1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 83| 11.4. "וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָבָה נִבְנֶה־לָּנוּ עִיר וּמִגְדָּל וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם וְנַעֲשֶׂה־לָּנוּ שֵׁם פֶּן־נָפוּץ עַל־פְּנֵי כָל־הָאָרֶץ׃", | 11.4. "And they said: ‘Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’", |
|
| 2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 102 |
| 3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 69 |
| 4. Homer, Odyssey, 11.315, 19.173-19.174 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 42, 81 |
5. Homer, Iliad, 2.649, 3.385, 3.395, 6.6-6.7 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 42, 50 | 2.649. / And the Cretans had as leader Idomeneus, famed for his spear, even they that held Cnosus and Gortys, famed for its walls, Lyctus and Miletus and Lycastus, white with chalk, and Phaestus and Rhytium, well-peopled cities; and all they beside that dwelt in Crete of the hundred cities. 3.385. / Then with her hand the goddess laid hold of her fragrant robe, and plucked it, and spake to her in the likeness of an ancient dame, a wool-comber, who had been wont to card the fair wool for her when she dwelt in Lacedaemon, and who was well loved of her; in her likeness fair Aphrodite spake: 3.395. / So spake she, and stirred Helen's heart in her breast; and when she marked the beauteous neck of the goddess, her lovely bosom, and her flashing eyes, then amazement seized her, and she spake, and addressed her, saying:Strange goddess, why art thou minded to beguile me thus? 6.6. / Aias, son of Telamon, bulwark of the Achaeans was first to break a battalion of the Trojans, and to bring a light of deliverance to his comrades, for he smote a man that was chiefest among the Thracians, even Eüssorus' son Acamas, a valiant man and tall. Him he was first to smite upon the horn of his helmet with thick crest of horse-hair, 6.7. / Aias, son of Telamon, bulwark of the Achaeans was first to break a battalion of the Trojans, and to bring a light of deliverance to his comrades, for he smote a man that was chiefest among the Thracians, even Eüssorus' son Acamas, a valiant man and tall. Him he was first to smite upon the horn of his helmet with thick crest of horse-hair, |
|
| 6. Aristotle, Poetics, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 42 |
| 7. Philo of Alexandria, That The Worse Attacks The Better, 15, 167 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 134 |
8. Philo of Alexandria, Who Is The Heir, 101 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 118 | 101. Perhaps some one may say that this question is at variance with perfect faith, for that to feel such a difficulty is the part of one who doubts, but that it is the part of one who believes to seek for nothing further. We must say, therefore, that he both doubts and has believed, but not about the same matter, far from it, for he has believed that he is to be an inheritor of wisdom, but he only seeks to know the manner in which this event will take place; that it really will take place he does by all means confidently comprehend, in accordance with the divine promises. |
|
| 9. Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 3.236 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 118 |
10. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 1.2 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 78 | 1.2. for the glory of the laws which he left behind him has reached over the whole world, and has penetrated to the very furthest limits of the universe; and those who do really and truly understand him are not many, perhaps partly out of envy, or else from the disposition so common to many persons of resisting the commands which are delivered by lawgivers in different states, since the historians who have flourished among the Greeks have not chosen to think him worthy of mention, |
|
11. Philo of Alexandria, On Dreams, 1.73, 1.93 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 134 | 1.73. And do not wonder if, according to the rules of allegorical description, the sun is likened to the Father and Governor of the universe; for in reality nothing is like unto God; but those things which by the vain opinion of men are thought to be so, are only two things, one invisible and the other visible; the soul being the invisible thing, and the sun the visible one. 1.93. Is it not natural that those who fancy that the lawgiver displays such earnestness about a garment should, if they do not reproach him, at least make a suggestion, saying, "What are ye saying, my good men? Do ye affirm that the Creator and ruler of the world calls himself merciful with respect to so trivial a matter, as that of a garment not being restored to the borrower by the lender?" |
|
12. Philo of Alexandria, On The Creation of The World, 77, 79-88 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 180 | 88. for the charioteers sit behind their beasts of burden, and are placed at, their backs, and yet when they have the reins in their hands, they guide them wherever they choose, and at one time they urge them on to a swift pace, and at another time they hold them back, if they are going on at a speed greater than is desirable. And pilots again, sitting in the hindmost part of the ship, that is the stern are, as one may say, the most important of all the people in the ship, inasmuch as they have the safety of the ship and of all those who are in it, in their hands. And so the Creator has made man to be as it were a charioteer and pilot over all other animals, in order that he may hold the reins and direct the course of every thing upon earth, having the superintendence of all animals and plants, as a sort of viceroy of the principal and mighty King. XXX. |
|
13. Philo of Alexandria, On The Confusion of Tongues, 14, 143, 190, 2, 5 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 81 | 5. But instead of these mountains the lawgiver represents a tower as having been built by these men, who, out of ignorance and wicked ambition, were desirous to reach the heaven. Every alienation of mind, then, is grievous; for even if every portion of the whole earth could be built over, a slight foundation is being first laid, and then if a superstructure could be raised in the fashion of a single pillar, it would still be an enormous distance removed from the heavenly sphere, and above all would it be so according to the tenets of those curious philosophers who have affirmed that the earth is the centre of the universe. III. |
|
14. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Abraham, 181 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 102 | 181. And also that barbarous nations have for many ages practised the sacrifice of their children as if it were a holy work and one looked upon with favour by God, whose wickedness is mentioned by the holy Moses. For he, blaming them for this pollution, says, that, "They burn their sons and their daughters to their Gods." |
|
15. Philo of Alexandria, On The Contemplative Life, 75, 77-78, 76 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 166 | 76. And he, indeed, follows a slower method of instruction, dwelling on and lingering over his explanations with repetitions, in order to imprint his conceptions deep in the minds of his hearers, for as the understanding of his hearers is not able to keep up with the interpretation of one who goes on fluently, without stopping to take breath, it gets behind-hand, and fails to comprehend what is said; |
|
16. Tosefta, Beitzah, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •historical-critical methods, used alongside literary analysis Found in books: Hayes (2022) 260| 1.6. "[א\"ר יוסי] ומה מילה שודאה דוחה [את השבת] אין ספיקה דוחה את יו\"ט כסוי הדם שאין ודאו דוחה [את השבת] אינו דין [שלא יהא ספיקו] דוחה [את] יו\"ט ", | |
|
17. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 32.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •historical-critical methods, used alongside literary analysis Found in books: Hayes (2022) 260| 32.2. גַּם בְּמַדָּעֲךָ מֶלֶךְ אַל תְּקַלֵּל (קהלת י, כ), אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין לֹא בַּמַּדָּע שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ יַתִּיר מִן הַבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וְעוֹף תְּהֵא מְחָרֵף וּמְגַדֵּף לְפָנַי, בָּרָאתִי לְךָ שְׁתֵּי עֵינַיִם וְלָהּ שְׁתֵּי עֵינַיִם, לְךָ שְׁתֵּי אָזְנַיִם וְלָהּ שְׁתֵּי אָזְנַיִם, דִּמִּיתִיךָ לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים מט, כא): נִמְשַׁל כַּבְּהֵמוֹת נִדְמוּ, וְאֵין נִדְמֶה אֶלָּא שְׁתִיקָה, שִׁתַּקְתִּי מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדְךָ, כַּמָּה טוֹבוֹת עָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ וְאֵין אַתָּה מֵבִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים מט, כא): אָדָם בִּיקָר וְלֹא יָבִין. דָּבָר אַחֵר, גַּם בְּמַדָעֲךָ, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁלְּפָנֶיךָ, אַל תְּקַלֵּל, (קהלת י, כ): וּבְחַדְרֵי מִשְׁכָּבְךָ, עָשִׁיר שֶׁלְּפָנֶיךָ אַל תְּקַלֵּל, (קהלת י, כ): כִּי עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם יוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַקּוֹל, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר זֶה הָעוֹרֵב וְחָכְמַת טַיָּארִין, (קהלת י, כ): וּבַעַל כְּנָפַיִם יַגִּיד דָּבָר, רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר אָזְנַיִם לַדֶּרֶךְ וְאָזְנַיִם לַכֹּתֶל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, גַּם בְּמַדָעֲךָ, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁבְּדוֹרְךָ אַל תְּקַלֵּל, וּבְחַדְרֵי מִשְׁכָּבְךָ, עָשִׁיר שֶׁבְּדוֹרְךָ אַל תְּקַלֵּל, כִּי עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם יוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַקּוֹל. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדָוִד כָּךְ הָיִיתָ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר (תהלים ו, יא): יֵבשׁוּ וְיִבָּהֲלוּ מְאֹד כָּל אֹיְבָי, מִי הָיָה אוֹיִבְךָ לֹא שָׁאוּל, לֹא כָּךְ כְּתִיב (תהלים יח, א): בְּיוֹם הִצִּיל ה' אוֹתוֹ מִכַּף כָּל אֹוֹיְבָיו וּמִיַּד שָׁאוּל, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם אַל תַּעֲלֶה אוֹתוֹ עָלַי זְדוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא שְׁגָגוֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים ז, א): שִׁגָּיוֹן לְדָוִד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, גַּם בְּמַדָעֲךָ מֶלֶךְ אַל תְּקַלֵּל, מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם אַל תְּקַלֵּל. וּבְחַדְרֵי מִשְׁכָּבְךָ אַל תְּקַלֵּל עָשִׁיר, עֲשִׁירוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. כִּי עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם יוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַקּוֹל. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי יֵשׁ קוֹל יוֹצֵא לְטוֹבָה וְיֵשׁ קוֹל לְרָעָה, לְטוֹבָה (דברים ה, כה): וַיִּשְׁמַע ה' אֶת קוֹל דִּבְרֵיכֶם בְּדַבֶּרְכֶם אֵלָי, מַהוּ (דברים ה, כה): הֵיטִיבוּ [כל] אֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּרוּ, רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַדָא וּבַר קַפָּרָא, חַד אָמַר הֲטָבָה כַּהֲטָבַת נֵרוֹת, וְחַד אָמַר הֲטָבָה כַּהֲטָבַת הַקְטֹרֶת. יֵשׁ קוֹל לְרָעָה (דברים א, לד): וַיִּשְׁמַע ה' אֶת קוֹל דִּבְרֵיכֶם וַיִּקְצֹף וַיִּשָּׁבַע לֵאמֹר, אָמַר רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לָהֶם הוּא קִצָּפוֹן, וְלִי מָה אֲנִי קִצָּפוֹן, (תהלים צה, יא): אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְאַפִּי, נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְאַפִּי וְחוֹזֵר אֲנִי בִּי, (תהלים צה, יא): אִם יְבֹאוּן אֶל מְנוּחָתִי, לִמְנוּחָה זוֹ אֵינָן בָּאִים אֲבָל בָּאִים הֵם לִמְנוּחָה אַחֶרֶת. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁכָּעַס עַל בְּנוֹ וְגָזַר עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ לַפָּלָטִין, מֶה עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ עָמַד סָתְרֵיהּ וּבְנָיֵיהּ וְהִכְנִיס אֶת בְּנוֹ עִמּוֹ לַפָּלָטִין, נִמְצָא מְקַיֵם שְׁבוּעָתוֹ וּמַכְנִיס אֶת בְּנוֹ, כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְאַפִּי אִם יְבֹאוּן אֶל מְנוּחָתִי, לִמְנוּחָה זוֹ אֵין בָּאִין אֲבָל בָּאִין לִמְנוּחָה אַחֶרֶת. עַל כְּנָפַיִם יַגִּיד דָּבָר, אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָאָדָם הַזֶּה יָשֵׁן הַגוּף אוֹמֵר לַנְּשָׁמָה וְהַנְּשָׁמָה לַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ לַמַּלְאָךְ וְהַמַּלְאָךְ לַכְּרוּב וְהַכְּרוּב לְבַעַל כְּנָפַיִם וּבַעַל כְּנָפַיִם יַגִיד דָּבָר, לִפְנֵי מִי, לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. דָּבָר אַחֵר, גַּם בְּמַדָעֲךָ מֶלֶךְ אַל תְּקַלֵּל, זֶה משֶׁה, דִּכְתִיב (דברים לג, ה): וַיְהִי בִישֻׁרוּן מֶלֶךְ. וּבְחַדְרֵי מִשְׁכָּבְךָ אַל תְּקַלֵּל עָשִׁיר, זֶה משֶׁה, וּמֵהֵיכָן הֶעֱשִׁיר משֶׁה, אָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין מַחְצָב שֶׁל סַנְפִּירִינוֹן בָּרָא לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּתוֹךְ אָהֳלוֹ וּמִשָּׁם הֶעֱשִׁיר, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות לד, א): פְּסָל לְךָ, הַפְּסֹלֶת שֶׁלְּךָ, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר משֶׁה (משלי י, כב): בִּרְכַּת ה' הִיא תַעֲשִׁיר. כִּי עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁטָּס כְּעוֹף וְעָלָה לַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַעַל כְּנָפַיִם יַגִּיד דָּבָר, שֶׁהֻגַּד לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי (ויקרא כד, יד): הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל. | |
|
| 18. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Greeks, 3 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 102 |
19. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 39.14, 77.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 56| 39.14. וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן (בראשית יב, ה), אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר זִמְרָא אִם מִתְכַּנְסִין כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם לִבְרֹא אֲפִלּוּ יַתּוּשׁ אֶחָד אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לִזְרֹק בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה, וְאַתְּ אָמַר וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ הַגֵּרִים שֶׁגִּיְּרוּ, וְאִם כֵּן שֶׁגִּיְּרוּ לָמָּה אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא מְקָרֵב אֶת הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּמְגַיְּרוֹ כְּאִלּוּ בְּרָאוֹ. וְיֹאמַר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אַבְרָהָם הָיָה מְגַיֵּר אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים וְשָׂרָה מְגַיֶּרֶת אֶת הַנָּשִׁים. 77.1. וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב לְבַדּוֹ וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ (בראשית לב, כה), (דברים לג, כו): אֵין כָּאֵל יְשֻׁרוּן רֹכֵב שָׁמַיִם בְּעֶזְרֶךָ, רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר אֵין כָּאֵל, וּמִי כָאֵל, יְשֻּׁרוּן, הַנָּאִים וְהַמְשֻׁבָּחִין שֶׁבָּכֶם. אַתָּה מוֹצֵא כָּל מַה שֶּׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, הִקְדִּים וְעָשָׂה עַל יְדֵי הַצַּדִּיקִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְחַיֶּה מֵתִים, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ מְחַיֶּה אֶת הַמֵּתִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹצֵר גְּשָׁמִים, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ עוֹצֵר גְּשָׁמִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַמּוּעָט, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ מְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַמּוּעָט. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְחַיֶּה אֶת הַמֵּתִים, וֶאֱלִישָׁע מְחַיֶּה אֶת הַמֵּתִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פּוֹקֵד עֲקָרוֹת, וֶאֱלִישָׁע פּוֹקֵד עֲקָרוֹת. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַמּוּעָט, וֶאֱלִישָׁע מְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַמּוּעָט. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַמְתִּיק אֶת הַמָּר, וֶאֱלִישָׁע מַמְתִּיק אֶת הַמָּר. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַמְתִּיק אֶת הַמָּר בְּמָר, וֶאֱלִישָׁע הִמְתִּיק אֶת הַמָּר בְּמָר. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר אֵין כָּאֵל, וּמִי כָּאֵל, יְשֻׁרוּן, יִשְׂרָאֵל סָבָא, מָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כָּתוּב בּוֹ (ישעיה ב, יז): וְנִשְׂגַּב ה' לְבַדּוֹ, אַף יַעֲקֹב וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב לְבַדּוֹ. | 39.14. "“And the souls that they had made in Haran.” Said Rabbi Elazar ben Zimra: Even if every creature on earth conspired to create (out of nothing) even one mosquito, they could not give it a soul--and you say “the souls that they had made.” Therefore (they must be) they must be those who lived with them and converted. And it it meant “converted” why did it say “made?” In order to teach you that each one who brings an idol worshipper and converts him, it is as though he created him. And why did it say “that they made” rather than “that he made?” Said Rav Huna: Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women. ", 77.1. "\"Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him\" (Genesis 32:25). \"O Jeshurun, there is none like God, Riding through the heavens to help you\" (Deutronomy 32:25), Rabbi Berakhyah quoted Rabbi Yehudah, son of Rabbi Simon: \"There is none like God,\" and who is like God? Jeshurun, the most pleasant and praiseworthy among you. You find that all that the Holy Blessed One will do in the coming future, [God] preemptively did through the righteous in this world. The Holy Blessed One revives the dead, and Elijah revives the dead. The Holy Blessed One stops the rain, and Elijah stops the rain. The Holy Blessed One blesses the destitute, and Elijah blesses the destitute. The Holy Blessed One revives the dead, and Elisha revives the dead. The Holy Blessed One remembers the barren, and Elisha remembers the barren. The Holy Blessed One blesses the destitute, and Elisha blesses the destitute. The Holy Blessed One sweetens what is bitter, and Elisha sweetens what is bitter. The Holy Blessed One sweetens the bitterest of the bitter, and Elisha sweetens the bitterest of the bitter. Rabbi Berakhyah quoted Rabbi Simon: \"There is none like God,\" and who is like God? Grandfather Israel. Just as, regarding the Holy Blessed One, it is written, \"None but the LORD shall be Exalted in that day\" (Isaiah 2:17), even for Jacob [it is written], \"Jacob was left alone.\" ", |
|
| 20. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •historical-critical methods, used alongside literary analysis Found in books: Hayes (2022) 260 |
| 21. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan |
22. Porphyry, On The Cave of The Nymphs, 18 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 151 | 18. It must not, however, be thought that interpretations of this kind are forced, and nothing more than the conjectures of ingenious men; but when we consider the |41 great wisdom of antiquity and how much Homer excelled in intellectual prudence, and in an accurate knowledge of every virtue, it must not be denied that he has obscurely indicated the images of things of a more divine nature in the fiction of a fable. For it would not have been possible to devise the whole of this hypothesis unless the figment had been transferred (to an appropriate meaning) from certain established truths. But reserving the discussion of this for another treatise, we shall here finish our explanation of the present Cave of the |
|
| 23. Porphyry, The Homeric Question On The Odyssey, None (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 81 |
24. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan| 70a. לא תאכל,גירי וחרורי מנלן אמר רב חסדא דאמר קרא (עזרא ו, כא) וכל הנבדל מטומאת גויי הארץ אליהם,ממזרי מנלן דכתיב (נחמיה ב, י) וישמע סנבלט החרוני וטוביה העבד העמוני וכתיב (נחמיה ו, יח) כי רבים ביהודה בעלי שבועה לו כי חתן הוא לשכניה בן ארח ויהוחנן בנו לקח את בת משלם בן ברכיה קסבר עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,הניחא למ"ד הולד ממזר אלא למאן דאמר הולד כשר מאי איכא למימר ותו ממאי דהוו ליה בני דילמא לא הוו ליה בני ותו ממאי דהכא הוו להו וסליקו דילמא התם הוו,אלא מהכא (נחמיה ז, סא) ואלה העולים מתל מלח תל חרשא כרוב אדון ואמר ולא יכלו להגיד בית אבותם וזרעם אם מישראל הם תל מלח אלו בני אדם שדומים מעשיהם למעשה סדום שנהפכה לתל מלח תל חרשא זה שקורא אבא ואמו משתקתו,ולא יכלו להגיד בית אבותם וזרעם אם מישראל הם זה הוא אסופי שנאסף מן השוק כרוב אדון ואמר אמר רבי אבהו אמר אדון אני אמרתי יהיו ישראל לפני חשובים ככרוב והם שמו עצמם כנמר איכא דאמרי אמר רבי אבהו אמר אדון אע"פ ששמו עצמם כנמר הן חשובים לפני ככרוב,אמר רבה בר בר חנה כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חרשו לכל העולם כולו וזרעו מלח שנאמר (נחמיה ז, סא) ואלה העולים מתל מלח תל חרשא,אמר רבה בר רב אדא אמר רב כל הנושא אשה לשום ממון הויין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנים שנאמר (הושע ה, ז) בה' בגדו כי בנים זרים ילדו,ושמא תאמר ממון פלט תלמוד לומר (הושע ה, ז) עתה יאכלם חדש את חלקיהם ושמא תאמר חלקו ולא חלקה תלמוד לומר חלקיהם ושמא תאמר לזמן מרובה ת"ל חדש מאי משמע אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק חדש נכנס וחדש יצא וממונם אבד,ואמר רבה בר רב אדא ואמרי לה אמר רבי סלא אמר רב המנונא כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו אליהו כופתו והקב"ה רוצעו ותנא על כולם אליהו כותב והקב"ה חותם אוי לו לפוסל את זרעו ולפוגם את משפחתו ולנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו אליהו כופתו והקב"ה רוצעו,וכל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחא לעולם ואמר שמואל במומו פוסל,ההוא גברא דמנהרדעא דעל לבי מטבחיא בפומבדיתא אמר להו הבו לי בישרא אמרו ליה נטר עד דשקיל לשמעיה דרב יהודה בר יחזקאל וניתיב לך אמר מאן יהודה בר שויסקאל דקדים לי דשקל מן קמאי אזלו אמרו ליה לרב יהודה שמתיה אמרו רגיל דקרי אינשי עבדי אכריז עליה דעבדא הוא,אזל ההוא אזמניה לדינא לקמיה דרב נחמן אייתי פיתקא דהזמנא אזל רב יהודה לקמיה דרב הונא אמר ליה איזיל או לא איזיל אמר ליה מיזל לא מיבעי לך למיזל משום דגברא רבה את אלא משום יקרא דבי נשיאה קום זיל,אתא אשכחיה דקעביד מעקה אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב הונא בר אידי אמר שמואל כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס על הצבור אסור בעשיית מלאכה בפני שלשה א"ל פורתא דגונדריתא הוא דקא עבידנא א"ל מי סניא מעקה דכתיב באורייתא או מחיצה דאמור רבנן,א"ל יתיב מר אקרפיטא א"ל ומי סני ספסל דאמור רבנן או איצטבא דאמרי אינשי א"ל ליכול מר אתרונגא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל כל האומר אתרונגא תילתא ברמות רוחא או אתרוג כדקריוה רבנן או אתרוגא דאמרי אינשי אמר ליה לישתי מר אנבגא אמר ליה מי סני איספרגוס דקריוה רבנן או אנפק דאמרי אינשי,אמר ליה תיתי דונג תשקינן אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אין משתמשים באשה קטנה היא בפירוש אמר שמואל אין משתמשים באשה כלל בין גדולה בין קטנה,נשדר ליה מר שלמא לילתא א"ל הכי אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה אפשר ע"י שליח א"ל הכי אמר שמואל | 70a. b she may not eat. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b converts and emancipated slaves /b ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this? b Rav Ḥisda says: As the verse states /b with regard to the eating of the Paschal offering upon the return to Eretz Yisrael: “And the children of Israel who had come back from the exile ate, b and all such as had separated themselves to them from the impurity of the nations of the land /b to seek the Lord, the God of Israel, did eat” (Ezra 6:21), indicating that converts and emancipated slaves who had abandoned “the impurity of the nations of the land,” i.e., idolatry, joined Ezra.,The mishna taught that b i mamzerim /i /b were among those who ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this? The Gemara answers: b As it is written: “And Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard” /b (Nehemiah 2:19), b and /b elsewhere b it is written /b with regard to Tobiah the Ammonite: b “For there were many in Judah sworn to him because he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah; and his son Jehoha had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah” /b (Nehemiah 6:18). The Gemara proceeds to explain: This i tanna /i b holds /b that in the case of b a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a i mamzer /i . /b Since Tobiah the Ammonite, a gentile, married a Jewish woman, as did his son, there were clearly i mamzerim /i among those who ascended.,The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to the one who says /b that in that case b the offspring is a i mamzer /i . But according to the one who says /b that the lineage of b the offspring is unflawed /b and has the status of the mother, b what can be said? And furthermore, from where /b is it clear b that /b Jehoha b had offspring /b from this wife? b Perhaps he did not have offspring, /b and it is possible that there were no i mamzerim /i . b And furthermore, /b even if they did have offspring, b from where /b is it clear b that they had /b offspring b here, /b in Babylonia, who then b ascended /b to Eretz Yisrael? b Perhaps they were there, /b in Eretz Yisrael, all the time, as they may have been one of the families that was not exiled to Babylonia, and therefore they cannot be used as the proof that i mamzerim /i ascended from Babylonia., b Rather, /b the proof that i mamzerim /i were among those who ascended from Babylonia is b from here: “And these were they that ascended from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer; but they could not tell their fathers’ houses, nor their offspring, whether they were of Israel” /b (Nehemiah 7:61). The Gemara explains that these names are to be interpreted as follows: b “Tel Melah”; these are people whose /b licentious b actions were similar to the act of Sodom, which was turned into a mound of salt [ i tel melaḥ /i ]. “Tel Harsha”; this /b is referring to one b who calls /b a man b father, and his mother silences him, /b as the word i ḥarsha /i is similar to i maḥarishto /i , meaning: Silences him. In any event, the statement that there were those who acted licentiously, as did the people of Sodom, means that there were i mamzerim /i among them.,The Gemara continues with its explication of the verse: b “But they could not tell their fathers’ houses, nor their offspring, whether they were of Israel”; this /b is referring to b a foundling who is gathered from the marketplace. /b Such a person does not even know if he is Jewish, as he has no knowledge of his parents. With regard to the names b “Cherub, Addon, and Immer,” Rabbi Abbahu says /b that these terms should be expounded as follows: b The Master [ i Adon /i ], /b God, b said: I said /b that b the Jewish /b people b shall be as important before Me as a cherub, but they made themselves /b impudent b as a leopard [ i namer /i ]. There are /b those b who say /b a different version: b Rabbi Abbahu said: The Master [ i Adon /i ] said /b that b although they made themselves as a leopard [ i namer /i ], they are as important before Me as a cherub. /b ,§ Explicating the same verse, b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: /b In the case of b anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him /b to marry due to her lineage, b the verse ascribes him /b blame b as though he plowed [ i ḥarash /i ] all /b of b the entire world and sowed it with salt [ i melaḥ /i ], as it is stated /b with regard to those of flawed lineage who ascended from Babylonia: b “And these were they that ascended from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha.” /b , b Rabba bar Rav Adda says /b that b Rav says: /b In the case of b anyone who marries a woman /b of flawed lineage only b for the sake of money, he will have offspring /b who will act b inappropriately, as it is stated: “They have dealt treacherously against the Lord, for they have begotten strange children; /b now shall the new moon devour them with their portions” (Hosea 5:7).,Rabba bar Rav Adda explains the verse: b And lest you say /b that at least the b money /b that they received as dowry b was spared, /b although they suffer from the acts of their offspring, b the verse states: “Now shall the new moon devour them with their portions,” /b meaning their property shall be consumed in a single month. b And lest you say his portion /b will be lost b but not the portion /b of his wife, b the verse states “their portions” /b in the plural. b And lest you say /b this will occur b after a long time, /b but in the interim he will benefit from the money, b the verse states: “The new moon.” /b The Gemara asks: b From where may /b it b be inferred /b that their money will be lost immediately? b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A month comes and a month goes, and their money is /b already b lost. /b In any event, the fact that the punishment they receive is the loss of their portions indicates that the sin in this case was marrying for the sake of money., b And Rabba bar Rav Adda says, and some say Rabbi Salla says /b that b Rav Hamnuna says: /b In the case of b anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him /b to marry due to her lineage, b Elijah binds him /b in the manner that those liable to receive lashes are bound, b and the Holy One, Blessed be He, straps him. And /b a Sage b taught: Concerning all of them, Elijah writes and the Holy One, Blessed be He, signs /b the following: b Woe to he who disqualifies his offspring, and who brings a flaw to his family /b lineage, b and who marries a woman who is not /b halakhically b suited for him /b to marry. b Elijah binds him and the Holy One, Blessed be He, straps him. /b ,He further said: b And anyone who disqualifies /b others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself b is /b of b flawed /b lineage. Another indication that one’s lineage is flawed is that b he never speaks in praise /b of others. b And Shmuel says: /b If one habitually claims that others are flawed, b he disqualifies /b himself b with his /b own b flaw. /b The flaw he accuses them of having is in fact the one that he has.,§ The Gemara recounts a related incident: There was b a certain man from Neharde’a who entered a butcher shop in Pumbedita. He said to them: Give me meat. They said to him: Wait until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel has taken /b his meat, b and /b then b we will give /b it b to you. /b The man b said /b to them in anger: b Who is /b this b Yehuda bar Sheviske’el, /b a derogatory name for a glutton for meat, b that he should precede me, that he should take before me? They went /b and b told Rav Yehuda /b what the man had said. Rav Yehuda b excommunicated him, /b in accordance with the i halakha /i of one who disparages a Torah scholar. b They /b also b said /b to him that the same man b was in the habit of calling people slaves. /b Rav Yehuda b proclaimed about him that he is a slave /b and may not marry a Jew.,The Gemara continues the story: b That /b man b went and summoned /b Rav Yehuda b to judgment before Rav Naḥman, /b who was a judge in Neharde’a. When the b summons arrived /b in Pumbedita, b Rav Yehuda went before Rav Huna /b to seek his council. Rav Yehuda b said to him: Should I go or should I not go? /b Rav Huna b said to him: /b As for the obligation b to go, you are not required to go, since you are a great man /b and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of Rav Naḥman’s court. b But due to the honor of the Exilarch’s house, /b as Rav Naḥman was the son-in-law of the Exilarch, b get up /b and b go. /b ,Rav Yehuda b arrived /b in Neharde’a and b found /b Rav Naḥman b constructing a parapet. /b Rav Yehuda b said to /b Rav Naḥman: b Does the Master not hold in accordance with that /b i halakha /i that b Rav Huna bar Idi says /b that b Shmuel says: Once a person has been appointed a leader of the community, he is prohibited from performing labor before three /b people, so that he not belittle the honor of his position? Rav Naḥman b said to him: It is /b merely b a little fence [ i gundarita /i ] that I am constructing. /b Rav Yehuda b said to him: Is /b the term b i ma’akeh /i , which is written in the Torah, or /b the corresponding term b i meḥitza /i , which the Sages said, distasteful /b to you? Why do you use a term that is used by neither the Torah nor the Sages?,During their meeting, Rav Naḥman b said to him: Let the Master sit on the bench [ i karfita /i ]. /b Rav Yehuda b said to him: Is /b the term b i safsal /i , which the Sages said, or /b the word b i itzteva /i , which /b common b people say, distasteful /b to you? Why are you using uncommon terms? Rav Naḥman then b said to him: Let the Master eat a citron [ i etronga /i ]. /b Rav Yehuda b said to him: This is what Shmuel said: Anyone who says i etronga /i /b demonstrates b one-third of a haughtiness of spirit. /b Why? He should b either /b say b i etrog /i , as the Sages called it, or i etroga /i , as /b common b people say /b in Aramaic. Saying i etronga /i is a sign of snobbery, as it was employed by the aristocratic class. He subsequently b said to him: Let the Master drink a cup [ i anbaga /i ] /b of wine. Rav Yehuda b said to him: Is /b the term b i ispargus /i , as the Sages called it, or i anpak /i , as /b common b people say, distasteful /b to you?,Later on, Rav Naḥman b said to him: Let /b my daughter b Donag come /b and b pour us drinks. /b Rav Yehuda b said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman /b for a service such as this. Rav Naḥman replied: b She is a minor. /b Rav Yehuda retorted: b Shmuel explicitly says: One may not make use of a woman at all, whether /b she is b an adult or a minor. /b ,Later on, Rav Naḥman suggested: b Let the Master send /b greetings of b peace to /b my wife b Yalta. /b Rav Yehuda b said to him: This is what Shmuel says: A woman’s voice is /b considered b nakedness, /b and one may not speak with her. Rav Naḥman responded: It is b possible /b to send your regards b with a messenger. /b Rav Yehuda b said to him: This is what Shmuel says: /b |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •historical-critical methods, used alongside literary analysis Found in books: Hayes (2022) 260 | 29b. had the b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i in /b the term: b “The nation [ i ha’am /i ]” /b (Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, b severed by a perforation. He came before /b his son-in-law b Rabbi Abba /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Abba b said to him: If there remains in /b the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter b the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, /b i.e., the letter i yod /i , it is b fit. But if not, /b it is b unfit. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rami bar Tamrei, who /b was b the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, /b had the b leg of /b the letter b i vav /i in /b the term: b “And /b the Lord b slew [ i vayaharog /i ] /b all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, b severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Zeira b said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, /b but of average intelligence; b if he reads /b the term as b “And /b the Lord b slew [ i vayaharog /i ]” /b then it is b fit, /b as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a i vav /i . But b if not, /b then it is as though the term b were: Will be slain [ i yehareg /i ], /b written without the letter i vav /i , b and /b it is b unfit. /b ,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters /b of the Torah. Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, who is preventing You /b from giving the Torah without these additions? God b said to him: There is a man who is destined to be /b born b after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef /b is b his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn /b of these crowns b mounds /b upon b mounds of i halakhot /i . /b It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.,Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, show him to me. /b God b said to him: Return behind you. /b Moses b went and sat at the end of the eighth row /b in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall b and did not understand what they were saying. /b Moses’ b strength waned, /b as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. b When /b Rabbi Akiva b arrived at /b the discussion of b one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you /b derive this? Rabbi Akiva b said to them: /b It is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai. /b When Moses heard this, b his mind was put at ease, /b as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.,Moses b returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b and b said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man /b as great b as this and /b yet b You /b still choose to b give the Torah through me. /b Why? God b said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. /b Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, You have shown me /b Rabbi Akiva’s b Torah, /b now b show me his reward. /b God b said to him: Return /b to where you were. Moses b went back /b and b saw that they were weighing /b Rabbi Akiva’s b flesh in a butcher shop [ i bemakkulin /i ], /b as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses b said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? /b God b said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. /b ,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: b Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns [ i ziyyunin /i ], and they are /b the letters b i shin /i , i ayin /i , i tet /i , i nun /i , i zayin /i ; i gimmel /i /b and b i tzadi /i . 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 /b the letter b i ḥet /i and they would suspend the /b left b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i , /b i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.,Rava explains: b They would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of /b the letter b i ḥet /i as if to /b thereby b say: /b The Holy One, Blessed be b He, lives [ i ḥai /i ] in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend the /b left b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i , as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord [ i beYah /i ] is God, an everlasting [ i olamim /i ] Rock” /b (Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami b said to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b will have Him as b his refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come. /b This is alluded to in the word “ i olamim /i ,” which can also mean: Worlds.,Rabbi Yehuda Nesia b said to /b Rabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; b this is /b what poses b a difficulty for me: What is different /b about that b which is written: /b “For b in the Lord [ i beYah /i ],” and it is not written: /b For b the Lord [ i Yah /i ]? /b ,Rav Ashi responded: It is b as Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught: /b The verse “For in the Lord [ i beYah /i ] is God, an everlasting Rock [ i Tzur olamim /i ]” is understood as follows: The term “ i Tzur olamim /i ” can also mean Creator of worlds. b These /b letters i yod /i and i heh /i that constitute the word i yah /i are referring to the b two worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with [ i be /i ] /b the letter b i heh /i and one with [ i be /i ] /b the letter b i yod /i . And I do not know whether the World-to-Come /b was created b with /b the letter b i yod /i and this world /b was created b with /b the letter b i heh /i , /b or b whether this world /b was created b with /b the letter b i yod /i and the World-to-Come /b was created b with /b the letter b i heh /i . /b , b When /b the verse b states: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created [ i behibare’am /i ]” /b (Genesis 2:4), b do not read /b it as b i behibare’am /i , /b meaning: When they were created; b rather, /b read it as b i beheh bera’am /i , /b meaning: He created them with the letter i heh /i . This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e., this world, were created with the letter i heh /i , and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter i yod /i ., b And for what /b reason b was this world created /b specifically b with /b the letter b i heh /i ? /b It is b because /b the letter i heh /i , b which /b is open on its bottom, has b a similar /b appearance b to a portico, /b which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, b where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, /b i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil. b And what is the reason /b that the left b leg of /b the letter i heh /i b is suspended, /b i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is b because if one repents, he is brought /b back b in /b through the opening at the top.,The Gemara asks: b But /b why not b let him enter through that /b same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would b not be effective, /b since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” /b (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who b comes /b in order b to become pure, he is assisted /b from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who b comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening /b to do so. The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that the letter i heh /i b has a crown /b on its roof? The Gemara answers: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If /b a sinner b returns, /b repenting for his sin, b I tie /b a crown b for him /b from above.,The Gemara asks: b For what /b reason b was the World-to-Come created /b specifically b with /b the letter b i yod /i , /b the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is b because the righteous of /b the world b are /b so b few. And for what /b reason is the left side of b the top of /b the letter i yod /i b bent /b downward? It is b because the righteous who are in /b the World-to-Come b hang their heads /b in shame, b since the actions of one are not similar to those of another. /b In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.,§ b Rav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, and /b in each case a statement b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that constitutes b a refutation of his /b ruling. b One /b is b that which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected, /b but if there are b three /b errors on each and every column then it b shall be interred. /b , b And /b a statement b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that constitutes b a refutation of his /b ruling: A Torah scroll that contains b three /b errors on every column b may be corrected, /b but if there are b four /b errors on every column then it b shall be interred. /b A i tanna /i b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b the Torah scroll b contains one complete column /b with no errors, b it saves the entire /b Torah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this /b is the i halakha /i only b when the majority of the scroll is written properly /b and is not full of errors., b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, what /b is the i halakha /i ? Rav Yosef b said to him: Since /b the column itself b may be corrected, /b it b enables the correction /b of the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: b And /b with regard to the i halakha /i that a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, b this statement /b applies when letters b are missing /b and must be added in the space between the lines. b But /b if there were b extraneous /b letters, b we have no /b problem b with it, /b since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that a scroll with letters b missing /b may b not /b be corrected? b Rav Kahana said: Because it would look speckled /b if one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.,The Gemara relates: b Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had /b many b extraneous /b letters b in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Abba b said to him: We said /b that one may not correct the scroll b only in /b a case where the letters are b missing. /b |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 131| 67b. ואיכא דאפיך להו:,אמר לעשרה כתבו גט: ת"ר אמר לעשרה כתבו גט ותנו לאשתי אחד כותב על ידי כולם כולכם כתובו אחד כותב במעמד כולם הוליכו גט לאשתי אחד מוליך ע"י כולם כולכם הוליכו אחד מוליך במעמד כולם,איבעיא להו מנה אותן מהו רב הונא אמר מנה אינו ככולכם ר' יוחנן משום ר' אלעזר דמן רומה אמר מנה הרי הוא ככולכם,אמר רב פפא ולא פליגי הא דמנה כולהו והא דמנה מקצתייהו אמרי לה להאי גיסא ואמרי לה להאי גיסא,אתקין רב יהודה בגיטא דכולכם כתובו או כולכון או כל חד וחד מינכון חתומו או כולכון או כל תרי מינכון אובילו או כולכון או כל חד וחד מינכון,אמר רבא זימנין דגאיז ליה לדיבוריה ואמר כולכון ולא אמר כל חד מינכון ואתי לאיפסולי,אלא אמר רבא כתובו כל חד מינכון חתומו כל תרי מינכון אובילו כל חד מינכון:, br br big strongהדרן עלך האומר: /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongמי /strong /big שאחזו קורדייקוס ואמר כתבו גט לאשתי לא אמר כלום אמר כתבו גט לאשתי ואחזו קורדייקוס וחזר ואמר לא תכתבנו אין דבריו האחרונים כלום,נשתתק ואמרו לו נכתוב גט לאשתך והרכין בראשו בודקין אותו שלשה פעמים אם אמר על לאו לאו ועל הן הן הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי קורדייקוס אמר שמואל דנכתיה חמרא חדתא דמעצרתא וליתני מי שנשכו יין חדש הא קמ"ל דהא רוחא קורדייקוס שמה,למאי נפקא מינה לקמיעא מאי אסותיה בישרא סומקא אגומרי וחמרא מרקא,אמר אביי אמרה לי אם לשימשא בת יומא כוזא דמיא בת תרי יומי סיכורי בת תלתא יומי בשרא סומקא אגומרי וחמרא מרקא לשימשא עתיקתא ליתי תרנגולתא אוכמתי וליקרעה שתי וערב וליגלחיה למציעתא דרישיה ולותביה עילויה וננחיה עילויה עד דמיסרך,ולינחות וליקום במיא עד צואריה עד דחליש עלמא עילויה ולימוד ולסליק וליתיב ואי לא ליכול כרתי ולינחות וליקום במיא עד צואריה עד דחליש עלמא עילויה ולימוד ולסליק וליתיב,לשימשא בישרא סומקא אגומרי וחמרא מרקא לתלגא בישרא שמינא אגומרי וחמרא חייא,רב עמרם חסידא כי הוה מצערין ליה בי ריש גלותא הוו מגנו ליה אתלגא למחר אמרו ליה מאי ניחא ליה למר דלייתו ליה אמר הני כל דאמינא להו מיפך אפכי אמר להו בישרא סומקא אגומרי וחמרא מרקא אייתו ליה אינהו בישרא שמינא אגומרי וחמרא חייא,שמעה ילתא ומעיילה ליה לבי מסותא ומוקמי ליה במיא דבי מסותא עד דמהפכי מיא דבי מסותא והוו דמא וקאי בישריה פשיטי פשיטי,רב יוסף איעסק בריחיא רב ששת איעסק בכשורי אמר גדולה מלאכה שמחממת את בעליה,א"ל ריש גלותא לרב ששת מ"ט לא סעיד מר גבן א"ל דלא מעלו עבדי דחשידי אאבר מן החי א"ל מי יימר אמר ליה השתא מחוינא לך א"ל לשמעיה זיל גנוב אייתי לי חדא כרעא מחיותא,אייתי ליה אמר להו אהדמו לי הדמי דחיותא אייתו תלת כרעי אותיבו קמיה אמר להו הא בעלת שלש רגלים הואי פסוק אייתו חדא מעלמא אותיבו קמיה אמר ליה לשמעיה אותביה נמי להך דידך אותבה אמר להו האי בת חמש רגלים הואי,אמר ליה אי הכי ליעבדו קמיה (שמעיה) דמר וליכול א"ל לחיי קריבו תכא קמייהו ואייתו קמיה בישרא ואותיבו קמיה ריסתנא דחנקא חמתא גששיה ושקלה כרכה בסודריה,לבתר דאכיל אמרי ליה | 67b. b And there are /b those b who reverse /b the attribution of the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef with regard to this matter.,The mishna teaches that if a man b said to ten /b people: b Write /b and give b a bill of divorce /b to my wife, one of the ten writes the bill of divorce and two sign it. b The Sages taught: /b If b one said to ten /b people: b Write a bill of divorce and give /b it b to my wife, one writes on behalf of them all. /b If he said: b All of you write /b the document, b one writes /b it b in the presence of them all. /b If he said: b Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, one /b person b brings /b it b on behalf of them all. /b If he said: b All of you deliver /b a bill of divorce, then b one brings /b it b in the presence of them all. /b , b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If he said: Write a bill of divorce, and b he enumerated them /b by name, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Can one of them write the bill of divorce on behalf of them all? Or perhaps it is comparable to a situation where one says: All of you write, when it must be written in the presence of them all. b Rav Huna says: /b If b one enumerated /b them by name, b it is not comparable to /b saying: b All of you /b write. b Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Elazar of Rome: /b If b one enumerated /b them by name, b it is comparable to /b saying: b All of you /b write., b Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree. This /b is referring to a case b where he enumerated them all, and that /b is referring to a case b where he enumerated some of them. Some say /b that the distinction between the cases should be explained b in this manner, and some say it in that manner. /b Some explain that the distinction is that if he enumerated them all, he insists that they all participate, but if he enumerated some of them, he does not insist that they do so. He enumerated the names that he did only to indicate that he wants the people performing the task to be chosen from those people. Others explain that if he enumerated only some of them, he thereby expressed his intent that they alone participate, but if he enumerated them all but did not say: All of you write, that is not the case.,The Gemara recounts: b Rav Yehuda instituted in /b the case of b a bill of divorce /b with regard to which the husband gave instructions in the presence of many people and the concern is that it will be interpreted that he said: b All of you /b write, and if they do not all sign there will be uncertainty whether or not the woman is divorced, that he should say: b Write /b it, b either all of you or each and every one of you; sign /b it, b either all of you or every two of you; deliver /b it, b either all of you or each and every one of you. /b In that way, there is no concern that the bill of divorce will be invalid if one of them fails to participate., b Rava said: /b This ordice still leaves room for a pitfall. Since Rav Yehuda instituted a formula that is that long and complex, b sometimes /b the husband b may truncate his statement and say: All of you, but he will not say: Every one of you. And /b the bill of divorce b will be invalidated /b as a result., b Rather, Rava said /b that he must say: b Each of you /b may b write /b it, b every two of you /b may b sign /b it, b each one of you /b may b deliver /b it. However, he should not say: All of you, so that the bill of divorce will not be invalidated if one fails to do so.,, strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b one who was afflicted with /b temporary b insanity [ i kordeyakos /i ] and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, he said nothing, /b because he was not lucid at the time. If b he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, /b when he was lucid, b and was /b then b afflicted with /b temporary b insanity and he retracted /b his previous statement b and said: Do not write it, his latter statement /b is considered to be b nothing, /b i.e., it is not halakhically valid.,The mishna continues: In a case where the husband b became mute, and /b two people b said to him: /b Shall b we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head /b indicating his agreement, b they examine him /b with various questions b three times. If he responded to /b questions that have b a negative /b answer: b No, and /b responded b to /b questions that have b a positive /b answer: b Yes, /b indicating his competence, b they shall write /b the bill of divorce b and give /b it to his wife based on the nod of his head., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What /b is the nature of the temporary b insanity /b mentioned in the mishna? b Shmuel said: /b The reference is to one b who was afflicted by /b drinking b new wine that /b came directly b from the winepress. /b The Gemara asks: b And let /b the i tanna /i of the mishna then b teach /b explicitly: With regard to b one who was afflicted by /b drinking b new wine. /b The Gemara answers: b This teaches us that the name of the demon /b that causes this insanity b is i Kordeyakos /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b What difference is there? /b The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard b to /b writing b an amulet /b to prevent harm caused by the demon. The amulet must include the name of the demon. The Gemara asks: b What is the remedy /b for that illness? The Gemara responds: The afflicted person should eat b red meat /b roasted b over coals and /b drink b wine diluted [ i marka /i ] /b with a large amount of water., b Abaye said: /b My b mother told me /b that the remedy b for a day-old fever, /b i.e., one contracted that day, is drinking b a jug [ i kuza /i ] of water. /b The remedy for a fever b two days old /b is b bloodletting [ i sikurei /i ]. /b The remedy for a fever b three days old /b is eating b red meat /b roasted b over coals and /b drinking b diluted wine. For an old fever /b that lasts for an extended period of time, the remedy is b to bring a black hen, tear it lengthwise and widthwise, shave the middle of /b the sufferer’s b head, and place /b the hen b upon it, and leave /b the hen b upon him until /b it b adheres to his /b head due to the blood., b And let him descend /b into the water b and let him stand in the water up to his neck until the world /b appears b faint for him, /b i.e., he feels faint. b And let him submerge /b himself in the water, b and emerge /b from the water b and sit /b and rest. b And if /b he is b not /b able to undergo this process, b let him eat leeks, and descend /b into the water, b and stand in the water up to his neck until the world /b appears b faint for him. And let him submerge /b himself in the water, b and emerge /b from the water b and sit /b and rest.,The remedy b for a fever /b is eating b red meat /b that was roasted b over coals and /b drinking b diluted wine. /b A remedy b for the chills /b is eating b fatty meat /b that was roasted b over coals and /b drinking b undiluted wine. /b ,It was related: b When the /b members b of the Exilarch’s house would afflict Rav Amram the pious they would /b make b him lie down /b to sleep all night b on /b the b snow. The next day they would say to him: What is preferable for the Master, /b i.e., Rav Amram, b for us to bring him /b to eat? Rav Amram b said /b to himself: b Anything I say to them, /b they will do b the opposite. He said to them: /b Bring me b red meat /b roasted b over coals and diluted wine. They brought him fatty meat /b roasted b over coals and undiluted wine /b instead, which is what Rav Amram had intended, because this is the remedy for one who suffers from the chills., b Yalta, /b Rav Naḥman’s wife, b heard /b what the members of the Exilarch’s house did, and that Rav Amram was suffering from the chills. b And she brought him to the bathhouse, and placed him in the water of the bathhouse until the water of the bathhouse turned /b red like b blood. And his flesh became /b covered with spots that looked like b coins [ i peshitei /i ]. /b ,It is related: When b Rav Yosef /b suffered from the cold b he would work by /b grinding with b millstones /b in order to keep warm. When b Rav Sheshet /b suffered from the cold b he would work by /b lifting b beams. He said: Great is labor, as it warms its master. /b ,§ The Gemara relates another incident of the house of the Exilarch: b The Exilarch said to Rav Sheshet: What is the reason /b that the b Master, /b i.e., Rav Sheshet, b does not eat with us? He said to him: Because the slaves /b do not act b according to a high standard, as /b they are b suspected /b of transgressing the prohibition against eating b a limb /b severed b from a living /b animal. The Exilarch b said to him: Who says /b that this is so? Rav Sheshet b said to him: I will now show you. /b Rav Sheshet b said to his servant: Go steal one leg from the animal /b that the servants of the Exilarch’s house slaughtered for a meal and b bring /b it b to me. /b ,Rav Sheshet’s servant b brought /b one leg b to him /b and afterward Rav Sheshet b said to /b the servants of the Exilarch’s household: b Set out the portions of the animal for me. They brought him /b only b three legs and placed them before him, /b because the fourth leg had been stolen. Rav Sheshet b said to them: Did this /b animal b have /b only b three legs? /b When the servants heard this b they cut one /b leg b from another /b living animal and b they brought /b it and b placed /b it b before /b Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet b said to his servant: Bring /b out b this /b leg b of yours, /b i.e., that you stole, b as well. He placed /b that leg on the table and Rav Sheshet b said to them: Did this /b animal b have five legs? /b ,The Exilarch realized that he could not rely on his servants. b He said to /b Rav Sheshet: b If so, they should prepare /b the meat b in the presence of /b my b Master’s servant and /b then you can b eat /b without concern. Rav Sheshet b said to him: Very well. They brought a table before them, and they brought /b the b meat before him. And /b the servants b placed a small /b bone in the meat b before him so that /b it b would cause /b Rav Sheshet to b choke. /b Since Rav Sheshet was blind, they thought that he would be unable to notice the bone. b He felt it, took /b the entire piece of meat and b wrapped it in his scarf [ i sudarei /i ] /b out of concern that he would be hurt by the small bones that he could not see., b After he ate, /b the servants realized what he had done and they wanted to show the Exilarch that Rav Sheshet did not eat the meat that was given to him. Therefore, the servants b said to /b the Exilarch: |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 131| 11b. פיאה מותרת לענין כלאים אבל לא לשבת ור' יוחנן אמר כמחיצות לשבת דלא כך מחיצות לכלאים דלא,בשלמא דריש לקיש אדר"ל לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה אלא דרבי יוחנן אדר' יוחנן קשיא,אי אמרת בשלמא התם על גבן הכא מן הצד שפיר אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי מן הצד מאי איכא למימר,לעולם אידי ואידי מן הצד התם בעשר הכא ביותר מעשר,ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עשר ליותר מעשר דאמר ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש לא כך היה המעשה שהלך רבי יהושע אצל ר' יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה אף על פי שבקי בהלכות כלאים ומצאו שיושב בין האילנות ומתח זמורה מאילן לאילן ואמר לו רבי אי גפנים כאן מהו לזרוע כאן אמר לו בעשר מותר ביותר מעשר אסור,במאי עסקינן אילימא על גבן יותר מעשר אסור והתניא היו שם קנין הדוקרנין ועשה להן פיאה מלמעלה אפי' ביותר מעשר מותר,אלא לאו מן הצד וקאמר ליה בעשר מותר יותר מעשר אסור שמע מינה:,גופא אמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד לא עשה ולא כלום,ואמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שאמרו צריכה שתהא בריאה כדי להעמיד בה דלת ואפילו דלת של קשין,אמר ריש לקיש משום ר' ינאי צורת הפתח צריכה היכר ציר מאי היכר ציר אמר רב אויא אבקתא,אשכחינהו רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לתלמידי דרב אשי אמר להו אמר מר מידי בצורת הפתח אמרו ליה לא אמר ולא כלום,תנא צורת הפתח שאמרו קנה מכאן וקנה מכאן וקנה על גביהן צריכין ליגע או אין צריכין ליגע רב נחמן אמר אין צריכין ליגע ורב ששת אמר צריכין ליגע,אזל רב נחמן ועבד עובדא בי ריש גלותא כשמעתיה א"ל רב ששת לשמעיה רב גדא זיל שלוף שדינהו אזל שלף שדינהו אשכחוהו דבי ריש גלותא חבשוהו אזל רב ששת קם אבבא א"ל גדא פוק תא נפק ואתא,אשכחיה רב ששת לרבה בר שמואל אמר ליה תני מר מידי בצורת הפתח א"ל אין תנינא כיפה ר"מ מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרין ושוין שאם יש ברגליה עשרה שהיא חייבת,אמר אביי הכל מודים אם גבוהה עשרה ואין ברגליה שלשה אי נמי יש ברגליה שלשה ואין גבוהה עשרה ולא כלום,כי פליגי ביש ברגליה ג' וגבוהה עשרה ואין רחבה ארבעה ויש בה לחוק להשלימה לארבעה,ר' מאיר סבר חוקקין להשלים ורבנן סברי אין חוקקין להשלים,א"ל אי משכחת להו לא תימא להו לבי ריש גלותא ולא מידי מהא מתניתא דכיפה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הכשר מבוי ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה וב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה רבי אליעזר אומר לחיין,משום ר' ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפני ר"ע לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שהוא ניתר או בלחי או בקורה על מה נחלקו על רחב מארבע אמות ועד עשר שב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה וב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה א"ר עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big כמאן דלא כחנניה ולא כתנא קמא,אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר הכשר מבוי סתום כיצד ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה וב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה,ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה למימרא דקא סברי ב"ש ארבע מחיצות דאורייתא,לא לזרוק משלש הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא ארבע,ב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה לימא קא סברי ב"ה שלש מחיצות דאורייתא,לא לזרוק משתים הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא שלש:,ר' אליעזר אומר לחיין: איבעיא להו ר' אליעזר לחיין וקורה קאמר או דילמא לחיין בלא קורה קאמר,ת"ש מעשה ברבי אליעזר שהלך אצל רבי יוסי בן פרידא תלמידו | 11b. b A braid /b of vines plaited around poles to form a partition b is permitted with regard to diverse kinds, /b i.e., it is considered a partition that renders planting grapevines in close proximity to other crops permitted, b but not with regard to Shabbat. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Just as /b such a braid is b not /b considered a b partition with regard to Shabbat, so /b too it is b not /b considered b a partition with regard to diverse kinds. /b Their opinions in the dispute here apparently contradict their opinions in the dispute cited above., b Granted, /b the apparent contradiction between one statement b of Reish Lakish /b and the other statement b of Reish Lakish /b poses b no difficulty, as this /b statement, according to which such a braid of vines is an effective partition even with regard to Shabbat, reflects b his /b own opinion; b that /b statement, according to which it is an effective partition only with regard to diverse kinds, reflects the opinion b of his teacher, /b Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. b However, /b the apparent contradiction between one statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa and /b the other statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa, /b poses b a difficulty. /b , b Granted, if you say /b that b there, /b where Rabbi Yoḥa ruled that a braid of vines is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the vines were placed b on top of /b the posts, while b here, /b where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where they were attached to the posts b from the side, /b it works out b well. However, if you say /b that both b this and that /b are cases where the vines were attached b from the side, what is there to say? /b ,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b both b this and that /b are cases where the vines were attached to the side posts b from the side. There, /b where Rabbi Yoḥa ruled that the braid is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case b where /b the poles were only b ten /b cubits apart; b here, /b where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case b where /b the poles were b more than ten /b cubits apart., b And from where do you say that we distinguish between /b an opening of b ten /b cubits b and /b an opening of b more than ten /b cubits? b As Rabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: That is not /b the way that b the incident /b transpired. b As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri to study Torah, even though /b Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an b expert in the i halakhot /i of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and /b Rabbi Yehoshua b stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here, /b in the enclosed area, b what /b is the i halakha /i with regard to b sowing /b diverse kinds of seeds b here, /b on the other side of the partition? Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri b said to him: /b In a case b where /b the trees are only b ten /b cubits apart, it is b permitted; /b however, b where /b they are b more than ten /b cubits apart, it is b prohibited. /b ,The Gemara clarifies the case: b With what are we dealing /b here? b If you say /b that the vines were placed b on top of /b the trees, when they are b more than ten /b cubits apart b is it prohibited? But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to diverse kinds: b If there were forked reeds there and he plaited a braid /b of vines b above them, /b then b even /b if the reeds were set b more than ten /b cubits apart, b it is permitted? /b With regard to diverse kinds, the form of a doorway when properly constructed is certainly effective., b Rather, /b is it b not /b referring to a case where he attached the vines to the trees b from the side, and he is saying to him: In /b a case where the trees are only b ten /b cubits apart, it is b permitted; /b however, b in /b a case where the trees are b more than ten /b cubits apart, b it is prohibited? /b The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from it /b that there is a distinction between poles that are ten cubits apart and poles that are more than ten cubits apart, and that this distinction resolves the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yoḥa.,The Gemara now examines b the matter itself /b with regard to Rav Ḥisda’s statement cited above. b Rav Ḥisda said: /b If b one prepared /b an opening in b the form of a doorway from the side, /b placing the horizontal cross beam to the sides, rather than on top, of the vertical posts, b he has not done anything. /b , b And Rav Ḥisda /b also b said: The /b opening in the b form of a doorway of which /b the Sages b spoke must be strong enough to mount a door in it, and even /b if it is merely a flimsy b door of straw. /b , b Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The /b opening in the b form of a doorway requires a mark /b in the doorpost b for hinges. /b The Gemara asks: b What is a mark for hinges? Rav Avya said: Loops [ i avkata /i ] /b into which the hinge is inserted, so that it will be possible to mount a door in the doorway.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Aḥa, the son of Rav Avya, /b once b found the students of Rav Ashi /b and b said to them: Did the Master, /b Rav Ashi, b say anything with regard to /b an opening in b the form of a doorway? They said to him: He said nothing, /b implying that an indication for hinges is unnecessary.,A Sage b taught /b a i baraita /i : b The form of a doorway of which they spoke /b consists of b a reed from here, /b on one side, b and a reed from there, /b on the opposite side, b and a reed on top of them. /b The Gemara asks: b Need /b the lower reeds reach high enough b to touch /b the upper reed, b or do they not need to touch /b it? b Rav Naḥman said: They do not need to touch /b it; b and Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch /b it.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Naḥman went /b ahead b and performed an action in the house of the Exilarch in accordance with his /b own b opinion. /b He constructed an opening in the form of a doorway such that the upper reed was not in contact with the lower reeds. b Rav Sheshet said to his attendant, Rav Gadda: Go, remove /b those reeds and b throw them /b away. The attendant b went, removed /b the reeds, and b threw them /b away. Members b of the Exilarch’s court found him /b and b imprisoned him /b for destroying the form of a doorway that permitted them to carry. b Rav Sheshet went /b and b stood at the door /b of the prison, and b called /b out b to him: Gadda, go out /b and b come /b to me. The Exilarch’s men released him, and b he went out and came /b to Rav Sheshet.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Sheshet /b once b found Rabba bar Shmuel /b and b said to him: Did the Master teach anything with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b the form of a doorway? He said to him: Yes, we learned /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir deems /b the owner b obligated to /b affix b a i mezuza /i , and the Rabbis deem /b him b exempt. However, they /b both b agree that if its supports, /b the vertical sides of the gate before it arches, b are ten /b handbreadths high, b that /b the gate b requires /b a i mezuza /i .,In order to explain the dispute, b Abaye said: Everyone agrees that if /b the entire arch b is ten /b handbreadths b high, but its supports are less than three /b handbreadths high, or, b alternatively, /b if b its supports are three /b handbreadths high but the entire arch b is less than ten /b handbreadths b high, /b the arch requires b no /b i mezuza /i b at all. /b Both of these gateways lack the requisite parameters of the form of a doorway to require a i mezuza /i ., b Where they disagree is in /b a case where b the supports are three /b handbreadths high b and /b the entire arch is b ten /b handbreadths b high, /b and at the height of ten handbreadths the arch b is less than four /b handbreadths b wide; however, there is /b room b to carve out /b the area b to complete it to four /b handbreadths, so that the opening of the arch measures four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths high.,Abaye explains the dispute: b Rabbi Meir holds /b that b one carves /b out the area b to complete /b the four handbreadths, i.e., the arch is considered as though it has already been carved out, and the opening has the necessary dimensions. b And the Rabbis hold /b that b one does not carve out /b the arch b to complete /b the four handbreadths. Since the opening is not actually four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, no i mezuza /i need be affixed. Rabba bar Shmuel indicates that everyone agrees that the lintel need not touch the doorposts of the entrance; if the arch’s opening were four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, it would require a i mezuza /i even though the ceiling is separated by the arch and does not touch the doorposts directly. So too, with regard to the form of a doorway, the upper reed need not touch the lower reeds, contrary to the opinion of Rav Sheshet.,Rav Sheshet b said to /b Rabba bar Shmuel: b If you find them, do not say to /b the members of b the Exilarch’s household anything with regard to this i baraita /i of an arched gateway, /b as it is proof against my opinion., strong MISHNA: /strong There is a basic dispute with regard to the method of b rendering an alleyway fit /b for one to carry within it on Shabbat. b Beit Shammai say: /b Both b a side post and a /b cross b beam /b are required. b Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a /b cross b beam. Rabbi Eliezer says: /b Two b side posts /b are required, one on each side of the alleyway., b In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway that is less than four cubits /b wide, as they both agree b that /b carrying b is rendered permitted by either a side post or a /b cross b beam. With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to /b an alleyway that is b wider than four cubits, and up to ten /b cubits wide; b as Beit Shammai say: /b It requires both b a side post and a /b cross b beam. And Beit Hillel say: /b It requires b either a side post or a /b cross b beam. Rabbi Akiva said /b to the disciple: It is not so, as b they disagree /b both b about this /b case, i.e., an alleyway that is less than four cubits wide, b and about that /b case, i.e., an alleyway that is between four and ten cubits wide., strong GEMARA: /strong Before clarifying the various opinions in the mishna, the Gemara seeks to determine: b In accordance with whose /b opinion was this mishna taught? Apparently, it is b neither in accordance with /b the opinion of b Ḥaya, nor in accordance with /b the unattributed opinion of b the first i tanna /i /b of the i baraita /i , who disagree about an alleyway that is open to a public domain on two opposite sides. The dispute is whether the form of a doorway on one end and a side post and a cross beam on the other end suffice to render it permitted for one to carry within it, or whether actual doors are required, at least on one end. However, they both agree that a side post and a cross beam alone are not effective. Since at this point the Gemara assumes that the dispute in the mishna between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies to all alleyways, whether closed on one side or open on two opposite sides to the public domain, these opinions reflect an entirely different position., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b this is what /b the mishna b is saying: How is a closed alleyway rendered fit /b for one to carry within it on Shabbat? b Beit Shammai say: /b It requires both b a side post and a /b cross b beam. And Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a /b cross b beam. /b ,The Gemara discusses the basis of each opinion. b Beit Shammai say: /b It requires both b a side post and a /b cross b beam. Is that to say /b that b Beit Shammai hold /b that in order for an area to be considered a private domain, b four partitions are /b required b by Torah law? /b Since a side post with a cross beam qualifies as a partition, the fact that they do not permit carrying within an alleyway without a side post indicates that they maintain that a private domain requires four partitions.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b No, /b there is no proof, as one cannot conclude the parameters for a private domain based on the number of walls required to permit carrying. As with regard to the Torah prohibition b to throw /b an object into a private domain from the public domain, b once /b an enclosed area has b three /b partitions, b one is liable /b by Torah law. However, to permit one b to carry /b an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted b until there are /b partitions on all b four /b sides.,The Gemara attempts to draw an inference from that which b Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a /b cross b beam /b is required. b Is that to say /b that b Beit Hillel hold that /b at least b three partitions /b are required b by Torah law, /b and that an area with fewer is not considered a private domain?,The Gemara rejects this argument as well: b No /b proof can be cited from here. With regard to the Torah prohibition b to throw /b an object into a private domain from the public domain, b once /b an enclosed area has merely b two /b partitions, b one is liable /b by Torah law. However, to permit one b to carry /b an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted b until there are /b partitions on b three /b sides. A cross beam and a side post do not function as partitions but merely as conspicuous markers, so that one does not mistakenly carry outside the alleyway.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b Two b side posts /b are required. A b dilemma was raised /b before the Sages: Did b Rabbi Eliezer /b intend to b say /b that two b side posts and a /b cross b beam /b are required, adding a stringency to Beit Shammai’s opinion, that in addition to the cross beam not one, but two side posts are required? b Or perhaps he /b intended to b say /b that two b side posts without a /b cross b beam /b are required., b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this dilemma from that which was related in the i Tosefta /i . There was b an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who went to Rabbi Yosei ben Perida, his disciple, /b |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan| 59a. אכלה סמדר רבי יהושע אומר רואין אותן כאילו הן ענבים עומדות ליבצר וחכ"א רואין כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון בד"א בזמן שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים אבל אכלה פגים או בוסר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר,קתני מיהת וחכ"א רואין אותן כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה ולא קתני בששים,אלא מאי אית לך למימר בששים ה"נ בששים,אמר אביי ר' יוסי הגלילי ור' ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד,ר' יוסי הגלילי הא דאמרן,רבי ישמעאל דתניא (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לניזקין מן העידית וק"ו להקדש,ולא תימא כרב אידי בר אבין דאמר רב אידי בר אבין כגון שאכלה ערוגה בין הערוגות ולא ידעינן אי כחושה הואי אי שמינה הואי דאמר קום שלים שמינה במיטב דאיכא השתא דהכי לא אמרינן,מאי טעמא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אלא במיטב דלקמיה ומאי ניהו כי היאך דסליק,אמר מר ר"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש במה דברים אמורים שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים הא סמדר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר אימא סיפא אכלה פגים או בוסר הוא דרואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר הא סמדר רואין אותן כמה היא יפה וכמה היתה יפה,אמר רבינא כרוך ותני בד"א בזמן שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים אבל אכלה סמדר פגין או בוסר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר,אי הכי ר"ש בן יהודה היינו רבי יהושע,איכא בינייהו כחש גופנא ולא מסיימי,אביי אמר מסיימי ומסיימי מאן תנא דחייש לכחש גופנא ר"ש בן יהודה היא דתניא ר"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש בן מנסיא אונס אינו משלם את הצער מפני שסופה להצטער תחת בעלה אמרו לו אינו דומה נבעלת ברצון לנבעלת באונס,אמר אביי הני תנאי ור"ש בן יהודה אמרו דבר אחד רבי שמעון בן יהודה הא דאמרן הני תנאי מאי היא,דתניא רבי יוסי אומר נכי חיה בן עזאי אומר נכי מזונות,מ"ד נכי חיה כ"ש נכי מזונות ומ"ד נכי מזונות אבל נכי חיה לא דאמר ליה אתתא דידי פקיחא היא ולא מבעיא חיה,רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עבוד עובדא כוותיה דר"נ בששים,לישנא אחרינא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמו דקלא אגב קטינא דארעא,והלכתא כוותיה דרב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע בדקלא דארמאה והלכתא כוותיה דריש גלותא בדקלא פרסאה,אליעזר זעירא | 59a. If the animal b ate /b the grapes while they were in the b budding /b stage, b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b The court b views /b the grapes that were damaged b as if they were grapes about to be picked, /b and appraise the damage based on this. b And the Rabbis say: /b The court b views how much /b the vineyard b was worth /b before the animal ate the grapes, b and how much it is worth /b now. b Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what /b case b is this statement, /b that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged, b said? /b It is b when /b the animal b ate young branches [ i lulevei gefanim /i ] of vines or shoots of fig /b trees, b but /b where b it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes, /b the court b views them /b and appraises them b as if /b they were b grapes ready to be picked. /b ,Abaye continues: b In any event, it teaches /b that b the Rabbis say: /b The court b views how much /b the vineyard b was worth /b before the animal ate the produce b and how much it is worth /b now, b and /b it b does not teach /b that the court appraises the damage relative to an area b sixty /b times greater., b Rather, what have you to say? /b You must say that the wording employed by the i baraita /i is to be understood to mean that the court appraises the damage b relative to /b an area b sixty /b times greater, so b here too, /b in the i baraita /i dealing with one who himself causes damage, the wording is to be understood to mean that the damage is valued b relative to /b an area b sixty /b times greater., b Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Yishmael /b both b said the same thing. /b They are of the same opinion that the appraisal for damages is based on the value of the produce remaining in the field once it ripens.,The opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili /b is b this that we stated /b above in the i baraita /i , i.e., that the damages paid for an animal eating unripe grain is assessed according to what remains of the grain.,The opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael /b is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay” /b (Exodus 22:4), which means he must pay according to the b best /b -quality b field of the injured /b party b or the best /b -quality b vineyard of the injured /b party. b This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only /b to allow b injured /b parties b to collect /b compensation b from /b the b superior-quality /b land of the one liable to pay for the damage, b and /b by an b i a fortiori /i /b inference it is derived that this applies b to consecrated /b property. Compensation for damaging consecrated property is paid from one’s best-quality assets., b And do not say /b that Rabbi Yishmael’s statement should be interpreted b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says: /b Here it concerns a case b where /b the animal b ate /b the produce of b one garden bed from among /b several b garden beds, but we do not know whether /b the garden bed it ate from b was lean or choice. Therefore, /b the verse b says /b to the owner of the animal: b Arise /b and b pay choice /b land, equivalent b to the best /b -quality land b that there is now /b remaining, and the court does not assume that the animal ate produce from the lesser-quality garden bed, b as we do not say this. /b , b What is the reason /b that Rabbi Yishmael does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin? It is because he accepts the principle that b the burden of proof rests upon the claimant; /b without such proof, the owner of the animal pays only the value of a lesser-quality garden bed. b Rather, /b Rabbi Yishmael interprets the Torah’s expression “the best of his field” as requiring payment b with the best /b -quality land b before him, and what is this? /b It is b that which /b remained in the field and subsequently b sprouted, /b and the compensation is based on the value of this.,The Gemara examines the i baraita /i . b The Master said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what /b case b is this statement /b that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged b said? /b It is b when /b the animal b ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig /b trees. The Gemara comments: b This /b indicates that if the animal ate b budding /b grapes the court b views them /b and appraises them b as if /b they were b grapes ready to be picked. /b But b say, /b and try to explain accordingly, b the latter clause /b of the i baraita /i , which teaches that if the animal b ate unripe figs or half-ripe grapes, that is /b where the court b views them as if /b they were b grapes ready to be picked, /b indicating that if the animal ate the grapes in the b budding /b stage, the court b views how much /b the vineyard b was worth /b before the animal ate them b and how much it is worth /b now. Therefore, the two clauses of the i baraita /i appear to be contradictory., b Ravina said: Bind /b them together b and teach /b them as a single statement, as follows: b In what /b case b is this statement said /b that the court appraises how much the field was worth when the animal ate from it? It is said in a case b when /b the animal b ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. But /b if it b ate /b grapes in the b budding /b stage, b unripe figs, or half-ripe grapes, /b the court b views them /b and appraises them b as if /b they were b grapes ready to be picked. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is /b identical to the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua /b with regard to grapes in the budding stage. Why would the mishna state their opinions separately?,The Gemara answers: b There is /b a difference b between them /b with regard to b the weakening of the vine. /b A vine is weakened by the grapes growing on it, as they draw nutrients from the roots and branches. Now that the grapes have been eaten, the vine is no longer weakened. Therefore, according to one opinion, the court takes into consideration this reduction of the weakening of the vine, and that amount is deducted when calculating the damages, whereas according to the other opinion, the court does not take this into account. b But /b their respective opinions are b not defined, /b and it is not clear which i tanna /i takes this weakening into account and which does not., b Abaye said: /b Their respective opinions b are certainly defined, /b and it is possible to know which Sage held which opinion, since b who is the i tanna /i /b who b is concerned for the weakening of the vine? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya: /b With regard to the indemnity payments that b a rapist /b must pay his victim, who had been a virgin, he b does not pay /b compensation for b the pain /b caused by the rape. This is b due to /b the fact that b she will ultimately suffer /b the same pain during her first act of sexual intercourse b with her husband /b when she marries. The Rabbis b said to him: /b The pain of a woman who b has intercourse willingly is not comparable to /b the pain of a woman b who has intercourse by rape. /b Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda considers future pain when considering payment of damages, and similarly, he considers the reduced weakening of the vine., b Abaye said: These i tanna’im /i /b following b and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said the same thing /b concerning this matter. b Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda /b said b this /b ruling b that we said /b with regard to the case of rape and the case of the vine. As to b these /b other b i tanna’im /i , what is /b the case about which they gave a similar ruling?,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i concerning the i halakha /i of one who injured a pregt woman, thereby causing her to miscarry, for which the Torah holds him liable to pay her husband compensation. b Rabbi Yosei says: /b The court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring and b deducts /b the amount they would have paid for b a midwife. /b Since she miscarried, the husband no longer has to pay for a midwife, so that is deducted from the compensation. b Ben Azzai says: /b The court b deducts /b the value of the extra b sustece /b the husband would have been required to provide for his pregt wife., b The one who says /b that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring b less /b the amount they would have paid for b a midwife /b would b all the more so /b concede that the appraisal is b less /b the value of the extra b sustece. But the one who says /b that the appraisal is b less /b the value of the extra b sustece /b does b not /b necessarily hold that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring b less /b the money they would have paid for b a midwife, since /b the husband b can say to /b the assailant: b My wife is capable and does not require a midwife /b to assist her when giving birth.,Returning to the discussion of the appraisal of compensation for damage, the Gemara relates: b Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Naḥman /b and appraised a damaged date palm b relative to /b an area b sixty /b times greater than the particular area where the tree was standing., b A different version /b of this i halakha /i is also stated: b Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, appraised /b the damage caused to b a date palm relative to /b the assessment of b the patch of land /b where the tree stood, i.e., how much it was worth with the tree and how much it was worth without it.,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramean date palm, /b i.e., one of lesser quality, and it is assessed relative to the land, b but the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of the Exilarch with regard to a Persian date palm, /b as they are of higher quality and each one is valuable, and it is not assessed relative to the land.,The Gemara relates: b Eliezer Ze’eira /b |
|
| 29. Porphyry, The Homeric Questions On The Iliad, None (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 66 |
| 30. Eratosthenes, Ap. Strabo, None Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 174 |
| 31. Palaephatus, Prologue (Ed. Festa 1902), None Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis, aristotelian Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 65 |
| 32. Aristotle, Apor. Hom., None Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 42 |
33. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 131| 38b. ומגיסה עד שתבא מבית המרחץ או מבית הכנסת ואינה חוששת,איבעיא להו הניח עובד כוכבים והפך ישראל מהו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ק"ו גמרו ביד עובד כוכבים מותר גמרו ביד ישראל לא כ"ש,איתמר נמי אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר רב אחא בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן בין שהניח עובד כוכבים והפך ישראל בין שהניח ישראל והפך עובד כוכבים מותר ואינו אסור עד שתהא תחלתו וגמרו ביד עובד כוכבים,אמר רבינא הלכתא הא ריפתא דשגר עובד כוכבים ואפה ישראל א"נ שגר ישראל ואפה עובד כוכבים א"נ שגר עובד כוכבים ואפה עובד כוכבים ואתא ישראל וחתה בה חתויי שפיר דמי,דג מליח חזקיה שרי ור' יוחנן אסר ביצה צלויה בר קפרא שרי ור' יוחנן אסר כי אתא רב דימי אמר אחד דג מליח ואחד ביצה צלויה חזקיה ובר קפרא שרו ורבי יוחנן אסר,ר' חייא פרוואה איקלע לבי ריש גלותא אמרו ליה ביצה צלויה מאי אמר להו חזקיה ובר קפרא שרו ור' יוחנן אסר ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים אמר להו רב זביד לא תציתו ליה הכי אמר אביי הלכתא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן אשקיוהו נגוטא דחלא ונח נפשיה,ת"ר הקפריסין והקפלוטות והמטליא והחמין והקליות שלהן מותרין ביצה צלויה אסורה שמן רבי יהודה הנשיא ובית דינו נמנו עליו והתירוהו,תניא היא המטליא היא פשליא היא שיעתא מאי שיעתא ארבב"ח אמר רבי יוחנן הא ארבעין שנין דנפיק האי עובדא ממצרים ורבה בר בר חנה דידיה אמר הא שתין שנין דנפיק האי עובדא ממצרים ולא פליגי מר בשניה ומר בשניה,מייתו ביזרא דכרפסא וביזרא דכיתנא וביזרא דשבלילתא ותרו להו בהדי הדדי בפשורי ושבקו ליה עד דמקבל ומייתי חצבי חדתי ומלו להו מיא ותרו בהו גרגישתא ומדבקין ביה ועיילין לבי בני אדנפקו מלבלבי ואכלי מינייהו וקיירי מבינתא דרישייהו עד טופרא דכרעייהו אמר רב אשי אמר לי רבי חנינא מילין ואמרי לה במילין,ת"ר הכוספן של עובדי כוכבים שהוחמו חמין ביורה גדולה אסור ביורה קטנה מותר ואיזו היא יורה קטנה א"ר ינאי כל שאין צפור דרור יכול ליכנס בתוכה,ודלמא אדמויי אדמוה ועיילוה אלא כל שאין ראש צפור דרור יכול ליכנס בתוכה,והתניא אחת יורה גדולה ואחת יורה קטנה מותר לא קשיא הא כמ"ד נותן טעם לפגם אסור הא כמ"ד נותן טעם לפגם מותר,אמר רב ששת האי מישחא שליקא דארמאי אסור אמר רב ספרא למאי ניחוש לה אי משום איערובי מיסרא סרי אי משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים נאכל הוא כמו שהוא חי אי משום גיעולי עובדי כוכבים נותן טעם לפגם הוא ומותר,בעו מיניה מרבי אסי הני אהיני שליקי דארמאי מאי חוליי לא תיבעי לך דודאי שרו מרירי לא תיבעי לך דודאי אסירי כי תיבעי לך מציעאי מאי אמר להו מאי תיבעי להו דרבי אסר ומנו לוי,שתיתאה רב שרי אבוה דשמואל ולוי אסרי בחיטי ושערי כ"ע לא פליגי דשרי בטלפחי דחלא כ"ע ל"פ דאסיר כי פליגי בטלפחי דמיא מר סבר גזרינן הא אטו הא ומר סבר לא גזרינן,ואיכא דאמרי בטלפחי דמיא כ"ע לא פליגי דאסיר כי פליגי בחיטי ושערי מר סבר גזרינן הא אטו הא ומר סבר לא גזרינן,אמר רב תרי מיני שתיתאה שדר ברזילי הגלעדי לדוד דכתיב (שמואל ב יז, כח) משכב וספות וכלי יוצר חטים ושעורים וקמח וקלי ופול ועדשים וקלי והשתא הוא דקא מפקי צני צני לשוקי דנהרדעא ולית דחייש להא דאבוה דשמואל ולוי:,וכבשין שדרכן לתת בתוכן יין: אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא שדרכן אבל בידוע אסור אפילו בהנאה ומ"ש ממורייס דשרו רבנן בהנאה התם לעבורי זוהמא הכא למתוקי טעמא,ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בידוע נמי מותר ומאי שנא ממורייס לר"מ דאסיר בהנאה | 38b. b and stir it until she comes /b back b from the bathhouse or from the synagogue, and /b she need b not be concerned. /b , b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If b a gentile placed /b meat on a fire b and a Jew turned it over, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b The i halakha /i can be derived by b an i a fortiori /i /b inference: If the meat is b permitted /b when it b finished /b cooking b by the hand of a gentile, /b then where b it finished /b cooking b by the hand of a Jew, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it should be permitted?,Along these lines, it b was also stated: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says, and some say Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Whether /b the b gentile placed /b the meat on the fire b and /b the b Jew turned /b it b over, /b or b whether /b the b Jew placed /b the meat on the fire b and /b the b gentile turned /b it b over, /b the meat is b permitted, and it is not prohibited unless its /b cooking from b beginning /b to b end /b was performed b by the hand of a gentile. /b , b Ravina says: The i halakha /i /b is that b this bread /b baked in an oven b that a gentile lit and a Jew /b subsequently b baked, /b or, b alternatively, /b if b a Jew lit /b the oven b and a gentile baked, /b or, b alternatively, /b even if b a gentile lit, and a gentile baked, and a Jew came and stoked /b the coals to heat the fire, it is b permitted, /b as the act of the Jew speeds up the baking process.,The Gemara continues: With regard to b fish salted /b by a gentile, b Ḥizkiyya deems /b it b permitted, and Rabbi Yoḥa deems /b it b prohibited. /b As for b an egg roasted /b by a gentile, b bar Kappara deems /b it b permitted and Rabbi Yoḥa deems /b it b prohibited. When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he b said: /b With regard to b both salted fish and roasted eggs, Ḥizkiyya and bar Kappara deem /b them b permitted /b them even if they were prepared by a gentile, b and Rabbi Yoḥa deems /b them b prohibited. /b ,The Gemara relates a relevant incident. b Rabbi Ḥiyya of Parva arrived at the home of the Exilarch, /b whose attendants b said to him: /b With regard to b an egg roasted /b by a gentile, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to them: Ḥizkiyya and bar Kappara deem /b it b permitted, and Rabbi Yoḥa deems /b it b prohibited, and the statement of one /b Sage has b no /b standing b in a place /b where it is contradicted by b two, /b i.e., the i halakha /i is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa because he is in the minority. b Rav Zevid said to them: Do not listen to him, /b as b this /b is what b Abaye said: The i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Due to the stringency Rav Zevid sought to impose, the attendants b gave /b Rav Zevid b a cup [ i negota /i ] of /b spiced b vinegar to drink, and he died /b as a result.,§ The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhic status of various foods with regard to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Caper buds [ i kafrisin /i ], and leeks [ i kaflotot /i ], and i matalya /i , and hot water, and roasted grains /b that b belong to /b gentiles and were cooked by them b are permitted. An egg roasted /b by a gentile is b prohibited. /b With regard to b oil, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court were counted, /b i.e., voted b on /b the matter, b and permitted it. /b ,It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b i Matalya /i is /b the same as the b black-eyed pea [ i pashalya /i ], /b which b is /b also called b i shiata /i . What is i shiata /i ? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: It is forty years since this item emerged from Egypt /b and was imported here. b And Rabba bar bar Ḥana himself said: It is sixty years since this item emerged from Egypt /b and was imported here. The Gemara remarks: b And /b they b do not disagree, /b as one b Sage /b issued his statement b in his year, and /b the other b Sage /b issued it b in his year. /b Whereas sixty years had passed by the time of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, only forty had elapsed when Rabbi Yoḥa issued his statement.,The Gemara describes the preparation of i shiata /i . b They take parsley seeds and flax root and fenugreek root, and soak them together in lukewarm /b water, b and leave them until they sprout. And /b then b they take new earthenware pots, and fill them /b with b water, and soak red clay [ i gargishta /i ] in them, and /b then b stick /b the seeds and roots b in /b the clay. b And /b after that b they go to the bathhouse, and by the time they come out, /b the plants have b blossomed, and they eat from them. And /b as they eat them, b they cool /b down from the heat of the bathhouse b from the hair of their head until the toenails of their feet. Rav Ashi says: Rabbi Ḥanina said to me: /b These are mere b words, /b i.e., this is false, as it is impossible for the plants to blossom so quickly. b And some say: /b This was performed b by means of /b magic b words /b that caused the plants to grow faster.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The i halakha /i with regard to b date husks [ i kuspan /i ] /b that b belong to gentiles /b and b that were heated in hot water /b depends on the size of the pot in which they were prepared: If they were cooked b in a large pot /b they are b prohibited, /b as prohibited foods are often cooked in large pots; if they were cooked b in a small pot /b they are b permitted, /b because non-kosher foods, which are usually large, are not generally cooked in these pots and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the pot has not absorbed a prohibited substance. The Gemara asks: b And what is a small pot? Rabbi Yannai says: /b It is b any /b pot b that /b is so small that b a swallow cannot enter into it. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But /b even if non-kosher foods are not generally cooked in pots of this size, b perhaps they sliced /b the food into smaller pieces b and inserted them /b into the small pot. Since large non-kosher foods can be cooked in small pots once they have been sliced, the concern should apply to these pots as well. The Gemara accepts this point and amends Rabbi Yannai’s definition: b Rather, /b a small pot is b any /b pot b that /b is so small that b a swallow’s head cannot enter into it. /b Such small pots would not be used to cook even sliced non-kosher foods.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b in any case, b isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that food cooked in b both a large pot and a small pot is permitted? /b This directly contradicts the i baraita /i cited here, which permits only food cooked in a small pot. The Gemara answers: It is b not difficult; this /b first i baraita /i cited above is written b in accordance with the one who says: /b A prohibited substance that b imparts flavor to /b the b detriment /b of the mixture is b prohibited, /b whereas b that /b i baraita /i mentioned here is written b in accordance with the one who says: /b A prohibited substance that b imparts flavor to /b the b detriment /b of the mixture is b permitted. /b , b Rav Sheshet said: This oil /b that was b cooked by an Aramean /b is b prohibited. Rav Safra /b rejected this ruling and b said: With regard to what /b need we b be concerned? If /b it is b due to /b the concern that it might have been b mixed /b with wine used for an idolatrous libation, this cannot be correct, as wine b ruins /b oil and therefore gentiles would not mix them together. b If /b it is b due to /b the prohibition against eating b the cooking of gentiles, /b this also cannot be true because oil b is eaten as it is, /b i.e., b raw. /b And b if /b it is b due to /b the oil being cooked in vessels of b gentiles /b that require b purging /b on account of the prohibited taste they have absorbed, and now the forbidden flavor from the vessel is in the food, this concern is also invalid as the absorbed substance b is /b one that b imparts flavor to /b the b detriment /b of the mixture, b and /b in this case the mixture is b permitted. /b ,The Sages b raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: /b With regard to b these boiled dates [ i ahinei /i ] of an Aramean, what /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara interjects: b Do not raise the dilemma /b with regard to b sweet /b dates, b as they are certainly permitted, /b since they can be eaten raw. Similarly, b do not raise the dilemma /b with regard to b bitter /b dates, b as they are certainly prohibited, /b since they are rendered edible through cooking. Rather, b let the dilemma be raised /b with regard to dates whose flavor is b moderate, /b neither sweet nor bitter. b What /b is the i halakha /i ? Rabbi Asi b said to them: What is your dilemma? /b The i halakha /i is clear, b as my teacher prohibited /b such dates. The Gemara asks: b And who /b was the Rabbi Asi’s teacher? b Levi. /b ,§ With regard to b i shetita’a /i , /b a sweet porridge made from roasted grains and honey, b Rav deemed /b it b permitted /b even when it was prepared by a gentile, whereas b Shmuel’s father and Levi deemed /b it b prohibited. /b The Gemara elaborates: b With regard to /b i shetita’a /i made of b wheat or barley, everyone agrees that it is permitted. /b Similarly, b with regard to /b i shetita’a /i prepared from b lentils /b to which b vinegar /b is added, b everyone agrees that /b it is b prohibited, /b on account of the vinegar of gentiles. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to lentils /b made only b with water: /b One b Sage, /b Levi, b holds /b that b we decree /b a prohibition with regard to b this /b porridge made without vinegar b due to that /b porridge made with vinegar. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rav, b holds /b that b we do not decree /b for this reason.,The Gemara notes: b And some say /b that b with regard to lentils /b made only b with water, everyone agrees that /b the i shetita’a /i is b prohibited /b on account of lentils made with vinegar. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to /b i shetita’a /i made of b wheat and barley: /b One b Sage, /b Levi, b holds /b that b we decree /b a prohibition with regard to b this /b porridge prepared with wheat and barley b due to that /b porridge made with lentils. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rav, b holds /b that b we do not decree /b for this reason.,Apropos the mention of i shetita’a /i , the Gemara relates that b Rav said: Barzillai the Gileadite sent two kinds of i shetita’a /i to David, as it is written: /b “And Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim brought b beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse” /b (II Samuel 17:28). Barzillai brought two kinds of parched foods: Grain and pulse. The Gemara concludes: b And now /b i shetita’a /i b is taken out /b in b baskets /b upon b baskets to the markets of Neharde’a, and there is no /b one b who is concerned about that /b stringent ruling b of Shmuel’s father and Levi. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b And boiled and pickled /b vegetables of gentiles, b whose /b usual b manner /b of preparation involves b adding wine /b and vinegar b to them, /b may not be consumed, but one may derive benefit from them. b Ḥizkiyya says: They taught /b that this prohibition applies solely to consumption b only where their /b usual b manner /b of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar, though there is no information about how these particular vegetables were prepared. b But where it is known /b for certain that these vegetables were prepared with wine or vinegar, it is b prohibited even to /b derive b benefit /b from them. The Gemara asks: b And /b in b what /b way b is /b this case b different from fish stew, which the Sages permitted /b one b to /b derive b benefit /b from? The Gemara answers: b There, /b with regard to fish stew, wine is added merely b to remove the stench /b of the fish and does not actually contribute any taste to it, whereas b here, /b with regard to pickled vegetables, it is added b to sweeten the taste. /b ,The Gemara cites a dissenting opinion. b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: Even where it is known /b that wine or vinegar was added to the vegetables, it is b also permitted /b to derive benefit from them. The Gemara asks: b And /b in b what /b way b is /b this case b different from fish stew, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who prohibited /b deriving b benefit /b from the fish stew? Why does Rabbi Meir permit one to derive benefit from vegetables pickled in gentiles’ wine but prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew that contains wine or vinegar? |
|
| 34. Aristobulus, Ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang., 8.10.1, 8.10.4, 8.10.6-8.10.9 Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis, aristotelian Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 66, 69 |
35. Strabo, Geography, 1.2.14, 1.2.30, 1.2.40 Tagged with subjects: •literary analysis •literary analysis, aristotelian •literary analysis, of myth Found in books: Niehoff (2011) 86, 174 | 1.2.14. Eratosthenes thinks it probable that Hesiod, having heard of the wanderings of Ulysses, and of their having taken place near to Sicily and Italy, embraced this view of the case, and not only describes the places spoken of by Homer, but also Aetna, the Isle of Ortygia, near to Syracuse, and Tyrrhenia. As for Homer, he was altogether unacquainted with these places, and further, had no wish to lay the scene of the wanderings in any well-known locality. What! are then Aetna and Tyrrhenia such well-known places, and Scyllaion, Charybdis, Circaion, and the Sirenussae, so obscure? Or is Hesiod so correct as never to write nonsense, but always follow in the wake of received opinions, while Homer blurts out whatever comes uppermost? Without taking into consideration our remarks on the character and aptitude of Homer's myths, a large array of writers who bear evidence to his statements, and the additional testimony of local tradition, are sufficient proof that his are not the inventions of poets or contemporary scribblers, but the record of real actors and real scenes. 1.2.30. These Egyptians and Syrians whom we have been criticising fill one with amazement. They do not understand [Homer], even when he is describing their own countries, but accuse him of ignorance where, as our argument proves, they are open to the charge themselves. Not to mention a thing is clearly no evidence that a person is not acquainted with it. Homer does not tell us of the change in the current of the Euripus, nor of Thermopylae, nor of many other remarkable things well known to the Greeks; but was he therefore unacquainted with them? He describes to us, although these men, who are obstinately deaf, will not hear: they have themselves to blame. Our poet applies to rivers the epithet of heaven-sent. And this not only to mountain torrents, but to all rivers alike, since they are all replenished by the showers. But even what is general becomes particular when it is bestowed on any object par excellence. Heaven-sent, when applied to a mountain torrent, means something else than when it is the epithet of the ever-flowing river; but the force of the term is doubly felt when attributed to the Nile. For as there are hyperboles of hyperboles, for instance, to be lighter than the shadow of a cork, more timid than a Phrygian hare, to possess an estate shorter than a Lacedemonian epistle; so excellence becomes more excellent, when the title of heaven-sent is given to the Nile. The mountain torrent has a better claim to be called heaven-sent than other rivers, but the Nile exceeds the mountain torrents, both in its size and the lengthened period of its overflow. Since, then, the wonders of this river were known to our poet, as we have shown in this defence, when he applies this epithet to the Nile, it must only be understood in the way we have explained. Homer did not think it worth mentioning, especially to those who were acquainted with the fact, that the Nile had many mouths, since this is a common feature of numerous other rivers. Alcaeus does not mention it, although he tells us he had been in Egypt. One might infer the fact of its alluvial deposit, both From the rising [of the river] and what Homer tells us concerning Pharos. For his account, or rather the vulgar report concerning Pharos, that it was distant from the mainland a whole day's voyage, ought not to be looked upon as a downright falsehood. It is clear that Homer was only acquainted with the rising and deposit of the river in a general way, and concluding from what he heard that the island had been further removed in the time of Menelaus from the mainland, than it was in his own, he magnified the distance, simply that he might heighten the fiction. Fictions however are not the offspring of ignorance, as is sufficiently plain from those concerning Proteus, the Pygmies, the efficacy of charms, and many others similar to these fabricated by the poets. They narrate these things not through ignorance of the localities, but for the sake of giving pleasure and enjoyment. But [some one may inquire], how could he describe [Pharos], which is without water as possessed of that necessary? The haven there is good, and many a ship Finds watering there from rivulets on the coast. [Od. iv. 358.] [I answer, ] It is not impossible that the sources of water may since have failed. Besides, he does not say that the water was procured from the island, but that they went thither on account of the safety of the harbour; the water was probably obtained from the mainland, and by the expression the poet seems to admit that what he had before said of its being wholly surrounded by sea was not the actual fact, but a hyperbole or fiction. 1.2.40. Starting from these premises, the poet, in conformity both with general custom and his own practice, narrates some circumstances as they actually occurred, and paints others in the colours of fiction. He follows history when he tells us of Aeetes and Jason also, when he talks of Argo, and on the authority of [the actual city of Aea], feigns his city of Aeaea, when he settles Euneos in Lemnos, and makes that island friendly to Achilles, and when, in imitation of Medea, he makes the sorceress Circe Sister by birth of the all-wise Aeetes, [Od. x. 137.] he adds the fiction of the entrance of the Argonauts into the exterior ocean as the sequel to their wanderings on their return home. Here, supposing the previous statements admitted, the truth of the phrase the renowned Argo, is evident, since, in that case, the expedition was directed to a populous and well-known country. But if, as [Demetrius] the Skepsian asserts, on the authority of Mimnermus, Aeetes dwelt by the Ocean, and Jason was sent thither far east by Pelias, to bring back the fleece, it neither seems probable that such an expedition would have been undertaken into unknown and obscure countries after the Fleece, nor could a voyage to lands desert, uninhabited, and so far remote from us, be considered either glorious or renowned. [Here follow the words of Demetrius.] Nor as yet had Jason, having accomplished the arduous journey, carried off the splendid fleece from Aea, fulfilling the dangerous mission of the insolent Pelias, nor had they ploughed the glorious wave of the ocean. And again: The city of Aeetes, where the rays of the swift sun recline on their golden bed by the shore of the ocean, which the noble Jason visited. |
|
