1. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 1.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in syriac •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, old persian loanwords •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, origins and etymologies of •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, similarities with iranian loanwords in syriac and other languages Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 58 | 1.20. And when the king’s decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his kingdom, great though it be, all the wives will give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.’ |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 7.15, 12.9 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, as evidence of babylonian rabbinic provece •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, a common topic of study in irano-talmudica Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 44, 125| 7.15. לֵךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹה בַּבֹּקֶר הִנֵּה יֹצֵא הַמַּיְמָה וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִקְרָאתוֹ עַל־שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר וְהַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר־נֶהְפַּךְ לְנָחָשׁ תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ׃ 12.9. אַל־תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם כִּי אִם־צְלִי־אֵשׁ רֹאשׁוֹ עַל־כְּרָעָיו וְעַל־קִרְבּוֹ׃ | 7.15. Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river’s brink to meet him; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt thou take in thy hand. 12.9. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs and with the inwards thereof. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 31.35 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, rabbinic folk etymologies of Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 63| 31.35. וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־אָבִיהָ אַל־יִחַר בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִי כִּי לוֹא אוּכַל לָקוּם מִפָּנֶיךָ כִּי־דֶרֶךְ נָשִׁים לִי וַיְחַפֵּשׂ וְלֹא מָצָא אֶת־הַתְּרָפִים׃ | 31.35. And she said to her father: ‘Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise up before thee; for the manner of women is upon me.’ And he searched, but found not the teraphim. |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Zephaniah, 3.11-3.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 52, 184| 3.11. בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֹא תֵבוֹשִׁי מִכֹּל עֲלִילֹתַיִךְ אֲשֶׁר פָּשַׁעַתְּ בִּי כִּי־אָז אָסִיר מִקִּרְבֵּךְ עַלִּיזֵי גַּאֲוָתֵךְ וְלֹא־תוֹסִפִי לְגָבְהָה עוֹד בְּהַר קָדְשִׁי׃ 3.13. שְׁאֵרִית יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא־יַעֲשׂוּ עַוְלָה וְלֹא־יְדַבְּרוּ כָזָב וְלֹא־יִמָּצֵא בְּפִיהֶם לְשׁוֹן תַּרְמִית כִּי־הֵמָּה יִרְעוּ וְרָבְצוּ וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד׃ 3.15. הֵסִיר יְהוָה מִשְׁפָּטַיִךְ פִּנָּה אֹיְבֵךְ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה בְּקִרְבֵּךְ לֹא־תִירְאִי רָע עוֹד׃ | 3.11. In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, Wherein thou hast transgressed against Me; For then I will take away out of the midst of thee Thy proudly exulting ones, And thou shalt no more be haughty In My holy mountain. 3.13. The remt of Israel shall not do iniquity, Nor speak lies, Neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth; For they shall feed and lie down, And none shall make them afraid. 3.15. The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, He hath cast out thine enemy; The King of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee; Thou shalt not fear evil any more. |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 6.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 182| 6.6. אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא תִכְבֶה׃ | 6.6. Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out. |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 13.3, 14.5, 59.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 52, 120, 184| 13.3. אֲנִי צִוֵּיתִי לִמְקֻדָּשָׁי גַּם קָרָאתִי גִבּוֹרַי לְאַפִּי עַלִּיזֵי גַּאֲוָתִי׃ 14.5. שָׁבַר יְהוָה מַטֵּה רְשָׁעִים שֵׁבֶט מֹשְׁלִים׃ 59.3. כִּי כַפֵּיכֶם נְגֹאֲלוּ בַדָּם וְאֶצְבְּעוֹתֵיכֶם בֶּעָוֺן שִׂפְתוֹתֵיכֶם דִּבְּרוּ־שֶׁקֶר לְשׁוֹנְכֶם עַוְלָה תֶהְגֶּה׃ | 13.3. I have commanded My consecrated ones, Yea, I have called My mighty ones for mine anger, Even My proudly exulting ones. 14.5. The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of the rulers, 59.3. For your hands are defiled with blood, And your fingers with iniquity; Your lips have spoken lies, Your tongue muttereth wickedness. |
|
| 7. Hebrew Bible, Judges, 1.11 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, rabbinic folk etymologies of Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 63 |
| 8. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 48.11 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, in talmudic exegesis of the mishnah •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, origins and etymologies of •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, total number and relative dearth of •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in lieu of aramaic synonyms •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in reference to the exilarch Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 59 |
9. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 9.9 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •shmuel, iranian loanwords attributed to •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 77| 9.9. גִּילִי מְאֹד בַּת־צִיּוֹן הָרִיעִי בַּת יְרוּשָׁלִַם הִנֵּה מַלְכֵּךְ יָבוֹא לָךְ צַדִּיק וְנוֹשָׁע הוּא עָנִי וְרֹכֵב עַל־חֲמוֹר וְעַל־עַיִר בֶּן־אֲתֹנוֹת׃ | 9.9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, He is triumphant, and victorious, Lowly, and riding upon an ass, Even upon a colt the foal of an ass. |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.8 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 184| 7.8. טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ טוֹב אֶרֶךְ־רוּחַ מִגְּבַהּ־רוּחַ׃ | 7.8. Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof; And the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, 1 Chronicles, 29.11 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, similarities with iranian loanwords in syriac and other languages Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 115| 29.11. לְךָ יְהוָה הַגְּדֻלָּה וְהַגְּבוּרָה וְהַתִּפְאֶרֶת וְהַנֵּצַח וְהַהוֹד כִּי־כֹל בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ לְךָ יְהוָה הַמַּמְלָכָה וְהַמִּתְנַשֵּׂא לְכֹל לְרֹאשׁ׃ | 29.11. Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and Thou art exalted as head above all. |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 7.5, 7.13, 11.45 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used to signal persian otherness •shmuel, iranian loanwords attributed to •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, in texts about romans Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 77, 190, 191| 7.5. וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה אָחֳרִי תִנְיָנָה דָּמְיָה לְדֹב וְלִשְׂטַר־חַד הֳקִמַת וּתְלָת עִלְעִין בְּפֻמַּהּ בֵּין שניה [שִׁנַּהּ] וְכֵן אָמְרִין לַהּ קוּמִי אֲכֻלִי בְּשַׂר שַׂגִּיא׃ 7.13. חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵילְיָא וַאֲרוּ עִם־עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָה וְעַד־עַתִּיק יוֹמַיָּא מְטָה וּקְדָמוֹהִי הַקְרְבוּהִי׃ 11.45. וְיִטַּע אָהֳלֶי אַפַּדְנוֹ בֵּין יַמִּים לְהַר־צְבִי־קֹדֶשׁ וּבָא עַד־קִצּוֹ וְאֵין עוֹזֵר לוֹ׃ | 7.5. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was said thus unto it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’ 7.13. I saw in the night visions, And, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven One like unto a son of man, And he came even to the Ancient of days, And he was brought near before Him. 11.45. And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the beauteous holy mountain; and he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. |
|
13. Mishnah, Shabbat, 2.1, 10.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, in talmudic exegesis of the mishnah •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, origins and etymologies of •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, total number and relative dearth of •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in lieu of aramaic synonyms •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in reference to the exilarch Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 52, 59| 2.1. בַּמֶּה מַדְלִיקִין וּבַמָּה אֵין מַדְלִיקִין. אֵין מַדְלִיקִין לֹא בְלֶכֶשׁ, וְלֹא בְחֹסֶן, וְלֹא בְכָלָךְ, וְלֹא בִפְתִילַת הָאִידָן, וְלֹא בִפְתִילַת הַמִּדְבָּר, וְלֹא בִירוֹקָה שֶׁעַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. וְלֹא בְזֶפֶת, וְלֹא בְשַׁעֲוָה, וְלֹא בְשֶׁמֶן קִיק, וְלֹא בְשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה, וְלֹא בְאַלְיָה, וְלֹא בְחֵלֶב. נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר, מַדְלִיקִין בְּחֵלֶב מְבֻשָּׁל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד מְבֻשָּׁל וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבֻשָּׁל, אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ: 10.5. הַמּוֹצִיא כִכָּר לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, חַיָּב. הוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם, פְּטוּרִין. לֹא יָכֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם, חַיָּבִים. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. הַמּוֹצִיא אֳכָלִין פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר בִּכְלִי, פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַכְּלִי, שֶׁהַכְּלִי טְפֵלָה לוֹ. אֶת הַחַי בַּמִּטָּה, פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַמִּטָּה, שֶׁהַמִּטָּה טְפֵלָה לוֹ. אֶת הַמֵּת בַּמִּטָּה, חַיָּב. וְכֵן כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת וְכַזַּיִת מִן הַנְּבֵלָה וְכָעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ, חַיָּב. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר: | 2.1. With what may they kindle [the Shabbat light] and with what may they not kindle them?They may not kindle with cedar fiber, uncarded flax, a raw silk, a desert wick, or seaweed, And not with pitch, wax, castor oil, [terumah] oil [which must be] burnt, tail fat, or tallow. Nahum the Mede says: they may kindle with melted tallow. And the sages say: whether melted or not, they may not kindle with it. 10.5. If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him. |
|
| 14. Mishnah, Eruvin, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 43 |
15. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 10.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 83| 10.6. שְׁתֵּי גִנּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ וְהַיָּרָק בֵּינְתַיִם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁל תַּחְתּוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִם יִרְצֶה הָעֶלְיוֹן לִקַּח אֶת עֲפָרוֹ אֵין כָּאן יָרָק. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִם יִרְצֶה הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַלְּאוֹת אֶת גִּנָּתוֹ אֵין כָּאן יָרָק. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מֵאַחַר שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת זֶה עַל זֶה, רוֹאִין מֵהֵיכָן יָרָק זֶה חָי. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, כָּל שֶׁהָעֶלְיוֹן יָכוֹל לִפְשֹׁט אֶת יָדוֹ וְלִטֹּל, הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר שֶׁל תַּחְתּוֹן: | 10.6. If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden. |
|
16. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 7.8.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in lieu of aramaic synonyms Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 55| 7.8.1. טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הֲוָה יָתֵיב וְדָרִישׁ בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא דִּטְבֶרְיָה וַהֲוָה אֱלִישָׁע רַבֵּיהּ גָּיֵּיז בְּשׁוּקָא אַרְכֵּיב עַל סוּסְיָא בְּשַׁבַּתָּא, אָמְרוּן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הָא אֱלִישָׁע רַבָּךְ אָתֵי גָּיֵּיז בְּשַׁבַּתָּא בְּשׁוּקָא, נָפַק לְגַבֵּיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּמֶּה הֲוֵיתָא עָסֵיק, אָמַר לֵיהּ (איוב מב, יב): וַה' בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַחֲרִית אִיּוֹב מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בֵּרַךְ, שֶׁהִכְפִּיל אֶת מָמוֹנוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ עֲקִיבָא רַבָּךְ לָא הֲוָה אָמַר כֵּן, אֶלָּא: וַה' בֵּרַךְ אַחֲרִית אִיּוֹב מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ, בִּזְכוּת תְּשׁוּבָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ שׁוּב טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ בֵּיהּ, אָמַר לוֹ יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁהוּא קוֹנֶה סְחוֹרָה בְּנַעֲרוּתוֹ וְהוּא מַפְסִיד, וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ הוּא מִשְׂתַּכֵּר בָּהּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ, יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁמּוֹלִיד בָּנִים בְּנַעֲרוּתוֹ וְהֵן מֵתִים, מוֹלִיד בְּזִקְנוּתוֹ וְהֵן מִתְקַיְּמִין. דָּבָר אַחֵר, טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ, יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשִׂים רָעִים בְּנַעֲרוּתוֹ וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ, יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁהוּא לָמֵד תּוֹרָה בְּנַעֲרוּתוֹ וּמְשַׁכְּחָהּ, וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ הוּא חוֹזֵר עָלֶיהָ, הֱוֵי: טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבָּךְ לֹא כָךְ אָמַר, אֶלָּא: טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר כְּשֶׁהוּא טוֹב מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ, וְכֵן הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה אֲבוּיָה אָבִי מִגְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר, וּכְשֶׁבָּא לְמוּלֵנִי קָרָא לְכָל גְּדוֹלֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, וְקָרָא לְכָל גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר, וְקָרָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּלְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עִמָּהֶם, וּכְשֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ שָׁרוֹן אִילֵּין אָמְרִין מִזְמוֹרִין, וְאִילֵּין אָמְרִין אַלְפָבֵּתָרִין, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אִילֵּין עָסְקִין בְּדִידְהוֹן, וַאֲנַן לֵית אֲנַן עָסְקִין בְּדִידָן, וְהִתְחִילוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וּמִן הַתּוֹרָה לַנְּבִיאִים, וּמִן הַנְבִיאִים לַכְּתוּבִים, וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים שְׂמֵחִין כִּנְתִינָתָן מִסִּינַי וְהָאֵשׁ מְלַהֶטֶת סְבִיבוֹתֵיהֶן, עִקַּר נְתִינָתָן לֹא מִסִּינַי נִתְּנוּ בָּאֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד, יא): וְהָהָר בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ עַד לֵב הַשָּׁמַיִם, אָמַר הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ הוּא גָּדוֹל כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, הַבֵּן הַזֶּה אִם מִתְקַיֵם לִי הֲרֵינִי נוֹתְנוֹ לַתּוֹרָה, וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁלֹא הָיְתָה כַּוָּנַת מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לֹא נִתְקַיְמָה בִּי תּוֹרָתִי. וּמָה אַתְּ אָמַר תּוּבָן (איוב כח, יז): לֹא יַעַרְכֶנָּה זָהָב וּזְכוּכִית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אֲמַרְתְּ בֵּיהּ, אָמַר לוֹ אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה שֶׁקָּשִׁין לִקְנוֹת כִּכְלֵי זָהָב וּזְכוּכִית, אָמַר לוֹ עֲקִיבָא רַבְּךָ לֹא אָמַר כֵּן, אֶלָּא מַה כְּלֵי זָהָב וּזְכוּכִית אִם נִשְׁבְּרוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה, אַף תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאִבֵּד מִשְׁנָתוֹ יָכוֹל הוּא לַחֲזֹר עָלֶיהָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חֲזוֹר עוֹל לָךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה, עַד כָּאן תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְנָּן אַתְּ יָדַע, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִטַּלְפֵי סוּסִי, שֶׁכְּבָר הָלַךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְכָל הֲדָא חָכְמְתָא אִית בָּךְ וְלֵית אַתְּ חוֹזֵר בָּךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵית בְּחֵילִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רוֹכֵב הָיִיתִי עַל הַסּוּס וּמְטַיֵּל אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשָׁמַעְתִּי בַּת קוֹל מְצַפְצֶפֶת וְאוֹמֶרֶת (ירמיה ג, כב): שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים, (מלאכי ג, ז): שׁוּבוּ אֵלַי וְאָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם, חוּץ מֵאֱלִישָׁע בֶּן אֲבוּיָה, שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ כֹּחִי וּמָרַד בִּי. וּמֵהֵיכָן הָיָה לוֹ, רָאָה אָדָם אֶחָד עָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַדֶּקֶל בְּשַׁבָּת וְנָטַל הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וְיָרַד בְּשָׁלוֹם, וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת רָאָה אָדָם אֶחָד עָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַדֶּקֶל וְנָטַל הַבָּנִים וְשִׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם, וְיָרַד וְהִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ וָמֵת, אָמַר כְּתִיב (דברים כב, ז): שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים, הֵיכָן טוּבוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְהֵיכָן אֲרִיכוּת יָמָיו שֶׁל זֶה, וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁדְּרָשָׁהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ בָּעוֹלָם שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ טוֹב, וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים לָעוֹלָם שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ אָרֹךְ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁרָאָה לְשׁוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנַּחְתּוֹם נָתוּן בְּפִי הַכֶּלֶב, אָמַר מָה הַלָּשׁוֹן שֶׁיָּגַע בַּתּוֹרָה כָּל יָמָיו כָּךְ, לָשׁוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְיָגֵעַ בַּתּוֹרָה עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אָמַר אִם כֵּן לֹא מַתַּן שָׂכָר לַצַּדִּיקִים, וְלֹא תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁכְּשֶׁהָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מְעֻבֶּרֶת בּוֹ עָבְרָה עַל בָּתֵּי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְהֵרִיחָה וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְאָכְלָה, וְהָיָה מְפַעְפֵּעַ בִּכְרֵיסָהּ כַּאֲרִיסָה שֶׁל חֲכִינָה. לְאַחַר יָמִים חָלָה אֱלִישָׁע בֶּן אֲבוּיָה, אֲתוֹן אָמְרִין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אֱלִישָׁע חוֹלֶה, אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ חֲזוֹר בָּךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְעַד כַּדּוּן מְקַבְּלִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא כְתִיב (תהלים צ, ג): תָּשֵׁב אֱנוֹשׁ עַד דַּכָּא, עַד דִּכְדּוּכָהּ שֶׁל נֶפֶשׁ. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּכָה אֱלִישָׁע בֶּן אֲבוּיָה וָמֵת, וְהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שָׂמֵחַ וְאוֹמֵר דּוֹמֶה שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ תְּשׁוּבָה נִסְתַּלֵּק רַבִּי. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁקְּבָרוּהוּ בָּאתָה הָאוּר לִשְׂרֹף אֶת קִבְרוֹ, אֲתוֹן אָמְרִין לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר קֶבֶר רַבְּךָ נִשְׂרַף, יָצָא וּפָרַשׂ טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ (רות ג, יג): לִינִי הַלַּיְלָה, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ לַיְלָה, וְהָיָה בַבֹּקֶר אִם יִגְאָלֵךְ טוֹב יִגְאָל, מַהוּ וְהָיָה בַבֹּקֶר, בָּעוֹלָם שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ טוֹב, אִם יִגְאָלֵךְ טוֹב זֶה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קמה, ט): טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל. וְאִם לֹא יַחְפֹּץ לְגָאֳלֵךְ וּגְאַלְתִּיךְ אָנֹכִי חַי ה' שִׁכְבִי עַד הַבֹּקֶר. וּדְמָכַת לֵיהּ. אָמְרוּן לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְעָלְמִין דְּאָתֵי אִין אָמְרִין לָךְ מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי אָבִיךְ אוֹ רַבָּךְ מַה תֵּימַר, אֲמַר אַבָּא וּבָתַר כֵּן רַבִּי. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ וְשָׁמְעֵי לָךְ אִינוּן, אֲמַר לְהוֹן וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָּא הִיא, מַצִּילִין תִּיק הַסֵּפֶר עִם הַסֵּפֶר וְתִיק הַתְּפִלִּין עִם הַתְּפִלִּין, מַצִּילִין אֱלִישָׁע בִּזְכוּת תּוֹרָתוֹ. לְבַסּוֹף בָּאוּ בְנוֹתָיו וְתוֹבְעוֹת צְדָקָה אֵצֶל רַבֵּנוּ, אָמַר (תהלים קט, יב): אַל יְהִי לוֹ משֵׁךְ חָסֶד וְאַל יְהִי חוֹנֵן לִיתוֹמָיו. אָמְרִין, רַבִּי לָא תִסְתַּכַּל בְּעוֹבָדוֹהִי אִסְתַּכַּל לְאוֹרָיְיתֵיהּ, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּכָה רַבִּי וְגָזַר עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיִתְפַּרְנְסוּ, אָמַר מַה מִּי שֶׁלֹא הָיְתָה תּוֹרָתוֹ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם כָּךְ הֶעֱמִיד, מִי שֶׁתּוֹרָתוֹ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. טוֹב אֶרֶךְ רוּחַ מִגְּבַהּ רוּחַ, חַד פַּרְסִי אֲתָא גַּבֵּי רַב אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַלְפֵנִי אוֹרָיָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֱמֹר אָלֶ״ף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאן דְּיֵימַר דְּהוּא אָלֶ״ף, יֵמְרוּן דְּאֵינוֹ כֵן. אֱמֹר בֵּי״ת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאן אֲמַר דְּהוּא בֵּי״ת, גָּעַר בּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּנְזִיפָה, אֲזַל לְגַבֵּי שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַלְפֵנִי אוֹרָיָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֱמֹר אָלֶ״ף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאן דְּיֵימַר דְּהוּא אָלֶ״ף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֱמֹר בֵּי״ת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאן אֲמַר דְּהוּא בֵּי״ת, אַחֲדֵיהּ בְּאוּדְנֵיהּ וַאֲמַר אוּדְנִי אוּדְנִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מַאן אֲמַר דְּהוּא אוּדְנִיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָדְעִין דְּהוּא אוּדְנִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אוֹף הָכָא כּוּלֵּי עַלְמָא יָדְעִין דְּהוּא אל״ף וּדְהוּא בי״ת, מִיָּד נִשְׁתַּתֵּק הַפַּרְסִי וְקַבֵּיל עֲלוֹי, הֱוֵי: טוֹב אֶרֶךְ רוּחַ מִגְּבַהּ רוּחַ, טוֹבָה הִיא הָאֲרִיכָה שֶׁהֶאֱרִיךְ שְׁמוּאֵל עִם הַפַּרְסִי מֵהַקְפָּדָה שֶׁהִקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהּ רַב, אִלּוּלֵי כֵן חָזַר הַפַּרְסִי לְסִיאוּרוֹ, וְקָרָא עָלָיו: טוֹב אֶרֶךְ רוּחַ. וְעוֹד, עֲקִילַס הַגֵּר שָׁאַל לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי חִבָּה שֶׁחִבֵּב הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הַגֵּר בְּלֶחֶם וּבְשִׂמְלָה בִּלְבָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים י, יח): וְאֹהֵב גֵּר לָתֶת לוֹ לֶחֶם וְשִׂמְלָה, כַּמָּה טַוָּוסִין וְכַמָּה פַּסְיוֹנִין אִית לִי וַאֲפִלּוּ עֲבָדַי לָא מַשְׁגִּיחִין עֲלֵיהוֹן. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְכִי קַלָּה הִיא בְּעֵינֶיךָ דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ בּוֹ אָבִינוּ יַעֲקֹב מִתְּחִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כח, כ): וְנָתַן לִי לֶחֶם לֶאֱכֹל וּבֶגֶד לִלְבּשׁ, דָּבָר קַל הוּא. אֲתָא לְגַבֵּי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וּשְׁאֵיל לֵיהּ כָּךְ, אָמַר לוֹ גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם זָכָה וּמַשִֹּׂיאִין מִבְּנוֹתָיו לִכְהֻנָּה. לֶחֶם זוֹ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. וּבֶגֶד אֵלּוּ בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה. צִמְצְמוֹ בִּדְבָרִים, אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו וְכִי קַלָּה הִיא בְּעֵינֶיךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּחְבַּט בּוֹ הַזָּקֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כח, כ): וְנָתַן לִי לֶחֶם, וְלָמָּה אַתְּ מוֹשִׁיטוֹ בְּקָנֶה, הִתְחִיל מְפַיְּסוֹ בִּדְבָרִים, לֶחֶם זוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ט, ה): לְכוּ לַחֲמוּ בְלַחְמִי. וּבֶגֶד זֶה הַכָּבוֹד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ח, טו): בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלֹכוּ. הֱוֵי: טוֹב אֶרֶךְ רוּחַ טוֹבָה הִיא הָאֲרִיכָה שֶׁהֶאֱרִיךְ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עִם עֲקִילַס הַגֵּר, מֵהַקְפָּדָה שֶׁהִקְפִּיד בּוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, שֶׁאִלּוּלֵי כֵן חָזַר לְסִיאוּרוֹ, וְקָרָא עָלָיו: טוֹב אֶרֶךְ רוּחַ מִגְבַהּ רוּח. | |
|
| 17. Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 1.3 (39c) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, errors in transmission of Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 66 |
| 18. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 7.2 (11b) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 182 |
| 19. Palestinian Talmud, Eruvin, 6.3 (23c) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 185 |
| 20. Palestinian Talmud, Nazir, 5.5 (54b) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 182 |
| 21. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, 6.1 (7d) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in syriac Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 186 |
| 22. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, 3.3, 6.24 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in reference to the exilarch Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 217 |
23. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 91.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 182| 91.3. וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבֹּר וגו' <>(בראשית מב, ה)<>, וּמִנַּיִן לְעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן <>(במדבר לה, כד)<>: עֵדָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן <>(במדבר יד, כז)<>: עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה, מָה עֵדָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה, אַף עֵדָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן <>(ויקרא כב, לב)<>: תּוֹךְ, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן <>(בראשית מב, ה)<>: תּוֹךְ, מַה תּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה, אַף תּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הָכָא עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבוֹן אִם בְּתוֹךְ אֲפִלּוּ עַד כַּמָּה, אֶלָּא נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַה בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה אַף בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֲשָׂרָה. רַבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אָמַר, תִּינוֹק עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לַעֲשָׂרָה, וְהָא תָּנֵי אֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּקָטָן, אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לִשְׁנֵי קְטַנִּים נִצְרְכָה, אֶחָד סָפֵק וְאֶחָד קָטָן עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַסָּפֵק עִקָּר וְאֶת הַקָּטָן לִסְנִיף. תָּנֵי קָטָן וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן כֵּן הוּא מַתְנִיתִין, קָטָן לְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. מֵאֵימָתַי עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף, רַבִּי אֲבוּנָא אָמַר אִתְפַּלְגוּן בְּהָא רַבִּי יוּדָן וְרַב הוּנָא תַּרְוֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אֲמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְהֵא יוֹדֵעַ טִיב בְּרָכָה. וְאוֹחֲרָנָא אֲמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְהֵא יוֹדֵעַ לְמִי הוּא מְבָרֵךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַסֵּי תִּשְׁעָה נִרְאִים כַּעֲשָׂרָה מְזַמְּנִין, מַאי עָבֵיד מְסֻיָּמִין, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ קָטָן בֵּינֵיהֶם. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵף, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לַעֲשָׂרָה כָּךְ עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לִשְׁלשָׁה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲדָא הִיא וְלֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְהַלָּן שֶׁהוּא מַזְכִּיר אֶת הַשֵּׁם עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף, כָּאן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַזְכִּיר אֶת הַשֵּׁם אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲדָא אָמְרָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף בְּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן אֲבָל לִקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וְלִתְפִלָּה אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת: אֲמַר רַבִּי אַסֵּי זִמְנִין סַגִּיאִין אֲכָלִית עִם רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא וְזִמְנִין סַגִּיאִין אֲכָלִית עִם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר סִיסִי חֲבִיבִי וְלָא זָמְנִין עָלַי עַד שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. וּמֵאֵימָתַי הוּא קוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲמַר רַבִּי אֲבִינָא אִתְפַּלְגוּן רַב הוּנָא וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה תַּרְוֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר מִשֶּׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ לְבָרֵךְ, וְאוֹחֲרָנָא אָמַר עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ טִיב בְּרָכָה שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְמִי מְבָרְכִין. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַב, וְאִית דְּאָמְרִין בְּעוֹן קַמֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת, תִּשְׁעָה פַּת וְאֶחָד יָרָק מַהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוֹן, מְזַמְּנִין. שְׁמוֹנָה פַּת וּשְׁנַיִם יָרָק, מְזַמְּנִין. שִׁבְעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה פַּת וְאַרְבָּעָה יָרָק מַהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְזַמְּנִין. רַבִּי אֲבִינָא בְּעָא וּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה מַהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זְעֵירָא עַד דַּאֲנָא תַּמָּן אִצְטְרָכִית לְמִשְׁאֲלֵיהּ וּמֵיצְרָי לִי מִינָהּ דְּלָא שְׁאִלְתִּיו. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאָכַל יָרָק מַהוּ מְזַמְּנָא עֲלוֹהִי. תָּנֵי שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת נְזִירִין סָלְקִין בָּעֲיִין לִמְקָרְבָה תְּשַׁע מְאָה קוּרְבָּנִין בְּיוֹמֵי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, לִמְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין מָצָא לָהֶם פֶּתַח וּמְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין לָא מָצָא פֶּתַח. סָלֵיק רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח גַּבֵּי יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּלַת מְאָה נְזִירִין סָלְקוּ בָּעֲיִין לִמְקָרְבָה תְּשַׁע מְאָה קוּרְבָּנִין וְלֵית לְהוֹן, אֶלָּא יְהֵיב אַתְּ פַּלְגָּא מִן דִּידָךְ וַאֲנָא פַּלְגָא מִן דִּידִי וְיֵזְלוּן וִיקָרְבוּן, יְהַב יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא פַּלְגָא מִן דִּילֵיהּ וַאֲזַלּוּן וְקָרְבוּן. אֲתוֹן וַאֲמָרִין לִשְׁנָא בִּישָׁא לְיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא עַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, תֶּהֱוֵי יְדַע דְּכָל מַה דְּקָרְבוּן מִדִּידָךְ קָרְבוּן, בְּרַם שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח לָא יָהֵיב מִן דִּידֵיהּ כְּלוּם. כָּעַס יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא עַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח. שְׁמַע דְּהוּא כָּעֵס עֲלוֹהִי, צְרַת [נסח אחר צרח] לֵיהּ וַעֲרַק, לְבָתַר יוֹמֵי הֲווֹן בְּנֵי אֱנָשָׁא רַבְרְבִין מִן מַלְכוּתָא דְּפַרְסָאֵי יַתְבִין נָגְסִין עַל פָּתוֹרָא דְּיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא, אֲמַרוּן לֵיהּ מָרִי מַלְכָּא נָהֲרִין אֲנַן דַּהֲוָה הָכָא חַד סַב וַהֲוָה אֲמַר לָן מִילֵי דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲמַר לַאֲחָתֵיהּ שְׁלַחִי בַּתְרֵיהּ וְאַיְיתִיתֵיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ הַב לִי מִלָּא וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ עִזְקָתָךְ, וְהוּא אָתֵי. יְהַב לָהּ מִלָּא וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ עִזְקָתֵיהּ וַאֲתָא. מִדַּאֲתָא יְתֵיב לֵיהּ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לְמָה עֲרַקְתְּ, שְׁמָעִית דְּמָרִי מַלְכָּא כָּעֵיס עֲלַי וּצְרַח לִי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תִקְטְלַנִּי וְקַיְימַת הָדֵין קְרָיָא <>(ישעיה כו, כ)<>: חֲבִי כִּמְעַט רֶגַע עַד יַעֲבָר זָעַם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמָה אַפְלֵית בִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לָא אַפְלֵית בָּךְ, אֶלָּא אַתְּ מִמָּמוֹנָךְ וַאֲנָא מִן אוֹרָיְיתָא, דִּכְתִיב <>(קהלת ז, יב)<>: כִּי בְּצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכָּסֶף. אָמַר לוֹ וּלְמָה לָא אֲמַרְתְּ לִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִי אֲמַרִית לָךְ לָא הֲוָה יַהֲבִית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמָה יְתַבְתְּ לָךְ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא כָּתוּב: סַלְסְלֶהָ וּתְרוֹמְמֶךּ וּבֵין נְגִידִים תּוֹשִׁיבֶךָּ. אֲמַר מְזוֹג לֵיהּ יְבָרֵךְ. אֲמַר בָּרוּךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַל יַנַּאי וַחֲבֵרָיו. אֲמַר עַד כַּדּוּן אַתְּ בְּקַשְׁיוּתָךְ, לָא שְׁמָעִית מִן יוֹמוֹי יַנַּאי בְּבִרְכְתָא. אֲמַר וּמָה אִית לִי לְמֵימַר, נְבָרֵךְ עַל שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ, וַאֲנִי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי. אֲמַר אַיְיתוֹן לֵיהּ וְיֵיכוּל. מִן דַּאֲכֵיל אֲמַר בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו עַל שְׁמוּעַת שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּה. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, תַּמָּן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ, וְהָכָא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. מַאן דִּצְרִיכָה לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּנָן, וּמַאן דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּתָנֵי עֲלָהּ וְהֵסֵב עִמָּהֶן וְטִיבֵּל עִמָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹא אָכַל כַּזַּיִת דָּגָן מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְעוֹלָם אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁאוֹכֵל כַּזַּיִת דָּגָן, וְהָא תָּנֵי שְׁנַיִם פַּת וְאֶחָד יָרָק מְזַמְּנִין. מַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. 91.3. וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבֹּר וגו' (בראשית מב, ה), וּמִנַּיִן לְעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן (במדבר לה, כד): עֵדָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר יד, כז): עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה, מָה עֵדָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה, אַף עֵדָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן (ויקרא כב, לב): תּוֹךְ, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (בראשית מב, ה): תּוֹךְ, מַה תּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה, אַף תּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הָכָא עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבוֹן אִם בְּתוֹךְ אֲפִלּוּ עַד כַּמָּה, אֶלָּא נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַה בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה אַף בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֲשָׂרָה. רַבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אָמַר, תִּינוֹק עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לַעֲשָׂרָה, וְהָא תָּנֵי אֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּקָטָן, אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לִשְׁנֵי קְטַנִּים נִצְרְכָה, אֶחָד סָפֵק וְאֶחָד קָטָן עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַסָּפֵק עִקָּר וְאֶת הַקָּטָן לִסְנִיף. תָּנֵי קָטָן וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן כֵּן הוּא מַתְנִיתִין, קָטָן לְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. מֵאֵימָתַי עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף, רַבִּי אֲבוּנָא אָמַר אִתְפַּלְגוּן בְּהָא רַבִּי יוּדָן וְרַב הוּנָא תַּרְוֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אֲמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְהֵא יוֹדֵעַ טִיב בְּרָכָה. וְאוֹחֲרָנָא אֲמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְהֵא יוֹדֵעַ לְמִי הוּא מְבָרֵךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַסֵּי תִּשְׁעָה נִרְאִים כַּעֲשָׂרָה מְזַמְּנִין, מַאי עָבֵיד מְסֻיָּמִין, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ קָטָן בֵּינֵיהֶם. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵף, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לַעֲשָׂרָה כָּךְ עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לִשְׁלשָׁה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲדָא הִיא וְלֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְהַלָּן שֶׁהוּא מַזְכִּיר אֶת הַשֵּׁם עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף, כָּאן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַזְכִּיר אֶת הַשֵּׁם אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲדָא אָמְרָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף בְּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן אֲבָל לִקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וְלִתְפִלָּה אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת: אֲמַר רַבִּי אַסֵּי זִמְנִין סַגִּיאִין אֲכָלִית עִם רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא וְזִמְנִין סַגִּיאִין אֲכָלִית עִם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר סִיסִי חֲבִיבִי וְלָא זָמְנִין עָלַי עַד שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. וּמֵאֵימָתַי הוּא קוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲמַר רַבִּי אֲבִינָא אִתְפַּלְגוּן רַב הוּנָא וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה תַּרְוֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר מִשֶּׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ לְבָרֵךְ, וְאוֹחֲרָנָא אָמַר עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ טִיב בְּרָכָה שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְמִי מְבָרְכִין. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַב, וְאִית דְּאָמְרִין בְּעוֹן קַמֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת, תִּשְׁעָה פַּת וְאֶחָד יָרָק מַהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוֹן, מְזַמְּנִין. שְׁמוֹנָה פַּת וּשְׁנַיִם יָרָק, מְזַמְּנִין. שִׁבְעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה פַּת וְאַרְבָּעָה יָרָק מַהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְזַמְּנִין. רַבִּי אֲבִינָא בְּעָא וּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה מַהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זְעֵירָא עַד דַּאֲנָא תַּמָּן אִצְטְרָכִית לְמִשְׁאֲלֵיהּ וּמֵיצְרָי לִי מִינָהּ דְּלָא שְׁאִלְתִּיו. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאָכַל יָרָק מַהוּ מְזַמְּנָא עֲלוֹהִי. תָּנֵי שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת נְזִירִין סָלְקִין בָּעֲיִין לִמְקָרְבָה תְּשַׁע מְאָה קוּרְבָּנִין בְּיוֹמֵי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, לִמְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין מָצָא לָהֶם פֶּתַח וּמְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין לָא מָצָא פֶּתַח. סָלֵיק רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח גַּבֵּי יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּלַת מְאָה נְזִירִין סָלְקוּ בָּעֲיִין לִמְקָרְבָה תְּשַׁע מְאָה קוּרְבָּנִין וְלֵית לְהוֹן, אֶלָּא יְהֵיב אַתְּ פַּלְגָּא מִן דִּידָךְ וַאֲנָא פַּלְגָא מִן דִּידִי וְיֵזְלוּן וִיקָרְבוּן, יְהַב יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא פַּלְגָא מִן דִּילֵיהּ וַאֲזַלּוּן וְקָרְבוּן. אֲתוֹן וַאֲמָרִין לִשְׁנָא בִּישָׁא לְיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא עַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, תֶּהֱוֵי יְדַע דְּכָל מַה דְּקָרְבוּן מִדִּידָךְ קָרְבוּן, בְּרַם שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח לָא יָהֵיב מִן דִּידֵיהּ כְּלוּם. כָּעַס יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא עַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח. שְׁמַע דְּהוּא כָּעֵס עֲלוֹהִי, צְרַת [נסח אחר צרח] לֵיהּ וַעֲרַק, לְבָתַר יוֹמֵי הֲווֹן בְּנֵי אֱנָשָׁא רַבְרְבִין מִן מַלְכוּתָא דְּפַרְסָאֵי יַתְבִין נָגְסִין עַל פָּתוֹרָא דְּיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא, אֲמַרוּן לֵיהּ מָרִי מַלְכָּא נָהֲרִין אֲנַן דַּהֲוָה הָכָא חַד סַב וַהֲוָה אֲמַר לָן מִילֵי דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲמַר לַאֲחָתֵיהּ שְׁלַחִי בַּתְרֵיהּ וְאַיְיתִיתֵיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ הַב לִי מִלָּא וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ עִזְקָתָךְ, וְהוּא אָתֵי. יְהַב לָהּ מִלָּא וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ עִזְקָתֵיהּ וַאֲתָא. מִדַּאֲתָא יְתֵיב לֵיהּ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לְמָה עֲרַקְתְּ, שְׁמָעִית דְּמָרִי מַלְכָּא כָּעֵיס עֲלַי וּצְרַח לִי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תִקְטְלַנִּי וְקַיְימַת הָדֵין קְרָיָא (ישעיה כו, כ): חֲבִי כִּמְעַט רֶגַע עַד יַעֲבָר זָעַם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמָה אַפְלֵית בִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לָא אַפְלֵית בָּךְ, אֶלָּא אַתְּ מִמָּמוֹנָךְ וַאֲנָא מִן אוֹרָיְיתָא, דִּכְתִיב (קהלת ז, יב): כִּי בְּצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכָּסֶף. אָמַר לוֹ וּלְמָה לָא אֲמַרְתְּ לִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִי אֲמַרִית לָךְ לָא הֲוָה יַהֲבִית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמָה יְתַבְתְּ לָךְ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא כָּתוּב: סַלְסְלֶהָ וּתְרוֹמְמֶךּ וּבֵין נְגִידִים תּוֹשִׁיבֶךָּ. אֲמַר מְזוֹג לֵיהּ יְבָרֵךְ. אֲמַר בָּרוּךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַל יַנַּאי וַחֲבֵרָיו. אֲמַר עַד כַּדּוּן אַתְּ בְּקַשְׁיוּתָךְ, לָא שְׁמָעִית מִן יוֹמוֹי יַנַּאי בְּבִרְכְתָא. אֲמַר וּמָה אִית לִי לְמֵימַר, נְבָרֵךְ עַל שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ, וַאֲנִי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי. אֲמַר אַיְיתוֹן לֵיהּ וְיֵיכוּל. מִן דַּאֲכֵיל אֲמַר בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו עַל שְׁמוּעַת שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּה. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, תַּמָּן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ, וְהָכָא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. מַאן דִּצְרִיכָה לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּנָן, וּמַאן דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּתָנֵי עֲלָהּ וְהֵסֵב עִמָּהֶן וְטִיבֵּל עִמָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹא אָכַל כַּזַּיִת דָּגָן מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְעוֹלָם אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁאוֹכֵל כַּזַּיִת דָּגָן, וְהָא תָּנֵי שְׁנַיִם פַּת וְאֶחָד יָרָק מְזַמְּנִין. מַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. | |
|
| 24. Anon., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, exodus 7.1 (2nd cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, as evidence of babylonian rabbinic provece Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 125 |
| 25. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 24a, 24b, 20b-24a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 61 |
26. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 11b, 24b, 2b, 30a, 71a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 61, 184 71a. ורמינהי עיר שכבשוה כרקום כל כהנות שבתוכה פסולות אמר רב מרי לנסך אין פנאי לבעול יש פנאי:,| 71a. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the assumption that soldiers during wartime do not have time to commit transgressions from that which is taught in another mishna (Ketubot 27a): With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped. Rav Mari resolved the contradiction and said: They do not have time to pour wine for libations, as their passion for idolatry is not pressing at that time, but they have time to engage in intercourse, because their lust is great even during wartime.,Jewish craftsmen to whom a gentile sent a barrel of wine used for a libation in lieu of their wage, it is permitted for them to say to him: Give us its monetary value instead. But once it has entered into their possession, it is prohibited for them to say so, as that would be tantamount to selling the wine to the gentile and deriving benefit from it.,Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is permitted for a person to say to a gentile: Go and placate the collectors of the governmental tax on wine for me, and I will reimburse you subsequently, even if he pays the tax with wine used for a libation.,One of the Sages raised an objection from a baraita: A person may not say to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary [la’otzer] to pay the wine tax for me, if he pays it in wine used for a libation. Rav said to him: You say that the case I am referring to is similar to one who says to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary? In that case, since he says: In my stead, whatever the gentile gives the commissary is considered as though the Jew gave it himself. This case that I am referring to is comparable only to that which is taught in the baraita: But the Jew may say to a gentile: Save me from the commissary.,who sells his wine to a gentile, if he fixed a price before he measured the wine into the gentile’s vessel, deriving benefit from the money paid for the wine is permitted. It is not tantamount to selling wine used for a libation, as the gentile purchased the wine before it became forbidden, and the money already belonged to the Jew. But if the Jew measured the wine into the gentile’s vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, before he fixed a price, the money paid for the wine is forbidden.,Ameimar says: The legal act of acquiring an object by pulling it applies to a gentile. Know that it is so, as those Persians send gifts [pardashnei] to one another and do not retract them, which shows that they acquire one from another by pulling the object alone, even without paying for it. Rav Ashi says: Actually, I will say to you that pulling an object does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, and the fact that they do not retract their gifts is not due to the halakhot of acquisition but because they are taken over by haughtiness, and they consider it shameful to retract a gift.,Rav Ashi said: From where do I say that acquisition by pulling does not apply to gentiles? It is from that which Rav said to certain wine shopkeepers: When you measure wine for gentiles, take the dinars from them and then measure the wine for them. And if they do not have dinars with them readily available, lend them dinars and then take those dinars back from them, so that it will be a loan provided to them that they are repaying. As if you do not do so, when it becomes wine used for a libation it becomes so in your possession, and when you take the money it will be payment for wine used for a libation that you are taking. Rav Ashi concludes his proof for his opinion: And if it enters your mind that pulling an object acquires it in a transaction involving a gentile, | |
|
| 27. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 138b, 168a, 173b, 46a, 55a, 58a, 58b, 65a, 8a, 136a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 58 |
28. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 118b-119a, 28b, 83a, 8b, 73b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 110| 73b. רב מרי בר רחל משכן ליה ההוא נכרי ביתא הדר זבנה לרבא נטר תריסר ירחי שתא שקל אגר ביתא אמטי ליה לרבא אמר ליה האי דלא אמטאי למר אגר ביתא עד האידנא דסתם משכנתא שתא אי בעי נכרי לסלקי לא הוה מצי מסלק לי השתא לשקול מר אגר ביתא,א"ל אי הוה ידענא דהוה ממושכן ליה למר לא הוה זביננא ליה השתא כדיניהם עבדינן לך כל אימת דלא מסלקי בזוזי לא שקיל אגר ביתא אנא נמי לא שקילנא מינך אגר ביתא עד דמסלקנא לך בזוזי,אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי חזי מר רבנן דקא אכלי רביתא דיהבי זוזי אחמרא בתשרי ומבחרי לה בטבת,אמר ליה אינהו נמי אחמרא קא יהבי אחלא לא קא יהבי מעיקרא דחמרא חמרא דחלא חלא ההיא שעתא הוא דקמבחרי,רבינא הוה יהיב זוזי לבני אקרא דשנוותא ושפכי ליה טפי כופיתא אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה מי שרי אמר ליה אין אחולי הוא דקא מחלי גבך,אמר ליה הא ארעא לאו דידהו היא אמר ליה ארעא לטסקא משעבדא ומלכא אמר מאן דיהיב טסקא ליכול ארעא,אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני רבנן דיהבי זוזי אכרגא דאינשי ומשעבדי בהו טפי אמר ליה השתא איכו שכיבא לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי אמר רב ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא לשתעביד למאן דיהיב כרגא,רב סעורם אחוה דרבא הוה תקיף אינשי דלא מעלו ומעייל להו בגוהרקא דרבא אמר ליה רבא שפיר קא עבדת דתנינא ראית שאינו נוהג כשורה מנין שאתה רשאי להשתעבד בו תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו ובאחיכם יכול אפילו נוהג כשורה ת"ל (ויקרא כה, מו) ובאחיכם בני ישראל איש באחיו וגו',אמר רב חמא האי מאן דיהיב זוזי לחבריה למיזבן ליה חמרא ופשע ולא זבין ליה משלם ליה כדקא אזיל אפרוותא דזולשפט,אמר אמימר אמריתא לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא אמר כי קאמר רב חמא הני מילי ביין סתם אבל ביין זה לא מי יימר דמזבני ליה ניהליה,רב אשי אמר אפי' יין סתם נמי לא מאי טעמא אסמכתא היא ואסמכתא לא קניא,ולרב אשי מאי שנא מהא דתנן אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא התם בידו | 73b. The Gemara relates: A certain gentile mortgaged a house to Rav Mari bar Raḥel for a loan that Rav Mari had provided him. Afterward, the gentile sold the house to Rava. Rav Mari waited for twelve months of the year to pass, took the amount of money necessary to pay rent for the house and brought it to Rava, who was now the owner of the house. Rav Mari said to Rava: This fact that I did not bring the rental fee for the house to the Master until now is because an unspecified mortgage is in effect for a period of one year. If that gentile wanted to remove me from the house by paying back the loan, he could not remove me from it until now. Consequently, the house actually belonged to me for that year, and I was not required to pay rent. Now, since the gentile can remove me from the house by repaying the loan, the house belongs to you. Therefore, let the Master now take the rental fee for the house for the coming year.,Rava said to him: Had I known that this house was mortgaged to the Master, I would not have purchased it at all, as I would have given you the chance to purchase it first. Now, therefore, I will act toward you according to the law of the gentiles, as I assumed the rights previously held by the gentile. According to gentile law, as long as the borrower does not remove the lender by paying back the money, he also does not take a rental fee for the house, as there is no prohibition against a gentile paying or receiving interest. Therefore, I too will not take a rental fee for the house from you until I remove you by forcing the gentile to pay the money that is owed to you.,The Gemara relates: Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: The Master sees the Sages who consume interest, as they give people money for wine in the month of Tishrei, and they select the wine later, in the month of Tevet. Had they taken the wine immediately upon payment, there is a chance that it would have spoiled. Now, in return for paying for the wine in advance, they receive the benefit of guaranteeing that the wine they receive will not be spoiled. Rava of Barnish understood that this benefit, received in exchange for advance payment, is a form of interest.,Rav Ashi said to him: They too gave the money at the outset for wine, but they did not give it for vinegar. That which was wine at the outset is still wine, and that which became vinegar was vinegar when they paid for it but they did not know it. It was at that time of selection that they merely selected the wine that they had paid for previously. Since they agreed to buy wine, not vinegar, the benefit of actually receiving wine does not constitute interest.,The Gemara relates: Ravina would give money in advance to the people of the fortress [akra] at the river Shanvata in order to buy wine to be supplied after the grape harvest, and when they supplied the wine they would pour an extra jug [kufita] of wine for him as a gift, although there was no stipulation between them requiring this. Ravina came before Rav Ashi to ask whether this involved interest. Ravina said to him: Is it permitted to do this? Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, it is permitted, as they forgo payment for the extra wine to your benefit in order to maintain good relations with you. Since the additional wine is not provided as consideration for the advance payment, there is no problem of interest.,Ravina said to him: But the land is not theirs. The people of the fortress at Shanvata worked land belonging to others who abandoned their fields because they could not pay the real estate taxes. The people of the fortress paid the taxes and were therefore able to use the fields. Ravina was concerned that perhaps they did not own the grapes and were therefore unable to forgo payment for the additional amount as it did not belong to them. Rav Ashi said to him: The land is liened to the king as payment for the taxes [letaska], and the king says: Whoever pays the tax may consume the produce of the land. Consequently, the ones who pay the taxes have ownership of the wine by dint of the law of the kingdom.,The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa said to Rava: Let the Master see these Sages who pay money for the tax [akarga] on behalf of other people and afterward make them work more than is reasonable for the amount of money they paid. Rava said to him: Now, if I were dead I could not say the explanation of this matter to you, so it is good that you asked me while I am still alive, as I know that this is what Rav Sheshet said: The document [moharkayyhu] of servitude of these people lies in the treasury of the king, i.e., all of his subjects are considered his servants, and the king said: The one who does not pay the head tax shall serve the one who does pay the head tax, and consequently, by dint of the law of the kingdom they can have them work as much as they want.,The Gemara relates: Rav Se’oram, the brother of Rava, would forcefully seize people who were not acting properly and have them carry Rava’s sedan chair. Rava said to him: You acted correctly, as we learn: If you see a Jew who does not behave properly, from where is it derived that you are permitted to have him work as a slave? The verse states: “of them you may take your slaves forever; and over your brothers” (Leviticus 25:46). It is derived from the conjunctive “and” linking the two clauses of the verse that there are circumstances where it is permitted to treat a fellow Jew as if he were a slave. One might have thought that this is the halakha even if a Jew acts properly. To counter this, the verse states in the continuation: “And over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.”,Rav Ḥama said: With regard to one who gave money to another to purchase wine for him, and the other, i.e., the agent, was negligent and did not purchase it for him, the agent must pay the one who gave him the money according to the going rate of wine in the port city of Zolshefat, where the main wine market was located, and he must purchase the wine according to the price in that market even if it is more expensive than the amount he was given initially.,Ameimar said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, and when he heard it he said: When Rav Ḥama said this, he said that statement in a case where the buyer asked the agent to purchase wine without specification concerning exactly which wine he wanted. But if he said to the agent: Buy this specific wine for me, the agent who neglected to buy the wine is not obligated to buy it at a higher price later, as when he was sent to buy it initially, who says that the owner would have sold it to him? The one who gave the money to the agent was aware of the fact that the agent may not be able to successfully purchase that specific wine. Consequently, the obligation of the agent is simply to return the money, and nothing may be added to that sum, due to the prohibition of interest.,Rav Ashi said: Even if he asked the agent to buy wine without specification, the agent is also not obligated to buy wine later for more than the amount he was given. What is the reason for this? The implicit obligation that the agent accepted upon himself, to pay the one who hired him with wine of a higher value than the amount of money he received, is a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta], as any situation where one will have to pay more money than he received is similar to the payment of a fine, and the acceptance of an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, as his acceptance is assumed to be insincere.,The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Ashi, in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (104a) concerning a rental agreement for land, in which a sharecropper agreed to cultivate a field in return for a share of the produce and wrote: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with the best-quality produce? In that case, the sharecropper agreed to pay the amount he caused the owner to lose due to his lack of activity, and it was not ruled an asmakhta. The Gemara answers: There, the matter is in his power, as he can decide whether to work the field or not to work it. |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, 55a, 58b, 72a, 84a, 84b, 117a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 201| 117a. אי דינא אי קנסא א"ל אי דינא גמרינן מיניה אי קנסא לא גמרינן מיניה,ומנא תימרא דמקנסא לא גמרינן דתניא בראשונה היו אומרים המטמא והמנסך חזרו לומר אף המדמע,חזרו אין לא חזרו לא מאי טעמא לאו משום דקנסא הוא וקנסא לא גמרינן מיניה,לא מעיקרא סברי להפסד מרובה חששו להפסד מועט לא חששו ולבסוף סברי להפסד מועט נמי חששו,איני והא תני אבוה דרבי אבין בראשונה היו אומרים המטמא והמדמע חזרו לומר אף המנסך חזרו אין לא חזרו לא,מאי טעמא לאו משום דלא גמרינן מקנסא,לא מעיקרא סברי כרבי אבין ולבסוף סברי כרבי ירמיה,מעיקרא סברי כרבי אבין דאמר רבי אבין זרק חץ מתחילת ארבע ולבסוף ארבע וקרע שיראין בהליכתו פטור שהרי עקירה צורך הנחה היא ומתחייב בנפשו,ולבסוף סברי כר' ירמיה דא"ר ירמיה משעת הגבהה קנייה איחייב ליה ממון מתחייב בנפשו לא הוי עד שעת ניסוך,רב הונא בר יהודה איקלע לבי אביוני אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל כלום מעשה בא לידך א"ל ישראל שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והראה ממון חבירו בא לידי וחייבתיו,א"ל אהדר עובדא למריה דתני ישראל שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והראה ממון חבירו פטור ואם נטל ונתן ביד חייב,אמר רבה אם הראה מעצמו כנשא ונתן ביד דמי,ההוא גברא דאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים ואחוי אחמרא דרב מרי בריה דרב פנחס בריה דרב חסדא א"ל דרי ואמטי בהדן דרא ואמטי בהדייהו אתא לקמיה דרב אשי פטריניה,א"ל רבנן לרב אשי והתניא אם נשא ונתן ביד חייב א"ל הני מילי היכא דלא אוקמיה עילויה מעיקרא אבל היכא דאוקמיה עילויה מעיקרא מיקלי קלייה,איתיביה רבי אבהו לרב אשי אמר לו אנס הושיט לי פקיע עמיר זה או אשכול ענבים זה והושיט לו חייב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דקאי בתרי עברי נהרא,דיקא נמי דקתני הושיט ולא תני תן ש"מ:,ההוא שותא דהוו מנצו עלה בי תרי האי אמר דידי הוא והאי אמר דידי הוא אזל חד מנייהו ומסרה לפרהגנא דמלכא אמר אביי יכול לומר אנא כי מסרי דידי מסרי א"ל רבא וכל כמיניה אלא אמר רבא משמתינן ליה עד דמייתי ליה וקאי בדינא,ההוא גברא דהוה בעי אחוויי אתיבנא דחבריה אתא לקמיה דרב א"ל לא תחוי ולא תחוי א"ל מחוינא ומחוינא יתיב רב כהנא קמיה דרב שמטיה לקועיה מיניה,קרי רב עילויה (ישעיהו נא, כ) בניך עולפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא מכמר מה תוא זה כיון שנפל במכמר אין מרחמין עליו אף ממון של ישראל כיון שנפל ביד עובדי כוכבים אין מרחמין עליו,א"ל רב כהנא עד האידנא הוו פרסאי דלא קפדי אשפיכות דמים והשתא איכא יוונאי דקפדו אשפיכות דמים ואמרי מרדין מרדין קום סק לארעא דישראל וקביל עלך דלא תקשי לרבי יוחנן שבע שנין,אזיל אשכחיה לריש לקיש דיתיב וקא מסיים מתיבתא דיומא לרבנן אמר להו ריש לקיש היכא אמרו ליה אמאי אמר להו האי קושיא והאי קושיא והאי פירוקא והאי פירוקא אמרו ליה לריש לקיש אזל ריש לקיש א"ל לרבי יוחנן ארי עלה מבבל לעיין מר במתיבתא דלמחר,למחר אותבוה בדרא קמא קמיה דר' יוחנן אמר שמעתתא ולא אקשי שמעתתא ולא אקשי אנחתיה אחורי שבע דרי עד דאותביה בדרא בתרא א"ל רבי יוחנן לר"ש בן לקיש ארי שאמרת נעשה שועל,אמר יהא רעוא דהני שבע דרי להוו חילוף שבע שנין דאמר לי רב קם אכרעיה א"ל נהדר מר ברישא אמר שמעתתא ואקשי אוקמיה בדרא קמא אמר שמעתתא ואקשי,ר' יוחנן הוה יתיב אשבע בסתרקי שלפי ליה חדא בסתרקא מתותיה אמר שמעתתא ואקשי ליה עד דשלפי ליה כולהו בסתרקי מתותיה עד דיתיב על ארעא רבי יוחנן גברא סבא הוה ומסרחי גביניה אמר להו דלו לי עיני ואחזייה דלו ליה במכחלתא דכספא,חזא דפרטיה שפוותיה סבר אחוך קמחייך ביה חלש דעתיה ונח נפשיה למחר אמר להו רבי יוחנן לרבנן חזיתו לבבלאה היכי עביד אמרו ליה דרכיה הכי על לגבי מערתא חזא דהוה | 117a. if it is the halakha or if it is a fine? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: If it is the halakha, we learn from it and apply this ruling to other cases, but if it is a fine, we do not learn from it, as it is possible that Rav Naḥman had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.,The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say that one who renders another’s food ritually impure, thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, and one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the ficial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who intermingles teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another’s non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.,The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the baraita that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list that yes, one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable. What is the reason that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? Is it not due to the fact that his payment is a fine, and with regard to a fine, we do not learn from one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?,The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, initially the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a large ficial loss, e.g., the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard to a small ficial loss, e.g., one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce, they were not concerned. And ultimately the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a small loss as well and imposed liability.,The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t the father of Rabbi Avin teach the baraita as follows: Initially they would say that one who renders another’s produce impure and one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the ficial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is also liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list, that yes, one who pours the libation is liable. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable.,The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large ficial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the baraita. Accordingly, what is the reason that the liability for pouring another’s wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another’s food impure or intermingling it with teruma? Is it not due to the fact that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?,The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that initially the Sages held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya.,The Gemara elaborates: Initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says: If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and shot an arrow from the beginning of an area measuring four cubits to the end of an area measuring four cubits, and the arrow tore another’s silks [shira’in] in the course of its travel through the air, the one who threw it is exempt from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is that lifting an item is a necessity for placing it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is liable to receive the death penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine.,And ultimately they held that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting, the thief acquires the wine and is therefore immediately liable to pay money to the owner. But he is not liable to receive the death penalty until the time that he pours the libation. Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.,§ The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another’s field to thugs. Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to the town of Bei Abiyonei and came before Rava, who said to him: Did any legal incident come to you for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: There was a case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another, which the gentiles later seized. He came to me for judgment, and I deemed him liable to compensate the owner for the loss.,Rava said to Rav Huna bar Yehuda: Reverse your decision in this case and return the money to its owner, i.e., the thug, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another that the gentiles later seized, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the property. But if he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, he is liable to compensate the owner.,The Gemara adds that Rabba says: If he showed the gentiles the property of his own volition, it is as though he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, and he is liable to compensate the owner.,The Gemara recounts another incident: There was a certain man that gentiles had coerced and so he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and the gentiles said to him: Carry the wine and bring it with us. Complying with the gentiles, he carried and brought it with them. The case came before Rav Ashi, and he exempted the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine.,The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If he took the property and manually transferred it to the gentiles, he is liable to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi said to them: That statement applies only in a case where the Jew did not bring the gentiles to the property at the outset; but if he brought the gentiles to the property at the outset, it is as though he already burned it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands.,Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi from a baraita: In a case where a ruffian said to a Jew: Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and the Jew passed it to him, the Jew is liable to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this baraita that one who hands over another’s property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Jew and the ruffian were standing on two different sides of a river, so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.,The Gemara points out that the language of the baraita is also precise according to this explanation, as it teaches its ruling using the term: Pass, which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, and it did not teach using the term: Give, which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi’s interpretation is correct.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain fishing net over which two people were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [lefarhagna] of the king. Abaye said: He is exempt from payment because he can say to the court: When I gave it to the official, I gave what is mine. Rava said to Abaye: And is it in his power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings the net back and stands in court for adjudication.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who desired to show another individual’s straw to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man said to him: I will show it and I will show it, i.e., I will certainly show it. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response, he dislodged the man’s neck from him, i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.,Seeing Rav Kahana’s action, Rav read the following verse about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, the hunter does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew’s money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant’s neck, as he protected the Jew’s property and, by extension, the Jew himself.,Rav then said to Rav Kahana: Kahana, until now there were Persian rulers who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they will say: Murder [meradin], murder, and they will press charges against you. Therefore, get up and ascend to Eretz Yisrael to study there under Rabbi Yoḥa, and accept upon yourself that you will not raise any difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥa for seven years.,Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael and found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing Rabbi Yoḥa’s daily lecture in the academy for the Rabbis, i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana said to the students: Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana said to them: I have this difficulty and that difficulty with his review of Rabbi Yoḥa’s lecture, and this resolution and that resolution to the questions he raised. They told this to Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish then went and said to Rabbi Yoḥa: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, and the Master ought to examine the discourse he will deliver in the academy tomorrow, as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material.,The next day, they seated Rav Kahana in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yoḥa. Rabbi Yoḥa stated a halakha and Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty, in accordance with Rav’s instruction. Rabbi Yoḥa stated another halakha and again, Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty. As a result, they placed Rav Kahana further back by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yoḥa said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, i.e., he is not knowledgeable.,Rav Kahana said to himself: May it be God’s will that these seven rows I have been moved should replace the seven years that Rav told me to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥa. He stood up on his feet and said to Rabbi Yoḥa: Let the Master go back to the beginning of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yoḥa stated a halakha and Rav Kahana raised a difficulty. Therefore, they placed him in the first row, and again, Rav Yoḥa stated a halakha, and he raised a difficulty.,Rabbi Yoḥa was sitting upon seven cushions [bistarkei] so that he could be seen by all the students, and since he could not answer Rav Kahana’s questions, he removed one cushion from under himself to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then stated another halakha and Rav Kahana raised another difficulty. This happened repeatedly until Rabbi Yoḥa removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yoḥa was an old man and his eyebrows drooped over his eyes. He said to his students: Uncover my eyes for me and I will see Rav Kahana, so they uncovered his eyes for him with a silver eye brush.,Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yoḥa saw that Rav Kahana’s lips were split and thought that Rav Kahana was smirking at him. As a result, Rabbi Yoḥa was offended, and Rav Kahana died as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yoḥa. The next day, Rabbi Yoḥa said to the Rabbis, his students: Did you see how that Babylonian, Rav Kahana, behaved in such a disrespectful manner? They said to him: His usual manner of appearance is such, and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥa went up to Rav Kahana’s burial cave and saw that it was |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, 60a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, in texts about romans Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 191 60a. לא יאמר אברור עשרה ואטול מהן אחד והשאר פטורים אלא כונסן לדיר ומוציא עשרה ונוטל מהן אחד והשאר מצטרפין לגורן אחר,והתניא תשעה עשר טלאים לא יאמר אברור עשרה ואטול מהן אחד והשאר פטורין אלא כונסן לדיר ומוציא עשרה ונוטל מהן אחד והשאר פטורין,תרגמה רב הונא בר סחורה קמיה דרבא בריגלא בדיר שיש לו שני פתחים עסקינן ויצאו ט' בפתח זה וט' בפתח זה דהאיך חד חזי להכא ולהכא,ולישני ליה כגון שמנה תשעה וכי מטא עשרה קרי חד מרישא קסבר עשירי מאליו קדוש,ולישני ליה בגורן ומנאן זוגות זוגות קסבר עשירי למנין בהמות הוא קדוש,אר"נ בר יצחק זכאי אימיה דרב הונא בר סחורה דשני ליה שמעתא בריגלא כשמעתיה:,| 60a. he may not say: I will separate ten and bring them into the pen, and I will take one of them as animal tithe, and the rest will be exempt. Rather, he must bring them all into the pen and remove ten of them by causing them to emerge from the opening, and take one of them, the tenth one, as animal tithe. And the remainder combine with animals born later, to be tithed in another designated time of gathering.,The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one has nineteen lambs he may not say: I will separate ten and bring them into the pen, and I will take one of them as animal tithe and the rest will be exempt; rather, he must bring them all into the pen and remove ten of them by causing them to emerge from the opening, and take one of them, the tenth one, and the remainder are exempt? According to this baraita, the remainder are not combined with animals born later.,Rav Huna bar Seḥora interpreted the baraita before Rava at the time of the Festival discourse: We are dealing with a pen that has two openings. And nine of the lambs emerged through this opening and nine of them went out through that opening, and this last one remaining in the pen is fit to come out here or to come out there. Therefore, all the lambs emerged as part of a tally fit to reach ten.,The Gemara challenges: But let him teach instead that the baraita is referring to a case where he counted nine, and when the tenth lamb arrived to be counted he called it number one and began counting again from the start. In such a case he designated only the nineteenth lamb that emerged as number ten, and therefore all the other lambs are exempt. The Gemara explains that Rav Huna bar Seḥora holds that the tenth animal to come out of the pen is sanctified of its own accord, even if it was designated as number one.,The Gemara challenges: But let him teach instead that the baraita is referring to a case of a designated time for gathering the animals, and that the pen has only one opening, but he counted them pair by pair, i.e., he called the first pair number one, the second pair number two, and so on. In this manner, the nineteenth lamb would be designated as number ten and thereby exempt the others. The Gemara explains that Rav Huna bar Seḥora holds that the tenth according to the number of animals is sanctified, regardless of how he counts them. Accordingly, one of the fifth pair would be the tithed animal, and the remaining nine would not be considered part of a tally fit to reach ten.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said with regard to this incident: The mother of Rav Huna bar Seḥora merited to give birth to such a son, who explained the halakha before Rava at the time of the Festival discourse in accordance with Rava’s own halakha.,two animals emerged as one, one counts them as twos, i.e., as though they came out one after the other. If he mistakenly counted two of the animals at the beginning or in the middle of the ten as one, and then continued his count, the ninth and the tenth are flawed, as he called the tenth: Ninth, and he called the eleventh: Tenth.,If he mistakenly called the ninth: Tenth, and the tenth: Ninth, and the eleventh: Tenth, the three of them are sacred, although each has a different halakhic status. The ninth is eaten in its blemished state; and the tenth is animal tithe, which is sacrificed in the Temple and eaten by its owner; and the eleventh is sacrificed as a peace offering, from which the breast and the thigh are given to the priest. And the eleventh renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for the peace offering consecrated as a substitute and he sacrifices it as a peace offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.,Rabbi Yehuda said: The eleventh animal itself, which he called tenth, is a substitute for animal tithe, and does a substitute render another animal a substitute? Everyone agrees that a substitute is created only in exchange for an originally consecrated animal. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir: The eleventh animal is not considered a substitute for the animal tithe, since if it were a substitute it would not be sacrificed, as the substitute for an animal tithe is not sacrificed. If one called the ninth animal: Tenth, and the tenth: Tenth, and the eleventh: Tenth, the eleventh is not consecrated. This is the principle: In any situation where the name of the tenth was not removed from the tenth animal, the eleventh that was called the tenth is not consecrated.,Rabbi Yoḥa says: If one counted the animals pair by pair, i.e., he called the first pair: One, and the second pair: Two, and so on, or if one counted them hundred [kinteran] by hundred, the tenth according to his number is sanctified.,The Gemara asks: When Rabbi Yoḥa says that the tenth is sanctified according to his number, what does he mean? Rav Mari says: It is sanctified according to his counting, i.e., all the animals in whichever pair or group he calls: Ten, are sanctified, e.g., the tenth pair, which consists of the nineteenth and twentieth animals. Rav Kahana says: It is sanctified according to the number of animals, regardless of how he designates them.,The Gemara cites support for Rav Mari’s opinion. We learned in the mishna: If two animals emerged as one, one counts them as twos. If he mistakenly counted a pair of animals in the middle as one and continued his count, the ninth and the tenth are flawed, as he called the tenth: Ninth, and the eleventh: Tenth.,Granted, according to the one who says: It is sanctified according to his counting, i.e., Rav Mari, it is due to that reason that the ninth and the tenth are flawed, because the number by which one designates them is significant, and he called the tenth animal the ninth, and the eleventh he designated as tenth. But according to the one who says that the animal is sanctified according to the number of animals regardless of how the owner designates each one, i.e., Rav Kahana, why are they flawed? It should be considered as though he called the ninth animal the ninth, and the tenth animal he called: Tenth.,The Gemara answers that according to Rav Kahana, Rabbi Yoḥa could have said to you: When I said the designation goes according to the animal I was referring only to a case where he intended to take out the animals pair by pair, and he did not err. In such a case his designation is nullified and the animals are sanctified in accordance with the order they left the pen. But with regard to a case where the animal emerged by itself and the owner miscounted I did not say the designation goes according to the number of the animal, as the Torah explicitly includes a case where the sanctification follows a mistaken designation (see 60b).,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: If one counted them backward, i.e., ten, nine, eight, and so on, the tenth animal in the numbering, which he designated as number one, is sanctified. Granted, according to the one who says that the tithe is sanctified according to the number of animals regardless of how he designates each animal, i.e., Rav Kahana, this works out well, as the tenth animal is sanctified. But according to the one who says it is sanctified according to his counting, i.e., Rav Mari, why is the tenth animal sanctified? After all, he called the tenth animal number one.,Rava said: The tenth animal is sanctified according to Rav Mari because it has been counted as number ten in Persian counting, as they call the tenth one in their language by the term one, i.e., they count only in units of ten, and call these units: One. Therefore, in this case there is no contradiction between the designation and the number of the animal. | |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 40a, 46b, 56a, 8b, 58a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 115| 58a. אמר רבי ירמיה בן אלעזר נתקללה בבל נתקללו שכניה נתקללה שומרון נתברכו שכניה נתקללה בבל נתקללו שכניה דכתיב (ישעיהו יד, כג) ושמתיה למורש קפוד ואגמי מים נתקללה שומרון נתברכו שכניה דכתיב (מיכה א, ו) ושמתי שומרון לעי השדה למטעי כרם וגו',ואמר רב המנונא הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים אוכלוסי עובדי כוכבים אומר (ירמיהו נ, יב) בושה אמכם וגו',ת"ר הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים שאין דעתם דומה זה לזה ואין פרצופיהן דומים זה לזה בן זומא ראה אוכלוסא על גב מעלה בהר הבית אמר ברוך חכם הרזים וברוך שברא כל אלו לשמשני,הוא היה אומר כמה יגיעות יגע אדם הראשון עד שמצא פת לאכול חרש וזרע וקצר ועמר ודש וזרה וברר וטחן והרקיד ולש ואפה ואח"כ אכל ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו מתוקנין לפני וכמה יגיעות יגע אדם הראשון עד שמצא בגד ללבוש גזז ולבן ונפץ וטוה וארג ואחר כך מצא בגד ללבוש ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו מתוקנים לפני כל אומות שוקדות ובאות לפתח ביתי ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו לפני,הוא היה אומר אורח טוב מהו אומר כמה טרחות טרח בעל הבית בשבילי כמה בשר הביא לפני כמה יין הביא לפני כמה גלוסקאות הביא לפני וכל מה שטרח לא טרח אלא בשבילי אבל אורח רע מהו אומר מה טורח טרח בעל הבית זה פת אחת אכלתי חתיכה אחת אכלתי כוס אחד שתיתי כל טורח שטרח בעל הבית זה לא טרח אלא בשביל אשתו ובניו,על אורח טוב מהו אומר (איוב לו, כד) זכור כי תשגיא פעלו אשר שוררו אנשים על אורח רע כתיב (איוב לז, כד) לכן יראוהו אנשים וגו',(שמואל א יז, יב) והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים אמר רבא ואיתימא רב זביד ואיתימא רב אושעיא זה ישי אבי דוד שיצא באוכלוסא ונכנס באוכלוסא ודרש באוכלוסא אמר עולא נקיטינן אין אוכלוסא בבבל תנא אין אוכלוסא פחותה מששים רבוא,ת"ר הרואה חכמי ישראל אומר ברוך שחלק מחכמתו ליראיו חכמי עובדי כוכבים אומר ברוך שנתן מחכמתו לבריותיו הרואה מלכי ישראל אומר ברוך שחלק מכבודו ליראיו מלכי עובדי כוכבים אומר ברוך שנתן מכבודו לבריותיו,א"ר יוחנן לעולם ישתדל אדם לרוץ לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אלא אפי' לקראת מלכי עובדי כוכבים שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עובדי כוכבים,רב ששת סגי נהור הוה הוו קאזלי כולי עלמא לקבולי אפי מלכא וקם אזל בהדייהו רב ששת אשכחיה ההוא צדוקי אמר ליה חצבי לנהרא כגני לייא אמר ליה תא חזי דידענא טפי מינך חלף גונדא קמייתא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי אתא מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קאתי חלף גונדא תניינא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי השתא קא אתי מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קא אתי מלכא חליף תליתאי כי קא שתקא אמר ליה רב ששת ודאי השתא אתי מלכא,אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי מנא לך הא אמר ליה דמלכותא דארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא דכתיב (מלכים א יט, יא) צא ועמדת בהר לפני ה' והנה ה' עובר ורוח גדולה וחזק מפרק הרים ומשבר סלעים לפני ה' לא ברוח ה' ואחר הרוח רעש לא ברעש ה' ואחר הרעש אש לא באש ה' ואחר האש קול דממה דקה,כי אתא מלכא פתח רב ששת וקא מברך ליה אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי למאן דלא חזית ליה קא מברכת ומאי הוי עליה דההוא צדוקי איכא דאמרי חברוהי כחלינהו לעיניה ואיכא דאמרי רב ששת נתן עיניו בו ונעשה גל של עצמות,ר' שילא נגדיה לההוא גברא דבעל מצרית אזל אכל ביה קורצי בי מלכא אמר איכא חד גברא ביהודאי דקא דיין דינא בלא הרמנא דמלכא שדר עליה פריסתקא כי אתא אמרי ליה מה טעמא נגדתיה להאי אמר להו דבא על חמרתא אמרי ליה אית לך סהדי אמר להו אין אתא אליהו אדמי ליה כאיניש ואסהיד אמרי ליה אי הכי בר קטלא הוא אמר להו אנן מיומא דגלינן מארעין לית לן רשותא למקטל אתון מאי דבעיתון עבידו ביה,עד דמעייני ביה בדינא פתח ר' שילא ואמר (דברי הימים א כט, יא) לך ה' הגדולה והגבורה וגו' אמרי ליה מאי קאמרת אמר להו הכי קאמינא בריך רחמנא דיהיב מלכותא בארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא ויהב לכו שולטנא ורחמי דינא אמרו חביבא עליה יקרא דמלכותא כולי האי יהבי ליה קולפא אמרו ליה דון דינא,כי הוה נפיק אמר ליה ההוא גברא עביד רחמנא ניסא לשקרי הכי אמר ליה רשע לאו חמרי איקרו דכתיב (יחזקאל כג, כ) אשר בשר חמורים בשרם חזייה דקאזיל למימרא להו דקרינהו חמרי אמר האי רודף הוא והתורה אמרה אם בא להרגך השכם להרגו מחייה בקולפא וקטליה,אמר הואיל ואתעביד לי ניסא בהאי קרא דרשינא ליה לך ה' הגדולה זו מעשה בראשית וכן הוא אומר (איוב ט, י) עושה גדולות עד אין חקר והגבורה זו יציאת מצרים שנאמר (שמות יד, לא) וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה וגו' והתפארת זו חמה ולבנה שיעמדו לו ליהושע שנאמר (יהושע י, יג) וידום השמש וירח עמד וגו' והנצח זו מפלתה של רומי וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו סג, ג) ויז נצחם על בגדי וגו' וההוד זו מלחמת נחלי ארנון שנאמר (במדבר כא, יד) על כן יאמר בספר מלחמות ה' את והב בסופה וגו' כי כל בשמים ובארץ זו מלחמת סיסרא שנאמר (שופטים ה, כ) מן שמים נלחמו הכוכבים ממסלותם וגו' לך ה' הממלכה זו מלחמת עמלק וכן הוא אומר (שמות יז, טז) כי יד על כס יה והמתנשא זו מלחמת גוג ומגוג וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל לח, ג) הנני אליך גוג נשיא ראש משך ותובל לכל לראש אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר ר' יוחנן אפילו ריש גרגיתא מן שמיא מנו ליה,במתניתא תנא משמיה דרבי עקיבא לך ה' הגדולה זו קריעת ים סוף והגבורה זו מכת בכורות והתפארת זו מתן תורה והנצח זו ירושלים וההוד זו בית המקדש: | 58a. With regard to Babylonia, the Gemara cites what Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: When Babylonia was cursed, its neighbors were cursed along with it. When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed. When Babylonia was cursed its neighbors were cursed along with it, as it is written: “I will also make it a possession for the bittern, a wading bird, and pools of water” (Isaiah 14:23); not only will it be destroyed, but the site will become a habitat for destructive, environmentally harmful creatures. When Samaria was cursed, however, its neighbors were blessed, as it is written: “Therefore I will make Samaria a heap in the field, a place for the planting of vineyards” (Micah 1:6); although destroyed, it will serve a beneficial purpose.,And Rav Hamnuna said: One who sees multitudes of Israel, six hundred thousand Jews, recites: Blessed…Who knows all secrets. One who sees multitudes of gentiles recites: “Your mother shall be sore ashamed, she that bore you shall be confounded; behold, the hindermost of the nations shall be a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert” (Jeremiah 50:12).,The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who sees multitudes of Israel recites: Blessed…Who knows all secrets. Why is this? He sees a whole nation whose minds are unlike each other and whose faces are unlike each other, and He Who knows all secrets, God, knows what is in each of their hearts. The Gemara relates: Ben Zoma once saw a multitude [okhlosa] of Israel while standing on a stair on the Temple Mount. He immediately recited: Blessed…Who knows all secrets and Blessed…Who created all these to serve me.,Explaining his custom, he would say: How much effort did Adam the first man exert before he found bread to eat: He plowed, sowed, reaped, sheaved, threshed, winnowed in the wind, separated the grain from the chaff, ground the grain into flour, sifted, kneaded, and baked and only thereafter he ate. And I, on the other hand, wake up and find all of these prepared for me. Human society employs a division of labor, and each individual benefits from the service of the entire world. Similarly, how much effort did Adam the first man exert before he found a garment to wear? He sheared, laundered, combed, spun and wove, and only thereafter he found a garment to wear. And I, on the other hand, wake up and find all of these prepared for me. Members of all nations, merchants and craftsmen, diligently come to the entrance of my home, and I wake up and find all of these before me.,Ben Zoma would say: A good guest, what does he say? How much effort did the host expend on my behalf, how much meat did the host bring before me. How much wine did he bring before me. How many loaves [geluskaot] did he bring before me. All the effort that he expended, he expended only for me. However, a bad guest, what does he say? What effort did the host expend? I ate only one piece of bread, I ate only one piece of meat and I drank only one cup of wine. All the effort that the home owner expended he only expended on behalf of his wife and children.,With regard to a good guest, what does he say? “Remember that you magnify his work, whereof men have sung” (Job 36:24); he praises and acknowledges those who helped him. With regard to a bad guest it is written: “Men do therefore fear him; he regards not any who are wise of heart” (Job 37:24).,On the topic of multitudes, the Gemara cites another verse: “And the man in the days of Saul was old, and came among men” (I Samuel 17:12). Rava, and some say Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Oshaya, said: This refers to Yishai, father of David, who always went out with multitudes, and entered with multitudes, and taught Torah with multitudes. Ulla said: We hold there is no multitude in Babylonia. The Sage taught: A multitude is no fewer than six hundred thousand people.,The Sages taught: One who sees the Sages of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His wisdom with those who revere Him. One who sees Sages of the nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His wisdom to flesh and blood. One who sees kings of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His glory with those who revere Him. One who sees kings of the other nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: One should always strive to run toward kings of Israel to greet them. And not only should he run toward kings of Israel, but also toward kings of the nations of the world, so that if he will be privileged to witnesses the glory of the Messiah (Rashi) and the World-to-Come, he will distinguish between the kings of Israel and the kings of the nations of the world.,The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet was blind. Everyone was going to greet the king and Rav Sheshet stood up and went along with them. This heretic found him there and said to him: The intact jugs go to the river, where do the broken jugs go? Why is a blind person going to see the king? Rav Sheshet said to him: Come see that I know more than you do. The first troop passed, and when the noise grew louder, this heretic said to him: The king is coming. Rav Sheshet said to him: The king is not coming. The second troop passed, and when the noise grew louder, this heretic said to him: Now the king is coming. Rav Sheshet said to him: The king is not coming. The third troop passed, and when there was silence, Rav Sheshet said to him: Certainly now the king is coming.,This heretic said to him: How do you know this? Rav Sheshet said to him: Royalty on earth is like royalty in the heavens, as it is written with regard to God’s revelation to Elijah the Prophet on Mount Horeb: r“And He said: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord.rAnd, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord;rbut the Lord was not in the wind;rand after the wind an earthquake;rbut the Lord was not in the earthquake;rand after the earthquake a fire;rbut the Lord was not in the fire;rand after the fire a still small voice.rAnd it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave” (I Kings 19:11–13). God’s revelation was specifically at the moment of silence.,When the king came, Rav Sheshet began to bless him. The heretic mockingly said to him: Do you bless someone you do not see? The Gemara asks: And what ultimately happened to this heretic? Some say that his friends gouged out his eyes, and some say that Rav Sheshet fixed his gaze upon him, and the heretic became a pile of bones.,As for the connection between divine and earthly royalty, the Gemara cites another story: Rabbi Sheila ordered that a man who had relations with a gentile woman be flogged. That man went to inform the king and said: There is one man among the Jews who renders judgment without the king’s authority [harmana]. The king sent a messenger [peristaka] for Rabbi Sheila to bring him to trial. When Rabbi Sheila came, they said to him: Why did you order flogging for this man? He said to them: Because he had relations with a female donkey. According to Persian law this was an extremely heinous crime, so they said to him: Do you have witnesses that he did so? He replied: Yes, and Elijah the prophet came and appeared as a person and testified. They said to Rabbi Sheila: If so, he is liable for the death penalty; why did you not sentence him to death? He replied: Since the day we were exiled from our land we do not have the authority to execute, but you, do with him as you wish.,As they considered the sentence, Rabbi Sheila praised God for saving him from danger: “Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, power, glory, triumph, and majesty; for all that is in heaven and on earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and You are exalted as head above all” (I Chronicles 29:11). They asked him: What did you say? He told them: This is what I said: Blessed is Merciful One who grants kingdom on earth that is a microcosm of the kingdom in heaven, and granted you dominion and love of justice. They said to him: Indeed, the honor of royalty is so dear to you. They gave him a staff to symbolize his license to sit in judgment and said to him: Judge.,As he was leaving, that man said to Rabbi Sheila: Does God perform such miracles for liars? He replied: Scoundrel! Aren’t gentiles called donkeys? As it is written: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20). Rabbi Sheila saw that he was going to tell the Persian authorities that he called them donkeys. He said: This man has the legal status of a pursuer. He seeks to have me killed. And the Torah said: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. He struck him with the staff and killed him.,Rabbi Sheila said: Since a miracle was performed on my behalf with this verse that I cited, I will interpret it homiletically: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness; that is the act of creation, and so it says: “Who does great things past finding out” (Job 9:10); rAnd the power; that is the exodus from Egypt, as it is stated: “And Israel saw the great work which the Lord did to the Egyptians” (Exodus 14:31);rAnd the glory; that is the sun and the moon that stood still for Joshua, as it is stated: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies” (Joshua 10:13);rAnd the triumph; that is the downfall of Rome, and so it says describing the downfall of Edom, whom the Sages identified as the forefather of Rome: “Their lifeblood is dashed against My garments and I have stained all My raiment” (Isaiah 63:3);rAnd the majesty; this is the war of the valleys of Arnon, as it is stated: “Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord: Vahev in Sufa, and the valleys of Arnon” (Numbers 21:14);rFor all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Yours; this is the war of Sisera, as it is stated: “They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera” (Judges 5:20).rYours is the kingdom, O Lord; this is the war of Amalek, and so it says: “And he said: The hand upon the throne of the Lord: the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:16), as then God will sit on His throne.rAnd you are exalted; this is the war of Gog and Magog, and so it says: “I am against you, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshekh and Tubal” (Ezekiel 38:3); and:rAs head above all; Rav Ḥa bar Rava said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: All leadership and authority, even the most insignificant, the one responsible for distributing water, is appointed by heaven.,It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva: rYours, O Lord, is the greatness; this is the splitting of the Red Sea;rthe power; this is the plague of the firstborn;rthe glory; this is the giving of the Torah;rthe triumph; this is Jerusalem; rand the majesty; this is the Temple. |
|
| 32. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 29b, 59a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 188, 217 |
33. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, 53a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •shmuel, iranian loanwords attributed to •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 77| 53a. אשה היתה בוררת חטים לאור של בית השואבה:,חסידים ואנשי מעשה כו': ת"ר יש מהן אומרים אשרי ילדותנו שלא ביישה את זקנותנו אלו חסידים ואנשי מעשה ויש מהן אומרים אשרי זקנותנו שכפרה את ילדותנו אלו בעלי תשובה אלו ואלו אומרים אשרי מי שלא חטא ומי שחטא ישוב וימחול לו,תניא אמרו עליו על הלל הזקן כשהיה שמח בשמחת בית השואבה אמר כן אם אני כאן הכל כאן ואם איני כאן מי כאן הוא היה אומר כן למקום שאני אוהב שם רגלי מוליכות אותי אם תבא אל ביתי אני אבא אל ביתך אם אתה לא תבא אל ביתי אני לא אבא אל ביתך שנאמר (שמות כ, כד) בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבא אליך וברכתיך,אף הוא ראה גלגולת אחת שצפה על פני המים אמר לה על דאטפת אטפוך ומטיפיך יטופון אמר רבי יוחנן רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה,הנהו תרתי כושאי דהוו קיימי קמי שלמה (מלכים א ד, ג) אליחרף ואחיה בני שישא סופרים דשלמה הוו יומא חד חזייה למלאך המות דהוה קא עציב א"ל אמאי עציבת א"ל דקא בעו מינאי הני תרתי כושאי דיתבי הכא מסרינהו לשעירים שדרינהו למחוזא דלוז כי מטו למחוזא דלוז שכיבו,למחר חזיא מלאך המות דהוה קבדח א"ל אמאי בדיחת א"ל באתר דבעו מינאי תמן שדרתינהו מיד פתח שלמה ואמר רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה,תניא אמרו עליו על רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כשהיה שמח שמחת בית השואבה היה נוטל שמנה אבוקות של אור וזורק אחת ונוטל אחת ואין נוגעות זו בזו וכשהוא משתחוה נועץ שני גודליו בארץ ושוחה ונושק את הרצפה וזוקף ואין כל בריה יכולה לעשות כן וזו היא קידה,לוי אחוי קידה קמיה דרבי ואיטלע והא גרמא ליה והאמר רבי אלעזר לעולם אל יטיח אדם דברים כלפי מעלה שהרי אדם גדול הטיח דברים כלפי מעלה ואיטלע ומנו לוי הא והא גרמא ליה,לוי הוה מטייל קמיה דרבי בתמני סכיני שמואל קמיה שבור מלכא בתמניא מזגי חמרא אביי קמיה (דרבא) בתמניא ביעי ואמרי לה בארבעה ביעי,תניא אמר ר' יהושע בן חנניה כשהיינו שמחים שמחת בית השואבה לא ראינו שינה בעינינו כיצד שעה ראשונה תמיד של שחר משם לתפלה משם לקרבן מוסף משם לתפלת המוספין משם לבית המדרש משם לאכילה ושתיה משם לתפלת המנחה משם לתמיד של בין הערבים מכאן ואילך לשמחת בית השואבה,איני והאמר רבי יוחנן שבועה שלא אישן שלשה ימים מלקין אותו וישן לאלתר אלא הכי קאמר לא טעמנו טעם שינה דהוו מנמנמי אכתפא דהדדי:,חמש עשרה מעלות: אמר ליה רב חסדא לההוא מדרבנן דהוי קמסדר אגדתא קמיה א"ל שמיע לך הני חמש עשרה מעלות כנגד מי אמרם דוד א"ל הכי אמר רבי יוחנן בשעה שכרה דוד שיתין קפא תהומא ובעי למשטפא עלמא אמר דוד חמש עשרה מעלות והורידן אי הכי חמש עשרה מעלות יורדות מיבעי ליה,אמר ליה הואיל ואדכרתן (מלתא) הכי אתמר בשעה שכרה דוד שיתין קפא תהומא ובעא למשטפא עלמא אמר דוד מי איכא דידע אי שרי למכתב שם | 53a. It was so bright that a woman would be able to sort wheat by the light of the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.,§ The mishna continues: The pious and the men of action would dance before the people who attended the celebration. The Sages taught in the Tosefta that some of them would say in their song praising God: Happy is our youth, as we did not sin then, that did not embarrass our old age. These are the pious and the men of action, who spent all their lives engaged in Torah and mitzvot. And some would say: Happy is our old age, that atoned for our youth when we sinned. These are the penitents. Both these and those say: Happy is he who did not sin; and he who sinned should repent and God will absolve him.,It is taught in the Tosefta: They said about Hillel the Elder that when he was rejoicing at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water he said this: If I am here, everyone is here; and if I am not here, who is here? In other words, one must consider himself as the one upon whom it is incumbent to fulfill obligations, and he must not rely on others to do so. He would also say this: To the place that I love, there my feet take me, and therefore, I come to the Temple. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If you come to My house, I will come to your house; if you do not come to My house, I will not come to your house, as it is stated: “In every place that I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).,The Gemara cites another statement of Hillel the Elder. Additionally, he saw one skull that was floating on the water and he said to it: Because you drowned others, they drowned you, and those that drowned you will be drowned. That is the way of the world; everyone is punished measure for measure. Apropos following one’s feet, Rabbi Yoḥa said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.,The Gemara relates with regard to these two Cushites who would stand before Solomon: “Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha” (I Kings 4:3), and they were scribes of Solomon. One day Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was sad. He said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: They are asking me to take the lives of these two Cushites who are sitting here. Solomon handed them to the demons in his service, and sent them to the district of Luz, where the Angel of Death has no dominion. When they arrived at the district of Luz, they died.,The following day, Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was happy. He said to him: Why are you happy? He replied: In the place that they asked me to take them, there you sent them. The Angel of Death was instructed to take their lives in the district of Luz. Since they resided in Solomon’s palace and never went to Luz, he was unable to complete his mission. That saddened him. Ultimately, Solomon dispatched them to Luz, enabling the angel to accomplish his mission. That pleased him. Immediately, Solomon began to speak and said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.,§ It is taught in a baraita: They said about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that when he would rejoice at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, he would take eight flaming torches and toss one and catch another, juggling them, and, though all were in the air at the same time, they would not touch each other. And when he would prostrate himself, he would insert his two thumbs into the ground, and bow, and kiss the floor of the courtyard and straighten, and there was not any other creature that could do that due to the extreme difficulty involved. And this was the form of bowing called kidda performed by the High Priest.,The Gemara relates: Levi demonstrated a kidda before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and strained his thigh and came up lame. The Gemara asks: And is that what caused him to be lame? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: One should never speak impertinently toward God above; as a great person once spoke impertinently toward God above, and even though his prayers were answered, he was still punished and came up lame. And who was this great person? It was Levi. Apparently his condition was not caused by his bow. The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction. Both this and that caused him to come up lame; because he spoke impertinently toward God, he therefore was injured when exerting himself in demonstrating kidda.,Apropos the rejoicing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, the Gemara recounts: Levi would walk before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi juggling with eight knives. Shmuel would juggle before King Shapur with eight glasses of wine without spilling. Abaye would juggle before Rabba with eight eggs. Some say he did so with four eggs. All these were cited.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said: When we would rejoice in the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, we did not see sleep in our eyes the entire Festival. How so? In the first hour of the day, the daily morning offering was sacrificed and everyone came to watch. From there they proceeded to engage in prayer in the synagogue; from there, to watch the sacrifice of the additional offerings; from there, to the synagogue to recite the additional prayer. From there they would proceed to the study hall to study Torah; from there to the eating and drinking in the sukka; from there to the afternoon prayer. From there they would proceed to the daily afternoon offering in the Temple. From this point forward, they proceeded to the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.,The Gemara wonders: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: One who took an oath that I will not sleep three days, one flogs him immediately for taking an oath in vain, and he may sleep immediately because it is impossible to stay awake for three days uninterrupted. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehoshua is saying: We did not experience the sense of actual sleep, because they would merely doze on each other’s shoulders. In any case, they were not actually awake for the entire week.,§ The mishna continues: The musicians would stand on the fifteen stairs that descend from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of the Ascents in Psalms. Rav Ḥisda said to one of the Sages who was organizing aggada before him: Did you hear with regard to these fifteen Songs of Ascents in Psalms, corresponding to what did David say them? He said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥa said: At the time that David dug the drainpipes in the foundation of the Temple, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. Immediately, David recited the fifteen Songs of the Ascents and caused them to subside. Rav Ḥisda asked: If so, should they be called fifteen Songs of the Ascents? They should have been called Songs of the Descents.,Rav Ḥisda continued and said to him: Since you reminded me of this matter, this is what was originally stated: At the time that David dug the drainpipes, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. David said: Is there anyone who knows whether it is permitted to write the sacred name |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, 5b, 14a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 216| 14a. קודם שנברא העולם ולא נבראו עמד הקב"ה ושתלן בכל דור ודור והן הן עזי פנים שבדור,ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אשר קומטו לברכה הוא דכתיב אלו תלמידי חכמים שמקמטין עצמן על דברי תורה בעולם הזה הקב"ה מגלה להם סוד לעולם הבא שנאמר (איוב כב, טז) נהר יוצק יסודם,אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא אימא לך מילתא מהני מילי מעליותא דהוה אמר אבוך כל יומא ויומא נבראין מלאכי השרת מנהר דינור ואמרי שירה ובטלי שנאמר (איכה ג, כג) חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך ופליגא דר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל דיבור ודיבור שיוצא מפי הקב"ה נברא ממנו מלאך אחד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ו) בדבר ה' שמים נעשו וברוח פיו כל צבאם,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) לבושיה כתלג חיור ושער (רישיה) כעמר נקא וכתיב (שיר השירים ה, יא) קוצותיו תלתלים שחורות כעורב לא קשיא כאן בישיבה כאן במלחמה דאמר מר אין לך נאה בישיבה אלא זקן ואין לך נאה במלחמה אלא בחור,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) כרסיה שביבין דינור וכתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) עד די כרסון רמיו ועתיק יומין יתיב לא קשיא אחד לו ואחד לדוד כדתניא אחד לו ואחד לדוד דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' יוסי הגלילי עקיבא עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול אלא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה,קיבלה מיניה או לא קיבלה מיניה ת"ש אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו ר"א בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלך מדברותיך אצל נגעים ואהלות אלא אחד לכסא ואחד לשרפרף כסא לישב עליו שרפרף להדום רגליו שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי,כי אתא רב דימי אמר שמונה עשרה קללות קילל ישעיה את ישראל ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם המקרא הזה (ישעיהו ג, ה) ירהבו הנער בזקן והנקלה בנכבד,שמונה עשרה קללות מאי נינהו דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, א) כי הנה האדון ה' צבאות מסיר מירושלם ומיהודה משען ומשענה כל משען לחם וכל משען מים גבור ואיש מלחמה שופט ונביא וקוסם וזקן שר חמשים ונשוא פנים ויועץ וחכם חרשים ונבון לחש ונתתי נערים שריהם ותעלולים ימשלו בם וגו',משען אלו בעלי מקרא משענה אלו בעלי משנה כגון ר"י בן תימא וחביריו פליגו בה רב פפא ורבנן חד אמר שש מאות סדרי משנה וחד אמר שבע מאות סדרי משנה,כל משען לחם אלו בעלי תלמוד שנאמר (משלי ט, ה) לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי וכל משען מים אלו בעלי אגדה שמושכין לבו של אדם כמים באגדה גבור זה בעל שמועות ואיש מלחמה זה שיודע לישא וליתן במלחמתה של תורה שופט זה דיין שדן דין אמת לאמיתו נביא כמשמעו קוסם זה מלך שנאמר (משלי טז, י) קסם על שפתי מלך זקן זה שראוי לישיבה,שר חמשים אל תקרי שר חמשים אלא שר חומשין זה שיודע לישא וליתן בחמשה חומשי תורה דבר אחר שר חמשים כדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו מכאן שאין מעמידין מתורגמן על הצבור פחות מחמשים שנה ונשוא פנים זה שנושאין פנים לדורו בעבורו למעלה כגון רבי חנינא בן דוסא למטה כגון רבי אבהו בי קיסר,יועץ שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים וחכם זה תלמיד המחכים את רבותיו חרשים בשעה שפותח בדברי תורה הכל נעשין כחרשין ונבון זה המבין דבר מתוך דבר לחש זה שראוי למסור לו דברי תורה שניתנה בלחש,ונתתי נערים שריהם מאי ונתתי נערים שריהם א"ר אלעזר אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות,ותעלולים ימשלו בם אמר רב (פפא) בר יעקב תעלי בני תעלי ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם ירהבו הנער בזקן (והנקלה בנכבד) אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות ירהבו במי שממולא במצות כרמון והנקלה בנכבד יבא מי שחמורות דומות עליו כקלות וירהבו במי שקלות דומות עליו כחמורות,אמר רב קטינא אפי' בשעת כשלונה של ירושלים לא פסקו מהם בעלי אמנה שנא' (ישעיהו ג, ו) כי יתפש איש באחיו בית אביו (לאמר) שמלה לך קצין תהיה לנו דברים שבני אדם מתכסין כשמלה ישנן תחת ידך,(ישעיהו ג, ו) והמכשלה הזאת מאי והמכשלה הזאת דברים שאין בני אדם עומדין עליהן אא"כ נכשל בהן ישנן תחת ידך (ישעיהו ג, ז) ישא ביום ההוא לאמר לא אהיה חובש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה לא תשימוני קצין עם ישא אין ישא אלא לשון שבועה שנאמר (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לא אהיה חובש לא הייתי מחובשי בית המדרש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה שאין בידי לא מקרא ולא משנה ולא גמרא,ודלמא שאני התם דאי אמר להו גמירנא אמרי ליה אימא לן הוה ליה למימר גמר ושכח מאי לא אהיה חובש לא אהיה חובש כלל,איני והאמר רבא לא חרבה ירושלים עד שפסקו ממנה בעלי אמנה שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, א) שוטטו בחוצות ירושלם וראו נא ודעו ובקשו ברחובותיה אם תמצאו איש אם יש עושה משפט מבקש אמונה ואסלח לה לא קשיא | 14a. before the creation of the world, but they were not created. The Torah was supposed to have been given a thousand generations after the world was created, as it is written: “He commanded His word for a thousand generations” (Psalms 105:8), but God gave it earlier, after only twenty-six generations, so that nine-hundred and seventy-four generations should have been created but were not. The Holy One, Blessed be He, acted by planting a few of them in each and every generation, and they are the insolent ones of the generation, as they belonged to generations that should not have been created at all.,And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the verse: “Who were snatched [kumtu]” (Job 22:16), is written for a blessing, as the verse is not referring to lowly, cursed people, but to the blessed. These are Torah scholars, who shrivel [mekamtin], i.e., humble, themselves over the words of Torah in this world. The Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals a secret to them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Whose foundation [yesodam] was poured out as a stream” (Job 22:16), implying that He will provide them with an abundant knowledge of secret matters [sod].,Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of great ones, come and I will tell you something of the great things that your father would say: Each and every day, ministering angels are created from the River Dinur, and they recite song to God and then immediately cease to exist, as it is stated: “They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” (Lamentations 3:23), indicating that new angels praise God each morning. The Gemara comments: And this opinion disagrees with that of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With each and every word that emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created, as it is stated: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts” (Psalms 33:6). The hosts of heaven are the angels, who, he claims, are created from the mouth of God, rather than from the River Dinur.,§ The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure white wool” (Daniel 7:9), and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is in the heavenly academy, while there the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is at war, for the Master said: There is no finer individual to study Torah in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer individual to wage war than a youth. A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion.,The Gemara poses another question: One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” (Daniel 7:9), and another phrase in the same verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. One throne is for Him and one is for David, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue: One throne for Him and one for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? Rather, the two thrones are designated for different purposes: One for judgment and one for righteousness.,The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva accept this rebuff from him, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara offers a proof: Come and hear the following teaching of a different baraita: One throne is for judgment and one is for righteousness; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take [kelakh] your words to the topics of plagues and tents. Meaning, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity of the dead, which are within your field of expertise. Rather, with regard to the two thrones: One throne is for a seat and one is for a small seat. The seat is to sit on, and the small seat is for His footstool, as it is stated: “The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1).,§ The Gemara stated earlier that one who studies the secrets of Torah must be “a captain of fifty and a man of favor” (Isaiah 3:3), but it did not explain the meaning of these requirements. It now returns to analyze that verse in detail. When Rav Dimi came from Israel to Babylonia, he said: Isaiah cursed Israel with eighteen curses, and his mind was not calmed, i.e., he was not satisfied, until he said to them the great curse of the following verse: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5).,The Gemara asks: What are these eighteen curses? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “For behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, every support of bread, and every support of water; the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will make children their princes, and babes shall rule over them” (Isaiah 3:1–4). The eighteen items listed in these verses shall be removed from Israel.,The Gemara proceeds to clarify the homiletical meaning of these terms: “Support”; these are masters of the Bible. “Staff”; these are masters of Mishna, such as Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima and his colleagues. The Gemara interjects: Rav Pappa and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this. One of them said: They were proficient in six hundred orders of Mishna, and the other one said: In seven hundred orders of Mishna, only six of which remain today.,“Every support of bread”; these are masters of Talmud, as it is stated: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled” (Proverbs 9:5). “And every support of water”; these are the masters of aggada, who draw people’s hearts like water by means of aggada. “The mighty man”; this is the master of halakhic tradition, one who masters the halakhot transmitted to him from his rabbis. “And the man of war”; this is one who knows how to engage in the discourse of Torah, generating novel teachings in the war of Torah. “A judge”; this is a judge who judges a true judgment truthfully. “A prophet”; as it literally indicates. “A diviner”; this is a king. Why is he called a diviner? For it is stated: “A divine sentence is on the lips of the king” (Proverbs 16:10). “An elder”; this is one fit for the position of head of an academy.,“A captain of fifty,” do not read it as “sar ḥamishim,” rather read it as “sar ḥumashin”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse with regard to the five books of [ḥamisha ḥumshei] the Torah. Alternatively, “a captain of fifty” should be understood in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu said: From here we learn that one may not appoint a disseminator over the public to transmit words of Torah or teachings of the Sages if he is less than fifty years of age. “And the man of favor”; this is one for whose sake favor is shown to his generation. The Gemara provides different examples of this: Some garner favor above, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, whose prayers for his generation would invariably be answered. Others gain favor below, for example: Rabbi Abbahu, who would plead Israel’s case in the house of the emperor.,“The counselor”; this is referring to one who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, due to his expertise in the phases of the moon and the calculation of the yearly cycle. “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise through his questions. “Charmer [ḥarashim]”; this is referring to one so wise that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all those listening are as though deaf [ḥershin], as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. “The skillful”; this is one who understands something new from something else he has learned. “Enchanter [laḥash]”; this is referring to one who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [laḥash], i.e., the secrets of the Torah, transmitted to him.,The Gemara continues to interpret this verse: “And I will make children their princes” (Isaiah 3:4). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “And I will make children [ne’arim] their princes”? Rabbi Elazar said: These are people who are devoid [menu’arin] of mitzvot; such people will become the leaders of the nation.,“And babes [ta’alulim] shall rule over them”; Rav Pappa bar Ya’akov said: Ta’alulim means foxes [ta’alei], sons of foxes. In other words, inferior people both in terms of deeds and in terms of lineage. And the prophet Isaiah’s mind was not calmed until he said to them: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5). “The child” [na’ar]; these are people who are devoid of mitzvot, who will behave insolently toward one who is as filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate. “And the base [nikleh] against the honorable [nikhbad]”; this means that one for whom major [kaved] transgressions are like minor ones [kalot] in his mind will come and behave insolently with one for whom even minor transgressions are like major ones in his mind.,§ The Gemara continues its explanation of the chapter in Isaiah. Rav Ketina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, trustworthy men did not cease to exist among its people, as it is stated: “For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, and say: You have a cloak, be our ruler” (Isaiah 3:6). The Gemara explains that they would approach someone and say to him: Things that people are careful to keep covered as with a cloak, i.e., words of Torah that are covered and concealed, are under your hand, as you are an expert with regard to them.,What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “And this stumbling block” (Isaiah 3:6)? Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, as they can be understood only with much effort, are under your hand. Although they will approach an individual with these statements, he “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: “Shall swear [yissa],” yissa is none other than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [tissa] the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: “I will not be a healer [ḥovesh]” (Isaiah 3:7), which means: I was never one of those who sit [meḥovshei] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess knowledge of neither the Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it is different there, for if he had said: I have learned, they would have said to him: Tell us, and people do not lie about things that can be easily verified. The Gemara rejects this claim: If he were a liar, he would have said that he learned and forgot, thereby avoiding shame. What is the meaning of “I will not be a healer,” which seems to imply that he had learned in the past? It means: I will not be a healer at all, as I have never learned. Consequently, there were trustworthy men in Jerusalem after all.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased to exist in it, as it is stated: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in its broad places, if you can find a man, if there is any that acts justly, that seeks truth, and I will pardon her” (Jeremiah 5:1), implying there were no trustworthy people at that time? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: |
|
| 35. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, 7a, 7b, 4b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 216 |
36. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 59b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 201| 59b. להתיר חלבה והכי קאמר אלו הן סימני חיה שחלבה מותר כל שיש לה קרנים וטלפים,רבי דוסא אומר יש לה קרנים אי אתה צריך לחזור על טלפים יש לה טלפים צריך אתה לחזור על קרנים וקרש אע"פ שאין לו אלא קרן אחת מותר,כללא הוא והרי עז דיש לו קרנים וטלפים וחלבו אסור כרוכות בעינן והרי שור דכרוכות וחלבו אסור חרוקות בעינן,והרי עז דחרוקות וחלבו אסור מפוצלות בעינן והרי צבי דאין מפוצלות וחלבו מותר חדורות בעינן,הלכך היכא דמיפצלא לא דינא ולא דיינא היכא דלא מיפצלא בעינן כרוכות חדורות וחרוקות והוא דמיבלע חירקייהו,והיינו ספיקא דעיזא כרכוז ההיא עיזא כרכוז דהואי בי ריש גלותא דעקור מלא צנא דתרבא מינה רב אחאי אסר רב שמואל בריה דרבי אבהו אכל מיניה קרי אנפשיה (משלי יח, כ) מפרי פי איש תשבע בטנו,שלחו מתם הלכתא כוותיה דשמואל בריה דרבי אבהו והזהרו ברבינו אחאי שמאיר עיני גולה הוא:,וקרש אע"פ שאין לו אלא קרן אחת מותר: אמר רב יהודה קרש טביא דבי עילאי טגרס אריא דבי עילאי אמר רב כהנא תשע אמהתא הוי בין אונא לאונא דאריא דבי עילאי אמר רב יוסף שיתסר אמהתא הוי משכיה דטביא דבי עילאי,אמר ליה קיסר לר' יהושע בן חנניה אלהיכם כאריה מתיל דכתיב (עמוס ג, ח) אריה שאג מי לא יירא מאי רבותיה פרשא קטיל אריא אמר ליה לאו כהאי אריא מתיל כאריא דבי עילאי מתיל אמר ליה בעינא דמיחזית ליה ניהלי אמר ליה לא מצית חזית ליה אמר ליה איברא חזינא ליה בעא רחמי אתעקר מדוכתיה,כי הוה מרחיק ארבע מאה פרסי ניהם חד קלא אפילו כל מעברתא ושורא דרומי נפל אדמרחק תלת מאה פרסי ניהם קלא אחרינא נתור ככי ושיני דגברי ואף הוא נפל מכורסייא לארעא א"ל במטותא מינך בעי רחמי עליה דלהדר לדוכתיה בעא רחמי עליה ואהדר ליה לאתריה,אמר ליה קיסר לר' יהושע בן חנניה בעינא דאיחזי לאלהיכו א"ל לא מצית חזית ליה א"ל איברא | 59b. The signs are given to permit its forbidden fat, i.e., to deem the animal undomesticated. Fat that is forbidden for consumption in domesticated animals is permitted in undomesticated animals. And this is what the tanna is saying: These are the signs of a kosher undomesticated animal, so that one will know that its fat is permitted: Any animal that has horns and cloven hooves is an undomesticated animal.,Rabbi Dosa says: If it has horns, it is certainly a kosher undomesticated animal, and you need not search for cloven hooves. But if it has cloven hooves, you must still search for horns. And with regard to the animal called a keresh, even though it has only one horn, its fat is permitted for consumption.,The Gemara asks: Is this an established principle? But isn’t there a goat, which has horns and cloven hooves, and still its fat is forbidden, as it is a domesticated animal? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are layered to designate a kosher animal as undomesticated; a goat’s horns are not layered. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bull, which has layered horns, and still its fat is forbidden since it is domesticated? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are grooved; a bull’s horns are not grooved.,The Gemara persists: But isn’t there a goat, which has grooved horns, and still its fat is forbidden? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are branched; a goat’s horns are not branched. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a gazelle [tzevi], whose horns are not branched, and still its fat is permitted? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are rounded and not broad like those of a sheep.,The Gemara concludes: Therefore, where an animal’s horns are branched, there is neither judgment nor judge, and the animal is without a doubt undomesticated. Where they are not branched, we require that they be layered, rounded, and grooved. And it must be grooved in a pattern such that its grooves are absorbed into one another.,And this is the uncertainty that arose concerning the karkoz goat, i.e., whether it is considered a domesticated animal. As there was a certain karkoz goat that was in the house of the Exilarch, from which they removed a full basket of fat after slaughtering it. Rav Aḥai deemed the fat forbidden, because he considered it a domesticated animal. But Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, ate of it. He read the verse about himself: “A man’s belly shall be filled with the fruit of his mouth” (Proverbs 18:20). In other words, due to his learning, he knew it was permitted to eat the fat of the karkoz goat.,The Sages sent a message from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, that a karkoz goat is an undomesticated animal and its fat is permitted; but nevertheless, be mindful of the honor of our teacher Aḥai who deems it forbidden, and do not partake of the fat in his presence, as he enlightens the eyes of the exile.,§ The baraita states: And with regard to the animal called a keresh, even though it has only one horn, its fat is permitted for consumption. Rav Yehuda says: The keresh is the gazelle that is native to the area of Bei Ila’ei. The tagras mentioned by the Sages is the lion of Bei Ila’ei. Rav Kahana says: There are nine cubits between the ears of the lion of Bei Ila’ei. Rav Yosef says: The length of the gazelle of Bei Ila’ei is sixteen cubits.,The Gemara recounts: The Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya: Your God is compared to a lion, as it is written: “The lion has roared, who will not fear” (Amos 3:8). But if so, what is His greatness? A cavalryman can kill a lion. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: God is not compared to that lion which a cavalryman can kill. Rather, God is compared to the lion of Bei Ila’ei. The emperor said to him: I ask that you show it to me. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You cannot see it. The emperor said to him: Truly, I wish to see it. Rabbi Yehoshua prayed for mercy, and the lion of Bei Ila’ei set off from its place of origin toward Rome.,When it was four hundred parasangs away from Rome, it roared once, and all the pregt women miscarried, and the wall of Rome fell. When it was three hundred parasangs away, it roared another time, and all the men’s front and back teeth fell out from fear. And even he, the emperor, fell from his throne to the ground. The emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua: I beg you, pray for mercy with regard to it, that it should go back to the place from which it came. Rabbi Yehoshua prayed for mercy with regard to it, and it returned to the place from which it came.,§ The Gemara recounts: The emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya: I wish to see your God. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You cannot see Him. The emperor said to him: Truly, |
|
| 37. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, 59b, 59a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 188 |
38. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, 14a, 14b, 19b, 28b, 33a, 57a, 57b, 70a, 56b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 201| 56b. איברא מלכא את דאי לאו מלכא את לא מימסרא ירושלים בידך דכתיב (ישעיהו י, לד) והלבנון באדיר יפול ואין אדיר אלא מלך דכתיב (ירמיהו ל, כא) והיה אדירו ממנו וגו' ואין לבנון אלא ביהמ"ק שנאמר (דברים ג, כה) ההר הטוב הזה והלבנון ודקאמרת אי מלכא אנא אמאי לא קאתית לגבאי עד האידנא בריוני דאית בן לא שבקינן,אמר ליה אילו חבית של דבש ודרקון כרוך עליה לא היו שוברין את החבית בשביל דרקון אישתיק קרי עליה רב יוסף ואיתימא רבי עקיבא (ישעיהו מד, כה) משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל איבעי ליה למימר ליה שקלינן צבתא ושקלינן ליה לדרקון וקטלינן ליה וחביתא שבקינן לה,אדהכי אתי פריסתקא עליה מרומי אמר ליה קום דמית ליה קיסר ואמרי הנהו חשיבי דרומי לאותיבך ברישא הוה סיים חד מסאני בעא למסיימא לאחרינא לא עייל בעא למשלפא לאידך לא נפק אמר מאי האי,אמר ליה לא תצטער שמועה טובה אתיא לך דכתיב (משלי טו, ל) שמועה טובה תדשן עצם אלא מאי תקנתיה ליתי איניש דלא מיתבא דעתך מיניה ולחליף קמך דכתיב (משלי יז, כב) ורוח נכאה תיבש גרם עבד הכי עייל אמר ליה ומאחר דחכמיתו כולי האי עד האידנא אמאי לא אתיתו לגבאי אמר ליה ולא אמרי לך אמר ליה אנא נמי אמרי לך,אמר ליה מיזל אזילנא ואינש אחרינא משדרנא אלא בעי מינאי מידי דאתן לך אמר ליה תן לי יבנה וחכמיה ושושילתא דרבן גמליאל ואסוותא דמסיין ליה לרבי צדוק קרי עליה רב יוסף ואיתימא רבי עקיבא (ישעיהו מד, כה) משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל איבעי למימר ליה לשבקינהו הדא זימנא,והוא סבר דלמא כולי האי לא עביד והצלה פורתא נמי לא הוי,אסוותא דמסיין ליה לרבי צדוק מאי היא יומא קמא אשקיוה מיא דפארי למחר מיא דסיפוקא למחר מיא דקימחא עד דרווח מיעיה פורתא פורתא,אזל שדריה לטיטוס ואמר (דברים לב, לז) אי אלהימו צור חסיו בו זה טיטוס הרשע שחירף וגידף כלפי מעלה,מה עשה תפש זונה בידו ונכנס לבית קדשי הקדשים והציע ספר תורה ועבר עליה עבירה ונטל סייף וגידר את הפרוכת ונעשה נס והיה דם מבצבץ ויוצא וכסבור הרג את עצמו שנאמר (תהלים עד, ד) שאגו צורריך בקרב מועדיך שמו אותותם אותות,אבא חנן אומר (תהלים פט, ט) מי כמוך חסין יה מי כמוך חסין וקשה שאתה שומע ניאוצו וגידופו של אותו רשע ושותק דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא (שמות טו, יא) מי כמוכה באלים ה' מי כמוכה באלמים,מה עשה נטל את הפרוכת ועשאו כמין גרגותני והביא כל כלים שבמקדש והניחן בהן והושיבן בספינה לילך להשתבח בעירו שנאמר (קהלת ח, י) ובכן ראיתי רשעים קבורים ובאו וממקום קדוש יהלכו וישתכחו בעיר אשר כן עשו אל תיקרי קבורים אלא קבוצים אל תיקרי וישתכחו אלא וישתבחו,איכא דאמרי קבורים ממש דאפילו מילי דמטמרן איגלייא להון,עמד עליו נחשול שבים לטובעו אמר כמדומה אני שאלהיהם של אלו אין גבורתו אלא במים בא פרעה טבעו במים בא סיסרא טבעו במים אף הוא עומד עלי לטובעני במים אם גבור הוא יעלה ליבשה ויעשה עמי מלחמה יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו רשע בן רשע בן בנו של עשו הרשע בריה קלה יש לי בעולמי ויתוש שמה,אמאי קרי לה בריה קלה דמעלנא אית לה ומפקנא לית לה,עלה ליבשה ותעשה עמה מלחמה עלה ליבשה בא יתוש ונכנס בחוטמו ונקר במוחו שבע שנים יומא חד הוה קא חליף אבבא דבי נפחא שמע קל ארזפתא אישתיק אמר איכא תקנתא כל יומא מייתו נפחא ומחו קמיה לנכרי יהיב ליה ארבע זוזי לישראל אמר ליה מיסתייך דקא חזית בסנאך עד תלתין יומין עבד הכי מכאן ואילך כיון דדש דש,תניא אמר רבי פנחס בן ערובא אני הייתי בין גדולי רומי וכשמת פצעו את מוחו ומצאו בו כצפור דרור משקל שני סלעים במתניתא תנא כגוזל בן שנה משקל שני ליטרין,אמר אביי נקטינן פיו של נחושת וצפורניו של ברזל כי הוה קא מיית אמר להו ליקליוה לההוא גברא ולבדרי לקיטמיה אשב ימי דלא לשכחיה אלהא דיהודאי ולוקמיה בדינא,אונקלוס בר קלוניקוס בר אחתיה דטיטוס הוה בעי לאיגיורי אזל אסקיה לטיטוס בנגידא אמר ליה מאן חשיב בההוא עלמא אמר ליה ישראל מהו לאידבוקי בהו אמר ליה מילייהו נפישין ולא מצית לקיומינהו זיל איגרי בהו בההוא עלמא והוית רישא דכתיב (איכה א, ה) היו צריה לראש וגו' כל המיצר לישראל נעשה ראש אמר ליה דיניה דההוא גברא במאי א"ל | 56b. in truth, you are a king, if not now, then in the future. As if you are not a king, Jerusalem will not be handed over into your hand, as it is written: “And the Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one” (Isaiah 10:34). And “mighty one” means only a king, as it is written: “And their mighty one shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them” (Jeremiah 30:21), indicating that “mighty one” parallels “ruler.” And “Lebanon” means only the Temple, as it is stated: “That good mountain and the Lebanon” (Deuteronomy 3:25). And as for what you said with your second comment: If I am a king why didn’t you come to me until now, there are zealots among us who did not allow us to do this.,Understanding that Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai was prepared to ask him not to destroy the Temple, Vespasian said to him: If there is a barrel of honey and a snake [derakon] is wrapped around it, wouldn’t they break the barrel in order to kill the snake? In similar fashion, I am forced to destroy the city of Jerusalem in order to kill the zealots barricaded within it. Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai was silent and did not answer. In light of this, Rav Yosef later read the following verse about him, and some say that it was Rabbi Akiva who applied the verse to Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: “I am the Lord…Who turns wise men backward and makes their knowledge foolish” (Isaiah 44:25). As Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai should have said the following to Vespasian in response: In such a case, we take tongs, remove the snake, and kill it, and in this way we leave the barrel intact. So too, you should kill the rebels and leave the city as it is.,In the meantime, as they were talking, a messenger [feristaka] arrived from Rome, and said to him: Rise, for the emperor has died, and the noblemen of Rome plan to appoint you as their leader and make you the next emperor. At that time Vespasian was wearing only one shoe, and when he tried to put on the other one, it would not go on his foot. He then tried to remove the other shoe that he was already wearing, but it would not come off. He said: What is this?,Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: Be not distressed or troubled, for good tidings have reached you, as it is written: “Good tidings make the bone fat” (Proverbs 15:30), and your feet have grown fatter out of joy and satisfaction. Vespasian said to him: But what is the remedy? What must I do in order to put on my shoe? Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: Have someone with whom you are displeased come and pass before you, as it is written: “A broken spirit dries the bones” (Proverbs 17:22). He did this, and his shoe went on his foot. Vespasian said to him: Since you are so wise, why didn’t you come to see me until now? Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: But didn’t I already tell you? Vespasian said to him: I also told you what I had to say.,Vespasian then said to Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: I will be going to Rome to accept my new position, and I will send someone else in my place to continue besieging the city and waging war against it. But before I leave, ask something of me that I can give you. Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to him: Give me Yavne and its Sages and do not destroy it, and spare the dynasty of Rabban Gamliel and do not kill them as if they were rebels, and lastly give me doctors to heal Rabbi Tzadok. Rav Yosef read the following verse about him, and some say that it was Rabbi Akiva who applied the verse to Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: “I am the Lord…Who turns wise men backward and makes their knowledge foolish” (Isaiah 44:25), as he should have said to him to leave the Jews alone this time.,And why didn’t Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai make this request? He maintained that Vespasian might not do that much for him, and there would not be even a small amount of salvation. Therefore, he made only a modest request, in the hope that he would receive at least that much.,The Gemara asks: What was he requesting when he asked for doctors to heal Rabbi Tzadok? How did they heal him? The first day they gave him water to drink that contained bran [parei]. The next day they gave him water containing flour mixed with bran [sipuka]. The following day they gave him water containing flour. In this way they slowly restored his ability to eat, allowing his stomach to broaden little by little.,§ Vespasian went back to Rome and sent Titus in his place. The Gemara cites a verse that was expounded as referring to Titus: “And he shall say: Where is their God, their rock in whom they trusted?” (Deuteronomy 32:37). This is the wicked Titus, who insulted and blasphemed God on High.,What did Titus do when he conquered the Temple? He took a prostitute with his hand, and entered the Holy of Holies with her. He then spread out a Torah scroll underneath him and committed a sin, i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse, on it. Afterward he took a sword and cut into the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. And a miracle was performed and blood spurted forth. Seeing the blood, he mistakenly thought that he had killed himself. Here, the term himself is a euphemism for God. Titus saw blood issuing forth from the curtain in God’s meeting place, the Temple, and he took it as a sign that he had succeeded in killing God Himself. As it is stated: “Your enemies roar in the midst of Your meeting place; they have set up their own signs for signs” (Psalms 74:4).,Abba Ḥa says: The verse states: “Who is strong like You, O Lord?” (Psalms 89:9). Who is strong and indurate like You, as You hear the abuse and the blasphemy of that wicked man and remain silent. Similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods [elim]” (Exodus 15:11), should be read as: Who is like You among the mute [ilmim], for You conduct Yourself like a mute and remain silent in the face of Your blasphemers.,What else did Titus do? He took the curtain and formed it like a large basket, and brought all of the sacred vessels of the Temple and placed them in it. And he put them on a ship to go and be praised in his city that he had conquered Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And so I saw the wicked buried, and come to their rest; but those that had done right were gone from the holy place, and were forgotten in the city; this also is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 8:10). Do not read the word as “buried [kevurim].” Rather, read it as collected [kevutzim]. And do not read the word as “and were forgotten [veyishtakeḥu].” Rather, read it as: And they were praised [veyishtabeḥu]. According to this interpretation, the verse speaks of those who will gather and collect items “from the holy place,” the Temple, and be praised in their city about what they had done.,There are those who say that the verse is to be read as written, as it is referring to items that were actually buried. This is because even items that had been buried were revealed to them, i.e., Titus and his soldiers, as they found all of the sacred vessels.,It is further related about Titus that he was once traveling at sea and a wave rose up against him and threatened to drown him. Titus said: It seems to me that their God, the God of Israel, has power only in water. Pharaoh rose against them and He drowned him in water. Sisera rose against them and He drowned him in water. Here too, He has risen up against me to drown me in water. If He is really mighty, let Him go up on dry land and there wage war against me. A Divine Voice issued forth and said to him: Wicked one, son of a wicked one, grandson of Esau the wicked, for you are among his descendants and act just like him, I have a lowly creature in My world and it is called a gnat.,The Gemara interjects: Why is it called a lowly creature? It is called this because it has an entrance for taking in food, but it does not have an exit for excretion.,The Gemara resumes its story about Titus. The Divine Voice continued: Go up on dry land and make war with it. He went up on dry land, and a gnat came, entered his nostril, and picked at his brain for seven years. Titus suffered greatly from this until one day he passed by the gate of a blacksmith’s shop. The gnat heard the sound of a hammer and was silent and still. Titus said: I see that there is a remedy for my pain. Every day they would bring a blacksmith who hammered before him. He would give four dinars as payment to a gentile blacksmith, and to a Jew he would simply say: It is enough for you that you see your enemy in so much pain. He did this for thirty days and it was effective until then. From that point forward, since the gnat became accustomed to the hammering, it became accustomed to it, and once again it began to pick away at Titus’s brain.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova said: I was at that time among the noblemen of Rome, and when Titus died they split open his head and found that the gnat had grown to the size of a sparrow weighing two sela. It was taught in another baraita: It was like a one-year-old pigeon weighing two litra.,Abaye said: We have a tradition that its mouth was made of copper and its claws were fashioned of iron. When Titus was dying, he said to his attendants: Burn that man, i.e., me, and scatter his ashes across the seven seas, so that the God of the Jews should not find me and stand me for judgment.,§ The Gemara relates: Onkelos bar Kalonikos, the son of Titus’s sister, wanted to convert to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the grave through necromancy, and said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Titus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them here in this world? Titus said to him: Their commandments are numerous, and you will not be able to fulfill them. It is best that you do as follows: Go out and battle against them in that world, and you will become the chief, as it is written: “Her adversaries [tzareha] have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), which means: Anyone who distresses [meitzer] Israel will become the chief. Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Titus himself, in the next world? Titus said to him: |
|
| 39. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 18a, 7b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 201 |
| 40. Babylonian Talmud, Tamid, 32b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in geonic literature and aramaic magic bowls •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in lieu of aramaic synonyms Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 188 |
41. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 63b, 46a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 216| 46a. עובד כוכבים גופא לא קני ליה מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין אפקעיה לשעבודיה,כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד,מתיב רב חסדא מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו קנו עצמן בני חורין לפניה אין לאחריה לא,אמר רבא לפניה בין בסתם בין במפורש לאחריה במפורש אין בסתם לא,אמר רב אויא לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן העובד כוכבים אבל עובד כוכבים גופיה קני,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם ולא הם קונים מכם ולא הם קונים זה מזה,ולא הם קונים מכם למאי אילימא למעשה ידיו אטו עובד כוכבים לא קני ליה לישראל למעשה ידיו והכתיב (ויקרא כה, מז) או לעקר משפחת גר ואמר מר משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים אלא לאו לגופיה וקאמר רחמנא אתם קונין מהם אפילו גופיה,פריך רב אחא אימא בכספא ובטבילה קשיא,אמר שמואל וצריך לתקפו במים,כי האי דמנימין עבדיה דרב אשי בעא לאטבולי מסריה ניהלייהו לרבינא ולרב אחא ברי' דרבא אמר להו חזו דמינייכו קבעית ליה רמו ליה ארויסא בצואריה ארפו ליה וצמצמו ליה,ארפו ליה כי היכי דלא להוי חציצה צמצמו ליה כי היכי דלא לקדים ולימא להו לשם בן חורין אני טובל בהדי דדלי רישיה ממיא אנחו ליה זולטא דטינא ארישיה ואמרו ליה זיל אמטי לבי מרך,א"ל רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני דבי פפא בר אבא דיהבי זוזי לאינשי לכרגייהו ומשעבדי בהו כי נפקי צריכי גיטא דחירותא או לא,א"ל איכו שכיבי לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי א"ר ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא משתעבד למאן דיהיב כרגא,ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמעברן מגרים שמלו ולא טבלו וחזא חמרא דישראל דמזגי עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל וחזא תורמוסין דשלקי עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ועל יינם משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה,על בניהן שהם ממזרים ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,ועל יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים והא תורמוס אינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי ויש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים,ר' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,ת"ר גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו טבל ולא מל ר' יהושע אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו וחכמים אומרים טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול,ורבי יהושע נמי נילף מאבות ור"א נמי נילף מאמהות וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר,והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לפסח דורות שאין בא אלא מן החולין נאמר פסח במצרים ונאמר פסח בדורות מה פסח האמור במצרים אין בא אלא מן החולין אף פסח האמור לדורות אין בא אלא מן החולין,א"ל ר' עקיבא וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר א"ל אע"פ שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה,אלא | 46a. His previous gentile owner did not have ownership of the slave’s body, since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only that which he owned in him was he able to sell to the Jew. Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, and therefore, once the slave preempted his owner and immersed for the sake of conversion to make him a freeman, he abrogates his master’s lien upon him.,The Gemara notes: This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Consecration of an item to the Temple, the prohibition of leavened bread taking effect upon a leavened food, and the emancipation of a slave abrogate any lien that exists upon them.,Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preempted her and immersed before her own immersion for her own conversion. And the details of the incident came before the Sages, and they said: The slaves acquired themselves and became freemen. Rav Ḥisda explains how the baraita poses a challenge: The baraita implies that only because the slaves immersed before her, while she was still a gentile, that yes, they became freemen; however, had they immersed after her, i.e., after she had already converted, then no, they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.,To resolve the challenge Rava said: When the baraita says that because they immersed before her they acquired themselves, that is whether they immersed without a specified intention or whether they immersed with explicit intention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed after her, if they did so with explicit intention to convert, then yes, the immersion would achieve that end, but if they did so without a specified intention, then no, their immersion would, by default, be considered for the sake of slavery and they would not become free.,Rav Avya said: They taught that one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor only with regard to a Jew who purchased a slave from a gentile slave owner, but if a gentile sold his own body as a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew acquires his body.,As it is written: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire” (Leviticus 25:45). The verse states only that you, i.e., Jews, can acquire a slave from them, i.e., a gentile slave, but they cannot acquire a slave from you, i.e., a Jewish slave, and they cannot acquire a slave from one another.,When it is derived that: But they cannot acquire slaves from you, to what type of acquisition is it referring? If we say it is for his labor, is that to say that a gentile cannot acquire a Jew for his labor? Isn’t it written: “And if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him, and he sells himself to the stranger who is a settler with you, or to the offshoot of a stranger’s family” (Leviticus 25:47), and the Master said in explanation of the phrase “a stranger’s family” that this is referring to a gentile. If so, the verse explicitly states that a Jew can sell himself as a slave to a gentile. Rather, is it not that the reference is to selling his body, and the Merciful One states that you, i.e., Jews, can acquire a slave from them, which means even his body. Accordingly the verse indicates that a Jew can acquire a gentile slave’s body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another’s body, even that of another gentile.,Rav Aḥa refutes Rav Avya’s explanation: Say that the verse is referring to acquiring a gentile slave by both purchasing him with money and then by immersing him for the purpose of slavery, and only in that case does it teach that a Jew acquires the gentile slave’s body. However, until he has been immersed the acquisition is not fully complete, and therefore if the slave immerses himself with the intention to become free, then his immersion would achieve that end. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.,Shmuel said: And if one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then one needs to hold him tightly in the water in a way that demonstrates the owner’s domice over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.,That is as demonstrated in this incident involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave: When he wished to immerse him, he passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, to perform the immersion on his behalf, and he said to them: Be aware that I will claim compensation for him from you if you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. They placed a bridle [arvisa] upon his neck, and at the moment of immersion they loosened it and then immediately tightened it again while he was still immersed.,The Gemara explains their actions: They initially loosened it in order that there should not be any interposition between the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. They immediately tightened it again in order that the slave should not preempt them and say to them: I am immersing for the sake of becoming a freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Go and bring this to the house of your master. They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave.,Rav Pappa said to Rava: Has the Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give money to the tax-collectors on behalf of poor people to pay for their poll tax [karga], and as a result they would enslave them. Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: When those slaves go free, do they require a bill of emancipation, because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, or not, as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?,He said to him: Were I dead I could not say this matter to you, so it is good that you have asked me while I am still alive, as I know that this is what Rav Sheshet said with regard to the matter: The writ of slavery [moharkayehu] of these residents of the kingdom rests in the treasury [tafsa] of the king, and in fact all the residents of the kingdom are considered to be full slaves of the king, i.e., he owns their bodies, irrespective of whether they pay their taxes. And so when the king says: One who does not give the poll tax is to be enslaved to the one who does give the poll tax on his behalf, the king’s decree is fully effective in making those residents full slaves of those who paid for them. As such, they will require a bill of emancipation when they are freed.,§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba once happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who had become pregt from converts who were circumcised but had still not immersed to complete their conversion process; and he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinking it; and he saw lupines [turmusin] that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eating them; but he did not say anything to them.,Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥa and told him what he had witnessed. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and make a public declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, and concerning their wine that it is forbidden because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libation, and concerning their lupines that they are forbidden because they are food cooked by gentiles. One should be stringent and make such a declaration because they are not well-versed in Torah, and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥa conforms to his standard line of reasoning in two halakhot: The first is as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One is never considered to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the convert in the case in Gavla had not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring of that union is a mamzer.,And the reason to declare concerning their wine that it is forbidden because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libation is that although their wine was not actually poured as an idolatrous libation, it was prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the maxim that: Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. Although a nazirite is prohibited only from eating produce of the vine, he is warned not even to come into close proximity of a vineyard as a protective measure to ensure that he will not transgress this prohibition. So too, in many cases, the Sages decreed certain items and actions to be prohibited because they understood that if people would partake of them, they would eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,And the final declaration concerning their lupines that they are forbidden because they are food cooked by gentiles is issued because they are not well versed in Torah. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does this imply that were they students of the Torah their lupines would be permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Any food item that is eaten as it is, raw, is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, even when cooked by them? But a lupine is not eaten as it is, raw, and therefore it is subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥa holds in this matter in accordance with the opinion of the other version of what Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Any food item that lacks sufficient importance such that it does not appear on the table of kings in order to eat bread with it is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines lack importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles. And consequently, the only reason to make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not well versed in Torah, and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those well versed in Torah, it is permitted.r§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covet with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The tanna’im disagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations.,The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says that this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathers following the exodus from Egypt that they were circumcised but were not immersed. With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua says that this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses.,The Gemara questions the opinions in the baraita: But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derive what is required for conversion from our forefathers; why didn’t he do so? And let Rabbi Eliezer also derive the halakha from our foremothers; why didn’t he do so? And if you would say that Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the halakha from our foremothers because he holds one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the halakha that women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted.,It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived with regard to the Paschal lamb brought throughout the generations that it may be brought only from non-sacred animals? A Paschal lamb is stated in the Torah in reference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from Egypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated in reference to the yearly obligation throughout the generations. The association between them teaches that just as the Paschal lamb stated in reference to Egypt was only brought from non-sacred animals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, so too, with regard to the Paschal lamb stated in reference to the obligation throughout the generations, it may be brought only from non-sacred animals.,Rabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derive the possible, i.e., the halakha for the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, from the impossible, i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Although it was impossible to bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, it is still a great proof, and we may learn from it. It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?,The Gemara concedes: Rather, the baraita must be reinterpreted as follows: |
|
42. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 12b, 16a, 18a, 6b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 188 6b. גרממיא של אדום שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו,ואמר רבי חמא בר חנינא תלת מאה קטירי תגא איכא בגרממיא של אדום ותלת מאה ושיתין וחמשה מרזבני איכא ברומי ובכל יומא נפקי הני לאפי הני ומקטיל חד מינייהו ומיטרדי לאוקמי מלכא,ואמר ר' יצחק אם יאמר לך אדם יגעתי ולא מצאתי אל תאמן לא יגעתי ומצאתי אל תאמן יגעתי ומצאתי תאמן,הני מילי בדברי תורה אבל במשא ומתן סייעתא הוא מן שמיא ולדברי תורה לא אמרן אלא לחדודי אבל לאוקמי גירסא סייעתא מן שמיא היא,ואמר רבי יצחק אם ראית רשע שהשעה משחקת לו אל תתגרה בו שנא' (תהלים לז, א) אל תתחר במרעים ולא עוד אלא שדרכיו מצליחין שנא' (תהלים י, ה) יחילו דרכיו בכל עת ולא עוד אלא שזוכה בדין שנאמר מרום משפטיך מנגדו ולא עוד אלא שרואה בשונאיו שנאמר כל צורריו יפיח בהם,איני והאמר ר' יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחי מותר להתגרות ברשעים בעולם הזה שנא' (משלי כח, ד) עוזבי תורה יהללו רשע ושומרי תורה יתגרו בם ותניא ר' דוסתאי בר מתון אמר מותר להתגרות ברשעים בעולם הזה ואם לחשך אדם לומר אל תתחר במרעים ואל תקנא בעושי עולה מי שלבו נוקפו אומר כן,אלא אל תתחר במרעים להיות כמרעים ואל תקנא בעושי עולה להיות כעושי עולה ואומר (משלי כג, יז) אל יקנא לבך בחטאים וגו',לא קשיא הא במילי דידיה הא במילי דשמיא,ואיבעית אימא הא והא במילי דידיה ולא קשיא הא בצדיק גמור הא בצדיק שאינו גמור דאמר רב הונא מאי דכתיב (חבקוק א, יג) למה תביט בוגדים תחריש בבלע רשע צדיק ממנו צדיק ממנו בולע צדיק גמור אינו בולע,ואי בעית אימא שעה משחקת לו שאני:,אמר עולא איטליא של יון זה כרך גדול של רומי והויא תלת מאה פרסה על תלת מאה פרסה ויש בה שס"ה שווקים כמנין ימות החמה וקטן שבכולם של מוכרי עופות והויא ששה עשר מיל על ששה עשר מיל ומלך סועד בכל יום באחד מהן,והדר בה אע"פ שאינו נולד בה נוטל פרס מבית המלך והנולד בה אע"פ שאינו דר בה נוטל פרס מבית המלך ושלשת אלפים בי בני יש בו וחמש מאות חלונות מעלין עשן חוץ לחומה צדו אחד ים וצדו אחד הרים וגבעות צדו אחד מחיצה של ברזל וצדו אחד חולסית ומצולה:,| 6b. Germamya of Edom, i.e., Germany, which is near the land of Edom, i.e., Rome. As, if the Germans would go forth, they would destroy the entire world.,And Rabbi Ḥama Bar Ḥanina said: There are three hundred young princes with crowns tied to their heads in Germamya of Edom, and there are three hundred and sixty-five chieftains [marzavnei] in Rome. Every day these go out to battle against those, and one of them is killed, and they are preoccupied with appointing a new king in his place. Since neither side is united, neither side is able to achieve a decisive victory. It is these wars between Rome and the Germanic tribes that act as a muzzle upon Esau-Edom-Rome and prevent it from becoming too strong.,§ Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the style of a previous passage: If a person says to you: I have labored and not found success, do not believe him. Similarly, if he says to you: I have not labored but nevertheless I have found success, do not believe him. If, however, he says to you: I have labored and I have found success, believe him.,The Gemara comments: This applies only to matters of Torah, as success with respect to Torah study is in accordance with the toil and effort invested. But with regard to success in business, it all depends upon assistance from Heaven, as there is no correlation between success and effort. And even with regard to matters of Torah, we said this only with regard to sharpening one’s understanding of Torah, as the more one labors, the deeper the understanding of the material he achieves. However, to preserve what one has learned, it is dependent upon assistance from Heaven. Not everyone achieves this, even with much effort.,And Rabbi Yitzḥak also said: If you see a wicked man whom the hour is smiling upon, i.e., who is enjoying good fortune, do not provoke him, as it is stated: “Contend not with evildoers” (Psalms 37:1). And not only that, but if you provoke him, his undertakings will be successful, as it is stated: “His ways prosper at all times” (Psalms 10:5). And not only that, but even if he is brought to court, he emerges victorious in judgment, as it is stated: “Your judgments are far above him” (Psalms 10:5), as though the trial is far removed from him and does not affect him. And not only that, but he will see his enemies fall, as it is stated: “As for all his enemies, he hisses at them” (Psalms 10:5).,The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, as it is stated: “They that forsake the Torah praise the wicked; but they who keep the Torah contend with them” (Proverbs 28:4)? And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Dostai bar Matun said: It is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, and if a person whispers to you to say that this is not so, relying on the verse: “Contend not with evildoers, nor be envious against the workers of iniquity” (Psalms 37:1), know that only one whose heart strikes him with pangs of conscience over sins that he committed says this.,Rather, the true meaning of that verse is: “Contend not with evildoers,” to be like the evildoers; “nor be envious against the workers of iniquity,” to be like the workers of iniquity. And it says elsewhere: “Let not your heart envy sinners, but be in the fear of the Lord all the day” (Proverbs 23:17). In this context, to be envious of sinners means to desire to be like them. Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Dostai indicate that one is permitted to provoke the wicked, against the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak.,The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as it can be understood that this, Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement that one may not provoke the wicked, is referring to his personal matters, while that, the statements of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Dostai that it is permitted to provoke them, is referring to matters of Heaven, i.e., religious matters.,And if you wish, say: Both this statement and that statement are stated with regard to his own affairs, and still it is not difficult. This statement, that it is permitted to provoke the wicked, applies to a completely righteous individual; that statement, that one may not provoke them, applies to an individual who is not completely righteous. As Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why do you look upon them that deal treacherously, and remain silent when the wicked devours the man that is more righteous than he” (Habakkuk 1:13)? This verse indicates that the wicked devours one who is more righteous than he; however, he does not devour one who is completely righteous.,And if you wish, say instead: When the hour is smiling upon him, i.e., when the wicked individual is enjoying good fortune, it is different. He is receiving divine assistance, and even the completely righteous should not provoke him.,§ Having mentioned Rome, the Gemara cites what Ulla said. Greek Italy, i.e., southern Italy, is the great city of Rome, and it is three hundred parasang [parsa] by three hundred parasang. It has three hundred and sixty-five markets, corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and the smallest of them all is the market of poultry sellers, which is sixteen mil by sixteen mil. And the king, i.e., the Roman emperor, dines every day in one of them.,And one who resides in the city, even if he was not born there, receives an allowance for his living expenses from the king’s palace. And one who was born there, even if he does not reside there, also receives an allowance from the king’s palace. And there are three thousand bathhouses in the city, and five hundred apertures that let the smoke from the bathhouses out beyond the walls in a way that doesn’t blacken the walls themselves. One side of the city is bordered by the sea, one side by mountains and hills, one side by a barrier of iron and one side by gravel [ḥulsit] and swamp.,read the Megilla during the first Adar and subsequently the year was then intercalated by the court and now the following month will be the second Adar, one reads the Megilla again during the second Adar. The Sages formulated a principle: The difference between the first Adar and the second Adar with regard to the mitzvot that are performed during those months is only that the reading of the Megilla and distributing gifts to the poor are performed in the second Adar and not in the first Adar.,that with regard to the matter of the sequence of Torah portions read each year on two Shabbatot before Purim, the portions of Shekalim and Zakhor, and on two Shabbatot after Purim, Para and HaḤodesh, this, the first Adar, and that, the second Adar are equal, in that reading them during the first Adar exempts one from reading them in the second Adar.,The Gemara asks: If so, whose opinion is taught in the mishna? It is neither the opinion of the anonymous first tanna of the following baraita, nor that of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, nor that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: If they read the Megilla during the first Adar and the year was then intercalated, they read it during the second Adar, as all mitzvot that are practiced during the second Adar are practiced in the first Adar, except for the reading of the Megilla.,Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: They do not read it again during the second Adar, as all mitzvot that are practiced during the second Adar are practiced during the first Adar. Once the Megilla was read during the first Adar, one need not read it again during the second Adar.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: They even read it again during the second Adar, as all mitzvot that are practiced during the second Adar are not practiced during the first Adar. And they all agree with regard to eulogy and with regard to fasting that they are prohibited on the fourteenth and the fifteenth days of this month of the first Adar and on that month of the second Adar.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is identical to that of the first tanna. What novel element does he introduce? Rav Pappa said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the sequence of four Torah portions, as the first tanna maintains: They should read those portions during the second Adar, ab initio. However, if they did so during the first Adar, they did so; and they fulfilled their obligation and need not read them again during the second Adar, except for the reading of the Megilla, as even though they already read it during the first Adar, they read it again during the second Adar.,And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains that even the reading of the Megilla may be performed during the first Adar, ab initio, and they need not read it again during the second Adar. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains: Even with regard to the sequence of four Torah portions, if they read them during the first Adar, they read them again during the second Adar.,Returning to the original question, according to whose opinion is the mishna taught? If it is the opinion of the first tanna, the halakha of gifts to the poor is difficult. The first tanna does not mention these gifts, indicating that he maintains that if gifts were distributed during the first Adar one need not distribute gifts to the poor during the second Adar. And if the mishna was taught according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, the reading of the Megilla is also difficult. And if it is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the sequence of Torah portions is difficult.,The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is according to the opinion of the first tanna, and he taught the halakha with regard to the reading of the Megilla, and the same is true with regard to gifts to the poor, as this mitzva is dependent upon that one. The Gemara already explained that the gifts to the poor are distributed on the day that the Megilla is read.,And if you wish, say instead: Actually, the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: The difference between the fourteenth day of the first Adar and the fourteenth day of the second Adar is only with regard to the reading of the Megilla and distributing gifts to the poor. The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of eulogy and fasting, this, the first Adar, and that, the second Adar are equal, while about the sequence of Torah portions, the mishna does not speak at all. The mishna limits its discussion to the halakhot of Purim.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yosei.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: And both of them, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, interpreted the same verse differently, leading them to their conclusions. It is written: “To enjoin upon them that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same, in each and every year” (Esther 9:21). Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains: “In each and every year” teaches that Purim must be celebrated the same way each year, even if it is intercalated: Just as each and every year Purim is celebrated during Adar that is adjacent to Shevat, so too here in an intercalated year Purim is celebrated during Adar that is adjacent to Shevat.,And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains: “In each and every year” teaches that just as each and every year Purim is celebrated in Adar that is adjacent to Nisan, so too here, in an intercalated year, Purim is celebrated during Adar that is adjacent to Nisan.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, the reason for his opinion is logical, based on the principle that one does not forego performance of the mitzvot; rather, when presented with the opportunity to perform a mitzva, one should do so immediately. However, with regard to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, what is the reason for his opinion?,Rabbi Tavi said: The reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is that juxtaposing the celebration of one redemption, Purim, to the celebration of another redemption, Passover, is preferable.,Rabbi Elazar said: The reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is derived from here, as it is written: “To confirm this second letter of Purim” (Esther 9:29), indicating that there are circumstances where the Megilla is read a second time (Jerusalem Talmud), i.e., when the year was intercalated after the Megilla was read in the first Adar.,The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to write | |
|
| 43. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, 34b, 10a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 201 |
| 44. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 77a, 9b-10a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 52 |
| 45. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 4b-5a, 2b-3a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 216 |
46. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 41a, 54a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 78| 54a. ואיש תבונה ידלנה מים עמוקים עצה בלב איש זה עולא ואיש תבונה ידלנה זה רבה בר בר חנה ואינהו כמאן סברוה כי הא דאמר ר' בנימן בר יפת אמר רבי יוחנן מברכין על האור בין במוצאי שבת בין במוצאי יום הכפורים וכן עמא דבר,מיתיבי אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחילת ברייתו הוא וכיון שרואה מברך מיד רבי יהודה אומר סודרן על הכוס ואמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהודה,לא קשיא כאן באור ששבת כאן באור היוצא מן העצים ומן האבנים,תני חדא אור היוצא מן העצים ומן האבנים מברכין עליו ותני חדא אין מברכין עליו לא קשיא כאן במוצאי שבת כאן במוצאי יום הכפורים,רבי מפזרן רבי חייא מכנסן אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אע"פ שרבי מפזרן חוזר וסודרן על הכוס כדי להוציא בניו ובני ביתו,ואור במוצאי שבת איברי והא תניא עשרה דברים נבראו בערב שבת בין השמשות אלו הן באר והמן וקשת כתב ומכתב והלוחות וקברו של משה ומערה שעמד בו משה ואליהו פתיחת פי האתון ופתיחת פי הארץ לבלוע את הרשעים,רבי נחמיה אומר משום אביו אף האור והפרד ר' יאשיה אומר משום אביו אף האיל והשמיר רבי יהודה אומר אף הצבת הוא היה אומר צבתא בצבתא מתעבדא וצבתא קמייתא מאן עבד הא לאי בריה בידי שמים היא אמר ליה אפשר יעשנה בדפוס ויקבענה כיון הא לאי בריה בידי אדם היא,לא קשיא הא באור דידן הא באור דגיהנם אור דידן במוצאי שבת אור דגיהנם בערב שבת ואור דגיהנם בערב שבת איברי והא תניא *שבעה דברים נבראו קודם שנברא העולם ואלו הן תורה ותשובה וגן עדן וגיהנם וכסא הכבוד ובית המקדש ושמו של משיח,תורה דכתיב (משלי ח, כב) ה' קנני ראשית דרכו תשובה דכתיב (תהלים צ, ב) בטרם הרים יולדו וכתיב (תהלים צ, ג) תשב אנוש עד דכא ותאמר שובו בני אדם,גן עדן דכתיב (בראשית ב, ח) ויטע ה' אלהים גן בעדן מקדם גיהנם דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, לג) כי ערוך מאתמול תפתה,כסא הכבוד ובית המקדש דכתיב (ירמיהו יז, יב) כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו שמו של משיח דכתיב (תהלים עב, יז) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו,אמרי חללה הוא דנברא קודם שנברא העולם ואור דידיה בערב שבת,ואור דידיה בערב שבת איברי והתניא רבי יוסי אומר אור שברא הקב"ה בשני בשבת אין לו כבייה לעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, כד) ויצאו וראו בפגרי האנשים הפושעים בי כי תולעתם לא תמות ואשם לא תכבה ואמר רבי בנאה בריה דרבי עולא מפני מה לא נאמר כי טוב בשני בשבת מפני שנברא בו אור של גיהנם ואמר רבי אלעזר אע"פ שלא נאמר בו כי טוב חזר וכללו בששי שנאמר (בראשית א, לא) וירא אלהים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד,אלא חללה קודם שנברא העולם ואור דידיה בשני בשבת ואור דידן במחשבה עלה ליבראות בערב שבת ולא נברא עד מוצאי שבת דתניא ר' יוסי אומר שני דברים עלו במחשבה ליבראות בערב שבת ולא נבראו עד מוצאי שבת ובמוצאי שבת נתן הקב"ה דיעה באדם הראשון מעין דוגמא של מעלה והביא שני אבנים וטחנן זו בזו ויצא מהן אור והביא שתי בהמות והרכיב זו בזו ויצא מהן פרד רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר פרד בימי ענה היה שנאמר (בראשית לו, כד) הוא ענה אשר מצא את הימים במדבר,דורשי חמורות היו אומרים ענה פסול היה לפיכך הביא פסול לעולם שנאמר (בראשית לו, כ) אלה בני שעיר החורי וכתיב אלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה אלא מלמד שבא צבעון על אמו והוליד ממנה ענה,ודילמא תרי ענה הוו אמר רבא אמינא מילתא דשבור מלכא לא אמרה ומנו שמואל איכא דאמרי אמר ר"פ אמינא מילתא דשבור מלכא לא אמרה ומנו רבא אמר קרא הוא ענה הוא ענה דמעיקרא,תנו רבנן עשרה דברים נבראו בערב שבת בין השמשות ואלו הן באר ומן וקשת הכתב והמכתב והלוחות קברו של משה ומערה שעמד בה משה ואליהו פתיחת פי האתון ופתיחת פי הארץ לבלוע את הרשעים ויש אומרים אף מקלו של אהרן שקדיה ופרחיה ויש אומרים אף המזיקין ויש אומרים אף | 54a. but a man of understanding will draw it out” (Proverbs 20:5). Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; that is a reference to Ulla, who had a thought but did not articulate it. But a man of understanding will draw it out; that is a reference to Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who understood the allusion even though it was not articulated. The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion do Ulla and Rabba bar bar Ḥana hold, leading them to reject Rabbi Abba’s statement of Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion? The Gemara answers: They hold in accordance with that which Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One recites the blessing over fire both at the conclusion of Shabbat and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. And that is how the people act.,The Gemara raises an objection from that which was previously taught: One recites a blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat and not at the conclusion of Festivals or Yom Kippur, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. And once he sees it, he recites the blessing immediately. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not recite the blessing immediately; rather, he waits and arranges and recites the blessings over fire and spices over the cup of wine that accompanies the recitation of havdala. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. How does Rabbi Yoḥa explain the baraita?,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rabbi Yoḥa said that one recites the blessing at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, it is referring to fire that rested on Yom Kippur, i.e., fire for which no prohibition was involved in its kindling, either because it was kindled before Yom Kippur or because it was kindled in a permitted manner, e.g., for a dangerously ill person. There, where Rabbi Yoḥa said that the blessing is recited only at the conclusion of Shabbat, it is referring to fire generated from wood and from stones after Shabbat, similar to the primordial fire, which was created at the conclusion of Shabbat.,It was taught in one baraita: With regard to fire generated from wood and stones, one recites a blessing over it; and it was taught in one other baraita: One does not recite a blessing over it. This apparent contradiction is not difficult. Here, where the baraita states that one recites a blessing, it is referring to the conclusion of Shabbat. There, where the baraita states that one does not recite a blessing, it is referring to the conclusion of Yom Kippur.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would distribute the blessings over the fire and the spices, reciting each when the opportunity arose. Rabbi Ḥiyya would collect them, reciting all the blessings at the same time in the framework of havdala. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Even though Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi distributes them and recites each blessing at his first opportunity, he repeats the blessings and arranges and recites them over the cup of wine in order to discharge the obligation of his children and the members of his household.,The Gemara stated that fire was originally created at the conclusion of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Was fire created at the conclusion of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten miraculous phenomena were created in heaven on Shabbat eve during twilight, and were revealed in the world only later? They were: Miriam’s well, and the manna that fell in the desert, and the rainbow, writing [ketav], and the writing instrument [mikhtav], and the tablets of the Ten Commandments, and the grave of Moses, and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the mouth of Balaam’s donkey, and the opening of the earth’s mouth to swallow the wicked in the incident involving Korah.,Rabbi Neḥemya said in the name of his father: Even the fire and the mule, which is a product of crossbreeding, were created at that time. Rabbi Yoshiya said in the name of his father: Even the ram slaughtered by Abraham in place of Isaac, and the shamir worm used to shape the stones for the altar, were created at that time. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the tongs were created at this time. He would say: Tongs can be fashioned only with other tongs, but who fashioned the first tongs? Indeed, the first pair of tongs was fashioned at the hand of Heaven. An anonymous questioner said to him: It is possible to fashion tongs with a mold and align it without the need for other tongs. Indeed, the first tongs were a creation of man. In any event, fire was originally created before Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Shabbat.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to our fire, and that baraita is referring to the fire of Gehenna. The Gemara explains: Our fire was created at the conclusion of Shabbat, but the fire of Gehenna was created on Shabbat eve. The Gemara proceeds to ask: Was the fire of Gehenna created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of Messiah.,The Gemara provides sources for the notion that each of these phenomena was created before the world was. Torah was created before the world was created, as it is written: “The Lord made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22), which, based on the subsequent verses, is referring to the Torah. Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God,” and it is written immediately afterward: “You return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man” (Psalms 90:2–3).,The Garden of Eden was created before the world was created, as it is written: “And God planted the Garden of Eden in the east [mikedem]” (Genesis 2:8). The term: In the east [mikedem] is interpreted in the sense of: Before [mikodem], i.e., before the world was created. Gehenna was created before the world was created, as it is written: “For its hearth is ordained of old” (Isaiah 30:33). The hearth, i.e., Gehenna, was created before the world was created.,The Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Sanctuary” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written in the chapter discussing the Messiah: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. This baraita states that Gehenna was created before the world was created and not during twilight before the first Shabbat.,They say in answer: The void of Gehenna was created before the world, but its fire was created on Shabbat eve.,The Gemara asks: And was its fire created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The fire that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the second day of the week will never be extinguished, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, nor will their fire be extinguished; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24)? And Rabbi Bana’a, son of Rabbi Ulla, said: Why doesn’t the verse state: That it was good, at the end of the second day of the week of Creation, as it does on the other days? It is because on that day the fire of Gehenna was created. And Rabbi Elazar said that even though: That it was good, was not stated with regard to the creations of the second day, He later included it on the sixth day, as it is stated: “And God saw all that He had done and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).,Rather, the void of Gehenna was created before the world was created, and its fire was created only on the second day of the week. And the thought arose in God’s mind to create our fire on Shabbat eve; however, it was not actually created until the conclusion of Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The thoughts of two phenomena arose in God’s mind on Shabbat eve, but were not actually created until the conclusion of Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat, the Holy One, Blessed be He, granted Adam, the first man, creative knowledge similar to divine knowledge, and he brought two rocks and rubbed them against each other, and the first fire emerged from them. Adam also brought two animals, a female horse and a male donkey, and mated them with each other, and the resultant offspring that emerged from them was a mule. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says that the first mule was in the days of Anah, as it is stated: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah; this is Anah who found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father” (Genesis 36:24).,The interpreters of Torah symbolism [ḥamurot] would say: Anah was the product of an incestuous relationship, and as a result he was spiritually unfit to produce offspring. Therefore, he brought an example of unfitness, i.e., an animal physically unfit to produce offspring, into the world, as it is stated: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, and Shoval, and Zibeon, and Anah” (Genesis 36:20). And it is also stated: “And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). One verse describes both Anah and Zibeon as sons of Seir, meaning that they are brothers, while the other verse describes Anah as Zibeon’s son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon cohabited with his mother, the wife of Seir, and fathered Anah from her. He is called Seir’s son although in fact he was the offspring of Seir’s son and Seir’s wife.,The Gemara asks: And perhaps there were two people named Anah, one the son of Zibeon and the other the son of Seir? Rava said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be an epithet for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some say a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is he that Rav Pappa is referring to by the epithet King Shapur? He is Rava. The verse said: “This is Anah who found the mules,” indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially in the earlier verse.,The Sages taught: Ten phenomena were created on Shabbat eve during twilight, and they were: Miriam’s well, and manna, and the rainbow, writing, and the writing instrument, and the tablets, the grave of Moses, and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the mouth of Balaam’s donkey, and the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow the wicked in the time of Korah. And some say that even Aaron’s staff was created then with its almonds and its blossoms. Some say that even the demons were created at this time. And some say that even |
|
47. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, 25a, 20a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 188| 20a. בקילור ורבי תלה בשרף שקמה מאי לאו אאדום,לא אשאר דמים,אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי הוו יתבי קמיה אומנא שקלי ליה קרנא קמייתא לאמימר חזייה אמר להו אדום דתנן כי האי שקלי ליה אחריתי אמר להו אשתני אמר רב אשי כגון אנא דלא ידענא בין האי להאי לא מבעי לי למחזי דמא,שחור כחרת אמר רבה בר רב הונא חרת שאמרו דיו תניא נמי הכי שחור כחרת ושחור שאמרו דיו ולימא דיו אי אמר דיו הוה אמינא כי פכחותא דדיותא קמ"ל כי חרותא דדיותא,איבעיא להו בלחה או ביבשתא תא שמע דרבי אמי פלי קורטא דדיותא ובדיק בה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כקיר כדיו וכענב טמאה וזוהי ששנינו עמוק מכן טמאה אמר רבי אלעזר כזית כזפת וכעורב טהור וזוהי ששנינו דיהה מכן טהור,עולא אמר כלבושא סיואה עולא אקלע לפומבדיתא חזייה לההוא טייעא דלבוש לבושא אוכמא אמר להו שחור דתנן כי האי מרטו מיניה פורתא פורתא יהבו ביה ארבע מאה זוזי,רבי יוחנן אמר אלו כלים האוליירין הבאים ממדינת הים למימרא דאוכמי נינהו והאמר להו רבי ינאי לבניו בני אל תקברוני לא בכלים שחורים ולא בכלים לבנים שחורים שמא אזכה ואהיה כאבל בין החתנים לבנים שמא לא אזכה ואהיה כחתן בין האבלים אלא בכלים האוליירין הבאים ממדינת הים,אלמא לאו אוכמי נינהו לא קשיא הא בגלימא הא בפתורא,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכולם אין בודקין אלא על גבי מטלית לבנה אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי ושחור על גבי אדום,אמר רב ירמיה מדפתי ולא פליגי הא בשחור הא בשאר דמים מתקיף לה רב אשי אי הכי לימא שמואל חוץ משחור אלא אמר רב אשי בשחור גופיה קמיפלגי,אמר עולא כולן עמוק מכן טמא דיהה מכן טהור כשחור,ואלא מאי שנא שחור דנקט סד"א הואיל ואמר רבי חנינא שחור אדום הוא אלא שלקה הילכך אפילו דיהה מכן נמי ליטמא קמשמע לן,רבי אמי בר אבא אמר וכולן עמוק מכן טמא דיהה מכן נמי טמא חוץ משחור אלא מאי אהני שיעוריה דרבנן לאפוקי דיהה דדיהה,ואיכא דאמרי רמי בר אבא אמר וכולן עמוק מכן טהור דיהה מכן טהור חוץ משחור ולהכי מהני שיעוריה דרבנן,בר קפרא אמר וכולן עמוק מכן טמא דיהה מכן טהור חוץ ממזג שעמוק מכן טהור דיהה מכן טהור בר קפרא אדיהו ליה ודכי אעמיקו ליה ודכי אמר רבי חנינא כמה נפיש גברא דלביה כמשמעתיה,וכקרן כרכום תנא לח ולא יבש,תני חדא כתחתון ולא כעליון ותניא אידך כעליון ולא כתחתון ותניא אידך כעליון וכל שכן כתחתון ותניא אידך כתחתון וכל שכן כעליון,אמר אביי תלתא דרי ותלתא טרפן הויין,נקוט דרא מציעאה וטרפא מציעתא בידך,כי אתו לקמיה דרבי אבהו אמר להו בגושייהו שנינו,וכמימי אדמה תנו רבנן כמימי אדמה מביא אדמה שמנה מבקעת בית כרם ומציף עליה מים דברי רבי מאיר רבי עקיבא אומר מבקעת יודפת רבי יוסי אומר מבקעת סכני רבי שמעון אומר אף מבקעת גנוסר וכיוצא בהן,תניא אידך וכמימי אדמה מביא אדמה שמנה מבקעת בית כרם ומציף עליה מים כקליפת השום ואין שיעור למים משום דאין שיעור לעפר ואין בודקין אותן צלולין אלא עכורין צללו חוזר ועוכרן וכשהוא עוכרן אין עוכרן ביד אלא בכלי,איבעיא להו אין עוכרין אותן ביד אלא בכלי דלא לרמיה בידיה ולעכרינהו אבל במנא כי עכר ליה בידיה שפיר דמי או דלמא דלא לעכרינהו בידיה אלא במנא,ת"ש כשהוא בודקן אין בודקן אלא בכוס ועדיין תבעי לך בדיקה בכוס עכירה במאי תיקו,כי אתו לקמיה דרבה בר אבוה אמר להו במקומה שנינו רבי חנינא פלי קורטא דגרגשתא ובדיק ביה לייט עליה רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי באסכרה | 20a. it to an eye salve [bekilor], which the woman had previously handled. And likewise, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi attributed a stain to the sap of a sycamore tree the woman had touched. The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not the case that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi attributed red bloodstains to these causes because they are red, albeit not as red as blood? Evidently, the color of impure blood can be similar to such shades of red as well, which means that all these distinctions mentioned by the amora’im above are irrelevant.,The Gemara answers: No; Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi attributed stains to an eye salve and the sap of a sycamore tree because those stains were like the other types of blood mentioned in the mishna.,The Gemara relates that Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting before a bloodletter, to receive treatment. The bloodletter removed blood in a bloodletter’s horn from Ameimar for his first treatment. Ameimar saw the blood and said to his colleagues: The red color that we learned about in the mishna is like this blood in the horn. The bloodletter again removed blood from Ameimar, this time using another horn. Upon seeing the blood in this horn, Ameimar said to them: The color of this blood has changed compared to the blood in the first horn. Rav Ashi, who saw both types of blood, said: Any Sage such as myself, as I do not know how to distinguish between this blood and that blood, should not see, i.e., examine, different types of blood to issue a ruling as to whether they are pure or impure.,§ The mishna teaches: What is the black color that is impure? It is blood as black as ḥeret. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: This ḥeret of which the Sages spoke is ink. The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: This black color is like ḥeret, and the black of which the Sages spoke is ink. The Gemara asks: But if so, why does the tanna of this baraita mention both terms? Let him say simply: Ink. The Gemara explains: If the tanna had said only: Ink, I would say that he means that it is like the clear part of the ink, i.e., the upper portion of ink in an inkwell, which is very bright. Therefore, the tanna of the baraita teaches us that it is like the blackness [ḥaruta] of the ink, the lower part of the inkwell, which is darker.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: To which type of ḥeret were the Sages referring? Were they referring to moist or dry ḥeret? Come and hear a resolution from a practical ruling, as when black blood was brought before Rabbi Ami he would break up pieces of dried ink and examine blood with it.,§ The mishna states that if the blackness of the blood is deeper than ink, it is impure, whereas if it is lighter it is pure. In this regard, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a woman saw blood whose color was like black wax [kekir] or like black ink or like a black grape, she is ritually impure. And this is the meaning of that which we learned in the mishna: If the black is deeper than that, it is ritually impure. Rabbi Elazar says: If a woman saw blood whose color was like a black olive, or like black tar, or like a black raven, this blood is pure. And this is the meaning of that which we learned in the mishna: If the black is lighter than that, it is ritually pure.,Ulla says: When the mishna states that black blood is impure, it means like the garments of the inhabitants of Siva’a, which were extremely black. The Gemara relates that when Ulla happened to go to Pumbedita, he saw a certain Arab [tayya’a] who was dressed in a black garment. Ulla said to the Sages of Pumbedita: The black color that we learned about in the mishna is like this color. Since people wanted a sample of the shade of blood mentioned in the mishna, they tore the Arab’s garment from him bit by bit, and in recompense they gave him four hundred dinars.,Rabbi Yoḥa says: The black blood that the mishna says is impure is like these cloths of the bath attendants [haolyarin] who come from overseas. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that these are black cloths? But didn’t Rabbi Yannai say to his sons: My sons, do not bury me in black cloths nor in white cloths. Not in black, lest I be acquitted in judgment and I will be among the righteous like a mourner among the grooms. And not in white, lest I not be acquitted in judgment and I will be among the wicked like a groom among the mourners. Rather, bury me in the cloths of the bath attendants who come from overseas, which are neither black nor white. Apparently, these cloths of the bath attendants are not black.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as a distinction can be made. When Rabbi Yannai indicates that they are not black, that is referring to a regular garment, whereas with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥa that indicates that they are black, that is referring to a cloth placed on an item such as a table or a bed.,§ With regard to the examination of the five types of blood mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And with regard to all of them, in their various shades, one examines them only when they are placed on a white linen cloth, as only in this fashion can one properly discern the precise color of the blood. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: And in the case of black blood, one must place it on a red linen cloth.,Rav Yirmeya of Difti says: And Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi do not disagree, as this statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi is referring specifically to black blood, whereas that ruling of Shmuel that one must use a white cloth is referring to the other four types of blood listed in the mishna. Rav Ashi objects to this interpretation: If so, let Shmuel say: With regard to all of them except for black, one examines them only when they are placed on a white linen cloth. Rather, Rav Ashi says: Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi disagree with regard to black blood itself, whether it should be examined against the background of a white or a red cloth.,Ulla says: With regard to all of these five types of blood enumerated in the mishna, if the color is deeper than that which is described in the mishna the blood is ritually impure; if it is lighter than it, the blood is ritually pure, as explicitly stated in the mishna with regard to black.,The Gemara asks: But if so, what is different about black, that the mishna mentions this halakha only with regard to that color? The Gemara answers: The reason is that it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Ḥanina says: The black blood mentioned in the mishna is actually red but its color has faded, therefore, even if it is lighter than that which is described in the mishna, it should also be impure. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that even with regard to black blood, if the color is lighter than the shade mentioned in the mishna, it is pure.,Rabbi Ami bar Abba says: And with regard to all of these five types of blood, if the color is deeper than that which is described in the mishna, the blood is ritually impure; if it is lighter than that which is described in the mishna, it is also ritually impure, except for black, which is pure if it is lighter. The Gemara asks: But if these types of blood, except for black, are impure whether they are deeper or lighter than the specific shade described in the mishna, what purpose do the measures specified by the Sages in the mishna serve? The Gemara answers that these descriptions are to the exclusion of a color that is lighter than lighter, i.e., the color is so faint that it does not qualify as impure blood.,And there are those who say a different version of the above statement. Rami bar Abba says: And with regard to all of these five types of blood, if the color is deeper than that which is described in the mishna, it is ritually pure; if it is lighter than that, it is also ritually pure, except for black, which is impure if it is deeper. And for this reason the measures, i.e., descriptions, of the Sages are effective, as any discrepancy from these descriptions means that the blood is pure.,Bar Kappara says: And with regard to all of them, if the color is deeper than that, the blood is impure; if it is lighter than that, it is pure, except for blood the color of diluted wine, with regard to which if the color is deeper than that, the blood is pure, and if it is lighter than that, it is also pure. The Gemara relates that in an effort to test bar Kappara, the Sages brought before him blood that had the appearance of diluted wine and they lightened it, and bar Kappara deemed it pure. On another occasion they deepened the color of blood that looked like diluted wine, and again bar Kappara deemed it pure. Rabbi Ḥanina says in astonishment: How great is this man whose heart, which is so sensitive it can distinguish between such similar shades of blood, is in accordance with his ruling of halakha.,§ The mishna teaches, with regard to the colors of impure blood: And what is the color that is like the bright color of the crocus flower that is impure? It is like the brightest part of the flower, which is used to produce the orange-colored spice saffron. The Sages taught: This is referring to the appearance of moist saffron that is still fresh and not to its dry counterpart.,With regard to this color, it is taught in one baraita that it is like the lower part of the crocus flower, not like its upper part; and it is taught in another baraita that it is like the upper part of the flower and not like its lower part; and it is taught in another baraita that it is like its upper part, and all the more so blood whose color is like its lower part is impure; and it is taught in yet another baraita that it is like its lower part, and all the more so blood whose color is like its upper part is impure.,Abaye says that these baraitot do not contradict one another, as the crocus has three layers of the brightly colored parts of the crocus flower harvested for saffron, one above the other, and in each layer there are three leaves, i.e., styles or stigmata.,In order to examine blood whose color is similar to saffron, you should grasp the middle leaf of the middle layer in your hand and compare it to the blood. If they are similar, the blood is impure. Consequently, the four baraitot do not contradict one another: The first two baraitot are referring to the layer of leaves that must be examined. The first baraita says that it is the lower one, as the middle layer is lower than the upper one, while the second baraita states the reverse because the middle layer is higher than the lower one. Meanwhile, the last two baraitot are dealing with the leaves within the middle layer. The baraita that states: Like its lower part, and all the more so like its upper part, means: Like the lowest of the three leaves and all the more so like the middle leaf, which is above that leaf, while the other baraita states a similar idea with regard to the upper and middle leaves. In any event, all four baraitot are referring to the part of the crocus flower that is called by the mishna its brightest part.,The Gemara relates: When people would come before Rabbi Abbahu for him to examine blood whose color was similar to saffron, he would say to them: We learned that the mishna is referring specifically to crocus flowers that are still in their clumps of earth in which they grew, as once they are detached from that earth their color changes.,§ The mishna states: And what is the color that is like water that inundates red earth that is impure? In this regard the Sages taught in a baraita: In order to examine blood that is like water that inundates red earth, one brings fertile earth from the Beit Kerem Valley and one inundates the earth with enough water until it pools on the surface; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Akiva says: One brings earth from the Yodfat Valley. Rabbi Yosei says: From the Sikhnei Valley. Rabbi Shimon says: One can even bring earth from the Genosar Valley or from similar places.,It is taught in another baraita: And to test whether blood is like water that inundates red earth, one brings fertile earth from the Beit Kerem Valley and one inundates the earth with an amount of water that rises above the earth by the thickness of the husk of garlic. And there is no required measure for the water, because there is no required measure for the earth with which the examination must be performed; it is sufficient to use a small amount of earth with a small amount of water. And one does not examine it when the water is clear, as it does not have the color of the earth, but rather when it is muddy from the earth. And if the water became clear because the earth settled, one must muddy it again. And when one muddies it he does not muddy it by hand but rather with a vessel.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the statement that one does not muddy it by hand but rather with a vessel mean that one should not put the dirt into his hand and muddy the water with dirt in his hand, but in a case where the earth is in a vessel, when one muddies it by mixing the earth and water with his hand one may well do so? Or perhaps the baraita means that even when the earth is in a vessel one should not muddy the water by mixing it with earth with his hand, but rather with a vessel?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: When one examines this water, he examines it only with a cup. Evidently, it is necessary to use a vessel. The Gemara rejects this proof: But you still have a dilemma. This baraita merely states that the examination must be performed while the water is in a cup, but with what is the muddying performed? Must this be done by means of a vessel alone, or may one use his hand as well? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.,§ The Gemara relates: When people would come before Rabba bar Avuh to examine blood that is similar to water that inundates red earth, he would say to them: We learned that the examination must be conducted in its place, i.e., the location the earth was taken from. But if the earth was transported elsewhere, the examination is no longer effective. The Gemara further relates that Rabbi Ḥanina would break up a clump of earth and examine with it, without mixing it in water. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, would curse anyone who used this method that they should be punished with diphtheria. |
|
48. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 10a, 110a, 110b, 115a, 122b, 139a, 20b, 31a, 59b, 74b-75a, 94a, 66b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 188 66b. לתרוצי סוגיא עבידא הכא לסמוך עילויה הוא דעבידא וסמיך עליה:,טמאין מדרס ואין יוצאין בהן בשבת ואין נכנסין בהן לעזרה:,תני תנא קמיה דר' יוחנן נכנסין בהן לעזרה,א"ל אני שונה אשה חולצת בו ואת אמרת נכנסין תני אין נכנסין בהן לעזרה:,לוקטמין טהורה: מאי לוקטמין אמר ר' אבהו חמרא דאכפא רבא בר פפא אמר קשירי רבא בר רב הונא אמר פרמי:,| 66b. it is made merely to align his steps and straighten his posture. He does not completely lean all his weight on it. Here, in the case of a wooden leg, it is made to lean on, and in fact he leans all his weight on it.,It was taught in the mishna that the supports of a zav and his chair are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter into the Temple courtyard with them.,The tanna, who recited mishnayot before Rabbi Yoḥa, taught the opposite halakha in the mishna: One may enter into the Temple courtyard with them.,Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: I teach that a woman may perform ḥalitza with this support, as it has the legal status of a shoe in every sense, and you say that one may enter the Temple courtyard? Teach the mishna in the following manner: One may not enter into the Temple courtyard with them.,We learned in the mishna that loketamin are pure. The Gemara asks: What are loketamin? Rabbi Abbahu said: They are wooden toys in the shape of a donkey one carried on the shoulders, creating the impression that the donkey is riding him. Rava bar Pappa said: They are stilts used to avoid getting dirty when walking in mud or for amusement. Rava bar Rav Huna said: They are masks [peramei].,boys may go out on Shabbat with knots as a folk remedy and princes with bells. And any person is permitted to go out on Shabbat with those objects; however, the Sages spoke in the present, addressing situations that were prevalent.,What are these knots? Adda Mari said that Rav Naḥman bar Barukh said that Rav Ashi bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: They are garlands of the madder plant that are tied for their medicinal qualities.,Abaye said: Mother, actually his foster mother, said to me about the healing properties of madder: Three garlands maintain the illness at its present state and prevent it from worsening, five garlands heal the illness, and seven are effective even against sorcery.,Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And that benefit provided by the madder plant is specifically in a case where one on whom the knots were tied does not look at the sun and the moon, and does not see rain, and hears neither the sound of clanging iron, nor the sound of the hen, nor the sound of footsteps. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: If that is the case, the remedial powers of the madder fell in a pit, i.e., if so many conditions exist, for all intents and purposes it provides no benefit at all.,The Gemara asks: If these knots in the madder plant have remedial qualities, why specifically were boys mentioned in the mishna? Even girls can benefit from the cure as well. By the same token, why specifically were young boys mentioned in the mishna? Even adults can benefit from the cure as well.,Rather, what are these knots? Like that which Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: A son who has longings for his father and has a difficult time leaving him, the father takes a strap from the right shoe and ties it on the boy’s left arm as a talisman to help the child overcome his longings. These feelings are more common in small children and especially in boys for their fathers, as fathers were more involved in raising their sons than they were in raising their daughters. Therefore, the Sages allowed specifically young boys to go out with these knots. With regard to this practice, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic for where to tie the strap is phylacteries, which are tied by the right hand on the left arm. And the opposite, tying the strap from the left shoe onto his right arm, is dangerous because it will exacerbate his longings.,On the topic of the use of various forms of healing and medicinal practices and their permissibility on Shabbat, the Gemara cites additional statements by that Sage on these topics. Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: With regard to overturning an empty cup in which there had been hot water and placing it on one’s navel for healing purposes on Shabbat, he may well do so.,And Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: It is permissible to smear oil and salt on oneself on Shabbat.,As in this case of Rav Huna, who departed from the house of Rav, and Rav, who departed from the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya, who departed from the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when they were drunk, the rabbi would bring oil and salt and rub them on the palms of their hands and the soles of their feet and say: Just as this oil is clear, so let the wine of so-and-so, son of so-and-so, his mother, become clear. In other words, let them become sober. And if he could not bring oil and salt, or if they did not work, he would bring the sealing clay of a barrel and soak it in water and say: Just as this sealing clay is clear, so let the wine of so-and-so, son of so-and-so, become clear.,And Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: It is permitted to strangle, i.e., tightly bandage the neck of one whose vertebra was dislocated in order to reset it, on Shabbat.,And Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: With regard to tightly swaddling a baby born on Shabbat in order to align any limbs that may have been dislocated in birth, one may well do so.,There were different versions with regard to the halakhot of Avin bar Huna. Rav Pappa taught two halakhot with regard to children in his name and Rav Zevid taught one halakha with regard to a child in his name. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa taught two halakhot with regard to children, and he taught both of them in the name of Avin bar Huna, i.e., the halakha with regard to knots and the halakha with regard to swaddling. Rav Zevid taught one halakha with regard to a child. The first, with regard to knots, he taught in the name of Avin bar Huna. And this, with regard to swaddling, he taught in the name of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: With regard to tightly swaddling a baby on Shabbat, one may well do so.,The Gemara cites additional statements said by Abaye in the name of the woman who raised him with regard to remedies. Abaye said, Mother said to me: All incantations that are repeated are intoned using the name of the mother of the one requiring the incantation, and all knots tied for the purpose of healing are tied on the left.,And Abaye said, Mother said to me: All incantations for which the number of times they must be intoned is specified, one recites them as they are specified; and those for which the number of times they must be intoned is not specified, one recites them forty-one times.,The Sages taught in a baraita: One may go out with a preservation stone, which prevent miscarriages, on Shabbat. They said in the name of Rabbi Meir that one may go out even with the counterweight of a preservation stone; i.e., a stone or another object that was weighed against and found equivalent to the weight of the preservation stone, which is also effective. And this leniency applies not only to a woman who miscarried in the past and is concerned that she may miscarry again; rather, it applies even to a woman who never miscarried and is concerned lest she miscarry for the first time. And it applies not only to a woman who is aware that she is pregt; rather, it applies even if a woman suspects that she may become pregt and miscarry. Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said in the name of Abaye: And this applies only when he happened upon an object that was found equal to the preservation stone when he weighed it against that stone, not when one alters the object to equal the weight of the preservation stone. Abaye raised a dilemma: With regard to a counterweight to the counterweight, i.e., one who finds an object and determines its weight by weighing it against the counterweight of the preservation stone, what is its legal status? May a woman go out into the public domain with it? The Gemara concludes: Let this dilemma stand unresolved.,And Abaye said, Mother said to me: To heal a fever of one day, let one take a pale, i.e., newly minted, dinar and go to the salt pools, and weigh its weight in salt against it, and let him bind the salt to the opening of the neckline of his garment with a thread made of hair.,And if this remedy is not effective, let him sit at a crossroads, and when he sees a large ant carrying something, he should take the ant and place it in a copper tube, and close it with lead, and seal it with sixty seals, and shake it, and lift it, and say to it: Your burden is upon me and my burden, my fever, is upon you. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Huna, said to Rav Ashi: And perhaps a different person already found this ant and used this remedy to end his illness. In that case, by accepting the burden of the ant, he is bringing another’s illness upon himself. Rather, let him say to the ant: My burden and your burden are upon you.,And if that remedy is not effective, let him take a new jug, and go to the river, and say to it: River, river, lend me a jug of water for a guest who happened to come to me. And let him turn it around his head seven times, and pour out the water behind him, and say to it: River, river, take back the water that you gave me because the guest who happened to come to me came on its day and left on its day.,Rav Huna said: | |
|
| 49. Anon., Bundahishn, 109a, 13b-14a, 17b, 23a, 33a, 39a, 74b, 94b, 95a, 98a (5th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 77, 184, 190 |
| 50. Anon., Leges Publicae, 3.3, 6.24 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in reference to the exilarch Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 217 |
| 51. Anon., Midrash On Song of Songs, 4.8.1 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in syriac Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 186 |
| 52. Anon., Šāyest Ne Šāyest, 4 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in syriac Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 186 |
| 53. Zoroastrian Literature, Mādayān Ī Hazār Dādestān, a38.12-16, a37.9, a27.5-7, 2.17-3.1, a37.3-4, 84.15, 84.13, 84.14 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 120 |
| 54. Zoroastrian Literature, Gizistag Abāliš, 8.4 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in reference to the exilarch •loanwords, iranian, in syriac Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 186, 217 |
| 55. Zoroastrian Literature, Dādestān Ī Dēnīg, 2.13, 38.30-38.31 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used to signal persian otherness •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in reference to the exilarch •loanwords, iranian, in syriac Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 186, 190, 217 |
| 56. Anon., Nerangestān, 67-69 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 186 |
| 57. Anon., Frahang Ī Pahlavīk, 4.11 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, in texts about romans Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 191 |
| 58. Anon., Wizīdagīhā Ī Zādspram, 7.1 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used in reference to the exilarch Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 217 |
| 59. Zoroastrian Literature, Ardā Wirāz Nāmag, 10.18-11.8 Tagged with subjects: •loanwords, iranian, in the babylonian talmud, used to signal persian otherness Found in books: Mokhtarian, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (2021) 190 |
