1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 25.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 60| 25.14. "סוֹד יְהוָה לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם׃", | 25.14. "The counsel of the LORD is with them that fear Him; And His covet, to make them know it.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 214, 215; Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 247| 18.4. "אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ וְאֶת־חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", | 18.4. "Mine ordices shall ye do, and My statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.", |
|
| 3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 11.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 165 |
4. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 8.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 165| 8.3. "וַיְעַנְּךָ וַיַּרְעִבֶךָ וַיַּאֲכִלְךָ אֶת הַמָּן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָ לְמַעַן הוֹדִעֲךָ כִּי לֹא עַל־הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם כִּי עַל־כָּל־מוֹצָא פִי־יְהוָה יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם׃", | 8.3. "And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.", |
|
| 5. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 10.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 166 |
6. Tosefta, Bikkurim, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 53| 2.4. "דרכים ששוה לנשים מטמא באודם כנשים ואין מתייחד עם האנשים כנשים ואין זוקק ליבום כנשים ואין חולק עם הבנים כנשים ואין [חולק] בקדשי קדשים כנשים ופסול לכל עדות שבתורה כנשים ואם נבעל בעבירה פסול [מן הכהונה] כנשים.", | |
|
7. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 53| 1.7. "כָּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין, חוּץ מִבַּל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תִּטַּמָּא לְמֵתִים: \n", | 1.7. "All obligations of the son upon the father, men are obligated, but women are exempt. But all obligations of the father upon the son, both men and women are obligated. All positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt. But all positive non-time-bound commandments both men and women are obligated. And all negative commandments, whether time-bound or not time-bound, both men and women are obligated, except for, the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head], and the prohibition against marring [the corner of the beard], and the prohibition [for a priest] to become impure through contact with the dead.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Berachot, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 165; Lorberbaum (2015), In God's Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism, 81| 1.3. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בָּעֶרֶב כָּל אָדָם יַטּוּ וְיִקְרְאוּ, וּבַבֹּקֶר יַעַמְדוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כָּל אָדָם קוֹרֵא כְדַרְכּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם שׁוֹכְבִים, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אֲנִי הָיִיתִי בָא בַדֶּרֶךְ, וְהִטֵּתִי לִקְרוֹת, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְסִכַּנְתִּי בְעַצְמִי מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּדַי הָיִיתָ לָחוּב בְּעַצְמְךָ, שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל: \n", | 1.3. "Bet Shammai say: in the evening every man should recline and recite [the Shema], and in the morning he should stand, as it says, “And when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). Bet Hillel say that every man should recite in his own way, as it says, “And when you walk by the way” (ibid). Why then is it said, “And when you lies down and when you get up?” At the time when people lie down and at the time when people rise up. Rabbi Tarfon said: I was once walking by the way and I reclined to recite the Shema according to the words of Bet Shammai, and I incurred danger from robbers. They said to him: you deserved to come to harm, because you acted against the words of Bet Hillel.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.2, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 214, 215| 1.2. "כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים הוּא זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם וּמַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת וּמֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת וּמַקְרִיב אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הָרֶגֶל. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַיָּמִים, אִם רָצָה לְהַקְרִיב, מַקְרִיב, שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ: \n", 1.5. "מְסָרוּהוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית דִּין לְזִקְנֵי כְהֻנָּה, וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ לַעֲלִיַּת בֵּית אַבְטִינָס, וְהִשְׁבִּיעוּהוּ וְנִפְטְרוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, אָנוּ שְׁלוּחֵי בֵית דִּין, וְאַתָּה שְׁלוּחֵנוּ וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין, מַשְׁבִּיעִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ בְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ בַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, שֶׁלֹּא תְשַׁנֶּה דָבָר מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ לָךְ. הוּא פוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה, וְהֵן פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין: \n", | 1.2. "All seven days he sprinkles the blood and burns the incense and cleans lamps and offers the head and the leg; And on all other days if he wants he offers, for the high priest is first in offering a portion and has first place in taking a portion.", 1.5. "The elders of the court handed him over to the elders of the priesthood and they took him up to the upper chamber of the house of Avtinas. They adjured him and then left. And they said to him [when leaving]: “Sir, high priest, we are messengers of the court and you are our messenger and the messenger of the court. We adjure you by the one that caused His name dwell in this house that you do not change anything of what we said to you.” He turned aside and wept and they turned aside and wept.", |
|
10. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 214| 1.8. "איזו היא אצבע צרדה זו אצבע גדולה של ימין בפה [ולא] בנבל ולא בכנור מה היו אומרים (תהילים קכ״ז:א׳) שיר המעלות לשלמה אם ה' לא יבנה בית וגו' לא היו ישנים כל הלילה אלא שקורין כנגד כהן גדול [כדי] לעסקו בתורה כך היו נוהגין בגבולין אחר חורבן הבית זכר למקדש אבל חוטאין [היו].", | |
|
11. Tosefta, Sotah, 2.8, 7.11-7.12, 11.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 53, 165; Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 2.8. "כהן עומד ומקריב ע\"ג המזבח משא\"כ בכהנת האיש זכאי בבתו בקדושיה בכסף [בשטר] ובביאה וזכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה משא\"כ באשה האיש עובר על מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא משא\"כ באשה האיש עובר על בל תקיף ועל בל תשחית ועל בל תטמא למתים משא\"כ באשה האיש נידון [בן] סורר ומורה ואין האשה נדונית בן סורר ומורה האיש מעטף ומספר [והאשה מעטפת ואין מספרת] האיש נמכר ונשנה ואין האשה נמכרת ונשנית האיש נמכר עבד עברי ואין האשה נמכרת [עבד עברי] האיש נרצע ואין האשה נרצעת האיש קונה עבד עברי ואין האשה קונה עבד עברי. ", 7.11. "(דברים כ׳:ו׳) ומיה איש אשר נטע כרם ולא חללו ילך וישוב לביתו אחד הנוטע את הכרם ואחד חמשה אילני מאכל מחמשת המינין אפילו בחמש עיירות ה\"ז חוזר ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אין לי במשמע אלא כרם.", 7.12. "(דברים כ׳:ז׳) ומי האיש אשר ארש אשה אחד [מארס] ואחד [מייבם] אפילו שומרת יבם לחמשה אחין ואפי' חמשה אחין ששמעו שמת אחיהם במלחמה כולן חוזרין ובאין אין לי אלא בנה ביתו ולא חנכו נטע כרם ולא חללו ארס אשה ולא לקחה בנה בית וחנכו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש נטע כרם וחללו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש ארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש מנין שאין זזין ממקומן ת\"ל (דברים כ״ד:ה׳) כי יקח איש אשה חדשה דבר זה בכלל היה ולמה יצא להקיש אליו מה זה מיוחד שארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה י\"ב חדש שאין [זזין ממקומן] אף כולן כן.", 11.8. "כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (שמואל ב כ״א:ח׳) ואת חמשת בני מיכל בת שאול אשר ילדה לעדריאל [וגו'] המחולתי היכן מצינו שנתנה מיכל לעדריאל המחולתי והלא לא נתנה אלא לפלטי בן ליש אשר מגלים שנאמר (שמואל א כ״ה:מ״ד) ושאול נתן את מיכל בתו אשת דוד לפלטי בן ליש אלא מקיש נשואי מיכל לנשואי מרב מה נשואי מרב בעבירה אף נשואי מיכל [לפלטי בן ליש] בעבירה [היה].", | 7.11. "A person might think: 'since the Academy of Shammai declares unclean that which the Academy of Hillel declares clean, one prohibits that which the other permits, how, then, can I learn Torah?' This is way Torah repeats: \"words...the words...these are the words...\" All of the words have been given by a single Shepherd, one God fashioned them, one Provider gave them, Source of all deeds, blessed be God, has spoken them. So make for yourself a heart with many rooms, and bring into it the words of the Academy of Shammai and the words of the Academy of Hillel, the words of who declare unclean and those that declare clean. ", |
|
| 12. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 60 |
| 13. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 247 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 15. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
16. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 26.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 26.2. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִמִּלְחַיָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמְרוּ, מָצִינוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת בִּימֵי דָוִד עַד שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמוּ טַעַם חֵטְא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין לִדְרשׁ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מ"ט פָּנִים טָמֵא וּמ"ט פָּנִים טָהוֹר, וַהֲוָה דָּוִד מַצְלֵי עֲלַיְהוּ, הֲדָא הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים יב, ח): אַתָּה ה' תִּשְׁמְרֵם, אַתָּה ה' נְטַר אוֹרַיְתְהוֹן בְּלִבֵּהוֹן, [עפ"י (תהלים יב, ח)]: תִּנְצְרֵם מִן הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם, מִן הַדּוֹר הַהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב כְּלָיָה, אַחַר כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח הַזֶּה יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹפְלִין, אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶם דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין, הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים נז, ה): נַפְשִׁי בְּתוֹךְ לְבָאִם, לְבָאִם זֶה אַבְנֵר וַעֲמָשָׂא שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָאִים בַּתּוֹרָה. (תהלים נז, ה): אֶשְׁכְּבָה לֹהֲטִים, זֶה דּוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל שֶׁהָיוּ לְהוּטִין אַחַר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. (תהלים נז, ה): בְּנֵי אָדָם שִׁנֵּיהֶם חֲנִית וְחִצִּים, אֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי קְעִילָה דִּכְתִיב בָּהֶם (שמואל א כג, יא): הֲיַסְגִּרֻנִי בַעֲלֵי קְעִילָה בְיָדוֹ. (תהלים נז, ה): וּלְשׁוֹנָם חֶרֶב חַדָּה, אֵלּוּ הַזִּיפִים דִּכְתִיב בְּהוֹן (תהלים נד, ב): בְּבוֹא הַזִּיפִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְשָׁאוּל, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר דָּוִד וְכִי מָה הַשְּׁכִינָה עוֹשָׂה בָּאָרֶץ (תהלים נז, ב): רוּמָה עַל הַשָּׁמַיִם אֱלֹהִים, סַלֵּק שְׁכִינָתְךָ מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. אֲבָל דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אַחְאָב כֻּלָּן עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הָיוּ, וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָּהֶן דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹצְחִין, הוּא שֶׁעוֹבַדְיָה אָמַר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ (מלכים א יח, יג): הֲלֹא הֻגַּד לַאדֹנִי וגו' וָאֲכַלְכְּלֵם לֶחֶם וָמָיִם, אִם לֶחֶם לָמָּה מָיִם, אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ הַמַּיִם קָשִׁים לוֹ לְהָבִיא יוֹתֵר מִן הַלֶּחֶם, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ מַכְרִיז בְּהַר הַכַּרְמֶל וְאוֹמֵר (מלכים א יח, כב): אֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי נָבִיא לַה' לְבַדִּי, וְכָל עַמָּא יָדְעֵי וְלָא מְפַרְסְמֵי לְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמְרוּ לוֹ לַנָּחָשׁ מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מָצוּי בֵּין הַגְּדֵרוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּרַצְתִּי גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַנָּחָשׁ פָּרַץ גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם תְּחִלָּה לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲשָׂה סְפֶּקָלָטוֹר לְכָל פּוֹרְצֵי גְדֵרוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ, מָה אַתָּה מוֹעִיל, אֲרִי דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, זְאֵב טוֹרֵף וְאוֹכֵל, וְאַתְּ נוֹשֵׁךְ וּמֵמִית. אָמַר לָהֶם (קהלת י, יא): אִם יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ בְּלוֹא לָחַשׁ, אֶפְשָׁר דַּאֲנָא עָבֵיד כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם מִתְאֲמַר לִי מִן עֲלִיּוּתָא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ בְּאֵבֶר אֶחָד וְאַרְסְךָ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּכָל הָאֵבָרִים, אָמַר לָהֶם וְלִי אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים (קהלת י, יא): אֵין יִתְרוֹן לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן, דְּיָתֵיב בְּרוֹמִי וְקָטֵל בְּסוּרְיָא, בְּסוּרְיָא וְקָטֵל בְּרוֹמִי. וְלָמָּה קוֹרֵא שְׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג שְׁלשָׁה, הָאוֹמְרוֹ, הַמְּקַבְּלוֹ וְהַנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּגְבַר דַּהֲוַת לֵיהּ כַּלָּה בִּישָׁא וַהֲוַת צְמִידָה אֲמָרָה לִשָּׁן בִּישׁ, וַהֲוָה מְפַיֵּס יָתָהּ תְּרֵין זִמְנִין בְּיוֹמָא, חַד בְּרַמְשָׁא וְחַד בְּצַפְרָא, אֲמַר לָהּ אֲנָא בָּעֵי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תֵימְרִין לִשַּׁן בִּישׁ, מָה עֲבָדַת אֲזָלַת וַאֲמָרַת לְבַעֲלָהּ הָדֵין אֲבוּךְ בָּעֵי לְשַׁמָּשָׁא יָתִי, וְאִי לֵית אַתְּ מְהֵימַנְתְּ לִי עוּל אָתֵית לְרַמְשָׁא וְאַתְּ מַשְׁכַּח יָתֵיהּ יָתֵיב וּמְפַיֵּס לִי, אָזַל וּרְצַד עֲלוֹי וְחָמָא יָתֵיהּ קָאֵים גָּחִין וְסָיַח יָתָהּ. אֲמַר כְּבָר מִלָּא קוּשְׁטָן, מָה עֲבַד מְחָא לַאֲבוֹי וּקְטָלֵיהּ. אוֹבִילִין יָתֵיהּ לְדִינָא וְאִתְחַיַּיב קָטוֹלִין, וּלְהַהִיא אִנְתְּתָא דַּאֲמָרַת עַל אֲבוֹי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע וְאִיתְחַיְיבָא קָטוֹלִין, וְאִשְׁתַּכַּח לִשָּׁנָא קָטֵל תְּלָתֵיהוֹן. וּבִימֵי שָׁאוּל הָרַג אַרְבָּעָה, דּוֹאֵג שֶׁאָמַר, שָׁאוּל שֶׁקִּבְּלוֹ, אֲחִימֶלֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו, אַבְנֵר לָמָּה נֶהֱרַג, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אַבְנֵר נֶהֱרַג עַל שֶׁעָשָׂה דָמָן שֶׁל נְעָרִים שְׂחוֹק, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ב, יד): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְנֵר אֶל יוֹאָב יָקוּמוּ נָא הַנְּעָרִים וִישַׂחֲקוּ לְפָנֵינוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַל שֶׁהִקְדִּים שְׁמוֹ לְשֵׁם דָּוִד, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ג, יב): וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְנֵר מַלְאָכִים אֶל דָּוִד תַּחְתָּיו לֵאמֹר לְמִי אָרֶץ, וְהָכֵי כָּתַב לֵיהּ מֵאַבְנֵר לְדָוִד. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְשָׁאוּל לְהִתְפַּיֵּס בְּדָוִד וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ אַבְנֵר, שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דָּוִד (שמואל א כד, יא): וְאָבִי רְאֵה גַּם רְאֵה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי, מִן גְּלַגּוֹי דִּידָךְ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, כַּד אָתוֹן לַמַּעֲגָל. אָמַר לוֹ (שמואל א כו, יד): הֲלוֹא תַעֲנֶה אַבְנֵר, בַּכָּנָף אָמַרְתָּ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, חֲנִית וְצַפַּחַת בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת בְּשָׁאוּל עַל נוֹב וְלֹא מִחָה. | |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 3b. (דברי הימים א יז, כא) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ,ואף הוא פתח ודרש (קהלת יב, יא) דברי חכמים כדרבונות וכמסמרות נטועים בעלי אסופות נתנו מרועה אחד למה נמשלו דברי תורה לדרבן לומר לך מה דרבן זה מכוין את הפרה לתלמיה להוציא חיים לעולם אף דברי תורה מכוונין את לומדיהן מדרכי מיתה לדרכי חיים אי מה דרבן זה מטלטל אף דברי תורה מטלטלין ת"ל מסמרות,אי מה מסמר זה חסר ולא יתר אף דברי תורה חסירין ולא יתירין ת"ל נטועים מה נטיעה זו פרה ורבה אף דברי תורה פרין ורבין בעלי אסופות אלו תלמידי חכמים שיושבין אסופות אסופות ועוסקין בתורה הללו מטמאין והללו מטהרין הללו אוסרין והללו מתירין הללו פוסלין והללו מכשירין,שמא יאמר אדם היאך אני למד תורה מעתה תלמוד לומר כולם נתנו מרועה אחד אל אחד נתנן פרנס אחד אמרן מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא דכתיב (שמות כ, א) וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה,אף אתה עשה אזניך כאפרכסת וקנה לך לב מבין לשמוע את דברי מטמאים ואת דברי מטהרים את דברי אוסרין ואת דברי מתירין את דברי פוסלין ואת דברי מכשירין בלשון הזה אמר להם אין דור יתום שר' אלעזר בן עזריה שרוי בתוכו,ולימרו ליה בהדיא משום מעשה שהיה דתניא מעשה בר' יוסי בן דורמסקית שהלך להקביל פני ר' אלעזר בלוד אמר לו מה חידוש היה בבהמ"ד היום,א"ל נמנו וגמרו עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית,אמר לו יוסי פשוט ידיך וקבל עיניך פשט ידיו וקבל עיניו בכה ר' אלעזר ואמר (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם,אמר לו לך אמור להם אל תחושו למניינכם כך מקובלני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו הלכתא למשה מסיני עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית מה טעם הרבה כרכים כבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשום עולי בבל,מפני שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהן עניים בשביעית,תנא לאחר שנתיישבה דעתו אמר יהי רצון שיחזרו עיני יוסי למקומן וחזרו,ת"ר איזהו שוטה היוצא יחידי בלילה והלן בבית הקברות והמקרע את כסותו איתמר רב הונא אמר עד שיהו כולן בבת אחת ר' יוחנן אמר אפי' באחת מהן,היכי דמי אי דעביד להו דרך שטות אפי' בחדא נמי אי דלא עביד להו דרך שטות אפילו כולהו נמי לא,לעולם דקא עביד להו דרך שטות והלן בבית הקברות אימור כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה הוא דקא עביד והיוצא יחידי בלילה אימור גנדריפס אחדיה והמקרע את כסותו אימור בעל מחשבות הוא כיון דעבדינהו לכולהו הוה להו | 3b. b “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” /b (I Chronicles 17:21).,The Gemara adds: b And /b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya b also commenced /b his lecture b and taught: /b It is written: b “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd” /b (Ecclesiastes 12:11). b Why are matters of Torah compared to a goad? To tell you /b that b just as this goad directs the cow to her furrow to bring forth /b sustece for b life to the world, so too the words of Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. /b The Gemara asks: b If so, /b derive the following from that same analogy: b Just as this goad is movable /b and not rigid, b so too matters of Torah are movable /b in accordance with circumstance and are not permanent. Therefore, b the verse states: “Nails,” /b which are permanent.,The Gemara further asks: b If so, /b one can explain as follows: b Just as this nail is diminished /b in size b and does not expand, /b as it wastes away over time, b so too matters of Torah are /b gradually b diminished and do not expand. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Well fastened [ i netuim /i ].” Just as this plant [ i neti’a /i ] flourishes and multiplies, so too matters of Torah flourish and multiply. “Those that are composed in collections [ i ba’alei asufot /i ]”: These are Torah scholars who sit in many groups [ i asupot /i ] and engage in Torah /b study. There are often debates among these groups, as some of b these /b Sages b render /b an object or person b ritually impure and these render it pure; these prohibit /b an action b and these permit /b it; b these deem /b an item b invalid and these deem it valid. /b , b Lest a person say: Now, how can I study Torah /b when it contains so many different opinions? b The verse states /b that b they are all “given from one shepherd.” One God gave them; one leader, /b i.e., Moses, b said them from the mouth of the Master of all creation, Blessed be He, as it is written: “And God spoke all these words” /b (Exodus 20:1). The plural form “words” indicates that God transmitted all the interpretations of the Ten Commandments. Since the Sages invariably utilize the Torah itself or the statements of the prophets as the sources for their opinions, there is a certain unity to the study of Torah, despite the numerous explanations and applications., b So too you, /b the student, b make your ears like a funnel and acquire for yourself an understanding heart to hear /b both b the statements of /b those b who render /b objects b ritually impure and the statements of /b those b who render /b them b pure; the statements of /b those b who prohibit /b actions b and the statements of /b those b who permit /b them; b the statements of /b those b who deem /b items b invalid and the statements of /b those b who deem /b them b valid. /b When Rabbi Yehoshua heard these interpretations, b he said to them in these words: No generation /b is considered b orphaned, /b i.e. without a leader, b if Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya dwells among it. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma b should have told /b Rabbi Yehoshua these statements of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya b directly, /b without delay. Why did they hesitate at first? The Gemara answers: They were hesitant b due to an incident that occurred. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit, who went to greet Rabbi Eliezer in Lod. /b Rabbi Elazar b said to him: What novel /b idea b was /b taught b today in the study hall? /b ,Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit b said to him: /b The Sages assembled, b counted /b the votes, b and concluded /b that although the lands of b Ammon and Moab /b on the eastern side of the Jordan River are not part of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the i halakhot /i of the Sabbatical Year and tithes should not apply to them, as these lands are adjacent to Eretz Yisrael, b one separates the poor man’s tithe /b there b in the Sabbatical Year. /b Since the Sages debated which tithes should be separated, they had to take a vote to determine the i halakha /i in this regard.,Rabbi Elazar b said to him /b in anger: b Yosei, extend your hands and catch your eyes, /b which are about to come out of their sockets. b He extended his hands and caught his eyes. Rabbi Elazar wept and said /b the verse: b “The counsel of the Lord is with them who fear Him; and His covet, to make them know it” /b (Psalms 25:14), i.e., the Sages arrived at the correct conclusion, although they were unaware of the proper rationale behind it.,Rabbi Elazar b said to /b Rabbi Yosei to b go /b and b say to /b the Sages in the study hall: b Do not be concerned /b with regard b to your counting, /b that you might not have ruled properly, as you have not in fact instituted a new ordice at all. b This is /b the tradition that b I received from Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: /b It is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai /b that in b Ammon and Moab one separates the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. What is the reason? Those who ascended from Egypt conquered many cities, and those who ascended from Babylonia did not conquer them /b after the destruction of the First Temple.,This difference is important, b because the first consecration /b of Eretz Yisrael, by those who ascended from Egypt, caused b it /b to be b sanctified /b only b for its time and it /b was b not sanctified forever, /b as that depended on the renewed conquest of the land by the Jewish people. b And /b those who ascended from Babylonia b left those /b cities aside and did not consider them part of Eretz Yisrael even after Jewish settlement was renewed there. They would plow and harvest in these places in the Sabbatical Year and tithe the poor man’s tithe, b so that the poor /b of Eretz Yisrael, who did not have sufficient income from the previous years, b could rely upon /b that produce b in the Sabbatical Year, /b receiving help from this tithe.,It was b taught /b that b after /b Rabbi Elazar’s b mind was put at ease, he said: May it be /b God’s b will that Rabbi Yosei’s eyes should return to their place. And /b indeed his eyes b returned. /b Due to this event, in which Rabbi Elazar responded harshly when his disciple related what he considered a novel idea, the students of Rabbi Yehoshua hesitated to recount what they had heard until their teacher encouraged them to do so.,§ b The Sages taught: Who is /b considered b an imbecile? One who goes out alone at night, and one who sleeps in a cemetery, and one who rends his garment. It was stated /b that b Rav Huna said: /b One does not have the halakhic status of an imbecile b until there are all /b of these signs present in him b at the same time. Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b He is considered an imbecile b even /b due to the appearance b of one of /b these signs.,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of the case under discussion? b If he performs them in a deranged manner, /b then b even /b the appearance b of one /b sign should be enough to classify him as an imbecile. b If /b he b does not perform these /b actions b in a deranged manner, /b but has a reason to act this way, then b even /b if he performs b all of them /b he should b not /b be deemed an imbecile.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b the i baraita /i is referring to one b who performs these /b actions b in a deranged manner, but /b each action on its own could be explained rationally. With regard to b one who sleeps in the cemetery, /b one could b say that he is doing /b so b in order that an impure spirit should settle upon him. /b Although it is inappropriate to do this, as there is a reason for this behavior it is not a sign of madness. b And /b with regard to b one who goes out alone at night, /b one could b say /b that perhaps b a fever took hold of him /b and he is trying to cool himself down. b And /b as for b one who tears his garments, /b one could b say /b that b he is a man /b engaged in b thought, /b and out of anxiety he tears his clothing unintentionally. Despite these possible explanations, b since one performed all of these /b together b they are /b considered |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 17| 87a. במופלא שבב"ד הכתוב מדבר ממך זה יועץ וכן הוא אומר (נחום א, יא) ממך יצא חושב על ה' רעה יועץ בליעל דבר זו הלכה למשפט זה הדין,בין דם לדם בין דם נדה דם לידה דם זיבה בין דין לדין בין דיני נפשות דיני ממונות דיני מכות בין נגע לנגע בין נגעי אדם נגעי בתים נגעי בגדים,דברי אלו החרמים והערכין וההקדשות ריבות זו השקאת סוטה ועריפת עגלה וטהרת מצורע בשעריך זו לקט שכחה ופאה,וקמת מב"ד ועלית מלמד שבית המקדש גבוה מא"י וא"י גבוה מכל הארצות אל המקום מלמד שהמקום גורם,בשלמא בית המקדש גבוה מא"י דכתיב ועלית אלא א"י גבוה מכל הארצות מנא ליה דכתיב (ירמיהו כג, ז) לכן הנה ימים באים נאם ה' (לא יאמר) חי ה' אשר העלה את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים כי אם חי ה' אשר העלה ואשר הביא את זרע בית ישראל מארץ צפונה ומכל הארצות אשר הדחתים שם וישבו על אדמתם,תנו רבנן זקן ממרא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר על דבר שעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ר"ש אומר אפילו דקדוק אחד מדקדוקי סופרים,מאי טעמא דר"מ גמר דבר דבר כתיב הכא (דברים יז, ח) כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט וכתיב התם (ויקרא ד, יג) ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל מה להלן דבר שחייב על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת אף כאן דבר שחייב על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת,ור' יהודה (דברים יז, יא) על פי התורה אשר יורוך עד דאיכא תורה ויורוך,ור"ש אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אפילו כל דהו,א"ל רב הונא בר חיננא לרבא תרגמא לי להא מתניתא אליבא דר"מ א"ל רבא לרב פפא פוק תרגמא ליה,כי יפלא במופלא שבב"ד הכתוב מדבר ממך זה יועץ שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים כדתנן הן העידו שמעברים את השנה כל אדר שהיו אומרים עד הפורים,דאי להאי גיסא קא שרי חמץ בפסח ואי להאי גיסא קא שרי חמץ בפסח,דבר זה הלכה זו הלכות אחד עשר דאיתמר עשירי ר' יוחנן אמר עשירי כתשיעי ור"ש בן לקיש אמר עשירי כאחד עשר,רבי יוחנן אמר עשירי כתשיעי מה תשיעי בעי שימור אף עשירי בעי שימור,ר"ל אמר עשירי כאחד עשר מה אחד עשר לא בעי שימור אף עשירי לא בעי שימור,משפט זה הדין | 87a. it is b with regard to the most distinguished [ i mufla /i ] /b member b of the court, /b an ordained, expert judge, that b the verse is speaking. “For you [ i mimmekha /i ]”; this is /b a reference to b an adviser, /b who is consulted with regard to significant matters, e.g., intercalation of the year; b and likewise it says: “From you [ i mimmekh /i ] he emerged, who devised evil against the Lord, an adviser of wickedness” /b (Nahum 1:11). b “A matter”; this a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai. b “In judgment”; this is a logical inference, /b which is one of the hermeneutical principles., b “Between blood and blood”; /b this is the ability to discern b between /b the disparate i halakhot /i relevant to the b blood of a menstruating woman, /b the b blood of childbirth, /b and the b blood of /b a gonorrhea-like b discharge [ i ziva /i ]. “Between plea and plea”; /b this is the ability to discern b between /b cases of b capital law /b and cases of b monetary law, /b with regard to which there are differences in evidence protocols, and b laws /b involving the liability to receive b lashes. “Between mark and mark”; /b this is the ability to discern b between /b the disparate i halakhot /i relevant to b leprous marks of a person, leprous marks on houses, /b and b leprous marks on garments /b (see Leviticus, chapter 14)., b “Matters of [ i divrei /i ]”; these are the dedications /b to God or to a priest, b and the valuations /b of one’s value to the Temple, b and the consecrations, /b all of which are matters of speech [ i dibbur /i ]. b “Controversy”; this is the giving /b of the bitter b waters to a i sota /i /b (see Numbers, chapter 5), which results from a dispute between husband and wife; b and the heifer whose neck is broken, /b which results from an unresolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1–9); b and the purification of a leper, /b who is afflicted due to evil speech. b “Within your gates”; this is /b referring to b gleanings, forgotten /b sheaves, b and produce in the corner of the field [ i pe’a /i ], /b all of which are given to the poor who eat at the gates of the city., b “Then you shall arise” from the court /b where he sits as a judge. b “And ascend”; /b this b teaches that the Temple is higher than /b the rest of b Eretz Yisrael, and Eretz Yisrael is higher than all /b the other b lands. /b Therefore, the language of ascent is employed with regard to travel to Eretz Yisrael. b “To the place /b that the Lord, your God, shall choose”; this b teaches that the location /b that God chose for the Sanhedrin to convene b causes /b their rulings to be authoritative, in the sense here in the mishna that the rebellious elder who instructs others to act contrary to a ruling issued there is liable.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b the fact that b the Temple is higher than /b the rest of b Eretz Yisrael /b is derived from this verse, b as it is written: “And ascend.” But from where /b does the i tanna /i derive the fact that b Eretz Yisrael is higher than all /b the other b lands? /b The Gemara answers that it is derived from this verse, b as it is written: “Therefore, behold, the days come, says the Lord, and they will no longer say: As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt; rather, as the Lord lives, Who brought up and led the descendants of the house of Israel from the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them, and they shall dwell upon their land” /b (Jeremiah 23:7–8). Apparently, coming from other countries to Eretz Yisrael is also characterized as ascent., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A rebellious elder is liable only for /b instructing another to perform an action involving b a matter /b for b whose intentional /b violation one is liable to receive b i karet /i , and /b for b whose unwitting /b violation one is liable to bring b a sin-offering; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b One is liable b for a matter whose essence is /b known b from the words of the Torah /b itself b and whose explanation is /b understood b from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah. The elder is not liable if the essence of the matter with regard to which he issues his ruling does not appear in the Torah or if the entire matter is written in the Torah. b Rabbi Shimon says: Even /b if he differs with regard to b one of the minutiae of the scribes /b in interpreting the Torah, the elder is liable, irrespective of the severity of the transgression.,The Gemara elaborates: b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Meir? He derives /b a verbal analogy between the term b matter /b written here and the term b matter /b that is written elsewhere. b Here, /b matter b is written /b in the verse: b “If there shall be a matter too hard for you in judgment” /b (Deuteronomy 17:8), b and there, it is written: “And the matter shall be concealed from the eyes of the assembly” /b (Leviticus 4:13). b Just as there, /b in the verse in Leviticus, the sin-offering of the congregation is brought only for b a matter /b for b whose intentional /b violation one is liable to receive b i karet /i , and /b for b whose unwitting /b violation one is liable to bring b a sin-offering, so too here, /b the rebellious elder is liable only for b a matter /b for b whose intentional /b violation one is liable to receive b i karet /i , and /b for b whose unwitting /b violation one is liable to bring b a sin-offering. /b , b And /b what is the reason for the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda? /b It is as it is written with regard to the rebellious elder: b “According to the Torah that they shall instruct you” /b (Deuteronomy 17:11), indicating that there is no liability b until it is /b a matter that consists of elements of both the Written b Torah and /b in that the Sages b shall instruct you /b in interpretation of the Written Torah., b And /b what is the reason for the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon? /b It is as it is written with regard to the rebellious elder: b “That they shall declare unto you from that place” /b (Deuteronomy 17:10), from which Rabbi Shimon derives that one is liable b even /b if he deviates from the ruling of the Sanhedrin to any degree b whatsoever. /b , b Rav Huna bar Ḥina said to Rava: Interpret for me that i baraita /i , /b in which the liability of the rebellious elder for rulings in different areas of i halakha /i is derived from the verses, b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Meir, /b who says that the rebellious elder is liable only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive i karet /i , and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering. How is such a prohibition found in each of the categories enumerated in the i baraita /i ? b Rava said to Rav Pappa /b his student: b Go and interpret /b it b for him. /b ,Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna: b “If there shall be a matter too hard”; /b there the b verse is speaking with regard to the most distinguished /b member of b the court. “For you”; this is /b referring to b an adviser, who knows /b how b to intercalate years and establish months. /b How is there liability in this matter for i karet /i or a sin-offering? It is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Eduyyot /i 7:7): Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappeyas b testified that /b the judges b may intercalate the year /b throughout the b entire /b month of b Adar, as /b the other Sages b would say /b that the judges may do so only b until /b the day of b Purim. /b ,A ruling contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin could result in a matter for which one is liable to receive i karet /i , b as, if /b his disagreement is b to this side, /b e.g., the court intercalated the year and the rebellious elder ruled that the year is not intercalated, his ruling b permits /b consumption of b leavened bread on Passover /b according to the calendar established by the Sanhedrin. b And if /b his disagreement is b to that side, /b e.g., the court did not intercalate the year and the rebellious elder ruled that the year is intercalated, his ruling b permits /b consumption of b leavened bread on Passover /b according to the calendar established by the Sanhedrin. One who intentionally eats leavened bread on Passover is liable to receive i karet /i , and one who does so unwittingly is liable to bring a sin-offering., b “A matter”; this is a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai. b This /b is a matter involving i karet /i in the case of b the i halakhot /i of eleven /b days, which is the minimal number of days between one menstrual period and another, when if a woman experiences a flow of blood on three consecutive days during those eleven days, she assumes the status of a greater i zava /i , with regard to whom there are unique i halakhot /i , e.g., the passage of seven clean days before purification by Torah law. When the woman experiences a discharge of blood for one or two days, she is a lesser i zava /i , and if she observes the third day clean from the discharge of blood she may immerse immediately and she is ritually pure. b As it was stated /b that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of blood on the b tenth /b of those eleven days. b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The status of the b tenth /b day is b like /b that of the b ninth /b day, b and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: /b The status of the b tenth /b day is b like /b that of the b eleventh /b day.,The Gemara elaborates: b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The status of the b tenth /b day is b like /b that of the b ninth /b day: b Just as /b a discharge on the b ninth /b day b requires /b the woman to examine herself the following day and requires the b observance /b of a day clean from discharges, b so too does /b a discharge on the b tenth /b day b require observance /b of a day clean from discharges on the eleventh day before immersing in a ritual bath. According to Rabbi Yoḥa, a woman who experiences a discharge on the tenth day assumes the status of a woman who observes a clean day for one or two days after she experiences a discharge.,And b Reish Lakish says: /b The status of the b tenth /b day is b like /b that of the b eleventh /b day: b Just as /b a discharge on the b eleventh /b day b does not require observance /b of a day clean from discharge before immersing in a ritual bath, b so too does /b a discharge on the b tenth /b day b not require observance /b of a day clean from discharges on the eleventh day. Even if she were to experience a discharge of blood on the days that follow, the eleventh and the twelfth days, she would not assume the status of a greater i zava /i , as in that case the blood that she saw on the twelfth day would be the blood of menstruation and not the discharge of a i zava /i . According to Reish Lakish, she does not assume that status. Therefore, if the Sanhedrin issued a ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion, one who engages in intercourse with that woman before her purification is liable to receive i karet /i . If the rebellious elder issued a ruling in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, then one who intentionally engaged in intercourse with the woman is liable to receive i karet /i . If he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.,“In b judgment”; this is a logical inference, /b which is one of the hermeneutical principles, |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 13b. ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הקורה שאמרו רחבה כדי לקבל אריח ואריח חצי לבנה של שלשה טפחים דייה לקורה שתהא רחבה טפח כדי לקבל אריח לרחבו,רחבה כדי לקבל אריח ובריאה כדי לקבל אריח רבי יהודה אומר רחבה אף על פי שאין בריאה היתה של קש ושל קנים רואין אותה כאילו היא של מתכת,עקומה רואין אותה כאילו היא פשוטה עגולה רואין אותה כאילו היא מרובעת כל שיש בהיקיפו שלשה טפחים יש בו רוחב טפח: | 13b. b but /b later b reconsidered /b and did not divorce her, b and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is /b the same b as my name, and your wife’s name is /b the same b as my wife’s name, /b and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document b is invalid to divorce with it? /b Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a i sota /i .,The Gemara rejects this argument: b How can you compare /b the two cases? b There, /b with regard to a bill of divorce, b it is written: “And he shall write for her” /b (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore b we require writing /b it b in her name, /b specifically for her; whereas b here, /b with regard to a i sota /i , b it is written: “And he shall perform with her /b all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore b we require performance in her name. /b In b her /b case, the b performance is erasure; /b however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.,On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. b Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no /b one of the Sages who is b his equal. Why /b then b didn’t /b the Sages b establish the i halakha /i in accordance with his /b opinion? It is b because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. /b He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent i halakha /i . b As he /b would b state with regard to /b a ritually b impure /b item that it is b pure, and display justification /b for that ruling, and likewise he would state b with regard to /b a ritually b pure /b item that it is b impure, and display justification /b for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were i halakha /i and those that were not., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called /b by the b name Rabbi Meir? /b It was b because he illuminates [ i meir /i ] the eyes of the Sages in /b matters of b the i halakha /i . And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name /b of the i tanna /i known by that name; b rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called /b by the b name Rabbi Nehorai? /b It is b because he enlightens [ i manhir /i ] the eyes of the Sages in /b matters of b the i halakha /i . /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: /b The fact b that I am /b more b incisive than my colleagues is /b due to the fact b that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, /b i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. b Had I seen him from the front, I would be /b even more b incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” /b (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that b Rabbi Abbahu said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons /b in support of the ruling of b impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons /b in support of the ruling of b purity. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could /b with his incisive intellect b purify the creeping animal, /b explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing b one hundred and fifty reasons /b in support of his argument., b Ravina said: I /b too b will deliberate and purify it /b employing the following reasoning: b And just as a snake that kills /b people and animals b and /b thereby b increases ritual impurity /b in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, b is ritually pure /b and transmits no impurity, b a creeping animal that does not kill and /b does not b increase impurity /b in the world, b all the more so /b should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: b And it is not so; /b that is not a valid i a fortiori /i argument, as it can be refuted. A snake b is performing a mere act of a thorn. /b A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this i a fortiori /i argument is rejected., b Rabbi Abba said /b that b Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with our /b opinion, b and these said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with our /b opinion. Ultimately, b a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: /b Both b these and those are the words of the living God. However, the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to /b have b the i halakha /i established in accordance with their /b opinion? The reason is b that they were agreeable and forbearing, /b showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the i halakha /i they would b teach /b both b their /b own b statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, /b when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, b they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their /b own b statements, /b in deference to Beit Shammai., b As /b in the mishna b that we learned: /b In the case of b one whose head and most of his body were in the i sukka /i , but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem /b this i sukka /i b invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting /b with b his head and most of his body in the i sukka /i , but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there /b do you seek to adduce b a proof? /b Those visitors, b too, said to him: If that was /b the manner in which b you were accustomed /b to perform the mitzva, b you have never fulfilled the mitzva of i sukka /i in /b all b your days. /b It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.,This is b to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, /b conversely, b anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who /b attempts to b force the moment /b and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, b the moment forces him /b too, and he is unsuccessful. b And /b conversely, b anyone who /b is patient and b yields to the moment, the moment stands /b by b his /b side, and he will ultimately be successful., b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : b For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. /b Ultimately, b they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. /b However, b now that he has been created, he should examine his actions /b that he has performed and seek to correct them. b And some say: He should scrutinize his /b planned b actions /b and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin., strong MISHNA: /strong b The /b cross b beam, which /b the Sages b stated /b may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be b wide enough to receive /b and hold b a small brick. And /b this b small brick /b is b half a large brick, /b which measures b three handbreadths, /b i.e., a handbreadth and a half. b It is sufficient that the /b cross b beam will be a handbreadth in width, /b not a handbreadth and a half, b enough to hold a small brick across its width. /b ,And the cross beam must be b wide enough to hold a small brick /b and also b sturdy enough to hold a small brick /b and not collapse. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If it is b wide /b enough to hold the brick, b even though it is not sturdy /b enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam b is /b made b of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were /b made b of metal. /b ,If the cross beam is b curved, /b so that a small brick cannot rest on it, b one considers it as though it were straight; /b if it is b round, one considers it as though it were square. /b The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: b Any /b beam b with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, /b i.e., in diameter. |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 6b. ואי עבדת אהנית מאי אי עבדת אהנית דאי אתי בעל מערער לא משגחינן ביה,כדתניא מעשה באדם אחד שהביא גט לפני רבי ישמעאל אמר לו צריך אני לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם או איני צריך אמר לו בני מהיכן אתה אמר לו רבי מכפר סיסאי אני אמר לו צריך אתה לומר. בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם שלא תיזקק לעדים,לאחר שיצא נכנס לפניו רבי אלעאי אמר לו רבי והלא כפר סיסאי מובלעת בתחום ארץ ישראל וקרובה לציפורי יותר מעכו ותנן רבי מאיר אומר עכו כארץ ישראל לגיטין ואפי' רבנן לא פליגי עליה דר"מ אלא בעכו דמרחקא אבל כפר סיסאי דמקרבא לא,אמר לו שתוק בני שתוק הואיל ויצא הדבר בהיתר יצא,הא איהו נמי שלא תיזקק לעדים קאמר ליה לא סיימוה קמיה,שלח ליה ר' אביתר לרב חסדא גיטין הבאים משם לכאן אין צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לימא קסבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והני גמירי,ותסברא והא רבה אית ליה דרבא אלא דכ"ע בעינן לקיימו וכיון דאיכא רבים דסלקי ונחתי מישכח שכיחי,אמר רב יוסף מאן לימא לן דר' אביתר בר סמכא הוא ועוד הא איהו דשלח ליה לרב יהודה בני אדם העולין משם לכאן הן קיימו בעצמן (יואל ד, ג) ויתנו (את) הילד בזונה והילדה מכרו ביין וישתו וכתב ליה בלא שירטוט,וא"ר יצחק שתים כותבין שלש אין כותבין במתניתא תנא שלש כותבין ארבע אין כותבין,א"ל אביי אטו כל דלא ידע הא דר' יצחק לאו גברא רבה הוא בשלמא מילתא דתליא בסברא לחיי הא גמרא היא וגמרא לא שמיע ליה,ועוד הא ר' אביתר הוא דאסכים מריה על ידיה דכתיב (שופטים יט, ב) ותזנה עליו פילגשו רבי אביתר אמר זבוב מצא לה ר' יונתן אמר נימא מצא לה,ואשכחיה ר' אביתר לאליהו א"ל מאי קא עביד הקב"ה א"ל עסיק בפילגש בגבעה ומאי קאמר אמר ליה אביתר בני כך הוא אומר יונתן בני כך הוא אומר,א"ל ח"ו ומי איכא ספיקא קמי שמיא א"ל אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן זבוב מצא ולא הקפיד נימא מצא והקפיד,אמר רב יהודה זבוב בקערה ונימא באותו מקום זבוב מאיסותא ונימא סכנתא איכא דאמרי אידי ואידי בקערה זבוב אונסא ונימא פשיעותא,אמר רב חסדא לעולם אל יטיל אדם אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו שהרי פילגש בגבעה הטיל עליה בעלה אימה יתירה והפילה כמה רבבות מישראל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המטיל אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו סוף הוא בא לידי שלש עבירות גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וחילול שבת,אמר רבה בר בר חנה הא דאמרי רבנן שלשה דברים צריך אדם לומר בתוך ביתו ערב שבת עם חשיכה עשרתם ערבתם הדליקו את הנר צריך | 6b. b But if you do /b this then b you provide benefit. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the expression: b If you do /b this b you provide benefit? /b This means b that if the husband comes /b to b contest /b the validity of the bill of divorce, b we pay no attention to him /b and his claim., b As it is taught /b in the i Tosefta /i (1:3): b An incident /b occurred b involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, /b and b said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required /b to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to /b Rabbi Yishmael: b My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. /b Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so /b that b you will not /b cause the woman to b need to /b find b witnesses /b if the husband contests its validity., b After /b that man b left, Rabbi Elai entered before /b Rabbi Yishmael and b said to him: My teacher, but isn’t the village of Sisai /b located b within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and /b it is even b closer to Tzippori, /b which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, b more /b so b than Akko. And we learned /b in the mishna that b Rabbi Meir says: Akko /b is b like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, /b with regard to b the village of Sisai, which is close, no, /b they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.,Rabbi Yishmael b said to /b Rabbi Elai: b Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter /b of her divorce b was issued as permitted, it was issued, /b and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage.,The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? b But /b after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael b also /b stated his reason, as he b said to /b the man: Do this b so /b that b you will not /b cause the woman to b need to /b find b witnesses. /b The Gemara answers: Those who were present b did not conclude /b Rabbi Yishmael’s statement b before /b Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning, and therefore he questioned him.,§ The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Evyatar sent /b a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b to Rav Ḥisda /b in which he wrote the following: With regard to b bills of divorce that come from there, /b Babylonia, b to here, /b Eretz Yisrael, the agent b is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. /b The Gemara asks: b Shall we say /b that Rabbi Evyatar b holds /b that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is b because they are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake, and these /b residents of Babylonia b are learned /b with regard to this issue?,The Gemara challenges: b And can you understand /b it in this way? After all, b Rabba is of /b the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion b of Rava, /b that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. b Rather, everyone agrees that we require /b the declaration b to ratify /b the document. b But since there are many /b people b who ascend /b to Eretz Yisrael b and descend /b from there to Babylonia, witnesses b are frequently /b available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce., b Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us /b that b Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable /b authority? b And furthermore, /b there is good reason to question his statement: b He /b is b the one who sent /b a letter b to Rav Yehuda, /b and wrote: b People who ascend from there, /b Babylonia, b to here, /b Eretz Yisrael, b fulfill by themselves /b the verse: b “And they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk” /b (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. b And /b Rabbi Evyatar b wrote him /b this verse b without scoring, /b i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter., b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: b One may write two /b words without scoring the parchment, but b one may not write three /b words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And b it was taught in a i baraita /i : One may write three, /b but b one may not write four. /b Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable., b Abaye said to him: Is that to say /b that b anyone who does not know this /b i halakha /i b of Rabbi Yitzḥak is not a great man? Granted, /b with regard to b a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, /b as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a i halakha /i that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, b this /b i halakha /i b is a tradition, and /b it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply b did not hear /b this b tradition. /b , b And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar /b is the one b that his Master, /b the Holy One, Blessed be He, b agreed with /b in his interpretation of a verse, b as it is written /b with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: b “And his concubine went away from him” /b (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and b Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her /b responsible for b a fly /b in the food that she prepared for him, while b Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her /b responsible for b a hair [ i nima /i ]. /b , b And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah /b the prophet and b said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing /b now? Elijah b said to him: He is /b currently b engaged in /b studying the episode of b the concubine in Gibeah. /b Rabbi Evyatar asked him: b And what is He saying /b about it? Elijah b said to him /b that God is saying the following: b Evyatar, My son, says this /b and b Yonatan, My son, says that. /b It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.,Rabbi Evyatar b said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? /b Doesn’t God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah b said to him: /b Both b these and those are the words of the living God, /b i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: b He found a fly /b in his food b and did not take umbrage, /b and later b he found a hair and took umbrage. /b , b Rav Yehuda says /b a different explanation: The man found b a fly in the dish /b that she cooked for him, b and /b he found b a hair in that place, /b i.e., in her genital area. When he found b a fly /b it produced a reaction of b disgust, /b and he did not grow angry with her, b but /b the b hair /b was a matter of b danger, /b as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. b There are /b those b who say: This and that /b were found b in a dish. /b The difference is that the b fly /b was a result of b circumstances beyond /b her b control, /b as it fell into the dish on its own, b but the hair /b was found in the dish due to her b negligence. /b , b Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon /b the members of b his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and /b this ultimately b caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews /b in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20)., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon /b the members of b his household /b will b ultimately come to /b commit b three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, /b as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; b and /b he will also end up committing b bloodshed, /b as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; b and desecration of Shabbat, /b as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand., b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b a i halakha /i with regard to b this /b statement b that the Sages said: /b There are b three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. /b He should ask the members of his household: b Have you tithed /b the produce that required tithing? b Have you placed the i eiruv /i /b for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, b light the lamp /b in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one b must /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 17| 13a. ורב זביד אמר אין בנים בלא סימנים ונבדוק חיישינן שמא נשרו הניחא למ"ד חוששין,אלא למ"ד אין חוששין מאי איכא למימר אפי' למ"ד אין חוששין משום צער לידה חיישינן:,כיצד פוטרות צרותיהן וכו': מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא (ויקרא יח, יח) לצרור התורה ריבתה צרות הרבה,רב אשי אמר סברא היא צרה מ"ט אסירא דבמקום ערוה קיימא צרת צרה נמי במקום ערוה קיימא:,כיצד אם מתו הן כו': ואפילו כנס ולבסוף גירש,ורמינהו ג' אחים שנים מהן נשואים ב' אחיות ואחד נשוי נכרית גירש אחד מבעלי אחיות אשתו ומת הנשוי נכרית וכנסה המגרש ומת זו היא שאמרו שאם מתו או נתגרשו צרותיהן מותרות,טעמא דגירש ואח"כ כנס אבל כנס ואח"כ גירש לא,א"ר ירמיה תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו האי תנא סבר מיתה מפלת,והאי תנא סבר נשואין הראשונים מפילים,רבא אמר לעולם חד תנא הוא וזו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני:,וכל שיכולה למאן: ותמאן השתא ותתייבם לימא מסייעא ליה לרבי אושעיא,דא"ר אושעיא ממאנת למאמרו ואינה ממאנת לזיקתו,לא צרת ערוה שאני דתני רמי בר יחזקאל מיאנה בבעל מותרת לאביו מיאנה ביבם אסורה לאביו,אלמא משעת נפילה נראית ככלתו הכא נמי משעת נפילה נראית כצרת בתו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שש עריות חמורות מאלו מפני שנשואות לאחרים צרותיהן מותרו',אמו ואשת אביו ואחות אביו אחותו מאביו ואשת אחי אביו ואשת אחיו מאביו,בית שמאי מתירין הצרות לאחים ובית הלל אוסרים | 13a. § b And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs /b of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definitely possesses the signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b let us examine /b to see whether these physical signs are present, so that there is no need to depend on a presumption. The Gemara answers: b We are concerned lest /b the hairs that constitute the sign b have fallen off. /b The Gemara comments: b This /b works out b well according to the one who said /b that in general b we are concerned /b lest signs fall off, i.e., that there are cases in which she is in fact mature but the hairs have come off., b However, according to the one who said /b that if there are in fact hairs they will certainly be found, and b we are not concerned /b that they may have fallen out, b what is there to say? /b The Gemara answers: b Even according to the one who said /b that in ordinary circumstances b we are not concerned /b that the hairs may have fallen out, in this case, b due to the pain of childbirth we are concerned /b that they might have fallen out, and therefore it is impossible to examine the matter conclusively.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna: b How do they exempt their rival wives /b and the rival wives of their rival wives? The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters, /b that not only is a rival wife exempt but the rival wife of a rival wife is exempt as well, b derived? Rav Yehuda said /b that this is b as the verse states: /b “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, b to be a rival [ i litzror /i ] /b to her” (Leviticus 18:18). The term i litzror /i is written, with the letter i reish /i appearing twice, rather than i latzor /i , with a single i reish /i , which means that b the Torah amplified /b and included b many rival wives. /b In other words, this verse includes not only the rival wife of a forbidden relative, but also the rival wife of a rival wife., b Rav Ashi said: It is a logical inference, /b which does not require a source from the Torah. b What is the reason /b that b a rival wife /b of a forbidden relative b is prohibited? /b The reason is b that she stands in place of a forbidden relative. /b Since the forbidden relative caused her exemption from levirate marriage, she too is considered a forbidden relative who remains categorized as a brother’s wife. Therefore, b the rival wife of a rival wife also stands in place of a forbidden relative, /b as she is like the rival wife of a forbidden relative and is therefore forbidden herself.,§ The mishna taught: b How so? If /b the forbidden relative b died, /b performed refusal, or was divorced, from that moment onward their rival wives are no longer considered the rival wives of a forbidden relative and are permitted. The Gemara remarks: This legal ruling with regard to a divorce is presented as a general principle b and /b is therefore correct b even /b if at the time that the deceased brother b married /b the rival wife he was married to the forbidden relative, b and ultimately divorced /b the relative, which means that for a period of time the women were rival wives. Even under these circumstances the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relative does not apply, and she is permitted to enter into levirate marriage., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a different mishna (30a), which discusses b three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one is married to an unrelated woman. One of the husbands of the sisters /b subsequently b divorced his wife, and the one who was married to the unrelated woman died, and the one who divorced /b his wife b married /b the i yevama /i by levirate marriage b and /b afterward b died /b as well, which means that this i yevama /i once again came for levirate marriage before the remaining brother, who was married to one of the sisters. b It is with /b regard to b this /b case b that they said that if they died or were divorced their rival wives are permitted. /b This concludes the mishna.,The Gemara infers from this mishna: b The reason /b she is permitted is b that /b the i yavam /i first b divorced /b the sister b and /b only b afterward married /b the unrelated woman. In this case, the unrelated woman was never actually the rival wife of a sister, despite the fact that they were, at different times, married to the same man. b However, /b if the i yavam /i first b married /b the unrelated woman b and afterward divorced /b the sister, she would b not /b be permitted to enter into levirate marriage because for a period of time she had been the rival wife of a forbidden relative.,These two i mishnayot /i apparently contradict each other. b Rabbi Yirmeya said: /b This mishna is b disjointed, /b i.e., the i mishnayot /i are truly incompatible, and the i tanna /i b who taught this /b i halakha /i b did not teach that /b i halakha /i . The reason for the difference in opinions is that b this i tanna /i , /b of the mishna here, b maintains /b that b death causes /b her to b come before /b him for levirate marriage. In other words, the decisive moment that determines the obligation in or exemption from levirate marriage is the moment of the childless brother’s death. Since in the case of the mishna here she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative at the time of his death, the prohibition does not apply to her., b And that i tanna /i /b of the mishna dealing with three brothers b maintains /b that b the first marriage causes /b her to b come before /b him for levirate marriage. In other words, the levirate bond is established at the time of the marriage, and since the second wife was the rival wife of a forbidden relative for at least a brief period, her exemption from levirate marriage was determined then., b Rava said: Actually, /b both i mishnayot /i represent the opinion of b a single i tanna /i , but he teaches /b the mishna employing the style: b This and it is unnecessary to say that. /b In other words, the mishna here is referring to a case where he first married and later divorced, while the mishna that deals with three brothers is speaking of a simpler, more obvious case, in which he first divorced and later married the second wife. In that case she is certainly permitted. Accordingly, there is no real contradiction here between the i mishnayot /i , as they utilize different styles of teaching.,§ The mishna taught: b And /b if b any /b of these forbidden relatives was a minor b who could refuse /b her husband, then even if she did not refuse him, her rival wife performs i ḥalitza /i and does not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: b And let /b the minor b perform refusal now, /b thereby annulling the marriage retroactively after the death of her husband, b and let her /b rival wife b enter into levirate marriage. /b Since this option is not accepted, b let us say that it supports /b the opinion b of Rabbi Oshaya. /b , b As Rabbi Oshaya said: /b A i yevama /i who is a minor can b refuse the levirate betrothal of /b the i yavam /i . In other words, if he betrothed her she is free to say that she does not desire to marry him, a declaration that severs any connection between them. b But she cannot refuse his bond. /b Provided that he has not performed a levirate betrothal, this minor i yevama /i cannot annul the ties between them by a refusal, as theirs is not a bond of marriage, and the institution of refusal was established only with regard to marriage. According to this opinion, it is evident that a minor i yevama /i who is a forbidden relative cannot perform refusal so as to enable her rival wife to enter levirate marriage.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b No; /b it is possible that a minor i yevama /i can indeed refuse a levirate bond, but b the rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, /b as she is not permitted in levirate marriage even if the forbidden relative herself can perform refusal. Why? b As Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b she refused the husband, /b thereby annulling the marriage, b she is permitted to his father, /b as the marriage bond was entirely nullified retroactively and she is not considered his daughter-in-law at all. If, however, b she refused /b only b the i yavam /i , she is forbidden to his father. /b , b Apparently, /b the reason is that b at the moment /b of her b coming before /b him for levirate marriage b she had the appearance of his daughter-in-law. /b Since people will think she is his daughter-in-law, she is forbidden to the father. b Here, too, at the moment /b of her b coming before /b him for levirate marriage b she had the appearance of his daughter’s rival wife. /b Consequently, the Sages did not permit her to enter into levirate marriage even if the other wife refuses the husband., strong MISHNA: /strong b Six /b women b with whom relations are forbidden /b who were not enumerated in the first mishna b are /b forbidden by prohibitions that are b more severe than those /b listed in that mishna b because they may be married /b only b to others /b and may never be married to any of the brothers, due to the closeness of their relationship. However, this stringency entails a corresponding leniency: Since the i halakha /i of levirate marriage is entirely inapplicable in these cases, b their rival wives are permitted. /b The rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden herself only if the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, but where it is not in effect she is permitted.,The six women with whom relations are forbidden are as follows: b His mother, and his father’s wife, and his father’s sister, and his paternal /b half b sister, and the wife of his father’s brother, and the wife of his paternal /b half b brother. /b Each of these women with whom relations are forbidden is forbidden equally to all of the brothers, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is inapplicable. Therefore, her rival wife is permitted.,§ Up to this point, the discussions were based on the assumption that not only may a forbidden relative not enter into levirate marriage, but her rival wife is also exempt. However, this issue is subject to a long-standing dispute. b Beit Shammai permit the rival wives to the brothers, /b as they did not accept the interpretation of the verses that indicates that rival wives are prohibited. b And Beit Hillel forbid /b them. The previous i mishnayot /i are in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. |
|
22. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 13.15, 15.22 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 13.15. בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי הִקְרִיב נְתַנְאֵל וגו' (במדבר ז, יח), לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ הִקְרִיב, לְפִי שֶׁבָּא רְאוּבֵן וְעִרְעֵר, אָמַר דַּיִּי שֶׁקְּדָמַנִי יְהוּדָה לַמַּסָּעוֹת אַקְרִיב אֲנִי לַתּוֹלָדוֹת, נָזַף בּוֹ משֶׁה וְאָמַר לוֹ מִפִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נֶאֱמַר לִי הַקְרֵב לַמַּסָּעוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִקְרִיב, הִקְרִיבוֹ משֶׁה בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִקְרִיב, כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב תְּחִלָּה, לָמָּה כֵן, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכָה בַּעֲצַת נְשִׂיאִים הֶעֱלָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ הוּא הִקְרִיב תְּחִלָּה. אַבָּא חָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְפִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָּעֵצָה זָכָה שֶׁנִּתַּן בִּינָה בְּשִׁבְטוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים א יב, לג): וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָֹּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים, וְנֶאֱמַר (שופטים ה, טו): וְשָׂרַי בְּיִשָֹּׂשכָר עִם דְּבֹרָה וגו'. וְכֵן הַכָּתוּב מְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחוֹ בְּבָתֵּי דִינִין בְּמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כו, כד): לְיָשׁוּב מִשְׁפַּחַת הַיָּשֻׁבִי, וְאֵין יָשׁוּב אֶלָּא בָּתֵּי דִינִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל לג, לא): וְיָבוֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ כִּמְבוֹא עָם וְיֵשְׁבוּ לְפָנֶיךָ וגו', (בראשית כה, כז): וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם ישֵׁב אֹהָלִים, וְאוֹמֵר (דברים לג, יח): וְיִשָֹּׂשכָר בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ. (במדבר ז, יט): הִקְרִיב אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי פִּינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר לָמָּה הוֹסִיף הִקְרִב, וְחָסֵר יו"ד, אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁעָשׂוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, לְכָךְ הוֹסִיף הִקְרִב חָסֵר יו"ד, וְהֶעֱמִיד הַתֵּבָה עַל אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיְתָה פָּרָה צְרִיכָה: אֲדֻמָּה, תְּמִימָה, בְּלֹא מוּם, בְּלֹא נְשִׂיאוּת עֹל, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (במדבר יט, ב): וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה וגו'. (במדבר ז, יט): קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף אַחַת, בָּא נְשִׂיא יִשָֹּׂשׂכָר וְהִקְרִיב עַל שֵׁם הַתּוֹרָה, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם אָהֲבוּ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מִכָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָֹּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים וגו', מַהוּ לַעִתִּים, רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אָמַר לַקָּרָסִין, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לָעִבּוּרִים. (דברי הימים א יב, לג): לָדַעַת מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם יַעֲשׂוּ מוֹעֲדִים. (דברי הימים א יב, לג): רָאשֵׁיהֶם מָאתַיִם, אֵלּוּ מָאתַיִם רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְּרָאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שֵׁבֶט יִשָֹּׂשכָר מַעֲמִיד, (דברי הימים א יב, לג): וְכָל אֲחֵיהֶם עַל פִּיהֶם, שֶׁהָיוּ מַסְכִּימִים הֲלָכָה עַל פִיהֶם, וְאוֹמֵר (בראשית מט, טו): וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, שֶׁהָיוּ סוֹבְלִים עֹל תּוֹרָה. (בראשית מט, טו): וַיְהִי לְמַס עֹבֵד, שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהָיָה טוֹעֶה בַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ שׁוֹאֲלִים אוֹתָהּ לְשֵׁבֶט יִשָֹּׂשכָר וְהֵם מְבָאֲרִים אוֹתָהּ לָהֶם. קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף, כְּנֶגֶד הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא קְרוּאָה לֶחֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ט, ה): לְכוּ לַחְמוּ בְלַחְמִי, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (שמות כה, כט): וְעָשִׂיתָ קְעָרֹתָיו וְכַפֹּתָיו, וּתְנֵינַן קְעָרֹתָיו אֵלּוּ דְפוּסִים, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂים לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּדְפוּסִים. (במדבר ז, יט): שְׁלשִׁים וּמֵאָה מִשְׁקָלָהּ, צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה סְפָרִים שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וּשְׁמוֹנִים מִן מִשְׁנָה שֶׁמַּתְחֶלֶת בְּמ"ם מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע וכו' וּמְסַיֶּמֶת בְּמ"ם (תהלים כט, יא): ה' יְבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ בַשָּׁלוֹם, מ"ם אַרְבָּעִים וּמ"ם אַרְבָּעִים, הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנִים, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים שֶׁעוֹלִים מִנְיָנָם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. דָּבָר אַחֵר שֶׁרָאשֵׁי שִׁשָּׁה סִדְרֵי מִשְׁנָה חֶשְׁבּוֹן רָאשֵׁי אוֹתִיּוֹת הֵן עוֹלִים שְׁמוֹנִים, צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב מ' מִן מֵאֵימָתַי שֶׁל סֵדֶר זְרָעִים, י' מִן יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁל סֵדֶר מוֹעֵד, ח' מִן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים מִן סֵדֶר נָשִׁים, א' מִן אַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין מִן סֵדֶר יְשׁוּעוֹת, כ' מִן כָּל הַזְּבָחִים מִן סֵדֶר קָדָשִׁים, א' מִן אֲבוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה מִן סֵדֶר טַהֲרוֹת, הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנִים. מִכָּאן שֶׁעוֹלִים תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה לְמִנְיַן מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעָה, וְנִתְּנָה לְעֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מֵאָדָם וְעַד משֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְּנָהּ תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים, לְכָךְ הָיָה מִשְׁקַל הַקְּעָרָה מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים. 15.22. אֶסְפָה לִי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (קהלת יב, יא): דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כַּדָּרְבֹנוֹת וּכְמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים בַּעֲלֵי אֲסֻפּוֹת נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. כַּדּוּר שֶׁל בָּנוֹת, מָה הַכַּדּוּר שֶׁל בָּנוֹת מְזָרְקִין בּוֹ לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, כָּךְ הָיוּ הַדִּבְּרוֹת מֻזְרָקִין בְּסִינַי. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כְּמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת בַּסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, שֶׁכָּתוּב נְטוּעִים. מַה מִּשְׁמָרוֹת הַכֹּהֲנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, אַף הַסְּפָרִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. בַּעֲלֵי אֲסֻפּוֹת, אֵלּוּ סַנְהֶדְּרִין, וְאִם תֹּאמַר זֶה מַתִּיר וְזֶה אוֹסֵר, זֶה פּוֹסֵל וְזֶה מַכְשִׁיר, זֶה מְטַמֵּא וְזֶה מְטַהֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵב וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין, לְמִי נִשְׁמַע, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כֻּלָּם נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. | 15.22. "22 (Numb. 11:16:) “Gather Me seventy men”: This text is related (to Eccl. 12:11), “The words of the wise are like goads ( i kedarbanot /i ) [...].” i Kedarbanot /i [signifies] i kadur shel banot /i (a ball for girls). Just like a ball for girls is thrown here and there, so were the words [of Torah] thrown at Sinai. Another interpretation (of Eccl. 12:11 cont.), “and like implanted nails”: From here the sages have said, “It is forbidden to read in the profane ( i chitzoniot /i ) books.” It is therefore stated (ibid.), “implanted nails.” [“Like nails ( i msmrwt /i )” – this is to teach that] just as the watches ( i mshmrwt /i ) of the priests number twenty-four, so also do the books [of the Bible] number twenty-four.” (Ibid. cont.:) [“(The masters of) collections.”] These [masters] are the Sanhedrin. sup 48 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Gk.: i synedrion. /i /i And if you say, “This person permits what another forbids, this one declares unfit what another declares fit, this one declares unclean what another declares clean, R. Eliezer obligates while R. Joshua exempts, and Bet Shammai prohibits while Bet Hillel permits; to whom should I listen?” [That is why] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Nevertheless (according to Eccl. 12:11 end) ‘all of them were given from one shepherd.’” ", |
|
| 23. Papyri, Sm, 1.1-2.2 Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 17 |
| 24. Anon., Tanhuma, None Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175 |
| 25. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 3 Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175 |
| 26. Diodorus, De Natura Deorum, 5.71 Tagged with subjects: •naeh, shlomo Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175 |
