1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 45.4, 127.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60| 45.4. חֲגוֹר־חַרְבְּךָ עַל־יָרֵךְ גִּבּוֹר הוֹדְךָ וַהֲדָרֶךָ׃ 127.5. אַשְׁרֵי הַגֶּבֶר אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּא אֶת־אַשְׁפָּתוֹ מֵהֶם לֹא־יֵבֹשׁוּ כִּי־יְדַבְּרוּ אֶת־אוֹיְבִים בַּשָּׁעַר׃ | 45.4. Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, Thy glory and thy majesty. 127.5. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them; They shall not be put to shame, When they speak with their enemies in the gate. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 33.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60| 33.7. וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה וַיֹּאמַר שְׁמַע יְהוָה קוֹל יְהוּדָה וְאֶל־עַמּוֹ תְּבִיאֶנּוּ יָדָיו רָב לוֹ וְעֵזֶר מִצָּרָיו תִּהְיֶה׃ | 33.7. And this for Judah, and he said: Hear, LORD, the voice of Judah, And bring him in unto his people; His hands shall contend for him, And Thou shalt be a help against his adversaries. |
|
| 3. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 24.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60 |
4. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 28.6 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60| 28.6. וּלְרוּחַ מִשְׁפָּט לַיּוֹשֵׁב עַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּט וְלִגְבוּרָה מְשִׁיבֵי מִלְחָמָה שָׁעְרָה׃ | 28.6. And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, And for strength to them that turn back the battle at the gate. |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 16.18 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60| 16.18. וַיַּעַן אֶחָד מֵהַנְּעָרִים וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה רָאִיתִי בֵּן לְיִשַׁי בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי יֹדֵעַ נַגֵּן וְגִבּוֹר חַיִל וְאִישׁ מִלְחָמָה וּנְבוֹן דָּבָר וְאִישׁ תֹּאַר וַיהוָה עִמּוֹ׃ | 16.18. Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Yishay the Bet-hallaĥmite, that knows how to play, and a fine warrior, and a man of war, and prudent in speech, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him. |
|
6. Xenophon, Memoirs, 4.4.19 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sophists/sophism, relativism of,towards law Found in books: Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law (2003) 8| 4.4.19. ἀγράφους δέ τινας οἶσθα, ἔφη, ὦ Ἱππία, νόμους; τούς γʼ ἐν πάσῃ, ἔφη, χώρᾳ κατὰ ταὐτὰ νομιζομένους. ἔχοις ἂν οὖν εἰπεῖν, ἔφη, ὅτι οἱ ἄνθρωποι αὐτοὺς ἔθεντο; καὶ πῶς ἄν, ἔφη, οἵ γε οὔτε συνελθεῖν ἅπαντες ἂν δυνηθεῖεν οὔτε ὁμόφωνοί εἰσι; τίνας οὖν, ἔφη, νομίζεις τεθεικέναι τοὺς νόμους τούτους; ἐγὼ μέν, ἔφη, θεοὺς οἶμαι τοὺς νόμους τούτους τοῖς ἀνθρώποις θεῖναι· καὶ γὰρ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις πρῶτον νομίζεται θεοὺς σέβειν. | 4.4.19. Do you know what is meant by unwritten laws, Hippias? Yes, those that are uniformly observed in every country. Could you say that men made them? Nay, how could that be, seeing that they cannot all meet together and do not speak the same language? Then by whom have these laws been made, do you suppose? I think that the gods made these laws for men. For among all men the first law is to fear the gods. 4.4.19. "Do you know what is meant by 'unwritten laws,' Hippias?" "Yes, those that are uniformly observed in every country." "Could you say that men made them?" "Nay, how could that be, seeing that they cannot all meet together and do not speak the same language?" "Then by whom have these laws been made, do you suppose?" "I think that the gods made these laws for men. For among all men the first law is to fear the gods." |
|
| 7. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 60.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbis, babylonian, attitudes of, toward biblical law Found in books: Kalmin, Migrating tales: the Talmud's narratives and their historical context (2014) 78 |
| 8. Tertullian, On The Crown, 275, 274 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law (2003) 8 |
9. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, 29b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbis, babylonian, attitudes of, toward biblical law Found in books: Kalmin, Migrating tales: the Talmud's narratives and their historical context (2014) 78 | 29b. had the leg of the letter heh in the term: “The nation [ha’am]” (Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before his son-in-law Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: If there remains in the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, i.e., the letter yod, it is fit. But if not, it is unfit.,The Gemara relates: Rami bar Tamrei, who was the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, had the leg of the letter vav in the term: “And the Lord slew [vayaharog] all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, but of average intelligence; if he reads the term as “And the Lord slew [vayaharog]” then it is fit, as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a vav. But if not, then it is as though the term were: Will be slain [yehareg], written without the letter vav, and it is unfit.,§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.,Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, show him to me. God said to him: Return behind you. Moses went and sat at the end of the eighth row in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and did not understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength waned, as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. When Rabbi Akiva arrived at the discussion of one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. When Moses heard this, his mind was put at ease, as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.,Moses returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man as great as this and yet You still choose to give the Torah through me. Why? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, You have shown me Rabbi Akiva’s Torah, now show me his reward. God said to him: Return to where you were. Moses went back and saw that they were weighing Rabbi Akiva’s flesh in a butcher shop [bemakkulin], as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns [ziyyunin], and they are the letters shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin; gimmel and tzadi. Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet and they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.,Rava explains: They would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet as if to thereby say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, lives [ḥai] in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord [beYah] is God, an everlasting [olamim] Rock” (Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami said to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He, will have Him as his refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come. This is alluded to in the word “olamim,” which can also mean: Worlds.,Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; this is what poses a difficulty for me: What is different about that which is written: “For in the Lord [beYah],” and it is not written: For the Lord [Yah]?,Rav Ashi responded: It is as Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught: The verse “For in the Lord [beYah] is God, an everlasting Rock [Tzur olamim]” is understood as follows: The term “Tzur olamim” can also mean Creator of worlds. These letters yod and heh that constitute the word yah are referring to the two worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with [be] the letter heh and one with [be] the letter yod. And I do not know whether the World-to-Come was created with the letter yod and this world was created with the letter heh, or whether this world was created with the letter yod and the World-to-Come was created with the letter heh.,When the verse states: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created [behibare’am]” (Genesis 2:4), do not read it as behibare’am, meaning: When they were created; rather, read it as beheh bera’am, meaning: He created them with the letter heh. This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e., this world, were created with the letter heh, and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter yod.,And for what reason was this world created specifically with the letter heh? It is because the letter heh, which is open on its bottom, has a similar appearance to a portico, which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil. And what is the reason that the left leg of the letter heh is suspended, i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is because if one repents, he is brought back in through the opening at the top.,The Gemara asks: But why not let him enter through that same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would not be effective, since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who comes in order to become pure, he is assisted from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening to do so. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the letter heh has a crown on its roof? The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If a sinner returns, repenting for his sin, I tie a crown for him from above.,The Gemara asks: For what reason was the World-to-Come created specifically with the letter yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is because the righteous of the world are so few. And for what reason is the left side of the top of the letter yod bent downward? It is because the righteous who are in the World-to-Come hang their heads in shame, since the actions of one are not similar to those of another. In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.,§ Rav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, and in each case a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling. One is that which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected, but if there are three errors on each and every column then it shall be interred.,And a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling: A Torah scroll that contains three errors on every column may be corrected, but if there are four errors on every column then it shall be interred. A tanna taught in a baraita: If the Torah scroll contains one complete column with no errors, it saves the entire Torah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this is the halakha only when the majority of the scroll is written properly and is not full of errors.,Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said to him: Since the column itself may be corrected, it enables the correction of the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: And with regard to the halakha that a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, this statement applies when letters are missing and must be added in the space between the lines. But if there were extraneous letters, we have no problem with it, since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a scroll with letters missing may not be corrected? Rav Kahana said: Because it would look speckled if one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.,The Gemara relates: Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had many extraneous letters in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: We said that one may not correct the scroll only in a case where the letters are missing. |
|
10. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 17a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 61| 17a. אקפח את בני שזו הלכה מקופחת ששמע השומע וטעה האיכר עובר ומרדעו על כתפו ואיהל צדו אחת על הקבר טימאו אותו משום כלים המאהילים על המת,א"ר עקיבא אני אתקן שיהו דברי חכמים קיימים שיהו כל המטלטלים מביאין את הטומאה על האדם שנושא אותן בעובי המרדע ועל עצמן בכל שהן ועל שאר אדם וכלים בפותח טפח,וא"ר ינאי ומרדע שאמרו אין בעביו טפח ויש בהיקפו טפח וגזרו על היקפו משום עביו,ולר' טרפון דאמר אקפח את בני שהלכה זו מקופחת בצרו להו א"ר נחמן בר יצחק אף בנות כותים נדות מעריסתן בו ביום גזרו ובאידך ס"ל כר' מאיר:,ואידך הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר הוכשר הלל אומר לא הוכשר א"ל הלל לשמאי מפני מה בוצרין בטהרה ואין מוסקין בטהרה,א"ל אם תקניטני. גוזרני טומאה אף על המסיקה נעצו חרב בבית המדרש אמרו הנכנס יכנס והיוצא אל יצא ואותו היום היה הלל כפוף ויושב לפני שמאי כאחד מן התלמידים והיה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל וגזור שמאי והלל ולא קבלו מינייהו ואתו תלמידייהו גזור וקבלו מינייהו,מ"ט אמר (ר') זעירי אמר ר' חנינא גזירה שמא יבצרנו בקופות טמאות,הניחא למ"ד כלי טמא חושב משקין שפיר אלא למ"ד אין כלי טמא חושב משקין מאי איכא למימר אלא אמר זעירי אמר ר' חנינא גזירה שמא יבצרנו בקופות מזופפות,רבא אמר גזירה משום הנושכות (דאמר) רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה פעמים שאדם הולך לכרמו לידע אם הגיעו ענבים לבצירה או לא ונוטל אשכול ענבים לסוחטו ומזלף על גבי ענבים ובשעת בצירה עדיין משקה טופח עליהם:,ואידך אמר | 17a. I will bury my sons if this is not a truncated halakha, i.e., that the one who heard it, heard a halakhic ruling concerning a different situation and erred. He thought this halakha was established with regard to the following: Movable objects with the thickness of an ox goad transmit impurity to another vessel when the movable object is over both the source of impurity and the vessel at the same time. However, the original halakha is as follows: If the farmer was passing and his ox goad was on his shoulder and one side of the ox goad covered the grave, the Sages deemed the ox goad itself impure due to the impurity of vessels that cover a corpse. Any object located over a grave becomes impure. However, just because the ox goad itself became impure, this does not necessarily mean that it transmits impurity to other objects.,Rabbi Akiva said: I will correct and explain the halakha so that the statements of the Sages will be upheld as they were originally said, and this halakha will be explained as follows: All movable objects transmit impurity to the person carrying them if the objects are at least as thick as an ox goad. As will be explained below, there is room to decree that a round object with the circumference of an ox goad should have the legal status of a tent over a corpse. Something that serves as a covering over a corpse not only becomes impure itself, but also transmits impurity, as it is written: “Anything that is in the tent will become impure for seven days” (Numbers 19:14). Therefore, even the person carrying the ox goad becomes impure due to the ox goad. And, however, movable objects that covered the corpse bring impurity upon themselves by means of this makeshift tent at any size, and there is no minimum measure. And, however, those objects that cover the corpse do not transmit impurity to other people who are not carrying them. And the same is true with regard to vessels, unless the width of these vessels is at least one handbreadth.,And Rabbi Yannai said: And the ox goad that they mentioned is specifically one in which its width is not a handbreadth and, however, its circumference is a handbreadth, and they, the Sages, issued a decree on its circumference due to its width. If its width was a handbreadth it would transmit impurity as a tent by Torah law. Therefore, they issued a rabbinic decree with regard to an object whose circumference is a handbreadth. This is another of the eighteen decrees.,The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Tarfon, who said: I will bury my son if this is not a truncated halakha, the tally of the decrees is lacking, and there are not eighteen. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The decree that the daughters of the Samaritans are considered to already have the status of menstruating women from their cradle, they issued on that day. And in the other matter of drawn water, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and thereby the tally of the decrees is complete.,And another of those decrees is the matter of one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the press. Shammai says: It has become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible. Hillel said to Shammai: If so, for what purpose do they harvest grapes in purity, i.e., utilizing pure vessels, as in your opinion, since the grapes are susceptible to impurity by means of the juice that seeps from them, care must be taken to avoid impurity while gathering; and, however, they do not harvest olives in purity? According to your opinion that liquid that seeps out renders the fruit susceptible to impurity, why is there not a similar concern with regard to the liquid that seeps out of olives?,Shammai said to him: If you provoke me and insist that there is no difference between gathering olives and grapes, then, in order not to contradict this, I will decree impurity on the gathering of olives as well. They related that since the dispute was so intense, they stuck a sword in the study hall, and they said: One who seeks to enter the study hall, let him enter, and one who seeks to leave may not leave, so that all of the Sages will be assembled to determine the halakha. That day Hillel was bowed and was sitting before Shammai like one of the students. The Gemara said: And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, as Hillel, who was the Nasi, was forced to sit in submission before Shammai, and the opinion of Beit Shammai prevailed in the vote conducted that day. And Shammai and Hillel issued the decree, and the people did not accept it from them. And their students came and issued the decree, and the people accepted it from them.,As to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: What is the reason they decreed that liquids that seeped from the grapes unintentionally render the grapes susceptible to impurity? Rabbi Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Sages issued a decree due to concern lest he gather the grapes in impure baskets. The impurity of the vessel would accord the liquid in it the status of a liquid that renders food items susceptible to impurity.,The Gemara asks: This works out well, according to the one who said that an impure vessel accords liquids in it the halakhic status as if they were placed there willfully, and they render foods susceptible to impurity even if he did not want the liquids in the vessel. However, according to the one who said that an impure vessel does not accord liquids that status, what can be said in explanation of the decree? Rather, Rabbi Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ḥanina said the following: The reason is not as we suggested; rather, this is a decree instituted by the Sages lest he gather them in pitched baskets, which are sealed. Since liquids that seep out of the grapes do not spill out of the baskets, it is opportune for him to have the liquids seep out of the grapes as he thereby accelerates the production of wine in the press. Because the seeping of the liquid is opportune, it renders the grapes susceptible to impurity.,Rava said: The reason for the decree is due to the case of liquid that squirted out when one separated clusters of grapes that were stuck together. Since he did so by his own hand, consciously and willfully, the liquid that seeps out renders the grapes susceptible to impurity. Just as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Sometimes a person goes to his vineyard in order to ascertain whether or not the grapes have reached the time for gathering, and he takes a cluster of grapes to squeeze it, and he sprays the juice onto the grapes. Based on the quality of the juice, he determines whether or not the grapes are sufficiently ripe. If so, this grape juice was squeezed by his own hand willfully and it renders the grapes susceptible to impurity, as even at the time of gathering it is conceivable that the liquid is still moist upon the grapes.,Since all eighteen decrees decreed that day have not yet been enumerated, the Gemara asks: And what is the other? Said |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 15b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60| 15b. בפרוזבוטי אמר רב פפא וקרו ליה עבדא דמזדבן בטלמי,וכל זה איננו שוה לי מלמד שכל גנזיו של אותו רשע חקוקין על לבו ובשעה שרואה את מרדכי יושב בשער המלך אמר כל זה איננו שוה לי,ואמר ר' אלעזר אמר רבי חנינא עתיד הקב"ה להיות עטרה בראש כל צדיק וצדיק שנאמר (ישעיהו כח, ה) ביום ההוא יהיה ה' צבאות לעטרת צבי [וגו'] מאי לעטרת צבי ולצפירת תפארה לעושין צביונו ולמצפין תפארתו יכול לכל ת"ל לשאר עמו למי שמשים עצמו כשירים,ולרוח משפט זה הדן את יצרו וליושב על המשפט זה הדן דין אמת לאמתו ולגבורה זה המתגבר על יצרו משיבי מלחמה שנושאין ונותנין במלחמתה של תורה שערה [אלו ת"ח] שמשכימין ומעריבין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות,אמרה מדת הדין לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם מה נשתנו אלו מאלו אמר לה הקדוש ברוך הוא ישראל עסקו בתורה אומות העולם לא עסקו בתורה,אמר ליה גם אלה ביין שגו ובשכר תעו פקו פליליה אין פקו אלא גיהנם שנאמר (שמואל א כה, לא) ולא תהיה זאת לך לפוקה ואין פליליה אלא דיינין שנאמר (שמות כא, כב) ונתן בפלילים,ותעמד בחצר בית המלך הפנימית א"ר לוי כיון שהגיעה לבית הצלמים נסתלקה הימנה שכינה אמרה (תהלים כב, ב) אלי אלי למה עזבתני שמא אתה דן על שוגג כמזיד ועל אונס כרצון,או שמא על שקראתיו כלב שנאמר (תהלים כב, כא) הצילה מחרב נפשי מיד כלב יחידתי חזרה וקראתו אריה שנאמר (תהלים כב, כב) הושיעני מפי אריה,ויהי כראות המלך את אסתר המלכה אמר רבי יוחנן ג' מלאכי השרת נזדמנו לה באותה שעה אחד שהגביה את צוארה ואחד שמשך חוט של חסד עליה ואחד שמתח את השרביט,וכמה אמר רבי ירמיה שתי אמות היה והעמידו על שתים עשרה ואמרי לה על שש עשרה ואמרי לה על עשרים וארבע במתניתא תנא על ששים וכן אתה מוצא באמתה של בת פרעה וכן אתה מוצא בשיני רשעים דכתיב (תהלים ג, ח) שיני רשעים שברת ואמר ריש לקיש אל תקרי שברת אלא שריבבת רבה בר עופרן אמר משום ר"א ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו מאתים,ויאמר לה המלך לאסתר המלכה מה בקשתך עד חצי המלכות ותעש חצי המלכות ולא כל המלכות ולא דבר שחוצץ למלכות ומאי ניהו בנין בית המקדש,יבא המלך והמן אל המשתה ת"ר מה ראתה אסתר שזימנה את המן ר"א אומר פחים טמנה לו שנאמר (תהלים סט, כג) יהי שלחנם לפניהם לפח,ר' יהושע אומר מבית אביה למדה שנאמר (משלי כה, כא) אם רעב שונאך האכילהו לחם וגו' ר"מ אומר כדי שלא יטול עצה וימרוד,ר' יהודה אומר כדי שלא יכירו בה שהיא יהודית ר' נחמיה אומר כדי שלא יאמרו ישראל אחות יש לנו בבית המלך ויסיחו דעתן מן הרחמים ר' יוסי אומר כדי שיהא מצוי לה בכל עת ר"ש בן מנסיא אומר אולי ירגיש המקום ויעשה לנו נס,רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אסביר לו פנים כדי שיהרג הוא והיא רבן גמליאל אומר מלך הפכפכן היה אמר רבי גמליאל עדיין צריכין אנו למודעי דתניא ר' אליעזר המודעי אומר קנאתו במלך קנאתו בשרים,רבה אמר (משלי טז, יח) לפני שבר גאון אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו (ירמיהו נא, לט) בחומם אשית את משתיהם וגו' אשכחיה רבה בר אבוה לאליהו א"ל כמאן חזיא אסתר ועבדא הכי א"ל ככולהו תנאי וככולהו אמוראי,ויספר להם המן את כבוד עשרו ורוב בניו וכמה רוב בניו אמר רב ל' עשרה מתו ועשרה נתלו ועשרה מחזרין על הפתחים,ורבנן אמרי אותן שמחזרין על הפתחים שבעים הויא דכתיב (שמואל א ב, ה) שבעים בלחם נשכרו אל תקרי שבעים אלא שבעים,ורמי בר אבא אמר כולן מאתים ושמונה הוו שנאמר ורוב בניו ורוב בגימטריא מאתן וארביסר הוו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ורב כתיב,בלילה ההוא נדדה שנת המלך אמר רבי תנחום נדדה שנת מלכו של עולם ורבנן אמרי נדדו עליונים נדדו תחתונים רבא אמר שנת המלך אחשורוש ממש,נפלה ליה מילתא בדעתיה אמר מאי דקמן דזמינתיה אסתר להמן דלמא עצה קא שקלי עילויה דההוא גברא למקטליה הדר אמר אי הכי לא הוה גברא דרחים לי דהוה מודע לי הדר אמר דלמא איכא איניש דעבד בי טיבותא ולא פרעתיה משום הכי מימנעי אינשי ולא מגלו לי מיד ויאמר להביא את ספר הזכרונות דברי הימים,ויהיו נקראים מלמד שנקראים מאיליהן וימצא כתוב כתב מבעי ליה מלמד | 15b. as one with the heritage of a poor man [perozeboti], as Mordecai had been Haman’s slave master and was aware of Haman’s lowly lineage. Rav Pappa said: And he was called: The slave who was sold for a loaf of bread.,Haman’s previously quoted statement: “Yet all this avails me nothing” (Esther 5:13), teaches that all the treasures of that wicked one were engraved on his heart, and when he saw Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate, he said: As long as Mordecai is around, all this that I wear on my heart avails me nothing.,And Rabbi Elazar further said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will be a crown on the head of each and every righteous man. As it is stated: “In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, to the residue of His people” (Isaiah 28:5). What is the meaning of “for a crown of glory [tzevi], and for a diadem [velitzefirat] of beauty”? A crown for those that do His will [tzivyono] and a diadem for those that await [velamtzapin] His glory. One might have thought that this extends to all such individuals. Therefore, the verse states: “To the residue of his people,” to whoever regards himself as a remainder, i.e., small and unimportant like residue. But whoever holds himself in high esteem will not merit this.,Apropos the quotation from Isaiah, the Gemara explains the following verse, which states: “And for a spirit of justice to him that sits in judgment and for strength to them that turn back the battle to the gate” (Isaiah 28:6). “And for a spirit of justice”; this is referring to one who brings his evil inclination to trial and forces himself to repent. “To him that sits in judgment”; this is referring to one who judges an absolutely true judgment. “And for strength”; this is referring to one who triumphs over his evil inclination. “Them that turn back the battle”; this is referring to those that give and take in their discussion of halakha in the battle of understanding the Torah. “To the gate”; this is referring to the Torah scholars who arrive early and stay late at the darkened gates of the synagogues and study halls.,The Gemara continues with an episode associated with a verse in Isaiah. The Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, how are these, referring to the Jewish people, different from those, the other nations of the world, such that God performs miracles only on behalf of the Jewish people? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to it: The Jewish people occupied themselves with Torah, whereas the other nations of the world did not occupy themselves with Torah.,The Attribute of Justice said to Him: “These also reel through wine, and stagger through strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel through strong drink, they are confused because of wine, they stagger because of strong drink; they reel in vision, they stumble [paku] in judgment [peliliyya]” (Isaiah 28:7). The word paku in this context is referring only to Gehenna, as it is stated: “That this shall not be a cause of stumbling [puka] to you” (I Samuel 25:31), and the word peliliyya here is referring only to judges, as it is stated: “And he shall pay as the judges determine [bifelilim]” (Exodus 21:22). The response of the Attribute of Justice was essentially that the Jewish people have also sinned and are consequently liable to receive punishment.,§ The Gemara returns to its explanation of the verses of the Megilla. The verse states with regard to Esther: “And she stood in the inner court of the king’s house” (Esther 5:1). Rabbi Levi said: Once she reached the chamber of the idols, which was in the inner court, the Divine Presence left her. She immediately said: “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” (Psalms 22:2). Perhaps it is because You judge an unintentional sin as one performed intentionally, and an action done due to circumstances beyond one’s control as one done willingly.,Or perhaps You have left me because in my prayers I called Haman a dog, as it is stated: “Deliver my soul from the sword; my only one from the hand of the dog” (Psalms 22:21). She at once retracted and called him in her prayers a lion, as it is stated in the following verse: “Save me from the lion’s mouth” (Psalms 22:22).,The verse states: “And so it was, that when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favor in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand” (Esther 5:2). Rabbi Yoḥa said: Three ministering angels happened to join her at that time: One that raised up her neck, so that she could stand erect, free of shame; one that strung a cord of divine grace around her, endowing her with charm and beauty; and one that stretched the king’s scepter.,How much was it stretched? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The scepter was two cubits, and he made it twelve cubits. And some say that he made it sixteen cubits, and yet others say twenty-four cubits. It was taught in a baraita: He made it sixty cubits. And similarly you find with the arm of Pharaoh’s daughter, which she stretched out to take Moshe. And so too, you find with the teeth of the wicked, as it is written: “You have broken the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8), with regard to which Reish Lakish said: Do not read it as “You have broken [shibbarta],” but as: You have enlarged [sheribavta]. Rabba bar oferan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, who heard it from his teacher, who in turn heard it from his teacher: The scepter was stretched two hundred cubits.,The verse states: “Then the king said to her” (Esther 5:3), to Esther the queen, “What is your wish, even to half the kingdom, it shall be performed” (Esther 5:6). The Gemara comments that Ahasuerus intended only a limited offer: Only half the kingdom, but not the whole kingdom, and not something that would serve as a barrier to the kingdom, as there is one thing to which the kingdom will never agree. And what is that? The building of the Temple; if that shall be your wish, realize that it will not be fulfilled.,The verse states that Esther requested: “If it seem good unto the king, let the king and Haman come this day to the banquet that I have prepared for him” (Esther 5:4). The Sages taught in a baraita: What did Esther see to invite Haman to the banquet? Rabbi Elazar says: She hid a snare for him, as it is stated: “Let their table become a snare before them” (Psalms 69:23), as she assumed that she would be able to trip up Haman during the banquet.,Rabbi Yehoshua says: She learned to do this from the Jewish teachings of her father’s house, as it is stated: “If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat” (Proverbs 25:21). Rabbi Meir says: She invited him in order that he be near her at all times, so that he would not take counsel and rebel against Ahasuerus when he discovered that the king was angry with him.,Rabbi Yehuda says: She invited Haman so that it not be found out that she was a Jew, as had she distanced him, he would have become suspicious. Rabbi Neḥemya says: She did this so that the Jewish people would not say: We have a sister in the king’s house, and consequently neglect their prayers for divine mercy. Rabbi Yosei says: She acted in this manner, so that Haman would always be on hand for her, as that would enable her to find an opportunity to cause him to stumble before the king. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said that Esther said to herself: Perhaps the Omnipresent will take notice that all are supporting Haman and nobody is supporting the Jewish people, and He will perform for us a miracle.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: She said to herself: I will act kindly toward him and thereby bring the king to suspect that we are having an affair; she did so in order that both he and she would be killed. Essentially, Esther was willing to be killed with Haman in order that the decree would be annulled. Rabban Gamliel says: Ahasuerus was a fickle king, and Esther hoped that if he saw Haman on multiple occasions, eventually he would change his opinion of him. Rabban Gamliel said: We still need the words of Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i to understand why Esther invited Haman to her banquet. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i says: She made the king jealous of him and she made the other ministers jealous of him, and in this way she brought about his downfall.,Rabba says: Esther invited Haman to her banquet in order to fulfill that which is stated: “Pride goes before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18), which indicates that in order to destroy the wicked, one must first bring them to pride. It can be understood according to Abaye and Rava, who both say that she invited Haman in order to fulfill the verse: “When they are heated, I will make feasts for them, and I will make them drunk, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep” (Jeremiah 51:39). The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Avuh once happened upon Elijah the Prophet and said to him: In accordance with whose understanding did Esther see fit to act in this manner? What was the true reason behind her invitation? He, Elijah, said to him: Esther was motivated by all the reasons previously mentioned and did so for all the reasons previously stated by the tanna’im and all the reasons stated by the amora’im.,The verse states: “And Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his sons” (Esther 5:11). The Gemara asks: And how many sons did he in fact have that are referred to as “the multitude of his sons”? Rav said: There were thirty sons; ten of them died in childhood, ten of them were hanged as recorded in the book of Esther, and ten survived and were forced to beg at other people’s doors.,And the Rabbis say: Those that begged at other people’s doors numbered seventy, as it is written: “Those that were full, have hired themselves out for bread” (I Samuel 2:5). Do not read it as: “Those that were full” [seve’im]; rather, read it as seventy [shivim], indicating that there were seventy who “hired themselves out for bread.”,And Rami bar Abba said: All of Haman’s sons together numbered two hundred and eight, as it is stated: “And the multitude [verov] of his sons.” The numerical value of the word verov equals two hundred and eight, alluding to the number of his sons. The Gemara comments: But in fact, the numerical value [gimatriyya] of the word verov equals two hundred and fourteen, not two hundred and eight. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The word verov is written in the Bible without the second vav, and therefore its numerical value equals two hundred and eight.,The verse states: “On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed” (Esther 6:1). Rabbi Tanḥum said: The verse alludes to another king who could not sleep; the sleep of the King of the universe, the Holy One, Blessed be He, was disturbed. And the Sages say: The sleep of the higher ones, the angels, was disturbed, and the sleep of the lower ones, the Jewish people, was disturbed. Rava said: This should be understood literally: The sleep of King Ahasuerus was disturbed.,And this was the reason Ahasuerus could not sleep: A thought occurred to him and he said to himself: What is this before us that Esther has invited Haman? Perhaps they are conspiring against that man, i.e., against me, to kill him. He then said again to himself: If this is so, is there no man who loves me and would inform me of this conspiracy? He then said again to himself: Perhaps there is some man who has done a favor for me and I have not properly rewarded him, and due to that reason people refrain from revealing to me information regarding such plots, as they see no benefit for themselves. Immediately afterward, the verse states: “And he commanded the book of remembrances of the chronicles to be brought” (Esther 6:1).,The verse states: “And they were read before the king” (Esther 6:1). The Gemara explains that this passive form: “And they were read,” teaches that they were read miraculously by themselves. It further says: “And it was found written [katuv]” (Esther 6:2). The Gemara asks: Why does the Megilla use the word katuv, which indicates that it was newly written? It should have said: A writing [ketav] was found, which would indicate that it had been written in the past. The Gemara explains: This teaches |
|
12. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 22b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbis, babylonian, attitudes of, toward biblical law Found in books: Kalmin, Migrating tales: the Talmud's narratives and their historical context (2014) 78 22b. ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה ומשלקה אמדו שיכול הוא לקבל ארבעים פטור:,| 22b. and then they assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged eighteen times they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving additional lashes.,What is the reason that the Rabbis said that he receives forty lashes less one? If it had been written: Forty by number, I would say that it means forty as a precise sum; now that it is written: “By number, forty,” the reference is to a sum that approaches forty. Likewise, Rava said: How foolish are the rest of the people who stand before a Torah scroll that passes before them, and yet they do not stand before a great man, when a Sage passes before them; as in a Torah scroll, forty is written and the Sages came and subtracted one, establishing the number of lashes as thirty-nine. Apparently, the authority of the Sages is so great that they are able to amend an explicit Torah verse.,The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes, with the additional lash administered between his shoulders. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is written: “And one shall say to him: What are these wounds between your arms? Then he shall answer: Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends” (Zechariah 13:6). Rabbi Yehuda understands that this verse is referring to one with wounds from lashes administered between his arms, indicating that there is one lash administered between the shoulders. And how do the Rabbis, who hold that one is flogged only thirty-nine lashes, explain this verse? They explain that this verse is written with regard to schoolchildren struck by their teacher for laxity in their studies, and is not referring to lashes administered by the court.,The mishna teaches: One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from any additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged with eighteen lashes they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving further lashes. The Gemara infers: If he was flogged in practice, yes, he is exempt; if he was not flogged, no, he is not exempt from the rest of the forty lashes.,And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and they then assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt. Apparently, even if he did not receive any lashes, if the assessment changes, it is as though he was flogged.,Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this case in the mishna is one where doctors assessed his fitness to receive lashes for that day, and there was no change in his condition; rather, it was discovered that the initial assessment was mistaken. He is exempt only if he was already flogged; if not, another assessment is performed. That case in the baraita is one where doctors assess his fitness to receive lashes for the next day or for a different day. In that case, the initial assessment was accurate; it is his condition that changed. Therefore, if it is determined that he is unable to receive lashes, he is exempt.,one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, and they assessed concerning him a single assessment of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, he is flogged in accordance with their assessment and is exempt from any additional lashes. And if not, if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, he is flogged and is allowed to heal, and then is flogged again for violating the second prohibition.,But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One does not perform one assessment for two prohibitions?,Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult; this ruling in the baraita that one does not perform a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-one lashes, two lashes beyond a full set. Since those two additional lashes are not divisible by three, which is a requirement based on the previous mishna, he receives only thirty-nine lashes. That constitutes just one set of lashes. He remains liable to receive another set of lashes after he recovers, requiring another assessment and another set of lashes. That ruling in the mishna that one performs a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-two lashes. In that case, it is possible to ascribe thirty-nine lashes to one prohibition and three additional lashes to the second prohibition. That is tantamount to two separate assessments, although in practice only one assessment was performed.,How do they flog him? He ties the two hands of the person being flogged on this side and that side of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments to remove them. If they were ripped in the process, they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, and he continues until he bares his chest. And the stone upon which the attendant stands when flogging is situated behind the person being flogged. The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. It is a strap of calf hide, and is doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey hide go up and down the doubled strap of calf hide. The length of its handle is one handbreadth, and the width of the straps is one handbreadth, and the strap must be long enough so that its end reaches the top of his abdomen, i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind.,And the attendant flogs him with one-third of the lashes from the front of him, on his chest, and two one-third portions from behind him, on his back. And he does not flog him when the one receiving lashes is standing, nor when he is sitting; rather, he flogs him when he is hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down.,And the attendant flogging the one receiving lashes flogs [makeh] him with one hand with all his strength, and the court crier recites the verses: “If you do not observe to perform all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. And the Lord will make your plagues [makkotekha] outstanding, and the plagues of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). And then he returns to the beginning of the verse. He also recites: “And you shall observe the matters of this covet, and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), and concludes with the verse: “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), and then returns to the beginning of the verse that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.”,If the one being flogged dies at the hand of the attendant, the latter is exempt, because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant added for him an additional lash with a strap and he died, the attendant is exiled to a city of refuge on his account, as an unwitting murderer. If the one being flogged involuntarily sullies himself, due to fear or pain, whether with excrement or with urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: The man is exempted if he sullies himself with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine. | |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 27b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 61| 27b. לא כנגד רבו ולא אחורי רבו,ותניא רבי אליעזר אומר המתפלל אחורי רבו והנותן שלום לרבו והמחזיר שלום לרבו והחולק על ישיבתו של רבו והאומר דבר שלא שמע מפי רבו גורם לשכינה שתסתלק מישראל,שאני רבי ירמיה בר אבא דתלמיד חבר הוה והיינו דקאמר ליה רבי ירמיה בר אבא לרב מי בדלת אמר ליה אין בדילנא ולא אמר מי בדיל מר,ומי בדיל והאמר רבי אבין פעם אחת התפלל רבי של שבת בערב שבת ונכנס למרחץ ויצא ושנה לן פרקין ועדיין לא חשכה אמר רבא ההוא דנכנס להזיע וקודם גזירה הוה,איני והא אביי שרא ליה לרב דימי בר ליואי לכברויי סלי,ההוא טעותא הואי,וטעותא מי הדרא והא אמר אבידן פעם אחת נתקשרו שמים בעבים כסבורים העם לומר חשכה הוא ונכנסו לבית הכנסת והתפללו של מוצאי שבת בשבת ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה,ובאו ושאלו את רבי ואמר הואיל והתפללו התפללו שאני צבור דלא מטרחינן להו:,א"ר חייא בר אבין רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת אומר קדושה על הכוס או אינו אומר קדושה על הכוס ת"ש דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל מתפלל אדם של שבת בערב שבת ואומר קדושה על הכוס והלכתא כוותיה,רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת אומר הבדלה על הכוס או אינו אומר הבדלה על הכוס ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מתפלל אדם של מוצאי שבת בשבת ואומר הבדלה על הכוס,אמר ר' זירא אמר רבי אסי אמר ר' אלעזר א"ר חנינא אמר רב בצד עמוד זה התפלל ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי של שבת בערב שבת,כי אתא עולא אמר בצד תמרה הוה ולא בצד עמוד הוה ולא ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הוה אלא ר' אלעזר בר' יוסי הוה ולא של שבת בערב שבת הוה אלא של מוצאי שבת בשבת הוה:,תפלת הערב אין לה קבע: מאי אין לה קבע אילימא דאי בעי מצלי כוליה ליליא ליתני תפלת הערב כל הלילה אלא מאי אין לה קבע,כמאן דאמר תפלת ערבית רשות דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל תפלת ערבית רבן גמליאל אומר חובה ר' יהושע אומר רשות אמר אביי הלכה כדברי האומר חובה ורבא אמר הלכה כדברי האומר רשות.,ת"ר מעשה בתלמיד אחד שבא לפני ר' יהושע א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה אמר ליה רשות,בא לפני רבן גמליאל א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל חובה א"ל והלא ר' יהושע אמר לי רשות א"ל המתן עד שיכנסו בעלי תריסין לבית המדרש,כשנכנסו בעלי תריסין עמד השואל ושאל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל רבן גמליאל חובה אמר להם רבן גמליאל לחכמים כלום יש אדם שחולק בדבר זה אמר ליה ר' יהושע לאו א"ל והלא משמך אמרו לי רשות,אמר ליה יהושע עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר אלמלא אני חי והוא מת יכול החי להכחיש את המת ועכשיו שאני חי והוא חי היאך יכול החי להכחיש את החי,היה רבן גמליאל יושב ודורש ור' יהושע עומד על רגליו עד שרננו כל העם ואמרו לחוצפית התורגמן עמוד ועמד,אמרי עד כמה נצעריה וניזיל בר"ה אשתקד צעריה בבכורות במעשה דר' צדוק צעריה הכא נמי צעריה תא ונעבריה,מאן נוקים ליה נוקמיה לרבי יהושע בעל מעשה הוא נוקמיה לר' עקיבא דילמא עניש ליה דלית ליה זכות אבות,אלא נוקמיה לר' אלעזר בן עזריה דהוא חכם והוא עשיר והוא עשירי לעזרא הוא חכם דאי מקשי ליה מפרק ליה והוא עשיר דאי אית ליה לפלוחי לבי קיסר אף הוא אזל ופלח והוא עשירי לעזרא דאית ליה זכות אבות ולא מצי עניש ליה אתו ואמרו ליה ניחא ליה למר דליהוי ריש מתיבתא אמר להו איזיל ואימליך באינשי ביתי אזל ואמליך בדביתהו אמרה ליה | 27b. directly next to his rabbi, presumptuously indicating that he is his rabbi’s equal, and behind his rabbi as it creates the impression that he is bowing to him (Tosafot)?,And it was taught in a baraita, in a more extreme manner, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One who prays behind his rabbi and one who greets his rabbi without waiting for his rabbi to greet him first, one who returns his rabbi’s greeting without saying: Greetings to you, rabbi, one who rivals his rabbi’s yeshiva, i.e., establishes a yeshiva of his own and teaches during his rabbi’s lifetime without his consent (Rambam), and one who says something in the name of his rabbi which he did not hear directly from his rabbi, causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel.,With regard to Rabbi Yirmeya’s conduct, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba is different, as he was not a mere student of Rav. Rather, he was a disciple-colleague and was, therefore, permitted to act that way. And that is why on one occasion, when Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer early, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba asked him: Did you distance yourself from labor and accept the sanctity of Shabbat? Rav said to him: Yes, I distanced myself. And Rabbi Yirmeya did not say to him: Did the Master distance himself, as would have been appropriate had he merely been Rav’s student.,Although Rav replied that he distanced himself from labor, did he indeed need to distance himself from labor? Didn’t Rabbi Avin say: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. He then entered the bathhouse and emerged and taught us our chapters that we had learned, and it was not yet dark. Rava said: That is a case where he had entered the bathhouse to perspire, and it was before the Sages issued a decree prohibiting perspiring in a bathhouse on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks: Is that so, that he was required to refrain from labor? Didn’t Abaye permit Rav Dimi bar Liva’ei to fumigate baskets with sulfur even though he had already recited the Shabbat prayer, indicating that it is permitted to perform labor even after the Shabbat prayer?,The Gemara responds: That was an error, as Rav Dimi did not intend to begin Shabbat early. It was a cloudy day and he mistakenly thought that the sun had set and that was why he prayed. Consequently, even though he prayed, the Shabbat prayer did not obligate him to conduct himself in accordance with the sanctity of Shabbat and he was allowed to perform labor even after his prayer.,The Gemara goes on to ask: Can a mistake be reversed, enabling one to conduct himself as if he had not prayed? Didn’t Avidan, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say: Once the sky became overcast, leading the people to think that it was the dark of night; they entered the synagogue and recited the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. And later, the clouds cleared and the sun shone, indicating that it was still day.,And they came and asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi what they should do, and he said: Since they have prayed, they have prayed, and they need not pray again. Although they prayed erroneously, their mistake is not reversible and what was done remains. The Gemara responds: A community is different in that we do not burden them to pray again.,The Gemara continues to discuss the possibility of reciting the evening prayer early, even on Shabbat. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. With regard to the fact that Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall, the dilemma is raised: In those cases, did he recite kiddush over the cup of wine, or did he not recite kiddush over the cup of wine before the stars emerged? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: One prays the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall and recites kiddush over the cup of wine. And the halakha is in accordance with his ruling.,A similar dilemma was raised concerning the fact that Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat: After praying, while it is still Shabbat, does he recite havdala over the cup of wine or does one not recite havdala over the cup of wine? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One prays the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat and recites havdala over the cup of wine.,Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rav said: Alongside this specific pillar before me, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall.,But when Ulla came from the Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of this story. He said that he had heard: This transpired beside a palm tree, not beside a pillar, and it was not Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, but it was Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and it was not the Shabbat prayer on Shabbat eve before nightfall, rather it was the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat.,We learned in the mishna: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night and is not fixed to a specific hour. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of is not fixed? If you say that if one wishes, he may pray throughout the night, then let the mishna teach: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night. Rather, what is the meaning of not fixed?,It is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said with regard to the evening prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: It is obligatory. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is optional. Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is obligatory. Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a student, who came before Rabbi Yehoshua. The student said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Optional.,The same student came before Rabban Gamliel and said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. The student said to Rabban Gamliel: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua tell me that the evening prayer is optional? Rabban Gamliel said to the student: Wait until the “masters of the shields,” a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, enter the study hall, at which point we will discuss this issue.,When the masters of the shields entered, the questioner stood before everyone present and asked: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. In order to ascertain whether or not Rabbi Yehoshua still maintained his opinion, Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who disputes this matter? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, no one disagrees. In deference to the Nasi, he did not wish to argue with him publicly (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ḥayya). Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But was it not in your name that they told me that the evening prayer is optional?,Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: If I were alive and the student were dead, the living can contradict the dead, and I could deny issuing that ruling. Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living? I have no choice but to admit that I said it.,In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel, as the Nasi, was sitting and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, because Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture. And he stopped.,The Gemara relates that in their murmuring they said: How long will Rabban Gamliel continue afflicting him? Last year on Rosh HaShana, he afflicted him; Rabban Gamliel ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to come to him carrying his staff and bag, on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred, according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s calculations. Regarding the firstborn, in the incident involving the question of Rabbi Tzadok, he afflicted him just as he did now, and forced him to remain standing as punishment for his failure to defend his differing opinion. Here too, he is afflicting him. Let us remove him from his position as Nasi.,It was so agreed, but the question arose: Who shall we establish in his place? Shall we establish Rabbi Yehoshua in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Yehoshua was party to the incident for which Rabban Gamliel was deposed. Appointing him would be extremely upsetting for Rabban Gamliel. Shall we establish Rabbi Akiva in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Akiva, who descended from a family of converts, would be vulnerable. Perhaps due to Rabban Gamliel’s resentment he would cause him to be divinely punished as he lacks the merit of his ancestors to protect him.,Rather, suggested the Sages, let us establish Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, his outstanding characteristics set him apart from the other candidates. He is wise, rich, and a tenth generation descendant of Ezra. The Gemara explains: He is wise, so if Rabban Gamliel raises a challenge in matters of Torah, he will answer it and not be embarrassed. And he is rich, so if the need arises to pay homage to the Caesar’s court and serve as a representative of Israel to lobby and negotiate, he has sufficient wealth to cover the costs of the long journeys, taxes, and gifts, so he too is able to go and pay homage. And he is a tenth generation descendant of Ezra, so he has the merit of his ancestors, and Rabban Gamliel will be unable to cause him to be punished. They came and said to him: Would the Master consent to being the Head of the Yeshiva? He said to them: I will go and consult with my household. He went and consulted with his wife. She said to him: |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Meilah, 17b, 17a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, Migrating tales: the Talmud's narratives and their historical context (2014) 78 17a. אמר ליה כי קא מקיש רחמנא (ויקרא כ כה) לבל תשקצו אבל לשיעורין לא,| 17a. Rava said to Rav Adda bar Ahava: When the Merciful One juxtaposes kosher and non-kosher animals to creeping animals, this is referring to the prohibition of: “You shall not make your souls detestable” (Leviticus 20:25), teaching that they are all included in that prohibition. But with regard to measures the Torah does not juxtapose those animals to creeping animals. For this reason there is no difference between the measure of impurity of carcasses of kosher animals and non-kosher animals.,The blood of one of the eight creeping animals listed in the Torah and their flesh join together to constitute the lentil-bulk measure to impart impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle: With regard to any items whose impurity, in terms of degree and duration, and measure to impart impurity, are equal, e.g., two halves of an olive-bulk from two corpses or two animal carcasses or two halves of a lentil-bulk from two creeping animals, they join together to constitute the requisite measure.,Rabbi Yehoshua continued: By contrast, with regard to items whose impurity is equal but their measure is not equal, e.g., a creeping animal and an animal carcass, each of which renders one impure until the evening, but the measure of a creeping animal is a lentil-bulk, whereas that of an animal carcass is an olive-bulk; or items whose measure is equal but whose impurity is not equal, e.g., a corpse and an animal carcass, with regard to which the measure of each is an olive-bulk, but the duration of the impurity imparted by a corpse is one week and the duration of the impurity imparted by an animal carcass is until the evening; or items that are equal neither in terms of their impurity nor in terms of their measure, they do not join together to constitute the requisite measure.,Rav Ḥanin says that Rav Zeira says: The blood and flesh join together only if the blood is from the same animal as the flesh, but not if it is from a different animal.,And similarly, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina says, in rejection of Rav Zeira’s statement: It is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “These are the impure [hateme’in] to you among all that creep; whoever touches them when they are dead, shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:31). This plural form of “hateme’in” teaches that they join together to impart ritual impurity. And this applies even to the flesh of a creeping animal and the flesh of another creeping animal, or the flesh of a creeping animal and the blood of another creeping animal, whether they are from one category, i.e., one type of creeping animal, or from two categories of creeping animal.,Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood both came from an entire animal, and therefore the two half-measures combine, due to the significance of an entire animal. There, in the statement of Rav Zeira, he is speaking of a case where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood each come from part of an animal.,And from where do you say that there is a distinction between a case where the flesh and blood come from an entire animal and a case where they come from part of an animal? From that which is taught in a baraita: In a case where one quarter-log of blood from a corpse was spilled on the floor, and its place was a slope [ketafres], so that the blood trickles down, and someone leaned over so that he covered part of it, he remains ritually pure. If he covered all of it, he is rendered impure.,The Gemara clarifies the halakha: What does the phrase: Part of it, mean in this context? If we say that it is referring to part of the one quarter-log of blood, whereas if it is a full quarter-log then he is impure, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there was exactly one quarter-log of blood in a pot that one stirred without touching the blood, he remains pure, despite the fact that his body must have overshadowed all the blood at the time, and would therefore have had the status of a tent over it. The reason is that some of the blood must have been absorbed into the spoon with which he stirred, and therefore there no longer remains an entire connected quarter-log. This shows that the entire quarter-log must be together, as one unit, in order to impart impurity.,Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this baraita that there is a distinction between a case where the blood came from an entire corpse, and where it came from part of a corpse? In other words, if the blood came from one body it need not be together as a single unit, whereas if it came from more than one body, it must all be joined together, as in the case mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Similarly, with regard to the statements of Rav Zeira and the baraita, here the baraita is referring to a situation where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood came from an entire animal, and due to the significance of an entire animal the two half-measures combine. There, Rav Zeira is referring to a case where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood come from part of the animal. The Gemara notes that one should indeed conclude from it that this is the correct distinction.,§ The Gemara relates that Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash asked Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai in the city of Rome: From where is it derived with regard to the blood of creeping animals that it is impure? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: It is derived from the fact that the verse states: “And these are they that are impure for you among the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:29). Since a similar phrase already appears in Leviticus 11:31, it is derived from here that the blood of creeping animals is impure.,Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash’s students said to him in amazement: How wise is Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai! Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash said to them: This source is not his own, as it is a set tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai learned it from him. Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash provided the background for this claim. As, on one occasion the gentile monarchy issued a decree that the Jewish people may not observe Shabbat, and that they may not circumcise their sons, and that they must engage in intercourse with their wives when they are menstruating.,Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli went and cut his hair in a komei hairstyle,which was common only among the gentiles, and he went and sat with the gentiles when they were discussing these three decrees. He said to them: One who has an enemy, does he want his enemy to become poor or to become rich? They said to him: He wants his enemy to become poor. Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli said to them: If so, with regard to the Jewish people as well, isn’t it better that they will not perform labor on Shabbat in order that they will become poor? The gentiles said: That is a good claim that he said; let us nullify our decree. And they indeed nullified it.,Again Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli spoke to them and said: One who has an enemy, does he want his enemy to become weak or to become healthy? They said to him: He wants his enemy to become weak. Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli said to them: If so, with regard to the Jewish people as well, isn’t it better that they circumcise their sons after eight days and thereby cause them to become weak? The gentiles said: That is a good claim that he said, and they nullified their decree.,Once again Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli spoke to them and said: One who has an enemy, does he want his enemy to multiply or to decrease? They said to him: He wants his enemy to decrease. Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli said to them: If so, with regard to the Jewish people as well, isn’t it better that they do not engage in intercourse with their wives when they are menstruating? The gentiles said: That is a good claim that he said, and they nullified their decree.,A short time later they recognized that Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli was a Jew, and they realized that he had fooled them to the advantage of the Jewish people. They therefore arose and reinstated all of their decrees. The Sages then said: Who will go and nullify these decrees? | |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 30b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •law, and wars of torah Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60| 30b. (משלי ז, ד) אמור לחכמה אחותי את וגו' ואומר (משלי ז, ג) קשרם על אצבעותיך כתבם על לוח לבך ואומר (תהלים קכז, ד) כחצים ביד גבור כן בני הנעורים ואומר (תהלים קכ, ד) חצי גבור שנונים ואומר (תהלים מה, ו) חציך שנונים עמים תחתיך יפלו ואומר (תהלים קכז, ה) אשרי הגבר אשר מלא את אשפתו מהם לא יבושו כי ידברו את אויבים בשער,מאי את אויבים בשער אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אפי' האב ובנו הרב ותלמידו שעוסקין בתורה בשער אחד נעשים אויבים זה את זה ואינם זזים משם עד שנעשים אוהבים זה את זה שנאמר (במדבר כא, יד) את והב בסופה אל תקרי בסופה אלא בסופה,ת"ר (דברים יא, יח) ושמתם סם תם נמשלה תורה כסם חיים משל לאדם שהכה את בנו מכה גדולה והניח לו רטיה על מכתו ואמר לו בני כל זמן שהרטיה זו על מכתך אכול מה שהנאתך ושתה מה שהנאתך ורחוץ בין בחמין בין בצונן ואין אתה מתיירא ואם אתה מעבירה הרי היא מעלה נומי,כך הקב"ה אמר להם לישראל בני בראתי יצר הרע ובראתי לו תורה תבלין ואם אתם עוסקים בתורה אין אתם נמסרים בידו שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) הלא אם תטיב שאת,ואם אין אתם עוסקין בתורה אתם נמסרים בידו שנא' לפתח חטאת רובץ ולא עוד אלא שכל משאו ומתנו בך שנאמר ואליך תשוקתו ואם אתה רוצה אתה מושל בו שנאמר ואתה תמשל בו,ת"ר קשה יצר הרע שאפילו יוצרו קראו רע שנאמר (בראשית ח, כא) כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו אמר רב יצחק יצרו של אדם מתחדש עליו בכל יום שנאמר (בראשית ו, ה) רק רע כל היום,ואמר ר"ש בן לוי יצרו של אדם מתגבר עליו בכל יום ומבקש המיתו שנאמר (תהלים לז, לב) צופה רשע לצדיק ומבקש להמיתו ואלמלא הקב"ה עוזרו אין יכול לו שנאמר אלהים לא יעזבנו בידו,תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל בני אם פגע בך מנוול זה משכהו לבית המדרש אם אבן הוא נימוח ואם ברזל הוא מתפוצץ שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' וכפטיש יפוצץ סלע אם אבן הוא נימוח שנאמר (ישעיהו נה, א) הוי כל צמא לכו למים ואומר (איוב יד, יט) אבנים שחקו מים,להשיאו אשה מנלן דכתיב (ירמיהו כט, ו) קחו נשים והולידו בנים ובנות וקחו לבניכם נשים ואת בנותיכם תנו לאנשים,בשלמא בנו בידו אלא בתו בידו היא הכי קאמר להו ניתן לה מידי ולבשייה ונכסייה כי היכי דקפצו עלה אינשי,ללמדו אומנות מנלן אמר חזקיה דאמר קרא (קהלת ט, ט) ראה חיים עם אשה אשר אהבת אם אשה ממש היא כשם שחייב להשיאו אשה כך חייב ללמדו אומנות אם תורה היא כשם שחייב ללמדו תורה כך חייב ללמדו אומנות,ויש אומרים אף להשיטו בנהר מאי טעמא חיותיה הוא,רבי יהודה אומר כל שאינו מלמדו אומנות מלמדו ליסטות ליסטות ס"ד אלא כאילו מלמדו ליסטות,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאגמריה עיסקא,כל מצות האב על הבן וכו' מאי כל מצות האב על הבן אילימא כל מצותא דמיחייב אבא למיעבד לבריה נשים חייבות והתניא האב חייב בבנו למולו ולפדותו אביו אין אמו לא,אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כל מצות האב המוטלת על הבן לעשות לאביו אחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין תנינא להא דת"ר איש אין לי אלא איש אשה מנין כשהוא אומר תיראו הרי כאן שנים,א"כ מה ת"ל איש איש סיפק בידו לעשות אשה אין סיפק בידה לעשות מפני שרשות אחרים עליה אמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב נתגרשה שניהם שוים,ת"ר נאמר (שמות כ, יב) כבד את אביך ואת אמך ונאמר (משלי ג, ט) כבד את ה' מהונך השוה הכתוב כבוד אב ואם לכבוד המקום,נאמר (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו ונאמר (דברים ו, יג) את ה' אלהיך תירא ואותו תעבוד השוה הכתוב מוראת אב ואם למוראת המקום,נאמר (שמות כא, יז) מקלל אביו ואמו מות יומת ונאמר (ויקרא כד, טו) איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו השוה הכתוב ברכת אב ואם לברכת המקום אבל בהכאה ודאי אי אפשר,וכן בדין ששלשתן שותפין בו ת"ר שלשה שותפין הן באדם הקב"ה ואביו ואמו בזמן שאדם מכבד את אביו ואת אמו אמר הקב"ה מעלה אני עליהם כאילו דרתי ביניהם וכבדוני,תניא רבי אומר גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שבן מכבד את אמו יותר מאביו מפני | 30b. “Say to wisdom: You are my sister, and call understanding your kinswoman” (Proverbs 7:4), which indicates that one should be as knowledgeable in the Torah as in the identity of his sister. And it states: “Bind them upon your fingers, you shall write them upon the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:3). And it states: “As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of one’s youth” (Psalms 127:4). And it states: “Sharp arrows of the mighty” (Psalms 120:4). And it states: “Your arrows are sharp, the peoples fall under you” (Psalms 45:6). And it states: “Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; they shall not be put to shame when they speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalms 127:5).,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “enemies in the gate” with regard to Torah study? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student, who are engaged in Torah together in one gate become enemies with each other due to the intensity of their studies. But they do not leave there until they love each other, as it is stated in the verse discussing the places the Jewish people engaged in battle in the wilderness: “Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vahev in Suphah [beSufa], and the valleys of Arnon” (Numbers 21:14). The word “vahev” is interpreted as related to the word for love, ahava. Additionally, do not read this as “in Suphah [beSufa]”; rather, read it as “at its end [besofa],” i.e., at the conclusion of their dispute they are beloved to each other.,The Sages taught: “And you shall place [vesamtem] these words of Mine in your hearts” (Deuteronomy 11:18). Read this as though it stated sam tam, a perfect elixir. The Torah is compared to an elixir of life. There is a parable that illustrates this: A person hit his son with a strong blow and placed a bandage on his wound. And he said to him: My son, as long as this bandage is on your wound and is healing you, eat what you enjoy and drink what you enjoy, and bathe in either hot water or cold water, and you do not need to be afraid, as it will heal your wound. But if you take it off, the wound will become gangrenous.,So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you are engaged in Torah study you will not be given over into the hand of the evil inclination, as it is stated: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up?” (Genesis 4:7). One who engages in Torah study lifts himself above the evil inclination.,And if you do not engage in Torah study, you are given over to its power, as it is stated: “Sin crouches at the door” (Genesis 4:7). Moreover, all of the evil inclination’s deliberations will be concerning you, as it is stated in the same verse: “And to you is its desire.” And if you wish you shall rule over it, as it is stated in the conclusion of the verse: “But you may rule over it” (Genesis 4:7).,The Sages taught: So difficult is the evil inclination that even its Creator calls it evil, as it is stated: “For the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Rav Yitzḥak says: A person’s evil inclination renews itself to him every day, as it is stated: “And that every inclination of the thoughts in his heart was only evil all day [kol hayyom]” (Genesis 6:5). “Kol hayyom” can also be understood as: Every day.,And Rabbi Shimon ben Levi says: A person’s inclination overpowers him every day, and seeks to kill him, as it is stated: “The wicked watches the righteous and seeks to slay him” (Psalms 37:32). And if not for the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, assists each person in battling his evil inclination, he could not overcome it, as it is stated: “The Lord will not leave him in his hand” (Psalms 37:33).,A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: My son, if this wretched one, the evil inclination, encounters you, pull it into the study hall, i.e., go and study Torah. If it is a stone it will melt, and if it is iron it will break, as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as a stone shatters a hammer, so too one can overcome his evil inclination, which is as strong as iron, through Torah study. With regard to the second part of the statement: If it is a stone it will melt, this is as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1), and it states: “The water wears the stones” (Job 14:19), indicating that water is stronger than stone.,§ The baraita (29a) teaches that a father is commanded to marry his son to a woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this matter? As it is written: “Take wives and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men” (Jeremiah 29:6).,The Gemara analyzes this verse: Granted with regard to his son, this is in his power, i.e., he can instruct him to marry a woman, as a man is the active agent in a marriage. But with regard to his daughter, is this in his power? She must wait for a man to marry her. The Gemara answers: This is what Jeremiah was saying to them in the aforementioned verse: Her father should give her something for her dowry, and he should dress and cover her with suitable clothing so that men will leap to marry her.,§ The baraita further states that a father is commanded to teach his son a trade. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Ḥizkiyya said: As the verse states: “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). If this verse is interpreted literally, and it is referring to an actual woman, then one can derive as follows: Just as a father is obligated to marry his son to a woman, so too, he is obligated to teach him a trade, as indicated by the term: Life. And if the wife mentioned in this verse is allegorical, and it is the Torah, then one should explain the verse in the following manner: Just as he is obligated to teach him Torah, so too, he is obligated to teach him a trade.,§ The baraita adds: And some say that a father is also obligated to teach his son to swim in a river. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? It is necessary for his life, i.e., this is potentially a lifesaving skill.,§ The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he taught him banditry.,The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Yehuda? Both state that a father must teach his son a trade. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where the father teaches him to engage in business. According to the first tanna this is sufficient, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must teach him an actual trade.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the expression: All mitzvot of a father with regard to his son? If we say that this is referring to all of the mitzvot that a father is required to perform for his son, are women obligated in these? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him? This indicates that his father, yes, he is obligated to do these, but his mother, no, she is not obligated to perform these mitzvot for her son.,Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to each mitzva for the father that is incumbent upon the son to perform for his father, both men and women are obligated in them. The Gemara comments: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3). I have derived only that a man is obligated in this mitzva; from where do I derive that a woman is also obligated? When it says in the same verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), employing the plural form of the verb, this indicates that there are two that are obligated here, both a man and a woman.,If so, that both of them are obligated, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Man”? In the case of a man, it is in his power to perform this mitzva; whereas with regard to a woman, it is not always in her power to perform this mitzva, because she is under the authority of another person, i.e., her husband. As she is obligated to her husband to maintain her household, she is not always able to find time for her parents. Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav says: Consequently, if a woman is divorced, then both of them, a daughter and a son, are equal with regard to honoring and fearing their father and mother.,The Sages taught that it is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9). In this manner, the verse equates the honor of one’s father and mother to the honor of the Omnipresent, as the term “honor” is used in both cases.,Similarly, it is stated: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), and it is stated: “You shall fear the Lord your God and Him you shall serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13). The verse equates the fear of one’s father and mother to the fear of the Omnipresent.,Likewise, it is stated: “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:17), and it is stated: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15). The verse equates the blessing, a euphemism for cursing, of one’s father and mother to the blessing of the Omnipresent. But with regard to striking, i.e., with regard to the halakha that one who strikes his father or mother is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, it is certainly not possible to say the same concerning the Holy One, Blessed be He.,And so too, the equating of one’s attitude toward his parents to his attitude toward God is a logical derivation, as the three of them are partners in his creation. As the Sages taught: There are three partners in the forming of a person: The Holy One, Blessed be He, who provides the soul, and his father and his mother. When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honor Me as well.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son honors his mother more than he honors his father, because |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 82a, 42a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 60 42a. ותרוייהו כר' יוחנן סבירא להו הא למיהוי כי יתרא הא למיהוי כי נפיא,אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא וליבריך הטוב והמטיב אמר ליה אטו כי חסר מי מברכינן דיין האמת דלבריך הטוב והמטיב וליברכינהו לתרוייהו כיון דהיינו אורחיה לא מברכינן,וא"ר אחא בר חנינא א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן כל המברך על החדש בזמנו כאילו מקבל פני שכינה כתיב הכא (שמות יב, ב) החדש הזה וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אילמלא (לא) זכו ישראל אלא להקביל פני אביהן שבשמים כל חדש וחדש דיים אמר אביי הלכך נימרינהו מעומד,מרימר ומר זוטרא מכתפי (אהדדי) ומברכי א"ל רב אחא לרב אשי במערבא מברכי ברוך מחדש חדשים אמר ליה האי נשי דידן נמי מברכי,אלא כדרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה ברוך [וכו'] אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים וברוח פיו כל צבאם חוק וזמן נתן להם שלא ישנו את תפקידם ששים ושמחים לעשות רצון קונם פועלי אמת שפעולתן אמת וללבנה אמר שתתחדש עטרת תפארת לעמוסי בטן שהן עתידין להתחדש כמותה ולפאר ליוצרם על שם כבוד מלכותו ברוך אתה ה' מחדש חדשים,(משלי כד, ו) כי בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה א"ר אחא בר חנינא א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן במי אתה מוצא מלחמתה של תורה במי שיש בידו חבילות של משנה קרי רב יוסף אנפשיה (משלי יד, ד) ורב תבואות בכח שור:,אחד אומר בשתי שעות כו': א"ר שימי בר אשי לא שנו אלא שעות אבל אחד אומר קודם הנץ החמה ואחד אומר לאחר הנץ החמה עדותן בטילה,פשיטא אלא אחד אומר קודם הנץ ואחד אומר בתוך הנץ הא נמי פשיטא מהו דתימא הא בגילויא קאי וזהרורי בעלמא הוא דחזא קמ"ל:,ואחר כך מכניסין כו': אותו היום ותו לא והתניא אם יש ממש בדבריו לא היה יורד משם לעולם ואם אין ממש בדבריו אין יורד כל היום כולו כדי שלא תהא עלייתו ירידה לו אמר אביי תרגומה אאם אין ממש בדבריו:,מצאו לו זכות כו': יין מאי טעמא לא אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא אמר קרא (משלי לא, ד) ולרוזנים אי שכר העוסקין ברזו של עולם אל ישתכרו:,(מצאו לו זכות כו'): לא ראו מאי,א"ר אחא פוטרין אותו וכן א"ר יוחנן פוטרין אותו א"ל רב פפא לאביי וליפטריה מעיקרא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן כדי שלא יצאו מב"ד מעורבבין,איכא דאמרי א"ל רב פפא לאביי ולמה לי יוסיפו ליפטריה מבי דינא קמא אמר ליה ר' יוסי קאי כוותך דתניא ר' יוסי אומר כשם שאין מוסיפין על ב"ד של שבעים ואחד כך אין מוסיפין על ב"ד של עשרים ושלשה,ת"ר אומר בדיני ממונות נזדקן הדין ואין אומר בדיני נפשות נזדקן הדין,מאי נזדקן הדין אילימא קש דינא איפכא מיבעיא ליה אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אחא בריה דרב איקא איפוך רב אשי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך ומאי נזדקן הדין חכם דינא,מיתיבי גדול שבדיינין אומר נזדקן הדין אי אמרת בשלמא חכם דינא היינו דאמר גדול אלא אי אמרת קש דינא לא סגיא דלא אמר גדול כסופי הוא דקא מיכסיף נפשיה,אין אינו דומה מתבייש מעצמו למתבייש מאחרים,איכא דאמרי אי אמרת בשלמא קש דינא היינו דאינו דומה מתבייש מעצמו למתבייש מאחרים אלא אי אמרת חכם דינא גדול אשבוחי משבח נפשיה והכתיב (משלי כז, ב) יהללך זר ולא פיך,שאני מילתא דבי דינא דאגדול רמיא כדתנן גמרו את הדבר היו מכניסין אותן גדול שבדיינין אומר איש פלוני אתה זכאי איש פלוני אתה חייב:, | |
|
| 17. Tertullian, In Stephanum, 1.53 Tagged with subjects: •sophists/sophism, relativism of,towards law Found in books: Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law (2003) 8 |
