1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 55| 20.19. כִּי־תָצוּר אֶל־עִיר יָמִים רַבִּים לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ לְתָפְשָׂהּ לֹא־תַשְׁחִית אֶת־עֵצָהּ לִנְדֹּחַ עָלָיו גַּרְזֶן כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹר׃ | 20.19. When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by wielding an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee? |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •Rabbi Oshaya Found in books: Amsler, Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity (2023) 52| 1.1. וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃ 1.1. בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ׃ | 1.1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 8.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •Rabbi Oshaya Found in books: Amsler, Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity (2023) 52| 8.22. יְהוָה קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז׃ | 8.22. The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, The first of His works of old. |
|
| 4. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 4.12 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 108 |
5. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 4.3, 4.14, 11.7 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 55, 56, 178| 4.3. וּשְׁנַיִם זֵיתִים עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִימִין הַגֻּלָּה וְאֶחָד עַל־שְׂמֹאלָהּ׃ 4.14. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶּה שְׁנֵי בְנֵי־הַיִּצְהָר הָעֹמְדִים עַל־אֲדוֹן כָּל־הָאָרֶץ׃ 11.7. וָאֶרְעֶה אֶת־צֹאן הַהֲרֵגָה לָכֵן עֲנִיֵּי הַצֹּאן וָאֶקַּח־לִי שְׁנֵי מַקְלוֹת לְאַחַד קָרָאתִי נֹעַם וּלְאַחַד קָרָאתִי חֹבְלִים וָאֶרְעֶה אֶת־הַצֹּאן׃ | 4.3. and two olive-trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.’ 4.14. Then said he: ‘These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.’ 11.7. So I fed the flock of slaughter, verily the poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Graciousness, and the other I called Binders; and I fed the flock. |
|
| 6. Tosefta, Yevamot, 8.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 194 |
7. Mishnah, Yevamot, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 194| 6.6. לֹא יִבָּטֵל אָדָם מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֶשׁ לוֹ בָנִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, (בראשית ה) זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה, וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, וְלֹא יָלְדָה, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִבָּטֵל. גֵּרְשָׁהּ, מֻתֶּרֶת לִנָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר. וְרַשַּׁאי הַשֵּׁנִי לִשְׁהוֹת עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. וְאִם הִפִּילָה, מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהִפִּילָה. הָאִישׁ מְצֻוֶּה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, אֲבָל לֹא הָאִשָּׁה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר, עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (בראשית א), וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ: | 6.6. A man shall not abstain from procreation unless he already has children. Beth Shammai says: two males, And Beth Hillel says: male and a female, for it says, “Male and female created he them” (Genesis 5:2). If a man married a woman and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he may not abstain [any longer from the duty of propagation]. If he divorced her she is permitted to marry another, and the second husband may also live with her for ten years. If she miscarried [the period of ten years] is counted from the time of her miscarriage. A man is commanded concerning the duty of propagation but not a woman. Rabbi Yoha ben Beroka says: Concerning both of them it is said, “And God blessed them; and said to them… “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). |
|
| 8. Mishnah, Moed Qatan, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 108 |
9. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Amsler, Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity (2023) 52| 1.1. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה פָּתַח <>(משלי ח, ל)<>: וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו', אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, וְאִית דַּאֲמַר אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא. אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר <>(במדבר יא, יב)<>: כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָֹּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק. אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר <>(איכה ד, ה)<>: הָאֱמֻנִים עֲלֵי תוֹלָע וגו'. אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר <>(אסתר ב, ז)<>: וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה. אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא, כְּמָא דְתֵימָא <>(נחום ג, ח)<>: הֲתֵיטְבִי מִנֹּא אָמוֹן, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן הַאַתְּ טָבָא מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָא רַבָּתָא דְּיָתְבָא בֵּין נַהֲרוֹתָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. וְאֵין רֵאשִׁית אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר <>(משלי ח, כב)<>: ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ. 1.1. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה סָתוּם מִכָּל צְדָדָיו וּפָתוּחַ מִלְּפָנָיו, כָּךְ אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לוֹמַר, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּפָנִים, מַה לְּאָחוֹר, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם וּלְהַבָּא. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר <>(דברים ד, לב)<>: כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, לְמִן הַיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. <>(דברים ד, לב)<>: וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְחוֹקֵר, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹקֵר לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים, הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְלָמָּה בְּב' שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְלָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁלֹא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִין לוֹמַר הֵיאַךְ הָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד שֶׁהוּא נִבְרָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה, אֶלָּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֲרֵי אֲנִי בּוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְהַלְּוַאי יַעֲמֹד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה בְּב' אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עוֹקְצִין, אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, אוֹמְרִים לַב' מִי בְּרָאֲךָ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה בְּעוּקְצוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְאוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה בְּרָאָנִי. וּמַה שְּׁמוֹ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה לָהֶן בְּעוּקְצוֹ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו, וְאוֹמֵר ה' שְׁמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר חֲנִינָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֲחָא, עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת הָיְתָה הָאָלֶ"ף קוֹרֵא תִּגָּר לִפְנֵי כִסְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל אוֹתִיּוֹת וְלֹא בָּרָאתָ עוֹלָמְךָ בִּי, אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם וּמְלוֹאוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(משלי ג, יט)<>: ה' בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ וגו', לְמָחָר אֲנִי בָּא לִתֵּן תּוֹרָה בְּסִינַי וְאֵינִי פּוֹתֵחַ תְּחִלָה אֶלָּא בָּךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(שמות כ, ב)<>: אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אָלֶ"ף, שֶׁהוּא מַסְכִּים מֵאָלֶ"ף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(תהלים קה, ח)<>: דָּבָר צִוָּה לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. 1.1. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה פָּתַח (משלי ח, ל): וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו', אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, וְאִית דַּאֲמַר אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא. אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יא, יב): כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָֹּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק. אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (איכה ד, ה): הָאֱמֻנִים עֲלֵי תוֹלָע וגו'. אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (אסתר ב, ז): וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה. אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא, כְּמָא דְתֵימָא (נחום ג, ח): הֲתֵיטְבִי מִנֹּא אָמוֹן, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן הַאַתְּ טָבָא מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָא רַבָּתָא דְּיָתְבָא בֵּין נַהֲרוֹתָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. וְאֵין רֵאשִׁית אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (משלי ח, כב): ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ. 1.1. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה סָתוּם מִכָּל צְדָדָיו וּפָתוּחַ מִלְּפָנָיו, כָּךְ אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לוֹמַר, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּפָנִים, מַה לְּאָחוֹר, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם וּלְהַבָּא. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר (דברים ד, לב): כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, לְמִן הַיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְחוֹקֵר, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹקֵר לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים, הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְלָמָּה בְּב' שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְלָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁלֹא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִין לוֹמַר הֵיאַךְ הָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד שֶׁהוּא נִבְרָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה, אֶלָּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֲרֵי אֲנִי בּוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְהַלְּוַאי יַעֲמֹד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה בְּב' אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עוֹקְצִין, אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, אוֹמְרִים לַב' מִי בְּרָאֲךָ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה בְּעוּקְצוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְאוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה בְּרָאָנִי. וּמַה שְּׁמוֹ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה לָהֶן בְּעוּקְצוֹ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו, וְאוֹמֵר ה' שְׁמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר חֲנִינָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֲחָא, עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת הָיְתָה הָאָלֶ"ף קוֹרֵא תִּגָּר לִפְנֵי כִסְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל אוֹתִיּוֹת וְלֹא בָּרָאתָ עוֹלָמְךָ בִּי, אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם וּמְלוֹאוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג, יט): ה' בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ וגו', לְמָחָר אֲנִי בָּא לִתֵּן תּוֹרָה בְּסִינַי וְאֵינִי פּוֹתֵחַ תְּחִלָה אֶלָּא בָּךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ, ב): אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אָלֶ"ף, שֶׁהוּא מַסְכִּים מֵאָלֶ"ף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קה, ח): דָּבָר צִוָּה לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. | 1.1. "The great Rabbi Hoshaya opened [with the verse (Mishlei 8:30),] \"I [the Torah] was an amon to Him and I was a plaything to Him every day.\" Amon means \"pedagogue\" (i.e. ny). Amon means \"covered.\" Amon means \"hidden.\" And there is one who says amon means \"great.\" Amon means \"ny,\" as in (Bamidbar 11:12) “As a ny (omein) carries the suckling child.\" Amon means \"covered,\" as in (Eichah 4:5) \"Those who were covered (emunim) in scarlet have embraced refuse heaps.\" Amon means \"hidden,\" as in (Esther 2:7) \"He hid away (omein) Hadassah.\" Amon means \"great,\" as in (Nahum 3:8) \"Are you better than No-amon [which dwells in the rivers]?\" which the Targum renders as, \"Are you better than Alexandria the Great (amon), which dwells between the rivers?\" Alternatively, amon means \"artisan.\" The Torah is saying, \"I was the artisan's tool of Hashem.\" In the way of the world, a king of flesh and blood who builds a castle does not do so from his own knowledge, but rather from the knowledge of an architect, and the architect does not build it from his own knowledge, but rather he has scrolls and books in order to know how to make rooms and doorways. So too Hashem gazed into the Torah and created the world. Similarly the Torah says, \"Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth],\" and reishis means Torah, as in \"Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way\" (Mishlei 8:22).", |
|
10. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 21.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 194| 21.8. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן חֲכִינָאי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הָלְכוּ לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּבְנֵי בְּרַק, שָׁהוּ שָׁם שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הֲוָה מְשַׁלַּח וְיָדַע מַה בְּגוֹ בֵּיתֵיהּ, רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא לֹא הֲוָה שָׁלַח וְיָדַע מַה בְּגוֹ בֵּיתֵיהּ. שָׁלְחָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמְרָה לוֹ בִּתְּךָ בָּגְרָה בּוֹא וְהַשִּׂיאָה, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן צָפָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְאָמַר לָהֶם כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּת בּוֹגֶרֶת יֵלֵךְ וְיַשִּׂיאָהּ, יָדַע מַהוּ אוֹמֵר קָם נְסַב רְשׁוּתָא וַאֲזַל, בָּעֵי לְעַיֵּיל בְּגוֹ בֵּיתֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכְּחָה דְּפַנְיָא לְזָוִית אָחֳרֵי, מָה עֲבַד אָזַל וְיָתַב לֵיהּ עַל מַלְיוֹתְהוֹן דְּנָשֵׁי שָׁמַע קָלְהוֹן דְּטַלְיוּתָא אָמְרִין בַּת חֲנִינָא מְלוֹי קוּלְתִיךְ וּסְלֵיק לִיךְ, מֶה עָשָׂה הָלַךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ עַד שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, נִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ פִּתְאֹם, לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִרְאוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּצָאת נִשְׁמָתָהּ, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם עֲנִיָּה זוֹ זוֹ שְׂכָרָהּ, לְאַחַר שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה שֶׁהִמְתִּינָה לִי, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה חָזְרָה נַפְשָׁהּ לְגוּפָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאָן אַף אֲנִי אֵינִי אוֹהֲבָן, הָאוֹחֵז בָּאַמָּה וּמַשְׁתִּין, וְהַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ עָרוֹם, וְהָאוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, וְהַנִּכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ פִּתְאֹם וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. רַב אָמַר אַל תִּכָּנֵס לָעִיר פִּתְאֹם, וְאַל תִּכָּנֵס לַבַּיִת פִּתְאֹם, בִּתְּךָ בָּגְרָה שַׁחְרֵר עַבְדְּךָ וּתְנֶהָ לוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כַּד הֲוָה סָלֵיק לְמִשְׁאַל שְׁלָמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה מְבַעְבֵּעַ, עַל שׁוּם (שמות כח, לה): וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ. | |
|
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 2.12 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 108 |
| 12. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 56 |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 3.1, 3.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. •Oshaya Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 112, 113; Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 178 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 56 |
| 15. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 6.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 178 |
| 16. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, 1.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 56 |
| 17. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, 52b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 113 |
18. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 4b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 113| 4b. ויכסהו הענן להר ויקרא אל משה [משה] וכל ישראל עומדין ולא בא הכתוב אלא לחלק כבוד למשה רבי נתן אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא למרק אכילה ושתיה שבמעיו לשומו כמלאכי השרת,ר' מתיא בן חרש אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לאיים עליו כדי שתהא תורה ניתנת באימה ברתת ובזיע שנאמר (תהלים ב, יא) עבדו את ה' ביראה וגילו ברעדה מאי וגילו ברעדה אמר רב אדא בר מתנה אמר רב במקום גילה שם תהא רעדה,במאי קא מיפלגי רבי יוסי הגלילי ור"ע בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא בששה בחודש ניתנה תורה לישראל רבי יוסי אומר בשבעה בו מאן דאמר בששה בששה ניתנה ובשבעה עלה (דכתיב (שמות כד, טז) ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי) מאן דאמר בשבעה בשבעה ניתנה ובשבעה עלה [דכתיב ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי],רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר לה כתנא קמא דאמר בששה בחודש ניתנה תורה הלכך זה היה מעשה אחר עשרת הדברות (שמות כד, טז) וישכון כבוד ה' על הר סיני ויכסהו הענן ששת ימים למשה ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי לקבולי שאר תורה דאי סלקא דעתך וישכון כבוד ה' מר"ח ויכסהו הענן להר ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי לקבולי עשרת הדברות הא קבילו להו מששה והא אסתלק ענן מששה,ורבי עקיבא סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר בשבעה בחדש ניתנה תורה לישראל בשלמא לר' עקיבא היינו דמשכחת לה בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות עשרין וארבעה דסיון ושיתסר דתמוז מלו להו ארבעין יומין דהוה בהר ובשבסר בתמוז נחית ואתא ותברינהו ללוחות,אלא לר' יוסי הגלילי דאמר ששה דפרישה וארבעין דהר עד עשרין ותלת בתמוז לא אתבור לוחות אמר לך ר' יוסי הגלילי ארבעין דהר בהדי ששה דפרישה,אמר מר ויקרא אל משה משה וכל ישראל עומדין מסייע ליה לר"א דאמר רבי אלעזר ויקרא אל משה משה וכל ישראל עומדין ולא בא הכתוב אלא לחלק לו כבוד למשה,מיתיבי קול לו קול אליו משה שמע וכל ישראל לא שמעו לא קשיא הא בסיני הא באהל מועד ואי בעית אימא לא קשיא הא בקריאה הא בדבור,ר' זריקא רמי קראי קמיה דר' אלעזר ואמרי לה אמר ר' זריקא ר' אלעזר רמי כתיב (שמות מ, לה) ולא יכול משה לבא אל אהל מועד כי שכן עליו הענן וכתיב (שמות כד, יח) ויבא משה בתוך הענן מלמד שתפסו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה והביאו בענן,דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא נאמר כאן בתוך ונאמר להלן בתוך (שמות יד, טז) ויבואו בני ישראל בתוך הים מה להלן שביל דכתיב (שמות יד, כב) והמים להם חומה אף כאן שביל:,(ויקרא א, א) ויקרא אל משה וידבר למה הקדים קריאה לדיבור לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא א"כ קורהו מסייע ליה לרבי חנינא דאמר רבי חנינא לא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא אם כן קורהו לאמר אמר ר' (מוסיא בר בריה דרבי מסיא משמיה דר' מוסיא) רבה מניין לאומר דבר לחבירו שהוא בבל יאמר עד שיאמר לו לך אמור שנאמר (ויקרא א, א) וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד לאמר,מכלל דתרווייהו סבירא להו מלואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן דאיתמר מלואים ר' יוחנן ורבי חנינא חד אמר כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן וחד אמר דבר המעכב לדורות מעכב בהן שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן,תסתיים דר' יוחנן הוא דאמר כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מדקאמר ליה ר' שמעון בן לקיש לר' יוחנן אי מה מלואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן ולא קא מהדר ליה ולא מידי תסתיים,מאי בינייהו | 4b. And that which is written: “And the cloud covered him,” means the cloud covered it, the mountain, and not him, Moses. “And He called to Moses”; Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing at the foot of the mountain and listening, and if God did not mean that Moses was to climb the mountain, why did He call him? The verse comes only to accord deference to Moses, as the entire nation heard God address him. Rabbi Natan says: Moses was in fact called to enter the cloud; however, his entrance was not for the purpose of sequestering and purifying him, rather, the verse comes only to cleanse the food and drink that was in his intestines, to render him like the ministering angels who require neither food nor drink.,Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash says: The verse calling Moses into the cloud comes only to intimidate Moses, to instill in him a sense of awe of the Creator, so that the Torah would be delivered with reverence, with quaking and with trembling, as it is stated: “Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Apropos the end of the verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “and rejoice with trembling”? Joy and trembling seem contradictory. Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rav said: Where there is the joy of fulfilling a mitzva, there will be the trembling of the awe of Heaven there.,§ Apropos the interpretation of the verse with regard to revelation, the Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara explains that their dispute is parallel to the dispute between these other tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: On the sixth day of the month of Sivan, the Torah, the Ten Commandments, was given to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yosei says: It was on the seventh day of the month. According to the one who said that it was on the sixth, the Torah was given on the sixth, which is the day of the revelation of the Ten Commandments, and on the seventh day of the month Moses ascended the mountain, as it is written: “And He called to Moses on the seventh day” (Exodus 24:16). According to the one who said that the Torah was given on the seventh of the month, it was given on the seventh and Moses ascended on the seventh, as it is written: “And he called to Moses on the seventh day.”,The Gemara proceeds to link the two disputes. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, who said that it was on the sixth of the month that the Torah was given; therefore, this incident occurred after the revelation of the Ten Commandments. That is why he explains the verse “And the glory of the Lord abode on Mount Sinai and the cloud covered him for six days” to mean that the cloud covered Moses, and He called to Moses on the seventh day to receive the rest of the Torah. As, should it enter your mind to interpret the verse as follows: “And the glory of the Lord abode” from the New Moon of Sivan; “And the cloud covered it,” the mountain; “And He called to Moses on the seventh day,” to receive only the Ten Commandments; didn’t they already receive the Ten Commandments on the sixth of the month, and the cloud that was on the mountain already departed on the sixth of the month?,And Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that on the seventh of the month the Torah was given to the Jewish people. That is why Moses was summoned on the seventh of the month immediately after the revelation of the Ten Commandments. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the Torah was given on the seventh of Sivan and Moses then proceeded to climb the mountain and remain there for forty days, that explains the calculation that you find: On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were shattered, according to the standard tradition. How so? Calculate twenty-four days until the end of Sivan and sixteen days of Tammuz; they total the forty days that he was on the mountain. On the seventeenth of Tammuz he descended from the mountain and came and shattered the tablets.,However, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: There were six days of sequestering after the Torah was given and an additional forty days that Moses was on the mountain, the tablets were not shattered until the twenty-third of Tammuz, contrary to the standard tradition. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could have said to you: The forty days that Moses was on the mountain include the six days of sequestering.,§ The Master said in that baraita cited above that when the Torah says: “And He called to Moses,” it means that Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing and listening. The Gemara suggests that this supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said that when the Torah says: “And He called to Moses,” it means that Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing and listening and the verse comes only to accord deference to Moses. From Rabbi Elazar’s statement it is clear that all of Israel heard the voice of God.,The Gemara raises an objection: The Torah states: “And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting that He might speak with him, then he heard the voice speaking unto him from above the Ark cover that was upon the Ark of the Testimony, from between the two cherubs; and He spoke unto him” (Numbers 7:89). The Torah could have said: He heard the voice speaking to him; however, instead the verse said: He heard the voice speaking unto him, indicating that the voice reached him alone. Moses alone heard God’s voice and all of the Jewish people did not hear it. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, where everyone heard God’s voice, was at Sinai. That case, where Moses alone heard God’s voice, was at the Tent of Meeting. Or if you wish, say instead an alternative resolution. This is not difficult; when God addressed Moses by calling to him, everyone heard; that which God subsequently communicated by speaking, Moses alone heard.,Rabbi Zerika raised a contradiction between verses before Rabbi Elazar, and some say that Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction: It is written in one place: “And Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting because the cloud dwelt on it” (Exodus 40:35), as Moses was unable to enter the cloud. And it is written elsewhere: “And Moses came into the cloud” (Exodus 24:18). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, grabbed Moses and brought him into the cloud since he could not enter on his own.,The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: There is a verbal analogy that resolves this contradiction. It is stated here: “And Moses came into the cloud,” and it is stated below, in another verse: “And the children of Israel went into the sea on dry land” (Exodus 14:22); Just as below, there was a path within the sea, as it is written: “And the water was a wall for them” (Exodus 14:22), here too, there was a path through the cloud, but Moses did not actually enter the cloud.,The verse says: “And He called unto Moses, and the Lord spoke unto him from within the Tent of Meeting, saying” (Leviticus 1:1). Why does the verse mention calling before speaking, and God did not speak to him at the outset? The Torah is teaching etiquette: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first. With regard to the term concluding the verse: “Saying,” Rabbi Musya, grandson of Rabbi Masya, said in the name of Rabbi Musya the Great: From where is it derived with regard to one who tells another some matter, that it is incumbent upon the latter not to say it to others until the former explicitly says to him: Go and tell others? As it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to him from within the Tent of Meeting, saying [lemor].” Lemor is a contraction of lo emor, meaning: Do not say. One must be given permission before transmitting information.,§ After digressing to interpret the verses with regard to Mount Sinai, the Gemara resumes its discussion of the statements of Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish. Based on the question Reish Lakish addressed to Rabbi Yoḥa and the fact that Rabbi Yoḥa accepted the premise of that question, we learn by inference that both maintain that with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration. As it is stated: Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree. One said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration. And one said: A matter that invalidates offerings throughout the generations invalidates the inauguration; a matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration.,Conclude that Rabbi Yoḥa is the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration. This may be concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says to Rabbi Yoḥa: Just as with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, so too is the halakha with regard to Yom Kippur, and Rabbi Yoḥa did not respond and did not say anything, indicating that he agreed. The Gemara states: Conclude that this indeed is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa.,The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina? |
|
| 19. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, 16a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 55 |
20. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 7a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 55| 7a. נימרינהו לתרוייהו אל ההודאות ורוב ההודאות,אמר ר' אבהו גדול יום הגשמים מתחיית המתים דאילו תחיית המתים לצדיקים ואילו גשמים בין לצדיקים בין לרשעים ופליגא דרב יוסף דאמר רב יוסף מתוך שהיא שקולה כתחיית המתים קבעוה בתחיית המתים,אמר רב יהודה גדול יום הגשמים כיום שניתנה בו תורה שנא' (דברים לב, ב) יערף כמטר לקחי ואין לקח אלא תורה שנא' (משלי ד, ב) כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו רבא אמר יותר מיום שניתנה בו תורה שנאמר יערף כמטר לקחי מי נתלה במי הוי אומר קטן נתלה בגדול,רבא רמי כתיב יערף כמטר לקחי וכתיב תזל כטל אמרתי אם תלמיד חכם הגון הוא כטל ואם לאו עורפהו כמטר,תניא היה ר' בנאה אומר כל העוסק בתורה לשמה תורתו נעשית לו סם חיים שנאמר (משלי ג, יח) עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה ואומר (משלי ג, ח) רפאות תהי לשרך ואומר (משלי ח, לה) כי מוצאי מצא חיים וכל העוסק בתורה שלא לשמה נעשית לו סם המות שנאמר יערף כמטר לקחי ואין עריפה אלא הריגה שנאמר (דברים כא, ד) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל,א"ל ר' ירמיה לר' זירא ליתי מר ליתני א"ל חלש לבאי ולא יכילנא לימא מר מילתא דאגדתא א"ל הכי אמר ר' יוחנן מאי דכתיב (דברים כ, יט) כי האדם עץ השדה וכי אדם עץ שדה הוא,אלא משום דכתיב (דברים כ, יט) כי ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרת וכתיב אותו תשחית וכרת הא כיצד אם ת"ח הגון הוא ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרת ואם לאו אותו תשחית וכרת,אמר רבי חמא (אמר רבי) חנינא מאי דכתיב (משלי כז, יז) ברזל בברזל יחד לומר לך מה ברזל זה אחד מחדד את חבירו אף שני תלמידי חכמים מחדדין זה את זה בהלכה,אמר רבה בר בר חנה למה נמשלו דברי תורה כאש שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' לומר לך מה אש אינו דולק יחידי אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימין ביחידי,והיינו דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו נ, לו) חרב אל הבדים ונואלו חרב על שונאיהן של תלמידי חכמים שעוסקין בד בבד בתורה ולא עוד אלא שמטפשין שנאמר ונואלו,ולא עוד אלא שחוטאין כתיב הכא ונואלו וכתיב התם (במדבר יב, יא) אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו ואיבעית אימא מהכא (ישעיהו יט, יג) נואלו שרי צוען [וגו'] והתעו את מצרים,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק למה נמשלו דברי תורה כעץ שנאמר (משלי ג, יח) עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה לומר לך מה עץ קטן מדליק את הגדול אף תלמידי חכמים קטנים מחדדים את הגדולים והיינו דאמר ר' חנינא הרבה למדתי מרבותי ומחבירי יותר מרבותי ומתלמידי יותר מכולן,רבי חנינא בר פפא רמי כתיב (ישעיהו כא, יד) לקראת צמא התיו מים וכתיב (ישעיהו נה, א) הוי כל צמא לכו למים אם תלמיד הגון הוא לקראת צמא התיו מים ואי לא הוי כל צמא לכו למים,רבי חנינא בר חמא רמי כתיב (משלי ה, טז) יפוצו מעינותיך חוצה וכתיב (משלי ה, יז) יהיו לך לבדך אם תלמיד הגון הוא יפוצו מעינותיך חוצה ואם לאו יהיו לך לבדך,(ואמר) רבי חנינא בר אידי למה נמשלו דברי תורה למים דכתיב הוי כל צמא לכו למים לומר לך מה מים מניחין מקום גבוה והולכין למקום נמוך אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימין אלא במי שדעתו שפלה,ואמר רבי אושעיא למה נמשלו דברי תורה לשלשה משקין הללו במים וביין ובחלב דכתיב הוי כל צמא לכו למים וכתיב (ישעיהו נה, א) לכו שברו ואכלו ולכו שברו בלא כסף ובלא מחיר יין וחלב לומר לך מה שלשה משקין הללו אין מתקיימין אלא בפחות שבכלים אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימין אלא במי שדעתו שפלה,כדאמרה ליה ברתיה דקיסר לר' יהושע בן חנניה אי חכמה מפוארה בכלי מכוער אמר לה אביך רמי חמרא במני דפחרא אמרה ליה אלא במאי נירמי אמר לה אתון דחשביתו רמו במאני דהבא וכספא,אזלה ואמרה ליה לאבוה רמייא לחמרא במני דהבא וכספא ותקיף אתו ואמרו ליה אמר לה לברתיה מאן אמר לך הכי אמרה ליה רבי יהושע בן חנניה קריוהו אמר ליה אמאי אמרת לה הכי אמר ליה כי היכי דאמרה לי אמרי לה והא איכא שפירי דגמירי | 7a. we will recite them both: God of thanksgivings, and: Abundant thanksgivings.,§ The Gemara cites statements in praise of rainfall. Rabbi Abbahu said: The day of rain is greater than the resurrection of the dead. The reason is that while the resurrection of the dead benefits only the righteous, rain benefits both the righteous and the wicked. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said: Since rainfall is equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, the Sages established its recitation in the second blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the resurrection of the dead. According to Rav Yosef, rainfall is the equivalent to, but not superior to, the resurrection of the dead.,Similarly, Rav Yehuda said: The day of the rains is as great as the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine [likḥi] shall drop as the rain” (Deuteronomy 32:2), and lekaḥ means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I give you good doctrine [lekaḥ]; do not forsake My Torah” (Proverbs 4:2). Rava said: Rainfall is even greater than the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain,” and when one makes a comparison, which object is made dependent upon which? You must say that the lesser object is dependent upon the greater one. If Torah is compared to rain, it follows that rain is greater than Torah.,The Gemara cites another interpretation of the verse from Deuteronomy. Rava raised a contradiction: At the beginning of the verse it is written: “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof] as the rain,” in a harsh manner, and yet later in the verse, it is written: “My speech shall distill as the dew,” in a gentle tone. He resolves this apparent contradiction as follows: If he is a worthy Torah scholar, the Torah flows through him like the dew, but if he is not worthy, it snaps his neck [orfehu] like the powerful rain.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Bena’a would say: Anyone who engages in Torah for its own sake, his Torah study will be an elixir of life for him, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18), and it says: “It shall be health to your navel” (Proverbs 3:8), and it says: “For whoever finds Me finds life” (Proverbs 8:35). And anyone who engages in Torah not for its own sake, e.g., for self-aggrandizement, his Torah will be an elixir of death for him, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof ] as the rain,” and arifa means nothing other than killing, as it is stated: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck [arefu] there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4).,Rabbi Yirmeya once said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and teach a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My heart is weak and I cannot strain myself over a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Yirmeya replied to him: In that case, let the Master tell us a matter of aggada, which does not require as much effort. Rabbi Zeira said to him that Rabbi Yoḥa said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man is a tree of the field” (Deuteronomy 20:19)? And is man actually a tree of the field?,Rather, it is because it is written earlier in the same verse: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” and it is written in the next verse: “Them you may destroy and cut down” (Deuteronomy 20:20). This indicates that there are certain trees which may be cut down, while others may not be destroyed. How so? If a Torah scholar is worthy: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” but if he is not worthy: “He you may destroy and cut down.”,The Gemara cites other expositions that deal with Torah study. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countece of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17)? This verse comes to tell you that just as with these iron implements, one sharpens the other when they are rubbed against each other, so too, when Torah scholars study together, they sharpen one another in halakha.,Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Why are matters of Torah compared to fire, as it is stated: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29)? To tell you: Just as fire does not ignite in a lone stick of wood but in a pile of kindling, so too, matters of Torah are not retained and understood properly by a lone scholar who studies by himself, but by a group of Sages.,And this is what Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A sword is upon the boasters [habaddim], and they shall become fools [noalu]” (Jeremiah 50:36)? This verse can be interpreted homiletically: There is a sword upon the enemies of Torah scholars, a euphemism for Torah scholars themselves, who sit alone [bad bevad] and study Torah. And not only that, but those who study by themselves grow foolish from their solitary Torah study, as it is stated: “And they shall become fools.”,And not only that, but they sin, as it is written here: “And they shall become fools,” and it is written there: “For that we have done foolishly [noalnu] and for that we have sinned” (Numbers 12:11). And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “The princes of Zoan have become fools [noalu]…they have caused Egypt to go astray” (Isaiah 19:13).,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Why are Torah matters likened to a tree, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18)? This verse comes to tell you that just as a small piece of wood can ignite a large piece, so too, minor Torah scholars can sharpen great Torah scholars and enable them to advance in their studies. And this is what Rabbi Ḥanina said: I have learned much from my teachers and even more from my friends, but from my students I have learned more than from all of them.,Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa raised a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “To him who is thirsty bring water” (Isaiah 21:14), which indicates that the one who has water must bring it to the thirsty person, and it is written elsewhere: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1), from which it may be inferred that the thirsty person must seek out water himself. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that if he is a worthy student the teacher must seek him out, as in “to him who is thirsty bring water,” but if the student is not worthy, then “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” i.e., this student must seek out a teacher himself.,Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama raised another contradiction. In one verse it is written: “Let your springs be dispersed abroad” (Proverbs 5:16), whereas in the next verse it is written: “Let them be your own” (Proverbs 5:17). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama explains: If the student sitting before you is worthy, then “Let your springs be dispersed abroad,” as you should teach him, but if he is not worthy, then “Let them be your own.”,And Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi said: Why are matters of Torah likened to water, as it is written: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1)? This verse comes to tell you: Just as water leaves a high place and flows to a low place, so too, Torah matters are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly, i.e., a humble person.,And Rabbi Oshaya said: Why are matters of Torah likened to these three liquids: To water, wine and milk? As it is written with regard to water: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” and it is written in the same verse: “Come, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” This verse comes to tell you: Just as these three liquids can be retained only in the least of vessels, e.g., clay pots, but not vessels of silver and gold, as they will spoil, so too, matters of Torah are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly.,The Gemara cites a related incident: This is as the daughter of the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya, who was an ugly man: Woe to glorious wisdom such as yours, which is contained in an ugly vessel. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said to her, in a seemingly unrelated response: Does your father keep his wine in simple clay vessels? The emperor’s daughter said to him: Rather, in what, then, should he keep it? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said to her: You, who are so important, should put it in vessels of gold and silver.,The emperor’s daughter went and said this to her father. He put the wine in vessels of gold and silver and it turned sour. When his advisors came and told the emperor that the wine had turned sour, he said to his daughter: Who told you to do this? His daughter responded: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya. The emperor summoned him and said to him: Why did you say this to her? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said to him: Just as she said to me, so I said say to her, to demonstrate to her that fine material is best preserved in the least of vessels. The emperor said to him: But there are handsome people who are learned. |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 107a, 24a, 30b, 68a, 77a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 113| 77a. נזקין שעשה בהן שוגג כמזיד ואונס כרצון אינו דין שחייב בהן את המצמצם,רב אחא בר רב פוטר אמר רב משרשיא מ"ט דאבוה דאבא דפוטר אמר קרא (במדבר לה, כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא ברוצח הוא דחייב לן מצמצם בנזקין לא חייב לן מצמצם,אמר רבא כפתו ומת ברעב פטור ואמר רבא כפתו בחמה ומת בצינה ומת חייב סוף חמה לבא סוף צינה לבא פטור,ואמר רבא כפתו לפני ארי פטור לפני יתושין חייב רב אשי אמר אפילו לפני יתושין נמי פטור הני אזלי והני אתו,איתמר כפה עליו גיגית ופרע עליו מעזיבה רבא ורבי זירא חד אמר חייב וחד אמר פטור,תסתיים דרבא הוא דאמר פטור דאמר רבא כפתו ומת ברעב פטור,אדרבה תסתיים דרבי זירא הוא דאמר פטור דא"ר זירא האי מאן דעייליה לחבריה בביתא דשישא ואדליק ליה שרגא ומת חייב טעמא דאדליק ליה שרגא הא לא אדליק ליה שרגא לא,אמרי התם בלא שרגא לא מתחיל הבלא | 77a. with regard to damage, where the Torah rendered the legal status of one who causes damage unwittingly like that of one who causes damage intentionally, and the status of one who causes damage due to circumstances beyond his control like that of one who causes damage with intent, as one is always responsible for damage that he caused (see Bava Kamma 26a), is it not logical that the Torah rendered one who confines an animal in a place where it cannot survive liable to pay restitution even though he did not perform an action?,The Gemara explains the conflicting opinion. Rav Aḥa bar Rav, exempts the one who confined the animal in the sun from recompensing the owner. Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Aḥa, the father of my father, who exempts him from payment? The reason is that the verse states: “Or in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died, the assailant shall be put to death; he is a murderer” (Numbers 35:21). The phrase “he is a murderer” restricts the liability of one who confines another. It is in the case of a murderer that the Torah renders for us one who confines another liable to be executed. But in the case of damage the Torah does not render for us one who confines the animal of another liable to recompense the owner, as it was not his action that caused the damage.,§ Rava says: If one bound another and he died of starvation, he is exempt from the liability to receive a court-imposed death penalty, as it was not his action that caused the death of the victim. Even if the victim was hungry when he was bound, the starvation that caused his death ensued at a later stage. The one who bound him is liable to be punished by the heavenly court. And Rava says: If one bound another in the sun and he died of the heat, or in a cold place and he died of exposure, he is liable to be executed, as from the moment that he bound him, the victim began dying. But if one bound another in a place that at the time was not exposed to the sun or the cold, even though ultimately the sun would arrive at that place, or ultimately the cold would reach that place, he is exempt from execution, as when he bound the victim, the future cause of death was not present.,And Rava says: If one bound another before a lion, he is exempt from execution. Since perhaps the lion will choose not to prey on the victim it was not his action that caused the damage. If he bound another before mosquitoes he is liable to be executed, as inevitably, the mosquitoes will bite him until he dies. Rav Ashi says: Even if he bound an individual before mosquitoes he is exempt from execution, as the mosquitoes who were there when he bound the individual are not the ones who killed him. Rather, those mosquitoes went and these other mosquitoes came. Therefore, this case is comparable to the case where one bound another in a place where the sun or the cold would ultimately arrive.,It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to one who overturned a vat upon another and he died of suffocation, or breached plaster covering the roof and the lack of a ceiling caused another to die of exposure. Rava and Rabbi Zeira disagree. One says that he is liable to be executed, and one says that he is exempt from execution.,The Gemara suggests: Conclude that Rava is the one who says that the perpetrator is exempt from execution, as Rava says: If one bound another and he died of starvation, he is exempt from execution, as it was not his action that caused the death of the victim.,The Gemara rejects that suggestion: On the contrary, conclude that it is Rabbi Zeira who says that the perpetrator is exempt, as Rabbi Zeira says: With regard to this individual who took another into a hermetically sealed house of marble and he kindled a lamp [sheraga] for him, and he died of the fumes, the perpetrator is liable to be executed. One may infer that the reason he is liable is because he kindled a lamp for him, but if he did not kindle a lamp for him, no, he is not liable, although the victim would have ultimately died even without the lamp. Apparently, Rabbi Zeira also maintains that the perpetrator is liable only if the perpetrator’s action caused the death, or at least caused the process of dying to begin. This case is identical to the case of the overturned vat.,The Sages say: In the case there, where one confines another in a house of marble, without a kindled lamp, the atmosphere does not begin to cause suffocation |
|
| 22. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, 13a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 178 |
23. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 25a, 52b, 29b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 194| 29b. כל היכא דליכא אלא חמש סלעים הוא קודם לבנו מאי טעמא מצוה דגופיה עדיפא כי פליגי היכא דאיכא חמש משועבדים וחמש בני חורין,ר' יהודה סבר מלוה דכתיב בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא בהני חמש פריק לבריה ואזיל כהן וטריף ליה לחמש משועבדים לדידיה,ורבנן סברי מלוה דכתיב באורייתא לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא והילכך מצוה דגופיה עדיף,ת"ר לפדות את בנו ולעלות לרגל פודה את בנו ואחר כך עולה לרגל ר' יהודה אומר עולה לרגל ואח"כ פודה את בנו שזו מצוה עוברת וזו מצוה שאינה עוברת,בשלמא לר' יהודה כדקאמר טעמא אלא רבנן מאי טעמייהו דאמר קרא (שמות לד, כ) כל בכור בניך תפדה והדר לא יראו פני ריקם,ת"ר מנין שאם היו לו חמשה בנים מחמש נשים שחייב לפדות כולן ת"ל כל בכור בניך תפדה פשיטא בפטר רחם תלא רחמנא,מהו דתימא נילף בכור בכור מנחלה מה להלן ראשית אונו אף כאן ראשית אונו קמ"ל:,ללמדו תורה: מנלן דכתיב (דברים יא, יט) ולמדתם אותם את בניכם והיכא דלא אגמריה אבוה מיחייב איהו למיגמר נפשיה דכתיב ולמדתם,איהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא דכתיב ולימדתם ולמדתם כל שמצווה ללמוד מצווה ללמד וכל שאינו מצווה ללמוד אינו מצווה ללמד,ואיהי מנלן דלא מיחייבה למילף נפשה דכתיב ולימדתם ולמדתם כל שאחרים מצווין ללמדו מצווה ללמד את עצמו וכל שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדו אין מצווה ללמד את עצמו ומנין שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדה דאמר קרא ולמדתם אותם את בניכם ולא בנותיכם,ת"ר הוא ללמוד ובנו ללמוד הוא קודם לבנו ר' יהודה אומר אם בנו זריז וממולח ותלמודו מתקיים בידו בנו קודמו כי הא דרב יעקב בריה דרב אחא בר יעקב שדריה אבוה לקמיה דאביי כי אתא חזייה דלא הוה מיחדדין שמעתיה א"ל אנא עדיפא מינך תוב את דאיזיל אנא,שמע אביי דקא הוה אתי הוה ההוא מזיק בי רבנן דאביי דכי הוו עיילי בתרין אפי' ביממא הוו מיתזקי אמר להו לא ליתיב ליה אינש אושפיזא אפשר דמתרחיש ניסא,על בת בההוא בי רבנן אידמי ליה כתנינא דשבעה רישוותיה כל כריעה דכרע נתר חד רישיה אמר להו למחר אי לא איתרחיש ניסא סכינתין,ת"ר ללמוד תורה ולישא אשה ילמוד תורה ואח"כ ישא אשה ואם א"א לו בלא אשה ישא אשה ואח"כ ילמוד תורה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה נושא אשה ואח"כ ילמוד תורה,ר' יוחנן אמר ריחיים בצוארו ויעסוק בתורה ולא פליגי הא לן והא להו:,משתבח ליה רב חסדא לרב הונא בדרב המנונא דאדם גדול הוא א"ל כשיבא לידך הביאהו לידי כי אתא חזייה דלא פריס סודרא א"ל מאי טעמא לא פריסת סודרא א"ל דלא נסיבנא אהדרינהו לאפיה מיניה א"ל חזי דלא חזית להו לאפי עד דנסבת,רב הונא לטעמיה דאמר בן עשרים שנה ולא נשא אשה כל ימיו בעבירה בעבירה סלקא דעתך אלא אימא כל ימיו בהרהור עבירה,אמר רבא וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל עד כ' שנה יושב הקב"ה ומצפה לאדם מתי ישא אשה כיון שהגיע כ' ולא נשא אומר תיפח עצמותיו,אמר רב חסדא האי דעדיפנא מחבראי דנסיבנא בשיתסר ואי הוה נסיבנא בארביסר | 29b. that anywhere that there are only five sela available, i.e., enough to redeem only one man, and one is obligated to redeem both himself and his son, he, the father, takes precedence over his son. What is the reason? It is that his own mitzva is preferable to one that he performs on behalf of others. When they disagree is in a case where there is land worth five sela that is liened property that has been sold, i.e., he sold this land to other people but it can be reclaimed by his prior creditor, and five sela which is entirely unsold property.,And the reasoning behind the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a loan that is written in the Torah, i.e., any ficial obligation that applies by Torah law, is considered as though it is written in a document, and therefore it can be collected from liened property, like any loan recorded in a document. This means that the liened property worth five sela is available for one’s own redemption, but not for that of his son, as the sale of the property occurred before the birth of his firstborn. Consequently, with these five sela upon which there is no lien he redeems his son, and the priest goes and repossesses the land worth five sela that is liened property for his own redemption. In this manner one can fulfill both mitzvot.,And the Rabbis maintain: A loan that is written in the Torah is not considered as though it is written in a document, since buyers will not be aware of this obligation, so that they should be aware that the land may be repossessed. And therefore there is no advantage for this man to redeem his son with the five sela upon which there is no lien, and his own mitzva is preferable, which means he redeems himself with the free land. With the liened property that is left he cannot redeem his son, as the land was sold before the birth of his firstborn.,The Sages taught: If one has money to redeem his son and to ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, he redeems his son and then ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival. Rabbi Yehuda says: He ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival and then redeems his son. His reasoning is that this trip to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival is a mitzva whose time soon passes, and this, the redemption of the firstborn son, is a mitzva whose time does not soon pass, as it can be fulfilled later.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is as he stated in his reasoning, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda provided the rationale for his opinion. But what is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that he should first redeem his son? The Gemara answers that the reason is that the verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and it then states, in the same verse: “And none shall appear before me empty,” referring to the pilgrimage Festival in Jerusalem. The order of the verse indicates that one should redeem his firstborn son before traveling to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival.,The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if one had five firstborn sons, from five different women, he is obligated to redeem them all? The verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and the emphasis of “all” includes any of one’s firstborn sons. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious this is the case? After all, the Merciful One made this mitzva dependent upon the opening of the womb, as it states: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whoever opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2). Since each of these sons is the firstborn of his mother, it is clear that the father is required to redeem each of them.,The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary lest you say that we should derive a verbal analogy between “firstborn” stated here and “firstborn” from the verses dealing with inheritance: Just as there, the verse describes a firstborn who receives a double portion of the inheritance as: “The first fruit of his strength” (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., he is the firstborn son to his father, and not the first child born to his mother; so too here, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn son, it is referring to the first fruit of his strength, which would mean that the father need redeem only his oldest child. Therefore, this baraita teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, every firstborn son to his mother must be redeemed.,§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to teach his son Torah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this requirement? As it is written: “And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19). And in a case where his father did not teach him he is obligated to teach himself, as it is written, i.e., the verse can be read with a different vocalization: And you shall study [ulmadtem].,From where do we derive that a woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah? As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem]. This indicates that whoever is commanded to study Torah is commanded to teach, and whoever is not commanded to study is not commanded to teach. Since a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, she is likewise not obligated to teach it.,The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to teach herself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem], which indicates that whoever others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach himself, and whoever others are not commanded to teach is not commanded to teach himself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to teach a woman? As the verse states: “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), which emphasizes: Your sons and not your daughters.,The Sages taught: If one wishes to study Torah himself and his son also wants to study, he takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his son is diligent and sharp, and his study will endure, his son takes precedence over him. This is like that anecdote which is told about Rav Ya’akov, son of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, whose father sent him to Abaye to study Torah. When the son came home, his father saw that his studies were not sharp, as he was insufficiently bright. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to his son: I am preferable to you, and it is better that I go and study. Therefore, you sit and handle the affairs of the house so that I can go and study.,Abaye heard that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was coming. There was a certain demon in the study hall of Abaye, which was so powerful that when two people would enter they would be harmed, even during the day. Abaye said to the people of the town: Do not give Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov lodging [ushpiza] so that he will be forced to spend the night in the study hall. Since Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is a righteous man, perhaps a miracle will occur on his behalf and he will kill the demon.,Rav Aḥa found no place to spend the night, and he entered and spent the night in that study hall of the Sages. The demon appeared to him like a serpent with seven heads. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov began to pray, and with every bow that he bowed one of the demon’s heads fell off, until it eventually died. The next day Rav Aḥa said to the townspeople: If a miracle had not occurred, you would have placed me in danger.,The Sages taught: If one has to decide whether to study Torah or to marry a woman, which should he do first? He should study Torah and afterward marry a woman. And if it is impossible for him to be without a wife, he should marry a woman and then study Torah. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that one should marry a woman and afterward study Torah.,Rabbi Yoḥa says: How can one do this? With a millstone hanging from his neck, i.e., with the responsibility of providing for his family weighing upon him, can he engage in Torah study? The Gemara comments: And the amora’im do not disagree; this is for us and that is for them. In other words, one statement applies to the residents of Babylonia, whereas the other is referring to those living in Eretz Yisrael.,§ With regard to marriage, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda would praise Rav Hamnuna to Rav Huna by saying that he is a great man. Rav Huna said to him: When he comes to you, send him to me. When Rav Hamnuna came before him, Rav Huna saw that he did not cover his head with a cloth, as Torah scholars did. Rav Huna said to him: What is the reason that you do not cover your head with a cloth? Rav Hamnuna said to him: The reason is that I am not married, and it was not customary for unmarried men to cover their heads with a cloth. Rav Huna turned his face away from him in rebuke, and he said to him: See to it that you do not see my face until you marry.,The Gemara notes: Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: If one is twenty years old and has not yet married a woman, all of his days will be in a state of sin concerning sexual matters. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he will be in a state of sin all of his days? Rather, say that this means the following: All of his days will be in a state of thoughts of sin, i.e., sexual thoughts. One who does not marry in his youth will become accustomed to thoughts of sexual matters, and the habit will remain with him the rest of his life.,Rava said, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him.,Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen, |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 50a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 194| 50a. דלי ציפתא ואמר ליה לשלוחא חזי מאי איכא מיהו לא ניחא לי דאיתהני בהדין עלמא,ר' עקיבא איתקדשת ליה ברתיה (דבר) דכלבא שבוע שמע (בר) כלבא שבוע אדרה הנאה מכל נכסיה אזלא ואיתנסיבה ליה,בסיתוא הוה גנו בי תיבנא הוה קא מנקיט ליה תיבנא מן מזייה אמר לה אי הואי לי רמינא ליך ירושלים דדהבא אתא אליהו אידמי להון כאנשא וקא קרי אבבא אמר להו הבו לי פורתא דתיבנא דילדת אתתי ולית לי מידעם לאגונה אמר לה ר' עקיבא לאנתתיה חזי גברא דאפילו תיבנא לא אית ליה,אמרה ליה זיל הוי בי רב אזל תרתי סרי שנין קמי דר' אליעזר ור' יהושע למישלם תרתי סרי שנין קא אתא לביתיה שמע מן אחורי ביתיה דקאמר לה חד רשע לדביתהו שפיר עביד ליך אבוך חדא דלא דמי ליך ועוד [שבקך] ארמלות חיות כולהון שנין אמרה ליה אי צאית לדילי ליהוי תרתי סרי שנין אחרנייתא אמר הואיל ויהבת לי רשותא איהדר לאחורי הדר אזל הוה תרתי סרי שני אחרנייתא,אתא בעשרין וארבעה אלפין זוגי תלמידי נפוק כולי עלמא לאפיה ואף היא קמת למיפק לאפיה אמר לה ההוא רשיעא ואת להיכא אמרה ליה (משלי יב, י) יודע צדיק נפש בהמתו אתת לאיתחזויי ליה קא מדחן לה רבנן אמר להון הניחו לה שלי ושלכם שלה הוא שמע (בר) כלבא שבוע אתא ואיתשיל על נידריה ואשתריי ואשתרי,מן שית מילי איעתר רבי עקיבא מן כלבא שבוע מן אילא דספינתא דכל ספינתא עבדין ליה מין עינא זימנא חדא אנשיוה על כיף ימא אתא הוא אשכחיה,ומן גווזא דזימנא חדא יהיב ארבעה זוזי לספונאי אמר להו אייתי לי מדעם ולא אשכחו אלא גווזא על כיף ימא אתיוה ליה אמרו ליה עביד מרנא עליה אישתכח דהוה מלי דינרי דזימנא חדא טבעת ספינתא וכולי עיסקא הוה מחית בההוא גווזא ואישתכח בההוא זימנא,דמן דסרוקיתא ומן מטרוניתא | 50a. He lifted the mat [tzifeta] upon which he was sitting and said to the messenger: See what there is here. The place was miraculously filled with gold dinars. This demonstrated that Rabbi Yehuda could have had plenty of money if he had so desired. He explained: However, it is not amenable to me to derive benefit in this world.,§ In connection to the above incident concerning the poverty of scholars and their potential to become wealthy through remarkable circumstances, the Gemara relates an incident: Rabbi Akiva became betrothed to the daughter of bar Kalba Savua. When bar Kalba Savua heard about their betrothal, he took a vow prohibiting her from eating all of his property. Despite this, she went ahead and married Rabbi Akiva.,In the winter they would sleep in a storehouse of straw, and Rabbi Akiva would gather strands of straw from her hair. He said to her: If I had the means I would place on your head a Jerusalem of Gold, a type of crown. Elijah the prophet came and appeared to them as a regular person and started calling and knocking on the door. He said to them: Give me a bit of straw, as my wife gave birth and I do not have anything on which to lay her. Rabbi Akiva said to his wife: See this man, who does not even have straw. We should be happy with our lot, as we at least have straw to sleep on.,She said to him: Go and be a student of Torah. He went and studied Torah for twelve years before Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. At the completion of the twelve years, he was coming home when he heard from behind his house that one wicked person was saying to his wife: Your father behaved well toward you. He was right to disinherit you. One reason is that your husband is not similar to you, i.e., he is not suitable for you. And furthermore, he has left you in widowhood in his lifetime all these years. She said to him: If he listens to me, he should be there for another twelve years. Rabbi Akiva said: Since she has given me permission through this statement, I will go back and study more. He turned back and went to the study hall, and he was there for another twelve years.,Eventually he came back accompanied by 24,000 pairs of students. Everyone went out to greet him, as he was by then a renowned teacher, and she too arose to go out to greet him. That wicked person said to her: And to where are you going? As she was excessively poor, she was not dressed in a grand manner, as fit for the wife of one so esteemed. She said to him: “A righteous man regards the life of his beast” (Proverbs 12:10); he knows that I am in this state as a result of my dedication to him. She came to present herself before Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages tried to fend her off, as they were unaware of her identity. He said to them: Leave her. Both my Torah knowledge and yours are hers. When bar Kalba Savua heard that the famous man was his son-in-law, he came before halakhic authorities and requested the dissolution of his vow, and it was dissolved.,The Gemara adds: Rabbi Akiva became wealthy from six things. First, from the money he received from Kalba Savua after his vow was dissolved. Second, he gained money from the ram of a ship [eila disfineta], as craftsmen would fashion a sculpture of a type of sheep for every ship, which would be placed on its bow, and which would be used to conceal money. On one occasion, the sailors forgot this ram on the seashore, and Rabbi Akiva came and found it with the money stored inside.,And third, he became wealthy from a log [gavza] of wood, as on one occasion he gave four dinars to sailors and said to them: Bring me something worthwhile. And they found only a log of wood on the seashore. They brought it to him and said to him: May our master wait with this until we bring a more worthy item. He found that the log was full of dinars, as on one occasion a ship sunk and all the merchandise, i.e., the money, owned by the people on the ship was placed in that log, and it was found on that occasion by the sailors.,Rabbi Akiva became wealthy from a convoy of Ishmaelites [Serukita]. And he became wealthy from a certain lady. Rabbi Akiva borrowed money from a lady and said that God would be his guarantor. When it came time to return the loan, the king’s daughter became insane and threw a purse of jewelry into the sea, which was found by that lady. She told Rabbi Akiva that his guarantor had paid his debt and she allowed him to keep the loan. |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, 49b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 178 49b. על כל לאפוקי רחוקים מת לאפוקי קרובים נפשות לאפוקי רביעית דם שיצא משני מתים שמטמא באהל שנאמר על כל נפשות מת לא יבא:,| 49b. “In to any” served to exclude contracting impurity to bury distant people, for whom a High Priest may not become impure; “dead” comes to exclude relatives; “bodies” comes to exclude a quarter-log of blood that emerges from two corpses, for it renders people and objects impure in a tent, as it is stated: “Neither shall he go in to any dead bodies” (Leviticus 21:11). The plural “bodies” teaches that the blood of two people combines to form the minimum quantity for ritual impurity.,A nazirite shaves for having become impure from these following sources of ritual impurity: For having become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse; and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of fluid [netzel] from a corpse; and for impurity imparted by a full ladle [tarvad] of dust from a corpse; and for impurity imparted by the spine; and for impurity imparted by the skull; and for impurity imparted by a limb from a corpse or for impurity imparted by a limb severed from a living person, upon either of which there is a fitting quantity of flesh; and for impurity imparted by a half-kav of bones from a corpse; and for impurity imparted by a half-log of blood.,And a nazirite shaves in each of these cases for becoming impure by coming into contact with them; and for becoming impure by carrying them; and for becoming impure by their tent, i.e., if he was positioned like a tent over them, or if he entered a tent that contains them, or if they served as a tent over him. And as for a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, he shaves for becoming impure by coming into contact with it and by carrying it. However, he is not rendered impure with the impurity imparted in a tent, i.e., by being under the same roof as the bone.,For all of these occurrences, a nazirite shaves, and a priest sprinkles the ashes of the red heifer on him on the third and on the seventh days to purify him from the impurity imparted by a corpse. And he negates all the previous days he counted toward his naziriteship, and he begins counting his term of naziriteship again only after he becomes pure and brings his offerings.,The Sages taught: After Rabbi Meir’s death, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here, into the house of study, because they are vexatious and they do not come to study Torah, but they come to overwhelm me with their halakhot. Nevertheless, Sumakhos, a student of Rabbi Meir, forced his way and entered the house of study.,When they reached the topic of the mishna, Sumakhos said to them: Rabbi Meir taught me like this: A nazirite shaves for becoming impure from these following sources of ritual impurity: For impurity imparted by a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk from a corpse. Rabbi Yehuda grew angry and said to his disciples: Didn’t I say to you like this: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here because they are vexatious? He explained his annoyance. The clause: For a corpse, is unnecessary, as, if a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk from a corpse, is it not all the more so that he must shave for impurity imparted by an entire corpse? | |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 24a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113| 24a. בעא מיניה ר' יוחנן משמואל יש אבילות בשבת או אין אבילות בשבת אמר ליה אין אבילות בשבת,יתבי רבנן קמיה דרב פפא וקאמרי משמיה דשמואל אבל ששימש מטתו בימי אבלו חייב מיתה א"ל רב פפא אסור אתמר ומשמיה דר' יוחנן אתמר,ואי שמיעא לכו משמיה דשמואל הכי שמיע לכו אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל אבל שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה שנאמר (ויקרא י, ו) ראשיכם אל תפרעו ובגדיכם לא תפרומו ולא תמותו וגו' הא אחר שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה,אמר רפרם בר פפא תנא באבל רבתי אבל אסור לשמש מטתו בימי אבלו ומעשה באחד ששימש מטתו בימי אבלו ושמטו חזירים את גוייתו,אמר שמואל פח"ז חובה נת"ר רשות,פריעת הראש חזרת קרע לאחוריו זקיפת המטה חובה נעילת הסנדל תשמיש המטה רחיצת ידים ורגלים בחמין ערבית רשות ורב אמר אף פריעת הראש רשות,ושמואל מאי שנא נעילת הסנדל דרשות דלאו כולי עלמא עבידי דסיימי מסאנייהו פריעת הראש נמי לאו כולי עלמא עבידי דמגלו רישייהו,שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל כל קרע שאינו בשעת חימום אינו קרע וכל עטיפה שאינה כעטיפת ישמעאלים אינה עטיפה מחוי ר"נ עד גובי דדיקנא,א"ר יעקב א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שאין לו מנעלים ברגליו אבל יש לו מנעלים ברגליו מנעליו מוכיחין עליו,כל קרע שאינו בשעת חימום אינו קרע והא אמרו ליה לשמואל נח נפשיה דרב קרע עליה תריסר מני אמר אזל גברא דהוה מסתפינא מיניה א"ל לרבי יוחנן נח נפשיה דר' חנינא קרע עליה תליסר אצטלי מלתא אמר אזל גברא דהוה מסתפינא מיניה,שאני רבנן דכיון דכל שעתא מדכרי שמעתייהו כשעת חימום דמי,א"ל רבין בר אדא לרבא אמר תלמידך רב עמרם תניא אבל כל שבעה קורעו לפניו ואם בא להחליף מחליף וקורע בשבת קורעו לאחוריו ואם בא להחליף מחליף ואינו קורע,כי תניא ההיא בכבוד אביו ואמו,אותן קרעין מתאחין או אין מתאחין פליגי בה אבוה דרב אושעיא ובר קפרא חד אמר אין מתאחין וחד אמר מתאחין,תסתיים דאבוה דרב אושעיא דאמר אין מתאחין דאמר רב אושעיא אין מתאחין ממאן שמיע ליה לאו מאבוה לא מבר קפרא רביה שמיע ליה,אמר רבא אבל מטייל באונקלי בתוך ביתו אביי אשכחיה לרב יוסף דפריס ליה סודרא ארישיה ואזיל ואתי בביתיה א"ל לאו סבר לה מר אין אבילות בשבת א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן דברים שבצינעא נוהג:,ר"א אומר משחרב בית המקדש עצרת כשבת וכו': אמר רב גידל בר מנשיא אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ג,ואיכא דמתני להא דרב גידל בר מנשיא אהא כל ל' יום תינוק יוצא בחיק ונקבר באשה אחת ושני אנשים אבל לא באיש אחד ושתי נשים | 24a. Rabbi Yoḥa asked of Shmuel: Is there some mourning on Shabbat or is there no mourning on Shabbat at all? He said to him: There is no mourning on Shabbat at all.,The Sages sat before Rav Pappa and said in the name of Shmuel: A mourner who engaged in sexual relations during his days of mourning is liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven. Rav Pappa said to them: It was said that sexual relations are prohibited, but not that the offender is guilty of a capital crime. And the ruling was said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa, and not in the name of Shmuel.,And if you heard a statement on this issue in the name of Shmuel, then you heard as follows: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: A mourner who did not let his hair grow wild and did not rend his garments is liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven, as it is stated following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu concerning the surviving sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that you not die” (Leviticus 10:6). They were instructed not to mourn, so as not to interfere with the dedication of the Tabernacle. From here it may be deduced that any other mourner who did not let his hair grow wild or rend his clothes is liable to receive the death penalty.,Rafram bar Pappa said: A Sage taught in Evel Rabbati, a separate tractate devoted to the halakhot of mourning: A mourner is prohibited from engaging in sexual relations during his days of mourning. There was an incident with one who engaged in sexual relations during his days of mourning and he was punished, for after his death pigs dragged away his corpse.,Shmuel offered a mnemonic device with regard to the observance of mourning rites on Shabbat, and said: Peh, ḥet, zayin are obligatory. These letters combine to create a mnemonic standing for: Uncovering the head [periat rosh], reversing the torn garment [ḥazarat kera], and standing the bed upright [zekifat hamitta]. However, nun, tav, reish, which stand for: Wearing shoes [ne’ilat hasandal], marital relations [tashmish hamitta], and hand washing [reḥitzat yadayim], are optional.,This is explained: Uncovering the head, i.e., removing the head covering usually worn by a mourner; reversing the tear to the back, so that it will not be visible; and standing the bed upright in the usual position, so that it is not overturned, are all obligatory for the mourner to uphold in honor of Shabbat. However, wearing shoes, engaging in sexual relations, and washing one’s hands and feet in hot water in the evening are optional activities on Shabbat. If a mourner wishes to refrain from them he may do so. And Rav said: Uncovering the head is also an optional activity.,The Gemara asks: According to Shmuel, what is different about wearing shoes that it is optional? His reasoning presumably is that not everyone wears shoes at all times, and therefore not wearing shoes will not be perceived by others as a sign of mourning. If so, the same thing may be said about uncovering the head also, i.e., not everyone uncovers his head at all times, as some people always walk around with their heads wrapped. This, too, should not be seen as a clear display of mourning, and therefore uncovering one’s head should also be treated as optional.,The Gemara answers: Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, for Shmuel said: Any rending of garments that is not done at the time of the most intense grief, i.e., the time of death, is not considered proper rending of garments. And any wrapping of the head that is not done in the manner of the wrapping of the Ishmaelites, who wrap their heads on all sides, is not considered proper wrapping. Since Shmuel requires that a mourner wrap his head in this special manner, one who acts in this way on Shabbat openly displays his mourning, as people do not ordinarily wrap their heads in this manner. What is this wrapping? Rav Naḥman demonstrated the procedure by covering up his face to the sides of the beard, leaving only the center of his face exposed.,Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: They taught that a mourner is required to remove his head covering on Shabbat only when he has no shoes on his feet, so that he not appear too obviously to be in mourning. But if he has shoes on his feet, then his shoes prove that he is not observing the rites of mourning on Shabbat.,The Gemara returns to Shmuel’s statement that any rending of garments that is not done at the time of most intense grief and pain is not considered proper rending of garments. The Gemara poses a question: But when they said to Shmuel that Rav had passed away, he rent twelve garments on account of him, and said: The man of whom I was in fear, owing to his great learning, has gone and died. Similarly, when they told Rabbi Yoḥa that Rabbi Ḥanina had passed away, he rent thirteen expensive wool [mileta] garments [itztelei] on account of him, and said: The man of whom I was in fear has gone. When each of these Sages received the news that their distinguished colleague had died, it was no longer the time of the most intense grief, i.e., the time of death, and yet they rent their garments.,The Gemara answers: The Sages are different. Since their teachings are mentioned all the time, every time they are mentioned is like the time of most intense grief, as the pain over their death is once again renewed.,Ravin bar Adda said to Rava: Your student, Rav Amram, said that it is taught in a baraita as follows: For all seven days of mourning, a mourner must keep the tear in his garment before him so that it will be seen. And if he comes to change clothing, he changes and rends the new garment. On Shabbat, he turns the tear to his back, and if he comes to change clothing, he changes but does not tear the second garment. From here it seems that there is an obligation to rend garments during the entire week of mourning, not only at the most intense moment of grief.,The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to the specific case of rending one’s garment in honor of his father or mother. Owing to the special honor due to one’s parents, it is inappropriate for the child to wear a garment that is not torn. Consequently, if he changes clothing, he must tear the new garment, even if it is no longer the most intense time of grief.,The Gemara asks: Those additional tears that are made in honor of one’s father or mother, may they be properly mended at the end of the son’s period of mourning, or may they not be properly mended, like the tear made for one’s father or mother at the most intense moment of grief? The Gemara answers: They disagree about this issue, the father of Rav Oshaya and bar Kappara. One said: They may not be mended, and one said: They may be mended.,The Gemara comments: Conclude that it was Rav Oshaya’s father who said that such rents may not be properly mended, for Rav Oshaya said: Such rents may not be properly mended. From whom did he hear this halakha? Was it not from his father? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, this cannot be offered as a proof, as perhaps he heard it from bar Kappara, who was his teacher.,§ Rava said: A mourner may walk about his house in a torn robe [unkali] on Shabbat, since he is not doing so in public. It was related that Abaye found Rav Yosef walking back and forth in his house on Shabbat when he was in mourning with a scarf spread over his head in the manner of mourning. He said to him: Master, do you not maintain that there is no mourning on Shabbat? He said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥa said: Matters that are in private apply, and so when one is in his house he must observe the rites of mourning even on Shabbat.,§ The mishna taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: Since the Temple was destroyed, Shavuot is like Shabbat with regard to mourning. Rabban Gamliel says: Even Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur are considered like Festivals. The Gemara comments that Rav Giddel bar Menashya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.,And some teach this ruling of Rav Giddel bar Menashya as referring to the following case: It is taught in a baraita: Within the first thirty days after birth, an infant that dies is taken out for burial in one’s bosom, that is to say, he is carried to his grave in one’s arms, not in a coffin. And he is buried by one woman and two men, there being no need for a quorum of ten men. But he should not be taken out by one man and two women, because it is prohibited for one man to seclude himself with two women. |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, 62b, 25b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 113| 25b. לאו כולהו סלוק,ת"ש חזקה לכהונה נשיאות כפים וחילוק גרנות ועדות עדות חזקה היא אלא לאו הכי קאמר נשיאות כפים כי עדות מה עדות ליוחסין אף נשיאות כפים ליוחסין לא עדות הבאה מכח חזקה כחזקה,כי ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמי א"ל מוחזקני בזה שהוא כהן א"ל מה ראית אמר ליה שקרא ראשון בבית הכנסת בחזקת שהוא כהן או בחזקת שהוא גדול שקרא אחריו לוי והעלהו ר' אמי לכהונה על פיו,ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא לוי אמר ליה מה ראית אמר ליה שקרא שני בבית הכנסת בחזקת שהוא לוי או בחזקת שהוא גדול שקרא לפניו כהן והעלהו רבי יהושע בן לוי ללויה על פיו,ההוא דאתא לקמיה דריש לקיש אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא כהן א"ל מה ראית [א"ל] שקרא ראשון בבית הכנסת א"ל ראיתיו שחילק על הגרנות אמר לו ר' אלעזר ואם אין שם גורן בטלה כהונה,זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה דר' יוחנן אתא כי הא מעשה לקמיה א"ל ריש לקיש ראיתיו שחילק על הגורן א"ל ר' יוחנן ואם אין שם גורן בטלה כהונה הדר חזייה לר"א בישות אמר שמעת מילי דבר נפחא ולא אמרת לן משמיה,רבי ור' חייא חד העלה בן ע"פ אביו לכהונה וחד העלה אח ע"פ אחיו ללויה,תסתיים דר' העלה בן ע"פ אביו לכהונה דתניא הרי שבא ואמר בני זה וכהן הוא נאמן להאכילו בתרומה ואינו נאמן להשיאו אשה דברי רבי אמר לו ר' חייא אם אתה מאמינו להאכילו בתרומה תאמינו להשיאו אשה ואם אי אתה מאמינו להשיאו אשה לא תאמינו לאכול בתרומה,א"ל אני מאמינו להאכילו בתרומה שבידו להאכילו בתרומה ואיני מאמינו להשיאו אשה שאין בידו להשיאו אשה תסתיים ומדרבי העלה בן ע"פ אביו לכהונה ר' חייא העלה אח ע"פ אחיו ללויה,ורבי חייא מאי שנא בן דלא דקרוב הוא אצל אביו אח נמי קרוב הוא אצל אחיו | 25b. not all of them ascended. Since the majority of the people did not come to the land, separating ḥalla was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law.,The Gemara cites proof from another baraita to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear: The presumptive status for priesthood is established by Lifting of the Hands for the Priestly Benediction, and by distribution of teruma at the threshing floors, and by testimony. The Gemara asks: Does testimony merely establish presumptive status? Testimony provides absolute proof of his status, not merely a presumption. Rather is it not that this is what the tanna is saying: Lifting of the Hands is like testimony, just as testimony that one is a priest elevates him to the priesthood for lineage, so too Lifting of the Hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, when the tanna is referring to testimony, he is stating that the legal status of testimony that is based on presumptive status is like that of presumptive status itself.,As in the incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: That man established presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Rabbi Ami said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Ami: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Rabbi Ami asked him: Did he read first based on the presumptive status that he is a priest, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? The custom was that a priest would be called to the Torah first, unless there was a prominent Torah scholar among the worshippers. He said to Rabbi Ami: He read the Torah as a priest, as after him a Levite read the Torah. A Levite is called to the Torah second only when a priest is called first. And Rabbi Ami elevated him to the priesthood, on the basis of his statement.,The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a Levite. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I saw that he was called to the Torah and that he read second in the synagogue. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked him: Did he read second based on the presumptive status that he is a Levite, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? When there is no priest in the synagogue, people in the synagogue are called to the Torah in order of their prominence. Perhaps he was the second most prominent man in the synagogue. He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I am certain that he is a Levite, as a priest read the Torah before him. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi elevated him to Levite status, based on his statement.,The Gemara relates another incident involving a certain man who came before Reish Lakish and said to Reish Lakish: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Reish Lakish said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Reish Lakish: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Reish Lakish, based on his opinion that one’s presumptive status as a priest can be established only on the basis of his receiving teruma, said to him: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Elazar said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The testimony that he read from the Torah first is sufficient.,On another occasion Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yoḥa. A matter similar to that incident, where one testified that another is a priest based on his reading the Torah first, came before Rabbi Yoḥa. Reish Lakish said to the person who testified: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The Gemara relates that Reish Lakish turned and looked at Rabbi Elazar harshly, as he understood that on the previous occasion, Rabbi Elazar was citing verbatim a ruling that he heard from Rabbi Yoḥa. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar: You heard a statement of bar Nappaḥa, the son of a blacksmith, an epithet for Rabbi Yoḥa, and you did not say it to us in his name? Had you done so, I would have accepted it from you then.,The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya that one elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, and one elevated a brother to the Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother. It is unclear which of the Sages ruled in which case.,The Gemara notes: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, as it is taught in a baraita that if one came and said: This is my son and he is a priest, his statement is deemed credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, but it is not deemed credible to marry a woman of superior lineage to him, as his testimony is not deemed credible for the purposes of lineage; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: If you deem the father credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, deem him credible to marry a woman to his son. And if you do not deem him credible to marry a woman to him, do not deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, as it is within his purview to feed his son teruma, and one is deemed credible with regard to matters that are within his purview. But I do not deem him credible to marry a woman to his son, as it is not within his purview to marry a woman to his son, and therefore his testimony is not accepted. The Gemara determines: Indeed, it may be conclude that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father. And from the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, clearly it is Rabbi Ḥiyya who elevated a brother to Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother.,The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, what is different in the case of a son, where a father is not deemed credible because the son is a relative of his father, and therefore the father is disqualified from testifying about his son? A brother is also a relative of his brother, and therefore the brother should have been disqualified from testifying about his brother. Rabbi Ḥiyya should accept the testimony in both cases or reject the testimony in both cases. |
|
| 28. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, 29b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 178 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 4a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 77| 4a. בניהו בן יהוידע זה סנהדרין ואביתר אלו אורים ותומים,וכן הוא אומר (שמואל ב כ, כג) ובניהו בן יהוידע על הכרתי ועל הפלתי ולמה נקרא שמם כרתי ופלתי כרתי שכורתים דבריהם פלתי שמופלאים בדבריהם ואח"כ שר צבא למלך יואב,אמר רב יצחק בר אדא ואמרי לה אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב אידי מאי קרא (תהלים נז, ט) עורה כבודי עורה הנבל וכנור אעירה שחר.,רבי זירא אמר משה לעולם הוה ידע ודוד נמי הוה ידע,וכיון דדוד הוה ידע כנור למה ליה לאתעורי משנתיה,וכיון דמשה הוה ידע למה ליה למימר כחצות משה קסבר שמא יטעו אצטגניני פרעה ויאמרו משה בדאי הוא דאמר מר למד לשונך לומר איני יודע שמא תתבדה ותאחז,רב אשי אמר בפלגא אורתא דתליסר נגהי ארבסר הוה קאי והכי קאמר משה לישראל אמר הקב"ה למחר כחצות הלילה כי האידנא אני יוצא בתוך מצרים:,(תהלים פו, ב) לדוד שמרה נפשי כי חסיד אני לוי ור' יצחק חד אמר כך אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם לא חסיד אני שכל מלכי מזרח ומערב ישנים עד שלש שעות ואני (תהלים קיט, סב) חצות לילה אקום להודות לך,ואידך כך אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם לא חסיד אני שכל מלכי מזרח ומערב יושבים אגודות אגודות בכבודם ואני ידי מלוכלכות בדם ובשפיר ובשליא כדי לטהר אשה לבעלה ולא עוד אלא כל מה שאני עושה אני נמלך במפיבשת רבי ואומר לו מפיבשת רבי יפה דנתי יפה חייבתי יפה זכיתי יפה טהרתי יפה טמאתי ולא בושתי,א"ר יהושע בריה דרב אידי מאי קרא (תהלים קיט, מו) ואדברה בעדותיך נגד מלכים ולא אבוש,תנא לא מפיבשת שמו אלא איש בשת שמו ולמה נקרא שמו מפיבשת שהיה מבייש פני דוד בהלכה לפיכך זכה דוד ויצא ממנו כלאב,וא"ר יוחנן לא כלאב שמו אלא דניאל שמו ולמה נקרא שמו כלאב שהיה מכלים פני מפיבשת בהלכה,ועליו אמר שלמה בחכמתו (משלי כג, טו) בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני ואומר (משלי כז, יא) חכם בני ושמח לבי ואשיבה חורפי דבר.,ודוד מי קרי לנפשיה חסיד והכתיב (תהלים כז, יג) לולא האמנתי לראות בטוב ה' בארץ חיים ותנא משמיה דרבי יוסי למה נקוד על לולא אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע מובטח אני בך שאתה משלם שכר טוב לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא אבל איני יודע אם יש לי חלק ביניהם אם לאו,שמא יגרום החטא,כדר' יעקב בר אידי דר' יעקב בר אידי רמי כתיב (בראשית כח, טו) והנה אנכי עמך ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך וכתיב (בראשית לב, ח) ויירא יעקב מאד אמר שמא יגרום החטא,כדתניא (שמות טו, טז) עד יעבור עמך ה' עד יעבור עם זו קנית,עד יעבור עמך ה' זו ביאה ראשונה עד יעבור עם זו קנית זו ביאה שנייה מכאן אמרו חכמים ראוים היו ישראל ליעשות להם נס בימי עזרא כדרך שנעשה להם בימי יהושע בן נון אלא שגרם החטא:,וחכ"א עד חצות: חכמים כמאן סבירא להו אי כרבי אליעזר סבירא להו לימרו כרבי אליעזר | 4a. Benayahu ben Yehoyada corresponds to the Sanhedrin, since he was the head of the Sanhedrin, and Evyatar corresponds to the Urim VeTummim, as Evyatar ben Ahimelekh the priest would oversee inquiries directed to the Urim VeTummim (see I Samuel 23:9).,And so it says regarding Benayahu ben Yehoyada’s position as head of the Sanhedrin: “And Benayahu ben Yehoyada was over the Kereti and over the Peleti” (II Samuel 20:23). And why was the Sanhedrin called Kereti UPeleti? It was called Kereti because they were decisive [koretim] in their pronouncements. It was called Peleti because their pronouncements and wisdom were wondrous [mufla’im]. The head of the Kereti UPeleti was the head of the Sanhedrin. According to the order of the verse, upon being instructed by King David to go to war, the Sages first consulted with Ahitophel, then with the Sanhedrin, then they would ask the Urim VeTummim, and only thereafter was the general of the king’s army, Yoav, given the command to ready the military for battle.,Rav Yitzḥak bar Adda, and some say Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Idi, said: From what verse is it derived that David’s lyre would wake him at midnight? “Awake, my glory; awake, harp and lyre; I will wake the dawn” (Psalms 57:9). This means that the playing lyre has already woken, and now I must engage in Torah study until dawn.,Rabbi Zeira offered a different solution to the question of whether Moses and David knew exactly when it was midnight and said: Moses certainly knew when it was midnight, and David also knew.,The Gemara asks: If David knew, then why did he need the lyre? The Gemara answers: He needed the lyre to wake him from his sleep.,Similarly with regard to Moses, since Moses knew the precise moment of midnight, why did he say: About midnight, instead of: At midnight? Moses did so because he maintained: Lest Pharaoh’s astrologers err and believe midnight to be earlier. Since no disaster would have occurred, they would say: Moses is a liar. Moses spoke in accordance with the principle articulated by the Master: Accustom your tongue to say: I do not know, lest you become entangled in a web of deceit.,Rav Ashi said: This question is unfounded, as Moses was standing at midnight of the thirteenth, leading into the fourteenth, when he pronounced his prophecy, and Moses told Israel that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said that tomorrow, at the exact time like midnight tonight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt. This indicates that the passage should not be understood to mean about midnight, an approximation; but rather, like midnight, as a comparison, likening midnight tomorrow to midnight tonight.,The Gemara further explores King David’s character. It is said: “A prayer of David…Keep my soul, for I am pious” (Psalms 86:1–2). Levi and Rabbi Yitzḥak debated the meaning of this verse and how David’s piety is manifest in the fact that he went beyond his fundamental obligations. One said: David’s declaration of piety referred to his awakening during the night to pray, and so said David before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, am I not pious? As all of the kings of the East and the West sleep until the third hour of the day, but although I am a king like them, “At midnight I rise to give thanks” (Psalms 119:62).,And the other Sage said: David said the following before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, am I not pious? For all of the kings of the East and the West sit in groups befitting their honored status, but I sit as a judge who issues rulings for the people. Women come with questions of ritual impurity and my hands become soiled with their blood as I labor to determine whether or not it is blood of impurity and she has menstruating woman status, and with a fetus that miscarried at a stage of development before it was clear whether or not it is considered a birth, and with placenta, which women sometimes discharge unrelated to the birth of a child (see Leviticus 15:19–30 with regard to blood, and 12:1–8 with regard to miscarriage and placenta). King David went to all this trouble in order to render a woman ritually pure and consequently permitted to her husband. If, after examination, a Sage declares the woman ritually pure, she is permitted to be with her husband, which leads to increased love and affection, and ultimately to procreation (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). And not only do I engage in activity considered to be beneath the station of a king, but I consult my teacher, Mefivoshet, son of King Saul’s son, Jonathan, with regard to everything that I do. I say to him: Mefivoshet, my teacher, did I decide properly? Did I convict properly? Did I acquit properly? Did I rule ritually pure properly? Did I rule ritually impure properly? And I was not embarrassed. Forgoing royal dignity should make me worthy to be called pious.,Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said: What verse alludes to this? “And I speak Your testimonies before kings and I will not be ashamed” (Psalms 119:46). This verse alludes both to David’s commitment to Torah, in contrast to the kings of the East and the West, as well as to the fact that he was not ashamed to discuss matters of Torah with Mefivoshet, a descendant of kings. David was not afraid to have his mistakes corrected by Mefivoshet.,It was taught in a Tosefta from a tannaitic tradition: His name was not Mefivoshet, but rather Ish Boshet was his name. Why was Ish Boshet referred to as Mefivoshet? Because he would embarrass [mevayesh] David in matters of halakha. According to this approach, Mefivoshet is an abbreviation of boshet panim, embarrassment. Because David was not embarrassed to admit his errors, he merited that Kilav, who, according to tradition, was exceedingly wise, would descend from him.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: His name was not Kilav; rather, his name was Daniel, as it appears in a different list of David’s descendants. Why was he called Kilav? Because he would embarrass [makhlim] Mefivoshet, the teacher or authority figure [av] in matters of halakha.,In his book of wisdom, Solomon said about this wise son: “My son, if your heart is wise, my heart will be glad, even mine” (Proverbs 23:15), as David enjoyed witnessing his son Kilav develop into a Torah luminary to the extent that Kilav was able to respond to Mefivoshet. And Solomon says about Kilav: “Be wise, my son, and make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt me” (Proverbs 27:11).,With regard to David’s statement, “Keep my soul, for I am pious,” the Gemara asks: Did David call himself pious? Isn’t it written: “If I had not [luleh] believed to look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living” (Psalms 27:13). The dots that appear over the word luleh in the text indicate doubt and uncertainty of his piety, and whether he was deserving of a place in the land of the living (see Avot DeRabbi Natan 34). In the name of Rabbi Yosei, it was taught in a Tosefta: Why do dots appear over the word luleh, as if there are some reservations? Because David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe. I have every confidence in You that You grant an excellent reward to the righteous in the World-to-Come since God’s ultimate goodness is manifest in the land of eternal life, but I still harbor uncertainty with regard to myself, and I do not know whether or not I definitely have a portion among them. In any case, apparently David was uncertain whether or not he deserved to receive a portion of God’s reward for the righteous; how, then, could he characterize himself as pious?,The Gemara responds: His concern does not prove anything, as King David knew that he was pious. He was simply concerned lest a transgression that he might commit in the future will cause him to lose his opportunity to look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.,The Gemara cites a proof that there is room for one to fear lest he commit a transgression in the future in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi, as Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written that God told Jacob in his vision of the ladder: “Behold, I am with you and I guard you wherever you go” (Genesis 28:15), yet when Jacob returned to Canaan and realized that Esau was coming to greet him, it is written: “And Jacob became very afraid, and he was pained” (Genesis 32:8). Why did Jacob not rely on God’s promise? Jacob had concerns and said to himself: Lest a transgression that I might have committed after God made His promise to me will cause God to revoke His promise of protection.,Apparently, at times, transgression does cause God’s promise to go unfulfilled, as it was taught explicitly in a baraita with regard to the ostensibly redundant language in a verse in the Song of the Sea: “Until Your people will cross, Lord, until the people You have acquired will cross. You bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place, Lord, which You made for Your dwelling” (Exodus 15:16–17).,The Gemara interprets homiletically that until Your people will cross refers to the first entry into Eretz Yisrael during the time of Joshua, while until the people You have acquired pass over refers to the second entry following the exile in Babylonia. Based on the juxtaposition of these two entries in this single verse, the Sages said: Israel was worthy of having a miracle performed on its behalf in the time of Ezra the scribe, just as one was performed on their behalf in the time of Joshua bin Nun. However, transgression caused the absence of a miracle.,The Gemara returns to explain what we learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: The time for the recitation of the evening Shema is until midnight. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion do they hold in explaining the verse: “When you lie down”? If they explain this verse in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that “when you lie down” is the time when people customarily go to sleep, then let the Rabbis also say that the time for the recitation of Shema extends, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, until the end of the first watch. |
|
| 30. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, 29b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya Found in books: Bickart, The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2022) 113 |
31. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 59b, 59a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 178| 59a. נוח לו לאדם שיבא על ספק אשת איש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנ"ל מדדרש רבא דדרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים לה, טו) ובצלעי שמחו ונאספו קרעו ולא דמו אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע גלוי וידוע לפניך שאם היו מקרעים בשרי לא היה דמי שותת לארץ,ולא עוד אלא אפילו בשעה שעוסקין בנגעים ואהלות אומרים לי דוד הבא על אשת איש מיתתו במה ואני אומר להם מיתתו בחנק ויש לו חלק לעוה"ב אבל המלבין את פני חבירו ברבים אין לו חלק לעוה"ב,(ואמר) מר זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא ואמרי לה א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לכבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנ"ל מתמר דכתיב (בראשית לח, כה) היא מוצאת והיא שלחה אל חמיה,אמר רב חננא בריה דרב אידי מאי דכתיב (ויקרא כה, יז) ולא תונו איש את עמיתו עם שאתך בתורה ובמצות אל תונהו אמר רב לעולם יהא אדם זהיר באונאת אשתו שמתוך שדמעתה מצויה אונאתה קרובה,א"ר אלעזר מיום שנחרב בית המקדש ננעלו שערי תפלה שנאמר (איכה ג, ח) גם כי אזעק ואשוע שתם תפלתי ואע"פ ששערי תפלה ננעלו שערי דמעות לא ננעלו שנאמר (תהלים לט, יג) שמעה תפלתי ה' ושועתי האזינה אל דמעתי אל תחרש,ואמר רב כל ההולך בעצת אשתו נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (מלכים א כא, כה) רק לא היה כאחאב וגו' א"ל רב פפא לאביי והא אמרי אינשי איתתך גוצא גחין ותלחוש לה לא קשיא הא במילי דעלמא והא במילי דביתא לישנא אחרינא הא במילי דשמיא והא במילי דעלמא,אמר רב חסדא כל השערים ננעלים חוץ משערי אונאה שנאמר (עמוס ז, ז) הנה ה' נצב על חומת אנך ובידו אנך א"ר אלעזר הכל נפרע בידי שליח חוץ מאונאה שנאמר ובידו אנך,א"ר אבהו ג' אין הפרגוד ננעל בפניהם אונאה וגזל וע"ז אונאה דכתיב ובידו אנך גזל דכתיב (ירמיהו ו, ז) חמס ושוד ישמע בה על פני תמיד ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו סה, ג) העם המכעיסים אותי על פני תמיד [וגו'],אמר רב יהודה לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בתבואה בתוך ביתו שאין מריבה מצויה בתוך ביתו של אדם אלא על עסקי תבואה שנאמר (תהלים קמז, יד) השם גבולך שלום חלב חטים ישביעך אמר רב פפא היינו דאמרי אינשי כמשלם שערי מכדא נקיש ואתי תיגרא בביתא,ואמר רב חיננא בר פפא לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בתבואה בתוך ביתו שלא נקראו ישראל דלים אלא על עסקי תבואה שנאמר (שופטים ו, ג) והיה אם זרע ישראל וגו' וכתיב (שופטים ו, ד) ויחנו עליהם וגו' וכתיב (שופטים ו, ו) וידל ישראל מאד מפני מדין,(וא"ר) חלבו לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בכבוד אשתו שאין ברכה מצויה בתוך ביתו של אדם אלא בשביל אשתו שנאמר (בראשית יב, טז) ולאברם הטיב בעבורה והיינו דאמר להו רבא לבני מחוזא אוקירו לנשייכו כי היכי דתתעתרו,תנן התם חתכו חוליות ונתן חול בין חוליא לחוליא ר"א מטהר וחכמים מטמאין | 59a. It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is from that which Rava interpreted, as Rava interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when I limped they rejoiced and gathered…they tore and did not cease [damu]” (Psalms 35:15)? The term “damu” can also be understood as a reference to blood. Concerning the fasting he undertook to atone for his sin with Bathsheba (see II Samuel, chapters 11–12), David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that if my tormenters were to tear my flesh, my blood [dami] would not flow to the ground, due to excessive fasting.,And moreover, they torment me to the extent that even at the time when they are engaged in the public study of the halakhot of leprous sores and tents in which there is a corpse, i.e., halakhic matters that have no connection to my sin, they say to me: David, one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, his death is effected with what form of execution? And I say to them: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman before witnesses and with forewarning, his death is by strangulation, but he still has a share in the World-to-Come. But one who humiliates another in public has no share in the World-to-Come. The transgression of you, who humiliate me, is more severe than my transgression.,And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregt with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregt by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25).,§ Rav Ḥina, son of Rav Idi, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague [amito]” (Leviticus 25:17)? The word amito is interpreted as a contraction of im ito, meaning: One who is with him. With one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvot, you shall not mistreat him. Rav says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since her tear is easily elicited, punishment for her mistreatment is immediate.,Rabbi Elazar says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed the gates of prayer were locked, and prayer is not accepted as it once was, as it is stated in lament of the Temple’s destruction: “Though I plead and call out, He shuts out my prayer” (Lamentations 3:8). Yet, despite the fact that the gates of prayer were locked with the destruction of the Temple, the gates of tears were not locked, and one who cries before God may rest assured that his prayers will be answered, as it is stated: “Hear my prayer, Lord, and give ear to my pleading, keep not silence at my tears” (Psalms 39:13).,And Rav says: Nevertheless, anyone who follows the counsel of his wife descends into Gehenna, as it is stated: “But there was none like Ahab, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife incited” (I Kings 21:25). Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But don’t people say a popular proverb: If your wife is short, stoop and whisper to her and consult with her? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rav instructs that one not follow her counsel in general matters; and that proverb instructs that one follow her counsel in household matters. The Gemara presents another version of this distinction: This statement of Rav maintains that one should not follow her counsel in divine matters; and that proverb maintains that one should follow her counsel in general matters.,Rav Ḥisda says: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment, as it is stated: “And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall built with a plumb line, and a plumb line in His hand” (Amos 7:7). God stands with the scales of justice in His hand to determine if one has been subjected to injustice. Rabbi Elazar says: In response to all transgressions, God punishes the perpetrator by means of an agent, except for mistreatment [ona’a], as it is stated: “And a plumb line [anakh] in His hand.” The term for mistreatment and the term for plumb line are spelled in a similar manner, indicating that God Himself inflicts retribution.,Rabbi Abbahu says: There are three sins before whose transgressors the curtain [hapargod] between the world and the Divine Presence is not locked; their sins reach the Divine Presence. They are: Verbal mistreatment, robbery, and idol worship. Mistreatment, as it is stated: “And a plumb line in His hand”; robbery, as it is stated: “Violence and robbery are heard in her, they are before Me continually” (Jeremiah 6:7); idol worship, as it is stated: “A people that angers Me before Me continually; that sacrifice in gardens, and burn incense upon bricks” (Isaiah 65:3).,Apropos the topic of how man should approach his household, Rav Yehuda says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as discord is found in a person’s house only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “He makes your borders peace; He gives you plenty with the finest wheat” (Psalms 147:14). If there is the finest wheat in your house, there will be peace there. Rav Pappa said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: When the barley is emptied from the jug, quarrel knocks and enters the house.,And Rav Ḥina bar Pappa says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as the Jewish people were characterized as poor only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “And it was, if Israel sowed, and Midian and the children of the east ascended” (Judges 6:3); and it is written: “And they encamped against them and they destroyed the crops of the land” (Judges 6:4); and it is further written: “And Israel was greatly impoverished due to Midian” (Judges 6:6).,And Rabbi Ḥelbo says: A person must always be careful about sustaining the honor of his wife, as blessing is found in a person’s house only because of his wife, as it is stated in allusion to this: “And he dealt well with Abram for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen” (Genesis 12:16). And that is what Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza, where he lived: Honor your wives, so that you will become rich.,§ Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 5:10): If one cut an earthenware oven widthwise into segments, and placed sand between each and every segment, Rabbi Eliezer deems it ritually pure. Because of the sand, its legal status is not that of a complete vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure, as it is functionally a complete oven. |
|
| 32. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 89a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 55 |
33. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 105b, 16a, 84a, 63b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 194| 63b. מן החטא מקרי ליה רב יהודה לרב יצחק בריה (קהלת ז, כו) ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה א"ל כגון מאן כגון אמך,והא מתני ליה רב יהודה לרב יצחק בריה אין אדם מוצא קורת רוח אלא מאשתו ראשונה שנאמר (משלי ה, יח) יהי מקורך ברוך ושמח מאשת נעוריך וא"ל כגון מאן כגון אמך מתקיף תקיפא ועבורי מיעברא במלה,היכי דמי אשה רעה אמר אביי מקשטא ליה תכא ומקשטא ליה פומא רבא אמר מקשטא ליה תכא ומהדרא ליה גבא,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא כיון שנשא אדם אשה עונותיו מתפקקין שנאמר (משלי יח, כב) מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה' במערבא כי נסיב אינש איתתא אמרי ליה הכי מצא או מוצא מצא דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב מוצא דכתיב ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה,אמר רבא אשה רעה מצוה לגרשה דכתיב (משלי כב, י) גרש לץ ויצא מדון וישבות דין וקלון ואמר רבא אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה צרתה בצדה דאמרי אינשי בחברתה ולא בסילתא ואמר רבא קשה אשה רעה כיום סגריר שנאמר (משלי כז, טו) דלף טורד ביום סגריר ואשת מדינים נשתוה,ואמר רבא בא וראה כמה טובה אשה טובה וכמה רעה אשה רעה כמה טובה אשה טובה דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב אי בגוה משתעי קרא כמה טובה אשה טובה שהכתוב משבחה אי בתורה משתעי קרא כמה טובה אשה טובה שהתורה נמשלה בה כמה רעה אשה רעה דכתיב ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה אי בגוה משתעי קרא כמה רעה אשה רעה שהכתוב מגנה אי בגיהנם משתעי קרא כמה רעה אשה רעה שגיהנם נמשלה בה,(ירמיהו יא, יא) הנני מביא רעה אשר לא יוכלו לצאת ממנה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה (איכה א, יד) נתנני ה' בידי לא אוכל קום אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא בר חייא זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה במערבא אמרו זה שמזונותיו תלוין בכספו,(דברים כח, לב) בניך ובנותיך נתונים לעם אחר אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב זו אשת האב (דברים לב, כא) בגוי נבל אכעיסם אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה רבי אליעזר אומר אלו הצדוקים וכן הוא אומר (תהלים יד, א) אמר נבל בלבו אין אלהים וגו',במתניתא תנא אלו אנשי ברבריא ואנשי מרטנאי שמהלכין ערומים בשוק שאין לך משוקץ ומתועב לפני המקום יותר ממי שמהלך בשוק ערום רבי יוחנן אמר אלו חברים אמרו ליה לר' יוחנן אתו חברי לבבל שגא נפל אמרו ליה מקבלי שוחדא תריץ יתיב,גזרו על ג' מפני ג' גזרו על הבשר מפני המתנות גזרו על המרחצאות מפני הטבילה,קא מחטטי שכבי מפני ששמחים ביום אידם שנאמר (שמואל א יב, טו) והיתה יד ה' בכם ובאבותיכם אמר רבה בר שמואל זו חטוטי שכבי דאמר מר בעון חיים מתים מתחטטין,א"ל רבא לרבה בר מארי כתיב (ירמיהו ח, ב) לא יאספו ולא יקברו לדומן על פני האדמה יהיו וכתיב (ירמיהו ח, ג) ונבחר מות מחיים אמר ליה נבחר מות לרשעים שלא יחיו בעולם הזה ויחטאו ויפלו בגיהנם,כתוב בספר בן סירא אשה טובה מתנה טובה לבעלה וכתיב טובה בחיק ירא אלהים תנתן אשה רעה צרעת לבעלה מאי תקנתיה יגרשנה ויתרפא מצרעתו אשה יפה אשרי בעלה מספר ימיו כפלים,העלם עיניך מאשת חן פן תלכד במצודתה אל תט אצל בעלה למסוך עמו יין ושכר כי בתואר אשה יפה רבים הושחתו ועצומים כל הרוגיה רבים היו פצעי רוכל המרגילים לדבר ערוה כניצוץ מבעיר גחלת ככלוב מלא עוף כן בתיהם מלאים מרמה,אל תצר צרת מחר כי לא תדע מה ילד יום שמא מחר בא ואיננו נמצא מצטער על העולם שאין שלו מנע רבים מתוך ביתך ולא הכל תביא ביתך רבים יהיו דורשי שלומך גלה סוד לאחד מאלף,אמר רבי אסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל הנשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף ונשמות אני עשיתי תניא רבי אליעזר אומר כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים שנאמר (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך וכתיב בתריה ואתם פרו ורבו,רבי יעקב אומר כאילו ממעט הדמות שנאמר (בראשית ט, ו) כי בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם וכתיב בתריה ואתם פרו וגו' בן עזאי אומר כאילו שופך דמים וממעט הדמות שנאמר ואתם פרו ורבו,אמרו לו לבן עזאי יש נאה דורש ונאה מקיים נאה מקיים ואין נאה דורש ואתה נאה דורש ואין נאה מקיים אמר להן בן עזאי ומה אעשה שנפשי חשקה בתורה אפשר לעולם שיתקיים על ידי אחרים,תניא אידך רבי אליעזר אומר כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים שנאמר שופך דם האדם וסמיך ליה ואתם פרו וגו' רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר כאילו ממעט הדמות בן עזאי אומר וכו' אמרו לו לבן עזאי יש נאה דורש וכו',ת"ר (במדבר י, לו) ובנחה יאמר שובה ה' רבבות אלפי ישראל | 63b. from sin. We should therefore show our gratitude to them. The Gemara cites a related incident: Rav Yehuda was teaching Torah to Rav Yitzḥak, his son, and they encountered the verse: “And I find more bitter than death the woman” (Ecclesiastes 7:26). His son said to him: For example, whom? His father replied: For example, your mother.,The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Yehuda teach Rav Yitzḥak, his son, the following baraita: A man finds peace of mind only with his first wife, as it is stated: “Let your fountain be blessed, and have joy from the wife of your youth” (Proverbs 5:18), and his son said to him: For example, whom, and his father responded in this case as well: For example, your mother. This indicates that Rav Yehuda did find peace of mind with his wife. The Gemara answers: She was aggressive and forceful, but she was easily appeased.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances when a woman is considered a bad wife? Abaye said: She arranges a table for him and arranges her mouth for him at the same time. In other words, although she prepares food for him, she verbally abuses him while he eats. Rava said: She arranges a table for him and then turns her back to him, displaying her lack of interest in his company.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Once a man marries a woman his iniquities crumble [mitpakekin], as it is stated: “Whoever finds a wife finds good, and obtains [veyafek] favor of the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22). In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, when a man married a woman they would say to him as follows: Matza or motze? In other words, they would ask the groom if the appropriate passage for his wife is that verse, which begins with the word matza, as it is written: Whoever finds [matza] a wife finds good, or whether the more appropriate verse is the one beginning with the word motze, as it is written: “And I find [motze] more bitter than death the woman” (Ecclesiastes 7:26).,Rava said: It is a mitzva to divorce a bad wife, as it is written: “Cast out the scorner and contention will depart; strife and shame will cease” (Proverbs 22:10). And Rava said: A bad wife whose marriage contract settlement is too large for her husband to pay in the event of a divorce, her rival wife is at her side. In other words, the only way for him to improve matters is to take another wife. As people say in the well-known adage: The way to trouble a woman is with her peer and not with a thorn. And Rava said: A bad wife is as troublesome as a day of heavy rain, as it is stated: “A continual dropping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike” (Proverbs 27:15).,And Rava said: Come and see how good a good wife is and how bad a bad wife is. How good is a good wife? As it is written: Whoever finds a wife finds good. If the verse speaks of her, a wife, this demonstrates how good a good wife is, as the Bible praises her. If the verse speaks metaphorically of the Torah, it nevertheless indicates how good a good wife is, as the Torah is compared to her. Conversely, how bad is a bad wife? As it is written: “And I find more bitter than death the woman.” If the verse speaks of her, this demonstrates how bad a bad wife is, as the Bible condemns her. If the verse speaks metaphorically of Gehenna, it still demonstrates how bad a bad wife is, as Gehenna is compared to her.,The Gemara cites further statements on the same issue. The verse states: “Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape” (Jeremiah 11:11). Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. Similarly, with regard to the verse: “The Lord has given me into the hands of those against whom I cannot stand” (Lamentations 1:14), Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva bar Ḥiyya said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said this verse is referring to one whose food is dependent on his money. He is forced to purchase his food with cash, as he does not possess land of his own.,With regard to the verse: “Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people” (Deuteronomy 28:32), Rav Ḥa bar Rava said that Rav said: This is a reference to the children’s father’s wife, their stepmother. With regard to the verse: “I will provoke them with a vile nation” (Deuteronomy 32:21), Rav Ḥa bar Rava said that Rav said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. Rabbi Eliezer says that these are apostates, and so too the verse states: “The vile man has said in his heart: There is no God, they have dealt corruptly” (Psalms 14:1), which proves that an apostate is called vile.,It was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “I will provoke them with a vile nation,” that these are the inhabitants of Barbarya and the inhabitants of Martenai, who walk naked in the marketplace, as none is more despised and abominable before the Omnipresent than one who walks naked in the marketplace. Rabbi Yoḥa said: These are the Ḥabbarim, a sect of Persian priests. The Gemara relates: When they said to Rabbi Yoḥa: The Ḥabbarim have come to Babylonia, he shuddered and fell of his chair, out of concern for the Jews living there. They said to him: There is a way to deal with their persecution, as they accept bribes. Upon hearing that not all was lost, he straightened himself and sat in his place once again.,Apropos the Ḥabbarim, the Gemara cites the following statement of the Sages: The Ḥabbarim were able to issue decrees against the Jewish people with regard to three matters, due to three transgressions on the part of the Jewish people. They decreed against meat, i.e., they banned ritual slaughter, due to the failure of the Jewish people to give the priests the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. They decreed against Jews bathing in bathhouses, due to their neglect of ritual immersion.,Third, they exhumed the dead from their graves because the Jews rejoice on the holidays of the gentiles, as it is stated: “Then shall the hand of the Lord be against you and against your fathers” (I Samuel 12:15). Rabba bar Shmuel said: This verse is referring to exhuming the dead, which upsets both the living and the dead, as the Master said: Due to the iniquity of the living, the dead are exhumed.,Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: It is written: “They shall not be gathered nor buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth” (Jeremiah 8:2), and it is written: “And death shall be chosen rather than life” (Jeremiah 8:3). If death will be so indecent that their bodies will not even be buried, why would people choose death over life? Rabba bar Mari said to him: The latter verse does not refer to the previously described state of affairs, but rather it means: Death is preferable for the wicked, as it is better that they not live in this world and sin and consequently descend into Gehenna.,The Gemara cites more statements concerning women. It is written in the book of Ben Sira: A good wife is a good gift for her husband. And it is written: A good one will be placed in the bosom of a God-fearing man; a bad wife is a plague to her husband. What is his remedy? He should divorce her and he will be cured of his plague. A beautiful wife, happy is her husband; the number of his days are doubled. His pleasure in her beauty makes him feel as though he has lived twice as long.,Turn your eyes from a graceful woman who is married to another man, lest you be caught in her trap. Do not turn to her husband to mix wine and strong drink with him, which can lead to temptation. For on account of the countece of a beautiful woman many have been destroyed, and her slain is a mighty host. Furthermore, many have been the wounded peddlers. This is referring to men who travel from place to place to sell women’s jewelry. Their frequent dealings with women lead their husbands to harm the peddlers. Those who accustom themselves to licentious matters are like a spark that ignites a coal. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit.,The Gemara quotes additional statements from the book of Ben Sira: Do not suffer from tomorrow’s trouble, that is, do not worry about problems that might arise in the future, as you do not know what a day will bring. Perhaps when tomorrow comes, the individual who was so worried will not be among the living, and he was consequently upset over a world that is not his. Prevent a crowd from inside your house, do not let many people enter, and do not even bring all your friends into your house. Make sure, however, that a crowd seeks your welfare, and that you have many allies. Reveal a secret to only one in a thousand, since most people are unable to keep a secret.,Rabbi Asi said: The Messiah, son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so. As it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who does not engage in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is considered as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6), and it is written immediately afterward: “And you, be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:7).,Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is as though he diminishes the Divine Image, as it is stated: “For in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6), and it is written immediately afterward: “And you, be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:7). Ben Azzai says: It is as though he sheds blood and also diminishes the Divine Image, as it is stated: “And you, be fruitful and multiply,” after the verse that alludes to both shedding blood and the Divine Image.,They said to ben Azzai: There is a type of scholar who expounds well and fulfills his own teachings well, and another who fulfills well and does not expound well. But you, who have never married, expound well on the importance of procreation, and yet you do not fulfill well your own teachings. Ben Azzai said to them: What shall I do, as my soul yearns for Torah, and I do not wish to deal with anything else. It is possible for the world to be maintained by others, who are engaged in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.,It is similarly taught in another baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who does not engage in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is considered as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man,” and it is stated near it: “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: It is as though he diminishes the Divine Image. Ben Azzai says: It is as though he both sheds blood and diminishes the Divine Image. They said to ben Azzai: There is a type of scholar who expounds well, etc.,The Sages taught with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply: “And when it rested, he would say: Return, Lord, to the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel” (Numbers 10:36). |
|
| 34. Tohorot, Yadayim, 2.16 Tagged with subjects: •Oshaya, R. Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 55 |
