1. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 1.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 1.13. "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם הִנֵּה מַתְּלָאָה וְהִפַּחְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וַהֲבֵאתֶם גָּזוּל וְאֶת־הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת־הַחוֹלֶה וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת־הַמִּנְחָה הַאֶרְצֶה אוֹתָהּ מִיֶּדְכֶם אָמַר יְהוָה׃", | 1.13. "Ye say also: ‘Behold, what a weariness is it!’ And ye have snuffed at it, Saith the LORD of hosts; And ye have brought that which was taken by violence, And the lame, and the sick; Thus ye bring the offering; Should I accept this of your hand? Saith the LORD.", |
|
2. Mishnah, Zevahim, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 8.1. "כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְחַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת, אוֹ בְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד בְּרִבּוֹא, יָמוּתוּ כֻלָּם. נִתְעָרְבוּ בְשׁוֹר שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בוֹ עֲבֵרָה, אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים, בְּרוֹבֵעַ, וּבְנִרְבָּע, וּבְמֻקְצֶה, וּבְנֶעֱבָד, וּבְאֶתְנָן, וּבִמְחִיר, וּבְכִלְאַיִם, וּבִטְרֵפָה, וּבְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. נִתְעָרֵב בְּחֻלִּין תְּמִימִים, יִמָּכְרוּ הַחֻלִּין לִצְרִיכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין: \n", | 8.1. "All sacrifices which became mixed up with hatats that must be left to die, or with an ox that is to be stoned, even one in ten thousand, all must be left to die. If they were mixed up with: an ox with which a transgression had been committed [for instance]: one that had killed a man on the testimony of one witness or of its owner; or [an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, [In all of these cases] they must graze until they become defected, then they are sold, and one brings [a sacrifice] of the same kind at the price of the better of them. If they were mixed up with unblemished [animals] of hullin, the hullin must be sold to those who need that kind [for a sacrifice].", |
|
3. Mishnah, Yoma, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306| 2.2. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִין וְרָצִין וְעוֹלִין בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, וְדָחַף אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ, וְנָפַל וְנִשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ בֵית דִּין שֶׁבָּאִין לִידֵי סַכָּנָה, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ תוֹרְמִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא בְפַיִס. אַרְבָּעָה פְיָסוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, וְזֶה הַפַּיִס הָרִאשׁוֹן: \n", | 2.2. "Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count.", |
|
4. Mishnah, Taanit, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 309| 4.8. "אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לֹא הָיוּ יָמִים טוֹבִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּאָב וּכְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁבָּהֶן בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יוֹצְאוֹת בִּכְלֵי לָבָן שְׁאוּלִין, שֶׁלֹּא לְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. כָּל הַכֵּלִים טְעוּנִין טְבִילָה. וּבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יוֹצְאוֹת וְחוֹלוֹת בַּכְּרָמִים. וּמֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרוֹת, בָּחוּר, שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה, מָה אַתָּה בוֹרֵר לָךְ. אַל תִּתֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַנּוֹי, תֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַמִּשְׁפָּחָה. שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי, אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת ה' הִיא תִתְהַלָּל (משלי לא). וְאוֹמֵר, תְּנוּ לָהּ מִפְּרִי יָדֶיהָ, וִיהַלְלוּהָ בַשְּׁעָרִים מַעֲשֶׂיהָ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר, צְאֶינָה וּרְאֶינָה בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן בַּמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה בָּעֲטָרָה שֶׁעִטְּרָה לּוֹ אִמּוֹ בְּיוֹם חֲתֻנָּתוֹ וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַת לִבּוֹ (שיר השירים ג). בְּיוֹם חֲתֻנָּתוֹ, זֶה מַתַּן תּוֹרָה. וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַת לִבּוֹ, זֶה בִּנְיַן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בִמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ. אָמֵן: \n", | 4.8. "Section one: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Section two: On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame any one who had none. All these garments required immersion. The daughters of Jerusalem come out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say? Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30). And it further says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates” (ibid, 31:31). Section three: Similarly it says, “O maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11). “On his wedding day”: this refers to Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.", |
|
5. Mishnah, Kelim, 26.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 26.8. "עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּזְלָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חִלּוּף הַדְּבָרִים, שֶׁל גַּזְלָן, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים: \n", | 26.8. "The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.", |
|
6. Mishnah, Gittin, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 5.5. "הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גֻּדְגְּדָה עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְגֵט. וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁאוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאִם מֵתָה, בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַבִּירָה, שֶׁיִּטֹּל אֶת דָּמָיו, מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים. וְעַל חַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ: \n", | 5.5. "Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value, because of the enactment to encourage repentance. And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.", |
|
7. Mishnah, Eduyot, 7.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 7.9. "הֵעִיד רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶן גֻּדְגְּדָא עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְגֵט. וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאִם מֵתָה, בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַבִּירָה, שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֶת דָּמָיו. וְעַל הַחַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ: \n", | 7.9. "Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Bekhorot, 6.12, 7.7, 9.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 6.12. "אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא בַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַמְּדִינָה, חֲוַרְוָד וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁאֵינָם קְבוּעִין, וְחִטָּיו הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ, (אֲבָל לֹא) שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ, וּבַעַל גָּרָב, וּבַעַל יַבֶּלֶת, וּבַעַל חֲזָזִית, וְזָקֵן, וְחוֹלֶה, וּמְזֻהָם, וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בוֹ עֲבֵרָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם (עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים), וְטֻמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, לֹא בַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַמְּדִינָה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, אֵין מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ בְכוֹר, אֶלָּא נִגְזָז וְנֶעֱבָד: \n", 7.7. "אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִין בָּאָדָם, וּפְסוּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה, אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, וּטְרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, (וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָהֶן עֲבֵרָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם). הַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵרָה, פָּסוּל, עַד שֶׁיַּדִּיר הֲנָיָה. הַמִּטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים, פָּסוּל, עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים: \n", 9.4. "הַכֹּל נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, חוּץ מִן הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, וּמְחֻסַּר זְמָן, וְיָתוֹם. אֵיזֶהוּ יָתוֹם, כּל שֶׁמֵּתָה אִמּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁחָטָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ וְהַשֶּׁלַח קַיָּם, אֵין זֶה יָתוֹם: \n", | 6.12. "And in consequence of the following blemishes one may not slaughter a first born either in the Temple or in the rest of the state: White spots on the cornea and water [dripping from the eye] which are not permanent, Or molars which have been broken but not torn out [completely]; Or [an animal] affected with garav, a wart, or hazazit. An old [animal] or a sick one, [an animal] of offensive smell; Or [an animal] which with a transgression has been committed or an animal which is known to have killed a human being on the testimony of one witness or of the owners. A tumtum or a hermaphrodite cannot be slaughtered, neither in the Temple or in the rest of the state. Rabbi Ishmael however says: there is no greater blemish than that [of a hermaphrodite]. But the sages say: it is not considered a first-born and it may be shorn and worked with.", 7.7. "The following are fit in the case of human beings, but unfit in the case of animals:A father with his son, A terefah; One born by means of a caesarean section. One with which a sin has been committed or has killed a person; A priest who contracts an illegal marriage is unfit [for the priesthood] until he vows not to derive any benefit from the woman. One who makes himself unclean through contact with the dead is unfit, until he undertakes that he will no longer make himself unclean through the dead.", 9.4. "All [domesticated animals] enter the shed to be tithed except kilayim, a terefah, offspring brought forth by means of a caesarean section, an animal too young for sacrifice, and an “orphan”. And what is an “orphan”? When its mother has died during its birth or was slaughtered [and subsequently gave birth.] But Rabbi Joshua says: even if the mother has been killed, if the hide is still intact the offspring is not an ‘orphan’ animal.", |
|
9. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 4.151-4.154 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305 | 4.151. 7. And now the multitude were going to rise against them already; for Aus, the ancientest of the high priests, persuaded them to it. He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him. These men made the temple of God a stronghold for them, and a place whither they might resort, in order to avoid the troubles they feared from the people; the sanctuary was now become a refuge, and a shop of tyranny. 4.152. They also mixed jesting among the miseries they introduced, which was more intolerable than what they did; 4.153. for in order to try what surprise the people would be under, and how far their own power extended, they undertook to dispose of the high priesthood by casting lots for it, whereas, as we have said already, it was to descend by succession in a family. 4.154. The pretense they made for this strange attempt was an ancient practice, while they said that of old it was determined by lot; but in truth, it was no better than a dissolution of an undeniable law, and a cunning contrivance to seize upon the government, derived from those that presumed to appoint governors as they themselves pleased. |
|
10. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 15.320-15.323, 18.26-18.27, 18.34, 19.297, 19.342, 20.15, 20.179-20.207 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306 | 15.320. There was one Simon, a citizen of Jerusalem, the son of one Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria, and a priest of great note there; this man had a daughter, who was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time; 15.321. and when the people of Jerusalem began to speak much in her commendation, it happened that Herod was much affected with what was said of her; and when he saw the damsel, he was smitten with her beauty, yet did he entirely reject the thoughts of using his authority to abuse her, as believing, what was the truth, that by so doing he should be stigmatized for violence and tyranny; so he thought it best to take the damsel to wife. 15.322. And while Simon was of a dignity too inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be despised, he governed his inclinations after the most prudent manner, by augmenting the dignity of the family, and making them more honorable; so he immediately deprived Jesus, the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon, and so joined in affinity with him [by marrying his daughter]. 15.323. 4. When this wedding was over, he built another citadel in that place where he had conquered file Jews when he was driven out of his government, and Antigonus enjoyed it. 18.26. 1. When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Aus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; 18.27. while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof. Herod also built a wall about Sepphoris, (which is the security of all Galilee,) and made it the metropolis of the country. He also built a wall round Betharamphtha, which was itself a city also, and called it Julias, from the name of the emperor’s wife. 18.34. This man deprived Aus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Aus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; 19.297. 2. And when Agrippa had entirely finished all the duties of the divine worship, he removed Theophilus, the son of Aus, from the high priesthood, and bestowed that honor of his on Simon the son of Boethus, whose name was also Cantheras whose daughter king Herod married, as I have related above. 19.342. This was very ill taken by Agrippa, who after that became his enemy. And now he took the high priesthood away from Matthias, and made Elioneus, the son of Cantheras, high priest in his stead. 20.15. 3. Herod also, the brother of the deceased Agrippa, who was then possessed of the royal authority over Chalcis, petitioned Claudius Caesar for the authority over the temple, and the money of the sacred treasure, and the choice of the high priests, and obtained all that he petitioned for. 20.179. 8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. 20.180. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. 20.181. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice. 20.182. 9. Now when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix; and he had certainly been brought to punishment, unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas, who was at that time had in the greatest honor by him. 20.183. Two of the principal Syrians in Caesarea persuaded Burrhus, who was Nero’s tutor, and secretary for his Greek epistles, by giving him a great sum of money, to disannul that equality of the Jewish privileges of citizens which they hitherto enjoyed. 20.184. So Burrhus, by his solicitations, obtained leave of the emperor that an epistle should be written to that purpose. This epistle became the occasion of the following miseries that befell our nation; for when the Jews of Caesarea were informed of the contents of this epistle to the Syrians, they were more disorderly than before, till a war was kindled. 20.185. 10. Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. 20.186. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; 20.187. for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. 20.188. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also. 20.189. 11. About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. 20.190. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; 20.191. which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, 20.192. which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. 20.193. At these doings both king Agrippa, and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; 20.194. and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. 20.195. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. 20.196. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest. 20.197. 1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Aus, who was also himself called Aus. 20.198. Now the report goes that this eldest Aus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. 20.199. But this younger Aus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; 20.200. when, therefore, Aus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: 20.201. but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Aus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; 20.202. nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Aus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. 20.203. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Aus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. 20.204. 2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. 20.205. But as for the high priest, Aias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; 20.206. he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. 20.207. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food. |
|
| 11. Tosefta, Makkot, a b c d\n0 5(4).4 5(4).4 5(4) 4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308 |
| 12. Tosefta, Menachot, 8.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308 |
13. Tosefta, Zevahim, 8.1-8.2, 9.1-9.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 8.1. "כל הזבחים שנתערבו הן וולדותיהן ותמורותיהן ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויביא בדמי יפה שבהן ממין זה ובדמי יפה שבהן ממין זה ויפסיד המותר מביתו. נתערבו ברובע ובנרבע במוקצה ובנעבד באתנן ומחיר ובכלאים ובטרפה וביוצא דופן ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויביא בדמי יפה שבהן מאותו המין והשאר חולין נתערבו בחולין תמימים יקדישום לשום אותו הזבח. נתערבו בזבחים מת אחד מהן יביא כנגדו ממקום אחר ויתנה עליו. נתערבו הדמים הרי זה לוקח בהן שלש בהמות בין ממקום אחד ובין משלשה מקומות ומחלל דמי חטאת על חטאת ודמי עולה על עולה ודמי שלמים על שלמים ונותנין לבעלים ולא יתנם לבעלים עד שיחללם על כולן.", 8.1. "הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבה בניתנין במתנה אחת ינתנו במתנה אחת. מתן ארבע במתן ארבע ינתנו במתן ארבע. מתן ארבע במתנה אחת רבי אליעזר אומר ינתנו מתן ארבע ר' יהושע אומר ינתנו מתנה אחת אמר רבי אליעזר הרי הוא עובר על בל תגרע אמר רבי יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף אמר רבי אליעזר לא נאמר בל תוסיף אלא כשהוא בעצמו ומוסיף אתה עליו כשהוא עם אחרים אמר רבי יהושע לא נאמר בל תגרע אלא כשהוא בעצמו וגורע אתה הימנו כשהוא עם אחרים אמר לו רבי אליעזר עדיין דבר שקול מי מכריע אמר לו רבי יהושע אני אכריע כשאני עושה בידי נמצאתי עובר על לא תעשה והרי הוא בידי כשאני מניחה כמות שהיא נמצאתי עובר לא תעשה ואינה בידי.", 8.2. "עולה שנתערבה באחד מכל הזבחים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויביא בדמי יפה שבהן זבח ובדמי יפה שבהן עולה כבר קרב זבחו יביא בדמיו זבח אחר קרבה עולתו יביא בדמה עולה אחרת. חטאת שנתערבה באחת מכל הזבחים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויביא בדמי יפה שבהן זבח ובדמי יפה שבהן חטאת. כבר קרב זבח יביא בדמיו זבח אחר כבר קרבה חטאתו שניהן ימותו. אשם שנתערב באחד מכל הזבחים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויביא בדמי יפה שבהן זבח ובדמי יפה שבהן אשם. כבר קרב זבחו יביא בדמו זבח אחר כבר קרב אשמו שניהן יפלו לנדבה. מעות חטאת ומעות אשם שנתערבו אלו באלו לוקח בהן שתי בהמות בין ממקום אחד ובין משני מקומות ומחלל דמי חטאת על חטאת ודמי אשם על אשם. כבר קרבה חטאתו יוליך לים המלח כבר קרב אשמו יפול לנדבה. תודה שנתערב בתמורתו שניהן יקרבו ויניף הלחם עמהן.", 9.1. "אין בין דברי רבן גמליאל לדברי ר' יהושע אלא הדם והנסכים. הדם כדברי רבן גמליאל זורקו על גבי האישים נסכים נותנו לספלים. הפסח והחטאת ששחטן שלא לשמן ועלו לגבי המזבח הרי אלו לא ירדו. כל הזבחים שעלו לגבי המזבח ונמצאו פסולין הרי אלו לא ירדו. העצמות והגידים והקרנים והטלפיים שעלו לגבי המזבח ונמצאו פסולין הרי אלו לא ירדו.", 9.2. "אותו ואת בנו שעלו לגבי מזבח ירדו שאין המזבח מקדש אלא את הראוי לו. הרובע והנרבע המוקצה והנעבד והאתנן והמחיר והכלאים והטרפה ויוצא דופן שעלו לגבי מזבח ירדו מפני שלא היו פסולן בקדש זה הכלל שהיה פסולו בקדש הקדש מקבלו לא היה פסולו בקדש אין הקדש מקבלו חוץ מבעל מום שר' שמעון אומר משם רבי עקיבה בעל מום בעוף כשר ר' חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר דוחה היה אבא את בעלי מומין מליקרב מפני מה אמרו הלן והיוצא והטמא שעלו לא ירדו מפני שהלן כשר בשלמים והיוצא כשר בבמה והטמא כשר בצבור.", 9.3. "הקומץ והלבונה מנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משוח ומנחת נסכים שעלו לגבי מזבח ונמצאו פסולים הרי אלו לא ירדו. אבל קטרת שעלה לגבי המזבח תרד שאין המזבח מקדש אלא את הראוי לו עולה שעלתה לגבי מזבח ונמצאת פסולה יקטירנה על יד העזרה. אברין שלנו בעזרה מעלין אותו כל הלילה. שעל גבי הכבש שבראשו של מזבח מעלין אותם לעולם. כשם שאם עלו לא ירדו כך אם ירדו לא יעלו ואם עלו ירדו הקומץ שנתנו על גבי האישים שיריו מותרין.", | |
|
14. Mishnah, Temurah, 6.1-6.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 6.1. "כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אוֹסְרִים כָּל שֶׁהֵן. הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמֻּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנָן, וּמְחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן. אֵיזֶה הוּא מֻקְצֶה. הַמֻּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הוּא אָסוּר, וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו מֻתָּר. אֵיזֶהוּ נֶעֱבָד. כֹּל שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתוֹ. הוּא וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו אָסוּר. זֶה וָזֶה מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", 6.2. "אֵיזֶהוּ אֶתְנָן. הָאוֹמֵר לְזוֹנָה, הֵא לִיךְ טָלֶה זֶה בִשְׂכָרֵךְ, אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה וְתָלִין שִׁפְחָתְךָ אֵצֶל עַבְדִּי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ אֶתְנָן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶתְנָן: \n", 6.3. "אֵיזֶה הוּא מְחִיר כֶּלֶב. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה תַּחַת כֶּלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, אֶחָד נָטַל עֲשָׂרָה, וְאֶחָד נָטַל תִּשְׁעָה וָכֶלֶב, שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַכֶּלֶב, אֲסוּרִים, שֶׁעִם הַכֶּלֶב, מֻתָּרִים. אֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב וּמְחִיר זוֹנָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג), שְׁנַיִם, וְלֹא אַרְבָּעָה. וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) הֵן, וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן: \n", 6.4. "נָתַן לָהּ כְּסָפִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים, וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אָסוּר. נָתַן לָהּ מֻקְדָּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. עוֹפוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, מָה אִם הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶם, אֵין אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶם, עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן, אֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם), לְכָל נֶדֶר, לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעוֹף: \n", 6.5. "כָּל הָאֲסוּרִים עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִים. וְלַד טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, לֹא יִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יִקְרָב. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה, פְּסוּלָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה, אֵין פּוֹדִים אוֹתָם, שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִים אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים: \n", | 6.1. "All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are. [These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside (muktzeh) [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’evad) [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted. And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.", 6.2. "What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”?If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar]. If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.", 6.3. "What is meant by the “price of a dog”?If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog. And similarly if two partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden [for the altar], but those taken with a dog are valid [for the altar]. An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted [for the altar], since it says: “[For] both [of these]” (Deuteronomy 23:19): both’ but not four. Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring.", 6.4. "If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar. If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar]. If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified. For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird.", 6.5. "With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar. The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Elazar says it may not be offered on the altar. But the sages say it may be offered. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar. Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.", |
|
15. Tosefta, Nazir, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 4.9. "מי שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים ונטמא ר\"א אומר סותר את הכל וחכמים אומרים יביא שאר קרבנו ויטהר מפני שקדש שער בדם מעשה במרים התורמדית שנזרקו עליה אחד מן הדמים ובאו ואמרו לה על בתה [שהיא] מסוכנת והלכה ומצאתה שמתה [ומטמאה] עליה אמרו חכמים תביא שאר קרבנה ותטהר מפני שקדש שער בדם.", | |
|
16. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Qamma, 1.8 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306| 1.8. "כל העזרה כשרה לאכילת קדשי קדשים ולשחיטת קדשים קלים והשוחט בתוכה חולין אסורין בהנאה והיא היתה חצר המשכן לפנים מן הקלעים שהיו במדבר. כל הטמאים שנכנסו משער נקנור ולפנים אפילו הן מחוסרי כפרה הרי אלו חייבין על זדונן כרת ועל שגגתן חטאת ואין צריך לומר טבול יום ושאר כל הטמאין שנכנסו לפנים ממחיצותיהן הרי אלו באזהרה נכנסים לקדש הרי אלו חייבים רבי יהודה אומר על פני הקדש במיתה ושאר כל המת באזהרה.", | |
|
17. Tosefta, Temurah, 1.9, 1.12, 4.1-4.10 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 1.9. "אלו דברים שבין בהמה לעופות שהבהמה דוחה את השבת ודוחה את הטומאה ונוהגת בצבור כיחיד ויש בה חטאת מתה וחטאת נקבה ואשם ודאי ואשם תלוי ותודה ושלמים ובאה מן המעשר וקרבה בבמה וטעונה סמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק וטעונה מתן ארבע ויש מדמה נכנס לפנים ולפני ולפנים מה שאין כן בעופות.", 1.12. "ואלו דברים שבין עופות למנחות שהעופות באין בשותפות ומתירין מחוסרי כפרה והותר מכלל איסורין בקדש וחייבים עליה בחוץ מה שאין כן במנחות ולד חטאת ותמורת חטאת שמתו בעליה עושה תמורה ושאבדה ושנמצאת עד שלא כפרו הבעלים עושה תמורה משכפרו בעלים אין עושה תמורה. רבי שמעון אומר אף שכיפרו הבעלים ושעיברה שנתה יהו מיתות ובצבור מצינו בולד חטאת ובתמורת חטאת ובחטאת שמתו בעליה ביחיד דברים אמורין ולא בצבור אף אלו ביחיד דברים אמורין ולא בצבור. חומר בזבח שאין בתמורה ובתמורה שאין בזבח שהזבח דוחה את השבת ואת שטומאה נוהג בצבור כיחיד ועושה תמורה מה שאין כן בתמורה. חומר בתמורה שהתמורה קדושה חלה עליה בעלת מום קבוע מה שאין כן בזבח רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר שגגה כזדון.", 4.1. "הנרבע בין משלו ובין משל חברו בין לפני הקדשו ובין לאחר הקדשו בין בשוגג ובין במזיד בין באונס ובין ברצון פסול לגבי מזבח. מוקצה שלו אסור ושל חברו מותר. מאימתי נקרא מוקצה משעת מעשה שעבד בין משלו ובין משל חברו בין לפני הקדשו בין לאחר הקדשו בין בשוגג ובין במזיד פסול לגבי מזבח באונס כשר ברצון פסול. איזה נעבד כל שעובדין אותו בין באונס ובין ברצון זהו מוקצה לעבודת כוכבים אבל אמר שור זה לעבודת כוכבים ובית זה לעבודת כוכבים לא אמר כלום שאין הקדש לעבודת כוכבים. איזו מחיר כלב אלו חלופי כלב שנאמר (תהילים מ״ד:י״ג) תמכר עמך בלא הון וגו'. החליף עמו פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבולין יינות שמנים וסלתות כל דבר שהוא כיוצא בו קרב לגבי מזבח אסורה האחין שהיו להן תשע בהמות וכלב חלקו ד' כנגד ארבע ואחד כנגד כלב שכנגד הכלב אסור שעם הכלב מותר.", 4.2. "איזהו אתנן זה שכרו של זונה שנאמר (יחזקאל ט״ז:ל״ג) לכל זונות יתנו וגו' שכר זכר ה\"ז אסור האומר לחברו הילך טלה זה ותלין שפחתך אצל עבדי רבי אומר אתנן ר' יוסי בר ר' יהודה אומר אין אתנן שאין אתנן אלא מן עריות שביאתן בעבירה נתן לה חטין לעשות סולת ענבים לעשות יין זיתים לעשות שמן בהמה מעוברת וילדה אצלו הרי אלו אסורין אבל נתן לה מעות לקחה בהן יינות שמנים וסלתות בהמה ונתעברה אצלו וילדה הרי אלו מותרין וכשם שאסורין באהל מועד שבמדבר כך אסורין באהל מועד שבגלגל וכשרין להקדש בדק הבית. נתן לה זהב רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אין עושין אותו רקועין אפילו אחורי בית הכפרת נתן לה ולא בא עליה הרי אלו מותרין בא עליה אפילו לאחר ג' שנים הרי אלו אסורין וזהו אתנן רבי אומר מן עריות שביאתן עבירה אבל הנותן לאשתו בנדתה או שנתנה לו היא או שנתן לה שכר פקעתה הרי אלו מותרין אע\"פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר (שם) ובתתך אתנן ואתנן לא נתן לך וגו' נתן לה מוקדשין הרי אלו מותרין והדין נותן שיהיו אסורין ומה אם העוף שאין המום פוסל בו אתנן ומחיר חל עליו קדשים שהמום פוסל בהן אינו דין שיהא אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן ת\"ל (דברים כ״ג:י״ט) לכל נדר פרט לדבר הנדור.", 4.3. "כל אסורין לגבי מזבח ולדותיהן מותרין רבי אליעזר אוסר ולד טרפה רבי אליעזר אומר לא יקרב לגבי מזבח וחכ\"א יקרב ומודה ר' אליעזר באפרוח שיצא מביצה טרפה שיקרב לגבי מזבח ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר משם רבי אלעזר <בן> חסמא בהמה כשרה שינקה מן הטרפה אסורה לגבי מזבח.", 4.4. "כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה לפני הקדישן ואח\"כ מתו יש להן פדיון אחר הקדישן ומתו אין להן פדיון שאין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים. הבכור והמעשר יש להן פדיון חומר בהקדש מזבח מה שאין בהקדש בדק הבית וחומר בהקדש בדק הבית מה שאין בהקדש מזבח נותנין הימנו להקדש הבית את הראוי לו מאילך ושלא מאילך והקדש בדק הבית אינו אלא מאילך. חומר בהקדש בדק הבית תחלת הקדישו מועלין בו והקדש המזבח יש הימנו שמועלין בו יש הימנו שאין מועלין בו ולא הותרו לאכילה אלא בפדיון אם מתו בין תמימין ובין בעלי מומין לא יפדו ר\"ש אומר יפדו. בהקדש המזבח תמימין לא יפדו ובעלי מומין יפדו אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית שאם מתו או שהפילו או שנטמאו הרי אלו ישרפו. חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק ואשם תלוי וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה ר\"ש אומר ישרפו ר' יהודה אומר יקברו כיצד קוברין חטאת העוף היו נותנין אותה על גבי אמת המים והיא מתגלגלת ויורדת לנחל קדרון רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר חלון היתה שם למערבו של כבש אמה על אמה רבובה היתה נקראת ששם נותנין חטאת העוף תעובר צורתה ותצא לבית השרפה. פסולי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים וקדשי קדשים שנטמאו בפנים ומנחות והסולת והיין והשמן הרי אלו ישרפו כיצד שורפין יין ושמן היו נותנין אותן על גבי מדורה כמות שהן. פסולי קדשים קלים ואימורי קדשי קדשים שנטמאו בחוץ והפסח שיצא רובו שורפין אותן לפני הבירה מעצי המערכה. ", | |
|
| 18. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 19. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 147 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308 |
| 20. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308, 309 |
| 21. Palestinian Talmud, Gittin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
22. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 2.7, 3.4, 27.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 2.7. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאָדָם זֶה, אָדָם, יְהֵא קָרְבָּנְךָ דּוֹמֶה לְקָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַכֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִקְרִיב מִן הַגְּזֵלוֹת וּמִן הַחֲמָסִים, אַף אַתָּה לֹא תַקְרִיב מִן הַגְּזֵלוֹת וְלֹא מִן הַחֲמָסִים, וְאִם עָשִׂיתָ כֵן (תהלים סט, לב): וְתִיטַב לַה' מִשּׁוֹר פָּר. 3.4. נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן, מַה כְּתִיב לְמַעְלָה מִן הָעִנְיָן (ויקרא א, טז): וְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ בְּנֹצָתָהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא בַּר חֲנִילָאי הָעוֹף הַזֶּה פּוֹרֵחַ וְטָס בְּכָל הָעוֹלָם וְאוֹכֵל בְּכָל צַד, וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַגְּזֵלוֹת וּמִן הַחֲמָסִין, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הוֹאִיל וְהַזֶּפֶק הַזֶּה מָלֵא גְזֵלוֹת וַחֲמָסִין אַל יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה גְּדֵלָה עַל אֵבוּס בַּעֲלָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת מִכָּל צַד לֹא מִן הַגְּזֵלוֹת וְלֹא מִן הַחֲמָסִין, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא מַקְרִיבָהּ כֻּלָּהּ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא א, יג): וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן [והקטיר] אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה, לְפִי שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ הַזּוֹ גּוֹזֶלֶת וְחוֹמֶסֶת, בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה צַעַר וְכַמָּה יְגִיעָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַאֲכָלָהּ מִמֶּנָּהּ, מִפּוּמָא לְוֶשְׁטָא, מִוֶּשְׁטָא לְאִיסְטוּמְכָא, מֵאִיסְטוּמְכָא לְהַמְסֵיסָא, מֵהַמְסֵיסָא לְבֵית כַּסְיָא, מִבֵּית כַּסְיָא לִכְרֵסָא, מִכְּרֵסָא לְבֵי מְעַיָּה, מִבֵּי מְעַיָּה לִכְרוֹכֶת קְטִינָא, וּמִכְרוֹכֶת קְטִינָא לִכְרוֹכֶת עָבְיָא, וּמִכְרוּכַת עָבְיָא לְסַנְיָא דִיבֵי, וּמִסַנְיָא דִיבֵי לִפְטֶטְרָכָה, וּמִפְּטֶטְרָכָא לְבָרָא, בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה צַעַר וְכַמָּה יְגִיעָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַאֲכָלָהּ מִמֶּנָּהּ. 27.5. וְהָאֱלֹהִים יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף (קהלת ג, טו), רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר, לְעוֹלָם וְהָאֱלֹהִים יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף, אַתָּה מוֹצֵא צַדִּיק רוֹדֵף צַדִּיק וְהָאֱלֹהִים יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף, רָשָׁע רוֹדֵף צַדִּיק וְהָאֱלֹהִים יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף, רָשָׁע רוֹדֵף רָשָׁע וְהָאֱלֹהִים יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף, אֲפִלּוּ צַדִּיק רוֹדֵף רָשָׁע וְהָאֱלֹהִים יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף, מִכָּל מָקוֹם וְהָאֱלֹהִים יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן רַבִּי נְהוֹרָאי, לְעוֹלָם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא תּוֹבֵעַ דָּמָן שֶׁל נִרְדָּפִין מִן הָרוֹדְפִין, תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁכֵּן הוּא שֶׁכֵּן הֶבֶל נִרְדָּף מִפְּנֵי קַיִן וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּהֶבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד, ד): וַיִּשַּׁע ה' אֶל הֶבֶל וְאֶל מִנְחָתוֹ. נֹחַ נִרְדָּף מִפְּנֵי דוֹרוֹ וְלֹא בָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶלָּא בְּנֹחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ז, א): כִּי אֹתְךָ רָאִיתִי צַדִּיק לְפָנַי בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה. אַבְרָהָם נִרְדַּף מִפְּנֵי נִמְרוֹד וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּאַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ז): אַתָּה הוּא ה' הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתָּ בְּאַבְרָם. יִצְחָק נִרְדַּף מִפְּנֵי פְּלִשְׁתִּים וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיִצְחָק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כו, כח): רָאוֹ רָאִינוּ כִּי הָיָה ה' עִמָּךְ, יַעֲקֹב נִרְדַּף מִפְּנֵי עֵשָׂו וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיַעֲקֹב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קלה, ד): כִּי יַעֲקֹב בָּחַר לוֹ יָהּ. יוֹסֵף נִרְדַּף מִפְנֵי אֶחָיו וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיוֹסֵף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פא, ו): עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ. משֶׁה נִרְדַּף מִפְּנֵי פַּרְעֹה וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּמשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קו, כג): לוּלֵי משֶׁה בְחִירוֹ. דָּוִד נִרְדַּף מִפְּנֵי שָׁאוּל וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּדָוִד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים עח, ע): וַיִּבְחַר בְּדָוִד עַבְדּוֹ. שָׁאוּל נִרְדַּף מִפְּנֵי פְּלִשְׁתִּים וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּשָׁאוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א י, כד): הַרְאִיתֶם אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר בּוֹ ה'. יִשְׂרָאֵל נִרְדָּפִין מִפְּנֵי הָאֻמּוֹת וּבָחַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד, ב): וּבְךָ בָּחַר ה' לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִמְרָא אָמַר אַף בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת כָּךְ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׁוֹר נִרְדַּף מִפְּנֵי אֲרִי, עֵז מִפְּנֵי נָמֵר, כֶּבֶשׂ מִפְּנֵי זְאֵב, לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ לְפָנַי מִן הָרוֹדְפִים, אֶלָּא מִן הַנִּרְדָּפִין, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ויקרא כב, כז): שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד. | 27.5. "Moses was pursued by Pharoah, and the Holy One chose Moses. David was pursued by Saul, and the Holy One chose David. Saul was pursued by the Philistines, and the Holy One chose Saul. Israel are pursued by the nations, and the Holy One chose Israel. ", |
|
| 23. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 24. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305 |
25. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308, 309, 312| 4.13. יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן. רַבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא הִנִּיחוּ אוֹתִי לִפְשֹׁט יָדִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן כִּכָּר אַחַת וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֹּאכַלְנָה הִיא וּבַעֲלָהּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל שְׁכֶנְתָּהּ, הָיְתָה נוֹטֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ הַכִּכָּר וּמְנַחֶמָה אוֹתָהּ בָּהּ, וְהֶעֱלָה עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן לְמִצְווֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָרוֹת לָמוֹ. | |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 309| 13b. בניו ממזרין,ות"ק אשתו לא מפקר,אמר מר שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה וניחוש שמא מין הוא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אין מינין באומות עובדי כוכבים,והא קאחזינן דאיכא אימא אין רוב עובדי כוכבים מינין סבר לה כי הא דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן נכרים שבחוצה לארץ לאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הן אלא מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן,אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אין מינין באומות עובדי כוכבים למאי אילימא לשחיטה השתא שחיטת מין דישראל אמרת אסירא דעובד כוכבים מבעיא אלא למורידין השתא דישראל מורידין דעובדי כוכבים מבעיא,אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא לקבל מהן קרבן דתניא (ויקרא א, ב) מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המומר מכם בכם חלקתי ולא בעובדי כוכבים,ממאי דלמא הכי קאמר מישראל מצדיקי קבל מרשיעי לא תקבל אבל בעובדי כוכבים כלל כלל לא לא ס"ד דתניא איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות העובדי כוכבים שנודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל:,ומטמאה במשא: פשיטא כיון דנבלה היא מטמאה במשא אמר רבא הכי קתני זו מטמאה במשא ויש לך אחרת שהיא מטמאה אפילו באהל ואיזו זו תקרובת עבודת כוכבים וכרבי יהודה בן בתירא,איכא דאמרי אמר רבא הכי קתני זו מטמאה במשא ויש לך אחרת שהיא כזו שמטמאה במשא ואינה מטמאה באהל ואיזו זו תקרובת עבודת כוכבים ודלא כר' יהודה בן בתירא,דתניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר מנין לתקרובת עבודת כוכבים שהיא מטמאה באהל שנאמר (תהלים קו, כח) ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים מה מת מטמא באהל אף תקרובת עבוד' כוכבי' מטמאה באהל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big השוחט בלילה וכן הסומא ששחט שחיטתו כשרה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא ורמינהי לעולם שוחטין בין ביום ובין בלילה בין בראש הגג בין בראש הספינה,אר"פ בשאבוקה כנגדו אמר רב אשי דיקא נמי דקתני התם דומיא דיום והכא דומיא דסומא ש"מ: | 13b. b his sons are i mamzerim /i , /b as he is indifferent to his wife’s engaging in adultery.,The Gemara asks: b And the first i tanna /i , /b why did he not include the ruling that the sons of a heretic are i mamzerim /i ? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, a heretic b does not release his wife /b and allow her to engage in adultery., b The Master said /b in the mishna: b Slaughter /b performed by b a gentile /b renders the animal b an unslaughtered carcass. /b The Gemara challenges this: b And let us be concerned /b that b perhaps he is a heretic /b who is a devout idolater and deriving benefit from his slaughter is prohibited. b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no /b such b heretics among the nations /b of the world.,The Gemara asks: b But don’t we see that there are? /b The Gemara answers: b Say the majority of /b the people of b the nations /b of the world b are not heretics, /b and with regard to slaughter one follows the majority. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar Avuh b holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The status of b gentiles outside of Eretz /b Yisrael is b not /b that of b idol worshippers, /b as their worship is not motivated by faith and devotion. b Rather, it is /b a traditional b custom of their ancestors /b that was transmitted b to them. /b , b Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says /b that b Rav Naḥman says: There are no heretics among the nations /b of the world, i.e., gentile heretics do not have the halakhic status of actual heretics. The Gemara asks: b With regard to what /b matter did Rav Naḥman state the i halakha /i ? b If we say /b that it is b with regard to slaughter, now /b that b you said the slaughter of a Jewish heretic is forbidden, /b is it b necessary /b to say the slaughter b of a gentile /b heretic is forbidden? b Rather, /b it is b with regard to /b the i halakha /i that b one lowers /b them into a pit, i.e., one may kill a heretic, and Rav Naḥman holds that one may not kill them. But this too is difficult, as b now /b if b one lowers a Jewish /b heretic into a pit, is it b necessary /b to say b that /b one lowers b a gentile /b heretic?, b Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: /b It is stated b with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “When any person of you shall bring an offering” (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states: b “of you,” and not: /b of b all of you, to exclude the /b Jewish b transgressor /b who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states: b “of you,” /b to mean that b among you, /b the Jews, b I distinguished /b between a transgressor and other Jews, b but not among the nations. /b One accepts an offering from all gentiles, even a heretic.,The Gemara asks: b From where /b do you draw that conclusion? b Perhaps this /b is what the verse b is saying: /b With regard to offerings b from Jews, from righteous /b Jews b accept /b the offering and b from wicked /b Jews b do not accept /b the offering; b but with regard to the nations of the world, do not /b accept their offerings b at all. /b The Gemara rejects that possibility: That b should not enter your mind, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “Any man [ i ish ish /i ] from the house of Israel…who shall sacrifice his offering” (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: b A man [ i ish /i ], what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “Any man [ i ish ish /i ]”? /b It serves b to include the gentiles, who /b may b vow /b to bring b vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew. /b ,§ The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a gentile: b And /b the carcass b imparts ritual impurity through carrying. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious? Since it is /b considered b an unslaughtered carcass it imparts ritual impurity through carrying. Rava said /b that b this /b is what the i tanna /i b is teaching: This /b slaughtered animal b imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another /b animal b that imparts impurity even in a tent, /b i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with this animal he becomes impure even though he neither touched it nor carried it. b And which /b animal is that? b That /b animal b is an idolatrous offering, and /b this statement is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira /b cited below., b There are /b those b who say /b an alternative version of Rava’s statement: b Rava said /b that b this /b is what the i tanna /i b is teaching: This /b slaughtered animal b imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another /b animal b that is like this /b one in b that /b it b imparts ritual impurity through carrying and does not impart impurity in a tent. And which /b animal is this? b This /b animal b is an idolatrous offering, and /b this statement is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where /b is it derived with regard b to an idolatrous offering that it imparts impurity in a tent? /b It is derived from a verse, b as it is stated: “They adhered to Ba’al-Peor and ate the offerings to the dead” /b (Psalms 106:28). b Just as a corpse imparts impurity in a tent, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity in a tent. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b one who slaughters /b an animal b at night, and likewise /b in the case of b the blind /b person b who slaughters /b an animal, b his slaughter is valid. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara infers from the formulation of the mishna: b One who slaughters, /b and not: One may slaughter, that with regard to the slaughter of one who slaughters at night, b after the fact, yes, /b it is valid, but b i ab initio /i , /b one may b not /b do so. The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 1:4): b One may always slaughter, both during the day and at night, both on the rooftop and atop a ship, /b indicating that slaughter at night is permitted i ab initio /i ., b Rav Pappa said: /b The i tanna /i of the i baraita /i is referring b to /b a case b where /b there is b a torch opposite /b the slaughterer; therefore, it is permitted i ab initio /i . b Rav Ashi said: /b The language of the i baraita /i b is also precise, as /b slaughter at night b is taught there /b in the i baraita /i b similar to /b slaughter b during the day, /b based on the juxtaposition: Both during the day and at night. b And here /b slaughter at night is taught b similar to /b the slaughter performed b by a blind /b person, with no light, based on the juxtaposition: One who slaughters at night, and likewise the blind person who slaughters. Therefore, the slaughter is valid only after the fact. The Gemara concludes: b Learn from it. /b |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 309| 69b. עד דהוי מומר לעבודת כוכבים,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ליתן רשות ולבטל רשות וכדתניא ישראל מומר משמר שבתו בשוק מבטל רשות שאינו משמר שבתו בשוק אינו מבטל רשות,מפני שאמרו ישראל נוטל רשות ונותן רשות ובנכרי עד שישכיר כיצד אומר לו רשותי קנויה לך רשותי מבוטלת לך קנה ואין צריך לזכות,רב אשי אמר האי תנא הוא דחמירא עליה שבת כע"ז,כדתניא (ויקרא א, ב) מכם ולא כולכם פרט למומר מכם בכם חלקתי ולא באומות,מן הבהמה להביא בני אדם הדומין לבהמה מכאן אמרו מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל כדי שיחזרו בתשובה חוץ מן המומר והמנסך יין והמחלל שבתות בפרהסיא,הא גופא קשיא אמרת מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המומר והדר תני מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל הא לא קשיא רישא במומר לכל התורה כולה מציעתא במומר לדבר אחד,אימא סיפא חוץ מן המומר והמנסך יין האי מומר היכי דמי אי מומר לכל התורה היינו רישא אי לדבר אחד קשיא מציעתא,אלא לאו הכי קאמר חוץ מן המומר לנסך ולחלל שבתות בפרהסיא אלמא ע"ז ושבת כי הדדי נינהו שמע מינה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהן ולא עירב ביתו אסור מלהכניס ומלהוציא לו ולהם ושלהם מותרין לו ולהם נתנו לו רשותן הוא מותר והן אסורין,היו שנים אוסרין זה על זה שאחד נותן רשות ונוטל רשות שנים נותנין רשות ואין נוטלין רשות,מאימתי נותנין רשות ב"ש אומרים מבעוד יום וב"ה אומרים משחשיכה מי שנתן רשותו והוציא בין בשוגג בין במזיד ה"ז אוסר דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר במזיד אוסר בשוגג אינו אוסר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ביתו הוא דאסור הא חצירו שריא,היכי דמי אי דבטיל ביתו אמאי אסור אי דלא בטיל חצירו אמאי שריא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שביטל רשות חצירו ולא ביטל רשות ביתו וקא סברי רבנן המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו לא ביטל דדייר איניש בבית בלא חצר,ושלהן מותר לו ולהן מאי טעמא דהוי אורח לגבייהו:,נתנו לו רשותן הוא מותר והן אסורין: ונהוי אינהו לגביה כי אורחין חד לגבי חמשה הוי אורח חמשה לגבי חד לא הוי אורח,ש"מ מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין,הכי קאמר נתנו לו רשותן מעיקרא הוא מותר והן אסורין:,היו שנים אוסרין זה על זה פשיטא לא צריכא דהדר חד מינייהו ובטיל ליה לחבריה מהו דתימא לישתרי קמ"ל דכיון דבעידנא דבטיל לא הוה ליה שריותא בהאי חצר:,שאחד נותן רשות הא תו למה לי אי נותן תנינא אי נוטל תנינא,סיפא איצטריכא ליה שנים נותנין רשות הא נמי פשיטא מהו דתימא | 69b. b unless he is an apostate with regard to idolatry. /b As long as he has not worshipped idols, his transgression of a single prohibition does not put him under suspicion of transgressing the rest of the Torah., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b Rav Huna was not attempting to offer a broad definition of an apostate, but was rather referring to the specific issue of b giving /b away b rights or renouncing rights /b in a domain with regard to the i halakhot /i of i eiruvin /i . b And as it was taught /b in the following i Tosefta /i : b An apostate Jew, /b if he b observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, /b i.e., in public, b he may renounce /b his b rights /b in a domain like a regular Jew, but if he b does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace, he may not renounce /b his b rights /b in a domain, as he is no longer considered a Jew in this regard.,This distinction is significant b due to /b the fact b that /b the Sages b said: A Jew may receive rights and give /b away b rights /b in a domain through a mere statement of renunciation, b but with regard to a gentile /b it is not so, as he may not transfer his rights to others or renounce them in a domain b unless he /b actually b rents /b it b out. How so? /b A Jew b may say to /b his fellow: b May my rights /b in this domain b be acquired by you, /b or b May my rights /b in this domain b be renounced to you, /b and his fellow thereby b acquires /b those rights, b and it is not necessary that he take possession of it /b through a formal mode of acquisition., b Rav Ashi said: /b Rav Huna’s statement that a Jew who desecrates Shabbat in public is an apostate is indeed a general statement, as he is no longer considered a Jew in any sense. In accordance with the opinion of which i tanna /i did he make that statement? b It /b is in accordance with the opinion of b this i tanna /i , for whom Shabbat is as severe as idolatry, /b and therefore one who desecrates Shabbat is treated like an idol worshipper., b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the cattle, of the herd, or of the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The i baraita /i expounds: b “of you,” /b i.e., some of you, but b not all of you /b may bring an offering – b to the exclusion of an apostate. “of you” /b additionally serves to emphasize that b among you, /b the children of Israel, b I distinguish /b between those who observe the Torah and are fit to bring an offering, and those who are not fit, b but not among the nations, /b i.e., in regard to the other nations, even those who do not fulfill the precepts binding upon them may offer their sacrifices., b “of the cattle” /b is expounded as follows: b To include people who are similar to animals /b in their disdain for the proper behavior of man, i.e., that the wicked too may offer sacrifices. b From here /b the Sages b stated: We accept /b voluntary b sacrifices from Jewish transgressors, in order /b to enable them b to repent, apart from the apostate, one who pours wine libations /b as part of idol worship, b and one who desecrates Shabbat in public, /b from whom we do not accept sacrifices without their complete repentance.,The Gemara expresses surprise: b This /b i baraita /i b itself is difficult, /b i.e., it contains an internal contradiction: b You /b first b said: “of you,” but not all of you, to the exclusion of an apostate; and then you taught: We accept sacrifices from Jewish transgressors. /b The Gemara answers: b This is not difficult, /b as it can be explained as follows: b The first clause /b refers b to an apostate with regard to the entire Torah, /b whose sacrifices are not accepted, whereas b the middle clause /b speaks b of an apostate with regard to one matter /b alone, whose sacrifices are indeed accepted.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, b say /b an explanation of b the last clause /b of the mishna: b Apart from the apostate and one who pours wine libations /b to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. b This apostate, what are the circumstances /b indicating his status? b If /b it refers to b an apostate with regard to the entire Torah, this is /b the same as b the first clause. /b And b if /b it refers to b an apostate with regard to /b only b one thing, the middle clause /b of the i baraita /i is b difficult, /b for it states that we accept sacrifices from such an apostate., b Rather, is it not /b true b that this is /b what b it is saying: Apart from the apostate with regard to pouring wine libations /b to idolatry b and desecrating Shabbat in public? /b Although they transgress only one matter, this transgression is so serious that they are considered apostates with regard to the entire Torah. b It is apparent /b from here that b idolatry and Shabbat are equivalent, /b which indicates that there is a i tanna /i who considers public Shabbat desecration as severe a transgression as idolatry. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from this /b that it is so., strong MISHNA: /strong b If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not participate in an i eiruv /i /b with the other residents before Shabbat, and on Shabbat he renounced his rights in the courtyard to the other residents, b his house is prohibited /b both b to him, /b who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , b and to them, /b the other residents, b to bring in /b objects from the courtyard to his house b or to take /b them b out /b from his house into the courtyard. b But their /b houses b are permitted /b both b to him and to them, /b for taking objects out into the courtyard and for bringing them in. b If they gave /b away b their rights /b in the courtyard b to him, /b i.e., if they renounced their rights in his favor, b he is permitted /b to carry from his house into the courtyard, b but they are prohibited /b from doing so., b If two /b residents of the courtyard forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , and the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in their favor, b they prohibit one another. /b In this scenario, the courtyard would belong to both of them, but each individual house remains the domain of its owner. It would therefore be prohibited for each of these residents to carry into the courtyard. b For one /b resident b may give away and receive rights /b in a domain, whereas b two /b residents b may /b only b give away rights /b in a domain, b but they may not receive rights /b in a domain. Since they did not establish an i eiruv /i , it is unreasonable for the other residents of the courtyard to give away their rights in the domain, as the two who are prohibited because they did not participate in the i eiruv /i render it prohibited for each other to carry.,The mishna poses a general question: b When may one give /b away b rights /b in a domain? b Beit Shammai say: While it is still day, /b i.e., before the onset of Shabbat; b and Beit Hillel say: Even after nightfall, /b when it is already Shabbat. The mishna cites another dispute: If b one gave away his rights /b in his courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard, renouncing them after having forgotten to establish an i eiruv /i with them the previous day, b and /b then b he carried /b something b out /b from his house into the courtyard – b whether unwittingly, /b forgetting that he had renounced his rights, b or intentionally, he /b renders carrying b prohibited /b for all the residents of the courtyard, for his action cancels his renunciation; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If he acted b intentionally, he /b renders carrying b prohibited; /b but if he acted b unwittingly, he does not /b render carrying b prohibited. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara first analyzes the language of the mishna. It states: It is prohibited to bring in objects from the courtyard to his house and to take them out from his house into the courtyard. It can be inferred from this that b it is carrying /b to and from b his house /b that b is prohibited, but carrying /b to and from b his /b share of the b courtyard is permitted /b to the other residents of the courtyard.,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b where this ruling applies? b If /b the resident who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i b renounced /b his rights, b why is his house /b rendered b prohibited? /b And b if he did not renounce /b his rights, b why is his courtyard permitted? /b The Gemara explains: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with /b a special case, b where he renounced his rights in his courtyard /b to the others b but did not renounce his rights in his house /b to them. b And the Rabbis hold that one who renounces his rights in his courtyard has not renounced his rights in his house, /b as it is common b for people to reside in a house without a courtyard. /b ,The Gemara proceeds in its analysis of the mishna: It states that carrying in and out of b their /b houses b is permitted for him and for them. /b The Gemara poses a question: b What is the reason /b that their houses are permitted to him? The Gemara answers: b For he is /b regarded b like a guest of theirs, /b i.e., he is subordinate to them and may carry wherever they may do so.,We learned in the mishna: b If /b the other residents b gave /b away b their rights /b in the courtyard b to him, he is permitted /b to carry from his house into the courtyard, b but they are prohibited /b from doing so. The Gemara asks: b But let them, /b the ones who renounced their rights in the courtyard, b be /b regarded as b guests of his, /b which would enable them to carry as well. The Gemara answers: b One vis-à-vis five is /b considered b a guest, /b whereas b five /b or more b vis-à-vis one are not /b ordinarily viewed as b guests. /b ,The Gemara attempts to draw another inference from the wording of the mishna: Shall we not b learn from this, /b from the order of events in the mishna, that b one may renounce /b his rights in favor of another when he needs it, b and then /b the latter b may renounce /b his rights in favor of the former when he needs it? For the mishna first describes a case in which the one who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i renounces his rights in favor of the others, at which stage they may use the courtyard, and then afterward recounts that the other residents renounce their rights in favor of the one who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , leaving it permitted for him and prohibited for them.,The Gemara answers: No proof can be brought from here, for b this is /b what the mishna b is saying: If they gave away their rights /b in the courtyard b to him at the outset, /b it is b permitted /b for b him and /b it is b prohibited for them. /b In other words, this is not a continuation of the previous clause, but a separate case.,We learned in the mishna: b If two /b residents of a courtyard forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , and the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in their favor, b they /b render b one another prohibited /b from carrying. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this b obvious? /b What novel teaching is stated here? The Gemara answers: b No, /b this ruling b is necessary /b in a case where the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in favor of the pair, and b one of them then renounced /b his rights b in favor of the other. Lest you say let it /b now b be permitted /b for him to carry, the mishna b teaches us /b that b since at the time of his renunciation /b it was b not permitted /b for him to carry b in that courtyard, /b he may not renounce his rights either. Therefore, his renunciation is ineffective, and they are both prohibited from carrying.,The mishna explains: b For one /b resident b may give away /b and receive b rights /b in a domain. The Gemara poses a question: b Why /b do b I /b need b this further /b explanation? This ruling can be deduced from the previous cases: b If /b the mishna wishes to teach the i halakha /i with regard to b giving /b away rights, b we /b already b learned /b that one person may give away his rights in a domain, and b if /b it wishes to teach the i halakha /i with regard to b receiving /b rights, b we /b already b learned /b it as well, so why the repetition?,The Gemara answers: b He needed /b it due to the ruling in b the latter clause, /b which includes the novel teaching that b two /b residents b may give away rights /b in a domain. The Gemara again wonders: But b this /b i halakha /i b as well, /b that even multiple residents may give away their rights in a domain, is b obvious. /b The Gemara answers: This was stated b lest you say: /b |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306| 28a. לכבשתו והעני הואיל ונדחה ידחה,אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחים וקדושת דמים נדחה,ודחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי,מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא המפריש נקבה לפסחו קודם הפסח תרעה עד שתסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה פסח ילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו פסח,ר"ש אומר הוא עצמו יקרב פסח ש"מ בעלי חיים אינם נדחים,אמרי דבי רבי אושעיא כי אמרינן לרבנן דר"ש ס"ל בעלי חיים אינן נדחין,והגרלה אינה מעכבת דתניא מת אחד מהן מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה דברי ר"ש,אלמא קסבר בעלי חיים אינן נידחין והגרלה אינה מעכבת,אמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן,אמר רב שימי בר אשי מאי טעמא דרב חסדא דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה שתי תורים וגו' (ויקרא טו, ל) ועשה הכהן וגו' או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן,מיתיבי (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת ואין כהן עושה חטאת,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שיקדש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,קתני שם דומיא דגורל מה גורל לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה אף השם נמי לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה,אמר רב ה"ק ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל בלקיחת בעלים ובעשיית הכהן קידש השם אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן כאן שיקדש הגורל שלא בלקיחה ושלא בעשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם אי בלקיחה אי בעשייה,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,מיתיבי מטמא מקדש עני שהפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר,אמר אלו לחטאתי ואלו לעולתי מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא מדמי עולתו,והא הכא דליכא לא לקיחה ולא עשייה וקתני מביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ולא מדמי עולתו,א"ר ששת ותסברא מתניתא מתקנתא היא דקתני והעשיר והא"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שכבר אמר משעת ענייתו ה"נ שכבר אמר משעת הפרשתו,ולר' חגא א"ר אושעיא דאמר יצא מאי איכא למימר תני ואח"כ לקח ואמר,מיתיבי מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא תיובתא דר' חגא א"ר אושעיא,אמר לך שאני גבי מצורע דמיעט רחמנא (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת,אי הכי אפילו מצורע עני נמי שהביא קרבן עשיר לא יצא לאיי הא אהדריה קרא תורת והתניא תורת לרבות מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא יכול אפילו עשיר שהביא קרבן עני שיצא תלמוד לומר זאת,ולילף מיניה אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, כא) ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת מצורע הוא דעשיר שהביא קרבן עני הוא דלא יצא אבל מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני יצא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר כבשים קודמין את העזים בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהם ת"ל (ויקרא ד, לב) ואם כבש יביא קרבנו לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,תורין קודמין לבני יונה בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהן תלמוד לומר ((ויקרא יב, ו) תור ובני) יונה או תור לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,האב קודם לאם בכל מקום יכול מפני שכיבוד האב קודם על כיבוד האם ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו מלמד ששניהם שקולין אבל אמרו חכמים האב קודם לאם בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואמו חייבין בכבוד אביו,וכן בתלמוד תורה אם זכה הבן לפני הרב הרב קודם את האב בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואביו חייבין בכבוד רבו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר ד' צווחות צווחה עזרה צווחה אחת הוציאו מיכן בני עלי חפני ופנחס שטימאו את ההיכל,צווחה שניה פתחו שערים ויכנס יוחנן בן נדבאי תלמידו של פינקאי וימלא כרסו מקדשי שמים אמרו על בן נדבאי שהיה אוכל ארבע סאה גוזלות | 28a. instead b of a female lamb, and he /b then b became poorer, /b a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, b since /b his offering b was disqualified /b at the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, b it is /b permanently b disqualified. /b , b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: /b One can b conclude from this /b ruling b three /b i halakhot /i . b Conclude from it /b that b consecrated living animals can be /b permanently b disqualified /b even if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. b And /b conclude from it that when there is b sanctity /b that inheres in an animal’s b value, /b where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be b disqualified. /b When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified., b And /b finally, conclude from this that b a disqualification at the outset, /b when the animal is initially consecrated, b is /b considered a permanent b disqualification. /b Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent., b Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Temura /i 2:3): With regard to b one who designates a female /b animal b for his Paschal offering before Passover, /b since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to b graze until it becomes blemished, /b at which point b it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money /b received from its sale. Similarly, if this animal b gave birth to a male /b animal, the offspring is left to b graze until it becomes blemished, /b at which point b it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money /b received from its sale., b Rabbi Shimon says: /b It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring b itself is sacrificed /b as b a Paschal offering. Conclude from this /b statement of Rabbi Shimon that b consecrated living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified, /b as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother’s sanctity, is fit for sacrifice., b The school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we say /b that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies b according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct b that Rabbi Shimon holds /b that consecrated b living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified. /b , b And /b Rabbi Shimon likewise maintains b that /b the b drawing /b of the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, b is not indispensable. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b one of /b the goats b died /b following their designation, one b brings another /b goat instead of it, and it is designated b without drawing /b lots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is b the statement of Rabbi Shimon. /b , b Evidently, Rabbi Shimon holds: /b Consecrated b living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified. /b Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. b And /b Rabbi Shimon also holds that the b drawing /b of the lots b is not indispensable, /b as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.,§ b Rav Ḥisda says: Nests, /b i.e., pairs of birds, b are designated, /b one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, b only /b in the following manner: b Either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or, /b if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice. /b , b Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is written /b with regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: b “And she shall purchase two doves /b or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: b “And the priest shall sacrifice /b the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering b either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i in the i Sifra /i that discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, b and he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering, and /b likewise the act of the b priest, /b placing the lot on the goat, b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,A verse is required to teach this i halakha /i , b as /b one b might /b have come to the opposite conclusion: b Could this not /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference, /b as follows: b And if in a case where /b the drawing of b a lot does not sanctify /b an animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of b the name does sanctify /b with a specific designation; b is it not logical /b in b a case where /b the drawing of b a lot sanctifies /b an animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, b that /b verbally designating b the name /b should b sanctify /b it with a specific designation?,The i baraita /i concludes: Therefore b the verse states, /b with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: b “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,” /b to teach that the drawing of b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,The Gemara explains the objection: The i baraita /i b teaches /b that verbally designating the b name /b of an offering b is similar to /b drawing b a lot. /b If so, one can reason as follows: b Just as /b the drawing of b a lot /b is b not /b performed b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice, so too /b verbal designation of b the name also /b does b not /b have to be performed b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice. /b This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda., b Rav said /b that b this /b is what the i baraita /i b is saying: And if in a place where /b the drawing of b a lot, /b either by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice, does not sanctify /b an animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of b the name, either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice, does sanctify /b it with a specific designation; b here, /b with regard to the two goats, b where /b the drawing of b a lot /b that does b not /b take place b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice sanctifies /b the animal with a specific designation, b is it not logical that /b verbally designating b the name, either at /b the time of b purchase or at /b the time of b sacrifice, /b should b sanctify /b it with a specific designation?,Therefore, b the verse states: “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,” /b to teach that drawing b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,The Gemara b raises /b another b objection /b to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a poor person who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b who designated money for his nest, /b as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, b and he /b then b became wealthier, /b he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.,If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he b says: This /b money b is for my sin offering and this /b money b is for my burnt offering, /b which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, b he adds /b more money b and brings his obligation /b of a lamb or goat for his sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated b for his sin offering. But he may not add /b more money b and bring his obligation /b of a sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated b for his burnt offering, /b as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.,The Gemara explains the objection: b But here, /b the i baraita /i is dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage b that was not /b the time of b purchase nor /b the time of b sacrifice; and /b yet the i baraita /i b teaches /b that the designation is established and therefore b he brings his obligation /b of a sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated for b a sin offering but not from /b the b money /b designated for b a burnt offering. /b , b Rav Sheshet said: And can you understand /b that b this i baraita /i is properly /b explained, i.e., the i baraita /i as it stands is difficult, b as it teaches: He became wealthier /b and said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. b But /b this is difficult, as b doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b who brought /b the b offering /b of b a poor person /b to atone for his transgression has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?, b Rather, what have you to say? /b You must say that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where he already said: /b This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, b at the time /b when b he was poor. So too, /b it is referring to a case b where he already said /b it even earlier, b at the time /b when b he designated /b the money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav Ḥisda.,The Gemara asks: b But according to Rabbi Ḥagga, /b who b says /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says /b that a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has b fulfilled /b his obligation, b what can be said? /b According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the i baraita /i that necessitates Rav Sheshet’s interpretation, and therefore that i baraita /i apparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Gemara answers that one should b teach /b the i baraita /i as follows: b And after /b he became wealthier, b he purchased /b animals b and said /b at the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.,With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥagga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b A poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation. By contrast, b a wealthy /b leper b who brought the offering of a poor person /b has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. This is apparently b a conclusive refutation of /b the opinion b that Rabbi Ḥagga /b says that b Rabbi Oshaya says. /b ,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥagga could have b said to you: /b The i halakha /i b is different with regard to /b a wealthy b leper, as the Merciful One excluded /b the possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: b “This /b shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of “this” teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.,The Gemara objects: b If so, /b that this i halakha /i is derived from a verse, then b even /b in the case of b a poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well, /b he should b not fulfill /b his obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is b not so, /b as b the verse returned /b to state: “This shall be b the law /b of the leper,” which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the phrase b “the law /b of the leper” serves b to include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person, /b that he b has fulfilled /b his obligation. One b might /b have thought that b even /b in the case of b a wealthy /b leper b who brought the offering of a poor person, he /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation. Therefore, b the verse states: “This /b shall be the law.”,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b why not b derive /b a principle b from that /b verse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person’s offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper b the verse states: “And if he is poor and cannot afford” /b (Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of “he” teaches that b it is /b only with regard to b a leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering /b has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. b But /b in the case of b one who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: “You shall take it from the lambs or from the goats” (Exodus 12:5). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that /b sheep b are more select than /b goats. Therefore, b the verse states: /b “And he shall bring for his offering a goat” (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: b “And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 4:32), which b teaches that both of them are equal. /b ,Similarly, b doves precede pigeons /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah, as in the verse: “And he shall bring his guilt offering…two doves, or two pigeons” (Leviticus 5:7). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that /b doves b are more select than /b pigeons. Therefore, b the verse states: “And a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which b teaches that both of them are equal. /b ,Likewise, mention of b the father precedes /b that of b the mother /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah, as in the verse: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father” /b (Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which b teaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said: /b Honor of b the father takes precedence over /b honor of b the mother everywhere, due to /b the fact b that /b both the son b and his mother are obligated in the honor of his father. /b , b And likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privileged /b to acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying b before the teacher, /b honor of b the teacher takes precedence over /b honor of b the father, due to /b the fact b that /b both the son b and his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher, /b as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s discussion of lambs and goats, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Temple b courtyard cried four cries. The first cry /b was: b Remove Ḥofni and Pineḥas the sons of Eli /b the priest b from here, as they have rendered the Sanctuary /b in Shiloh b impure /b (see I Samuel 4:13–22)., b The second cry /b was: b Open /b the b gates, and let Yoḥa ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with /b meat of b offerings /b consecrated to b Heaven, /b as he is worthy to eat offerings. b They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four i se’a /i of doves /b |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305, 306| 9a. לפי ששלח בכל גבולי ישראל וראה שאין מפרישין אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד,מעשר ראשון ומעשר עני נמי לא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אלא מעשר שני נפרשו ונסקו וניכלוהו בירושלם,אמר עולא מתוך שפרהדרין הללו חובטין אותן כל י"ב חדש ואומרים להן מכרו בזול מכרו בזול לא אטרחונהו רבנן מאי פרהדרין פורסי,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי י, כז) יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה יראת ה' תוסיף ימים זה מקדש ראשון שעמד ארבע מאות ועשר שנים ולא שמשו בו אלא י"ח כהנים גדולים,ושנות רשעים תקצרנה זה מקדש שני שעמד ד' מאות ועשרים שנה ושמשו בו יותר משלש מאות כהנים צא מהם מ' שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק ושמונים ששמש יוחנן כהן גדול עשר ששמש ישמעאל בן פאבי ואמרי לה י"א ששמש ר' אלעזר בן חרסום מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב כל אחד ואחד לא הוציא שנתו,א"ר יוחנן בן תורתא מפני מה חרבה שילה מפני שהיו בה שני דברים גלוי עריות ובזיון קדשים גלוי עריות דכתיב (שמואל א ב, כב) ועלי זקן מאד ושמע את כל אשר יעשון בניו לכל ישראל ואת אשר ישכבון את הנשים הצובאות פתח אהל מועד ואע"ג דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן כל האומר בני עלי חטאו אינו אלא טועה מתוך | 9a. This is b because /b Yoḥa the High Priest b sent /b emissaries b throughout all the /b areas located within the b borders of /b i Eretz b Yisrael /b /i to assess the situation b and saw that /b the people b were separating only i teruma gedola /i /b and were neglecting to separate tithes. Therefore, he issued a decree that anyone who purchases produce from an i am ha’aretz /i must be concerned about the possibility that it was not tithed and is required to tithe it. Since even an i am ha’aretz /i separates i teruma gedola /i , the bakers who purchased grain from them were not required to do so.,And granted, bakers need not separate b first tithe and poor man’s tithe /b due to the principle: b The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. /b Neither first tithe, given to Levites, nor poor man’s tithe, given to the poor, is sacred. It is merely the property of the Levite and the pauper, respectively. Since with regard to doubtfully tithed produce, by definition, there is no certainty that one is actually required to tithe it, if the Levite or the pauper should seek to take possession of the gifts, they must first prove that in fact the produce was not tithed. b However, /b with regard to b second tithe, /b why are the bakers exempt? b Let them separate /b second-tithe from the produce, b take it up /b to Jerusalem, b and eat it in Jerusalem, /b which is the i halakha /i with regard to anyone else who purchases doubtfully tithed produce., b Ulla said: /b It is b because these i parhedrin /i , /b government appointees, b beat /b the bakers throughout the b entire twelve months /b of their tenure b and tell them: Sell /b your baked goods b cheaply, sell /b them b cheaply. /b Since the officers insist that the bakers refrain from raising their prices, b the Sages did not /b further b burden them /b with the exertion of separating second tithe from a large quantity of grain and taking it to Jerusalem, as they would be unable to raise their prices to cover the cost of the lost grain and the trip to Jerusalem. Since the presumptive status of the grain is that it was tithed, and the obligation to tithe doubtfully tithed produce is a stringency, the Sages exempted the baker from the obligation to do so. b What /b is the meaning of b i parhedrin /i ? /b These are royal b appointees [ i pursei /i ] /b charged with performance of different tasks.,§ Apropos the Second Temple period, when High Priests were frequently replaced, the Gemara cites that b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “The fear of the Lord prolongs days, but the years of the wicked will be shortened” /b (Proverbs 10:27)? b The fear of the Lord prolongs days; that /b is a reference to the b First Temple, which stood /b for b four hundred and ten years and in /b which b only eighteen High Priests served, /b as is written in the lists of the genealogy of the priests in the Bible., b But the years of the wicked will be shortened; that /b is a reference to the b Second Temple, which stood /b for b four hundred and twenty years and in /b which b over three hundred High Priests served. /b In calculating the tenures of the High Priests, b deduct from /b the figure of four hundred and twenty years b forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served, and eighty /b years b that Yoḥa the High Priest served, ten /b years b that Yishmael ben Pavi served, and some say eleven /b years b that Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum served. /b These men were all righteous and were privileged to serve extended terms. After deducting those one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty-one years, b go out and calculate from this /b point b forward /b and conclude: b Each and every one /b of the remaining High Priests b did not complete his year /b in office, as the number of remaining High Priests is greater than the number of years remaining.,§ Apropos the sins of the High Priests in the Second Temple, the Gemara cites that b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Torta said: Due to what /b reason b was /b the Tabernacle in b Shiloh destroyed /b in the time of the prophet Samuel? It was destroyed b due to /b the fact b that there were two matters /b that existed b in /b the Tabernacle: b Forbidden sexual relations and degradation /b of b consecrated items. /b There were b forbidden sexual relations, as it is written: “Now Eli was very old and he heard what his sons were doing to all of Israel, how they lay with the women who did service at the opening of the Tent of Meeting” /b (I Samuel 2:22). b And although Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned /b by engaging in forbidden sexual relations b is nothing other than mistaken, /b even according to the alternative interpretation of the verse that it was b due to /b the fact |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 28b. אמר רב אשי משום דאיכא למימר מעיקרא דדינא פירכא מה לבעל מום שכן מומו ניכר,תאמר ברובע ונרבע שאין מומו ניכר הואיל ואין מומו ניכר יהא כשר לגבי מזבח ת"ל (ויקרא א, ב) מן הבהמה להוציא רובע ונרבע,מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד והלא דין הוא ומה אתנן ומחיר שציפויין מותרין הן אסורין נעבד שציפויו אסור אינו דין שהוא אסור,או חילוף ומה אתנן ומחיר שהן אסורין ציפוייהן מותרין נעבד שמותר יהא ציפויו מותר,א"כ ביטלת (דברים ז, כה) לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם ולקחת לך,אני אקיימנו לא תחמוד כסף וזהב בדבר שאין בו רוח חיים אבל בדבר שיש בו רוח חיים הואיל והן מותר יכול יהא ציפוי מותר ת"ל מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד,מתקיף לה רב חנניא טעמא דמעטי' קרא הא לא מעטי' קרא ציפוי מותר והכתיב (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם כל העשוי לשמם,ההוא לכנות להם שם הוא דאתא לבית גליא קרינן אותו בית כריא פני המולך פני כלב עין כל עין קוץ,ואיפוך אנא מן הבהמה להוציא את הנעבד מן הבקר להוציא רובע ונרבע,התם מעניינא דקרא כתיב גבי בהמה (ויקרא כ, טו) ואיש כי יתן שכבתו בבהמה מות יומת גבי בקר כתיב (תהלים קו, כ) וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור אוכל עשב,(ויקרא ה, ו) מן הצאן להוציא את המוקצה ומן הצאן להוציא את הנוגח אר"ש אם נאמר רובע למה נאמר נוגח ואם נאמר נוגח למה נאמר רובע,לפי שישנו ברובע מה שאין כן בנוגח יש ברובע שהרובע עושה אונס כרצון מה שאין כן בנוגח,יש בנוגח שהנוגח משלם את הכופר מה שאין כן ברובע הוצרך לומר רובע והוצרך לומר נוגח,והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא הרובע והנרבע (וכולם) הם כקדשים שקדם מום עובר להקדשן,וצריכין מום קבוע לפדות עליהן שנאמר כי משחתם בהם מום בם,מאי תלמודא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מנין שהן אסורין ת"ל (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים,דבר ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר וגו' עבודת כוכבים דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל סמל כל שהמום פוסל בהן דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בהן,ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל מן הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן מאי דריש בהו מיבעי ליה פרט לחולה זקן ומזוהם,ות"ק דאפקינהו להני קראי לרובע ונרבע חולה זקן ומזוהם מנא ליה נפקא ליה מן הצאן מן הכבשים ומן העזים ולתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אורחיה דקרא לאישתעויי הכי,איזהו מוקצה לעבודת כוכבים וכו' אמר ר"ל אין אסור אלא מוקצה לשבע שנים,שנאמר (שופטים ו, כה) ויהי בלילה ההוא ויאמר [לו ה'] קח את פר השור אשר לאביך ופר השני שבע שנים,והתם מוקצה בלחוד הוה נעבד נמי הוה א"ר אחא בר יעקב מוקצה לעבוד ולא עבדוהו רבא אמר לעולם עבדוהו וחידוש הוא כדר' אבא בר כהנא דאמר רבי אבא בר כהנא שמנה דברים התירו באותו לילה חוץ ולילה וזרות | 28b. b Rav Ashi said: /b One cannot derive the i halakha /i of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality by an i a fortiori /i inference from a blemished animal, b because one can say that the refutation of the /b i a fortiori /i b inference /b is found in b the basic /b case itself, i.e., there is a problem with this comparison: b What /b is notable b about a blemished /b animal? It is notable b in that its blemish is conspicuous, /b and it should perhaps be disqualified for this reason.,Shall b you say /b the same b with regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, whose blemish is not conspicuous? Since its blemish is not conspicuous, /b one can claim that it b should be fit for the altar, /b despite the fact that a transgression was performed with it. Therefore b the verse states: “From the cattle,” to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality /b from eligibility to be brought as an offering.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss the i baraita /i that interprets the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The phrase b “from the herd” /b serves b to exclude /b an animal b that is worshipped. /b The Gemara asks: Why is this verse necessary? b Could this not /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference: And if /b an animal given as b payment /b to a prostitute for services rendered or given as payment for the b price /b of a dog, which is more lenient in b that their coating, /b i.e., the decorative part added to the animal, b is permitted /b to be used on the altar, e.g., for fashioning golden plates for the altar, and yet b they /b themselves b are prohibited, /b then with regard to an animal that is b worshipped, /b which is more stringent in b that /b even b its coating is prohibited, is it not logical that it /b itself should be b prohibited /b to the Temple?,The Gemara responds: b Or /b perhaps one can b reverse /b this reasoning: b And if /b animals used as b payment /b to a prostitute b or /b as the b price /b of a dog, whose i halakhot /i are stringent, b as they /b themselves b are prohibited /b to be sacrificed on the altar, and yet b their coating is permitted, /b with regard to an animal that is b worshipped, /b whose i halakha /i is more lenient, b as /b it is b permitted /b to be sacrificed upon the altar, since the Torah does not explicitly state that it may not be sacrificed, certainly b its coating should be permitted /b for use in the Temple.,The Gemara rejects this i a fortiori /i inference with the claim that b if so, you have nullified /b the requirement of the verse: “The graven images of their gods shall you burn with fire; b you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it to you” /b (Deuteronomy 7:25). This verse is clearly referring to the coatings of items worshipped, in addition to the idols themselves.,The Gemara refutes this claim: b I shall establish /b the clause: b “You shall not covet the silver or the gold /b that is on them,” as referring b to /b a coating of b an entity that is not alive. But with regard to /b the coating of b an entity that is alive, since /b such entities themselves are b permitted /b to be sacrificed on the altar, one b might /b have thought that even its b coating should be permitted. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “From the herd,” to exclude /b an animal that is b worshipped. /b Once it has been derived that a worshipped living creature is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, it follows that its coating is also prohibited., b Rav Ḥaya objects to this: /b According to this explanation, b the /b only b reason /b that the coating of an animal that was worshipped is prohibited is b that the verse excluded /b it, from which it may be inferred b that /b if b the verse had not excluded it, /b then the b coating /b would be b permitted. But isn’t it written /b that idolatry must be entirely eradicated: “And you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and you shall hew down the graven images of their gods; b and you shall destroy their name /b out of that place” (Deuteronomy 12:3). This teaches that not only must the idols themselves be destroyed, but also b everything made in their name, /b including their coating, must be destroyed.,The Gemara answers: b That /b phrase: “And you shall destroy their name,” does not teach this i halakha /i . Rather, b it comes to /b teach that one should b give /b a derogatory b nickname to /b idol worship, and not call them by their original names. For example, if idolaters refer b to /b a place of worship as: b House of Elevation [ i beit galya /i ], one calls it: House of Annihilation [ i beit karya /i ]. /b If the place is called: b Face of the i Molekh /i [ i penei haMolekh /i ], one calls it: Face of a Dog [ i penei kelev /i ], /b and if it is called: b All-seeing Eye [ i ein kol /i ], one calls it: Eye of a Thorn [ i ein kotz /i ]. /b ,The i baraita /i teaches that the phrase “from the cattle” (Leviticus 1:2) excludes an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility to be brought as an offering, while the phrase “from the herd” excludes an animal worshipped as an object of idolatry. The Gemara asks: b But /b perhaps b I /b can b reverse /b these derivations, as follows: The phrase b “from the cattle” /b serves b to exclude /b an animal b that was worshipped, /b and the phrase b “from the herd” /b serves b to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality. /b ,The Gemara answers: b There, /b with regard to the phrase “from the cattle [ i behema /i ],” the derivation is based b on the context of the verse, /b as the i halakha /i of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality b is written with regard to a domesticated animal: “And if a man lie with a beast [ i behema /i ], he shall surely be put to death, /b and you shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach any beast [ i behema /i ] and lie down with it, you shall kill the woman, and the beast” (Leviticus 20:15–16). By contrast, the prohibition of idol worship b is written with regard to /b an animal of b the herd: /b “They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped a molten image. b Thus they exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox that eats grass” /b (Psalms 106:19–20).,§ The i baraita /i further teaches that the phrase b “from the flock” /b (Leviticus 1:2) serves b to exclude /b an animal b set aside /b for idol worship, while the conjunction “or” at the beginning of the phrase b “or from the flock” /b (Leviticus 1:2) serves b to exclude /b an animal b that gored /b and killed a person. b Rabbi Shimon said: If /b it b is stated /b that b an animal that copulated with a person /b is disqualified as a sacrifice, b why is it stated /b that an animal that b gored /b is disqualified? b And if it is stated /b that an animal that b gored /b is disqualified, b why is it stated /b that b an animal that copulated with a person /b is disqualified? How do the transgressions differ?,Rabbi Shimon explains: It is b because there is /b a stringency b pertaining to an animal that copulated with a person that does not pertain to /b one that b gored, /b and vice versa. Rabbi Shimon elaborates: b There is /b a stringency b pertaining to an animal that copulated with a person, as /b with regard to b an animal that copulated with a person, /b the Torah b renders /b an animal that is a victim of b forced copulation like /b one that acted b willfully, which is not so with regard to /b an animal that b gored, /b which is exempt if others induced it to gore.,By contrast, b there is /b a stringency b pertaining to /b an animal that b gored, as /b with regard to an animal b that gored, /b its owner b pays a ransom; which is not so with regard to /b the owner of b an animal that copulated with a person. /b Therefore, the Torah b had to state /b that b an animal that copulated with a person /b is disqualified, b and /b it also b had to state /b that an animal that b gored /b is disqualified.,§ The i baraita /i teaches that the prohibition of sacrificing an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality on the altar is derived from the phrase “from the cattle.” The Gemara notes: b And this i tanna /i cites /b that i halakha /i b from here, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality /b that were consecrated, b they are /b considered b like sacrificial /b animals b whose temporary blemish preceded their consecration. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And /b animals with a temporary blemish cannot be sacrificed at present, nor can they be redeemed. Rather, b they require a permanent blemish /b for one b to redeem them on account of /b that blemish, b as it is stated /b with regard to the disqualification of blemished animals from the altar: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, b because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; /b they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25).,The Gemara asks: b What is the /b biblical b derivation /b here? How is this verse relevant to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality? The Gemara answers that the i baraita /i b is incomplete and this /b is what b it is teaching: From where /b is it derived b that /b an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality b are prohibited /b to be sacrificed? b The verse states: “Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them,” and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught /b a principle with regard to the derivation of verses: b Anywhere that /b the term b corruption is stated, it is /b a reference b only /b to b a matter of sexual immorality and idol worship. /b ,Corruption refers to b a matter of sexual immorality, as it is written /b with regard to the generation of the flood, which was steeped in sexual immorality: “And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; b for all flesh had corrupted /b its way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12). Corruption also refers to b idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image even the form of any figure” /b (Deuteronomy 4:16). Since the term corruption is also used with regard to blemished animals, the following may be derived: In b any /b case b in which a blemish disqualifies /b an animal from the altar, b a matter of sexual immorality, /b such as an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, b or /b their use as an object of b idol worship, /b also b disqualifies them. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b the i tanna /i of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, /b who says that the disqualifications of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, the set-aside, and the worshipped animal, are derived from the case of blemished animals, b what /b does he b derive from /b the verse: b “From the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” /b (Leviticus 1:2), which is the source of these disqualifications according to the earlier i baraita /i ? The Gemara answers that he b requires /b these three terms to b exclude sick, old, and filthy /b animals, which may not be sacrificed.,The Gemara asks: b And the first i tanna /i , who derives from these verses /b the i halakha /i b of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, from where does he /b derive the ruling that b sick, the old, and filthy /b are disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar? The Gemara answers: b He derives it /b from the verse: “And if his offering be b of the flock, whether of the sheep or of the goats” /b (see Leviticus 1:10). The Gemara comments: b And according to the i tanna /i of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, /b that these i halakhot /i are not derived from that verse, it is because it is b the manner of the verse to say this, /b i.e., to state the general category of flock before specifying sheep and goats.,§ The mishna teaches: b Which is the /b animal that is b set-aside? /b It is an animal that is set aside b for idol worship. Reish Lakish says: Only /b an animal that has been b set aside for seven years is prohibited /b to be sacrificed on the altar, i.e., one that is set aside to be used for idol worship at the end of seven years., b As it is stated /b with regard to Gideon: b “And it came to pass the same night, /b that the Lord b said /b to him: b Take your father’s bullock, and the second bullock of seven years, /b and throw down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is by it; and build an altar to the Lord your God…and take the second bullock, and sacrifice a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down” (Judges 6:25–26). This indicates that it was common practice to prepare a bullock for seven years as an object of idol worship.,The Gemara asks: b And there, was /b that bullock prohibited b merely /b as b set-aside? It was also /b actually b worshipped. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: /b This bullock b was set aside to /b be b worshipped, but /b in practice, b they did not worship it. Rava says: Actually, they did worship it, /b and therefore it should have been prohibited as idolatry. b But /b this case b is a novelty, in accordance with /b a statement of b Rabbi Abba bar Kahana. As Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: Eight /b prohibited b matters were permitted /b to Gideon b on that night /b when he destroyed his father’s idolatry (see Judges, chapter 6): The prohibition against slaughtering sacrificial animals b outside /b the Tabernacle; b and /b the prohibition against sacrificing offerings at b night; and /b the prohibition of b non-priests /b performing the service, as Gideon was not a priest; |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 312| 2a. מתני׳ big strongמאימתי /strong /big מזכירין גבורות גשמים רבי אליעזר אומר מיום טוב הראשון של חג ר' יהושע אומר מיום טוב האחרון של חג,אמר לו ר' יהושע הואיל ואין הגשמים אלא סימן קללה בחג למה הוא מזכיר אמר לו ר' אליעזר אף אני לא אמרתי לשאול אלא להזכיר משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם בעונתו אמר לו א"כ לעולם יהא מזכיר,אין שואלין את הגשמים אלא סמוך לגשמים ר' יהודה אומר העובר לפני התיבה ביו"ט האחרון של חג האחרון מזכיר הראשון אינו מזכיר ביו"ט הראשון של פסח הראשון מזכיר האחרון אינו מזכיר, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא היכא קאי דקתני מאימתי תנא התם קאי,דקתני מזכירין גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ושואלין בברכת השנים והבדלה בחונן הדעת וקתני מאימתי מזכירין גבורות גשמים,וליתני התם מ"ש דשבקיה עד הכא,אלא תנא מראש השנה סליק דתנן ובחג נידונין על המים ואיידי דתנא ובחג נידונין על המים תנא מאימתי מזכירין גבורות גשמים,וליתני מאימתי מזכירין על הגשמים מאי גבורות גשמים א"ר יוחנן מפני שיורדין בגבורה שנאמר (איוב ה, ט) עושה גדולות עד אין חקר ונפלאות עד אין מספר וכתיב (איוב ה, י) הנותן מטר על פני ארץ ושולח מים על פני חוצות,מאי משמע אמר רבה בר שילא אתיא חקר חקר מברייתו של עולם,כתיב הכא עושה גדולות עד אין חקר וכתיב התם (ישעיהו מ, כח) הלא ידעת אם לא שמעת אלהי עולם ה' בורא קצות הארץ לא ייעף ולא ייגע אין חקר לתבונתו וכתיב (תהלים סה, ז) מכין הרים בכחו נאזר בגבורה,ומנא לן דבתפלה דתניא (דברים יא, יג) לאהבה את ה' אלהיכם ולעבדו בכל לבבכם איזו היא עבודה שהיא בלב הוי אומר זו תפלה וכתיב בתריה (דברים יא, יד) ונתתי מטר ארצכם בעתו יורה ומלקוש,אמר ר' יוחנן ג' מפתחות בידו של הקב"ה שלא נמסרו ביד שליח ואלו הן מפתח של גשמים מפתח של חיה מפתח של תחיית המתים,מפתח של גשמים דכתיב (דברים כח, יב) יפתח ה' לך את אוצרו הטוב את השמים לתת מטר ארצך בעתו מפתח של חיה מנין דכתיב ויזכור אלהים את רחל וישמע | 2a. strong MISHNA: /strong b From when, /b i.e., from which date, b does one /b begin to b mention the might of the rains /b by inserting the phrase: He makes the wind blow and rain fall, in the second blessing of the i Amida /i prayer? b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The phrase is inserted b from the first Festival day of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i . b Rabbi Yehoshua says: From the last Festival day of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i ., b Rabbi Yehoshua said to /b Rabbi Eliezer: b Since rain is nothing other /b than b a sign of a curse during the festival /b of i Sukkot /i , as rainfall forces Jews to leave their i sukkot /i , b why /b should b one mention /b the might of rain during this period? b Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I too did not say /b that it is proper b to request /b rain at this time, b but /b it is proper only b to mention /b the phrase: b He makes the wind blow and rain fall, in its due time. /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: If so, /b i.e., if reciting the phrase does not constitute a request for rain, b one should always mention /b rain, even in the summer.,The mishna states a general principle: b One requests rain only /b immediately b preceding the rainy season. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b With regard to b the one who passes before the ark /b as prayer leader b on the concluding Festival day of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i , the Eighth Day of Assembly: b The last /b prayer leader, who leads the additional prayer, b mentions /b rain, whereas b the first /b prayer leader, for the morning prayer, b does not mention /b rain. The opposite is the case at the conclusion of the period for mentioning rain b on the first Festival day of Passover: /b Here, b the first /b prayer leader, who leads the morning prayer, b mentions /b rain, while b the last /b prayer leader, who leads the additional prayer, b does not mention /b rain., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Where does /b the b i tanna /i /b of the mishna b stand, that /b he b teaches: From when? /b The mishna’s opening question indicates that it has already been established that there is an obligation to mention rain at this time of the year. Where is this obligation stated? The Gemara answers: The b i tanna /i is standing there, /b i.e., he bases himself on a mishna in i Berakhot /i ., b As it teaches /b ( i Berakhot /i 33a): b One mentions the might of the rains /b and recites: He makes the wind blow and the rain fall b in /b the second blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, the blessing of b the resurrection of the dead. And the request /b for rain: And grant dew and rain as a blessing, is recited b in /b the ninth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, b the blessing of the years. And /b the prayer of b distinction [ i havdala /i ] /b between the sacred and the profane, recited in the evening prayer following Shabbat and Festivals, is recited b in /b the fourth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer: b Who graciously grants knowledge. And /b it is based on that mishna, which establishes the obligation to request for rain, b that /b this mishna b teaches: From when does one /b begin to b mention the might of the rains. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b this i halakha /i b there, /b in tractate i Berakhot /i , at the beginning of the order of i Zera’im /i . b What is different /b about this case b that he left it until here, /b toward the end of the order of i Moed /i ? In other words, if this issue is indeed a continuation of the mishna in i Berakhot /i , why did the i tanna /i neglect it until tractate i Ta’anit /i ?,The Gemara answers: b Rather, the i tanna /i interrupted /b a discussion b from /b tractate b i Rosh HaShana /i . As we learned /b in a mishna there: b And on the festival /b of i Sukkot /i all creatures b are judged for water. Since /b the i tanna /i b taught: And on the festival /b of i Sukkot /i all creatures b are judged for water, /b from which it can be inferred that one should request rain near the time of this judgment, he b taught /b here: b From when does one mention the might of the rains. /b ,§ The Gemara asks a question with regard to the language of the mishna: b And let /b the i tanna /i simply b teach: From when does one mention the rains. What is /b the meaning of the phrase: b The might of the rains? Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because /b the rains b fall with might. /b The might of the rain displays God’s power in the world, b as it is stated: “Who does great things beyond comprehension, marvels without number” /b (Job 5:9). b And it is /b also b written: “Who gives rain upon the earth, and sends water upon the fields” /b (Job 5:10).,The Gemara asks: b From where /b may it b be inferred /b that these verses indicate that rainfall is considered a mighty act of God? b Rabba bar Sheila said: /b This is b derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the term b “comprehension” /b here and the term b “comprehension” from /b a passage that deals with b the creation of the world. /b ,Rabba bar Sheila elaborates on this verbal analogy. b It is written here: “Who does great things that are beyond comprehension,” and it is written there, /b with regard to the creation of the world: b “Have you not known? Have you not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow faint or weary? His discernment is beyond comprehension” /b (Isaiah 40:28). This shows that both creation and rainfall are beyond comprehension. b And /b concerning the creation of the world, b it is written /b elsewhere: b “Who sets firm the mountains with Your strength; Who is girded with might” /b (Psalms 65:7). From this verse it can be inferred that rainfall, like the creation of the world, reflects God’s might.,The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive that rain must be mentioned specifically b in /b the i Amida /i b prayer? /b The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart” /b (Deuteronomy 11:13). b Which is the service /b of God b that is /b performed b in the heart? You must say /b that b this /b is referring to b prayer. And, afterward, it is written: “And I shall give the rain of your land in its due time, the first rain and the last rain” /b (Deuteronomy 11:14). This juxtaposition teaches that it is appropriate to request rain while engaged in the service of the heart, i.e., prayer.,§ The Gemara cites related statements concerning the idea that rainfall provides evidence of God’s might. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b There are b three keys /b maintained b in the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He, which were not transmitted to an intermediary, /b i.e., God tends to these matters Himself. b And they are: The key of rain, the key of birthing, and the key of the resurrection of the dead. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa cites verses in support of his claim. b The key of rain, as it is stated: “The Lord will open for you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain of your land in its due time” /b (Deuteronomy 28:12), indicates that rainfall is controlled by God Himself. b From where /b is it derived that b the key of birthing /b is maintained by God? b As it is written: “And God remembered Rachel and listened /b |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 114a. אפומא דחד ולא אמרן אלא חד אבל בתרי לא וחד נמי לא אמרן אלא בדיני דמגיסתא אבל בי דוואר אינהו נמי חד אמומתא שדו ליה,אמר רב אשי כי הוינא בי רב הונא איבעיא לן אדם חשוב דסמכי עליה כבי תרי מפקי ממונא אפומיה ולא איבעי ליה לאסהודי או דלמא כיון דאדם חשוב הוא לא מצי משתמיט להו ומצי לאסהודי תיקו,אמר רב אשי האי בר ישראל דזבין ליה ארעא לעובד כוכבים אמצרא דבר ישראל חבריה משמתינן ליה מאי טעמא אי נימא משום דינא דבר מצרא והאמר מר זבין מעכו"ם וזבין לעכו"ם ליכא משום דינא דבר מצרא,אלא דאמרי' ליה ארבעית לי אריא אמצראי משמתינן ליה עד דקביל עליה כל אונסא דאתי מחמתיה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נטלו מוכסין את חמורו ונתנו לו חמור אחר נטלו לסטים את כסותו ונתנו לו כסות אחרת הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין מהן: המציל מן הנהר או מן הגייס או מן הלסטין אם נתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו וכן נחיל של דבורים אם נתייאשו הרי אלו שלו,א"ר יוחנן בן ברוקה נאמנת אשה או קטן לומר מכאן יצא נחיל זה ומהלך בתוך שדה חבירו להציל את נחילו ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק אבל לא יקוץ את סוכו על מנת ליתן את הדמים ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אף קוצץ ונותן את הדמים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא אם נטל מחזיר לבעלים הראשונים קסבר יאוש כדי לא קני ומעיקרא באיסורא אתא לידיה,ואיכא דאמרי אם בא להחזיר יחזיר לבעלים ראשונים מ"ט יאוש כדי קני מיהו אי אמר אי אפשי בממון שאינו שלי מחזיר לבעלים הראשונים:,הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים כו': אמר רב אשי לא שנו אלא לסטים עובד כוכבים אבל ליסטים ישראל לא סבר למחר נקיטנא ליה בדינא,מתקיף לה רב יוסף אדרבה איפכא מסתברא עכו"ם דדייני בגיתי לא מייאש ישראל כיון דאמרי מימר מייאש,אלא אי איתמר אסיפא איתמר המציל מן העכו"ם ומן הלסטים אם נתייאשו הבעלים אין סתמא לא,לא שנו אלא עכו"ם משום דדייני בגיתי אבל לסטים ישראל כיון דאמרי מימר מייאש,תנן התם עורות של בעל הבית מחשבה מטמאתן,ושל עבדן אין מחשבה מטמאתן,של גזלן אין מחשבה מטמאתן ושל גנב מחשבה מטמאתן,ר"ש אומר חילוף הדברים של גזלן מחשבה מטמאתן של גנב אין מחשבה מטמאתן לפי שלא נתייאשו הבעלים,אמר עולא מחלוקת בסתם אבל בידוע דברי הכל יאוש קני רבה אמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת,א"ל אביי לרבה לא תיפלוג עליה דעולא דתנן במתני' כוותיה לפי שלא נתייאשו הבעלים טעמא דלא נתייאשו הבעלים אבל נתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו,אמר ליה אנן לפי שאין יאוש לבעלים מתנינן לה,תנן נטלו מוכסין חמורו כו' מני,אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב,בשלמא לעולא דאמר בידוע קני הכא נמי בידוע ודברי הכל,אלא לרבה דאמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת הא מני לא רבנן ולא ר"ש בלסטים מזויין ור"ש היא,אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן,ת"ש הגנב והגזלן והאנס הקדשן הקדש ותרומתן תרומה ומעשרותן מעשר,מני אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב,בשלמא לעולא דאמר בידוע קני הכא נמי בידוע ודברי הכל היא אלא לרבה דאמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת הא מני לא רבנן ולא ר"ש,הכא נמי בלסטים מזויין ור' שמעון היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן,ואי בעית אימא הא מתניתא רבי היא דתניא רבי אמר גנב כגזלן | 114a. based b on the word of one /b witness, which is insufficient evidence according to Jewish law. b And we said /b that this is so b only /b when b one /b individual testifies alone against his fellow Jew, b but when two /b witnesses testify against a Jew, we do b not /b excommunicate them, as their testimony is sufficient evidence according to Jewish law as well, and they have not caused the defendant any unjustified ficial loss even according to i halakha /i . b And /b in a case of b a single /b witness b also, we said /b that we excommunicate him b only /b if he testified b in a court of villagers [ i demagista /i ], but /b if he testified in b the /b official government b courthouse [ i bei davar /i ], /b he is not excommunicated. This is because b they also prescribe an oath to /b the defendant based on the testimony of b a single /b witness, but they do not expropriate money, in accordance with Jewish law.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Ashi said: When I was in the academy of Rav Huna, /b the following b dilemma was raised before us: /b What is the i halakha /i with regard to an b important person, /b whose testimony b is relied upon /b by the gentile courts b as /b if it were the testimony of b two /b witnesses? Since the gentile court will b expropriate money /b based b on his word, /b should the i halakha /i be that b he should not testify? Or perhaps, since he is an important person, he cannot escape /b the authorities who demand his testimony, b and he may /b therefore b testify. /b The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved.,§ The Gemara cites another situation where a Jew is excommunicated for causing harm to another Jew. b Rav Ashi said: /b In the case of b a Jewish man who sells a gentile /b a plot of b land /b that is b on the border of /b the property of b his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason? If we say /b it is b because /b he has ignored b the right of one /b whose field b borders /b the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field, b but doesn’t the Master say: /b With regard to b one who purchases /b land b from a gentile, and one who sells /b land b to a gentile, there is no right of one /b whose field b borders /b the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field?, b Rather, /b it is b because we say to him /b on behalf of the owner of the adjacent field: b You have placed a lion, /b i.e., a dangerous individual, b on my border, /b as the gentile might now cause me harm. Consequently, b we excommunicate him until he accepts upon himself /b responsibility for b all harm that comes /b upon the neighbor b due to /b the gentile’s activities., strong MISHNA: /strong If b customs collectors took one’s donkey and gave him a different donkey /b that was taken from another Jew in its stead, or if b bandits took his garment and gave him a different garment /b that was taken from a Jew in its stead, b these /b items b are /b now b his because the owners despaired of /b retrieving b them /b when they were stolen, and they may therefore be acquired by another. In a case of b one who salvages /b items b from a river, or from a troop [ i hagayis /i ] /b of soldiers, b or from bandits, if the owners /b of the items b despaired /b of retrieving them, b they are his, /b i.e., they belong to the one who salvaged them. b And so too, /b with regard to b a swarm of bees, if /b the owners b despaired /b of retrieving the bees, b they are his, /b i.e., they belong to the one who found them., b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor, /b whose testimony is not generally accepted by the court, b is deemed credible to say: /b It was b from here that this swarm emerged, /b and it therefore belongs to a certain individual. b And /b one b may walk into another’s field /b in order b to salvage his /b own b swarm /b of bees that has relocated there, b and if he damaged /b some property in the process, b he must pay /b for b what he has damaged. But /b if the bees settled on a branch of a tree, b he may not cut /b off the other’s b branch /b in order to take the bees, even b on the condition /b that he will later b give him the money /b for it. b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, says: He may even cut /b off the branch b and /b later b give /b him b the money /b for it as compensation., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that one who is given an item by a customs collector or a bandit may keep the item. It was b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If he took /b a donkey from the customs collector, b he /b must b return /b it b to the original owners. /b The Gemara explains: The i tanna /i of this i baraita /i b holds /b that b despair alone does not effect /b legal b acquisition. /b Consequently, the customs collector did not acquire the donkey, b and it initially came into the possession /b of the individual to whom the customs collector gave it b illegally, /b and he is therefore required to return it to the original owner., b And there are /b those b who say /b that the i baraita /i means that b if he /b wants to act beyond the letter of the law and b comes to return it /b voluntarily, he should b return it to the original owners, /b but he is not required to return it. b What is the reason /b that he is not required to return it? It is because b despair alone effects /b legal b acquisition /b and the donkey was, therefore, acquired by the Jew when the customs collector gave it to him. b Nevertheless, if he said: I do not want /b to accept b money that is not mine, he returns /b it b to the original owners. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that if customs collectors or bandits replaced one’s item with one taken from another Jew, b these /b items b are /b now b his because the owners /b despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. In this regard, b Rav Ashi says: They taught /b that the owners certainly despaired of recovering their property b only /b when it was stolen by b a gentile bandit, but /b if it was taken by b a Jewish bandit, no, /b the owner did not necessarily despair of recovering it. This is because the victim of the theft might b reason: Tomorrow, I will take him to court /b and force him to return what he stole., b Rav Yosef objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is /b more b reasonable: /b When dealing with b gentiles, who judge /b a case and impose their verdicts b with force, he does not despair /b because he realizes that the gentile court will enforce the law. By contrast, when dealing with b a Jew, since /b Jewish courts merely b pronounce a verbal /b decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim b despairs /b of recovering his property., b Rather, if /b Rav Ashi’s distinction b was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna, which states: In the case of b one who salvages /b an item b from gentiles or from bandits, /b if the owners despaired of retrieving it, the one who finds it may keep it. The Gemara infers: b If /b it is known that b the owners despaired /b of retreating it, b yes, /b the finder may keep the item; but in b an unspecified /b situation, where it is not known whether the owners despaired, the finder may b not /b keep the item.,Concerning this, Rav Ashi said: b They taught /b this b only /b when the item was stolen by b a gentile /b bandit, b because /b the gentile court b judges /b a case and imposes its verdict b with force, /b and therefore it cannot be assumed that the owners despair. b But /b if the robbery was committed by b a Jewish bandit, since /b Jewish courts merely b pronounce a verbal /b decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim b despairs /b of recovering his property.,§ Apropos the discussion with regard to an owner’s despair of retrieving a lost or stolen item, the Gemara notes that b we learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Kelim /i 26:8): With regard to b hides /b that are tanned by the b owner /b himself, b thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b Hides and leather are susceptible to contracting impurity only if they are in a finished state. If a private individual uses a piece of hide or leather for a certain purpose, e.g., as a cot or a table top, and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is considered a finished product and is susceptible to contracting impurity., b But /b with regard to hides b belonging to a leatherworker, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b Since this individual sells leather to others, when he uses a piece of leather for a household purpose and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is not considered a finished state, as he is likely to change his mind and sell the leather to one who will process it further and put it to a different use.,The mishna continues: If the hides are those b of a thief, /b who has stolen them from another, the thief’s b thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b If they are those b of a robber, /b his b thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, /b because he is not considered the owner of the hide. The difference is that unlike the case of a thief, who steals items stealthily, the identity of a robber, who takes the item openly, is known to the owner, and he harbors hope of finding him and getting the item back. Consequently, he does not despair of recovering his property., b Rabbi Shimon says /b that b the matters are reversed: /b In the case b of a robber, /b the robber’s b thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b If the hides are those b of a thief, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, because the owners have not despaired /b of recovering them and the thief has not acquired the hide. Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning is that a robber, who seizes items brazenly, is a more difficult criminal to apprehend and bring to justice than a thief.,The Gemara analyzes the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first i tanna /i . b Ulla says: The dispute /b is only with regard b to an unspecified /b case, where it is unknown whether or not the owners despaired, b but where it is known /b that the owners despaired, b all agree /b that their b despair /b effects legal b acquisition. /b By contrast, b Rabba says: /b Even in cases b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, there is b also a dispute, /b because although the owner may have expressed despair verbally, he may still hope to retrieve the item., b Abaye said to Rabba: Do not disagree with Ulla, as /b the formulation of the i halakha /i that b we learned in the mishna /b is b in accordance with his /b opinion. The mishna states that according to Rabbi Shimon, thought does not render the hides of a thief susceptible to ritual impurity b because the owners did not despair /b of retrieving them, and therefore the hides do not belong to the thief. This indicates that b the reason /b the thought of the thief does not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity b is that the owners did not despair /b of retrieving them. b But /b if b the owners /b had b despaired /b of retrieving them, then b these /b items would be b his, /b and his thoughts would render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity.,Rabba b said to him: We learned /b the mishna as saying: A thief cannot render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity b because there is no /b true b despair for owners /b of stolen goods, even if they state they have despaired., b We learned /b in the mishna here that if b customs collectors took one’s donkey /b and replaced it with a donkey taken from another Jew, or if bandits took his garment and replaced it with a garment taken from another Jew, he may keep these items because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. The Gemara asks: b Whose /b opinion is expressed in this mishna?, b If /b it is in accordance with b the Rabbis, /b who hold that the owner despairs only in the case of a thief who steals secretly, it b is difficult, /b because the mishna indicates that the victim of b a robber /b also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of a customs collector. And b if /b it is in accordance with b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that the owner despairs only in the case of a robber, it b is difficult, /b because the mishna indicates that the victim of b a thief /b also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of bandits., b Granted, according to Ulla, who says /b that all agree that if b it is known /b that the owners despaired, the individual in possession of the items b acquires /b them, b here too /b it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, b and all agree /b that the recipient of the stolen property may keep it., b But according to Rabba, who says /b that even in cases b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, there is b also a dispute, /b in accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b mishna written? b It is not /b in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, and it is not /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon. /b The Gemara answers that the mishna is discussing a case of b an armed bandit, /b who is similar to a robber in that he steals using force and aggression. b And it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property.,The Gemara asks: b If so, this is /b identical to the case of b a robber, /b i.e., the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same i halakha /i twice. The Gemara answers that the mishna in fact teaches the i halakha /i with regard to b two /b different b types /b of b robbers, /b the customs collector and the armed bandit.,The Gemara suggests another proof with regard to the dispute between Ulla and Rabba. b Come /b and b hear /b the following i baraita /i : With regard to b a thief, a robber, and one who forces /b another to sell him some-thing, b their consecrated items are /b considered b consecrated, and their i teruma /i , /b the portion of the produce designated for the priest, b is /b considered b i teruma /i , and their tithes are /b considered b tithes. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Whose /b opinion is expressed in this i baraita /i ? b If /b it is in accordance with b the Rabbis, /b it b is difficult /b because the i baraita /i assumes that even the victim of b a robber /b despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the i halakha /i that the robber’s act of consecration or separation of i teruma /i or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the thoughts of a robber do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides. Conversely, b if /b it is in accordance with b Rabbi Shimon, /b it b is difficult /b because the i baraita /i assumes that the victim of b a thief /b despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the i halakha /i that the thief's act of consecration or separation of i teruma /i or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he holds that the thoughts of a thief do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides., b Granted, according to Ulla, who says /b that b all agree /b that if b it is known /b that the owners despaired of recovering their property, the individual in possession of the items b acquires /b them, b here too, /b it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case b where it is known /b that the owners despaired. b But according to Rabba, who says /b that even in cases b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, there is b also a dispute, /b in accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b i baraita /i written? It is b not /b written in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, and /b it is b not /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon. /b ,The Gemara answers: b Here too, /b when the i baraita /i mentions a thief it is actually referring to b an armed bandit, /b who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression. b And it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property. The Gemara asks: b If so, this /b case of a thief b is /b identical to the case of b a robber, /b and there is no reason for the i baraita /i to teach the same i halakha /i twice. The Gemara answers that the i baraita /i wishes to teach the i halakha /i with regard to b two /b different b types /b of b robbers. /b ,The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this i baraita /i /b is referring to an actual thief, and b it is /b written in accordance the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: A thief /b is b like a robber. /b |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 312| 49b. כשם שניסוכו בקדושה כך שריפתו בקדושה מאי משמע אמר רבינא אתיא קדש קדש כתיב הכא (במדבר כח, ז) בקדש הסך נסך וכתיב התם (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש לא יאכל כי קדש הוא,כמאן אזלא הא (דתניא) נסכים בתחילה מועלין בהן ירדו לשיתין אין מועלין בהן לימא רבי אלעזר בר צדוק היא דאי רבנן הא נחתו להו לתהום,אפילו תימא רבנן בדאיקלט,ואיכא דאמרי לימא רבנן היא ולא ר' אלעזר בר צדוק דאי רבי אלעזר אכתי בקדושתייהו קיימי אפילו תימא רבי אלעזר אין לך דבר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו אמר ריש לקיש בזמן שמנסכין יין על גבי מזבח פוקקין את השיתין לקיים מה שנאמר בקדש הסך נסך שכר לה',מאי משמע אמר רב פפא שכר לשון שתיה לשון שביעה לשון שכרות אמר רב פפא שמע מינה כי שבע איניש חמרא מגרוניה שבע אמר רבא צורבא מרבנן דלא נפישא ליה חמרא ליגמע גמועי רבא אכסא דברכתא אגמע גמועי,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים ז, ב) מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב מה יפו פעמותיהן של ישראל בשעה שעולין לרגל בת נדיב בתו של אברהם אבינו שנקרא נדיב שנא' (תהלים מז, י) נדיבי עמים נאספו עם אלהי אברהם אלהי אברהם ולא אלהי יצחק ויעקב אלא אלהי אברהם שהיה תחילה לגרים,תנא דבי רב ענן מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים ז, ב) חמוקי ירכיך למה נמשלו דברי תורה כירך לומר לך מה ירך בסתר אף דברי תורה בסתר,והיינו דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (מיכה ו, ח) הגיד לך אדם מה טוב ומה ה' דורש ממך כי אם עשות משפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת עם אלהיך עשות משפט זה הדין ואהבת חסד זו גמילות חסדים והצנע לכת עם אלהיך זו הוצאת המת והכנסת כלה לחופה והלא דברים ק"ו ומה דברים שדרכן לעשותן בפרהסיא אמרה תורה הצנע לכת דברים שדרכן לעשותן בצנעא על אחת כמה וכמה,א"ר אלעזר גדול העושה צדקה יותר מכל הקרבנות שנאמר (משלי כא, ג) עשה צדקה ומשפט נבחר לה' מזבח וא"ר אלעזר גדולה גמילות חסדים יותר מן הצדקה שנאמר (הושע י, יב) זרעו לכם לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד אם אדם זורע ספק אוכל ספק אינו אוכל אדם קוצר ודאי אוכל,וא"ר אלעזר אין צדקה משתלמת אלא לפי חסד שבה שנאמר זרעו לכם לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד,ת"ר בשלשה דברים גדולה גמילות חסדים יותר מן הצדקה צדקה בממונו גמילות חסדים בין בגופו בין בממונו צדקה לעניים גמילות חסדים בין לעניים בין לעשירים צדקה לחיים גמילות חסדים בין לחיים בין למתים,וא"ר אלעזר כל העושה צדקה ומשפט כאילו מילא כל העולם כולו חסד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ה) אוהב צדקה ומשפט חסד ה' מלאה הארץ שמא תאמר כל הבא לקפוץ קופץ ת"ל (תהלים לו, ח) מה יקר חסדך אלהים (חסד ה' מלאה הארץ) וגו' יכול אף ירא שמים כן ת"ל (תהלים קג, יז) וחסד ה' מעולם ועד עולם על יראיו,א"ר חמא בר פפא כל אדם שיש עליו חן בידוע שהוא ירא שמים שנא' חסד ה' מעולם ועד עולם על יראיו וא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (משלי לא, כו) פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה וכי יש תורה של חסד יש תורה שאינה של חסד אלא תורה לשמה זו היא תורה של חסד שלא לשמה זו היא תורה שאינה של חסד איכא דאמרי תורה ללמדה זו היא תורה של חסד שלא ללמדה זו היא תורה שאינה של חסד:,כמעשהו בחול כו': ואמאי נייתי במקודשת אמר זעירי קסבר אין שיעור למים וכלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת | 49b. b just as its pouring is in sanctity, so too must its burning be in sanctity. From where /b may it b be inferred /b that this is referring to burning? b Ravina said: It is derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the term b sanctity /b written with regard to libations and b sanctity /b written with regard to leftover offerings. b It is written here, /b with regard to libations: b “In sanctity shall you pour a libation” /b (Numbers 28:7), b and it is written there, /b with regard to leftover offerings: b “You shall burn the leftovers in fire; they are not to be eaten, for they are sanctity” /b (Exodus 29:34). Through the verbal analogy it is derived that leftover libations must also be burned.,The Gemara notes: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which is taught /b in this mishna? With regard to b libations, initially, /b prior to being poured, b one /b can b misuse consecrated property with them, /b as is the case with all consecrated items. However, once b they descended to the drainpipes, one does not /b violate the prohibition against b misuse /b of b consecrated property with them, /b because the mitzva was already fulfilled. b Let us say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, /b who holds that the libations did not descend to the depths but would collect between the ramp and the altar and would be collected once every seventy years. b As, if /b it were in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b how could the libations be misused? b Didn’t they /b already b descend to the depths /b through the drainpipes?,The Gemara rejects this: b Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b it could be referring b to /b a case b where /b some of the wine landed outside the drainpipes and b was collected /b in the space between the ramp and the altar., b And some say /b a different version of this exchange. b Let us say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis and not /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok. As, if /b it were in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, /b then the wine that collected between the ramp and the altar b remains in its sanctity, /b as it must be burned, and the prohibition against misuse would still apply. The Gemara rejects this: b Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed with which one /b can violate the prohibition against b misuse of consecrated property. Reish Lakish said: When they pour wine onto the altar, they plug /b the top of b the drainpipes /b so that the wine does not descend to the depths, in order b to fulfill that which is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink [ i shekhar /i ] unto the Lord” /b (Numbers 28:7).,The Gemara asks: b From where /b may it b be inferred /b that this is referring to plugging the drainpipes? b Rav Pappa said: i Shekhar /i /b is b an expression of drinking, of satiation, of intoxication. /b In order to underscore all three aspects of the libations, the space between the altar and the ramp would fill with wine. b Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this that when a person is satiated from /b drinking b wine, /b it is b from his throat /b being filled with wine that he is b satiated. /b Unlike food, wine does not satiate a person when it fills his stomach. b Rava said: /b Therefore, b let a young /b Torah b scholar, who does not /b have b much wine, swallow /b his wine b in /b large b swigs, /b filling his throat each time, as he will thereby maximize his enjoyment. And b Rava /b himself, when drinking b a cup of blessing, would swallow /b large b swigs /b so as to drink the wine accompanying the mitzva in an optimal manner.,§ Apropos the homiletic interpretations of the verses from Song of Songs with regard to the drainpipes, the Gemara cites additional interpretations. b Rava taught: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “How beautiful are your steps in sandals, O prince’s daughter” /b (Song of Songs 7:2)? b How beautiful are the feet of the Jewish people at the time when they ascend /b to Jerusalem b for the Festival. “O prince’s daughter”; /b this is referring to b the daughter of Abraham our Patriarch, who was called prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered, the people of the God of Abraham” /b (Psalms 47:10). The verse calls the Jewish people the people of b the God of Abraham and not the God of Isaac and Jacob. /b Why are the Jewish people associated specifically with Abraham? b Rather /b than referring to the three Patriarchs, the verse is referring to b the God of Abraham, who was first of the converts, /b and therefore it is reasonable for the princes of other nations to gather around him.,In b the school of Rav A /b it was b taught: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “The hidden of your thighs” /b (Song of Songs 7:2)? b Why are matters of Torah likened to a thigh? /b It is b to tell you /b that b just as /b the b thigh is /b always b concealed, /b covered by clothes, so b too, matters of Torah /b are optimal when recited b in private /b and not in public., b And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” /b (Micah 6:8)? b “To do justly”; this is justice. “To love mercy”; this is acts of kindness. “To walk humbly with your God”; this is /b referring to b taking the /b indigent b dead out /b for burial b and accompanying /b a poor b bride to /b her b wedding canopy, /b both of which must be performed without fanfare. The Gemara summarizes: b And are /b these b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i ? If, /b with regard to b matters that tend to be conducted in public, /b as the multitudes participate in funerals and weddings, b the Torah says: Walk humbly, /b then in b matters that tend to be conducted in private, /b e.g., giving charity and studying Torah, b all the more so /b should they be conducted privately.,§ b Rabbi Elazar said: One who performs /b acts of b charity is greater than /b one who sacrifices b all /b types of b offerings, as it is stated: “To perform charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than an offering” /b (Proverbs 21:3), including all types of offerings. b And Rabbi Elazar said: Acts of kindness, /b assisting someone in need, b are greater than charity, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness” /b (Hosea 10:12). This means: b If a person sows, /b it is b uncertain /b whether b he /b will b eat or /b whether b he /b will b not eat, /b since much can go wrong before the seed becomes food. However, if b a person reaps, he certainly eats. /b In this verse, charity is likened to sowing, while acts of kindness are likened to reaping., b And Rabbi Elazar said: /b The reward for b charity is paid /b from Heaven b only in accordance with the kindness /b and generosity included b therein /b and in accordance with the effort and the consideration that went into the giving. It is not merely in accordance with the sum of money, b as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness.” /b , b The Sages taught /b that b acts of kindness are superior to charity in three respects: Charity /b can be performed only b with one’s money, /b while b acts of kindness /b can be performed b both with his person and with his money. Charity /b is given b to the poor, /b while b acts of kindness /b are performed b both for the poor and for the rich. Charity /b is given to the b living, /b while b acts of kindness /b are performed b both for the living and for the dead. /b , b And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who performs charity and justice is /b considered b as though he filled the whole world in its entirety with kindness, as it is stated: “He loves charity and justice; the earth is full of the kindness of the Lord” /b (Psalms 33:5). b Lest you say that anyone who comes to leap /b and perform an act of kindness may simply b leap /b and do so without scrutiny, b the verse states: “How precious is your kindness, O God” /b (Psalms 36:8). It is a precious and rare occurrence to perform an act of kindness properly. One b might /b have thought that b even a God-fearing /b individual does not always encounter the opportunity to perform acts of kindness. Therefore, b the verse states: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him” /b (Psalms 103:17)., b Rabbi Ḥama bar Pappa said: /b With regard to b any person who has grace about him, it is certain that he is God-fearing, as it is stated: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him.” /b When one sees that a certain individual is endowed with grace and kindness, one can be certain that he is a God-fearing person. b And Rabbi Elazar said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and a Torah of kindness is on her tongue” /b (Proverbs 31:26)? The Gemara asks: b Is there, then, a Torah of kindness and a Torah that is not of kindness? Rather, /b it is b Torah /b studied b for its own sake that is a Torah of kindness, /b as one studies it wholeheartedly; and it is Torah studied b not for its own sake /b but for some ulterior motive b that is a Torah that is not of kindness. Some say /b that it is b Torah /b studied in order b to teach it /b to others b that is a Torah of kindness; /b it is Torah studied b with /b the intent of b not teaching it /b to others b that is a Torah that is not of kindness. /b ,§ The mishna continues: b As its performance during the week, /b so is its performance on Shabbat, except that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated and would place it in the Temple chamber, and water would be drawn from there on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: b And why /b should one do so? b Let /b him b bring /b the water b in a consecrated /b barrel. b Ze’iri said: /b The i tanna /i in the mishna b holds that there is no /b requisite b measure for the water /b to be poured for libation, and therefore more than three i log /i could be consecrated; b and /b that b Temple vessels consecrate /b their content if it is fit to be consecrated, even b without intent /b to consecrate it. |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308| 46b. (במדבר כד, כא) איתן מושבך ושים בסלע קנך ואומר (מיכה ו, ב) שמעו הרים את ריב ה' והאיתנים מוסדי ארץ אחרים אומרים מנין לאיתן שהוא ישן שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, טו) גוי איתן הוא גוי מעולם הוא,ועורפין אותה בקופיץ מאחוריה מ"ט גמר עריפה עריפה מחטאת העוף,ומקומה אסור מלזרוע ומליעבד ת"ר (דברים כא, ד) אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע לשעבר דברי רבי יאשיה רבי יונתן אומר להבא,רבא אמר להבא דכ"ע לא פליגי דכתיב ולא יזרע כי פליגי לשעבר רבי יאשיה סבר מי כתיב ולא יעובד ורבי יונתן מי כתיב אשר לא נעבד ורבי יאשיה אשר לשעבר משמע ור' יונתן אשר רבויא הוא,ומותר לסרוק שם פשתן ולנקר שם אבנים ת"ר אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע אין לי אלא זריעה שאר עבודות מנין תלמוד לומר אשר לא יעבד בו מכל מקום,אם כן מה ת"ל ולא יזרע לומר לך מה זריעה מיוחדת שהיא בגופה של קרקע אף כל שהיא בגופה של קרקע יצא סריקת פשתן וניקור אבנים שאינן בגופה של קרקע,ואימא אשר לא יעבד בו כלל ולא יזרע פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט זריעה אין מידי אחרינא לא אשר רבויא הוא,זקני העיר רוחצין ידיהן כו' ת"ר (דברים כא, ו) וכל זקני העיר ההיא הקרובים אל החלל ירחצו את ידיהם על העגלה הערופה בנחל שאין ת"ל הערופה ומה ת"ל הערופה על מקום עריפתה של עגלה,ואמרו ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו וכי על לבנו עלתה שב"ד שופכין דמים אלא לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזונות ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא לויה,תניא היה ר"מ אומר כופין ללויה ששכר הלויה אין לה שיעור שנאמר (שופטים א, כד) ויראו השומרים איש יוצא מן העיר ויאמרו לו הראנו נא את מבוא העיר ועשינו עמך חסד וכתיב ויראם את מבוא העיר ומה חסד עשו עמו שכל אותה העיר הרגו לפי חרב ואותו האיש ומשפחתו שלחו,(שופטים א, כו) וילך האיש ארץ החתים ויבן עיר ויקרא שמה לוז היא שמה עד היום הזה תניא היא לוז שצובעין בה תכלת היא לוז שבא סנחריב ולא בלבלה נבוכדנצר ולא החריבה ואף מלאך המות אין לו רשות לעבור בה אלא זקנים שבה בזמן שדעתן קצה עליהן יוצאין חוץ לחומה והן מתים,והלא דברים ק"ו ומה כנעני זה שלא דיבר בפיו ולא הלך ברגליו גרם הצלה לו ולזרעו עד סוף כל הדורות מי שעושה לויה ברגליו על אחת כמה וכמה,במה הראה להם חזקיה אמר בפיו עקם להם ר' יוחנן אמר באצבעו הראה להם תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן בשביל שכנעני זה הראה באצבעו גרם הצלה לו ולזרעו עד סוף כל הדורות,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי המהלך בדרך ואין לו לויה יעסוק בתורה שנאמר (משלי א, ט) כי לוית חן הם לראשך וענקים לגרגרותיך ואמר ר' יהושע בן לוי בשביל ארבעה פסיעות שלוה פרעה לאברהם שנאמר (בראשית יב, כ) ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים וגו' נשתעבד בבניו ארבע מאות שנה שנאמר (בראשית טו, יג) ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המלוה את חבירו ארבע אמות בעיר אינו ניזוק רבינא אלויה לרבא בר יצחק ד' אמות בעיר מטא לידיה היזיקא ואיתציל,ת"ר הרב לתלמיד עד עיבורה של עיר חבר לחבר עד תחום שבת תלמיד לרב אין לו שיעור וכמה א"ר ששת עד פרסה ולא אמרן אלא רבו שאינו מובהק אבל רבו מובהק שלשה פרסאות,רב כהנא אלויה לרב שימי בר אשי מפום נהרא עד בי ציניתא דבבל כי מטו התם אמר ליה ודאי דאמריתו הני ציניתא דבבל משני אדם הראשון איתנהו,א"ל אדכרתן מלתא דאמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ב, ו) בארץ לא עבר בה איש ולא ישב אדם שם וכי מאחר שלא עבר היכן ישב (ומאחר שלא ישב היכן עבר) אלא ארץ שגזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב נתישבה ארץ שלא גזר עליה אדם הראשון לא נתישבה,רב מרדכי אלויה לרב אשי מהגרוניא ועד בי כיפי ואמרי לה עד בי דורא,אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי מאיר כל שאינו מלוה ומתלוה כאילו שופך דמים שאילמלי ליווהו אנשי יריחו לאלישע לא גירה דובים לתינוקות שנאמר (מלכים ב ב, כג) ויעל משם בית אל והוא עלה בדרך ונערים קטנים יצאו מן העיר ויתקלסו בו ויאמרו לו עלה קרח עלה קרח,אמרו לו עלה שהקרחת עלינו את המקום מאי ונערים קטנים אמר ר' אלעזר שמנוערים מן המצות קטנים שהיו מקטני אמנה תנא נערים היו ובזבזו עצמן כקטנים,מתקיף לה רב יוסף ודלמא על שם מקומן מי לא כתיב (מלכים ב ה, ב) וארם יצאו גדודים וישבו מארץ ישראל נערה קטנה וקשיא לן נערה וקטנה ואמר ר' פדת קטנה דמן נעורן התם לא מפרש מקומה הכא מפורש מקומן,(מלכים ב ב, כד) ויפן אחריו ויראם ויקללם בשם ה' מה ראה אמר רב ראה ממש כדתניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל מקום שנתנו חכמים עיניהם או מיתה או עוני ושמואל אמר ראה שכולן נתעברה בהן אמן ביום הכיפורים,ורבי יצחק נפחא אמר בלורית ראה להן כאמוריים ורבי יוחנן אמר ראה שלא היתה בהן לחלוחית של מצוה ודלמא בזרעייהו ניהוה הוה אמר רבי אלעזר לא בם ולא בזרעם עד סוף כל הדורות,(מלכים ב ב, כד) ותצאנה שתים דובים מן היער ותבקענה מהם ארבעים ושני ילדים | 46b. b “Firm [ i eitan /i ] is your dwelling-place, and your nest is set in the rock” /b (Numbers 24:21), b and it states: “Hear, O you mountains, the Lord’s controversy, and the enduring rocks [ i eitanim /i ], the foundations of the earth” /b (Micah 6:2). The use of the word in these verses indicates that “ i eitan /i ” means something hard, like a rock or a mountain. b Others say /b a different explanation of the word i eitan /i : b From where /b is it derived b that i eitan /i means old? As /b it b is stated: “It is an ancient [ i eitan /i ] nation, a nation from of old” /b (Jeremiah 5:15).,§ The mishna taught: b And they break the neck [ i orfin /i ] of /b the heifer b from behind with a cleaver. /b The Gemara explains: b What is the reason /b that the Sages understood that the heifer is killed in this manner? They b derive /b that the term b i arifa /i , /b which describes what is done to the heifer, refers to breaking the back of the neck, b from /b the term b i arifa /i /b stated with regard to the b bird /b brought as b a sin-offering /b (see Leviticus 5:8).,§ The mishna taught further: b And /b with regard to b its place, /b it b is prohibited /b for that ground b to be sown or to be worked. The Sages taught: /b The verse: b “Which may be neither worked nor sown” /b (Deuteronomy 21:4) is referring b to the past, /b that is, a place which has not previously been worked or sown. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: /b It speaks b of the future, /b meaning it is prohibited to sow or work the land from that point onward., b Rava said: /b As b for the future, everyone agrees /b that it is prohibited to sow or work the land, b as it is written /b “neither worked b nor sown” /b in the future tense. b When they disagree /b is with regard to b the past. Rabbi Yoshiya, /b who disqualifies a place that was sown beforehand, b holds: Does it state: And shall not be worked, /b in the form of a future command? b And Rabbi Yonatan /b responds: b Does it state: And was not worked, /b in the past tense? b And Rabbi Yoshiya /b answers: The term b “which” indicates the past. And /b as for b Rabbi Yonatan, /b in his opinion the term b “which” is /b a term of b amplification, /b as will be explained later in the Gemara, and it is not referring to the past.,§ The mishna taught: b But it is permitted to comb flax there or to cut stones there. The Sages taught: /b From the phrase b “which may be neither worked nor sown,” I have /b derived b only sowing; from where /b do I derive that b other /b types of b labor /b are also prohibited? b The verse states: “Which may be neither worked,” /b indicating that it may not be worked b in any manner. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b If so, why does the verse /b also need to b state “nor sown”? /b It is in order b to say to you: Just as sowing is unique /b in b that it is /b labor performed b on the land itself, so too, all /b labor b that is /b performed b on the land itself /b is prohibited. This b excludes combing flax and cutting stones, which are not /b done b on the land itself. /b ,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b perhaps one can b say /b a different exposition: b “Which may be neither worked” /b is b a generalization, /b and b “nor sown” a detail. /b When the Torah writes b a generalization and a detail, there is nothing in the generalization other /b than b what is in the detail, /b i.e., the detail serves to impose a limit on the generalization. Consequently, the verse is teaching that with regard to b sowing, yes, /b it is prohibited, but with regard to b anything else, no, /b it is not prohibited. The Gemara again answers: The term b “which” is an amplification, /b and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details.,§ The mishna taught that b the Elders of the city /b would then b wash their hands. The Sages taught: /b With regard to the verse: b “And all the Elders of that city, who are nearest to the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley” /b (Deuteronomy 21:6), one might have thought b that /b there is b no /b need for b the verse to state: “Whose neck was broken,” /b because there is no heifer mentioned other than the one whose neck was broken. b And what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “Whose neck was broken”? /b It serves to teach us that they wash their hands b over the place where the heifer’s neck was broken. /b ,The verse further states: b “And they shall say: Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see” /b (Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: b But did it enter our minds that /b the Elders of b the court are spillers of blood, /b that they must make such a declaration? b Rather, /b they mean to declare: The victim b did not come to us and /b then b we let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him and /b then b leave him /b alone to depart b without accompaniment. /b They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir would say: There is coercion with regard to accompaniment, /b i.e., one who does not want to accompany another is nevertheless required to do so, b as the reward for accompaniment is without measure. /b The proof of the importance of accompaniment is from a verse, b as it is stated /b with regard to when the Jewish people laid siege to the city of Bethel: b “And the watchers saw a man come out of the city, and they said to him: Show us, please, the entrance into the city, and we will deal kindly with you” /b (Judges 1:24), b and it is written: “And he showed them the entrance to the city” /b (Judges 1:25). b And what kindness did they perform with him? /b It is b that they killed the entire city by the sword, but that man and his family they sent /b free.,The Gemara elaborates on the reward received in that story. The next verse states: b “And the man went to the land of the Hittites, and he built a city, and he called its name Luz; that is its name to this day” /b (Judges 1:26). b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : This b is /b the city b Luz where sky blue /b wool b is dyed. /b It b is /b the same city b Luz where, /b although b Sennacherib came /b and exiled many nations from place to place, he b did not disarrange /b and exile b its /b inhabitants; b Nebuchadnezzar, /b who conquered many lands, b did not destroy it; and even the angel of death has no permission to pass through it. Rather, its Elders, when they have decided that they have reached the end /b of life, b go outside the /b city b wall and die. /b , b Are /b these b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i : And if this Canaanite, who did not speak with his mouth /b and explicitly tell them where the city entrance was, b and did not walk /b with them b by foot, /b but merely indicated the correct path to them, nevertheless b caused himself /b to be b rescued and /b also had the merit to provide rescue b for his descendants until the end of all generations, /b then with regard to b one who accompanies /b another b by foot, all the more so /b will his reward be great.,After stating that the man did not openly guide those watching the city, the Gemara asks: b How did /b that Canaanite b show them /b the entrance to the city? b Ḥizkiyya says: He twisted his mouth for them, /b i.e., he showed them the path to the city by moving his lips. b Rabbi Yoḥa says: He showed them with his finger /b alone. It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa: Because this Canaanite showed /b them b with his finger, he caused himself /b to be b rescued and /b merited rescue for b his descendants /b as well, b until the end of all generations. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One who walks along the way without /b having someone to b accompany /b him b should occupy himself with /b words of b Torah, as it is stated /b with regard to words of Torah: b “For they shall be a chaplet of grace to your head, and chains around your neck” /b (Proverbs 1:9). b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi /b further b says: Due to four steps that Pharaoh accompanied Abraham, as it is stated: “And Pharaoh gave men charge concerning him, /b and they brought him on the way, and his wife, and all that he had” (Genesis 12:20), Pharaoh b enslaved /b Abraham’s b descendants /b for b four hundred years, as it is stated: “And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years” /b (Genesis 15:13). b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Anyone who accompanies his friend four cubits in a city will come to no harm /b by accompanying him. The Gemara relates: b Ravina accompanied Rava bar Yitzḥak four cubits in a city. He came close to harm, but he was saved. /b , b The Sages taught: A teacher /b accompanies b a student until the outskirts of the city; a friend /b accompanies b a friend until the Shabbat boundary /b of that city, which is two thousand cubits; and for b a student /b who accompanies his b teacher, there is no measure /b to the distance he accompanies him. The Gemara asks: b And how /b far? The student is certainly not required to walk with him the entire way. b Rav Sheshet says: Up to a parasang [ i parsa /i ], /b which is four i mil /i . The Gemara comments: b And we said /b this amount b only /b with regard to one who is b not his most significant teacher, but /b he accompanies b his most significant teacher, /b who taught him most of his knowledge, b three parasangs. /b ,The Gemara relates a story about accompaniment: b Rav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi from /b the town of b Pum Nahara to /b the b palm grove in Babylonia. When they arrived there, /b Rav Kahana b said to /b Rav Shimi bar Ashi: Is it b true that you say /b that b these palm trees /b of b Babylonia have been /b in this place b since the years of Adam the first /b man?,Rav Shimi bar Ashi b said to him: /b By mentioning Adam the first man b you reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “Through a land that no man passed through, and where no person [ i adam /i ] dwelt”? /b (Jeremiah 2:6). This verse is difficult: b Since it /b is a land b through which no /b man b has passed, where would he dwell? And if he did not dwell, where did he pass? /b Why does the verse add that no person has dwelled there? b Rather, /b this is the meaning: Any b land /b concerning b which Adam the first /b man b decreed that it would be a settled area, was settled; /b but b a land /b concerning b which Adam the first /b man b did not decree that /b it should be settled, b was not settled. /b ,The Gemara also relates that b Rav Mordekhai accompanied Rav Ashi from /b the town of b Hagronya until Bei Keifei, and some say /b that he accompanied him b until Bei Dura. /b ,The Gemara continues to discuss the importance of accompaniment. b Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Whoever does not accompany /b another b or will not /b allow himself to be b accompanied is like a spiller of blood /b and is held responsible for any deaths that occur as a result of his inaction. The proof for this is b that had the inhabitants of Jericho accompanied Elisha, he would not have incited the bears to /b attack b the children, as it is stated: “And he went up from there to Bethel, and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city and mocked him, and said to him: Go up, baldhead; go up, baldhead” /b (II Kings 2:23). Had the residents of Jericho accompanied him, they would have sent away those youths and prevented what occurred next.,The Gemara proceeds to discuss this episode in detail, beginning with the meaning of the youths’ taunt. b They said to him: Go up, /b away from here, b for you have made the place bald, /b i.e., bare, b for us. /b They had previously earned their living by providing the city of Jericho with water. Elisha sweetened the city’s own water, rendering their services unnecessary. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b “Young lads [ i ne’arim ketannim /i ]”? /b One would have expected the verse to state either “young” or “lads,” but not both. b Rabbi Elazar says: /b The word “lads [ i ne’arim /i ]” means that b they were shaken /b empty b [ i meno’arim /i ] of the mitzvot; /b the word b “young [ i ketannim /i ]” /b means b that they were of little faith [ i ketannei amana /i ], /b as they had no trust that they would be able to earn their livelihood by any other means. The Sages b taught: They were lads, /b that is, already of age, b but they disgraced themselves like young /b children., b Rav Yosef objects to this /b interpretation: b And perhaps /b they were called i ne’arim /i b after their place /b of origin? b Isn’t it written: “And /b the Arameans had gone out in bands, b and had brought away captive from Eretz Yisrael a minor young woman [ i na’ara ketana /i ]” /b (II Kings 5:2), b and /b this verse raised b a difficulty to us: A minor and a young woman; /b how could she be both of these? b And Rabbi Pedat says /b it means b a minor /b girl b from /b the town of b Ne’oran. /b This verse concerning the lads can be explained in a similar manner: They were young children from Ne’oran. The Gemara answers: These two cases are not comparable. b There /b the verse b does not specify her place /b of origin, so “ i na’ara /i ” could mean from the town of Ne’oran; but b here /b the verse b specifies their place /b of origin, namely Jericho.,The verse further states with regard to the same incident: b “And he turned behind him and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord” /b (II Kings 2:24). The Gemara asks: b What did he see? /b There are four explanations offered. b Rav says: /b He b literally saw, /b i.e., he stared and bored his eyes into them, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Wherever /b it states b that the Sages placed their eyes /b upon a certain person, they brought upon that person b either death or poverty. And Shmuel says: He saw /b their essential nature, b that all their mothers became pregt with them on Yom Kippur, /b when conjugal relations are forbidden., b And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: He saw /b that b they had plaited locks /b grown on the back of their heads b like the gentiles. And Rabbi Yoḥa says: He saw that they did not contain /b even b a smidgen of a mitzva. /b The Gemara raises an objection to this last interpretation of Rabbi Yoḥa: b But /b how could he curse them just because they did not have any mitzvot? b Perhaps their descendants would have /b many mitzvot. b Rabbi Elazar says: /b He saw that mitzvot would be found b neither in them nor in their descendants, through all generations. /b ,The verse states: b “And two she-bears came out of the forest and tore forty-two children from them” /b (II Kings 2:24). |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305| 116a. שאין זה מקומה ר' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה' וא"ר חמא בר' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) [ו] אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה [הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.],אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה | 116a. b that this is not its place, /b as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: It is not for that /b reason that signs were inserted. b Rather, /b the signs are there b because /b this portion b is considered a book unto itself. /b ,The Gemara asks: b According to whose /b opinion is b that /b which b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said, /b that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, b she carved its seven pillars” /b (Proverbs 9:1), b these are the seven books of the Torah? According to whose /b opinion? It is b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy., b Who is /b the b tanna who disagrees with Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? b It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here, /b where it appears, b and will be written in its /b proper b place. And why was it written here, /b even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is b in order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishment /b that appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: b “And the people complained /b wickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is b the first punishment? /b It is the verse: b “And they traveled from the mountain of God [ i mehar Hashem /i ] /b for three days” (Numbers 10:33), b and Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God [ i me’aḥarei Hashem /i ] /b and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: b And /b if so, b where is /b the proper b place /b for this paragraph? b Rav Ashi said: In /b the portion of the b flags, /b where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to b the blank folios /b of parchment b of a Torah scroll, /b does b one rescue them from the fire /b on Shabbat, b or /b does b one not rescue them from the fire? Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to b a Torah scroll that is worn, if there is /b enough b in it to compile eighty-five /b complete b letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues /b it from the fire, b and if not one does not rescue /b it. If even the blank folios are rescued, b why /b would one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to its blank folios. The Gemara /b answers: A Torah scroll that is b worn is different, /b because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters., b Come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from that which was taught in another i baraita /i : With regard to b a Torah scroll that was erased, if there is /b enough b in it to compile eighty-five /b complete b letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues /b it from the fire, b and if not, one does not rescue /b it. b And why /b is that so? b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to its blank folios, /b as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where b the place of the writing /b is erased b it is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due to /b the b writing. /b If the b writing is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me is /b with regard to the blank portions that are b above and below, that are between /b one b section and /b another b section, that are between /b one b page and /b another b page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, /b and b that are at the end of the scroll. /b The Gemara asks again: b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to that /b area that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case b where /b the blank area b was cut and thrown /b out, and all that remains is the place of the writing., b Come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that b the blank folios /b that are b above and below, that are between /b one b section and /b another b section, that are between /b one b page and /b another b page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, /b and b that are at the end of the scroll render the hands /b that touch them b ritually impure. /b Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as b perhaps /b when it is b part of the Torah scroll, it is different, /b and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, b come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from that which was taught in another i baraita /i : With regard to b the blank folios and the /b Torah b scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names /b of God contained therein. b What, /b is this b not /b referring to the b blank folios /b of b a Torah scroll? /b The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b it is referring to the b blank folios /b of b the scrolls of heretics. /b The Gemara is surprised at this: b Now, /b with regard to b the scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescue /b them; is it b necessary /b to say that one does not rescue their b blank folios? /b Rather, b this is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios. /b ,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes b the matter itself. /b With regard to b the blank folios and the /b Torah b scrolls of /b the b heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the names /b of God contained b therein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon said /b in the form of an oath: b I will bury my sons /b if I fail to do the following, b that if /b these books b come into my possession I will burn them and the names /b contained b therein. As even /b if b a person is pursuing him /b with the intent b to kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of these /b heretics. The reason is b that these /b heretics b are aware /b of the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, b and /b nevertheless, they b deny /b the existence of God; b whereas these /b idolators b are not aware, and /b that is the reason that they b deny /b the existence of God. b And with regard to the /b heretics, b the verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory” /b (Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door., b Rabbi Yishmael said: /b The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b Just as to make peace between a husband and his wife, /b the b Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the water /b in the framework of the ordeal of the i sota /i ; b these, /b the heretics, b who impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more so /b it is proper to erase God’s names because of them. b And with regard to /b heretics, b David said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me” /b (Psalms 139:21–22). b And just as they, /b the scrolls of heretics, b are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from /b any other b matter that destroys them. /b , b Yosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu: /b With regard to b these books of the house of Abidan, /b does b one rescue them from the fire or /b does b one not rescue /b them? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said b yes and no, and /b the matter was b uncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidan /b for conversation, b and all the more so /b he would not go b to the house of Nitzrefei, /b the Persian fire-temple. b Shmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go, /b but b to the house of Abidan he did go. /b The gentile scholars b said to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan? /b He evaded their question with an excuse and b said to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, and /b that makes the path b difficult for me. /b They said to him: b We will uproot it. /b He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in b its place /b will be b difficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I am /b one b of them, /b we are friends, b and I do not fear them. /b Still, b one time he went /b and argued with them and b they sought to endanger his /b life. b Rabbi Meir would call /b the Christian writing, the Evangelion, the b wicked folio [ i aven gilyon /i ]; Rabbi Yoḥa /b called it the b sinful folio [ i avon gilyon /i ]. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Imma Shalom, /b the b wife /b of b Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was /b a Christian b philosopher [ i pilosofa /i ] in their neighborhood /b |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 309 | 65a. b And this is as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Shekalim /i 13b): b Petaḥya /b was responsible b for the nests /b of birds, i.e., the doves or pigeons brought by a i zav /i , a i zava /i , a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These individuals would place the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. b This /b Sage b is Mordekhai; /b and b why was he called Petaḥya, /b which resembles the word for opening [ i petaḥ /i ]? The reason is b that he would open, /b i.e., elucidate, difficult b topics and interpret them /b to the people, b and /b because b he knew /b all b seventy languages /b known in that region at the time.,The Gemara asks: What was unique about Petaḥya? b All /b of the members of the b Sanhedrin also know /b all b seventy languages. As Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b They b place on the /b Great b Sanhedrin only /b men b of wisdom, and of /b pleasant b appearance, and of /b high b stature, and of /b suitable b age /b so that they will be respected. b And /b they must also be b masters of sorcery, /b i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, b and /b they must b know /b all b seventy languages /b in order b that the Sanhedrin will not /b need to b hear /b testimony b from the mouth of a translator /b in a case where a witness speaks a different language.,The Gemara answers: b Rather, /b Petaḥya was unique b as /b he not only knew all seventy languages, but also had the ability to b combine /b various b languages and interpret /b them. b This is /b the meaning of that b which is written with regard to Mordekhai: “Bilshan” /b (Nehemiah 7:7). Bilshan is interpreted as another name for Mordekhai, as he would combine [ i balil /i ] languages [ i lashon /i ]., strong MISHNA: /strong b How would they perform /b the rite of the harvest of the i omer /i ? b Emissaries of the court /b would b emerge on the eve of the festival /b of Passover b and fashion /b the stalks of barley into b sheaves while /b the stalks were still b attached to the ground, so that it would be convenient to reap /b them. The residents of b all the towns adjacent to /b the site of the harvest b would assemble there, so that it would be harvested with great fanfare. /b , b Once it grew dark, /b the court emissary b says to /b those assembled: b Did the sun set? /b The assembly b says /b in response: b Yes. /b The emissary repeats: b Did the sun set? /b They again b say: Yes. /b The court emissary next says to those assembled: Shall I reap the sheaves with b this sickle? /b The assembly b says /b in response: b Yes. /b The emissary repeats: With b this sickle? /b The assembly b says: Yes. /b The court emissary then says to those assembled: Shall I place the gathered sheaves in b this basket? /b The assembly b says /b in response: b Yes. /b The emissary repeats: In b this basket? /b The assembly b says: Yes. /b ,If the sixteenth of Nisan occurs b on Shabbat, /b the court emissary b says to /b the assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on b this Shabbat? /b The assembly b says /b in response: b Yes. /b The emissary repeats: On b this Shabbat? /b The assembly b says: Yes. /b The court emissary says to those assembled: b Shall I cut /b the sheaves? b And they say to him /b in response: b Cut. /b The emissary repeats: b Shall I cut /b the sheaves? b And they say /b to him: b Cut. /b ,The emissary asks b three times with regard to each and every matter, and /b the assembly b says to him: Yes, yes, yes. /b The mishna asks: b Why do I /b need those involved to publicize each stage of the rite b to that extent? /b The mishna answers: It is b due to the Boethusians, as they /b deny the validity of the Oral Law and b would say: There is no harvest of the i omer /i at the conclusion of the /b first b Festival /b day of Passover unless it occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat. The publicity was to underscore that the sixteenth of Nisan was the proper time for the i omer /i harvest., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b These are the days on which fasting is prohibited, and on some of them eulogizing is prohibited /b as well: b From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of /b the month, the proper sacrifice of b the daily offering was established, /b and therefore it was decreed b not to eulogize /b on these dates. b And /b furthermore, b from the eighth of /b Nisan b until the end of the festival /b of Passover, the correct date for the b festival of i Shavuot /i was restored, /b and it was similarly decreed b not to eulogize /b during this period.,The Gemara discusses the i baraita /i : b From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of /b the month the proper sacrifice of b the daily offering was established, /b and therefore it was decreed b not to eulogize /b on these dates. The Gemara explains b that the Sadducees would say: An individual may donate and bring /b the b daily offering, /b in opposition to the accepted tradition that the daily offering must be brought from communal funds. b What /b verse did the Sadducees b expound? “The one lamb shall you offer [ i ta’aseh /i ] in the morning, and the other lamb shall you offer in the afternoon” /b (Numbers 28:4). Since the verse is in the singular form, the Sadducees maintained that even an individual may donate the daily offering.,The Gemara asks: b What /b did the Sages b reply /b to refute the argument of the Sadducees? They cited the verse: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: b My food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire, /b of a pleasing aroma unto Me, b you shall observe [ i tishmeru /i ] /b to offer to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2). The term: “You shall observe” is in the plural form, which indicates that b all of the /b daily offerings b should come from collection of the /b Temple treasury b chamber. /b Since during that period, between the New Moon of Nisan and the eighth of Nisan, the Sages overruled the Sadducees, it was established as a period of rejoicing, and it was prohibited to eulogize on those dates.,The Gemara discusses the next period listed in the i baraita /i : b From the eighth of /b Nisan b until the end of the festival /b of Passover, the correct date for the b festival of i Shavuot /i was restored, /b and it was similarly decreed b not to eulogize /b during this period. b As the Boethusians would say /b that the festival of b i Shavuot /i /b always occurs b after Shabbat, /b on a Sunday. Their reasoning was that the verse states, with regard to the i omer /i offering and the festival of i Shavuot /i that follows seven weeks later: “And you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest [ i hashabbat /i ], from the day that you brought the sheaf [ i omer /i ] of the waving; seven weeks shall there be complete” (Leviticus 23:15). Disregarding the oral tradition, the Boethusians interpreted the phrase “from the morrow after the day of rest [ i hashabbat /i ]” literally, as referring to Shabbat, not the Festival day.,At the time, b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai joined /b the discussion with the Boethusians b and said to them: Fools! From where /b have b you /b derived this? b And there was no man who answered him, except for one elderly man who was prattling [ i mefatpet /i ] at him, and he said: Moses, our teacher, was a lover of the Jewish people and he knew that i Shavuot /i is /b only b one day. /b Therefore, b he arose and established it after Shabbat, in order that the Jewish people would enjoy themselves for two days. /b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai b recited this verse /b in response b to /b that old man: b “It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the way of Mount Seir” /b (Deuteronomy 1:2). |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 312| 3b. מלמד שלן בעומקה של הלכה ואמר רב שמואל בר אוניא גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מהקרבת תמידין שנאמר עתה באתי,לא קשיא הא דרבים והא דיחיד,ודיחיד קל והתנן נשים במועד מענות אבל לא מטפחות ר' ישמעאל אומר אם היו סמוכות למטה מטפחות בראשי חדשים בחנוכה ובפורים מענות ומטפחות בזה ובזה אבל לא מקוננות,ואמר רבה בר הונא אין מועד בפני תלמיד חכם כל שכן חנוכה ופורים,כבוד תורה קאמרת כבוד תורה דיחיד חמור תלמוד תורה דיחיד קל,אמר רבא פשיטא לי עבודה ומקרא מגילה מקרא מגילה עדיף מדר' יוסי בר חנינא תלמוד תורה ומקרא מגילה מקרא מגילה עדיף מדסמכו של בית רבי,תלמוד תורה ומת מצוה מת מצוה עדיף מדתניא מבטלין תלמוד תורה להוצאת מת ולהכנסת כלה עבודה ומת מצוה מת מצוה עדיף (במדבר ו, ז) מולאחותו,דתניא ולאחותו מה ת"ל הרי שהיה הולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ושמע שמת לו מת יכול יטמא,אמרת לא יטמא יכול כשם שאינו מיטמא לאחותו כך אינו מיטמא למת מצוה ת"ל ולאחותו לאחותו הוא דאינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא למת מצוה,בעי רבא מקרא מגילה ומת מצוה הי מינייהו עדיף מקרא מגילה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא או דלמא מת מצוה עדיף משום כבוד הבריות בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה מת מצוה עדיף דאמר מר גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה,גופא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כרך וכל הסמוך לו וכל הנראה עמו נדון ככרך תנא סמוך אע"פ שאינו נראה נראה אע"פ שאינו סמוך,בשלמא נראה אע"פ שאינו סמוך משכחת לה כגון דיתבה בראש ההר אלא סמוך אע"פ שאינו נראה היכי משכחת לה א"ר ירמיה שיושבת בנחל,וא"ר יהושע בן לוי כרך שישב ולבסוף הוקף נדון ככפר מ"ט דכתיב (ויקרא כה, כט) ואיש כי ימכור בית מושב עיר חומה שהוקף ולבסוף ישב ולא שישב ולבסוף הוקף,ואמר ריב"ל כרך שאין בו עשרה בטלנין נדון ככפר מאי קמ"ל תנינא איזו היא עיר גדולה כל שיש בה עשרה בטלנין פחות מכאן הרי זה כפר כרך איצטריך ליה אע"ג דמיקלעי ליה מעלמא,ואמר ריב"ל כרך שחרב ולבסוף ישב נדון ככרך מאי חרב אילימא חרבו חומותיו ישב אין לא ישב לא והא תניא רבי אליעזר בר יוסי אומר (ויקרא כה, ל) אשר לוא חומה אף על פי שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן,אלא מאי חרב שחרב מעשרה בטלנין,ואמר ריב"ל | 3b. This b teaches that he spent the night in the depths /b [ b i be’umeka /i /b ] b of i halakha /i , /b i.e., that he spent the night studying Torah with the Jewish people. b And Rav Shmuel bar Unya said: Torah study is greater than sacrificing the daily offerings, as it is stated: “I have come now” /b (Joshua 5:14), indicating that the angel came to rebuke Joshua for neglecting Torah study and not for neglecting the daily offering. Consequently, how did the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi determine that the Temple service is more important than Torah study?,The Gemara explains that it is b not difficult. This /b statement, with regard to the story of Joshua, is referring to Torah study b by the masses, /b which is greater than the Temple service. b That /b statement of the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to Torah study b by an individual, /b which is less significant than the Temple service.,The Gemara asks: Is the Torah study b of an individual a light /b matter? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b On /b the intermediate days of b a Festival, women may lament /b the demise of the deceased in unison, b but they may not clap /b their hands in mourning? b Rabbi Yishmael says: Those that are close to the bier may clap. On the New Moon, on Hanukkah, and on Purim, /b which are not mandated by Torah law, b they may /b both b lament and clap /b their hands in mourning. However, b on both /b groups of days, b they may not wail /b responsively, a form of wailing where one woman wails and the others repeat after her., b And Rabba bar Huna said: /b All these regulations were said with regard to an ordinary person, but b there are no /b restrictions on expressions of mourning on the intermediate days of b a Festival in the presence of a /b deceased b Torah scholar. /b If a Torah scholar dies on the intermediate days of a Festival, the women may lament, clap, and wail responsively as on any other day, b and all the more so on Hanukkah and Purim. /b This indicates that even the Torah study of an individual is of great importance.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b You speak of the honor /b that must be shown b to the Torah, /b and indeed, b the honor /b that must be shown to b the Torah /b in the case of b an individual /b Torah scholar b is important; /b but b the Torah study of an individual /b in itself b is light /b and is less significant than the Temple service.,§ b Rava said: /b It b is obvious to me /b that if one must choose between Temple b service and reading the Megilla, reading the Megilla /b takes b precedence, based upon /b the exposition of b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina /b with regard to the phrase “every family” (Esther 9:28). Similarly, if one must choose between b Torah study and reading the Megilla, reading the Megilla /b takes b precedence, based upon /b the fact that the Sages of b the house of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b relied /b on Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina’s exposition to rule that one interrupts Torah study to hear the reading of the Megilla.,Furthermore, it is obvious that if one must choose between b Torah study and /b tending to b a corpse with no one to bury it [ i met mitzva /i ], /b the task of burying b the i met mitzva /i /b takes b precedence. /b This is derived b from that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One cancels his Torah study to bring out a corpse /b for burial, b and to /b join a wedding procession and b bring in the bride. /b Similarly, if one must choose between the Temple b service and /b tending to b a i met mitzva /i , /b tending to the b i met mitzva /i /b takes b precedence, based upon /b the i halakha /i derived from the term b “or for his sister” /b (Numbers 6:7)., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to verses addressing the laws of a nazirite: “All the days that he consecrates himself to the Lord, he shall not come near to a dead body. For his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not make himself ritually impure for them when they die” (Numbers 6:6–7). b What /b is the meaning when b the verse states “or for his sister”? /b The previous verse, which states that the nazirite may not come near a dead body, already prohibits him from becoming impure through contact with his sister. Therefore, the second verse is understood to be teaching a different i halakha /i : One b who was going to slaughter his Paschal /b lamb b or to circumcise his son, and he heard that /b a relative b of his died, /b one b might /b have thought that b he /b should return and b become ritually impure /b with the impurity imparted by a corpse., b You said: He shall not become impure; /b the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah. One b might /b have thought: b Just as he does not become impure for his sister, so he does not become impure for a corpse with no one to bury it [ i met mitzva /i ]. The verse states: “Or for his sister”; he may not become impure for his sister, /b as someone else can attend to her burial, b but he does become impure for a i met mitzva /i . /b ,On the basis of these premises, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b If one must choose between b reading the Megilla and /b tending to b a i met mitzva /i , which of them /b takes b precedence? /b Does b reading the Megilla /b take b precedence due to /b the value of b publicizing the miracle, or perhaps /b burying b the i met mitzva /i /b takes b precedence due to /b the value of preserving b human dignity? After he raised the dilemma, /b Rava b then resolved it /b on his own and ruled that attending to a b i met mitzva /i /b takes b precedence, as the Master said: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah. /b Consequently, it certainly overrides the duty to read the Megilla, despite the fact that reading the Megilla publicizes the miracle.,§ The Gemara examines b the /b matter b itself /b cited in the course of the previous discussion. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A /b walled b city, and all /b settlements b adjacent to it, and all /b settlements that can be b seen with it, /b i.e., that can be seen from the walled city, are b considered like the /b walled b city, /b and the Megilla is read on the fifteenth. It was b taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : This is the i halakha /i with regard to a settlement b adjacent /b to a walled city, b although it cannot be seen /b from it, and also a place that b can be seen /b from the walled city, b although it is not adjacent /b to it.,The Gemara examines the i Tosefta /i : b Granted /b that with regard to a place that b can be seen /b from the walled city, b although it is not adjacent /b to it, b you find it where /b the place b is located on the top of a mountain, /b and therefore it can be seen from the walled city, although it is at some distance from it. b However, /b with regard to a settlement that is b adjacent /b to a walled city b although it cannot be seen /b from it, b how can you find these /b circumstances? b Rabbi Yirmeya said: /b You find it, for example, b where /b the place b is located in a valley, /b and therefore it is possible that it cannot be seen from the walled city, although it is very close to it., b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A /b walled b city that was /b initially b settled and /b only b later surrounded /b by a wall b is considered a village /b rather than a walled city. b What is the reason? As it is written: “And if a man sells a residential house in a walled city” /b (Leviticus 25:29). The wording of the verse indicates that it is referring to a place b that was /b first b surrounded /b by a wall b and /b only b later settled, and not /b to a place b that was /b first b settled and /b only b later surrounded /b by a wall., b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A /b walled b city that does not have ten idlers, /b i.e., individuals who do not work and are available to attend to communal needs, b is treated as a village. /b The Gemara asks: b What is he teaching us? We /b already b learned /b in a mishna (5a): b What is a large city? Any /b city b in which there are ten idlers; /b however, if there are b fewer than that, it is a village. /b The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, b it was necessary /b for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a large b city, /b to indicate that b even if /b idlers b happen to come there from elsewhere, /b since they are not local residents, it is still considered a village., b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi /b also b said: A /b walled b city that was destroyed and /b then b later settled is considered a city. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b meant by the term b destroyed? If we say /b that the city’s b walls were destroyed, /b and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi comes to teach us that if it was b settled, yes /b it is treated as a walled city, but if it was b not settled, /b it is b not /b treated that way, there is a difficulty. b Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: /b The verse states: b “Which has [ i lo /i ] a wall /b (Leviticus 25:30),” and the word i lo /i is written with an i alef /i , which means no, but in context the word i lo /i is used as though it was written with a i vav /i , meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that b even though /b the city b does not have /b a wall b now, /b as the wall was destroyed, if it b had /b a wall b before, /b it retains its status as a walled city., b Rather, what is /b meant by the term b destroyed? That it was destroyed /b in the sense that it no longer has b ten idlers, /b and therefore it is treated like a village. However, once it has ten idlers again, it is treated like a city., b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: /b |
|
| 38. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 15.7, 15.9 Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305, 308, 309, 312 |
| 39. Anon., Leges Publicae, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 308, 309, 312 |
| 40. Dead Sea Scrolls, Yitro, 9 Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 309 |
| 41. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 15.3, 19.11 Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306, 308 |
| 42. Anon., Megillat Taanit (Lichtenstein), 1 Tagged with subjects: •rabbinovicz, raphaelo Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 309 |
