The Gemara proceeds to clarify the homiletical meaning of these terms: b “Support”; these are masters of the Bible. “Staff”; these are masters of Mishna, such as Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima and his colleagues. /b The Gemara interjects: b Rav Pappa and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this. One /b of them b said: /b They were proficient in b six hundred orders of Mishna, and /b the other b one said: /b In b seven hundred orders of Mishna, /b only six of which remain today., b “Every support of bread”; these are masters of Talmud, as it is stated: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled” /b (Proverbs 9:5). b “And every support of water”; these are the masters of i aggada /i , who draw people’s hearts like water by /b means of b i aggada /i . “The mighty man”; this is the master of halakhic tradition, /b one who masters the i halakhot /i transmitted to him from his rabbis. b “And the man of war”; this is one who knows how to engage in the discourse of Torah, /b generating novel teachings b in the war of Torah. “A judge”; this is a judge who judges a true judgment truthfully. “A prophet”; as it literally indicates. “A diviner”; this is a king. /b Why is he called a diviner? b For it is stated: “A divine sentence is on the lips of the king” /b (Proverbs 16:10). b “An elder”; this is one fit for /b the position of head of b an academy. /b , b “A captain of fifty,” do not read /b it as b “ i sar ḥamishim /i ,” rather /b read it as b “ i sar ḥumashin /i ”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse /b with regard to b the five books of [ i ḥamisha ḥumshei /i ] the Torah. Alternatively, “a captain of fifty” /b should be understood b in /b accordance with b Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu said: From here /b we learn b that one may not appoint a disseminator over the public /b to transmit words of Torah or teachings of the Sages if he is b less than fifty years /b of age. b “And the man of favor”; this is /b one b for whose sake favor is shown to his generation. /b The Gemara provides different examples of this: Some garner favor b above, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, /b whose prayers for his generation would invariably be answered. Others gain favor b below, for example: Rabbi Abbahu, /b who would plead Israel’s case b in the house of /b the b emperor. /b , b “The counselor”; /b this is referring to one b who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, /b due to his expertise in the phases of the moon and the calculation of the yearly cycle. b “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise /b through his questions. b “Charmer [ i ḥarashim /i ]”; /b this is referring to one so wise b that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all /b those listening b are as though deaf [ i ḥershin /i ], /b as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. b “The skillful”; this is one who understands something /b new b from something else /b he has learned. b “Enchanter [ i laḥash /i ]”; this /b is referring to one b who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [ i laḥash /i ], /b i.e., the secrets of the Torah, b transmitted to him. /b ,The Gemara continues to interpret this verse: b “And I will make children their princes” /b (Isaiah 3:4). The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of b “And I will make children [ i ne’arim /i ] their princes”? Rabbi Elazar said: These are people who are devoid [ i menu’arin /i ] of mitzvot; /b such people will become the leaders of the nation., b “And babes [ i ta’alulim /i ] shall rule over them”; Rav Pappa bar Ya’akov said: /b i Ta’alulim /i means b foxes [ i ta’alei /i ], sons of foxes. /b In other words, inferior people both in terms of deeds and in terms of lineage. b And /b the prophet Isaiah’s b mind was not calmed until he said to them: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” /b (Isaiah 3:5). “The child” [ i na’ar /i ]; b these are people who are devoid of mitzvot, /b who b will behave insolently toward one who is as filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate. “And the base [ i nikleh /i ] against the honorable [ i nikhbad /i ]”; /b this means that b one for whom major [ i kaved /i ] /b transgressions b are like minor ones [ i kalot /i ] in his mind will come and behave insolently with one for whom /b even b minor /b transgressions b are like major ones in his mind. /b ,§ The Gemara continues its explanation of the chapter in Isaiah. b Rav Ketina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, trustworthy men did not cease to exist /b among its people, b as it is stated: “For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, /b and say: b You have a cloak, be our ruler” /b (Isaiah 3:6). The Gemara explains that they would approach someone and say to him: b Things that people /b are careful to keep b covered as with a cloak, /b i.e., words of Torah that are covered and concealed, b are under your hand, /b as you are an expert with regard to them., b What is /b the meaning of the end of that verse: b “And this stumbling block” /b (Isaiah 3:6)? b Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, /b as they can be understood only with much effort, b are under your hand. Although /b they will approach an individual with these statements, he b “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” /b (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: b “Shall swear [ i yissa /i ],” i yissa /i is none /b other b than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [ i tissa /i ] the name of the Lord your God /b in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: b “I will not be a healer [ i ḥovesh /i ]” /b (Isaiah 3:7), which means: b I was never /b one b of those who sit [ i meḥovshei /i ] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess /b knowledge of b neither /b the b Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. /b This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But perhaps it is different there, for if he had said: I have learned, they would have said to him: Tell us, /b and people do not lie about things that can be easily verified. The Gemara rejects this claim: If he were a liar, b he would have said /b that b he learned and forgot, /b thereby avoiding shame. b What is /b the meaning of b “I will not be a healer,” /b which seems to imply that he had learned in the past? It means: b I will not be a healer at all, /b as I have never learned. Consequently, there were trustworthy men in Jerusalem after all.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased to exist in it, as it is stated: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in its broad places, if you can find a man, if there is any that acts justly, that seeks truth, and I will pardon her” /b (Jeremiah 5:1), implying there were no trustworthy people at that time? The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult: /b |
|
115. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 150| 39a. הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה,ה"נ מסתברא דקתני סיפא וכן הוא שהקדיש עצמו עושה ואוכל שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו אי אמרת בשלמא ר"מ היא שפיר,אלא אי אמרת רבנן היא בשלמא עבדו לדמי קאי אלא איהו לדמי קאי,לימא כתנאי המקדיש עבדו אין מועלין בו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מועלין בשערו מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר קדוש ומר סבר לא קדוש,ותסברא האי מועלין בו ואין מועלין בו האי קדוש ואינו קדוש מיבעי ליה,אלא דכולי עלמא קדוש והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר עבדא כמקרקעי דמי ומר סבר כמטלטלי דמי,אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשערו ליפלגו בגופו,אלא דכולי עלמא עבדא כמקרקעי דמי והכא בשערו העומד ליגזז קמיפלגי מ"ס כגזוז דמי ומר סבר לאו כגזוז דמי,לימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתנן ר"מ אומר יש דברים שהם כקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש ר"מ מחייב וחכמים אומרים כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע,וא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא ענבים העומדות ליבצר איכא בינייהו דרבי מאיר סבר כבצורות דמיין ורבנן סברי לאו כבצורות דמיין,אפי' תימא רבי מאיר עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם אלא בענבים דכמה דקיימין מיכחש כחישי אבל הכא כמה דקאי אשבוחי משבח,כי סליק ר' חייא בר יוסף אמר להאי שמעתא דרב קמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל אמר רב הכי והוא לא אמר הכי והאמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור,הכי קאמר ליה אמר רב כוותי ואיכא דאמרי לא סיימוה קמיה א"ל ולא אמר רב צריך גט שחרור ור' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר עולא א"ר יוחנן המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור,גופא אמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות וצריך גט שיחרור,איתיביה ר' אבא לעולא גר שמת ובזבזו ישראל נכסיו והיו בהן עבדים בין גדולים ובין קטנים קנו עצמן בני חורין אבא שאול אומר גדולים קנו עצמן בני חורין קטנים כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן,וכי מי כתב גט שחרור לאלו,אמר דמי האי מדרבנן כדלא גמרי אינשי שמעתא וטעמא מאי אמר רב נחמן קסבר עולא עבדו דגר כי אשתו מה אשתו משתלחה בלא גט אף עבדיו משתלחים בלא גט,אי הכי אפי' ישראל נמי אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, מו) והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם לרשת אחוזה,אי הכי המפקיר עבדו ומת נמי אלמה אמר אמימר המפקיר עבדו ומת אותו העבד אין לו תקנה דאמימר קשיא,אמר רבי יעקב בר אידי א"ר יהושע בן לוי הלכה כאבא שאול אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי יעקב בר אידי | 39a. The Gemara answers: In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b i baraita /i ? b It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who says: A person does not make a statement /b of consecration b for naught. /b If one declared an item consecrated, even if he did not use the correct formulation, his statement is interpreted in a manner to render it meaningful. Therefore, although the master did not say that the slave is consecrated with regard to his monetary value, his statement is interpreted in this way. However, Rav holds in accordance with the dissenting opinion of the Rabbis. In their opinion the slave is not consecrated.,The Gemara comments: b This too stands to reason, as it teaches in the latter clause /b of the i baraita /i : b And so too, /b a freeman b who consecrated himself works and is sustained /b from his labor, b as he consecrated only his monetary /b value and he did not consecrate his body. b Granted, if you say /b that this i baraita /i b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, /b then the entire i baraita /i works out b well. /b According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, even when he consecrated himself, his statement is interpreted so that it is referring to a type of consecration that is meaningful., b Rather, if you say /b that b it is /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, granted, /b the first clause of the i baraita /i that deals with one who consecrates b his slave /b is understood, as b his slave exists /b primarily b for monetary /b value. It is logical that when the owner consecrates him he intends to consecrate his monetary value. b However, /b in the case of the latter clause of the i baraita /i , which is referring to one who consecrates himself, does b he exist for monetary /b value? Therefore, the i baraita /i must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that this dispute with regard to one who consecrates his slave is b parallel to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i . /b A i baraita /i taught: With regard to b one who consecrates his slave, /b if one then makes use of the slave, there b is no misuse /b of property consecrated to the Temple. b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One misuses /b property consecrated to the Temple if one makes use b of his hair. What, is it not that they disagree about this /b issue, b as /b one b Sage, /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, b holds /b that the slave is b consecrated, /b and therefore the i halakhot /i of misuse of consecrated property apply, b and /b one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that the slave is b not consecrated? /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b how can b you understand /b that to be their dispute? If that were the case, then b these /b expressions of: b One misuses /b property consecrated to the Temple, b and: /b There b is no misuse /b of property consecrated to the Temple, are not the correct expressions. b They should have /b used b these /b expressions, of: b Consecrated, and: Not consecrated, /b if that were actually the subject of their dispute., b Rather, everyone /b agrees that the slave is b consecrated, /b in opposition to the opinion of Rav. b And here they disagree about this, as /b one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that b a slave /b is b considered equivalent to land, /b as slaves are compared to land in several areas of i halakha /i . Just as the misuse of consecrated property does not apply in the case of land, so too, it does not apply to slaves. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, b holds /b that they are b considered equivalent to movable property, /b and therefore the i halakhot /i of misuse of consecrated property do apply to slaves.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: b If that is so, /b and they disagree with regard to whether a slave is equivalent to land or movable property, b instead of disagreeing with regard to /b whether making use of the slave’s b hair /b constitutes a misuse of consecrated property, b let them disagree with regard to /b whether making use of the slave b himself /b constitutes a misuse of consecrated property., b Rather, /b it must be that b everyone /b agrees that b a slave /b is b considered equivalent to land, /b and making use of the slave himself does not constitute a misuse of consecrated property. b And here they disagree with regard to his hair that is ready to be cut, /b whether it is still considered a part of the slave. One b Sage, /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, b holds /b that it b is considered as /b if it were already b cut /b and is no longer part of the slave. Since it is viewed as detached, it is subject to the i halakhot /i of misuse of consecrated property, like all movable property. b And /b one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that it b is not considered as /b if it were already b cut. /b Until it is cut, the hair is part of the slave, and, like all land, is not subject to the i halakhot /i of misuse of consecrated property.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the opinions of b these i tanna’im /i are parallel /b to the opinions of b those i tanna’im /i , as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Shevuot /i 42b) that b Rabbi Meir says: There are /b certain b things that are like land /b with regard to their form b but are not /b treated b like land /b from a halakhic perspective, b but the Rabbis do not admit to him /b that this is so. b How so? /b If one makes the claim: b I gave you ten grapevines laden /b with fruit to guard, b and the other one says: They are only five /b vines, then b Rabbi Meir obligates /b the defendant to take an oath, for one who makes a partial admission to a claim concerning movable property is obligated to take an oath that he is stating the truth. b And the Rabbis say: /b The halakhic status of b anything /b that is b attached to the ground is like the ground /b itself, and therefore one does not take an oath in this case, as one does not take an oath if one makes a partial admission to a claim concerning land.,The Gemara continues the comparison: b And /b with regard to this, b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says /b that the practical difference b between them /b is not concerning all vines. It exists only in a case of b grapes that are ready to be harvested, as Rabbi Meir holds /b that since they are ready to be harvested, b they are considered like /b they are already b harvested, /b and the defendant must take an oath, as he is denying a claim concerning movable property. b And the Rabbis hold /b that b they are not considered like /b they are already b harvested, /b and they still have the status of land. This dispute seems to be identical to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The dispute in the i baraita /i with regard to a slave’s hair is not necessarily parallel to the dispute with regard to grapes. b Even /b if b you say /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, /b that grapes that are about to be harvested are considered like they are already harvested, this does not dictate one’s opinion with regard to a slave’s hair that is ready to be cut. b Rabbi Meir states /b his opinion b only there, with regard to grapes, since the longer they remain /b on the vine after ripening the more they b become withered /b and are ruined. Since they no longer benefit from their attachment to the ground, they are considered to be like movable property. b However, here, /b with regard to hair, b the longer it remains /b on the slave the more b it improves, /b i.e., grows, and therefore it should not be considered as if it were already cut.,In connection with Rav’s statement that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, the Gemara recounts: b When Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef ascended /b from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, b he stated this i halakha /i of Rav, /b that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, b before Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him /b in astonishment: Did b Rav /b actually b say so? /b This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥa disagreed with the statement of Rav, which leads the Gemara to ask: b But didn’t /b Rabbi Yoḥa himself b say so? But didn’t Ulla say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to one b who renounces ownership of his slave, /b the slave b is emancipated but /b nevertheless b requires a bill of manumission. /b Why then was Rabbi Yoḥa so surprised by Rav’s statement?,The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥa was not objecting to Rav’s opinion, but b this is what he said to him: Did Rav /b actually b say in accordance with my /b opinion? b And /b alternatively, b there are /b those b who say /b that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef b did not conclude /b Rav’s statement b before /b Rabbi Yoḥa by saying that nevertheless the slave requires a bill of manumission. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥa b said to /b him: b And didn’t Rav say that /b the slave b requires a bill of manumission? And Rabbi Yoḥa /b conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning, as Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to one b who renounces ownership of his slave, /b the slave b is emancipated but /b nevertheless b requires a bill of manumission. /b ,§ The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself: Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to one b who renounces ownership of his slave, /b the slave b is emancipated but /b nevertheless b requires a bill of manumission /b to be fully considered a freeman and to be able to marry a Jewish woman., b Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla /b from a i baraita /i : If b a convert died and Jews plundered his property, /b as his possessions became ownerless property with his death because he had no heirs, b and among /b his possessions b were slaves, /b then, b whether /b the slaves were b adults or minors, they acquire /b ownership of b themselves /b and become b freemen, /b as they can acquire themselves from the ownerless property. b Abba Shaul says: Adult /b slaves b acquire /b ownership of b themselves /b and become b freemen. /b However, with regard to b minor /b slaves, b anyone who takes possession of them acquires them. /b ,This appears difficult for Rabbi Yoḥa, as one could ask: b But who wrote a bill of manumission for those /b slaves who became free men? Their owner died without freeing them, and nevertheless they are emancipated. Therefore, the i baraita /i demonstrates that when a slave becomes ownerless, he is emancipated entirely and does not require a bill of manumission to be considered a freeman.,Ulla b said /b in reply: b This /b one b of the Rabbis, /b Rabbi Abba, b is like a person who has not studied i halakha /i . /b He refused to address Rabbi Abba’s objection, as he did not think it was worthy of a response. The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that these slaves do not require a bill of manumission? b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Ulla holds /b as follows: b A slave of a convert is comparable to his wife /b in this case. b Just as his wife is freed /b by his death b without a bill of divorce, /b and she is no longer considered married with regard to any i halakhot /i , b so too, his slaves are freed without a bill /b of manumission.,The Gemara challenges this answer: b If so, /b if a slave is comparable to a wife, then b even /b the slave of b a Jew /b that dies should be freed entirely b as well, /b just as his wife is. Why should this i halakha /i apply only to the slave of a convert? The Gemara answers: b The verse states /b with regard to slaves: b “And you may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession” /b (Leviticus 25:46). Therefore, slaves are not emancipated with the death of their owner, as the heirs have a right to the slaves. However, in the case of a convert who does not have heirs, the slaves are emancipated.,The Gemara challenges: b If so, /b then in a case of b one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, /b the slaves should not require a bill of manumission b as well, /b as they are not part of the inheritance of the children. b Why /b then b did Ameimar say /b that with regard to b one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, /b there is b no remedy for that slave /b and he cannot marry a Jewish woman, as there is no one to emancipate him? The Gemara states: This statement b of Ameimar /b poses b a difficulty /b to Rav Naḥman’s explanation of Ulla’s statement., b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Abba Shaul /b with regard to a convert who died and left behind slaves. b Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi: /b |
|
116. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 68| 22a. שמשכים ומעריב עליהן לבית המדרש רבה אמר במי שמשחיר פניו עליהן כעורב,רבא אמר במי שמשים עצמו אכזרי על בניו ועל בני ביתו כעורב כי הא דרב אדא בר מתנא הוה קאזיל לבי רב אמרה ליה דביתהו ינוקי דידך מאי אעביד להו אמר לה מי שלימו קורמי באגמא,(דברים ז, י) ומשלם לשונאיו אל פניו להאבידו א"ר יהושע בן לוי אילמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו כביכול כאדם שנושא משוי על פניו ומבקש להשליכו ממנו,לא יאחר לשונאו א"ר אילא לשונאיו הוא דלא יאחר אבל יאחר לצדיקים גמורים,והיינו דא"ר יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (דברים ז, יא) אשר אנכי מצוך היום לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם למחר לקבל שכרם,א"ר חגי ואיתימא ר' שמואל בר נחמני מאי דכתיב (שמות לד, ו) ארך אפים ארך אף מבעי ליה,אלא ארך אפים לצדיקים ארך אפים לרשעים:,ר' יהודה אומר עד בית סאתים וכו': איבעיא להו בור ופסין קאמר או דילמא בור ולא פסין קאמר,אדם נותן עיניו בבורו ולא גזרינן דילמא אתי לטלטולי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף,או דילמא אדם נותן עיניו במחיצתו וגזרינן דילמא אתי לאיחלופי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף,ת"ש כמה הן מקורבין כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה וכמה הן מרוחקין אפי' כור אפי' כוריים ר' יהודה אומר בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור,אמרו לרבי יהודה אי אתה מודה בדיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים שמותר,אמר להם זו מחיצה ואלו פסין,ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר בור בית סאתים אבית סאתים מותר ולא אמרו להרחיק אלא כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה,הא מדקאמר ר"ש בן אלעזר בור ולא פסין מכלל דרבי יהודה בור ופסין קאמר ולא היא ר' יהודה בור בלא פסין קאמר,אי הכי היינו דר' שמעון בן אלעזר איכא בינייהו אריך וקטין,כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל אויר שתשמישו לדירה כגון דיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים מותר,וכל דירה שתשמישה לאויר כגון בורגנין שבשדות בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר' יהודה אומר אם היה דרך רשות הרבים מפסקתן יסלקנה לצדדין וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big רבי יוחנן ור' אלעזר דאמרי תרווייהו כאן הודיעך כוחן של מחיצות,כאן וסבירא ליה והאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ירושלים אילמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים,אלא כאן ולא ס"ל,ורמי דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה ורמי דרבנן אדרבנן,דתניא יתר על כן א"ר יהודה מי שהיו לו שני בתים משני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לו לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך,קשיא דר' יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן,דר' יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא התם דאיכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא הכא ליכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא,דרבנן אדרבנן [נמי] לא קשיא הכא איכא שם ארבע מחיצות התם ליכא שם ד' מחיצות,א"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן ארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליה משום רה"ר יתיב רב דימי וקאמר ליה להא שמעתא א"ל אביי לרב דימי מ"ט | 22a. b who, for /b the Torah’s b sake, gets up early /b in the morning [ i shaḥar /i ] b and stays late /b in the evening [ i erev /i ] b in the study hall. Rabba said: In him who, for /b the Torah’s b sake, blackens his face like a raven, /b i.e., who fasts and deprives himself for the sake of Torah study., b Rava said: In him who makes himself cruel to his sons and /b other b members of his household like a raven /b for the sake of Torah. This b was the case with Rav Adda bar Mattana, /b who b was /b about to b go to the study hall /b to learn Torah, and b his wife said to him: What shall I do for your children? /b How shall I feed them in your absence? b He said to her: Are all the rushes [ i kurmei /i ] in the marsh /b already b gone? /b If there is no other bread, let them eat food prepared from rushes.,The Gemara proceeds to interpret a different verse homiletically: b “And He repays them that hate Him to His face to destroy them; /b He will not be slack to him that hates Him, He will repay him to his face” (Deuteronomy 7:10). b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Were the verse not written /b in this manner, b it /b would b be impossible to utter it, /b in deference to God, for it could be understood, b as it were, like a person who bears a burden on his face, and wishes to throw it off. /b Written slightly differently, the verse could have been understood as implying that God is unable, as it were, to bear the situation, but must punish the wicked immediately.,With regard to the words b “He shall not be slack to him that hates Him,” Rabbi Ila said: He will not be slack /b in bringing punishment b to him that hates Him, but He will be slack /b in rewarding b those who are absolutely righteous, /b as the reward of the righteous does not arrive immediately, but only in the World-to-Come., b And that /b is b what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: /b “And you shall keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments b which I command you today to do them” /b (Deuteronomy 7:11)? It means: b Today /b is the time b to do them, /b in this world, b and tomorrow /b is b not /b the time b to do them, /b as there is no obligation or opportunity to fulfill mitzvot in the World-to-Come. Furthermore, it means: b Today /b is the time b to do them, /b but only b tomorrow, /b in the ultimate future, is the time b to receive reward for /b doing b them. /b ,In a similar vein, b Rabbi Ḥaggai said, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: /b “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, b long-suffering [ i erekh appayim /i ], /b and abundant in love and truth” (Exodus 34:6)? Why does it say “ i erekh appayim /i ,” using a plural form? b It should have /b said b i erekh af /i , /b using the singular form.,What this means is that God is long-suffering in two ways: He is b long-suffering toward the righteous, /b i.e., He delays payment of their reward; and He is also b long-suffering toward the wicked, /b i.e., He does not punish them immediately.,The mishna stated that b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The area may be expanded b up to /b an area of b two i beit se’a /i , /b an area of five thousand square cubits. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages in clarification of this statement: b Did he speak /b of the area of b the cistern /b itself b and /b that enclosed by b the /b upright b boards, /b that the total area enclosed by the upright boards may be expanded up to, but may not exceed, an area of two i beit se’a /i ? b Or perhaps he spoke /b of the area of b the cistern without /b that enclosed by b the /b upright b boards, /b that the cistern itself may be expanded up to an area of two i beit se’a /i ? In that case, the total area enclosed by the boards could exceed an area of two i beit se’a /i .,The underlying rationale of each side of this dilemma is as follows: Does one b fix his eyes on his cistern, /b keeping in mind that the partition is made because of it, b and /b therefore, since the area of the cistern is not greater than an area of two i beit se’a /i , b we do not decree lest he come to carry /b also b in an enclosure [ i karpef /i ], /b an enclosed storage space behind the house that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, even when it is b more than /b an area of b two i beit se’a /i ? /b , b Or perhaps a person fixes his eyes on his partition, /b and does not pay attention to the cistern, but only to the area enclosed by the partition. b And /b in this case b we /b do b decree, lest he come to confuse /b this case b with /b that of b a i karpef /i /b that is b larger than /b an area of b two i beit se’a /i , /b and come to carry there, because of the similarity between them.,In order to resolve this question, the Gemara cites a proof: b Come /b and b hear /b what was taught in a i baraita /i : b How close /b may the boards be to the well? They may be b as /b close as the length of b the head and most /b of the body b of a cow. And how far may they be /b from the well? The enclosed area may be expanded b even /b to the area of b a i beit kor /i and even two i beit kor /i , /b provided that one adds more upright boards or increases their size so as to reduce the size of the gaps between them. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b Up to an area of b two i beit se’a /i , it is permitted /b to enclose the area in this manner; b more than /b an area of b two i beit se’a /i , it is prohibited. /b ,The other Rabbis b said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not concede with regard to a pen, a stable, a backyard, and a courtyard, that even one /b the size b of five i beit kor /i and /b even b of ten i beit kor /i is permitted /b for use?,Rabbi Yehuda b said to them: /b A distinction can be made between the cases, for b this, /b the wall surrounding the pen, the stable or the yard, is a proper b partition, /b and hence it is permitted to carry in them even if they are more than an area of two i beit se’a /i . However, b these are /b only upright b boards, /b and they only allow one to carry if the area they enclose is not more than an area of two i beit se’a /i ., b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A cistern /b the length of b two i beit se’a /i by /b the width of b two i beit se’a /i is permitted, and they only said to distance /b the upright boards from the cistern b as /b much as the length of b the head and most /b of the body b of a cow. /b ,The Gemara tries to draw an inference from this i baraita /i : b From /b the fact b that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar spoke /b only b of the cistern /b itself b and not /b of the upright b boards, /b we can b infer /b that b Rabbi Yehuda spoke of /b both b the cistern /b itself b and /b the area enclosed by b the /b upright b boards. /b The Gemara rejects this argument: It is b not so. /b When b Rabbi Yehuda /b said that the area may be expanded up to an area of two i beit se’a /i , b he was, /b in fact, b speaking of /b the area of b the cistern without /b that which is enclosed by b the /b upright b boards. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, that is /b exactly what b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar /b said. The Gemara answers: b There is /b a practical halakhic difference b between them /b in a case where the enclosed area is b long and narrow. /b Rabbi Yehuda permits using it, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar requires that the area be square.,The Gemara adds: b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: /b With regard to b any /b enclosed b space that is used as a dwelling, such as a pen, a stable, a backyard, or a courtyard, /b even if it lacks a roof and b even /b if the structure has the area of b five i beit kor /i and /b even b ten i beit kor /i , it is permitted /b to carry in it., b And /b with regard to b any dwelling that is used for the space /b outside it, i.e., whose partitions were arranged not so that it could be lived in, but for the sake of the field or yard outside, b such as field huts, /b if its area was b two i beit se’a /i , it is permitted /b to carry in it; but if its area was b more than two i beit se’a /i , it is prohibited /b to do so., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through /b the area of the upright boards surrounding a well b and obstructs it, one must divert /b the path b to the sides, /b so that the public will circumvent the enclosed area; otherwise, the partition is invalid and the enclosed area cannot be regarded as a private domain. b And the Rabbis say: One need not /b divert the path of the public domain, for the partition is valid even if many people pass through it., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here, /b the Rabbis b informed you of the strength of partitions; /b although a path of the public domain passes through the partitions and the partitions do not constitute effective barriers, they are still strong enough to allow one to carry.,The Gemara wishes to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement: Did he mean b here /b that the Rabbis expressed this idea, b and he agrees /b with them that a public thoroughfare does not invalidate a partition? b Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b With regard to b Jerusalem, /b even though it is walled, b were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for /b carrying in b it /b on Shabbat b because /b its thoroughfares are regarded b as the public domain? /b Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥa maintains that a partition is not strong enough to overcome the passage of many people., b Rather, /b Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement must be understood as follows: b Here, /b the Rabbis expressed this idea, although b he does not agree /b with them.,The Gemara b raised a contradiction between /b this statement of b Rabbi Yehuda /b and another statement of b Rabbi Yehuda, and raised a contradiction /b between this statement of b the Rabbis /b and another statement of b the Rabbis. /b ,The other statements are b as it was taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: /b If b one had two houses on the two sides of the public domain, /b and he wishes to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, b he may place a side post from here, /b perpendicular to the public domain, b and /b an additional b side post from here, /b on the other side of the public domain, b or /b he may place a cross b beam from here, /b from one end of one house to the end of the house opposite it, b and /b another cross b beam from here, /b from the other side of the house, b and carry /b objects b and place /b them b in /b the area b between them /b because the two added partitions turn the area in the middle into a private domain. The Rabbis b said to him: One cannot make the public domain fit /b for carrying b by /b means of b an i eiruv /i in this manner, /b i.e., by means of a side post alone, when many people continue to walk through the public thoroughfare in the middle.,Consequently, there is b a contradiction between /b one statement of b Rabbi Yehuda and /b the other statement of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and there is also b a contradiction between /b one statement of b the Rabbis and /b the other statement of b the Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara answers: Between one statement of b Rabbi Yehuda and /b the other statement of b Rabbi Yehuda /b there is b no contradiction, /b because one can differentiate between them. b There, /b in the case of the two houses, b there are two proper partitions, /b for the houses are real partitions, and two partitions suffice to establish a separate domain. However, b here, /b in the case of the upright boards, b there are not two proper partitions, /b for the upright boards are not real partitions.,Between one statement of b the Rabbis /b and the other statement of b the Rabbis /b there is b also no contradiction, /b as b here, /b with regard to the upright boards, b there is a nominal /b set b of four partitions; /b on all four sides side there are at least two cubits of some form of partition, so the cistern is regarded as enclosed by four partitions. However, b there, /b with regard to the two houses, b there is not a nominal /b set b of four partitions. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b In b Eretz Yisrael one is not liable for /b carrying in b the public domain. Rav Dimi sat and recited this i halakha /i . Abaye said to Rav Dimi: What is the reason /b underlying this ruling? |
|
| 117. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 106 |
118. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 67| 37a. מאי כי מהניא חבת הקדש לפסולא דגופיה אבל למימנא ביה ראשון ושני לא או דלמא לא שנא תיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big השוחט את המסוכנת רשב"ג אומר עד שתפרכס ביד וברגל ר"א אומר דיה אם זינקה אמר ר"ש השוחט בלילה ולמחר השכים ומצא כתלים מלאים דם כשרה שזינקה וכמדת ר"א וחכ"א עד שתפרכס או ביד או ברגל או עד שתכשכש בזנבה,אחד בהמה דקה ואחד בהמה גסה בהמה דקה שפשטה ידה ולא החזירה פסולה שאינה אלא הוצאת נפש בלבד במה דברים אמורים שהיתה בחזקת מסוכנת אבל אם היתה בחזקת בריאה אפי' אין בה אחד מכל הסימנים הללו כשרה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מסוכנת ממאי דשריא וממאי תיסק אדעתין דאסירא דכתיב (ויקרא יא, ב) זאת החיה אשר תאכלו חיה אכול ושאינה חיה לא תאכל והא מסוכנת אינה חיה,מדאמר רחמנא (דברים יד, כא) נבלה לא תאכל מכלל דמסוכנת שריא דאי ס"ד מסוכנת אסירא השתא מחיים אסירא לאחר מיתה מיבעי,ודלמא היינו נבלה היינו מסוכנת לא ס"ד דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לט) וכי ימות מן הבהמה אשר היא לכם לאכלה הנוגע בנבלתה לאחר מיתה הוא דקרייה רחמנא נבלה מחיים לא אקרי נבלה,ודלמא לעולם אימא לך היינו נבלה היינו מסוכנת מחיים בעשה לאחר מיתה בלאו,אלא מדאמר רחמנא (שמות כב, ל) טרפה לא תאכל מכלל דמסוכנת שריא דאי ס"ד מסוכנת אסירא השתא מסוכנת דלא מחסרא אסירא טרפה מיבעיא,ודלמא היינו טרפה היינו מסוכנת ולעבור עליו בעשה ולא תעשה א"כ נבלה דכתב רחמנא ל"ל ומה מחיים קאי עלה בלאו ועשה לאחר מיתה מיבעיא,ודלמא היינו נבלה היינו טרפה היינו מסוכנת ולעבור עליו בשני לאוין ועשה,אלא מהכא (ויקרא ז, כד) וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה יעשה לכל מלאכה ואכל לא תאכלוהו ואמר מר למאי הלכתא אמרה התורה יבא איסור נבלה ויחול על איסור חלב יבא איסור טרפה ויחול על איסור חלב | 37a. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the resolution of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: b When regard for sanctity is effective /b in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it only b to disqualify /b that item b itself, but to count /b the descending levels of b first-degree /b impurity b and second-degree /b impurity, it is b not /b effective; b or perhaps /b once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there b is no difference /b whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids? The Gemara answers: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b one who slaughters /b an animal b that is in danger /b of imminent death, b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: /b The slaughter is valid b only /b in a case b where /b after the slaughter b it convulses with its foreleg and with its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is sufficient if /b blood b spurted /b from the neck. b Rabbi Shimon says: /b In the case of b one who slaughters at night and the next day he awoke and found walls full of blood, /b the slaughter is b valid, /b as it is clear b that /b the blood b spurted, and /b this is b in accordance with the rule of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: /b It is valid b only /b in a case b where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or /b in a case b where it wags its tail. /b ,This is the i halakha /i with regard to b both a small animal, /b e.g., a sheep, b and a large animal, /b e.g., a cow, that is in danger of imminent death. The slaughter of b a small animal that /b when being slaughtered b extended its foreleg /b that was bent b and did not restore /b it to the bent position b is not valid, as /b extending the foreleg b is only /b part of the natural course of b removal /b of the animal’s b soul /b from its body and not a convulsion indicating life. b In what /b case b is this statement said? /b It is in a case b where the presumptive status /b of the animal b was /b that it was b in danger /b of imminent death. b But if its presumptive status was /b that it was b healthy, /b then b even if there were none of these indicators, /b the slaughter is b valid. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b From where /b is it known b that /b the flesh of an animal b in danger /b of imminent death b is permitted /b by means of slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question: b And from where would it enter your mind that it is prohibited? /b The Gemara explains that one may have thought it is prohibited, b as it is written: “These are the living beings [ i haḥayya /i ] that you may eat /b among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). One might have thought that the verse is saying: b Eat /b an animal that is fit to b live [ i ḥayya /i ], but do not eat /b an animal b that is not /b fit to b live. And this /b animal b in danger /b of imminent death b is not /b fit to b live. /b ,The fact that its meat is permitted is derived b from the fact that the Merciful One states that you shall not eat an unslaughtered animal carcass, /b as it is written: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass” (Deuteronomy 14:21); one learns b by inference /b that eating the meat of an animal b in danger /b of imminent death b is permitted. As, if it enters your mind /b that eating the meat of an animal b in danger /b of imminent death b is prohibited, now /b if an animal is b prohibited while alive, /b is it b necessary /b to state that it is prohibited b after death? /b ,The Gemara rejects that proof. b And /b that is not a legitimate inference, as b perhaps /b the halakhic status of b an unslaughtered carcass is /b the same as b that of /b an animal b in danger /b of imminent death, and the prohibition: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass,” includes both. The Gemara answers: b It would not enter your mind /b to say so, b as it is written: “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass /b shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). This indicates that b it is after death that the Merciful One calls /b the animal b a carcass; while alive, /b the animal b is not called a carcass. /b ,The Gemara questions that understanding. b And perhaps, actually I will say to you: /b The halakhic status of b an unslaughtered carcass is /b the same as b that of /b an animal b in danger /b of imminent death, but if one slaughters the animal in danger of imminent death b while alive, /b he would be b in /b violation of b a positive /b mitzva: “These are the living beings that you may eat” (Leviticus 11:2), whereas b after /b its b death, /b he would be b in /b violation of b a prohibition: /b “You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass” (Deuteronomy 14:21)., b Rather, /b the fact that its meat is permitted is derived b from the fact that the Merciful One states you shall not eat that an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [ i tereifa /i ], /b as it is written: “And you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [ i tereifa /i ]” (Exodus 22:30). From here, one learns b by inference /b that eating the meat of an animal b in danger /b of imminent death b is permitted. As, if it enters your mind /b that eating the meat of an animal b in danger /b of imminent death b is prohibited, now /b that an animal b in danger /b of imminent death b that is not lacking /b any limb b is prohibited, /b is it b necessary /b to state that b a i tereifa /i , /b an animal that was mauled and lacking body parts, is prohibited?,The Gemara rejects that proof. b And /b that is not a legitimate inference, as b perhaps /b the halakhic status of b a i tereifa /i /b that is lacking body parts b is /b the same as that of an animal b in danger /b of imminent death that is not lacking body parts, and both are included in the category of i tereifa /i . This would render one who slaughters either b to /b be b in violation /b of both b a positive /b mitzva: “These are the living beings that you may eat,” b and a prohibition: /b “And you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [ i tereifa /i ].” The Gemara questions that understanding: b If so, why do I /b need the prohibition b that the Merciful One writes /b with regard to b an unslaughtered carcass? If while /b an animal is b alive one stands in /b violation of b a prohibition and a positive /b mitzva, b is /b it b necessary /b to state that it is prohibited b after death? /b ,The Gemara objects: b And /b that is not a legitimate question, as b perhaps /b the halakhic status of b an unslaughtered carcass is /b the same as b a i tereifa /i /b that is lacking body parts, and b is /b the same as b that of /b an animal b in danger /b of imminent death that is not lacking body parts. Therefore, when the Torah writes the word “carcass,” it is the same as though it had written i tereifa /i and the same as though it had written an animal in danger of imminent death. The Torah prohibits each, b and the result will be that he will violate two prohibitions and a positive /b mitzva., b Rather, /b the fact that the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted is derived b from here: “And the fat of a carcass and the fat of a i tereifa /i may be used for any purpose; but you shall not eat it” /b (Leviticus 7:24). b And the Master says: /b In order b to /b derive b what i halakha /i /b is this verse written? Would one imagine that because it is an unslaughtered carcass or a i tereifa /i its fat would be permitted for consumption? b The Torah states: Let the prohibition against /b eating b an unslaughtered carcass come and take effect upon the prohibition against /b eating forbidden b fat, /b which already exists. One who eats the forbidden fat of an unslaughtered carcass is liable for violation of both prohibitions. Likewise, the word “ i tereifa /i ” in the verse teaches: b Let the prohibition against /b eating b a i tereifa /i come and take effect upon the prohibition against /b eating forbidden b fat, /b which already exists, so that one who eats the forbidden fat of a i tereifa /i is liable for transgressing both prohibitions. |
|
| 119. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 12-13, 26, 8 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44 |
129. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 116, 122, 123| 52b. ושאינו נשאר לא ימצה תרי תנאי ואליבא דר' ישמעאל,אמר רמי בר חמא האי תנא סבר שירים מעכבי דתניא (ויקרא ו, יט) הכהן המחטא אותה אותה שניתן דמה למעלה ולא אותה שניתן דמה למטה,אמרת וכי מאין באתה מכלל שנאמר (דברים יב, כז) ודם זבחיך ישפך על מזבח וגו' למדנו לניתנין במתן ארבע שאם נתנן במתנה אחת כיפר יכול אף הניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה כיפר,ודין הוא נאמרו דמים למעלה ונאמרו דמים למטן מה דמים האמורים למטן שנתנן למעלן לא כיפר אף דמים האמורים למעלן אם נתן למטה לא כיפר,לא אם אמרת בתחתונים שניתנין בנתינה למעלה שאין סופן למעלן לא כיפר תאמר בעליונים שנתנן למטה שיש מהן קרב למטה,דמים (שיריים) הפנימיים יוכיחו שיש מהן קרב בחוץ ואם נתנן בתחלה בחוץ לא כיפר,לא אם אמרת בדמים הפנימיים שאין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן תאמר בעליונים שהרי קרנות ממרקות אותן אם נתנן למטה כשרים,ת"ל אותה אותה שניתן דמים למעלה ולא שניתן דמה למטה,מאי שאין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן לאו אלו שיריים,א"ל רבא אי הכי תיתי בק"ו,מה שיריים הפנימיים שסופן חובה בחוץ עשאן בתחלה בחוץ לא כיפר הניתנין למעלה שאין סופן חובה למטה ועשאן בתחלה למטה אינו דין שלא כיפר,אלא אין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן בלבד אלא פרוכת,תנו רבנן (ויקרא טז, כ) וכלה מכפר אם כיפר כלה ואם לא כיפר לא כלה דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו רבי יהודה מפני מה לא נאמר אם כלה כיפר אם לא כלה לא כיפר שאם חיסר אחת מכל המתנות לא עשה ולא כלום,מאי בינייהו רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי חד אמר משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו וחד אמר שיריים מעכבין איכא בינייהו,תסתיים דר' יהושע בן לוי הוא דאמר שיריים דמעכבי דא"ר יהושע בן לוי לדברי האומר שיריים מעכבין מביא פר אחד ומתחיל בתחלה בפנים,אטו ר' יוחנן לית ליה הא סברא והאמר ר' יוחנן תנא ר' נחמיה כדברי האומר שירים מעכבין,אלא כדברי האומר ולאו להני תנאי הכא נמי כדברי האומר ולאו להני תנאי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חטאות הצבור והיחיד אלו הן חטאות הצבור שעירי ראשי חדשים ושל מועדות שחיטתן בצפון וקיבול דמן בכלי שרת בצפון ודמן טעון ארבע מתנות על ארבע קרנות כיצד | 52b. b And that which does not remain, /b i.e., if there is no blood remaining, b he shall not squeeze /b it b out. /b This indicates that failure to squeeze the blood does not disqualify the offering. The Gemara answers: There are b two i tanna’im /i , and /b they disagree b with regard to /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yishmael. /b ,The Gemara continues its discussion of the remainder of the blood. b Rami bar Ḥama says: This /b following b i tanna /i holds /b that failure to pour the b remainder /b of the blood of offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary b disqualifies /b the offering, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “The priest that sacrifices it for sin /b shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19). The verse states the word “it” to teach that b it, /b the offering b whose blood was sprinkled /b correctly, b above /b the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. b But /b this is b not /b so for an offering b whose blood was sprinkled below /b the red line, which is disqualified.,The i baraita /i continues: b You said /b this, b but from where did you come? /b In other words, why would one think that such an offering is valid, so that the verse needs to teach that it is not? The i baraita /i explains: b From the fact that it is stated: /b “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; b and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar /b of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:27), b we learned /b that b with regard to /b those offerings whose blood is b placed with four placements /b on the corners of the altar, b that if /b the priest b placed them with /b only b one placement, he has effected atonement. /b Therefore, since it is derived that if the priest does not present the blood on the specified corners of the altar, the offering is nevertheless valid, one b might /b have thought that blood b that /b should have been b placed above /b the red line but b that one placed below /b the red line b effects atonement as well, /b and the offering is valid.,The i baraita /i continues: b And /b it would seem there b is a logical inference /b to counter this logic. b It is stated /b that b blood /b is to be sprinkled b above /b the red line, referring to the blood of an animal sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the corners on the upper half of the altar, b and it is stated /b that b blood /b is to be sprinkled b below /b the red line, referring to the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the lower half of the altar. b Just as /b with regard to the b blood /b about b which /b it b is stated /b that it is to be b below /b the red line, if it is a case b where one placed /b it b above /b the red line, it does b not effect atonement, /b as the Sages derived from the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar, and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9), b so too, /b with regard to the b blood, /b about b which /b it b is stated /b that it is to be b above /b the red line, if it is a case b where one placed /b it b below /b the red line, it does b not effect atonement. /b ,This logical inference is rejected: b No, if you said /b that this is the i halakha /i b with regard to /b the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled b below /b the red line b that was placed with a placement above /b the red line, that may be b because they will not ultimately /b be sprinkled b above. /b For this reason it does b not effect atonement. Shall you /b also b say /b that this is the i halakha /i b with regard to /b the blood that is to be sprinkled b above /b the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, but b which one placed below /b the red line, that it will not effect atonement? The blood that is to be sprinkled above the red line is different, b as /b some b of it is sacrificed below /b the red line, when the remainder of the blood is poured on the base of the altar.,The i baraita /i responds: The b blood /b that is placed b inside /b the Sanctuary b will prove /b it, b as /b some b of it is sacrificed outside, but if /b the priest b initially placed /b the blood on the altar b outside /b the Sanctuary it does b not effect atonement. /b ,The i baraita /i rejects this proof: b No, if you said /b that this is the i halakha /i b with regard to /b the b blood /b that is placed b inside /b the Sanctuary, concerning b which the inner altar does not complete /b the atonement, as they require additional blood placements, b shall you /b also b say /b that this is the i halakha /i b with regard to /b the blood offered b above /b the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, concerning b which /b the b corners /b of the altar b complete /b the atonement? Accordingly, it is possible to say that b if one placed them below /b the red line b they are valid. /b ,The i baraita /i concludes: To counter this reasoning, b the verse states /b with regard to an animal sin offering that is sacrificed outside: “The priest that sacrifices b it /b for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19), to emphasize that b it, /b the offering b whose blood was placed /b correctly, b above /b the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. b But /b this is b not /b so for an offering b whose blood was placed below /b the red line, which is disqualified.,Rami bar Ḥama proves his point: b What /b does the i baraita /i mean when it says: If you said that this is the i halakha /i with regard to the blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary, concerning b which the inner altar does not complete /b the atonement? What is required to complete the atonement? Is it b not /b referring to b this remainder /b of the blood and is teaching that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering?, b Rava said to /b Rami bar Ḥama: b If so, /b that the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of the offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, you could b derive /b the i halakha /i that if the priest sprinkled the blood below the red line the offering is disqualified b via an i a fortiori /i /b inference., b Just as /b it is with regard to b the remainder /b of the blood of the offerings b of the inner /b altar, concerning b which their ultimate /b rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is b obligatory on the external /b altar, but if the priest b initially performed /b the rite of placing the blood b on the external /b altar, it does b not effect atonement, /b with regard to those offerings whose blood b is placed above /b the red line, concerning b which their ultimate /b rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is b not obligatory below /b the red line of the altar, b and /b the priest b initially performed /b the rite of placing the blood b below /b the red line, b is it not logical that /b it does b not effect atonement? /b Since the i baraita /i does not advance this claim, but derived the i halakha /i from a verse, this indicates that pouring the remainder of the blood is not obligatory.,Rava continues: b Rather, /b when the i baraita /i states that the blood of the offerings offered inside the Sanctuary are those concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement it means that b the inner altar does not complete /b the atonement b alone, /b but b rather /b requires that blood also be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the b Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states concerning the sacrificial rite performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: b “And when he has finished atoning /b for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that b if he performed /b the b atonement, he has finished /b the service, b but if he did not perform /b the b atonement, he has not finished. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: For what /b reason b do we not say: If he finished, he has performed atonement, /b but b if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement? /b This derivation would indicate b that if one of any of the /b blood b placements is lacking /b it is as though b he did nothing. /b ,The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: b What /b is the difference b between them? Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi /b engaged in a dispute concerning this. b One says /b that b interpretation of the meaning /b of the verse b is /b the difference b between them, /b i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. b And one says /b that b there is /b a difference b between them /b with regard to whether failure to pour the b remainder /b of the blood at the base of the altar b disqualifies /b the offering. According to Rabbi Akiva, it does not disqualify the offering, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it does disqualify the offering.,The Gemara suggests: b It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is /b the one b who says /b that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda disagree as to whether or not failure to pour the b remainder /b of the blood on the altar b disqualifies /b the offering. b As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: According to the statement of the one who says /b that failure to pour the b remainder /b of the blood on the base of the altar b disqualifies /b the offering, if the priest finished placing the blood on the inner altar and the blood was spilled before he poured the remainder on the external altar, he must b bring one bull /b and slaughter it, b and begin /b the sprinkling of the blood as he did b initially on the inner /b altar, so that there will be blood remaining from the sprinkling, and then he pours the remainder of the blood on the external altar. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi discusses the opinion that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the i baraita /i cited here.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa does not /b agree with b this reasoning? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa /b himself b say /b (111a): b Rabbi Neḥemya taught /b a i halakha /i b in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that failure to pour the b remainder /b of blood b disqualifies /b the offering? Rabbi Yoḥa also discusses the opinion of a i tanna /i who holds that failure to pour the remainder of blood disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the i baraita /i cited here., b Rather, /b there is no proof that Rabbi Yoḥa is referring to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda. He is stating a i halakha /i b in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that it disqualifies the offering, whichever i tanna /i that may be, b but /b he is b not /b referring b to /b the dispute between b these i tanna’im /i . Here too, /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is stating a i halakha /i b in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that it disqualifies the offering, whichever i tanna /i that may be, b but /b he is b not /b referring b to /b the dispute between b these i tanna’im /i . /b , strong MISHNA: /strong These are the i halakhot /i of b the communal and the individual sin offerings. These are the communal sin offerings: Goats of the New Moon and of the Festivals. Their slaughter /b is b in the north /b of the Temple courtyard, b and /b the b collection of their blood in a service vessel /b is b in the north, and their blood requires four placements on the four corners of the altar. How /b did the priest do so? |
|
134. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •israel, land of (palestine) Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 66, 67, 68, 73| 16b. ואליבא דרבי יהודה רב אשי אמר סתם ארי שבור הוא אצל מלאכה,מיתיבי כשם שאין מוכרין להן בהמה גסה כך אין מוכרין להן חיה גסה ואפילו במקום שמוכרין להן בהמה דקה חיה גסה אין מוכרין להן תיובתא דרב חנן בר רבא תיובתא,רבינא רמי מתניתין אברייתא ומשני תנן אין מוכרין להן דובין ואריות ולא כל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים טעמא דאית ביה נזק הא לית ביה נזק מוכרין,ורמינהי כשם שאין מוכרין בהמה גסה כך אין מוכרין חיה גסה ואפילו במקום שמוכרין בהמה דקה חיה גסה אין מוכרין ומשני בארי שבור ואליבא דר' יהודה רב אשי אמר סתם ארי שבור הוא אצל מלאכה,מתקיף לה רב נחמן מאן לימא לן דארי חיה גסה היא דלמא חיה דקה היא,רב אשי דייק מתניתין ומותיב תיובתא תנן אין מוכרין להן דובים ואריות ולא כל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים טעמא דאית ביה נזק הא לית ביה נזק מוכרין,וטעמא ארי דסתם ארי שבור הוא אצל מלאכה אבל מידי אחרינא דעביד מלאכה לא תיובתא דרב חנן בר רבא תיובתא,וחיה גסה מיהת מאי מלאכה עבדא אמר אביי אמר לי מר יהודה דבי מר יוחני טחני ריחים בערודי,א"ר זירא כי הוינן בי רב יהודה אמר לן גמירו מינאי הא מילתא דמגברא רבה שמיע לי ולא ידענא אי מרב אי משמואל חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס,כי אתאי לקורקוניא אשכחתיה לרב חייא בר אשי ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דשמואל חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס אמינא ש"מ משמיה דשמואל איתמר כי אתאי לסורא אשכחתיה לרבה בר ירמיה דיתיב וקא"ל משמיה דרב חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס אמינא ש"מ איתמר משמיה דרב ואיתמר משמיה דשמואל,כי סליקת להתם אשכחתיה לרב אסי דיתיב וקאמר אמר רב חמא בר גוריא משמיה דרב חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס אמרי ליה ולא סבר לה מר דמאן מרא דשמעתתא רבה בר ירמיה א"ל פתיא אוכמא מינאי ומינך תסתיים שמעתא,איתמר נמי א"ר זירא אמר רב אסי אמר רבה בר ירמיה אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס:,אין בונין כו': אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ג' בסילקאות הן של מלכי עובדי כוכבים ושל מרחצאות ושל אוצרות אמר רבא ב' להיתר ואחד לאיסור וסימן (תהלים קמט, ח) לאסור מלכיהם בזיקים,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבא כולם להיתר והתנן אין בונין עמהן בסילקי גרדום איצטדייא ובימה אימא של גרדום ושל איצטדייא ושל בימה,ת"ר כשנתפס ר"א למינות העלהו לגרדום לידון אמר לו אותו הגמון זקן שכמותך יעסוק בדברים בטלים הללו,אמר לו נאמן עלי הדיין כסבור אותו הגמון עליו הוא אומר והוא לא אמר אלא כנגד אביו שבשמים אמר לו הואיל והאמנתי עליך דימוס פטור אתה,כשבא לביתו נכנסו תלמידיו אצלו לנחמו ולא קיבל עליו תנחומין אמר לו ר"ע רבי תרשיני לומר דבר אחד ממה שלימדתני אמר לו אמור אמר לו רבי שמא מינות בא לידך | 16b. b and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda /b in the mishna on 14b, that it is permitted to sell to a gentile large livestock that are damaged. Yet, it is prohibited to sell large undamaged beasts, just as one may not sell large undamaged livestock. b Rav Ashi says: /b It is not necessary to explain that the mishna is referring to such a specific case. Rather, b an ordinary lion is /b considered b damaged with regard to labor, /b as lions are not generally used to perform labor. Therefore there is no concern that a lion will be used to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Just as one may not sell large livestock to /b gentiles, b so too one may not sell large beasts to them. And even in a place where /b the people were accustomed to b sell small livestock to /b gentiles; nevertheless, b one may not sell large beasts to /b them. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥa bar Rava /b is b a conclusive refutation. /b ,The Gemara presents a different version of this discussion. b Ravina raises a contradiction between the mishna /b here b and a i baraita /i and resolves /b the contradiction. b We learned /b in the mishna: b One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to /b gentiles. Ravina analyzes the mishna: b The reason /b a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is b that it can cause injury to the public, /b from which it may be inferred that with regard to another beast, which b does not cause injury to the public, one may sell /b it to gentiles., b And /b Ravina b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i : b Just as one may not sell large livestock /b to gentiles, b so too, one may not sell large beasts /b to them. b And even in a place where /b the people were accustomed to b sell small livestock /b to gentiles, b one may not sell large beasts /b to them. The i baraita /i indicates that one may never sell large beasts to gentiles, even if it poses no danger to the public. b And /b Ravina b resolves /b the contradiction between the mishna and the i baraita /i : The ruling of the mishna is stated b with regard to a damaged lion, in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Ashi says /b there is a different explanation: b An ordinary lion is /b considered b damaged with regard to labor. /b , b Rav Naḥman objects to /b the inference drawn from the mishna: b Who will tell us that a lion is /b considered b a large beast? Perhaps it is /b considered b a small beast, /b in which case it cannot be inferred that the mishna permits the sale of large beasts.,The Gemara explains: b Rav Ashi examined the mishna /b here carefully, b and /b from it he b raises a refutation /b of the opinion of Rav Ḥa bar Rava, who permitted the sale of large beasts. b We learned /b in the mishna: b One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to /b gentiles. Rav Ashi inferred two conclusions from here. First, b the reason /b a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is b because it can cause injury to the public, /b whereas with regard to a beast that b does not cause injury to the public, one may sell /b it to gentiles. This inference was cited in contradiction of the opinion of Rav, as explained before., b And /b Rav Ashi then inferred, in resolution of Rav’s opinion, that b the reason /b the mishna specifies that one may sell b a lion /b if it does not pose a danger to the public is b that an ordinary lion is /b considered b damaged with regard to labor. But a different /b animal b that performs labor /b may b not /b be sold. This presents a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥa bar Rava. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥa bar Rava /b is b a conclusive refutation. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But in any event, what labor can a large beast perform? /b Why is it necessary to prohibit the sale of large beasts if they are not trained to perform any labor? b Abaye said: Mar Yehuda said to me /b that b in the house of Mar Yoḥani, they grind the mill with wild asses, /b which are considered large beasts.,§ b Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the /b study b hall of Rav Yehuda, he said to us: Learn from me this matter, which I heard from a great man, but I do not know if /b I heard it b from Rav or from Shmuel: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm, /b i.e., the symptoms of vitality required at the time of slaughtering.,Rabbi Zeira continued: b When I came to /b the city of b Korkoneya, I found Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi sitting and saying in the name of Shmuel: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said /b to myself: One can b conclude from /b here that this b was stated in the name of Shmuel. When I came to Sura, I found Rabba bar Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rav: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said /b to myself: One can b conclude from /b here that this b was stated in the name of Rav, and /b it b was /b also b stated in the name of Shmuel. /b , b When I ascended to there, /b Eretz Yisrael, b I found Rav Asi sitting and saying /b that b Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says in the name of Rav: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to him: And doesn’t the Master hold that the Master /b who is responsible for dissemination b of /b this b i halakha /i /b is b Rabba bar Yirmeya? /b Why don’t you attribute the statement to him? Rav Asi b said to me: Black pot [ i patya /i ], /b a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: b From me and from you /b this b i halakha /i may be concluded. /b In other words, our two statements should be combined to form one accurate attribution of the i halakha /i .,The Gemara notes that in fact this ruling b was also stated: Rabbi Zeira says /b that b Rav Asi says /b that b Rabba bar Yirmeya says /b that b Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says /b that b Rav says: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b one may not build /b a basilica in conjunction with gentiles. b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: There are three /b types of b basilicas: /b Those b of kings, and /b those b of bathhouses, and /b those b of storehouses. Rava says: Two /b of these types b are permitted, /b as they are not used for inflicting the death penalty, b and one is prohibited [ i le’isor /i ]. And a mnemonic /b device for this ruling, that the basilica of kings is prohibited, is the verse: b “To bind [ i le’esor /i ] their kings with chains” /b (Psalms 149:8)., b And there are /b those b who say /b that this is what b Rava says: All /b these types of basilica are b permitted. /b The Gemara asks: How can it be permitted to build any type of basilica; b but didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b One may not build with them a basilica, a tribunal, a stadium, or a platform? /b The Gemara answers: b Say /b that the mishna means the following: One may not build in conjunction with gentiles a basilica b of a tribunal, or of a stadium, or of a platform. /b But it is permitted to build a basilica that is not used for sentencing and inflicting the death penalty.,§ Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara relates incidents involving Sages who were sentenced by the ruling authorities. b The Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer was arrested /b and charged b with heresy /b by the authorities, b they brought him up to a tribunal to be judged. A certain /b judicial b officer [ i hegemon /i ] said to him: /b Why b should an elder like you engage in these frivolous matters /b of heresy?,Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: The Judge is trusted by me /b to rule correctly. b That officer thought /b that Rabbi Eliezer b was speaking about him; but /b in fact b he said /b this b only in reference to his Father in Heaven. /b Rabbi Eliezer meant that he accepted God’s judgment, i.e., if he was charged he must have sinned to God in some manner. The officer b said to him: Since you /b put b your trust in me, /b you are b acquitted [ i dimos /i ]; you are exempt. /b , b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b came home, his students entered to console him /b for being accused of heresy, which he took as a sign of sin, b and he did not accept /b their words of b consolation. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, allow me to say one matter from /b all of b that which you taught me. /b Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Speak. /b Rabbi Akiva b said to him: My teacher, perhaps /b some statement of b heresy came before you /b |
|
136. Anon., Challah, 2.5 Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 114| 2.5. "אמר רבי אליעזר ב\"ר צדוק אע\"פ שהיה רבן גמליאל פוטר את אריסות בסוריא אוסר היה מלארס אם ארס הרי זה פטור ובלבד שלא יהא הוא מלקט והן אוגדים על ידו הוא בוצר והן דורכים על ידו הוא מוסק והן עוטנין על ידו אלא הן מלקטין והוא אוגד על ידיהן הן בוצרין והוא דורך על ידיהן הן מוסקין והוא עוטן על ידיהן וכן היה רבי אלעזר ב\"ר צדוק אומר לא היה רבן גמליאל מחייב בסוריא אלא חלה אחת בלבד.", | |
|
| 137. Anon., Shemoneh Esreh, 0 Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 290 |
138. Anon., Ruthrabbah, 3.2 Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 660| 3.2. כְּתִיב (קהלת ט, ד): כִּי מִי אֲשֶׁר יְחֻבַּר וגו', תַּמָן תְּנֵינַן הָרוֹאֶה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מַה הוּא אוֹמֵר, בָּרוּךְ נוֹתֵן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם לְעוֹבְרֵי רְצוֹנוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרָה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מִמֶּנּוּ, בָּרוּךְ שֶׁעָקַר עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֵאַרְצֵנוּ. וְכֵן יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁתַּעֲקֹר אוֹתָהּ מִכָּל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת וְתָשׁוּב לֵב עוֹבְדֶיהָ לְעָבְדְּךָ בְּלֵב שָׁלֵם, וְלֹא נִמְצָא מִתְפַּלֵּל עַל הָרְשָׁעִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן יְבֻחַר כְּתִיב, אֲפִלּוּ כָּל אוֹתָן שֶׁפָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בַּזְּבוּל יֵשׁ בִּטָּחוֹן, לְהַחֲיוֹת אוֹתָם אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁכְּבָר פָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בַּזְּבוּל, לְכַלּוֹתָם אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁכְּבָר עָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה, עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (ירמיה נא, לט): וְיָשְׁנוּ שְׁנַת עוֹלָם וְלֹא יָקִיצוּ. תַּנְיָא קְטַנֵי גוֹיִם וְחֵילוֹתָיו שֶׁל נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר לֹא חַיִּים וְלֹא נִדּוֹנִים, וַעֲלֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר: וְיָשְׁנוּ שְׁנַת עוֹלָם וְלֹא יָקִיצוּ. (קהלת ט, ד): כִּי לְכֶלֶב חַי הוּא טוֹב מִן הָאַרְיֵה הַמֵּת, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה מִי שֶׁהוּא כֶּלֶב, לְהֵעָשׂוֹת אֲרִי הוּא יָכוֹל. וּמִי שֶׁהוּא אֲרִי, יָכוֹל לְהֵעָשׂוֹת כֶּלֶב. אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, מִי שֶׁהוּא אֲרִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהֵעָשׂוֹת כֶּלֶב, וְכָל מִי שֶׁהוּא כֶּלֶב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהֵעָשׂוֹת אֲרִי. אַדְרִיָּאנוֹס שְׁחִיק טַמְיָא שָׁאַל לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא טָב מִמּשֶׁה רַבָּךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לָמָּה, דַּאֲנָא חַי וְהוּא מֵת, וּכְתִיב: כִּי לְכֶלֶב חַי טוֹב מִן הָאַרְיֵה הַמֵּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ יָכוֹל אַתְּ לִגְזֹר דְּלָא יַדְלֵק בַּר נָשׁ נוּר תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אִין. לְעִידָּן עַמְיָא סָלְקוּן תַּרְוֵיהוֹן עַל אִיגַר פָּלָטִין חֲמֵי תְּנָנָא סָלֵיק מִן רְחִיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַה כֵּן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִיפַרְכִּיָא בִּישׁ, עָאל אַסְיָא וּבַקַּר יָתֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ עַד דְּשָׁתֵי חֲמִימֵי לָא מִיתַּסֵּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ תִּפַּח רוּחֵיהּ, עַד דְאַתְּ קַיָּם בָּטְלָה גְּזֵרָתְךָ, וּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁגָּזַר עָלֵינוּ (שמות לה, ג): לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל משְׁבֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, לָא מַדְלֵיק יְהוּדָאי נוּר בְּשַׁבְּתָא מִיּוֹמוֹהִי, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְבַּטְּלָה גְּזֵרָתוֹ עַד הַשְׁתָּא, אֲמַרְתְּ אַתְּ כֵּן דַּאֲנָא טָב מִינֵיהּ. (תהלים לט, ה): הוֹדִיעֵנִי ה' קִצִּי וּמִדַּת יָמַי מַה הִיא, אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָם אוֹדַע לִי אֵימָתַי אֲנָא מָיֵית, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָזָא הִיא דְּלָא מִתְגַּלֵּי לְבַר נָשׁ וְלֵית אֶפְשָׁר דְּיִתְגַּלֵּי לָךְ. וּמִדַּת יָמַי מַה הִיא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שַׁבְעִין שְׁנִין. וְאֵדְעָה מֶה חָדֵל אָנִי, אוֹדַע לִי בְּהָדֵין יוֹמָא אֲנָא מָיֵית, אָמַר לוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ פַּחֵית לִי חַד יוֹמָא, אָמַר לוֹ לֹא. אָמַר לוֹ לָמָּה, אָמַר לוֹ חֲבִיבָה עָלַי תְּפִלָּה אַחַת שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹמֵד וּמִתְפַּלֵּל לְפָנַי מֵאֶלֶף עוֹלוֹת שֶׁעָתִיד שְׁלֹמֹה בִּנְךָ לְהַעֲלוֹת לְפָנַי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א ג, ד): אֶלֶף עֹלוֹת יַעֲלֶה שְׁלֹמֹה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַהוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אוֹסֵיף לִי חַד יוֹמָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה, אָמַר לֵיהּ אַרְכִי שֶׁל בִּנְךָ דּוֹחֶקֶת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אַרְכִיּוֹת אַרְכִיּוֹת הֵן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ אַרְכִי שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ אֲפִלּוּ כִּמְלֹא נִימָא. וּמֵת בַּעֲצֶרֶת שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, וְסָלְקָה סַנְהֶדְּרִין מֶחְמְיָיא אַפִּין לִשְׁלֹמֹה, אֲמַר לְהוֹן מַעֲבַר יָתֵיהּ מֵאֲתַר לַאֲתַר, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָּא הִיא סָכִין וּמְדִיחִין וּבִלְבָד שֶׁלֹא יָזִיז אֵבָר. אָמַר כְּלָבִים שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא רְעֵבִין, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ וְלָא מַתְנִיתָּא הִיא מְחַתְּכִין אֶת הַדְּלוּעִים לִפְנֵי הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶת הַנְּבֵלָה לִפְנֵי הַכְּלָבִים. מֶה עָשָׂה נָטַל פִּיפְקִין וּפָרַשׂ עָלָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹא תֵּרֵד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים לַנְּשָׁרִים קְרָא וּפָרְשׂוּ עָלָיו אֲגַפֵּיהוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹא תֵּרֵד עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. | |
|
139. Anon., Letter of Aristeas, 30, 305 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 109 | 305. after saluting the king went back to their own place. And as is the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands in the sea and prayed to God and then devoted themselves to reading and |
|
| 140. Anon., Megillat Taanit (Lichtenstein), 13 Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 174 |
155. Septuagint, 4 Maccabees, 5.2, 5.4, 8.2, 9.6, 9.18 Tagged with subjects: •land of israel (palestine) Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 149 | 5.2. ordered the guards to seize each and every Hebrew and to compel them to eat pork and food sacrificed to idols. 5.4. And when many persons had been rounded up, one man, Eleazar by name, leader of the flock, was brought before the king. He was a man of priestly family, learned in the law, advanced in age, and known to many in the tyrant's court because of his philosophy. 8.2. For when the tyrant was conspicuously defeated in his first attempt, being unable to compel an aged man to eat defiling foods, then in violent rage he commanded that others of the Hebrew captives be brought, and that any who ate defiling food should be freed after eating, but if any were to refuse, these should be tortured even more cruelly. 9.6. And if the aged men of the Hebrews because of their religion lived piously while enduring torture, it would be even more fitting that we young men should die despising your coercive tortures, which our aged instructor also overcame. 9.18. Through all these tortures I will convince you that sons of the Hebrews alone are invincible where virtue is concerned." |
|
