1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 13.7-13.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 238| 13.7. "כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן־אִמֶּךָ אוֹ־בִנְךָ אוֹ־בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ׃", 13.8. "מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ׃", 13.9. "לֹא־תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וְלֹא־תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וְלֹא־תַחְמֹל וְלֹא־תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו׃", 13.11. "וּסְקַלְתּוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת כִּי בִקֵּשׁ לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מֵעַל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים׃", 13.12. "וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּן וְלֹא־יוֹסִפוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כַּדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה בְּקִרְבֶּךָ׃", | 13.7. "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying: 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;", 13.8. "of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;", 13.9. "thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;", 13.10. "but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.", 13.11. "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to draw thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.", 13.12. "And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 19.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 41| 19.11. "הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב וּמִפַּז רָב וּמְתוּקִים מִדְּבַשׁ וְנֹפֶת צוּפִים׃", | 19.11. "More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.", |
|
| 3. Plato, Republic, 25 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 41 |
| 4. Plato, Gorgias, 24 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 25, 33 |
| 5. Plato, Phaedo, 24 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 25, 37 |
6. Cicero, On Invention, 1.32-1.33 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 37| 1.32. quae quemadmodum inveniretur, ante dictum est. Quae partitio rerum distributam continet expositionem, haec habere debet: brevitatem, absolutionem, pauci- tatem. brevitas est, cum nisi necessarium nullum assu- mitur verbum. haec in hoc genere idcirco est utilis, quod rebus ipsis et partibus causae, non verbis neque extraneis ornamentis animus auditoris tenendus est. absolutio est, per quam omnia, quae incidunt in cau- sam, genera, de quibus dicendum est, amplectimur in partitione, ne aut aliquod genus utile relinquatur aut sero extra partitionem, id quod vitiosissimum ac tur- pissimum est, inferatur. paucitas in partitione serva- tur, si genera ipsa rerum ponuntur neque permixtim cum partibus implicantur. nam genus est, quod plures partes amplectitur, ut animal. pars est, quae subest generi, ut equus. sed saepe eadem res alii genus, alii pars est. nam homo animalis pars est, Thebani aut Troiani genus. haec ideo diligentius inducitur di- scriptio, ut aperta intellecta generum et partium ra- tione paucitas generum in partitione servari possit. nam qui ita partitur: ostendam propter cupiditatem et au- daciam et avaritiam adversariorum omnia incommo- da ad rem publicam pervenisse, is non intellexit in partitione exposito genere partem se generis admiscuisse. nam genus est omnium nimirum libidinum cupiditas, eius autem generis sine dubio pars est ava- 1.33. ritia. hoc igitur vitandum est, ne, cuius genus po- sueris, eius * sicuti aliquam diversam ac dissimilem partem ponas in eadem partitione. quodsi quod in genus plures incident partes, id cum in prima causae partitione erit simpliciter expositum, distribuetur tem- pore eo commodissime, cum ad ipsum ventum erit explicandum in causae dictione post partitionem. atque illud quoque pertinet ad paucitatem, ne aut plura, quam satis est, demonstraturos nos dicamus, hoc modo: ostendam adversarios, quod arguamus, et potuisse facere et voluisse et fecisse; nam fecisse satis est ostendere: aut, cum in causa partitio nulla sit, et cum simplex quiddam agatur, tamen utamur distributione, id quod perraro potest accidere. Ac sunt alia quoque praecepta partitionum, quae ad hunc usum oratorium non tanto opere pertineant, quae versantur in philosophia, ex quibus haec ipsa trans- tulimus, quae convenire viderentur, quorum nihil in ceteris artibus inveniebamus. Atque his de partitione praeceptis in omni dictione meminisse oportebit, ut et prima quaeque pars, ut expo- sita est in partitione, sic ordine transigatur et omnibus explicatis peroratum sit hoc modo, ut ne quid po- sterius praeter conclusionem inferatur. partitur apud Terentium breviter et commode senex in Andria, quae cognoscere libertum velit: Eo pacto et gnati vitam et consilium meum Cognosces et quid facere in hac re te velim. itaque quemadmodum in partitione proposuit, ita narrat, primum nati vitam: Nam is postquam excessit ex ephebis ; deinde suum consilium: Et nunc id operam do deinde quid Sosiam velit facere, id quod postremum posuit in partitione, postremum di- cit: Nunc tuum est officium quemadmodum igitur hic et ad primam quamque partem primum accessit et omnibus absolutis finem dicendi fecit, sic nobis pla- cet et ad singulas partes accedere et omnibus abso- lutis perorare. Nunc de confirmatione deinceps, ita ut ordo ipse postulat, praecipiendum videtur. | |
|
7. New Testament, Acts, 1.22, 2.1-2.5, 24.1-24.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 270, 275| 1.22. ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος Ἰωάνου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς ἀνελήμφθη ἀφʼ ἡμῶν, μάρτυρα τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ σὺν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι ἕνα τούτων. 2.1. Καὶ ἐν τῷ συνπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἦσαν πάντες ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, 2.2. καὶ ἐγένετο ἄφνω ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἦχος ὥσπερ φερομένης πνοῆς βιαίας καὶ ἐπλήρωσεν ὅλον τὸν οἶκον οὗ ἦσαν καθήμενοι, 2.3. καὶ ὤφθησαν αὐτοῖς διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐφʼ ἕνα ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, 2.4. καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς. 2.5. Ἦσαν δὲ [ἐν] Ἰερουσαλὴμ κατοικοῦντες Ἰουδαῖοι, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· 24.1. Μετὰ δὲ πέντε ἡμέρας κατέβη ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς Ἁνανίας pb n="304"/ μετὰ πρεσβυτέρων τινῶν καὶ ῥήτορος Τερτύλλου τινός, οἵτινες ἐνεφάνισαν τῷ ἡγεμόνι κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου. 24.2. κληθέντος δὲ [αὐτοῦ] ἤρξατο κατηγορεῖν ὁ Τέρτυλλος λέγων Πολλῆς εἰρήνης τυγχάνοντες διὰ σοῦ καὶ διορθωμάτων γινομένων τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ διὰ τῆς σῆς προνοίας 24.3. πάντῃ τε καὶ πανταχοῦ ἀποδεχόμεθα, κράτιστε Φῆλιξ, μετὰ πάσης εὐχαριστίας. 24.4. ἵνα δὲ μὴ ἐπὶ πλεῖόν σε ἐνκόπτω, παρακαλῶ ἀκοῦσαί σε ἡμῶν συντόμως τῇ σῇ ἐπιεικίᾳ. 24.5. εὑρόντες γὰρ τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον λοιμὸν καὶ κινοῦντα στάσεις πᾶσι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην πρωτοστάτην τε τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως, 24.6. ὃς καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπείρασεν βεβηλῶσαι, 24.7. 24.8. ὃν καὶ ἐκρατήσαμεν, παρʼ οὗ δυνήσῃ αὐτὸς ἀνακρίνας περὶ πάντων τούτων ἐπιγνῶναι ὧν ἡμεῖς κατηγοροῦμεν αὐτοῦ. 24.9. συνεπέθεντο δὲ καὶ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι φάσκοντες ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν. 24.10. Ἀπεκρίθη τε ὁ Παῦλος νεύσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος λέγειν Ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ὄντα σε κριτὴν τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ ἐπιστάμενος εὐθύμως τὰ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολογοῦμαι, 24.11. δυναμένου σου ἐπιγνῶναι, ὅτι οὐ πλείους εἰσίν μοι ἡμέραι δώδεκα ἀφʼ ἧς ἀνέβην προσκυνήσων εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ, 24.12. καὶ οὔτε ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ εὗρόν με πρός τινα διαλεγόμενον ἢ ἐπίστασιν ποιοῦντα ὄχλου οὔτε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς οὔτε κατὰ τὴν πόλιν, 24.13. οὐδὲ παραστῆσαι δύνανταί σοι περὶ ὧν νυνὶ κατηγοροῦσίν μου. 24.14. ὁμολογῶ δὲ τοῦτό σοι ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν λέγουσιν αἵρεσιν οὕτως λατρεύω τῷ πατρῴῳ θεῷ, πιστεύων πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς προφήταις γεγραμμένοις, 24.15. ἐλπίδα ἔχων εἰς τὸν θεόν, ἣν καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι προσδέχονται, ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων· 24.16. ἐν τούτῳ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀσκῶ ἀπρόσκοπον συνείδησιν ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους διὰ παντός. 24.17. διʼ ἐτῶν δὲ πλειόνων ἐλεημοσύνας ποιήσων εἰς τὸ ἔθνος μου παρεγενόμην καὶ προσφοράς, 24.18. ἐν αἷς εὗρόν με ἡγνισμένον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, οὐ μετὰ ὄχλου οὐδὲ μετὰ θορύβου, 24.19. τινὲς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἰουδαῖοι, οὓς ἔδει ἐπὶ σοῦ παρεῖναι καὶ κατηγορεῖν εἴ τι ἔχοιεν πρὸς ἐμέ,— 24.20. ἢ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι εἰπάτωσαν τί εὗρον ἀδίκημα στάντος μου ἐπὶ τοῦ συνεδρίου 24.21. ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι Περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφʼ ὑμῶν. | 1.22. beginning from the baptism of John, to the day that he was received up from us, of these one must become a witness with us of his resurrection." 2.1. Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2.2. Suddenly there came from the sky a sound like the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 2.3. Tongues like fire appeared and were distributed to them, and it sat on each one of them. 2.4. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak. 2.5. Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under the sky. 24.1. After five days, the high priest, Aias, came down with certain elders and an orator, one Tertullus. They informed the governor against Paul. 24.2. When he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, "Seeing that by you we enjoy much peace, and that excellent measures are coming to this nation, 24.3. we accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. 24.4. But, that I don't delay you, I entreat you to bear with us and hear a few words. 24.5. For we have found this man to be a plague, an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 24.6. He even tried to profane the temple. We arrested him. 24.7. 24.8. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him." 24.9. The Jews also joined in the attack, affirming that these things were so. 24.10. When the governor had beckoned to him to speak, Paul answered, "Because I know that you have been a judge of this nation for many years, I cheerfully make my defense, 24.11. seeing that you can recognize that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem. 24.12. In the temple they didn't find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the synagogues, or in the city. 24.13. Nor can they prove to you the things whereof they now accuse me. 24.14. But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets; 24.15. having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. 24.16. Herein I also practice always having a conscience void of offense toward God and men. 24.17. Now after some years, I came to bring gifts to the needy to my nation, and offerings; 24.18. amid which certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor yet with tumult. 24.19. They ought to have been here before you, and to make accusation, if they had anything against me. 24.20. Or else let these men themselves say what injustice they found in me when I stood before the council, 24.21. unless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'" |
|
8. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 202| 4.7. "אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת הַנִּצּוֹק. אוֹמְרִים הַפְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, צְדוֹקִים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת אַמַּת הַמַּיִם הַבָּאָה מִבֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת. אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, חַיָּבִין. וְעַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, פְּטוּרִין. מָה אִם שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵינִי חַיָּב בָּהֶם מִצְוֹת, הֲרֵי אֲנִי חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. עַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב בָּהֶן מִצְוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁאֱהֵא חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם, לֹא. אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּשׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת, תֹּאמְרוּ בְּעַבְדִּי וּבַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם דָּעַת. שֶׁאִם אַקְנִיטֵם, יֵלֵךְ וְיַדְלִיק גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר וֶאֱהֵא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", | 4.7. "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?", |
|
9. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.1-4.3, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 238| 4.1. "אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: \n", 4.2. "דִּינֵי הַטֻּמְאוֹת וְהַטָּהֳרוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצָּד. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא כֹהֲנִים, לְוִיִּם, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים הַמַּשִּׂיאִין לַכְּהֻנָּה: \n", 4.3. "סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין: \n", 5.4. "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין, פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵינֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו: \n", | 4.1. "Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.", 4.2. "In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness [the judges declare their opinion] beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from [them that sit at] the side. All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give [their daughters] in marriage to priests.", 4.3. "The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction.", 5.4. "They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him. If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him. If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words.", |
|
10. Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, 4.5.9-4.5.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 37 | 4.5.9. If you were to make a partition such as the following, "I will not say that the character of my client is such as to render him incapable of murder, I will only say that he had no motive for murder and that at the time when the deceased was killed he was overseas," in that case all the proofs which you propose to bring before this, the final proof, must needs seem superfluous to the judge. 4.5.10. For the judge is always in a hurry to reach the most important point. If he has a patient disposition he will merely make a silent appeal to the advocate, whom he will treat as bound by his promise. On the other hand, if he is busy, or holds exalted position, or is intolerant by nature, he will insist in no very courteous manner on his coming to the point. 4.5.11. For these reasons there are someone who disapprove of the partition adopted by Cicero in the pro Cluentio, where he premises that he is going to show, first, "that no man was ever arraigned for greater crimes or on stronger evidence than Oppianicus," secondly, "that previous judgments had been passed by those very judges by whom he was condemned," and finally, "that Cluentius made no attempt to bribe the jury, but that his opponent did." They argue that if the third point can be proved, there is no need to have urged the two preceding. 4.5.12. On the other hand you will find no one so unreasonable or so foolish as to deny that the partition in the pro Murena is admirable. "I understand, gentlemen, that the accusation falls into three parts, the first aspersing my client's character, the second dealing with his candidature for the magistracy, and the third with charges of bribery." These words make the case as clear as possible, and no one division renders any other superfluous. |
|
11. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.2, 9.3, 10.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 238| 7.2. "אין דנין שני דינין ביום אחד אפילו נואף ונואפת אלא דנין את הראשון ואח\"כ דנין את השני אין נמנין על שני דברים כאחד ואין נשאלין על שתי שאלות כאחד אלא נמנין על הראשון ואח\"כ נמנין על השני ונשאלים על הראשון ואח\"כ נשאלין על השניה אין דנין אלא במקום גדול ואין נמנין אלא במקום שמועה אחד אומר משום שמועה וכולם אומרים לא שמענו על זה מנין עומד אחד אוסר ואחד מתיר אחד מטמא ואחד מטהר וכולן אומרים לא שמענו מנין עומד אחד אומר משום שנים ושנים אומרים משום אחד יפה כח אחד האומר משום שנים מכח שנים האומרים משום אחד עשרה אומרים משום אחד כולן אחד ובטהרות ובטמאות האב ובנו הרב ותלמידו שניהם נמנין שנים בקידוש החדש ובעיבור שנה בדיני ממונות ובדיני נפשות אב ובנו הרב ותלמידו שניהן נמנין אחד ולא יהא יושב בצדו ואפילו הוא שותק אלא עומד והולך לו בקידוש החדש ובעיבור שנה בדיני ממונות מתחילין מן הגדול מפני מה בדיני נפשות מתחילין מן הצד שלא יהא סמוך על דברי רבו.", 9.3. "הרוגי ב\"ד יש להם חלק לעולם הבא מפני שמתודין על עונותיהן רחוק מבית הסקילה עשר אמות ואומרין לו התודה ומעשה באחד שיצא ליסקל אמרו לו התודה אמר תהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עונותי ואם עשיתי כך אל ימחול לי ויהיה ב\"ד של ישראל נקי וכשבא דבר אצל חכמים זלגו דמעות אמרו להם להחזירו אי אפשר שכבר נגזרה גזירה אלא הרי דמיו תלוין בעדיו וכה\"א (דברי הימים א ב׳:ו׳) ובני זרח זמרי ואיתן והימן וכלכל ודרדע כולם חמשה וכי אין יודעים שכולם חמשה אלא מלמד שאף עכן הוא עמהם לעוה\"ב. רחוק מבית הסקילה ד' אמות מפשיטין את בגדיו האיש מכסים אותו פרק מלפניו והאשה פרק מלפניה ופרק מאחריה מפני שהאשה כולה ערוה דברי רבי יהודה שאמר משם רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים האיש נסקל ערום ואין האשה נסקלת ערומה בית הסקילה היה גבוה שתי קומות והוא קומה אחת הרי שלש קומות ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אבן היתה שם ויש בה משאוי ב' נוטל ונותנה על לבו כדי לקיים בו מצות סקילה וכשתולין אחד קושר ואחד מתיר כדי לקיים בו מצות תליה היה רבי מאיר אומר מה ת\"ל (דברים כ״א:כ״ג) כי קללת אלהים תלוי משלו משל למה\"ד לב' אחים דומים זה לזה א' שר על כל העולם וא' יצא לסטים לאחר זמן נתפס זה שיצא לסטים היו צולבין אותו על הצלוב והיה כל עובר ושב אומר דומה שהשר צלוב לכך נאמר כי קללת אלהים תלוי סייף שנהרג בו סודר שנחנק בו אבן שנסקל בה ועץ שנתלה עליו כולן טעונין קבורה ולא היו קוברין אותו עמו נתאכל הבשר שלוחי ב\"ד מלקטין את העצמות וקוברים אותו בארזין אפי' מלך שבמלכים לא היו קוברין אותו בקברי אבותיו אלא בקברי ב\"ד שני קברות היו מתוקנין לב\"ד אחד לנסקלין ולנשרפין ואחד לנחנקים ולנהרגים וכן דוד אומר (תהילים כ״ו:ט׳) אל תאסף עם חטאים נפשי וגו' ארבע מיתות נמסרו לבית דין סקילה שריפה הרג וחנק הרשות לא נתן לה אלא סייף בלבד אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק תינוק הייתי והייתי רוכב על כתפו של אבא וראיתי בת כהן שזינתה בירושלים והקיפוה חבילי זמורות ושרפוה אמרו לו תינוק היה ואין עדות לתינוק רבי יהודה אומר הרי אומר (ויקרא י״ט:י״ח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה שבמיתות כיצד עושין לו מניח ראשו על הסדן וקוצץ בקופיץ אמרו לו אין מיתה מנוולת מזו אמר להם ודאי אין מיתה מנוולת מזו אלא משום שנאמר (ויקרא י״ח:ג׳) ובחקותיהם לא תלכו. ", | |
|
| 12. Tosefta, Pesahim, 35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 37 |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, 1.17 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 37 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 10.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 202 |
| 15. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 144 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 238 |
16. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 238| 36b. כי קאמר רב כגון רב כהנא ורב אסי דלגמריה דרב הוו צריכי ולסבריה דרב לא הוו צריכי,א"ר אבהו עשרה דברים יש בין דיני ממונות לדיני נפשות וכולן אין נוהגין בשור הנסקל חוץ מעשרים ושלשה,מנא הני מילי אמר רב אחא בר פפא דאמר קרא (שמות כג, ו) לא תטה משפט אביונך בריבו משפט אביונך אי אתה מטה אבל אתה מטה משפט של שור הנסקל,עשרה הא ט' הוו הא עשרה קתני משום דאין הכל כשרין ועשרים ושלשה חדא היא,הא איכא אחריתי דתניא אין מושיבין בסנהדרין זקן וסריס ומי שאין לו בנים ר' יהודה מוסיף אף אכזרי וחילופיהן במסית דרחמנא אמר (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו:,הכל כשרין לדון דיני ממונות: הכל לאתויי מאי אמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר,הא תנינא חדא זימנא כל הראוי לדון דיני נפשות ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ויש ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ואין ראוי לדון דיני נפשות והוינן בה לאתויי מאי ואמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר חדא לאתויי גר וחדא לאתויי ממזר,וצריכ' דאי אשמעינן גר דראוי לבא בקהל אבל ממזר אימא לא ואי אשמעינן ממזר דבא מטיפה כשרה אבל גר דלא בא מטיפה כשרה אימא לא צריכא:,ואין הכל כשרין לדון דיני נפשות: מאי טעמא דתני רב יוסף כשם שב"ד מנוקין בצדק כך מנוקין מכל מום אמר אמימר מאי קרא (שיר השירים ד, ז) כולך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך,ודילמא מום ממש אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (במדבר יא, טז) והתיצבו שם עמך עמך בדומין לך,ודילמא התם משום שכינה אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר קרא (שמות יח, כב) ונשאו אתך אתך בדומין לך ליהוי:, big strongמתני' /strong /big סנהדרין היתה כחצי גורן עגולה כדי שיהו רואין זה את זה ושני סופרי הדיינין עומדים לפניהם אחד מימין ואחד משמאל וכותבין דברי (מחייבין ודברי מזכין) ר' יהודה אומר שלשה אחד כותב דברי המזכין ואחד כותב דברי המחייבין והשלישי כותב דברי המזכין ודברי המחייבין | 36b. The Gemara answers: b When Rav says /b his statement, he is referring to not every student, but only those b such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed /b to learn b the /b halakhic b traditions of Rav, but they did not need /b to learn b the reasoning of Rav, /b as they were capable of conducting their own analysis., b Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways /b in which cases of b monetary law /b are b different from /b cases of b capital law, /b as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, b and none of them is practiced with regard to /b a court hearing concerning b an ox that is /b to be b stoned, /b as it is treated as a case of monetary law, b except for /b the requirement that the animal be judged by b twenty-three /b judges, like in cases of capital law.,The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: “You shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause” /b (Exodus 23:6). He explains: b You may not incline the judgment of, /b i.e., exert effort to find liable, b your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is /b to be b stoned. /b The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.,The Gemara asks: Are there really b ten /b ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law? b There are /b only b nine /b differences recorded in the mishna. The Gemara questions this: b But /b the mishna b teaches ten /b differences, not nine. The Gemara clarifies: Although there appear to be ten, there are in fact nine, b because /b the i halakha /i that b not all are fit /b to judge cases of capital law b and /b the i halakha /i that b twenty-three /b judges are required for cases of capital law b are one. /b The reason not all are fit to judge cases of capital law is that the court of twenty-three is derived from the command to Moses: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those “with you,” i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).,The Gemara answers: b But there is another /b difference, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 7:5): The court b does not seat on the Sanhedrin /b a very b old person or one who is castrated or one who has no children, /b as those who did not recently raise children may lack compassion. b Rabbi Yehuda adds: Even a cruel person /b is not eligible. The Gemara comments: b And the opposite of this /b is the i halakha /i b with regard to one who entices /b others to engage in idol worship, b as the Merciful One states /b concerning him: b “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” /b (Deuteronomy 13:9).,§ The mishna teaches that b all are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law. /b The Gemara asks: b What is added /b by the mishna’s employing the expansive term b all? Rav Yehuda says: /b It serves b to include a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [ i mamzer /i ] /b in the category of those qualified to judge cases of monetary law.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But we /b already b learn /b this i halakha /i b one time, /b as it is taught in a i baraita /i : b All who are fit to judge /b cases of b capital law are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law, but there are those who are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law and are not fit to judge /b cases of b capital law. And we discussed it: What is included /b in the expansive term all employed by the i baraita /i ? b And Rav Yehuda says: /b It serves b to include a i mamzer /i . /b The Gemara responds: b One /b of the two sources serves b to include a convert, /b who is qualified to judge only in cases of monetary law, b and one /b of the two sources serves b to include a i mamzer /i . /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b both the mishna and i baraita /i are b necessary, /b as the i halakha /i taught by one source cannot be derived from the i halakha /i taught by the other source. b As, if /b the i tanna /i b taught us /b the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to b a convert, /b one could say that a convert is like a born Jew concerning this, b since /b he is b fit to enter into the congregation, /b i.e., marry a Jew of fit lineage, b but /b with regard to b a i mamzer /i , /b who is not fit to enter into the congregation, b say /b that he b cannot /b serve as a judge. b And if /b the i tanna /i b taught us /b the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to b a i mamzer /i , /b one could say that a i mamzer /i is fit to judge, b as he came from seed /b of b unflawed /b lineage, b but /b with regard to b a convert, who does not come from seed /b of b unflawed /b lineage, b say /b that he b cannot /b serve as a judge. Therefore, both sources are b necessary. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b But not all are fit to judge /b cases of b capital law; /b the judges may be only priests, Levites, or Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this? The Gemara explains: b As Rav Yosef taught: Just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish, /b i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. b Ameimar says: What is the verse /b from which it is derived? It states: b “You are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you” /b (Song of Songs 4:7).,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b you should say that this is referring to b an actual blemish, /b and is teaching that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: /b It is not necessary to learn from this verse the i halakha /i that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin, as b the verse states /b in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: b “That they may stand there with you” /b (Numbers 11:16). The term b “with you” /b is explained to mean: b With similarity to you, /b teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But perhaps there, /b those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish b due to /b the b Divine Presence, /b which was going to rest upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges to serve on the Sanhedrin. b Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse states: /b “So shall they make it easier for you b and bear the burden with you” /b (Exodus 18:22). The term b “with you” /b is explained to mean: b They shall be similar to you, /b without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, and the verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must have unflawed lineage as well., strong MISHNA: /strong b A Sanhedrin /b of twenty-three b was /b arranged in the same layout b as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that /b all the judges b will see one another /b and the witnesses. b And two judges’ scribes stand before /b the court, b one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find /b the accused b liable and the statements of those who acquit /b the accused. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b There were b three /b scribes. b One writes /b only b the statements of those who acquit /b the accused, b one writes /b only b the statements of those who find /b him b liable, and the third writes /b both b the statements of those who acquit /b the accused b and the statements of those who find /b him b liable, /b so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe. |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 41| 30b. כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא ההוא יומא דבעי למינח נפשיה קם מלאך המות קמיה ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא אמר מאי אעביד ליה הוה ליה בוסתנא אחורי ביתיה אתא מלאך המות סליק ובחיש באילני נפק למיחזי הוה סליק בדרגא איפחית דרגא מתותיה אישתיק ונח נפשיה,שלח שלמה לבי מדרשא אבא מת ומוטל בחמה וכלבים של בית אבא רעבים מה אעשה שלחו ליה חתוך נבלה והנח לפני הכלבים ואביך הנח עליו ככר או תינוק וטלטלו ולא יפה אמר שלמה (קהלת ט, ד) כי לכלב חי הוא טוב מן האריה המת ולענין שאילה דשאילנא קדמיכון נר קרויה נר ונשמתו של אדם קרויה נר מוטב תכבה נר של בשר ודם מפני נרו של הקב"ה:,אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב בקשו חכמים לגנוז ספר קהלת מפני שדבריו סותרין זה את זה ומפני מה לא גנזוהו מפני שתחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי תורה תחילתו דברי תורה דכתיב (קהלת א, ג) מה יתרון לאדם בכל עמלו שיעמול תחת השמש ואמרי דבי ר' ינאי תחת השמש הוא דאין לו קודם שמש יש לו סופו דברי תורה דכתיב (קהלת יב, יג) סוף דבר הכל נשמע את האלהים ירא ואת מצותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם מאי כי זה כל האדם אמר רבי (אליעזר) כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה ר' אבא בר כהנא אמר שקול זה כנגד כל העולם כולו שמעון בן עזאי אומר ואמרי לה שמעון בן זומא אומר לא נברא כל העולם כולו אלא לצוות לזה,ומאי דבריו סותרין זה את זה כתיב (קהלת ז, ג) טוב כעס משחוק וכתיב (קהלת ב, ב) לשחוק אמרתי מהלל כתיב (קהלת ח, טו) ושבחתי אני את השמחה וכתיב (קהלת ב, ב) ולשמחה מה זה עושה לא קשיא טוב כעס משחוק טוב כעס שכועס הקב"ה על הצדיקים בעוה"ז משחוק שמשחק הקב"ה על הרשעים בעולם הזה ולשחוק אמרתי מהלל זה שחוק שמשחק הקב"ה עם הצדיקים בעולם הבא,ושבחתי אני את השמחה שמחה של מצוה ולשמחה מה זה עושה זו שמחה שאינה של מצוה ללמדך שאין שכינה שורה לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר שמחה של מצוה שנאמר (מלכים ב ג, טו) ועתה קחו לי מנגן והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו יד ה' אמר רב יהודה וכן לדבר הלכה אמר רבא וכן לחלום טוב,איני והאמר רב גידל אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שיושב לפני רבו ואין שפתותיו נוטפות מר תכוינה שנאמר (שיר השירים ה, יג) שפתותיו שושנים נוטפות מור עובר אל תקרי מור עובר אלא מר עובר אל תקרי שושנים אלא ששונים לא קשיא הא ברבה והא בתלמיד ואיבעית אימא הא והא ברבה ולא קשיא הא מקמי דלפתח הא לבתר דפתח כי הא דרבה מקמי דפתח להו לרבנן אמר מילתא דבדיחותא ובדחי רבנן לסוף יתיב באימתא ופתח בשמעתא,ואף ספר משלי בקשו לגנוז שהיו דבריו סותרין זה את זה ומפני מה לא גנזוהו אמרי ספר קהלת לאו עיינינן ואשכחינן טעמא הכא נמי ליעיינן ומאי דבריו סותרים זה את זה כתיב (משלי כו, ד) אל תען כסיל כאולתו וכתיב (משלי כו, ה) ענה כסיל כאולתו לא קשיא הא בדברי תורה הא במילי דעלמא,כי הא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה אשתך אשתי ובניך בני אמר ליה רצונך שתשתה כוס של יין שתה ופקע ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי חייא אמר ליה אמך אשתי ואתה בני אמר ליה רצונך שתשתה כוס של יין שתה ופקע אמר רבי חייא אהניא ליה צלותיה לרבי דלא לשווייה בני ממזירי דרבי כי הוה מצלי אמר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו שתצילני היום מעזי. פנים ומעזות פנים,בדברי תורה מאי היא כי הא דיתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידה אשה שתלד בכל יום שנאמר (ירמיהו לא, ח) הרה ויולדת יחדיו ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אמר אין כל חדש תחת השמש א"ל בא ואראך דוגמתן בעוה"ז נפק אחוי ליה תרנגולת,ותו יתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידים אילנות שמוציאין פירות בכל יום שנאמר (יחזקאל יז, כג) ונשא ענף ועשה פרי מה ענף בכל יום אף פרי בכל יום ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אמר והכתיב אין כל חדש תחת השמש א"ל בא ואראך דוגמתם בעולם הזה נפק אחוי ליה צלף,ותו יתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידה ארץ ישראל שתוציא גלוסקאות וכלי מילת שנאמר (תהלים עב, טז) יהי פסת בר בארץ ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד ואמר אין כל חדש תחת השמש אמר ליה בא ואראך דוגמתן בעולם הזה נפק אחוי ליה כמיהין ופטריות ואכלי מילת נברא בר קורא:,. ת"ר לעולם יהא אדם ענוותן כהלל ואל יהא קפדן כשמאי מעשה בשני בני אדם | 30b. What did David do? b Every Shabbat he would sit and learn all day /b long to protect himself from the Angel of Death. On b that day on which /b the Angel of Death b was supposed to put his soul to rest, /b the day on which David was supposed to die, b the Angel of Death stood before him and was unable /b to overcome him because b his mouth did not pause from study. /b The Angel of Death b said: What shall I do to him? David had a garden [ i bustana /i ] behind his house; the Angel of Death came, climbed, and shook the trees. /b David b went out to see. /b As b he climbed the stair, the stair broke beneath him. /b He was startled and b was silent, /b interrupted his studies for a moment, b and died. /b ,Since David died in the garden, b Solomon sent /b the following question b to the study hall: Father died and is lying in the sun, and the dogs of father’s house are hungry. /b There is room for concern lest the dogs come and harm his body. What shall I do? b They sent /b an answer b to him: Cut up an /b animal b carcass and place it before the dogs. /b Since the dogs are hungry, handling the animal carcass to feed them is permitted. b And /b with regard to b your father, /b it is prohibited to move his body directly. b Place a loaf /b of bread b or an infant on top of him, and /b you can b move him /b into the shade due to the bread or the infant. b And /b is it b not appropriate /b what b Solomon said: “ /b F b or a living dog is better than a dead lion.” /b The ultimate conclusion of this discussion is that life is preferable to death. b And /b now, b with regard to the question that I asked before you; /b Rav Tanḥum spoke modestly, as, actually, they had asked him the question. b A lamp is called i ner /i and a person’s soul is /b also b called i ner /i , /b as it is written: “The spirit of man is the lamp [ i ner /i ] of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27). b It is preferable /b that b the lamp of /b a being of b flesh and blood, /b an actual lamp, b will be extinguished in favor of the lamp of the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b a person’s soul. Therefore, one is permitted to extinguish a flame for the sake of a sick person.,Since contradictions in Ecclesiastes were mentioned, the Gemara cites additional relevant sources. b Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes /b and declare it apocryphal b because its statements contradict each other /b and it is liable to confuse its readers. b And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning /b consists of b matters of Torah and its end /b consists of b matters of Torah. /b The ostensibly contradictory details are secondary to the essence of the book, which is Torah. The Gemara elaborates: b Its beginning /b consists of b matters of Torah, as it is written: “What profit has man of all his labor which he labors under the sun?” /b (Ecclesiastes 1:3), b and /b the Sages of b the school /b of b Rabbi Yannai said: /b By inference: b Under the sun is where /b man b has no /b profit from his labor; however, b before the sun, /b i.e., when engaged in the study of Torah, which preceded the sun, b he does have /b profit. b Its ending /b consists of b matters of Torah, as it is written: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep His mitzvot; for this is the whole man” ( /b Ecclesiastes 12:13). With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of the phrase: b For this is the whole man? Rabbi Eliezer said: The entire world was only created for this /b person. b Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This /b person b is equivalent to the entire world. Shimon ben Azzai says and some say /b that b Shimon ben Zoma says: The entire world was only created as companion to this /b man, so that he will not be alone., b And /b to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of: b Its statements /b that b contradict each other? It is written: “Vexation is better than laughter” /b (Ecclesiastes 7:3), b and it is written: “I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy” /b (Ecclesiastes 2:2), which is understood to mean that laughter is commendable. Likewise in one verse b it is written: “So I commended mirth” /b (Ecclesiastes 8:15), b and /b in another verse b it is written: “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” /b (Ecclesiastes 2:2). The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult, /b as the contradiction can be resolved. b Vexation is better than laughter /b means: The b vexation /b of b the Holy One, Blessed be He, toward the righteous in this world is preferable to the laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the wicked in this world /b by showering them with goodness. b I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy, that is /b the b laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the righteous in the World-to-Come. /b ,Similarly, “ b So I commended mirth,” /b that is b the joy of a mitzva. “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” that is joy that is not /b the joy b of a mitzva. /b The praise of joy mentioned here is b to teach you that the Divine Presence rests /b upon an individual b neither from /b an atmosphere of b sadness, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laziness, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laughter, nor from /b an atmosphere of b frivolity, nor from /b an atmosphere of b idle conversation, nor from /b an atmosphere of b idle chatter, but rather from /b an atmosphere imbued with b the joy of /b a b mitzva. As it was stated /b with regard to Elisha that after he became angry at the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit left him until he requested: b “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him” /b (II Kings 3:15). b Rav Yehuda said: And, so /b too, one should be joyful before stating b a matter of i halakha /i . Rava said: And, so too, /b one should be joyful before going to sleep in order b to /b have a b good dream. /b ,The Gemara asks: Is b that so, /b that one should introduce matters of i halakha /i joyfully? b Didn’t Rav Giddel say /b that b Rav said: Any Torah scholar who sits before his teacher and his lips are not dripping with myrrh /b due to fear of his teacher, those lips b shall be burnt, /b as b it is stated: “His lips are as lilies, dripping with flowing myrrh [ i shoshanim notefot mor over /i ]” /b (Song of Songs 5:13)? He interpreted homiletically: b Do not read i mor over /i , flowing myrrh; rather, /b read b i mar over /i , flowing bitterness. /b Likewise, b do not read i shoshanim /i , lilies; rather, /b read b i sheshonim /i , that are studying, /b meaning that lips that are studying Torah must be full of bitterness. The Gemara explains: This is b not difficult, /b there is no contradiction here, as b this, /b where it was taught that one should introduce matters of i halakha /i joyfully, is referring b to a rabbi, and that, /b where it was taught that one must be filled with bitterness, is referring b to a student, /b who must listen to his teacher with trepidation. b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this and that /b are referring b to a rabbi, and /b it is b not difficult. This, /b where it was taught that he must be joyful, is b before /b he b begins /b teaching, whereas b that, /b where it was taught that he must be filled with bitterness and trepidation, is b after /b he already b began /b teaching i halakha /i . That explanation is b like that which Rabba /b did. b Before he began /b teaching i halakha /i b to the Sages, he would say something humorous and the Sages would be cheered. Ultimately, he sat in trepidation and began /b teaching the i halakha /i ., b And, /b the Gemara continues, the Sages b sought to suppress the book of Proverbs as well /b because b its statements contradict each other. And why did they not suppress it? They said: /b In the case of b the book of Ecclesiastes, didn’t we analyze it and find an explanation /b that its statements were not contradictory? b Here too, let us analyze it. And what is /b the meaning of: b Its statements contradict each other? /b On the one hand, b it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, /b lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4), b and /b on the other hand, b it is written: “Answer a fool according to his folly, /b lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: This is b not difficult, /b as b this, /b where one should answer a fool, is referring to a case where the fool is making claims b about Torah matters; /b whereas b that, /b where one should not answer him, is referring to a case where the fool is making claims b about mundane matters. /b ,The Gemara relates how Sages conducted themselves in both of those circumstances. b As in /b the case b of that /b man b who came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi and b said to him: Your wife /b is b my wife and your children /b are b my children, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: /b Would b you like to drink a cup of wine? He drank and burst /b and died. Similarly, the Gemara relates: b There was that man who came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: Your mother /b is b my wife, and you /b are b my son. He said to him: /b Would b you like to drink a cup of wine? He drank and burst /b and died. b Rabbi Ḥiyya said /b with regard to the incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s b prayer /b that b his children will not be rendered i mamzerim /i , /b children of illicit relations, b was effective for him. As when Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would pray, he said /b after his prayer: b May it be Your will, O Lord, my God, that You will deliver me today from impudent people and from insolence. /b Insolence, in this case, refers to i mamzerut /i . It was due to his prayer that that man burst and was unsuccessful in disparaging Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s children., b In matters of Torah, what is /b the case with regard to which the verse said that one should respond to a fool’s folly? b As in /b the case b where Rabban Gamliel was sitting and he interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: In the future, /b in the World-to-Come, b a woman will give birth every day, as it says: “The woman with child and her that gives birth together” /b (Jeremiah 31:7), explaining that birth will occur on the same day as conception. b A certain student scoffed at him /b and b said: /b That cannot be, as it has already been stated: b “There is nothing new under the sun” /b (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Rabban Gamliel b said to him: Come and I will show you an example /b of this b in this world. He took him outside and showed him a chicken /b that lays eggs every day., b And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: In the future, /b in the World-to-Come, b trees will produce fruits every day, as it is stated: “And it shall bring forth branches and bear fruit” /b (Ezekiel 17:23); b just as a branch /b grows b every day, so too, fruit /b will be produced b every day. A certain student scoffed at him /b and b said: Isn’t it written: There is nothing new under the sun? He said to him: Come and I will show you an example /b of this b in this world. He went outside and showed him a caper bush, /b part of which is edible during each season of the year., b And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: In the future, /b the World-to-Come, b Eretz Yisrael will produce cakes and /b fine b wool garments /b that will grow in the ground, b as it is stated: “Let abundant grain be in the land /b .” b A certain student scoffed at him and said: There is nothing new under the sun. He said to him: Come and I will show you an example in this world. He went outside /b and b showed him truffles and mushrooms, /b which emerge from the earth over the course of a single night and are shaped like a loaf of bread. b And with regard to wool garments, /b he showed him b the covering of a heart of palm, /b a young palm branch, which is wrapped in a thin net-like covering.,Since the Gemara discussed the forbearance of Sages, who remain silent in the face of nonsensical comments, it cites additional relevant examples. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A person should always be patient like Hillel and not impatient like Shammai. /b The Gemara related: There was b an incident /b involving b two people /b |
|
18. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 18.3 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 202| 18.3. וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, מַה כְּתִיב לְמַעְלָה מִן הָעִנְיָן (במדבר טו, לח): וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת, קָפַץ קֹרַח וְאָמַר לְמשֶׁה טַלִּית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית, אָמַר לוֹ חַיֶּיבֶת בְּצִיצִית. אָמַר לוֹ קֹרַח טַלִית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת אֵין פּוֹטֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ, אַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין פּוֹטְרוֹת אוֹתָהּ. בַּיִת מָלֵא סְפָרִים מַהוּ שֶׁיְהֵא פָּטוּר מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, אָמַר לוֹ חַיָּב בִּמְּזוּזָה, אָמַר לוֹ, כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּה מָאתַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים וְחָמֵשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַבַּיִת, פָּרָשָׁה אַחַת שֶׁבַּמְּזוּזָה פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַבַּיִת, אָמַר לוֹ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ לֹא נִצְטַוֵּיתָ עֲלֵיהֶן, וּמִלִּבְּךָ אַתָּה בּוֹדְאָן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, אֵין וַיִּקַּח אֶלָּא לָשׁוֹן פְּלִיגָא, שֶׁלִּבּוֹ לְקָחוֹ. וְכָעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב טו, יב): מַה יִּקָּחֲךָ לִבֶּךָ, הוּא שֶׁמּשֶׁה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז, ט): הַמְעַט כִּי הִבְדִּיל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים חָכָם גָּדוֹל הָיָה קֹרַח וּמִטּוֹעֲנֵי הָאָרוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ז, ט): וְלִבְנֵי קְהָת לֹא נָתָן כִּי עֲבֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֲלֵהֶם, וְקֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת, וּכְשֶׁאָמַר משֶׁה (במדבר טו, לח): וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, מִיָּד צִוָּה וְעָשׂוּ מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים טַלִּיתוֹת תְּכֵלֶת וְנִתְעַטְּפוּ בָּהֶן אוֹתָן מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְרָאוֹת שֶׁקָּמוּ עַל משֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז, ב): וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי משֶׁה וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד. עָמַד קֹרַח וְעָשָׂה לָהֶם מִשְׁתֶּה וְנִתְעַטְּפוּ בְּטַלִּיתוֹת שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת, בָּאוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִטֹּל מַתְּנוֹתֵיהֶם חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק, עָמְדוּ כְּנֶגְדָן, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן מִי צִוָּה אֶתְכֶם לִטֹּל כָּךְ, לֹא משֶׁה, לֹא נִתֵּן כְּלוּם, לֹא דִּבֵּר הַמָּקוֹם כָּךְ. בָּאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּ אֶת משֶׁה, הָלַךְ לְפַיְסָן, מִיָּד עָמְדוּ כְּנֶגְדוֹ לְקַדְּמוֹ לִפְנֵי משֶׁה. וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, מִי הֵם, אֱלִיצוּר בֶּן שְׁדֵיאוּר וַחֲבֵרָיו, (במדבר א, יז): הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹא פִּרְסְמָן הַכָּתוּב נָתַן סִימָנֵיהֶן, וּמִתּוֹךְ הַמִּקְרָאוֹת אַתְּ מֵבִין אוֹתָם. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה, לְבֶן טוֹבִים שֶׁנִּמְצָא גוֹנֵב כֵּלִים מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְלֹא הָיָה רוֹצֶה בַּעַל הַגְּנֵבָה לְפַרְסְמוֹ, הִתְחִיל נוֹתֵן סִימָנָיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִי גָנַב כֵּלֶיךָ, אָמַר לָהֶם אוֹתוֹ בֶּן טוֹבִים בַּעַל קוֹמָה וְשִׁנָּיו נָאוֹת וְשַׂעֲרוֹ שָׁחוֹר וְחָטְמוֹ נָאֶה, מִשָּׁנָּתַן סִימָנָיו יָדְעוּ מִי הוּא. אַף כָּאן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסְּתָמָן הַכָּתוּב, בָּא וְנָתַן סִימָנֵיהֶן וְאַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ מִי הֵם, נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר א, טז יז): אֵלֶּה קְרוּאֵי הָעֵדָה נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם, וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן (במדבר טז, ב ג): נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם, וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל משֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן. | 18.3. "3 (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)? “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels ( i zizit /i ) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl ( i tallit /i ) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five i parashiot /i in it sup 2 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Cf. i yShab. /i 16:1 (15c); i Soferim /i 16:10; M. Pss. 22:19, according to which there are 175 i parashiot /i in the Torah where an expression of speaking, saying, or commanding occurs. See also i Alfa Beta deRabbi ‘Aqiva, /i longer recension, i Tsade /i ( i Eisenstein, p. 421 /i ). /i and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the one i parasha /i which is in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.” Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: i lqh /i ). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: i lqh /i ) […].” This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9), “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated [you from the congregation to draw you near unto Himself, to perform the service of the Lord's tabernacle …]?” The sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of i sanhedraot /i who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh, sup 3 /sup i class=\"footnote\" I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. /i they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.” They came and informed Moses. He went to placate sup 4 /sup i class=\"footnote\" i Rt /i .: PYS. See the Gk.: i peithein, peisai /i in the aroist. /i them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized sup 5 /sup i class=\"footnote\" From i PRSM /i . Cf. Gk: i parresiazesthai. /i /i their [names], it has given clues sup 6 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Gk.: i semeia. /i /i to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16-17), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel. So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”", |
|
| 19. Nilus, De Mon. Ex., 1.1.1, 1.1.13, 3.13-3.19 Tagged with subjects: •plato, on truth and rhetoric Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 33, 37, 41 |
