1. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 6.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 572| 6.3. "וְקָרָא זֶה אֶל־זֶה וְאָמַר קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת מְלֹא כָל־הָאָרֶץ כְּבוֹדוֹ׃", | 6.3. "And one called unto another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory.", |
|
2. Anon., 1 Enoch, 39.12-39.13 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 572 | 39.12. generation unto generation. Those who sleep not bless Thee: they stand before Thy glory and bless, praise, and extol, saying: 'Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Spirits: He filleth the earth with spirits.' And here my eyes saw all those who sleep not: they stand before Him and bless and say: 'Blessed be Thou, and blessed be the name of the Lord for ever and ever.' And my face was changed; for I could no longer behold. |
|
3. Tosefta, Berachot, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 591| 1.4. "מאימתי קורין את שמע בשחרית אחרים אומרי' כדי שיהא <ממנו> [רואה] חבירו ברחוק ד' אמות ומכירו מצותה עם הנץ החמה כדי שיהא סומך גאולה לתפלה ונמצא מתפלל ביום אמר רבי יהודה פעם אחת הייתי מהלך אחר ר\"ע ואחר ר\"א בן עזריה הגיע זמן קריאת שמע כמדומה אני שנתייאשו מלקרות אלא שעוסקין בצרכי צבור קריתי ושניתי ואח\"כ התחילו הן וכבר נראתה חמה על ראשי ההרים.", | |
|
4. New Testament, Acts, 2.5-2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 57| 2.5. Ἦσαν δὲ [ἐν] Ἰερουσαλὴμ κατοικοῦντες Ἰουδαῖοι, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· 2.6. γενομένης δὲ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης συνῆλθε τὸ πλῆθος καὶ συνεχύθη, ὅτι ἤκουσεν εἷς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ λαλούντων αὐτῶν· 2.7. ἐξίσταντο δὲ καὶ ἐθαύμαζον λέγοντες Οὐχὶ ἰδοὺ πάντες οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ λαλοῦντες Γαλιλαῖοι; 2.8. καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθημεν; 2.9. Πάρθοι καὶ Μῆδοι καὶ Ἐλαμεῖται, καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν, Ἰουδαίαν τε καὶ Καππαδοκίαν, Πόντον καὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν, 2.10. Φρυγίαν τε καὶ Παμφυλίαν, Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὰ μέρη τῆς Λιβύης τῆς κατὰ Κυρήνην, καὶ οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι, 2.11. Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι, Κρῆτες καὶ Ἄραβες, ἀκούομεν λαλούντων αὐτῶν ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ θεοῦ. | 2.5. Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under the sky. 2.6. When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language. 2.7. They were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Behold, aren't all these who speak Galileans? 2.8. How do we hear, everyone in our own native language? 2.9. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, 2.10. Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 2.11. Cretans and Arabians: we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!" |
|
5. Mishnah, Taanit, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 289| 2.2. "עָמְדוּ בִתְפִלָּה, מוֹרִידִין לִפְנֵי הַתֵּבָה זָקֵן וְרָגִיל, וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בָנִים, וּבֵיתוֹ רֵיקָם, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא לִבּוֹ שָׁלֵם בַּתְּפִלָּה, וְאוֹמֵר לִפְנֵיהֶם עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּרָכוֹת, שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שֶׁבְּכָל יוֹם, וּמוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד שֵׁשׁ:", | 2.2. "[When] they stand up to pray they bring down before the ark an old man conversant [with the prayers], one who has children and whose house is empty [of food], so that his heart is complete prayer. He recites before them twenty-four benedictions, the eighteen recited daily, to which he adds six.", |
|
6. Mishnah, Berachot, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 591| 1.3. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בָּעֶרֶב כָּל אָדָם יַטּוּ וְיִקְרְאוּ, וּבַבֹּקֶר יַעַמְדוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כָּל אָדָם קוֹרֵא כְדַרְכּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם שׁוֹכְבִים, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אֲנִי הָיִיתִי בָא בַדֶּרֶךְ, וְהִטֵּתִי לִקְרוֹת, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְסִכַּנְתִּי בְעַצְמִי מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּדַי הָיִיתָ לָחוּב בְּעַצְמְךָ, שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל: \n", | 1.3. "Bet Shammai say: in the evening every man should recline and recite [the Shema], and in the morning he should stand, as it says, “And when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). Bet Hillel say that every man should recite in his own way, as it says, “And when you walk by the way” (ibid). Why then is it said, “And when you lies down and when you get up?” At the time when people lie down and at the time when people rise up. Rabbi Tarfon said: I was once walking by the way and I reclined to recite the Shema according to the words of Bet Shammai, and I incurred danger from robbers. They said to him: you deserved to come to harm, because you acted against the words of Bet Hillel.", |
|
| 7. Plutarch, Lives of The Ten Orators, 10-11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 589 |
8. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 567| 3.21. "כתב הנכתב ליחיד מכנין אותה לרבים לרבים אין מכנין אותה ליחיד רבי יהודה אומר המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדאי והמוסיף הרי זה מגדף. תורגמן העומד לפני חכם אינו רשאי לא לפחות ולא להוסיף ולא לשנות אלא אם כן יהיה אביו או רבו. ", | |
|
9. Tosefta, Taanit, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 568| 3.1. "[בתשעה בחודש הובקעה העיר בשניה ובראשונה ובז' בו אם נאמר (ירמיהו נ״ב:ו׳) בז' בחודש למה נאמר בט' בחודש אם נאמר בט' בחודש למה נאמר בז' בחודש אלא בז' בחודש כיבשו האומות את ההיכל] ונטלו את העמודים ואת הים ואת המכונות [והיו מקרקרים] שביעי שמיני ותשיעי [עד שפנה יום] וכה\"א (שם) אוי לנו כי פנה היום כי ינטו צללי ערב לעתותי ערב הציתו בו את האור ונשרף עם שקיעת החמה בעשור לחודש.", 3.1. "בשלשה פרקים נושאין כפיהן ד' פעמים ביום [בשחר] בחצות במנחה [ובנעילה] דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים במנחה ובנעילה לא היה שם נשיאת כפים שנאמר (דברים י״ח:ה׳) לעמוד לשרת בשם ה' הוא ובניו מקיש בניו [לו] מה הוא מעומד ונשיאות כפים בבוקר אף בניו מעומד ונשיאות כפים בבוקר.", | |
|
| 10. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan nan nan |
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 12. Palestinian Talmud, Nedarim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Eruvin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan nan nan |
| 15. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
16. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 289| 55b. נותנין קרפף לעיר דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים לא אמרו קרפף אלא בין שתי עיירות,ואיתמר רב הונא אמר קרפף לזו וקרפף לזו וחייא בר רב אמר אין נותנין אלא קרפף אחד לשניהם,צריכא דאי אשמעינן הכא משום דהוה ליה צד היתר מעיקרא אבל התם אימא לא,ואי אשמעינן התם משום דדחיקא תשמישתייהו אבל הכא דלא דחיקא תשמישתייהו אימא לא צריכא,וכמה הוי בין יתר לקשת רבה בר רב הונא אמר אלפים אמה רבא בריה דרבה בר רב הונא אמר אפילו יתר מאלפים אמה,אמר אביי כוותיה דרבא בריה דרבה בר רב הונא מסתברא דאי בעי הדר אתי דרך בתים:,היו שם גדודיות גבוהות עשרה טפחים כו': מאי גדודיות אמר רב יהודה שלש מחיצות שאין עליהן תקרה,איבעיא להו שתי מחיצות ויש עליהן תקרה מהו ת"ש אלו שמתעברין עמה נפש שיש בה ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות והגשר והקבר שיש בהן בית דירה ובית הכנסת שיש בה בית דירה לחזן ובית עבודת כוכבים שיש בה בית דירה לכומרים והאורוות והאוצרות שבשדות ויש בהן בית דירה והבורגנין שבתוכה והבית שבים הרי אלו מתעברין עמה,ואלו שאין מתעברין עמה נפש שנפרצה משתי רוחותיה אילך ואילך והגשר והקבר שאין להן בית דירה ובית הכנסת שאין לה בית דירה לחזן ובית עבודת כוכבים שאין לה בית דירה לכומרים והאורוות והאוצרות שבשדות שאין להן בית דירה ובור ושיח ומערה וגדר ושובך שבתוכה והבית שבספינה אין אלו מתעברין עמה,קתני מיהת נפש שנפרצה משתי רוחותיה אילך ואילך מאי לאו דאיכא תקרה לא דליכא תקרה,בית שבים למאי חזי אמר רב פפא בית שעשוי לפנות בו כלים שבספינה,ומערה אין מתעברת עמה והתני רבי חייא מערה מתעברת עמה אמר אביי כשיש בנין על פיה,ותיפוק ליה משום בנין גופיה לא צריכא להשלים,אמר רב הונא יושבי צריפין אין מודדין להן אלא מפתח בתיהן,מתיב רב חסדא (במדבר לג, מט) ויחנו על הירדן מבית הישימות ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא והוי תלתא פרסי על תלתא פרסי,ותניא כשהן נפנין אין נפנין לא לפניהם ולא לצדיהן אלא לאחריהן,אמר ליה רבא דגלי מדבר קאמרת כיון דכתיב בהו (במדבר ט, כ) על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו כמאן דקביע להו דמי,אמר רב חיננא בר רב כהנא אמר רב אשי אם יש שם שלש חצירות של שני בתים הוקבעו,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יושבי צריפין והולכי מדברות חייהן אינן חיים ונשיהן ובניהן אינן שלהן,תניא נמי הכי אליעזר איש ביריא אומר יושבי צריפין כיושבי קברים ועל בנותיהם הוא אומר (דברים כז, כא) ארור שוכב עם כל בהמה,מאי טעמא עולא אמר שאין להן מרחצאות ורבי יוחנן אמר מפני שמרגישין זה לזה בטבילה,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו נהרא דסמיך לביתא,אמר רב הונא כל עיר שאין בה ירק אין תלמיד חכם רשאי לדור בה למימרא דירק מעליא והתניא שלשה מרבין את הזבל וכופפין את הקומה ונוטלין אחד מחמש מאות ממאור עיניו של אדם ואלו הן | 55b. b One allocates a i karpef /i to /b every b city, /b i.e., an area of slightly more than seventy cubits is added to the boundary of a city and the Shabbat limit is measured from there; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: They spoke of /b the measure of b a i karpef /i only /b with regard to the space b between two /b adjacent b cities, /b i.e., if adjacent cities are separated by a shorter distance than that, they are considered one city., b And it was stated /b that the i amora’im /i disputed this issue. b Rav Huna said: A i karpef /i /b is added b to this /b city b and /b another b i karpef /i /b is added b to that /b city, so that as long as the cities are not separated by a distance of slightly more than 141 cubits, they are considered one entity. b And Ḥiyya bar Rav said: One allocates only one i karpef /i to the two of them. /b Accordingly, Rav Huna has already stated that the measure of a i karpef /i is added to both cities in determining whether they are close enough to be considered a single entity.,The Gemara answers: b It is necessary /b for Rav Huna to state this i halakha /i in both instances, b as, had he taught it to us /b only b here, /b in the case of the breached wall, one might have said that a i karpef /i is allocated to each city only in that case b because it had an aspect of permissibility from the outset, /b namely, the two sections originally formed one city. b But there, /b with regard to the two cities, b say /b that this is b not the case /b and the two cities are only considered as one if they are separated by less than the measure of a single i karpef /i ., b And had he taught it /b to b us /b only b there, /b with regard to the two cities, one might have said that only in that case is a i karpef /i allocated to each city b because /b one i karpef /i would be too b cramped for the use /b of both cities. b But here, /b in the case of the breached wall, b where /b one i karpef /i b would not be /b too b cramped for the use of /b both sections, as the vacant space is inside the city, in an area that had not been used in this fashion before the wall was breached, b say /b that this is b not /b the case and a single i karpef /i is sufficient. Therefore, b it was necessary /b to state this i halakha /i in both cases.,The Gemara asks: b And how much /b distance may there be b between /b the imaginary b bowstring and /b the center of the b bow /b in a city that is shaped like a bow? b Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Two thousand cubits. Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said: Even more than two thousand cubits. /b , b Abaye said: It stands to reason in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as if one wants, he can return and go /b anywhere within the bow b by way of the houses. /b Since one can always walk to the end of the city, and from there he is permitted to walk down the line of the imaginary bowstring, he should also be permitted to walk from the middle of the bow to the bowstring, even if the distance is more than two thousand cubits.,We learned in the mishna: If b there were remts /b of walls b ten handbreadths high /b on the outskirts of a city, they are considered part of the city, and the Shabbat limit is measured from them. The Gemara asks: b What are /b these b remts? Rav Yehuda said: Three partitions that do not have a roof over them, /b which are considered part of the city despite the fact that they do not comprise a proper house., b The dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: In the case of b two partitions /b that b have a roof over them, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is this structure also treated like a house? b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from the i Tosefta /i : b These /b are the structures b that are included in /b the city’s b extension: A monument [ i nefesh /i ] /b over a grave b that is four cubits by four cubits; and a bridge or a grave in which there is a residence; and a synagogue in which there is a residence for the sexton /b or synagogue attendant, and which is used not only for prayer services at specific times; b and an idolatrous temple in which there is a residence for the priests; and /b similarly, horse b stables and storehouses in the fields in which there is a residence; and /b small b watchtowers in /b the fields; b and /b similarly, b a house on /b an island in b the sea /b or lake, which is located within seventy cubits of the city; all of b these /b structures b are included in the /b city’s boundaries., b And these /b structures b are not included in /b the boundaries of a city: b A tomb that was breached on both sides, /b from b here /b to b there, /b i.e., from one side all the way to the other; b and /b similarly, b a bridge and a grave that do not have a residence; and a synagogue that does not have a residence for the sexton; and an idolatrous temple that does not have a residence for the priests; and /b similarly, b stables and storehouses in fields that do not have a residence, /b and therefore are not used for human habitation; b and a cistern, and an /b elongated water b ditch, and a cave, /b i.e., a covered cistern, b and a wall, and a dovecote in /b the field; b and /b similarly, b a house on a boat /b that is not permanently located within seventy cubits of the city; all of b these /b structures b are not included in the /b city’s boundaries., b In any case, it was taught /b that b a tomb that was breached on both sides, /b from b here /b to b there, /b is not included in the city’s boundaries. b What, /b is this b not /b referring to a case where b there is a roof /b on the tomb, and the two remaining walls are not included in the city’s boundaries even though they have a roof? The Gemara answers: b No, /b the i Tosefta /i is referring to a case b where there is no roof /b on the tomb.,The Gemara asks: b A house on /b an island in b the sea, what is /b it b suitable for /b if it is not actually part of the inhabited area? b Rav Pappa said: /b It is referring to b a house used to move a ship’s utensils /b into it for storage.,The Gemara raises another question with regard to the i Tosefta /i : b And is a cave /b on the outskirts of a city really b not included in its extension? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach /b in a i baraita /i : b A cave is included in its extension? Abaye said: /b That statement applies b when there is a structure /b built b at its entrance, /b which is treated like a house on the outskirts of the city.,The Gemara asks: If there is a structure at the entrance to the cave, why is the cave mentioned? b Let him derive /b the i halakha /i that it is treated like a house b because of the structure itself. /b The Gemara answers: b No, it is necessary /b only in a case where the cave serves b to complete /b the structure, i.e., where the area of the structure and cave combined are only four by four cubits, which is the minimum size of a house.,The discussion with regard to measuring Shabbat limits has been referring to a properly built city. b Rav Huna said: Those who dwell in huts, /b i.e., in thatched hovels of straw and willow branches, are not considered inhabitants of a city. Therefore, b one measures /b the Shabbat limit b for them only from the entrance to their homes; /b the huts are not combined together and considered a city., b Rav Ḥisda raised an objection: /b The Torah states with regard to the Jewish people in the desert: b “And they pitched by the Jordan, from Beit-HaYeshimot /b to Avel-Shittim in the plains of Moab” (Numbers 33:49), b and Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: I myself saw that place, and it is three parasangs [ i parsa /i ], /b the equivalent of twelve i mil /i , b by three parasangs. /b , b And it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b When they would defecate /b in the wilderness, b they would not defecate in front of themselves, /b i.e., in front of the camp, b and not to their sides, /b due to respect for the Divine Presence; b rather, /b they would do so b behind /b the camp. This indicates that even on Shabbat, when people needed to defecate, they would walk the entire length of the camp, which was considerably longer than two thousand cubits, which equals one i mil /i . It is apparent that the encampment of the Jewish people was considered to be a city despite the fact that it was composed of tents alone. How, then, did Rav Huna say that those who live in huts are not considered city dwellers?, b Rava said to him: The banners of the desert, you say? /b Are you citing a proof from the practice of the Jewish people as they traveled through the desert according to their tribal banners? b Since it is written with regard to them: “According to the commandment of the Lord they remained encamped, and according to the commandment of the Lord they journeyed” /b (Numbers 9:20), b it was considered as though it were a permanent /b residence b for them. /b A camp that is established in accordance with the word of God is regarded as a permanent settlement., b Rav Ḥina bar Rav Kahana said that Rav Ashi said: If there are three courtyards of two /b properly built b houses /b among a settlement of huts, b they have been established /b as a permanent settlement, and the Shabbat limit is measured from the edge of the settlement.,On the topic of people who dwell in huts, b Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Those who dwell in huts, /b such as shepherds who pass from one place to another and stay in a single location for only a brief period, b and desert travelers, their lives are not lives, /b i.e., they lead extremely difficult lives, b and their wives and children are not /b always b their /b own, as will be explained below., b That was also taught /b in the following i baraita /i : b Eliezer of Biriyya says: Those who dwell in huts are like those who dwell in graves. And with regard to /b one who marries b their daughters, /b the verse b says: “Cursed be he who sleeps with any manner of beast” /b (Deuteronomy 27:21).,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this harsh statement with regard to the daughters of those who dwell in huts or travel in deserts? b Ulla said: They do not have bathhouses, /b and therefore the men have to walk a significant distance in order to bathe. There is concern that while they are away their wives commit adultery, and that consequently their children are not really their own. b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because they sense when one another immerses. /b Similarly to the men, the women must walk a significant distance in order to immerse in a ritual bath. Since the settlement is very small and everyone knows when the women go to immerse, it is possible for an unscrupulous man to use this information to engage in adulterous relations with them by following them and taking advantage of the fact that they are alone.,The Gemara asks: b What is the /b practical difference b between /b the explanations of Ulla and Rabbi Yoḥa? The Gemara explains: b There is /b a practical difference b between them /b in a case where there is b a river that is adjacent to the house, /b and it is suitable for immersion but not for bathing. Consequently, the women would not have to go far to immerse themselves, but the men would still have to walk a significant distance in order to bathe.,Having mentioned various places of residence, the Gemara cites what b Rav Huna said: Any city that does not have vegetables, a Torah scholar is not permitted to dwell there /b for health reasons. The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that vegetables are beneficial /b to a person’s health? b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Three /b things b increase one’s waste, bend /b his b stature, and remove one five-hundredth of the light of a person’s eyes; and they are /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 289| 53a. אי נימא לא שבת מחמת מלאכה אפילו ממלאכה דהתירא והתניא אור של חיה ושל חולה מברכין עליו,אר"נ בר יצחק מאי שבת ששבת מחמת מלאכת עבירה תנ"ה עששית שהיתה דולקת והולכת כל היום כולו למ"ש מברכין עליה:,ת"ר נכרי שהדליק מישראל וישראל שהדליק מנכרי מברכין עליו נכרי מנכרי אין מברכין עליו,מ"ש נכרי מנכרי דלא משום דלא שבת א"ה ישראל מנכרי נמי הא לא שבת,וכי תימא הך איסורא אזל ליה והא אחרינא הוא ובידא דישראל קא מתילדא אלא הא דתניא המוציא שלהבת לר"ה חייב אמאי חייב מה שעקר לא הניח ומה שהניח לא עקר,אלא לעולם דאיסורא נמי איתיה וכי קא מברך אתוספתא דהתירא קא מברך אי הכי נכרי מנכרי נמי,אין ה"נ גזרה משום נכרי ראשון ועמוד ראשון:,ת"ר היה מהלך חוץ לכרך וראה אור אם רוב נכרים אינו מברך אם רוב ישראל מברך,הא גופא קשיא אמרת אם רוב נכרים אינו מברך הא מחצה על מחצה מברך והדר תני אם רוב ישראל מברך הא מחצה על מחצה אינו מברך,בדין הוא דאפי' מחצה על מחצה נמי מברך ואיידי (דתנ') רישא רוב נכרים תנא סיפא רוב ישראל:,ת"ר היה מהלך חוץ לכרך וראה תינוק ואבוקה בידו בודק אחריו אם ישראל הוא מברך אם נכרי הוא אינו מברך,מאי איריא תינוק אפי' גדול נמי,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הכא בסמוך לשקיעת החמה עסקי' גדול מוכחא מילתא דודאי נכרי הוא תינוק אימר ישראל הוא אקרי ונקיט:,ת"ר היה מהלך חוץ לכרך וראה אור אם עבה כפי הכבשן מברך עליו ואם לאו אינו מברך עליו,תני חדא אור של כבשן מברכין עליו ותניא אידך אין מברכין עליו,לא קשיא הא בתחלה הא לבסוף,תני חדא אור של תנור ושל כירים מברכין עליו ותניא אידך אין מברכין עליו,לא קשיא הא בתחלה הא לבסוף,תני חדא אור של בית הכנסת ושל בית המדרש מברכין עליו ותניא אידך אין מברכין עליו,ל"ק הא דאיכא אדם חשוב הא דליכא אדם חשוב,ואי בעית אימא הא והא דאיכא אדם חשוב ולא קשיא הא דאיכא חזנא הא דליכא חזנא,ואב"א הא והא דאיכא חזנא ולא קשיא הא דאיכא סהרא והא דליכא סהרא:,ת"ר היו יושבין בבית המדרש והביאו אור לפניהם בש"א כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו ובה"א אחד מברך לכולן משום שנאמר (משלי יד, כח) ברוב עם הדרת מלך,בשלמא ב"ה מפרשי טעמא אלא בית שמאי מאי טעמא קסברי מפני בטול בית המדרש,תניא נמי הכי של בית רבן גמליאל לא היו אומרים מרפא בבית המדרש מפני בטול בית המדרש:,אין מברכין לא על הנר ולא על הבשמים של מתים: מ"ט נר לכבוד הוא דעבידא בשמים לעבורי ריחא הוא דעבידי,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל שמוציאין לפניו ביום ובלילה אין מברכין עליו וכל שאין מוציאין לפניו אלא בלילה מברכין עליו,אמר רב הונא בשמים של בית הכסא ושמן העשוי להעביר את הזוהמא אין מברכין עליו,למימרא דכל היכא דלאו לריחא עבידא לא מברכין עלויה מיתיבי הנכנס לחנותו של בשם והריח ריח אפילו ישב שם כל היום כלו אינו מברך אלא פעם אחד נכנס ויצא נכנס ויצא מברך על כל פעם ופעם והא הכא דלאו לריחא הוא דעבידא וקמברך,אין לריחא נמי הוא דעבידא כי היכי דנירחו אינשי וניתו ונזבון מיניה,תנו רבנן היה מהלך חוץ לכרך והריח ריח אם רוב עובדי כוכבים אינו מברך אם רוב ישראל מברך רבי יוסי אומר אפי' רוב ישראל נמי אינו מברך מפני שבנות ישראל מקטרות לכשפים,אטו כולהו לכשפים מקטרן ה"ל מיעוטא לכשפים ומיעוטא נמי לגמר את הכלים אשתכח רובא דלאו לריחא עביד וכל רובא דלאו לריחא עביד לא מברך,אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן המהלך בערבי שבתות בטבריא ובמוצאי שבתות בצפורי והריח ריח אינו מברך מפני שחזקתו אינו עשוי אלא לגמר בו את הכלים,תנו רבנן היה מהלך בשוק של עכו"ם נתרצה להריח הרי זה חוטא: | 53a. b If we say /b that did not rest means that b it did not rest from labor, even from labor that is permitted? Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b over light /b that was kindled on Shabbat b for a woman giving birth or a /b dangerously b ill person, /b for whom one is permitted to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat, b one may recite a blessing /b during i havdala /i at the conclusion of Shabbat?, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is /b meant by b rested? /b Light b that rested from labor of transgression /b on Shabbat. However, if the light burned for the entire Shabbat or was kindled on Shabbat in a permissible manner, one may recite a blessing over it. b That /b i halakha /i b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A lantern that was continuously burning throughout the entire day /b of Shabbat, b one may recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A gentile who lit /b a candle b from /b a candle that was in the possession of b a Jew or if a Jew lit /b a candle b from a gentile, one may recite a blessing over it /b at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, b if a gentile /b lit a candle b from a gentile, one may not recite a blessing over it. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about a candle that b a gentile /b lit b from a gentile, that /b one may b not /b recite a blessing over it? b Because /b the light b did not rest /b on Shabbat. b If so, /b the light of b a Jew /b who lit a candle b from a gentile also did not rest /b on Shabbat., b And if you say /b that b this prohibited /b flame b has gone and this /b flame b is a /b new and b different /b one which b came into being in the possession of a Jew, /b as a flame is not a concrete, static object, but rather it constantly recreates itself; b however, this /b i halakha /i b that was taught /b in a i Tosefta /i in tractate i Shabbat /i states: b One who carries out a flame /b from the private b to the public domain /b on Shabbat b is liable /b for carrying out from one domain to another. If the flame is constantly recreating itself, b why is he liable? That /b flame b which he lifted /b from the private domain b he did not place /b in the public domain b and that which he placed he did not lift. /b One is only liable for carrying out on Shabbat if he lifted an object from one domain and placed that same object in another domain. Since one who carries out a flame on Shabbat is considered liable, evidently, despite any change that it may undergo, the flame is essentially considered a single entity., b Rather, actually that prohibited /b flame b is also extant, and when one recites the blessing, he recites the blessing over the permitted addition /b to that flame. The Gemara asks: b If so, /b even if b a gentile /b lit a candle b from a gentile as well, /b the flame should be considered essentially new; one should be able to recite a blessing over the addition.,The Gemara answers: b Yes, it is indeed so. /b Fundamentally, there is no reason to prohibit doing so. However, the Sages issued b a decree because of the first gentile, /b who did not light the flame from another gentile, b and the first pillar /b of flame that was kindled on Shabbat. Consequently, they prohibited all somewhat similar cases, including when a gentile lights a flame from another gentile., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If one was walking outside the city, saw fire /b there, and wanted to recite the blessing over it as part of i havdala /i , b if /b the city has a b majority of gentiles he may not recite the blessing /b over the fire, but b if /b the city has a b majority of Jews, he may recite the blessing. /b ,The Gemara notes: b The matter itself is difficult /b in this i baraita /i . b You said /b in the i baraita /i that if the town has a b majority of gentiles he may not recite the blessing. /b By inference, if the town population was b half /b gentiles b and half /b Jews, b one may recite a blessing. And then you teach /b that b if /b the town has a b majority of Jews, he may recite the blessing. /b By inference, if the town population was b half /b gentiles b and half /b Jews, b one may not recite a blessing. /b The inferences from two sections of the i baraita /i are contradictory.,The Gemara responds: b By right, /b the i baraita /i should have taught that b even /b if the town population was b half /b gentiles b and half /b Jews, b one may recite a blessing, /b but b since in the first clause it taught: The majority of gentiles, in the latter clause it /b used the same expression and b taught: The majority of Jews. /b ,And b the Sages taught: One who was walking outside the city /b at the conclusion of Shabbat b and saw a child with a torch in his hand, he /b must b check after his /b background. b If /b the child b is a Jew, he may recite a blessing /b over this flame, b but if /b the child b is a gentile, he may not recite a blessing /b over it.,The Gemara asks: b Why was it taught /b specifically with regard to b a child? Even if he were an adult, /b one would b also /b need to investigate whether he was a Jew or a gentile in order to determine whether or not he may recite a blessing over the torch., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: Here we are dealing with /b a case where, although it was the conclusion of Shabbat, it was still b soon after sunset. /b Therefore, in the case of b an adult, it is self-evident that he is a gentile, /b as a Jew would not be so quick to take fire in his hand immediately after Shabbat. In the case of b a child, /b however, b say that /b perhaps b he is a Jew /b and b it happened that he took /b the torch.,And b the Sages taught: One who was walking outside the city /b at the conclusion of Shabbat b and saw a fire, if /b the fire b is /b at least b as thick as the opening of a furnace, one may recite a blessing over it, /b as a fire of that kind is kindled for the light it produces as well. b And if /b it is b not /b at least that thick, b one may not recite a blessing over it. /b , b It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : During i havdala /i , b one may recite a blessing over the fire of a furnace; and it was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b One may not recite a blessing over /b the fire of a furnace. There is an apparent contradiction between the i baraitot /i .,The Gemara responds: This is b not difficult, /b as b this /b i baraita /i which prohibits reciting the blessing is speaking b at the beginning /b when the furnace was just kindled and the fire is designated solely to heat the objects in the furnace; b that /b i baraita, /i which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking b at the end, /b when the fire is no longer needed to heat the objects in the furnace, and its light is used for other purposes.,The Gemara cites a similar contradiction between i baraitot /i : b It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : During i havdala /i , b one may recite a blessing over the fire of an oven or a stove; and it was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b One may not recite a blessing over it. /b ,The Gemara responds: This is b not difficult, /b as a similar distinction between the i baraitot /i may be suggested. b This /b i baraita, /i which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking b at the beginning, /b when the oven or stove was just kindled and the fire is designated solely to heat the objects on the stove or in the oven; b that /b i baraita, /i which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking b at the end, /b when the fire is no longer needed to heat the objects on the stove or in the oven and its light is used for other purposes.,The Gemara cites another contradiction: b It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : During i havdala /i , b one may recite a blessing over the light of a synagogue or a study hall; and it was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b One may not recite a blessing over it. /b ,The Gemara responds: This is b not difficult, /b as b this /b i baraita, /i which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case b where there is an important person /b in the synagogue and the fire is kindled in his honor and not to provide light; b that /b i baraita, /i which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case b where there is no important person /b present and the fire is kindled to provide light., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this /b i baraita /i and b that /b i baraita /i are speaking in a case b where there is an important person /b present in the synagogue, b and /b this is b not difficult /b because the contradiction can be resolved as follows: b This /b i baraita, /i which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case b where there is a caretaker /b in the synagogue who uses the light; b that /b i baraita, /i which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case b where there is no caretaker /b and the light is kindled for purposes of honor., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this /b i baraita /i b and that /b i baraita /i are both referring to a case b where there is a caretaker /b present in the synagogue, b and /b this is b not difficult /b because the contradiction can be resolved as follows: b This /b i baraita, /i which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case b where there is moonlight, /b so the caretaker did not light the fire to provide light as the moonlight is sufficient; b that /b i baraita, /i which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case b where there is no moonlight, /b and the caretaker lights the fire to provide light., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b People were seated in the study hall and they brought fire before them /b at the conclusion of Shabbat. b Beit Shammai say: Each and every individual recites a blessing for himself; and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing on behalf of everyone /b and the others answer amen. Beit Hillel’s reasoning is b as it is stated: “The splendor of the King is in the multitude of the people” /b (Proverbs 14:28). When everyone joins together to hear the blessing, the name of God is glorified.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, Beit Hillel, /b they b explain /b their b reasoning, but what is the reason /b for the opinion b of Beit Shammai /b to prohibit reciting the blessing communally? The Gemara answers: b They hold /b that it is prohibited b due to /b the fact that it will lead to b suspension of /b study in b the study hall. /b Waiting for someone to recite the blessing will interrupt Torah study for several minutes., b This /b concern for disrupting Torah study b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : The members of b the house of Rabban Gamliel would not say good health /b when someone sneezed b in the study hall, due to /b the fact that it would lead to b suspension of /b study in b the study hall. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices /b designated to honor b the dead. /b The Gemara explains: b What is the reason? /b Because b a candle /b of the dead b is kindled for /b the purpose of b honoring /b the dead, not for light; b the spices /b are b to neutralize the /b bad b odor, /b not for their pleasant fragrance.,And b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: Any /b deceased b before whom /b a candle b is taken out /b both b by day and by night, /b it is evident that the candle is for the purpose of honoring the deceased; therefore, b one may not recite a blessing over it. And any /b deceased b before whom /b a candle b is taken out only by night, /b it is evident that the purpose of the candle is for its light alone, and b one may recite a blessing over it. /b ,Similarly, b Rav Huna said: Over spices /b used to deodorize b the bathroom and /b fragrant b oil /b intended b to remove filth, one may not recite a blessing /b as they are not used for their pleasant fragrance.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say /b that b any /b case b where it is not used for its /b pleasant b fragrance, one may not recite a blessing over it? /b The Gemara b raises an objection /b based on the i Tosefta /i : b One who enters the store of a perfumer, and smelled a fragrance, even if he sat there throughout the entire day, he only recites a blessing once. /b However, b if one entered and exited, entered and exited, he recites a blessing on each and every occasion. Isn’t /b it a case b here, where /b the spices b are not intended for fragrance, /b as they are not used to improve the scent in the store, b and, /b nevertheless, b one recites a blessing? /b ,The Gemara responds: b Yes, /b in this case the spices b are also intended for fragrance; /b they are used to generate a scent in the store b so that people will smell /b them b and come and purchase from him. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who was walking outside a city and smelled a scent; if the majority /b of the town’s residents b are gentiles he may not recite a blessing /b over the scent, but b if the majority are Jews, he may recite a blessing. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the majority are Jews, one may not recite a blessing, as the daughters of Israel burn incense to witchcraft /b and the spices were certainly made for witchcraft, not for their fragrance.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that they all burn incense to witchcraft? /b Rather, b there is a minority /b of people who burn incense b to witchcraft, and a /b different b minority /b who burn spices in order b to perfume /b their b garments with incense. A majority, /b therefore, exists that b does not use it for fragrance, and in a case where the majority does not use it for fragrance, one does not recite a blessing. /b ,Similarly, b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One who walks on Shabbat eve in Tiberias /b or b at the conclusion of Shabbat in Tzippori, and smelled the scent /b of incense b may not recite a blessing, as the presumption is /b that b it was intended to perfume garments. /b ,On a related note, the Gemara cites the following: b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who was walking in the marketplace of idolators and willingly smelled /b the incense wafting there, b he is a sinner, /b as he should not have the intention to smell it. |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 289| 10a. אף על גב דיפת אלהים ליפת אין השכינה שורה אלא באהלי שם,ופרסאי מנא לן דמיפת קאתו דכתיב (בראשית י, ב) בני יפת גומר ומגוג ומדי ויון ותובל ומשך ותירס גומר זה גרממיא מגוג זו קנדיא מדי זו מקדוניא יון כמשמעו תובל זה בית אונייקי משך זו מוסיא תירס פליגי בה ר' סימאי ורבנן ואמרי לה רבי סימון ורבנן חד אמר זו בית תרייקי וחד אמר זו פרס תני רב יוסף תירס זו פרס,סבתה ורעמה וסבתכא תני רב יוסף סקיסתן גוייתא וסקיסתן ברייתא בין חדא לחדא מאה פרסי והיקפה אלפא פרסי,(בראשית י, י) ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל וארך ואכד וכלנה בבל כמשמעה ארך זה אוריכות ואכד זה בשכר כלנה זה נופר נינפי,(בראשית י, יא) מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור תני רב יוסף אשור זה סילק (בראשית י, יא) ויבן את נינוה ואת רחובות עיר ואת כלח נינוה כמשמעו רחובות עיר זו פרת דמישן כלח זו פרת דבורסיף ואת רסן בין נינוה ובין כלח היא העיר הגדולה רסן זה אקטיספון היא העיר הגדולה איני יודע אם נינוה העיר הגדולה אם רסן העיר הגדולה כשהוא אומר (יונה ג, ג) ונינוה היתה עיר גדולה לאלהים מהלך שלשת ימים הוי אומר נינוה היא העיר הגדולה,(במדבר יג, כב) ושם אחימן ששי ותלמי ילידי הענק תנא אחימן מיומן שבאחים ששי שמשים את הארץ כשחיתות תלמי שמשים את הארץ תלמים תלמים דבר אחר אחימן בנה ענת ששי בנה אלוש תלמי בנה תלבוש ילידי הענק שמעניקין החמה בקומתן,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר רבי עתידה רומי שתפול ביד פרס שנאמר (ירמיהו מט, כ) לכן שמעו עצת ה' אשר יעץ (על) אדום ומחשבותיו אשר חשב (על) יושבי תימן אם לא יסחבום צעירי הצאן אם לא ישים עליהם נוהם,מתקיף לה רבה בר עולא מאי משמע דהאי צעירי הצאן פרס הוא דכתיב (דניאל ח, כ) האיל אשר ראית בעל הקרנים (הוא) מלכי מדי ופרס ואימא יון דכתיב (דניאל ח, כא) והצפיר השעיר מלך יון,כי סליק רב חביבא בר סורמקי אמרה קמיה דההוא מרבנן אמר ליה מאן דלא ידע פרושי קראי מותיב תיובתא לרבי מאי צעירי הצאן זוטרא דאחוהי דתני רב יוסף תירס זה פרס,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר' יהודה ברבי אלעאי עתידה רומי שתפול ביד פרס קל וחומר ומה מקדש ראשון שבנאוהו בני שם והחריבוהו כשדיים נפלו כשדיים ביד פרסיים מקדש שני שבנאוהו פרסיים והחריבוהו רומיים אינו דין שיפלו רומיים ביד פרסיים,אמר רב עתידה פרס שתפול ביד רומי אמרו ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב בנויי ביד סתורי אמר להו אין גזירת מלך היא איכא דאמרי אמר (ליה) אינהו נמי הא קא סתרי בי כנישתא,תניא נמי הכי עתידה פרס שתפול ביד רומי חדא דסתרי בי כנישתא ועוד גזירת מלך הוא שיפלו בונין ביד סותרין דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אין בן דוד בא עד שתפשוט מלכות רומי הרשעה בכל העולם כולו תשעה חדשים שנאמר (מיכה ה, ב) לכן יתנם עד עת יולדה ילדה ויתר אחיו ישובון על בני ישראל,ת"ר כל הלשכות שהיו במקדש לא היו להן מזוזה חוץ מלשכת פרהדרין שהיה בה בית דירה לכהן גדול,אמר ר' יהודה והלא כמה לשכות היו במקדש שהיה להן בית דירה ולא היה להן מזוזה אלא לשכת פרהדרין גזירה היתה,מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר (רבא) קסבר רבי יהודה כל בית שאינו עשוי לימות החמה ולימות הגשמים אינו בית איתיביה אביי והכתיב (עמוס ג, טו) והכיתי (את) בית החורף על בית הקיץ א"ל בית חורף ובית קיץ איקרי בית סתמא לא איקרי,איתיביה אביי סוכת החג בחג ר' יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין ותני עלה ר' יהודה מחייב בעירוב ובמזוזה ובמעשר,וכי תימא מדרבנן בשלמא עירוב ומזוזה איכא למימר מדרבנן אלא מעשר מי איכא למימר מדרבנן | 10a. The Gemara explains: b Although God will enlarge Japheth, /b referring to the Persians, who descended from Japheth and who assisted in constructing the Second Temple, b the Divine Presence rests only in the tents of Shem, /b in the First Temple, which was built by King Solomon without the patronage of a foreign power.,§ The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that b the Persians descend from Japheth? /b The Gemara answers: b As it is written: “The sons of Japheth were Gomer and Magog and Madai and Javan and Tuval and Meshech and Tiras” /b (Genesis 10:2). The Gemara explains: b Gomer, that is Germamya; Magog, that is Kandiya; Madai, that is Macedonia; Javan, in accordance with its plain meaning, /b Greece; b Tuval, that is /b the nation called b Beit Unaiki; Meshech, that is Musya. /b With regard to b Tiras, Rabbi Simai and the Rabbis disagree, and some say /b the dispute is between b Rabbi Simon and the Rabbis: One said: That is Beit Teraiki, and one said: That is Persia. /b According to that approach, Persia is listed among the descendants of Japheth. b Rav Yosef taught: Tiras is Persia. /b ,The list of nations continues: “And b Sabtah and Raamah and Sabteca” /b (Genesis 10:7). b Rav Yosef taught: /b These are b the inner Sakistan and the outer Sakistan. Between one and the other /b there was a distance of b one hundred parasangs, and the circumference /b of the land was b one thousand parasangs. /b ,The Gemara continues interpreting the verses. It is stated: b “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, /b in the land of Shinar” (Genesis 10:10). b Babel in accordance with its plain meaning, /b Babylonia; b Erech, that is /b the city known then as b Orikhut; and Accad, that is /b the place known then as b Baskar; Calneh, that is Nofer Ninefi. /b ,The Torah continues: b “Out of that land went forth Asshur” /b (Genesis 10:11). b Rav Yosef taught: Asshur, that is Silek, /b meaning that is the region where the town Silkiya was built. b “And built Nineveh and Rehoboth-ir and Calah” /b (Genesis 10:11). b Nineveh, in accordance with its plain meaning; Rehovoth-ir, that is /b the town later known as b Perat of Meishan; Calah, that is Perat of Bursif. “And Resen between Nineveh and Calah, it is the great city” /b (Genesis 10:12). b Resen, that is /b the town later known as b Akteisfon. It is the great city; I do not know whether /b this means that b Nineveh /b is b the great city, /b or b whether /b it means that b Resen /b is b the great city. When it says: “And Nineveh was a great city of God, a three-day journey across” /b (Jonah 3:3), b you must say /b that b Nineveh is the great city. /b ,The Gemara continues to discuss the interpretation of names in the Bible. The Torah says: b “And there were Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak” /b (Numbers 13:22). b It was taught: Ahiman /b was so called because he was the greatest and most b skillful [ i meyuman /i ] of his brothers. /b Ahiman is a contraction of brother [ i aḥ /i ] and right [ i yamin /i ], which is the skilled hand. b Sheshai /b was so called because b he renders the ground like pits /b [ b i sheḥitot /i /b ] with his strides. b Talmai /b was so called because b he renders the ground /b filled with b furrows [ i telamim /i ] /b with his strides. b Alternatively: Ahiman built /b the city of b Anat; Sheshai built /b the town b Alush; Talmai built /b the city of b Talbush. The children of Anak /b is referring to the fact that it appears b that the sun is a necklace [ i shema’anikin /i ] /b around their necks because of b their height. /b ,§ Apropos the opinion that Tiras is Persia, the Gemara addresses a related matter. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said /b that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: Rome is destined to fall into the hands of Persia, as it is stated: “Now hear the plan that the Lord has devised for Edom, and the thoughts He has considered for the residents of Teiman. Surely the youngest of the flock will drag them away, surely their habitation will be appalled due to them” /b (Jeremiah 49:20)., b Rabba bar Ulla strongly objected to this. /b From b where /b may it be b inferred that this /b phrase: b Youngest of the flock, is Persia? /b It is b as it is written: “The ram that you saw sporting two horns are the kings of Media and Persia” /b (Daniel 8:20), and the ram is a member of the flock mentioned in the verse. Still, how is that proof? b And say /b that youngest of the flock refers to b Greece, /b who will overthrow Rome, b as it is written: “The goat is the king of Greece” /b (Daniel 8:21). The goat, too, could be characterized as a member of the flock., b When Rav Ḥaviva bar Surmakei ascended /b from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, b he stated /b this difficulty b before a certain one of the Sages. /b That Sage b said to him: One who does not know how to interpret verses /b is so arrogant that he b raises an objection to /b the opinion of the great b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? Indeed, Rabba bar Ulla misunderstood the basis of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s interpretation. b What /b is the meaning of the phrase: b The youngest of the flock? /b It means b the youngest of the brothers, /b a reference to Persia, b as Rav Yosef taught: Tiras, /b the youngest of Japheth’s sons, b that is Persia. /b ,Similarly, b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai: Rome is destined to fall into the hands of Persia. /b This is derived by means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference: b Just as the First Temple, that the descendants of Shem built it and the Chaldeans destroyed it, /b and in turn b the Chaldeans, /b ruled by Belshazzar, b fell to Persians, /b ruled by Darius the Mede and his son-in-law Cyrus the Persian; b the Second Temple, that the Persians built it and the Romans destroyed it, is it not right that the Romans will fall into the hands of the Persians? /b ,In contrast, b Rav said: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, /b Rav’s students, b said to Rav: The builders /b will fall b into the hands of the destroyers? /b Is that justice? b He said to them: /b Although it seems unjust, b yes, that is the King’s decree. Some say /b that b he said /b this b to them: They, too, are destroyers of synagogues, /b and they are no better than the Romans., b That was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. One /b reason is that b they destroyed synagogues. And furthermore, it is the King’s decree that the builders /b will fall b into the hands of the destroyers, as Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: The son of David will come only when the wicked kingdom of Rome spreads /b its domice b throughout the world for nine months, as it is stated: “Therefore He will give them up until she who is to bear has borne; then the remts of his brethren will return with the children of Israel” /b (Micah 5:2). The duration of Rome’s rule over the world will be the duration of a pregcy, nine months.,§ The Gemara resumes the discussion of the High Priest’s relocation to the i Parhedrin /i chamber. b The Rabbis taught: None of the chambers in the Temple had a i mezuza /i except for the Chamber of i Parhedrin /i , in which there was a place of residence of the High Priest. /b Only residences in which one sleeps require a i mezuza /i , and the only chamber in the Temple that fits that description was the i Parhedrin /i chamber., b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b That is not the reason; after all, b weren’t there several chambers in the Temple in which there was a place of residence /b designated for priests to sit and sleep, and yet b they did not have a i mezuza /i ? Rather, /b the i mezuza /i in b the Chamber of i Parhedrin /i /b was there because there b was a /b rabbinic b decree. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda /b that there was no fundamental obligation to affix a i mezuza /i in the i Parhedrin /i chamber, and that one was affixed there due to a decree? b Rava said /b that b Rabbi Yehuda holds: /b The legal status of b any house that is not designated /b for residence both b for the summer and for the rainy season is not /b that of b a house /b and therefore does not require a i mezuza /i . b Abaye raised an objection to his /b opinion from a verse. How could you suggest that the legal status of a residence occupied for only part of the year is not that of a house? b Isn’t it written: “I will strike the winter-house with the summer-house” /b (Amos 3:15)? Apparently, even a residence occupied only half the year is a house. Rava b said to him: /b A residence occupied only part of the year may be b called the winter-house or the summer-house. It is not called a house unmodified. /b A house is a structure used year round., b Abaye raised a /b different b objection to /b the opinion of Rava, from a mishna: If one brought produce from the field into b the i sukka /i /b that he constructed for b the festival /b of i Sukkot /i b on the festival /b of i Sukkot /i , b Rabbi Yehuda obligates /b him to tithe the produce b and the Rabbis exempt /b him from tithing the produce. b And it was taught concerning /b the mishna: b Rabbi Yehuda obligates /b the owner of that i sukka /i to include the i sukka /i b in /b the b joining /b of courtyards, like any of the houses in the courtyard; b and in /b the mitzva of affixing a b i mezuza /i /b in the i sukka /i ; b and in /b separating b tithes /b from produce brought into the i sukka /i . One is obligated to tithe his produce only when its processing has been completed. When he brings the produce into the house, he is obligated to tithe it. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a i sukka /i , in which one resides for a mere seven days, is that of a house in terms of the mitzva of i mezuza /i ., b And if you say /b that Rabbi Yehuda rules that b by rabbinic law /b the status of the i sukka /i is like that of a house, but that by Torah law his opinion is consistent with Rava’s opinion, b granted, /b with regard to the b joining /b of courtyards b and i mezuza /i , it is /b possible b to say /b that the obligation is b by rabbinic law; however, /b with regard to b tithes, is it /b possible b to say /b that according to Rabbi Yehuda the obligation is b by rabbinic law? /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 287| 3b. בשנים ואיתא להא ואיתא להא,וניעבדו תלתין אמין בבנין ואידך ניעביד פרוכת כי קאי תלתין אמהתא נמי אגב תקרה ומעזיבה הוה קאי בלא תקרה ומעזיבה לא הוה קאי,וליעביד מה דאפשר בבנין וליעביד אידך פרוכת אמר אביי גמירי אי כולהו בבנין אי כולהו בפרוכת אי כולהו בבנין ממקדש אי כולהו בפרוכת ממשכן ,איבעיא להו הן וסידן או דילמא הן בלא סידן אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מסתברא הן וסידן דאי ס"ד הן בלא סידן ליתנייה לשיעוריה אלא לאו ש"מ הן וסידן לא לעולם אימא לך הן בלא סידן וכיון דלא הוי טפח לא תני,והא קתני בלבינין זה נותן טפח ומחצה וזה נותן טפח ומחצה התם חזי לאיצטרופי,ת"ש הקורה שאמרו רחבה כדי לקבל אריח והאריח חצי לבינה של ג' טפחים,התם ברברבתא דיקא נמי דקתני של שלשה טפחים מכלל דאיכא זוטרא ש"מ:,אמר רב חסדא לא ליסתור איניש בי כנישתא עד דבני בי כנישתא אחריתי איכא דאמרי משום פשיעותא ואיכא דאמרי משום צלויי,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאיכא (בי כנישתא אחריתי) מרימר ומר זוטרא סתרי ובנו בי קייטא בסיתווא ובנו בי סיתווא בקייטא,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי גבו זוזי ומחתי מאי אמר ליה דילמא מיתרמי להו פדיון שבויים ויהבי להו,שריגי ליבני והדרי הודרי ומחתי כשורי מאי אמר ליה זמנין דמתרמי להו פדיון שבויים מזבני ויהבי להו א"ה אפילו בנו נמי אמר ליה דירתיה דאינשי לא מזבני,ולא אמרן אלא דלא חזי בה תיוהא אבל חזי בה תיוהא סתרי ובני כי הא דרב אשי חזא בה תיוהא בכנישתא דמתא מחסיא סתריה ועייל לפורייה להתם ולא אפקיה עד דמתקין ליה שפיכי,ובבא בן בוטא היכי אסביה ליה עצה להורדוס למיסתריה לבית המקדש והאמר רב חסדא לא ליסתור איניש בי כנישתא עד דבני בי כנישתא אחריתא אי בעית אימא תיוהא חזא ביה איבעית אימא מלכותא שאני דלא הדרא ביה דאמר שמואל אי אמר מלכותא עקרנא טורי עקר טורי ולא הדר ביה ,הורדוס עבדא דבית חשמונאי הוה נתן עיניו באותה תינוקת יומא חד שמע ההוא גברא בת קלא דאמר כל עבדא דמריד השתא מצלח קם קטלינהו לכולהו מרותיה ושיירה לההיא ינוקתא כי חזת ההיא ינוקתא דקא בעי למינסבה סליקא לאיגרא ורמא קלא אמרה כל מאן דאתי ואמר מבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא דלא אישתיירא מינייהו אלא ההיא ינוקתא וההיא ינוקתא נפלה מאיגרא לארעא,טמנה שבע שנין בדובשא איכא דאמרי בא עליה איכא דאמרי לא בא עליה דאמרי לה בא עליה הא דטמנה ליתוביה ליצריה ודאמרי לה לא בא עליה האי דטמנה כי היכי דנאמרו בת מלך נסב,אמר מאן דריש (דברים יז, טו) מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך רבנן קם קטלינהו לכולהו רבנן שבקיה לבבא בן בוטא למשקל עצה מניה | 3b. that it will be greater b in years, /b meaning that the Second Temple will stand for a longer period of time than the First Temple. b And /b the Gemara comments that b this is /b true b and that is /b true, meaning that the Second Temple was taller than the First Temple and also stood for a longer period of time.,The Gemara asks: If so, if the Second Temple building was taller, then to separate between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary in the Second Temple b they should have made a wall thirty cubits /b high b and /b then b made a curtain /b for b the rest /b of the height, the seventy-cubit difference in height between the First and Second Temples. The Gemara answers: This would have been impossible, as b even when a thirty-cubit /b wall that is six handbreadths thick b stands, it is due to the ceiling and plaster /b which attaches it to the ceiling that b it stands. /b But b without a ceiling and plaster /b holding it in place, b it does not stand. /b ,The Gemara continues: b But they should have made a wall /b as high b as /b can b possibly /b stand by itself, b and /b then should have b made a curtain /b for b the rest /b of the height. b Abaye said: /b The Sages b learned /b as a tradition that the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary should be built b either entirely as a wall or entirely as a curtain. /b It should be built b either entirely as a wall, /b as is learned b from /b the First b Temple, or /b it should be built b entirely as a curtain, /b as is learned b from /b the b Tabernacle. /b At no time, however, was there a partition that combined a wall and a curtain.,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: Do the measurements given in the mishna apply to b them, /b the thickness of the materials themselves, b and the plaster /b with which the materials were coated, b or perhaps /b just to b them without their plaster? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable /b to say the measurements refer to b them and their plaster, as, if /b it should b enter your mind /b to say they refer to b them without their plaster, /b then the i tanna /i b should have taught the measurements /b of the plaster as well. b Rather, isn’t it /b correct to b conclude from here /b that the measurements refer to b them and their plaster? /b The Gemara rejects this conclusion: b No, actually I /b could b say to you /b that they apply to b them without their plaster, and since /b the plaster b does not have /b the thickness of b one handbreadth /b the i tanna /i b did not teach /b such a small measurement.,The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t /b the i tanna /i b teach with regard to bricks /b that b this /b one b provides one and a half handbreadths, and that /b one b provides one and a half handbreadths? /b Evidently, the i tanna /i lists even an amount less than one handbreadth. The Gemara answers: b There /b mention is made of half-handbreadths because b they are fit to be combined /b into a full handbreadth.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a solution to the question, from a mishna ( i Eiruvin /i 13b) in which it is taught: b The /b cross b beam, which /b the Sages b stated /b may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, must be b wide enough to receive /b and hold b a small brick. And /b this b small brick /b is b half a large brick, /b the width b of /b which is b three handbreadths. /b That mishna is referring to a brick without the plaster.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b the mishna in i Eiruvin /i is referring to b large bricks /b that measure three full handbreadths, whereas here the mishna is referring to bricks that measure slightly less than three handbreadths, and the measurement of three handbreadths includes the plaster with which they are coated. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna there b is also precise, as it teaches /b about a brick b of three handbreadths, /b from which one can conclude b by inference that there exists /b also b a smaller- /b sized brick. The Gemara affirms: b Learn from here /b that the mishna there is referring to large bricks.,§ b Rav Ḥisda says: A person may not demolish a synagogue until he /b first b builds another synagogue /b to take its place. b There are /b those b who say /b that the reason for this i halakha /i is b due to /b potential b negligence, /b lest he fail to build a new structure after the old one has been razed. b And there are /b those b who say /b that the reason for this i halakha /i is b due to /b the disruption of b prayer, /b for in the meantime there will be nowhere to pray.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between /b these two explanations? The Gemara answers that b there is /b a difference b between them /b in a situation b where there is another synagogue. /b Even though the community has an alternative place to pray there is still a concern that the new synagogue will never get built. It is related that b Mareimar and Mar Zutra demolished and built a summer synagogue in the winter, and, /b in like manner, b they built a winter synagogue in the summer, /b so that the community would never be left without a synagogue., b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What /b is the i halakha /i if b money /b for the construction of a new synagogue b has /b already b been collected and it rests /b before us for that purpose? Is it then permitted to demolish the old synagogue before building the new one? Rav Ashi b said to him: /b Even if the money has been collected there is still concern that b perhaps /b an opportunity for b redeeming captives will present itself, and they will hand over /b the money for that urgent requirement, and the community will be left without a synagogue.,Ravina continues: b What /b is the i halakha /i if b the bricks /b to be used for the construction of the new synagogue b are piled up, the boards are prepared, and the beams are ready? /b Is it permitted to demolish the old synagogue before building the new one? Rav Ashi b said to him: /b Even so, b sometimes /b an opportunity for b redeeming captives will present itself, and they will sell /b the building materials b and hand over /b the proceeds for this purpose. Ravina raises an objection: b If so, /b that is, if you are concerned that they will sell the materials to redeem captives, then b even /b in a case where b they /b already b built /b the synagogue there should be a concern that they might come to sell the structure for that purpose, and therefore one should never be permitted to destroy an old synagogue. Rav Ashi b said to him: People do not sell their residences, /b and certainly not their synagogues.,The Gemara comments: b And we said /b that an old synagogue must not be razed before its replacement is built b only /b in a case b where cracks are not seen /b in the old synagogue. b But if cracks are seen they may /b first b demolish /b the old synagogue b and /b then b build /b the new one. b This is like /b the incident involving b Rav Ashi, /b who b saw cracks in the synagogue /b in his town b of Mata Meḥasya /b and immediately b demolished it. He /b then b brought his bed in there, /b to the building site, so that there should be no delays in the construction, as he himself required shelter from the rain, b and he did not remove /b his bed from there b until they /b finished building the synagogue and even b affixed drainpipes /b to the structure.,The Gemara asks: b How could Bava ben Buta have advised Herod to raze the Temple /b and build another in its place, as will be described later? b But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say /b that b a person must not demolish a synagogue unless he /b first b builds another synagogue /b to take its place? The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that b he saw cracks in /b the old Temple structure. And b if you wish, say /b that actions taken by b the government are different, as /b the government b does not go back /b on its decisions. Therefore, there is no need to be concerned about negligence, as there is in the case of ordinary people. b As Shmuel says: If the government says /b it will b uproot mountains, it will uproot mountains and not retract /b its word.,§ The Gemara elaborates on the episode involving Bava ben Buta. b Herod was a slave in the house of the Hasmoneans. He set his eyes upon a certain young girl /b from the house of the Hasmoneans. b One day that man, /b Herod, b heard a Divine Voice that said: Any slave who rebels now will succeed. He rose up /b and b killed all his masters, but spared that girl. When that girl saw that he wanted to marry her, she went up to the roof and raised her voice, /b and b said: Whoever comes and says: I come from the house of the Hasmoneans, is a slave, since only that girl, /b i.e., I, b remained from them. And that girl fell from the roof to the ground /b and died.,It is related that Herod b preserved /b the girl’s body b in honey for seven years /b to prevent it from decaying. b There are /b those b who say /b that b he engaged in necrophilia with her /b corpse and b there are /b those b who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her /b corpse. According to those b who say he engaged in necrophilia with her /b corpse, the reason b that he preserved her /b body was b to gratify his /b carnal b desires. And /b according to those b who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her /b corpse, the reason b that he preserved her /b body was b so that /b people b would say he married a king’s daughter. /b ,Herod b said /b to himself: b Who expounds /b the verse: b “One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you” /b (Deuteronomy 17:15) as meaning that he who is appointed as king must come from a Jewish family and cannot be an emancipated slave or a convert? It is b the Sages /b who expound the verse in this manner, insisting that a king must have Jewish roots. b He /b then b rose up and killed all the Sages, /b but b spared Bava ben Buta in order to take counsel with him. /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 568| 26b. נשתברו הלוחות ובטל התמיד והובקעה העיר ושרף אפוסטמוס את התורה והעמיד צלם בהיכל,בתשעה באב נגזר על אבותינו שלא יכנסו לארץ וחרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה ונלכדה ביתר ונחרשה העיר,משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה שבת שחל תשעה באב להיות בתוכה אסור מלספר ומלכבס ובחמישי מותרין מפני כבוד השבת ערב תשעה באב לא יאכל אדם שני תבשילין לא יאכל בשר ולא ישתה יין רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר ישנה רבי יהודה מחייב בכפיית המטה ולא הודו לו חכמים,אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא היו ימים טובים לישראל כחמשה עשר באב וכיוה"כ שבהן בנות ירושלים יוצאות בכלי לבן שאולין שלא לבייש את מי שאין לו כל הכלים טעונין טבילה,ובנות ירושלים יוצאות וחולות בכרמים ומה היו אומרות בחור שא נא עיניך וראה מה אתה בורר לך אל תתן עיניך בנוי תן עיניך במשפחה (משלי לא, ל) שקר החן והבל היופי אשה יראת ה' היא תתהלל ואומר (משלי לא, לא) תנו לה מפרי ידיה ויהללוה בשערים מעשיה,וכן הוא אומר (שיר השירים ג, יא) צאינה וראינה בנות ציון במלך שלמה בעטרה שעטרה לו אמו ביום חתונתו וביום שמחת לבו ביום חתונתו זה מתן תורה וביום שמחת לבו זה בנין בית המקדש שיבנה במהרה בימינו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלשה פרקים בשנה כהנים נושאין את כפיהם כו': תעניות ומעמדות מי איכא מוסף חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בשלשה פרקים כהנים נושאין את כפיהן כל זמן שמתפללין ויש מהן ארבעה פעמים ביום שחרית ומוסף מנחה ונעילת שערים ואלו הן שלשה פרקים תעניות ומעמדות ויום הכפורים,א"ר נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זו דברי רבי מאיר אבל חכמים אומרים שחרית ומוסף יש בהן נשיאת כפים מנחה ונעילה אין בהן נשיאת כפים,מאן חכמים ר' יהודה היא דתניא שחרית ומוסף מנחה ונעילה כולן יש בהן נשיאת כפים דברי ר"מ ר"י אומר שחרית ומוסף יש בהן נשיאת כפים מנחה ונעילה אין בהן נשיאת כפים רבי יוסי אומר נעילה יש בה נשיאת כפים מנחה אין בה נשיאת כפים,במאי קמיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר כל יומא טעמא מאי לא פרשי כהני ידייהו במנחתא משום שכרות האידנא ליכא שכרות,רבי יהודה סבר שחרית ומוסף דכל יומא לא שכיח שכרות לא גזרו בהו רבנן מנחה ונעילה דכל יומא שכיחא שכרות גזרו בהו רבנן,רבי יוסי סבר מנחה דאיתה בכל יומא גזרו בה רבנן נעילה דליתה בכל יומא לא גזרו בה רבנן,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כרבי מאיר ורבי יוחנן אמר נהגו העם כרבי מאיר ורבא אמר מנהג כרבי מאיר,מאן דאמר הלכה כרבי מאיר דרשינן לה בפירקא מאן דאמר מנהג מידרש לא דרשינן אורויי מורינן ומאן דאמר נהגו אורויי לא מורינן ואי עביד עביד ולא מהדרינן ליה,ורב נחמן אמר הלכה כרבי יוסי והלכה כרבי יוסי והאידנא מ"ט פרשי כהני ידייהו במנחתא דתעניתא כיון דבסמוך לשקיעת החמה קא פרשי כתפלת נעילה דמיא,דכולי עלמא מיהת שכור אסור בנשיאת כפים מנהני מילי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא למה נסמכה פרשת כהן מברך לפרשת נזיר לומר מה נזיר אסור ביין אף כהן מברך אסור ביין,מתקיף לה אבוה דרבי זירא ואמרי לה אושעיא בר זבדא אי מה נזיר אסור בחרצן אף כהן מברך אסור בחרצן א"ר יצחק אמר קרא לשרתו ולברך בשמו מה משרת מותר בחרצן אף כהן מברך מותר בחרצן | 26b. b the tablets were broken /b by Moses when he saw that the Jews had made the golden calf; b the daily offering was nullified /b by the Roman authorities and was never sacrificed again; b the city /b walls of Jerusalem b were breached; /b the general b Apostemos /b publicly b burned a Torah scroll; and /b Manasseh b placed an idol in the Sanctuary. /b , b On the Ninth of Av it was decreed upon our ancestors that they would /b all die in the wilderness and b not enter Eretz /b Yisrael; b and the Temple was destroyed the first time, /b in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, b and the second time, /b by the Romans; b and Beitar was captured; and the city /b of Jerusalem b was plowed, /b as a sign that it would never be rebuilt.,Not only does one fast on the Ninth of Av, but b from when /b the month of b Av begins, one decreases /b acts of b rejoicing. /b During b the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, it is prohibited to cut one’s hair and to launder /b clothes, b but /b if the Ninth of Av occurs on a Friday, b on Thursday /b these actions b are permitted in deference to Shabbat. /b On b the eve of the Ninth of Av a person may not eat two cooked dishes /b in one meal. Furthermore, one may b neither eat meat nor drink wine. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: /b One must b adjust /b and decrease the amount he eats. b Rabbi Yehuda obligates one to overturn the bed /b and sleep on the floor like one in a state of mourning, b but the Rabbis did not agree with him. /b ,The mishna cites a passage that concludes its discussion of the month of Av, as well as the entire tractate of i Ta’anit /i , on a positive note. b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as joyous for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur, as on them the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in white clothes, /b which each woman b borrowed /b from another. Why were they borrowed? They did this b so as not to embarrass one who did not have /b her own white garments. b All the garments /b that the women borrowed b require immersion, /b as those who previously wore them might have been ritually impure., b And the daughters of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards. And what would they say? Young man, please lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself /b for a wife. b Do not set your eyes toward beauty, but set your eyes toward /b a good b family, /b as the verse states: b “Grace is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” /b (Proverbs 31:30), b and it /b further b says: “Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates” /b (Proverbs 31:31)., b And similarly, it says /b in another verse: b “Go forth, daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon, upon the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding, and on the day of the gladness of his heart” /b (Song of Songs 3:11). This verse is explained as an allusion to special days: b “On the day of his wedding”; this is the giving of the Torah /b through the second set of tablets on Yom Kippur. The name King Solomon in this context, which also means king of peace, is interpreted as a reference to God. b “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”; this is the building of the Temple, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna taught: b At three times in the year priests raise their hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction four times in a single day: On communal fasts, non-priestly watches, and Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: How do they recite the Priestly Benediction four times on these days? b Do fast days and /b gatherings of b non-priestly watches have an additional prayer? /b The Gemara explains that the mishna b is incomplete and is teaching the following: At three times in the year priests raise their hands each time they pray, and on some of these /b they bless b four times a day, /b in b the morning prayer, /b in b the additional prayer, /b in b the afternoon prayer, and in the closing of the gates, /b i.e., the i ne’ila /i prayer. b And these are /b the b three times: /b Communal b fasts, non-priestly watches, and Yom Kippur. /b , b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rabba bar Avuh said: This /b mishna b is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, the Rabbis say: The morning prayer and the additional prayer have /b the Priestly Benediction of b the raising of the hands, /b whereas b the afternoon prayer and the closing prayer [ i ne’ila /i ] do not have the raising of the hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who are /b these b Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Meir? b It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The morning prayer, the additional prayer, the afternoon prayer, and i ne’ila /i all have /b the Priestly Benediction of b the raising of the hands. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The morning prayer and the additional prayer have /b the raising of the hands, whereas b the afternoon prayer and i ne’ila /i do not have the raising of the hands. Rabbi Yosei says: i Ne’ila /i has the raising of the hands; the afternoon prayer does not have the raising of the hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what /b principle do they b disagree? Rabbi Meir maintains: What is the reason /b that b priests do not spread their hands /b to bless the people b every day in the afternoon prayer? /b It is b due to /b potential b drunkenness, /b as people occasionally become intoxicated during their lunch, and it is prohibited for an inebriated priest to bless. However, b now, /b on a fast day, b there is no /b concern about b drunkenness, /b and therefore the priests may recite the Priestly Benediction even in the afternoon prayer.,Conversely, b Rabbi Yehuda maintains /b that with regard to b the morning prayer and the additional prayer, when drunkenness is not common on every /b ordinary b day, the Sages did not issue a decree /b that the Priestly Benediction be omitted b during them. /b However, with regard to b the afternoon prayer and i ne’ila /i , when drunkenness is common on every day, the Sages issued a decree /b that the Priestly Benediction should not be recited b during them, /b despite the fact that intoxication is not a concern on a fast day.,Finally, b Rabbi Yosei maintains /b that with regard to b the afternoon prayer, which is /b recited b every day, the Sages issued a decree concerning it, /b whereas with regard to b i ne’ila /i , which is not /b recited b every day, the Sages did not issue /b and apply their b decree to it, /b as there is no concern that people might become confused between i ne’ila /i and an afternoon prayer of a regular weekday., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: The people act in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. And Rava said: The custom is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. /b ,The Gemara clarifies these statements. b The one who said /b that b the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b means b that /b this ruling b is taught in the /b public b lectures /b on Shabbat. b The one who said /b that b the custom /b is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir means that b one does not teach /b this in public, but if someone comes to ask for a practical ruling, b one instructs them /b in private that this is the i halakha /i . b And the one who said /b that the people b act /b in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir means that b one does not /b even instruct someone that this is the i halakha /i , b but /b if he b acts /b in accordance with Rabbi Meir, he has b acted /b in a valid manner b and we do not /b require b him to return /b and recite the prayer again., b And Rav Naḥman said /b that b the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. /b The Gemara concludes: b And /b indeed, b the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. /b The Gemara asks: b And nowadays, what is the reason /b that b priests spread their hands /b to bless the people b in the afternoon prayer of a fast? /b The Gemara explains: b Since they spread /b their hands b near sunset, /b it is b considered like i ne’ila /i , /b and therefore the decree of the Sages does not apply., b In any event, /b based on the above, b everyone agrees /b that b it is prohibited /b for b a drunken /b priest b to raise his hands /b and recite the Priestly Benediction. The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Why is the portion of the priest who recites the benediction /b (see Numbers 6:22–27) b juxtaposed with the portion of the nazirite /b (see Numbers 6:1–21)? They are juxtaposed b to say /b that b just as it is prohibited /b for b a nazirite /b to drink b wine, so too, it is prohibited for a priest who recites the benediction /b to drink b wine. /b , b Rabbi Zeira’s father, and some say /b it was b Oshaya bar Zavda, strongly objects to this /b explanation. b If /b you wish to compare these two cases, you can argue as follows: b Just as it is prohibited /b for b a nazirite /b to eat grape b pits, /b as he may not partake of any of the products of a grapevine, b so too, /b it should be b prohibited for a priest who recites the benediction /b to eat grape b pits. /b Certainly a priest is not barred from raising his hands after eating a few grape pits. Rather, b Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that b the verse states: “To minister to Him and to bless in His name” /b (Deuteronomy 10:8). b Just as /b it b is permitted /b for a priest b who ministers /b to God in the Temple to partake b of /b grape b pits, so too, /b it b is permitted /b for b a priest who recites the benediction /b to partake b of /b grape b pits. /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 289| 21a. הן תהוי ארכא לשלותיך וכתיב (דניאל ד, כה) כלא מטא על נבוכדנצר מלכא וכתיב (דניאל ד, כו) לקצת ירחין תרי עשר,לעולם רבי ישמעאל ואשכח קרא דאמר ותני דכתיב (עמוס א, יא) כה אמר ה' על שלשה פשעי אדום,ומאי אע"פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר דלמא שאני עובדי כוכבים דלא מפקיד דינא עלייהו,ויש זכות תולה ג' שנים כו' זכות דמאי אילימא זכות דתורה הא אינה מצווה ועושה היא אלא זכות דמצוה,זכות דמצוה מי מגנא כולי האי והתניא את זו דרש רבי מנחם בר יוסי (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור תלה הכתוב את המצוה בנר ואת התורה באור את המצוה בנר לומר לך מה נר אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה אף מצוה אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה,ואת התורה באור לומר לך מה אור מגין לעולם אף תורה מגינה לעולם ואומר (משלי ו, כב) בהתהלכך תנחה אותך וגו' בהתהלכך תנחה אותך זה העוה"ז בשכבך תשמור עליך זו מיתה והקיצות היא תשיחך לעתיד לבא,משל לאדם שהיה מהלך באישון לילה ואפילה ומתיירא מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ומחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך,נזדמנה לו אבוקה של אור ניצל מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ועדיין מתיירא מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך כיון שעלה עמוד השחר ניצל מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ועדיין אינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך הגיע לפרשת דרכים ניצל מכולם,ד"א עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה שנאמר (שיר השירים ח, ז) מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה,א"ר יוסף מצוה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא תורה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה ובין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה מגנא ומצלא,מתקיף לה רבה אלא מעתה דואג ואחיתופל מי לא עסקי בתורה אמאי לא הגינה עלייהו אלא אמר רבא תורה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא מצוה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה בין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא,רבינא אמר לעולם זכות תורה ודקאמרת אינה מצווה ועושה נהי דפקודי לא מפקדא באגרא דמקרין ומתניין בנייהו ונטרן להו לגברייהו עד דאתו מבי מדרשא מי לא פלגאן בהדייהו,מאי פרשת דרכים א"ר חסדא זה ת"ח ויום מיתה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר זה ת"ח ויראת חטא מר זוטרא אמר זה ת"ח דסלקא ליה שמעתתא אליבא דהלכתא,ד"א עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה א"ר יוסף דרשיה רבי מנחם בר יוסי להאי קרא כי סיני ואילמלא דרשוה דואג ואחיתופל הכי לא רדפו בתר דוד דכתיב (תהלים עא, יא) לאמר אלהים עזבו וגו',מאי דרוש (דברים כג, טו) ולא יראה בך ערות דבר וגו' והן אינן יודעין שעבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה,מאי (שיר השירים ח, ז) בוז יבוזו לו אמר עולא לא כשמעון אחי עזריה ולא כר' יוחנן דבי נשיאה,אלא כהלל ושבנא דכי אתא רב דימי אמר הלל ושבנא אחי הוו הלל עסק בתורה שבנא עבד עיסקא לסוף א"ל תא נערוב וליפלוג יצתה בת קול ואמרה (שיר השירים ח, ז) אם יתן איש את כל הון ביתו וגו' | 21a. b and then there shall be an extension to your tranquility” /b (Daniel 4:24). b And it is written: “All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar” /b (Daniel 4:25), b and it is written /b in the following verse that this occurred: b “At the end of twelve months” /b (Daniel 4:26). None of the opinions in the i baraita /i are in accordance with the mishna’s statement that merit can delay punishment for up to three years.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, /b who states that merit delays punishment for one year, b and he found a verse which states and repeats /b the possibility that punishment can be delayed, indicating that merit can delay punishment up to three times, b as it is written: “Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, /b yes, but for four, I will not reverse it” (Amos 1:11). Punishment can therefore be delayed for three consecutive periods of one year.,The Gemara asks: b And what /b does Rabbi Yishmael mean by stating: b Although there is no /b explicit b proof for the concept /b of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is b an allusion to the concept? /b The verses he cites state explicitly that punishment can be delayed for twelve months. The Gemara answers: The proof is not explicit, as b perhaps gentiles are different, as /b swift b judgment is not administered upon them /b as readily as it is upon the Jewish people, with whom God is more precise in executing judgment.,§ The mishna states: b And there is a merit /b that b delays /b punishment for b three years. /b The Gemara asks: b Which merit /b can delay the punishment of a i sota /i ? b If we say /b it is the b merit of /b the b Torah /b that she has studied; b but /b a woman who studies Torah b is /b one who is b not commanded /b to do so b and performs /b a mitzva, whose reward is less than that of one who is obligated? Therefore, it would be insufficient to suspend her punishment. b Rather, /b perhaps it is the b merit of a mitzva /b that she performed.,The Gemara asks: b Does /b the b merit of a mitzva protect /b one b so much /b as to delay her punishment? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this /b verse b homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” /b (Proverbs 6:23). b The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with /b the b light /b of the sun. b The mitzva /b is associated b with a lamp /b in order b to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect /b one by its light extensively but b only temporarily, /b while the lamp is in one’s hand, b so too, a mitzva protects /b one b only temporarily, /b i.e., while one is performing the mitzva., b And the Torah /b is associated b with light /b in order b to say to you: Just as /b the b light /b of the sun b protects /b one b forever, so too, /b the b Torah /b one studies b protects /b one b forever; and it states /b in the previous verse with regard to the Torah: b “When you walk, it shall lead you; /b when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awake, it shall talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). The Gemara explains: b “When you walk, it shall lead you”; this is /b referring to when one is in b this world. “When you lie down, it shall watch over you”; this is /b referring to the time of b death, /b when one lies in his grave. b “And when you awake, it shall talk with you”; /b this is referring b to the time to come /b after the resurrection of the dead. The Torah that one studies protects and guides him both in this world and in the next world.,This can be illustrated by b a parable, /b as it is comparable b to a man who is walking in /b the b blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, /b which he cannot see due to the darkness. b And /b he is also afraid b of /b the b wild animals and of the bandits /b that lurk at night, b and he does not know which way he is walking. /b ,If b a torch of fire comes his way, /b which is analogous to a mitzva, b he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of /b the b wild animals and of the bandits, and /b still b does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, /b which is analogous to Torah study, b he is safe from /b the b wild animals and from the bandits, /b which no longer roam the roads, b but he still does not know which way he is walking. /b If b he arrives at a crossroads /b and recognizes the way, b he is saved from all of them. /b , b Alternatively, /b the verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun in order to teach that b a transgression extinguishes /b the merit of b a mitzva /b one performed, b but a transgression does not extinguish /b the merit of the b Torah /b one studied, b as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love, /b neither can the floods drown it” (Song of Songs 8:7). The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. One can conclude from the i baraita /i that the merit of performing a mitzva is insufficient to suspend punishment., b Rav Yosef said /b that with regard to b a mitzva, at the time when one is engaged in its /b performance it b protects /b one from misfortune b and saves /b one from the evil inclination; b at the time when one is not engaged in its /b performance, it b protects /b one from misfortune but it b does not save /b one from the evil inclination. With regard to b Torah /b study, b both at the time when one is engaged in it and at the time when one is not engaged in it, /b it b protects /b one from misfortune b and saves /b one from the evil inclination. Therefore, the merit of the woman’s mitzvot does protect her from misfortune and delay her punishment., b Rabba objects to this /b explanation: b If that is so, /b then with regard to b Doeg /b (see I Samuel, chapters 21–22) b and Ahithophel /b (see II Samuel, chapter 16), who were both wise scholars despite their wickedness, b did they not engage in the /b study of b Torah? Why did /b it b not protect them /b from sinning? b Rather, Rava said: /b With regard to b Torah /b study, b at the time when one is engaged in it, it protects and saves; at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects /b one from misfortune but b it does not save /b one from the evil inclination. With regard to b a mitzva, both at the time when one is engaged in its /b performance b and at the time when one is not engaged in its /b performance, b it protects /b one from misfortune but it b does not save /b one from the evil inclination., b Ravina said: Actually, /b the merit that delays the punishment of the i sota /i is the b merit of Torah /b study, b and /b with regard to that b which you say, /b i.e., that b she is not commanded /b to do so b and performs /b a mitzva, the mishna is not referring to the merit of her own Torah study. b Granted, she is not commanded /b to study Torah herself; however, b in reward for causing their sons to read /b the Written Torah b and to learn /b the Mishna, b and /b for b waiting for their husbands until they come /b home b from the study hall, don’t they share /b the reward b with their /b sons and husbands? Therefore, if the i sota /i enabled her sons and husband to study Torah, the merit of their Torah study can protect her and delay her punishment.,With regard to the aforementioned parable, the Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the b crossroads, /b which provide clarity? b Rav Ḥisda says: This /b is referring to b a Torah scholar and /b his b day of death. /b Due to his continued commitment to the Torah, when the time comes for him to die, it is clear to him that he will go to the place of his eternal reward. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is a Torah scholar /b who has also acquired b fear of sin, /b as his fear of sin guides him to the correct understanding of the Torah. b Mar Zutra says: This is a Torah scholar who reaches /b conclusions from b his discussion in accordance with the i halakha /i , /b as that is an indication that he is following the right path.,The i baraita /i states: b Alternatively: A transgression extinguishes /b the merit of b a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish /b the merit of the b Torah. Rav Yosef says: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse as /b it was given on Mount b Sinai, and had Doeg and Ahithophel only interpreted it in this way they would not have pursued David, as it is written: /b “For my enemies speak concerning b me…saying, God has forsaken him; /b pursue and take him, for there is none to deliver” (Psalms 71:10–11). Doeg and Ahithophel incorrectly thought that since David had sinned, his sins had extinguished his merits and God had forsaken him.,The Gemara asks: b What /b verse b did /b Doeg and Ahithophel b interpret /b incorrectly, causing them to err? They interpreted this verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp…to give up your enemies before you… b that He see no licentious matter in you, /b and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), to indicate that God turns away from one who engaged in forbidden relations, and since David had sinned with Bathsheba God must have turned away from him. b But they did not know that a transgression extinguishes /b the merit of b a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish /b the merit of the b Torah. /b ,The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the i baraita /i with regard to Torah study: b What /b is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, b he would utterly be condemned” /b (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. b Ulla says: /b The verse is b not /b speaking of individuals b like Shimon, brother of Azarya, /b whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. b And /b it is b not /b speaking of individuals b like Rabbi Yoḥa of the house of the i Nasi /i , /b whom the i Nasi /i supported so that he could study Torah., b Rather, /b it is speaking of individuals b like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came /b to Babylonia b he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah /b study and remained impoverished, whereas b Shevna entered into a /b business b venture /b and became wealthy. b In the end, /b Shevna b said to /b Hillel: b Come, let us join /b our wealth b together and divide /b it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request b a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house /b for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7). |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 291| 76b. מוקים לה בלויה ובת ישראל אלא מתניתא נימא פליגא לא מאי עוד אחת זוג אחת,אמר רב יהודה א"ר זו דברי ר' מאיר אבל חכמים אומרים כל משפחות בחזקת כשרות הן עומדות איני והאמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב משנתינו כשקורא עליו ערער מאן דמתני הא לא מתני הא,איכא דאמרי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי ר' מאיר אבל חכמים אומרים כל משפחות בחזקת כשרות הן עומדות אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב אם קורא עליו ערער צריך לבדוק אחריה,אין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה מאי טעמא אי לאו דבדקוה לא הוו מסקי ליה ולא מן הדוכן ולמעלה מאי טעמא דאמר מר ששם היו יושבים מייחסי כהונה ומייחסי לויה,ולא מסנהדרין ולמעלה מאי טעמא דתני רב יוסף כשם שבית דין מנוקין בצדק כך מנוקין מכל מום אמר מרימר מאי קראה (שיר השירים ד, ז) כולך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך,אימא מומא ממש אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (במדבר יא, טז) והתיצבו שם עמך עמך בדומים לך,ודלמא משום שכינה אמר רב נחמן אמר קרא (שמות יח, כב) והקל מעליך ונשאו אתך בדומים לך,כל מי שהוחזקו אבותיו משוטרי הרבים למימרא דלא מוקמינן מפסולים ורמינהו הכל כשרים לדון דיני ממונות ואין הכל כשרים לדון דיני נפשות והוינן בה הכל לאיתויי מאי ואמר רב יהודה לאיתויי ממזר אמר אביי בירושלים וכן תני רב שמעון בר זירא בקידושי דבי לוי בירושלים,וגבאי צדקה משיאים מאי טעמא כיון דמנצו בהדי אינשי דאמר מר ממשכנים על הצדקה ואפילו בערב שבת ואם איתא דאיכא אית ליה קלא,אושפזיכניה דרב אדא בר אהבה גיורא הוה והוה קא מנצי איהו ורב ביבי מר אמר אנא עבידנא סררותא דמתא ומר אמר אנא עבידנא סררותא דמתא אתו לקמיה דרב יוסף אמר להו תנינא (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך מקרב אחיך כל משימות שאתה משים לא יהיה אלא מקרב אחיך,אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה ואפילו אמו מישראל אמר ליה אמו מישראל מקרב אחיך קרינא ביה הלכך רב ביבי דגברא רבא הוא ליעיין במילי דשמיא ומר ליעיין במילי דמתא אמר אביי הלכך מאן דמשרי צורבא מדרבנן באושפיזיכניה לאשרי כרב אדא בר אהבה דידע למהפיך ליה בזכותיה,רבי זירא מטפל בהו רבה בר אבוה מטפל בהו במערבא אפילו ריש כורי לא מוקמי מינייהו בנהרדעא אפי' ריש גרגותא לא מוקמי מינייהו,רבי יוסי אומר אף מי שהיה וכו' מאי טעמא דייקי ומחתמי,רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס וכו' אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בחיילות של בית דוד אמר רב יוסף מאי קרא (דברי הימים א ז, מ) והתיחשם בצבא במלחמה וטעמא מאי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כדי שתהא זכותן וזכות אבותם מסייעתן,והאיכא (שמואל ב כג, לז) צלק העמוני מאי לאו דאתי מעמון לא דיתיב בעמון והאיכא (שמואל ב כג, לט) אוריה החתי מאי לאו דאתי מחת לא דיתיב בחת,והאיכא (שמואל ב טו, יט) אתי הגיתי וכי תימא הכי נמי דיתיב בגת והא אמר רב נחמן אתי הגיתי בא ובטלה,ועוד אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ארבע מאות ילדים היו לו לדוד וכולם בני יפת תואר היו וכולם מסתפרים קומי ומגדלים בלורית היו וכולם יושבים בקרוניות של זהב והיו מהלכים בראשי גייסות והן הן בעלי אגרופים של בית דוד דאזלי לבעותי עלמא | 76b. b he interprets /b his statement as referring b to a Levite /b woman b or an Israelite woman, /b about whom the mishna states that one must investigate one additional generation. Therefore, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s ruling accords with that of the mishna. b But /b shall b we say the i baraita /i disputes /b the mishna? The Gemara rejects this: b No, what is /b the meaning of the mishna’s phrase: b One additional? /b It means b one pair, /b i.e., two more mothers on each side., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: This /b mishna presents b the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: All families retain a presumptive status of fitness, /b and do not require investigation. The Gemara asks: b Is that so, /b did Rav really say this? b But doesn’t Rav Ḥama bar Gurya say /b that b Rav says: Our mishna /b is referring only to a case b when an objection was registered about /b the family concerning its lineage, but if no objection was registered, everyone agrees that the family retains its presumptive status of fitness. The Gemara answers: b The one who taught this /b statement in the name of Rav b did not teach that /b other statement., b There are /b those b who say /b that this discussion occurred as follows: b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: This /b mishna presents b the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: All families retain presumptive status of fitness. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says /b that b Rav says: When an objection is registered about /b a family concerning its lineage, everyone agrees that b he must investigate it. /b According to this version, there is no contradiction between these two complementary statements.,§ The mishna teaches that b one need not investigate from the altar and above. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this? The Gemara answers: b If /b the Sanhedrin b had not examined his /b lineage b they would not have /b allowed b him to ascend /b to the altar and perform the sacrificial rites. The mishna further teaches: b Nor /b must one investigate b from the platform and above. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason? /b The Gemara answers: It is b as the Master said /b in his description of the Temple chambers ( i Tosefta /i , i Ḥagiga /i 2:4): b For there /b in the Hewn Chamber those of the b priesthood /b with unflawed b lineage and the Levites of /b unflawed b lineage sat /b and examined the lineage of everyone who came to serve in the Temple.,The mishna also taught: b Nor /b must one investigate b from the Sanhedrin and above. What is the reason /b there is no need to investigate further? The Gemara answers: It is b as Rav Yosef taught /b that b 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 Mareimar said: 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: But perhaps you should b say /b that this is referring to b an actual blemish, /b that one who has a physical blemish may not be appointed to the Sanhedrin. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b It is not necessary to derive the i halakha /i that one who has a physical blemish may not be appointed to the Sanhedrin from this verse, as b the verse states /b with regard to the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: b “That they may stand there with you” /b (Numbers 11:16), and the phrase 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 /b those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish b due to /b the b Divine Presence, /b which rested upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges on the Sanhedrin. b Rav Naḥman said /b that b the verse states: “So shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with you” /b (Exodus 18:22). The phrase “with you” is explained to mean: b With similarity to you, /b i.e., 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. The verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must be of unflawed lineage as well.,§ The mishna teaches: b Anyone whose ancestors held public posts /b may marry into the priesthood without investigation. The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that we do not establish /b officers and other public appointees b from /b people with b flawed /b lineage? b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from the following statement: b All are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law, but not all are fit to judge /b cases of b capital law. And we discussed it: What does /b the word: b All, /b serve b to include? And Rav Yehuda says: /b It serves b to include a i mamzer /i , /b that he may judge cases of monetary law. This indicates that even a i mamzer /i may occupy a public position. b Abaye said: /b The mishna is referring to public officials b in Jerusalem, /b where they were particular that all their judges should be of unflawed lineage. b And Rav Shimon bar Zeira similarly taught in /b the i baraita /i of b i Kiddushin /i from /b the b school of Levi: /b It is referring to public officials b in Jerusalem. /b ,The mishna teaches: b And /b anyone whose ancestors were b charity collectors may marry /b into the priesthood without investigation. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this? The Gemara answers: It is b due to /b the fact that b they quarrel with people, /b as b the Master said: /b Those appointed to collect charity b may /b forcibly b take collateral for charity /b from those who have not fulfilled their obligations b even on the eve of Shabbat, /b when people are preoccupied and rushed, leading to quarrels. b And if it is so that there is /b a flaw in the lineage of the collector’s family, b it /b would generate b publicity /b through the quarrels that are an unavoidable aspect of his job.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host was /b the son of b a convert, and he and Rav Beivai were quarreling. One said: I /b will b perform the service of the city, /b i.e., I will be appointed to a position of authority, b and one said: I /b will b perform the service of the city. They came before Rav Yosef /b to decide between them. Rav Yosef b said to them: We learned: “You shall set him king over you, /b whom the Lord your God shall choose; b one from among your brothers” /b (Deuteronomy 17:15). The repetition of the verb “set” in the verse [ i som tasim /i ] indicates: b All appointments that you appoint may be only from among your brothers. /b Therefore, a convert may not serve in any official position., b Rav Adda bar Ahava said to /b Rav Yosef: b And /b does this i halakha /i apply b even /b if the b mother /b of the person in question is born b Jewish? /b In other words, does this apply to one whose father is a convert? Rav Yosef b said to him: /b If b his mother is /b born b Jewish, /b the words: b “From among your brothers” are said about him. Therefore, /b now that it has been determined that this person’s mother was born Jewish and that he is fit to serve a public role, b Rav Beivai, who is a great man /b in Torah learning, b should oversee the matters of Heaven, /b i.e., the public issues that involve the performance of mitzvot; b and the Master, /b Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host, b should oversee the /b other b matters of the city. Abaye said, /b as a moral of the story: b Therefore, /b if b one has a Torah scholar as a guest, let him host /b a person b such as Rav Adda bar Ahava, who knows how to plead in his favor, /b as it was the argument of Rav Adda bar Ahava that led to his host’s appointment.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Zeira would deal with /b converts and assign them to positions of authority. Similarly, b Rabba bar Avuh would deal with them. In the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b they would not establish even an appointee over measurements from them, /b as they extended the prohibition against appointing a convert as a king to include all positions of power. b In Neharde’a, they would not establish even an appointee over irrigation /b of the city fields b from them. /b ,The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: Even /b the descendants of b one who /b had signed as a witness in the Old Court of Tzippori does not need to have their lineage investigated. The Gemara explains: b What is the reason /b for this? The Gemara answers: In that city, they would first b examine /b witnesses and only afterward b have them sign. /b Consequently, anyone who signed as a witness in Tzippori must certainly have been of unflawed lineage.,The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus /b says: Even the descendants of one who was written in the army list of the Jewish king does not have their lineage investigated. b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: /b The reference is to one who was written b in /b the list of b the military troops of the House of David, /b who were all of pure lineage. b Rav Yosef said: What is the verse /b from which it is derived? The phrase is: b “Reckoned by lineage for service in war” /b (I Chronicles 7:40). The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b for this requirement that they be of unflawed lineage? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b It is b in order that their merit and the merit of their ancestors will help them /b in battle.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there Zelek the Ammonite, /b one of David’s warriors (II Samuel 23:37); b what, is it not /b indicated b that /b he was a convert who b came from Ammon? /b The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b his name indicates only b that he dwelled in Ammon, /b but he was born a Jew. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there Uriah the Hittite /b (II Samuel 23:39); b what, is it not /b indicated b that /b he b came from Heth? /b The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b his name indicates only b that he dwelled in Heth. /b ,The Gemara further asks: b But isn’t there Ittai the Gittite /b (II Samuel 15:19)? b And if you would say /b that b so too /b his name indicates b that he dwelled in Gath /b but was born a Jew, b but doesn’t Rav Naḥman say, /b to explain how David could make use of the crown of the idol of Ammon in apparent violation of the prohibition against deriving benefit from idolatry: b Ittai the Gittite came and nullified its /b status of an idol. The i halakha /i is that only a gentile can nullify an idol, by doing something degrading to it. This indicates that Ittai the Gittite must have been a gentile.,The Gemara again questions the statement that all of the soldiers in David’s army were of unflawed lineage. b And further, Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: David had four hundred youths /b in his camp, b all sons of beautiful women, /b i.e., born to women captured in war, who were therefore gentiles, b all of /b whom b had their hair cut /b in the b i komei /i /b style b or /b who b grew /b their hair in b a gentile hairstyle [ i belorit /i ] /b on the back of their heads, b and all of them sat in gold carts [ i bikroniyyot /i ] and would march at the head of troops /b in David’s army; b and these very ones were the strong men of the House of David, /b i.e., David would rely on their strength. This states that David’s army included men of flawed lineage. The Gemara answers: These four hundred youths did not fight in the battles, but rather b they would go forth /b in front of the troops b in order to frighten everyone. /b |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 289| 101a. אף ידי קידוש לא יצאו אלא לרב למה ליה לקדושי בביתיה כדי להוציא בניו ובני ביתו,ושמואל למה לי לקדושי בבי כנישתא לאפוקי אורחים ידי חובתן דאכלו ושתו וגנו בבי כנישתא,ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה סבור מינה הני מילי מבית לבית אבל ממקום למקום בחד ביתא לא,אמר להו רב ענן בר תחליפא זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דשמואל ונחית מאיגרא לארעא והדר מקדש,ואף רב הונא סבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה דרב הונא קדיש ואיתעקרא ליה שרגא ועיילי ליה למניה לבי גנניה דרבה בריה דהוה שרגא וקדיש וטעים מידי אלמא קסבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה,ואף רבה סבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה דאמר אביי כי הוינא בי מר כי הוה מקדש אמר לן טעימו מידי דילמא אדאזליתו לאושפיזא מתעקרא לכו שרגא ולא מקדש לכו בבית אכילה ובקידושא דהכא לא נפקיתו דאין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה,איני והאמר אביי כל מילי דמר הוה עביד כרב לבר מהני תלת דעביד כשמואל מתירין מבגד לבגד ומדליקין מנר לנר,והלכה כר"ש בגרירה דתניא ר"ש אומר גורר אדם מטה כסא וספסל בשבת ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשות חריץ,כחומרי דרב הוה עביד כקולי דרב לא הוה עביד,ור' יוחנן אמר אף ידי יין נמי יצאו ואזדא ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דא"ר חנין בר אביי א"ר פדת אמר ר' יוחנן אחד שינוי יין | 101a. b Even /b the obligation b of i kiddush /i they have not fulfilled, /b and they must recite i kiddush /i again at home. The Gemara asks: b But according to /b the opinion of b Rav, why /b should one have b to recite i kiddush /i /b a second time b at home /b if he has already fulfilled his obligation in the synagogue? The Gemara answers: He must repeat i kiddush /i b to fulfill /b the obligations of b his children and the members of his household, /b who did not come to the synagogue.,The Gemara asks: b But /b according to the opinion of b Shmuel, why do I /b need b to recite i kiddush /i in the synagogue /b at all, if one does not fulfill his obligation with that i kiddush /i ? The Gemara answers: The purpose of i kiddush /i in the synagogue is b to fulfill the obligations of the guests who eat and drink and sleep in the synagogue. /b Since these visitors are staying in the synagogue for Shabbat, they must hear i kiddush /i there., b And Shmuel follows his /b line of b reasoning, as Shmuel said: There is no /b valid b i kiddush /i except in the place of /b one’s Shabbat b meal. /b If one does not eat a meal in the location in which he recites i kiddush /i , he has not fulfilled the mitzva of i kiddush /i . The students b understood from /b this statement that b this /b i halakha /i b applies /b only when one goes b from house to house /b and eats the Shabbat meal in a different house from the one in which he recited i kiddush /i . b But /b if one went b from /b the b place /b where he recited i kiddush /i b to /b another b place in one house, no, /b there is no problem, and he has fulfilled the mitzva of i kiddush /i .,However, b Rav A bar Taḥalifa said to /b the students: b Many times I stood before Shmuel, and he descended from the roof to the ground /b floor b and recited i kiddush /i again. /b This indicates that Shmuel maintains that even if one recites i kiddush /i and eats the Shabbat meal in a different part of the same house, he must recite i kiddush /i a second time.,With regard to this i halakha /i , the Gemara notes: b And Rav Huna also maintains /b that b there is no i kiddush /i except in the place of /b one’s Shabbat b meal. /b The proof of this is b that Rav Huna /b once b recited i kiddush /i and his lamp was extinguished. And /b as it was difficult to eat in the dark, b he brought his belongings to the wedding home of his son Rabba, where there was a lamp, and he recited i kiddush /i /b there b and tasted some /b food. b Apparently, /b Rav Huna b maintains /b that b there is no i kiddush /i except in the place of /b one’s Shabbat b meal. /b ,The Gemara further comments: b And Rabba also maintains /b that b there is no i kiddush /i except in the place of /b one’s Shabbat b meal, as Abaye said: When I was in the house of my Master, /b Rabba, b when he would recite i kiddush /i /b he would b say to us: Taste some /b food here, b lest by the time you get to your /b place of b lodging your lamp be extinguished, and you will not /b be able to b recite i kiddush /i in the place /b where you will b eat. And with the i kiddush /i /b you heard b here you do not fulfill /b the mitzva, b as there is no i kiddush /i except in the place of /b one’s Shabbat b meal. /b ,The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: b Is that so? But didn’t Abaye say: /b With regard to b all the /b customs b of my Master, /b Rabba, b he would act in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav, except for these three /b instances, in which b he acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b Shmuel: /b Rabba maintained that b one /b may b untie /b ritual fringes [ i tzitzit /i ] b from /b one b garment /b and tie them b to /b another b garment, /b contrary to Rav’s opinion that this constitutes a disgrace of the mitzva. He also maintained that on Hanukkah b one /b may b light from /b one b lamp to /b another b lamp, /b despite Rav’s opinion that this is prohibited as a mundane usage of the lamp of the mitzva.,In addition, Rabba maintained that b the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon in /b the case of b dragging. As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: A person /b may b drag a bed, chair, or stool on Shabbat /b if it is difficult for him to lift them, b provided that he does not intend to dig a furrow /b in the ground. In the event that he does create a furrow, he has not violated a prohibition, as an unintentional act does not constitute a prohibited act of labor on Shabbat. In light of Abaye’s statement that with the exception of those three rulings Rabba always acted in accordance with Rav, why didn’t Rabba follow the opinion of Rav with regard to i kiddush /i , as Rav maintains that one fulfills the mitzva of i kiddush /i even if he does not eat his Shabbat meal in the same location?,The Gemara answers: b He would act in accordance with Rav’s stringencies, /b but b he would not act in accordance with Rav’s leniencies. /b In the three cases listed above, Rabba was lenient despite Rav’s stringent ruling. However, with regard to i kiddush /i , Rabba did not follow Rav’s lenient opinion., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b Not only do those who recite i kiddush /i in the synagogue fulfill the mitzva of i kiddush /i , b they fulfill even /b their obligation to recite a blessing b over /b the b wine /b they will drink during their meal at home. Since they intend to eat the Shabbat meal and drink wine at home, they do not divert their attention from the blessing and need not recite another one. b And Rabbi Yoḥa follows his /b regular line of b reasoning, as Rabbi Ḥanin bar Abaye said /b that b Rabbi Pedat said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Both /b in a case of b a change of wine /b during a meal to a new type, |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 287, 291| 26b. למישתא ביה שיכרא שפיר דמי,רבינא הוה ליה ההוא תילא דבי כנישתא אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה מהו למיזרעה אמר ליה זיל זבניה משבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר וזרעה,רמי בר אבא הוה קא בני בי כנישתא הוה ההיא כנישתא עתיקא הוה בעי למיסתריה ולאתויי ליבני וכשורי מינה ועיולי להתם יתיב וקא מיבעיא ליה הא דרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא לא ליסתור בי כנישתא עד דבני בי כנישתא אחריתי התם משום פשיעותא כי האי גוונא מאי אתא לקמיה דרב פפא ואסר ליה לקמיה דרב הונא ואסר ליה,אמר רבא האי בי כנישתא חלופה וזבונה שרי אוגורה ומשכונה אסור מאי טעמא בקדושתה קאי,ליבני נמי חלופינהו וזבונינהו שרי אוזופינהו אסור הני מילי בעתיקתא אבל בחדתא לית לן בה,ואפילו למאן דאמר הזמנה מילתא היא ה"מ כגון האורג בגד למת אבל הכא כטווי לאריג דמי וליכא למאן דאמר,מתנה פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר בהאי תפקע קדושתה ומאן דשרי אי לאו דהוה ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה יהיב ליה הדר הוה ליה מתנה כזביני,ת"ר תשמישי מצוה נזרקין תשמישי קדושה נגנזין ואלו הן תשמישי מצוה סוכה לולב שופר ציצית ואלו הן תשמישי קדושה דלוסקמי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ותיק של ס"ת ונרתיק של תפילין ורצועותיהן,אמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי כורסיא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא ושרי כיון דחזינא דמותבי עלויה ס"ת אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור,ואמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי פריסא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא כיון דחזינא דעייפי ליה ומנחי סיפרא עלויה אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור,ואמר רבא האי תיבותא דאירפט מיעבדה תיבה זוטרתי שרי כורסייא אסיר ואמר רבא האי פריסא דבלה למיעבדיה פריסא לספרי שרי לחומשין אסיר,ואמר רבא הני זבילי דחומשי וקמטרי דספרי תשמיש קדושה נינהו ונגנזין פשיטא מהו דתימא הני לאו לכבוד עבידן לנטורי בעלמא עבידי קמ"ל,ההוא בי כנישתא דיהודאי רומאי דהוה פתיח לההוא אידרונא דהוה מחית ביה מת והוו בעו כהני למיעל לצלויי התם אתו אמרו ליה לרבא אמר להו דלו תיבותא אותבוה דהוה ליה כלי עץ העשוי לנחת וכלי עץ העשוי לנחת אינו מקבל טומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא והא זמנין דמטלטלי ליה כי מנח ספר תורה עלויה והוה ליה מיטלטלא מלא וריקם אי הכי לא אפשר,אמר מר זוטרא מטפחות ספרים שבלו עושין אותן תכריכין למת מצוה וזו היא גניזתן,ואמר רבא ספר תורה שבלה גונזין אותו אצל תלמיד חכם ואפילו שונה הלכות אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ובכלי חרס שנאמר (ירמיהו לב, יד) ונתתם בכלי חרש למען יעמדו ימים רבים,(ואמר) רב פפי משמיה דר' מבי כנישתא לבי רבנן שרי מבי רבנן לבי כנישתא אסיר ורב פפא משמיה דרבא מתני איפכא אמר רב אחא | 26b. b to drink beer with /b the proceeds b seems well /b and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.,The Gemara relates: b Ravina had a certain /b piece of land on which stood b a mound /b of the ruins b of a synagogue. He came before Rav Ashi /b and b said to him: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard b to sowing /b the land? b He said to him: Go, purchase it from the seven representatives of the town in an assembly of the residents of the town, and /b then you may b sow it. /b , b Rami bar Abba was /b once b building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue /b that b he wished to demolish, and bring bricks and beams from it, and bring them to there, /b to construct a new synagogue. b He sat and considered that which Rav Ḥisda /b said, b as Rav Ḥisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. /b Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav Ḥisda’s ruling b there /b is b due to /b a concern of b negligence, /b as perhaps after the first synagogue is demolished, people will be negligent and a new one will never be built. However, in b a case like this, /b where the new synagogue is to be built directly from the materials of the old one, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? b He came before Rav Pappa /b to ask his opinion, b and he prohibited him /b from doing so. b He /b then came b before Rav Huna, and he /b also b prohibited him /b from doing so., b Rava said: /b With regard to b this synagogue, exchanging it /b for a different building b or selling it /b for money b is permitted, /b but b renting it /b out b or mortgaging it is prohibited. What is the reason /b for this? When a synagogue is rented out or mortgaged, it b remains in its sacred state. /b Therefore, it is prohibited to rent it out or mortgage it, because it will then be used for a non-sacred purpose. However, if it is exchanged or sold, its sanctity is transferred to the other building or to the proceeds of the sale, and therefore the old synagogue building may be used for any purpose.,The same i halakha /i is b also /b true of the b bricks /b of a synagogue; b exchanging them or selling them is permitted, /b but b renting them out is prohibited. /b The Gemara comments: b This applies to old /b bricks that have already been part of a synagogue, b but as for new /b bricks that have only been designated to be used in a synagogue, b we have no /b problem b with it /b if they are rented out for a non-sacred purpose., b And even according to the one who said /b that mere b designation is significant, /b i.e., although a certain object was not yet used for the designated purpose, the halakhic ramifications of using it for that purpose already take hold, b this applies /b only in a case where it was created from the outset for that purpose, b for example, one who weaves a garment /b to be used as shrouds b for a corpse. However, here /b the bricks are b comparable to /b already b spun /b thread that was then designated to be used b to weave /b burial shrouds. Concerning such designation, where nothing was specifically created for the designated purpose, b there is no one who said /b that the designation is significant., b Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about /b whether it is permitted to give away a synagogue as b a gift /b to then be used for a non-sacred purpose. b One /b of them b prohibited /b it, b and /b the other b one permitted /b it. b The one who prohibits /b it says: Is it possible that b with this /b act of giving alone b its sanctity is removed? /b This cannot be the case. Since the synagogue was not exchanged for anything else, there is nothing to which the sanctity may be transferred. Consequently, the synagogue remains sacred. b And the one who permitted /b it does so because he reasons that b if /b the donor b did not /b receive any b benefit from /b giving the synagogue, b he would not have given it. /b Therefore, b the gift has reverted to being like a sale, /b and the sanctity is transferred to the benefit received.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Articles /b used in the performance b of a mitzva may be thrown out /b after use. Although these items were used in the performance of a mitzva, they are not thereby sanctified. However, b articles /b associated with the b sanctity /b of God’s name, i.e. articles on which God’s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God’s name written on it, even after they are no longer used, b must be interred /b in a respectful manner. b And these /b items b are /b considered b articles of a mitzva: A i sukka /i ; a i lulav /i ; a i shofar /i ; /b and b ritual fringes. And these /b items b are /b considered b articles of sanctity: Cases /b of b scrolls, /b i.e. of Torah scrolls; b phylacteries; and i mezuzot /i ; and a container for a Torah scroll; and a cover for phylacteries; and their straps. /b , b Rava said: Initially, I used to say /b that b this lectern /b in the synagogue upon which the Torah is read b is /b only b an article of an article /b of sanctity, as the Torah scroll does not rest directly upon the lectern but rather upon the cloth that covers it. b And /b the i halakha /i is that once an article of an article of sanctity is no longer used, b it is permitted /b to throw it out. However, b once I saw that the Torah scroll is /b sometimes b placed /b directly b upon /b the lectern without an intervening cloth. b I said /b that b it is an article /b used directly for items b of sanctity, and /b as such b it is prohibited /b to simply discard it after use., b And Rava /b similarly b said: Initially, I used to say /b that b this curtain, /b which is placed at the opening to the ark as a decoration, b is /b only b an article of an article /b of sanctity, as it serves to beautify the ark but is not directly used for the Torah scroll. However, b once I saw that /b sometimes the curtain b is folded over and a Torah scroll is placed upon it. I said /b that b it is an article /b used directly for items b of sanctity and /b as such b it is prohibited /b to simply discard it after use., b And Rava /b further b said: /b With regard to b this ark that has fallen apart, constructing a smaller ark /b from its materials b is permitted, /b as both have the same level of sanctity, but to use the materials to construct b a lectern is prohibited /b because the lectern has a lesser degree of sanctity. b And Rava /b similarly b said: /b With regard to b this curtain /b used to decorate an ark b that has become worn out, to fashion it /b into b a wrapping cloth for /b Torah b scrolls is permitted, /b but to fashion it into a wrapping cloth b for /b a scroll of b one of the five /b books of the Torah b is prohibited. /b , b And Rava /b also b said: /b With regard to b these cases for /b storing scrolls of b one of the five /b books of the Torah b and sacks for /b storing Torah b scrolls, they are /b classified as b articles of sanctity. /b Therefore, b they are to be interred /b when they are no longer in use. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that since b these /b items b are not made for the honor /b of the scrolls but rather b are made merely to /b provide b protection, /b they should not be classified as articles of sanctity, Rava therefore b teaches us /b that although they are indeed made to protect the scrolls, they also provide honor and are therefore to be classified as articles of sanctity.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain synagogue of the Jews of Rome that opened out into a room in which a corpse was lying, /b thereby spreading the ritual impurity of the corpse throughout the synagogue. b And the priests wished to enter /b the synagogue b in order to pray there. /b However, it was prohibited for them to do so because a priest may not come in contact with ritual impurity of a corpse. b They came and spoke to Rava, /b about what to do. b He said to them: Lift up the ark and put it down /b in the opening between the two rooms, b as it is a wooden utensil that is designated to rest /b in one place and not be moved from there, b and /b the i halakha /i is that b a wooden utensil that is designated to rest is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and /b therefore it b serves as a barrier to /b prevent b ritual impurity /b from spreading., b The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn’t /b the ark b sometimes moved when a Torah scroll is /b still b resting inside it, and /b therefore b it is /b a utensil that b is moved /b both b when it is full and when it is empty; /b such a utensil is susceptible to ritual impurity and cannot prevent ritual impurity from spreading. He said to them: b If so, /b if it is as you claim, then b it is not possible /b to remedy the situation., b Mar Zutra said: /b With regard to b wrapping cloths of /b Torah b scrolls that have become worn out, they may be made into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it [ i met mitzva /i ], and this is their /b most appropriate manner for being b interred. /b , b And Rava said: A Torah scroll that became worn out is interred /b and buried b next to a Torah scholar, and /b in this regard, a Torah scholar is defined b even /b as b one who /b only b studies the i halakhot /i /b in the Mishna and the i baraitot /i but is not proficient in their analysis. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And /b when it is buried, it is first placed b in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: “And put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days” /b (Jeremiah 32:14).,§ b And Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: /b To convert a building b from a synagogue into a study hall /b is b permitted, /b but b from a study hall into a synagogue /b is b prohibited, /b as he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. b And Rav Pappa in the name of Rava teaches the opposite, /b as he holds that a synagogue has a higher degree of sanctity than a study hall. b Rav Aḥa said: /b |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 563| 95b. מחוור רישא נפל מיניה אזל אייתי סילתא שדא אסיק תרין אמר רב עבדי נמי הכי אסרינהו ניהליה,אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב דאיסורא שכיחי דהתירא לא שכיחי אמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי,וכי מכללא מאי פרוותא דעובדי כוכבים הואי תדע דקאמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי,אלא רב היכי אכל בשרא בשעתיה דלא עלים עיניה מיניה איבעית אימא בציירא וחתומא ואי נמי בסימנא כי הא דרבה ב"ר הונא מחתך ליה אתלת קרנתא,רב הוה קאזיל לבי רב חנן חתניה חזי מברא דקאתי לאפיה אמר מברא קאתי לאפי יומא טבא לגו,אזל קם אבבא אודיק בבזעא דדשא חזי חיותא דתליא טרף אבבא נפוק אתו כולי עלמא לאפיה אתא טבחי נמי לא עלים רב עיניה מיניה אמר להו איכו השתא ספיתו להו איסורא לבני ברת לא אכל רב מההוא בישרא,מ"ט אי משום איעלומי הא לא איעלים אלא דנחיש,והאמר רב כל נחש שאינו כאליעזר עבד אברהם וכיונתן בן שאול אינו נחש אלא סעודת הרשות הואי ורב לא מתהני מסעודת הרשות,רב בדיק במברא ושמואל בדיק בספרא רבי יוחנן בדיק בינוקא,כולהו שני דרב הוה כתב ליה רבי יוחנן לקדם רבינו שבבבל כי נח נפשיה הוה כתב לשמואל לקדם חבירינו שבבבל אמר לא ידע לי מידי דרביה אנא כתב שדר ליה עיבורא דשיתין שני אמר השתא חושבנא בעלמא ידע,כתב שדר ליה תליסר גמלי ספקי טריפתא אמר אית לי רב בבבל איזיל איחזייה א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל א כח, ג) ושמואל מת אמר ש"מ נח נפשיה דשמואל,ולא היא לא שכיב שמואל אלא כי היכי דלא ליטרח רבי יוחנן,תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בית תינוק ואשה אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן,אמר ר' אלעזר והוא דאיתחזק תלתא זימני דכתיב (בראשית מב, לו) יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו ואת בנימין תקחו,בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב בחרוזין מהו א"ל אל תהי שוטה בחרוזין הרי זה סימן איכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא אמר רב בחרוזין הרי זה סימן,רב נחמן מנהרדעא איקלע לגבי רב כהנא לפום נהרא במעלי יומא דכפורי אתו עורבי שדו כבדי וכוליתא אמר ליה שקול ואכול האידנא דהיתרא שכיח טפי,רב חייא בר אבין איתבד ליה כרכשא (בי דינא) אתא לקמיה דרב הונא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה א"ל לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,רב חנינא חוזאה איתבד ליה גבא דבשרא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,רב נתן בר אביי איתבד ליה קיבורא דתכלתא אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,אמר רבא מרישא הוה אמינא סימנא עדיף מטביעות עינא דהא מהדרינן אבידתא בסימנא | 95b. b cleaning /b the b head /b of an animal in the river. The head b fell from him. He went and brought a basket, cast /b the basket into the river, and b pulled out two /b animal heads. b Rav said /b to him: Does it commonly b happen this /b way that one loses one item and finds two? Just as one of the animal heads is not the one you dropped, it is possible that neither of them is the one you dropped. Therefore, Rav rendered both of b them forbidden to him. /b , b Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: /b Is b forbidden /b meat b common /b but b permitted /b meat b not common? /b Most of the meat in this general location is kosher, so why did you forbid the two animal heads? b He said to them: Forbidden /b meat b is more common. /b From this incident the Sages derived that according to Rav, meat that has been obscured from sight becomes forbidden due to the possibility that the meat one finds now was actually deposited by ravens, who transported it from a location where the majority of the meat is forbidden.,The Gemara asks: b And what /b does it matter b if /b this opinion of Rav is known b by inference /b based on this incident, rather than by an explicit statement made by Rav? The Gemara answers: There is room to say that this incident cannot serve as a precedent for a general policy, because that location b was a port of gentiles, /b where most of the meat was non-kosher. b Know /b that this is the case, b as /b Rav b said to /b Rav Kahana and Rav Asi: b Forbidden /b meat b is more common. /b Consequently, it is possible that Rav would not have prohibited the meat in a location where the majority of the meat is kosher.,The Gemara asks: b But how did Rav /b ever b eat meat /b if he holds that meat becomes forbidden if it is unsupervised for even a short time? The Gemara answers: Rav ate meat only b in its time, /b i.e., shortly after it was slaughtered, b when it had not been obscured from his sight /b from the time of the slaughter until he ate it. Alternatively, b if you wish, say /b that Rav ate meat that was b tied and sealed /b in a way that proved it had not been swapped for non-kosher meat. b Or alternatively, /b he ate meat that could be recognized b by a distinguishing mark, like that /b practice of b Rabba bar Rav Huna, /b who would b cut /b meat into pieces b with three corners, /b i.e., triangles, before he would send it to his family members.,The Gemara relates that b Rav was going to the home of Rav Ḥa, his son-in-law. He saw /b that b the ferry was coming toward him /b just when he arrived at the riverbank. b He said: The ferry is coming toward me /b even though I did not arrange for it to come now; this is a sign that b a good day, /b i.e., a festive meal, awaits me b in /b the place where I am going.,After crossing the river on the ferry, Rav b went and stood at the gate /b of Rav Ḥa’s home. b He looked /b through b a crack in the door /b and b saw an animal that was hanging /b and ready to be cooked. b He knocked on the gate, /b and b everyone went out to /b greet b him, /b and b the butchers also came /b out to greet him. b Rav did not remove his eyes from /b the meat that the butchers were preparing. b He said to them: If /b you had eaten the meat based upon the supervision you provided b now, /b you would have b fed forbidden /b meat b to the sons of /b my b daughter /b because no one apart from me was watching the meat when you all came out to greet me. And despite the fact that he had kept the meat in his sight b Rav did not eat from that meat. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that Rav did not eat the meat? b If /b one suggests that he was concerned b because /b it had been b obscured /b from sight, that cannot be the reason, as Rav kept watching it so that it b was not obscured /b from sight. b Rather, /b Rav did not eat b because he divined, /b i.e., he saw the arrival of the ferry as a good omen. This is prohibited, and therefore Rav penalized himself and abstained from the meat.,The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t Rav say /b that b any divination that is not like /b the divination of b Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, /b when he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), b or like /b the divination of b Jonathan, son of Saul, /b who sought an omen as to whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see I Samuel 14:8–12), b is not divination? /b Since Rav did not rely on the omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize himself. The Gemara answers: b Rather, /b the reason Rav did not eat the meat is that b it was an optional feast, /b rather than a feast associated with a mitzva, b and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast. /b ,Having mentioned Rav’s reaction to the ferry in the incident cited above, the Gemara states that b Rav would check /b whether to travel based upon b the ferry; /b if it came quickly he would take the ferry, but otherwise he would not. b And Shmuel would check /b what would happen to him b by /b opening b a scroll /b and reading from wherever it was open to. b Rabbi Yoḥa would check /b what was in store for him b by /b asking b a child /b to recite the verse he was learning.,The Gemara relates an incident when Rabbi Yoḥa checked his luck based on a child’s verse. During b all the years /b when b Rav /b lived in Babylonia, b Rabbi Yoḥa, /b who lived in Eretz Yisrael, would b write to him /b and begin with the greeting: b To our Master who is in Babylonia. When /b Rav b died, /b Rabbi Yoḥa b would write to Shmuel /b and begin with the greeting: b To our colleague who is in Babylonia. /b Shmuel b said: Does /b Rabbi Yoḥa b not know /b any b matter in which I am his master? /b Shmuel b wrote /b and b sent to /b Rabbi Yoḥa the calculation of the b leap /b years b for /b the next b sixty years. /b Rabbi Yoḥa was not impressed by this and b said: Now he /b has b merely /b demonstrated that b he knows mathematics, /b which does not make him my master.,Shmuel then b wrote /b and b sent to /b Rabbi Yoḥa explications of b uncertainties /b pertaining to b i tereifot /i /b that had to be transported on b thirteen camels. /b Rabbi Yoḥa was impressed by this and b said: I have a Master in Babylonia; I will go and see him. /b Before departing on his journey, Rabbi Yoḥa b said to a child: Recite to me your verse /b that you studied today. The child b recited /b the following verse b to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b “Now Samuel was dead” /b (I Samuel 28:3). Rabbi Yoḥa b said /b to himself: b Learn from this /b that b Shmuel has died. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥa did not go to see Shmuel.,The Gemara comments: b But it was not so; Shmuel had not died. Rather, /b the reason Rabbi Yoḥa was given this sign was b so that Rabbi Yoḥa would not trouble himself /b to embark on the long and arduous journey from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: /b With regard to one who is successful with his first business transaction after he has built b a home, /b after the birth of b a child, or /b after he marries b a woman, even though /b he may b not /b use this as a means of b divination /b to decide upon future courses of action, b it is /b an auspicious b sign /b that he will continue to be successful. Conversely, if his first transaction is not successful he may take that as an inauspicious sign., b Rabbi Elazar said: But this /b is provided b that /b the sign b has been established /b by repeating itself b three times. /b This is based on a verse, b as it is written: /b “And Jacob their father said to them: Me you have bereaved of my children: b Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and you will take Benjamin away; /b upon me are all these things come” (Genesis 42:36). If calamity were to befall Benjamin, that would establish a pattern of three tragedies.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss distinguishing marks that prevent meat from being prohibited despite its having been obscured from sight. b Rav Huna inquired of Rav: /b If pieces of meat were b strung /b together and then were obscured from sight, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rav b said to him: Do not be an imbecile; /b of course if the meat is b strung /b together b it is /b considered to be b a distinguishing mark, /b and the meat is permitted. b There are /b those b who say /b this i halakha /i as follows: b Rav Huna said /b that b Rav said: /b If pieces of meat are b strung /b together b it is a distinguishing mark, /b and the meat remains permitted even if it is obscured from sight.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Naḥman of Neharde’a arrived at /b the home of b Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara on the eve of Yom Kippur, /b which is a day when people commonly eat meat. b Ravens came /b and b dropped livers and kidneys. /b Rav Kahana b said to /b Rav Naḥman: b Take /b these livers and kidneys b and eat /b them, as they are not forbidden, even though they were obscured from sight. This is because b at this time permitted /b meat is b more common /b than forbidden meat, since Jews slaughter many animals on this day., b Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin lost /b a cut of meat from an animal b intestine among /b the b barrels /b of wine in his wine cellar. When he found it, b he came before Rav Huna /b to ask whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Huna b said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it /b so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin b said to him: No. /b Rav Huna asked him: b Do you have visual recognition of it? /b Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin b said to him: Yes. /b Rav Huna said: b If so, go and take /b it and eat it., b Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a lost a side of meat. /b When he found it, b he came before Rav Naḥman /b and asked him whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Naḥman b said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it /b so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a b said to him: No. /b Rav Naḥman asked him: b Do you have visual recognition of it? /b Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a b said to him: Yes. /b Rav Naḥman said: b If so, go and take /b it and eat it., b Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of sky-blue /b wool prepared for use in ritual fringes. He searched for it and found it. b He came before Rav Ḥisda /b to ask whether the wool was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight and may have become confused with other blue wool that is not valid for ritual fringes. Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark in it /b so that you can identify it? Rav Natan bar Abaye b said to him: No. /b Rav Ḥisda asked him: b Do you have visual recognition of it? /b Rav Natan bar Abaye b said to him: Yes. /b Rav Ḥisda said: b If so, go and take /b it, and you may use it for ritual fringes., b Rava said: At first I would say /b that b a distinguishing mark is preferable to visual recognition, because we return a lost item /b to its owner based b on a distinguishing mark, /b |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, None (6th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 289| 6b. איני והא רבי ינאי יזיף ופרע שאני רבי ינאי דניחא להו לעניים דכמה דמשהי מעשי ומייתי להו,ת"ר ישראל שהתנדב מנורה או נר לבית הכנסת אסור לשנותה סבר רבי חייא בר אבא למימר לא שנא לדבר הרשות ולא שנא לדבר מצוה אמר ליה רב אמי הכי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה מותר לשנותה,מדאמר ר' אסי אמר ר' יוחנן בעובד כוכבים שהתנדב מנורה או נר לבית הכנסת עד שלא נשתקע שם בעליה אסור לשנותה משנשתקע שם בעליה מותר לשנותה,למאי אילימא לדבר הרשות מאי איריא עובד כוכבים אפילו ישראל נמי,אלא לדבר מצוה וטעמא דעובד כוכבים הוא דפעי אבל ישראל דלא פעי שפיר דמי,שעזרק טייעא אינדב שרגא לבי כנישתא דרב יהודה שנייה רחבא ואיקפד רבא איכא דאמרי שנייה רבא ואיקפד רחבא וא"ד שנייה חזני דפומבדיתא ואיקפד רחבא ואיקפד רבה,מאן דשנייה סבר דלא שכיח ומאן דאיקפד סבר זמנין דמקרי ואתי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הגוסס והיוצא ליהרג לא נידר ולא נערך ר' חנינא בן עקביא אומר נערך מפני שדמיו קצובין רבי יוסי אומר דנודר ומעריך ומקדיש ואם הזיק חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלמא גוסס לא נידר דלאו בר דמים הוא ולא נערך דלאו בר העמדה והערכה הוא אלא יוצא ליהרג בשלמא לא נידר דלאו בר דמים הוא אלא לא נערך אמאי לא,דתניא מנין היוצא ליהרג ואמר ערכי עלי שלא אמר כלום ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כח) כל חרם לא יפדה יכול אפילו קודם שנגמר דינו תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, כט) מן האדם ולא כל האדם,ולרבי חנינא בן עקביא דאמר נערך מפני שדמיו קצובין האי כל חרם מאי עביד ליה,לכדתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר לפי שמצינו למומתים בידי שמים שנותנין ממון ומתכפר להם שנאמר (שמות כא, ל) אם כופר יושת עליו יכול אף בידי אדם כן תלמוד לומר כל חרם לא יפדה,אין לי אלא מיתות חמורות שלא ניתנה שגגתן לכפרה מיתות קלות שניתנה שגגתן לכפרה מנין תלמוד לומר כל חרם:,רבי יוסי אומר נודר ומעריך כו': ותנא קמא מי קאמר דלא,אלא בנודר ומעריך ומקדיש כ"ע לא פליגי כי פליגי באם הזיק תנא קמא סבר אם הזיק אינו חייב בתשלומין ורבי יוסי סבר אם הזיק חייב בתשלומין,במאי קמיפלגי אמר רב יוסף במלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר מלוה על פה אינו גובה מן היורשין ורבי יוסי סבר המלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין,רבא אמר דכ"ע מלוה על פה אינו גובה מן היורשין והכא במלוה כתובה בתורה קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר מלוה כתובה בתורה לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא ורבי יוסי סבר ככתובה בשטר דמיא,ואיכא דמתני לה אהא היוצא ליהרג הוא שחבל באחרים חייב אחרים שחבלו בו פטורין רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף הוא אם חבל באחרים פטור שלא ניתן לחזרת עמידת בית דין | 6b. The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But Rabbi Yannai, /b who was a charity collector, b borrowed /b money belonging to charity b and repaid. /b The Gemara answers: The case of b Rabbi Yannai is different; /b it is b beneficial to the poor /b that he be allowed to borrow and repay, b as the longer he leaves /b the charity fund empty, the more he b impels /b people to give charity, b and /b he thereby b brings /b more money b to /b the poor., b The Sages taught /b a i baraita /i that deals with a similar matter: In the case of b a Jew who donated a candelabrum or a lamp to the synagogue, /b it is b prohibited to change it /b and use it for another purpose. b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba thought to say /b that there b is no difference /b whether he wishes to change b for a voluntary matter or for a matter /b involving b a mitzva, /b as in both cases it is prohibited. b Rav Ami said to /b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: b This /b is what b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b When the Sages taught the i baraita /i , they b taught only /b that it is prohibited when he changes it b for a voluntary matter, but /b it is b permitted to change it for a matter /b involving b a mitzva. /b ,This i halakha /i is derived b from /b the fact b that Rabbi Asi says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to b a gentile who donated a candelabrum or a lamp to the synagogue, if /b it is b before its owner’s name /b has been b forgotten, /b i.e., people still remember that he donated the item, it is b prohibited to change it /b and use it for another purpose. b Once its owner’s name /b has been b forgotten, /b it is b permitted to change it. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b With regard to what /b purpose is it stated that one may not change it before the owner’s name was forgotten? b If we say /b that it is prohibited to change it b for a voluntary matter, why /b does the i baraita /i b specifically /b mention b a gentile? /b It is prohibited to change it in this manner b even /b if it was donated by b a Jew. /b , b Rather, /b the i baraita /i must be dealing with a change b for a matter /b involving b a mitzva, /b and therefore it is prohibited only if the donor is a gentile and his name has not yet been forgotten. b And the reason /b for this i halakha /i is b that it is /b specifically b a gentile who /b would protest and b scream: /b Where is the candelabrum that I donated? b But /b in the case of b a Jew, who /b would b not /b protest and b scream /b if they used his donation for a different mitzva, one may b well /b change it.,The Gemara relates that b Sha’azrak, an Arab [ i tayya’a /i ] /b merchant, b donated a candelabrum to Rav Yehuda’s synagogue. Raḥava changed its /b purpose before Sha’azrak’s name was forgotten as the donor, and b Rava became angry /b at Raḥava for not waiting. b Some say /b the opposite: b Rava changed its /b purpose, and b Raḥava became angry /b at Rava. b And some say /b that the b attendants of Pumbedita, /b the charity collectors, b changed /b its purpose, and b Raḥava became angry /b at them, b and Rabba became angry /b at them as well.,The Gemara explains: The b one who changed /b its purpose b holds that /b it was permitted to change it, b as /b it was b not common /b for Sha’azrak to be in the city and it was unlikely that he would protest the change. b And /b the b one who became angry holds /b that even so, they should not have changed it, as b sometimes he happens to come /b there., strong MISHNA: /strong b One who is moribund and one who is taken to be executed /b after being sentenced by the court b is neither /b the object of b a vow nor valuated. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya says: /b He is not the object of a vow, because he has no market value; but b he is valuated, due to /b the fact b that one’s value is fixed /b by the Torah based on age and sex. b Rabbi Yosei says: /b One with that status b vows /b to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, b and takes /b vows of b valuation, and consecrates /b his property; b and if he damages /b the property of others, he is b liable /b to pay compensation., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b it makes sense that b one who is moribund is not /b the object of b a vow, as he has no monetary /b value. b And /b it also stands to reason that he b is not valuated, /b as b he is not subject to setting, /b i.e., standing, b and /b therefore is not subject to b valuation. /b The verse states: “Then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him” (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone who cannot stand, such as one who is dying, is not included in the i halakha /i of valuation. b But /b with regard to b one who is taken to be executed, granted, /b he b is not /b the object of b a vow, as he has no monetary /b value, since no one would purchase him. b But /b with regard to the mishna’s statement that he is b not valuated, why not? /b ,The Gemara answers that the reason is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b From where /b is it derived that in the case of b one who /b is being b taken to be executed and /b who b said: My valuation is upon me /b to donate to the Temple, b that he did not say anything, /b and the valuation is not collected from his estate? b The verse states: “Anything dedicated [ i ḥerem /i ], /b that may be dedicated of men, b shall not be redeemed” /b (Leviticus 27:29). This teaches that with regard to one who is worthy of excommunication [ i ḥerem /i ], i.e., condemned to death, one cannot redeem him, i.e., pay his valuation. One b might /b have thought that this applies b even before his verdict is issued, /b i.e., that this i halakha /i applies even if one issued this statement before being sentenced to death. Therefore, b the verse states: “of men,” and not all men, /b i.e., only some men destined to be executed have no valuation, and not all of them.,The Gemara asks: b And with regard to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya, who says /b in the mishna that even a person taken to be executed b is valuated, due to /b the fact b that one’s value is fixed, what does he do /b with the phrase b “anything dedicated”? /b ,The Gemara answers that he requires it b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, says: Since we found with regard to those executed at the hand of Heaven that they give money and their /b sins b are atoned, as it is stated /b in the case of the owner of a forewarned ox that killed a person: “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. b If there be laid upon him a ransom, /b then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him” (Exodus 21:29–30), one b might /b have thought that b even /b with regard to those liable to receive the death penalty b at the hands of man /b it is b so, /b that one can pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, b the verse states: “Anything dedicated /b that may be dedicated of men, b shall not be redeemed” /b (Leviticus 27:29)., b I have /b derived b only /b that one cannot give payment in lieu of execution with regard to b severe /b prohibitions punishable by the b death /b penalty, e.g., blasphemy or cursing one’s father, b for which no atonement is designated /b in the Torah b for their unwitting /b violation. b From where /b is it derived that the same applies to b less severe /b prohibitions punishable by the b death /b penalty, e.g., violating Shabbat or killing, b for which atonement /b of an offering or exile b is designated /b in the Torah b for their unwitting /b violation? b The verse states: “Anything dedicated,” /b to include all prohibitions punishable by court-administered execution.,§ The mishna teaches, with regard to one who is taken to be executed, that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Such a person b vows /b to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, b and takes /b vows of b valuation, /b and consecrates his property; and if he damages the property of others, he is liable to pay compensation. The Gemara asks: b And does the first i tanna /i say /b that such a person does b not /b vow to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury and take vows of valuation, such that Rabbi Yosei could be understood as disputing his opinion? The first i tanna /i merely said that such an individual is not subject to vows and valuations. What is the difference between their opinions?, b Rather, with regard to /b whether or not one who is taken to be executed can b vow /b to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, b and take /b vows of b valuation, and consecrate /b his property, b everyone, /b including the first i tanna /i , b agrees /b that he can. b When they disagree, /b it is b in /b a case b where /b he b causes damage. The first i tanna /i holds /b that b if /b he b causes damage /b he is b not liable for payment, and Rabbi Yosei holds /b that b if /b he b causes damage /b he is b liable to pay /b compensation.,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what /b principle b do /b these i tanna’im /i b disagree, /b as it is an accepted principle that one who causes damage must pay? b Rav Yosef said: /b They b disagree /b as to whether the payment can be collected from his estate. This depends on the question of whether or not one who is owed money from b a loan by oral /b agreement, i.e., a loan given without a document that places a lien on the land, can b collect from the heirs. The first i tanna /i holds /b that one who is owed money from b a loan by oral /b agreement b cannot collect from the heirs, and Rabbi Yosei holds /b that one who is owed money from b a loan by oral /b agreement can b collect from the heirs. /b , b Rava says: /b In fact, b everyone /b agrees that one who is owed money from b a loan by oral /b agreement b cannot collect from the heirs; and here /b the i tanna’im /i b disagree with regard to /b the status of b a loan that is written in the Torah, /b i.e., a ficial obligation decreed by Torah law, such as paying damages. b The first i tanna /i holds /b that b a loan that is written in the Torah is not /b considered b as though it is written in a document, /b and may not be collected from the heirs. b Rabbi Yosei holds /b that such a loan b is /b considered b as though it is written in a document, /b and therefore it may be collected from the heirs., b And there are those who teach /b the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef b with regard to this /b i baraita /i : In the case of b one who is taken to be executed /b after being sentenced by the court, if b he injured another /b he is b liable /b for payment. But if b others injured him /b they are b exempt, /b as they would be if they injured a dead person. b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if /b it was b he /b who b injured others, /b he is b exempt, as /b he b cannot be brought back to stand /b before b the court /b for judgment, since he must be executed without delay. |
|
| 27. Amram Gaon, Seder R. Amram Gaon, 1.21 (9th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 591 |
| 28. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 9.5 Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 591 |
| 29. Anon., Soferim, 10.6, 11.4-11.6, 13.9, 18.1-18.3, 19.5, 20.5-20.9, 21.5 Tagged with subjects: •prayer, babylonia Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 567, 589, 591 |
| 30. Septuagint, 4 Maccabees, 1, 14, 22, 29, 32, 36, 41, 43, 47-49, 55, 42 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 568 |
