1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.6, 11.13, 12.23-12.28, 17.16-17.17, 21.18-21.21, 22.6-22.7, 25.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources •rationality of torah, in 4 maccabees Found in books: Hayes (2015) 250, 255, 258, 259, 260, 269, 278| 4.6. "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם לְעֵינֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן אֵת כָּל־הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם־חָכָם וְנָבוֹן הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה׃", 11.13. "וְהָיָה אִם־שָׁמֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַי אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם לְאַהֲבָה אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּלְעָבְדוֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶם׃", 12.23. "רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְלֹא־תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם־הַבָּשָׂר׃", 12.24. "לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל־הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם׃", 12.25. "לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ כִּי־תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה׃", 12.26. "רַק קָדָשֶׁיךָ אֲשֶׁר־יִהְיוּ לְךָ וּנְדָרֶיךָ תִּשָּׂא וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר יְהוָה׃", 12.27. "וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם עַל־מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְדַם־זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ עַל־מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהַבָּשָׂר תֹּאכֵל׃", 12.28. "שְׁמֹר וְשָׁמַעְתָּ אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ עַד־עוֹלָם כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה הַטּוֹב וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", 17.16. "רַק לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא־יָשִׁיב אֶת־הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס וַיהוָה אָמַר לָכֶם לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד׃", 17.17. "וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ מְאֹד׃", 21.18. "כִּי־יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם׃", 21.19. "וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְאֶל־שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ׃", 21.21. "וּרְגָמֻהוּ כָּל־אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ׃", 22.6. "כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן־צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּכָל־עֵץ אוֹ עַל־הָאָרֶץ אֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל־הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל־הַבֵּיצִים לֹא־תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל־הַבָּנִים׃", 22.7. "שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת־הָאֵם וְאֶת־הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח־לָךְ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים׃", 25.5. "כִּי־יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין־לוֹ לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת־הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ׃", | 4.6. "Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’", 11.13. "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul,", 12.23. "Only be stedfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh.", 12.24. "Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water.", 12.25. "Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD.", 12.26. "Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the LORD shall choose;", 12.27. "and thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God; and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.", 12.28. "Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.", 17.16. "Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: ‘Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.’", 17.17. "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.", 21.18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them;", 21.19. "then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;", 21.20. "and they shall say unto the elders of his city: ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.’", 21.21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.", 22.6. "If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young;", 22.7. "thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.", 25.5. "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 263| 1.26. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃", | 1.26. "And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Job, 14.4, 28.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 275, 279| 14.4. "מִי־יִתֵּן טָהוֹר מִטָּמֵא לֹא אֶחָד׃", | 14.4. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.", 28.10. "He cutteth out channels among the rocks; And his eye seeth every precious thing. .", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.1, 18.3-18.4, 20.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 247, 249, 250, 254| 18.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 18.1. "עֶרְוַת בַּת־בִּנְךָ אוֹ בַת־בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָן כִּי עֶרְוָתְךָ הֵנָּה׃", 18.3. "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשׂוּ לִפְנֵיכֶם וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", 18.3. "כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם־בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ׃", 18.4. "אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ וְאֶת־חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", 20.26. "וִהְיִיתֶם לִי קְדֹשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָה וָאַבְדִּל אֶתְכֶם מִן־הָעַמִּים לִהְיוֹת לִי׃", | 18.1. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 18.3. "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes.", 18.4. "Mine ordices shall ye do, and My statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.", 20.26. "And ye shall be holy unto Me; for I the LORD am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be Mine.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 11.10, 15.38-15.39, 15.41, 19.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 249, 252, 275, 276, 278, 280| 15.38. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל־כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם וְנָתְנוּ עַל־צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת׃", 15.39. "וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא־תָתֻרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃", 15.41. "אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", 19.2. "זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל׃", 19.2. "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִטְמָא וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל כִּי אֶת־מִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה טִמֵּא מֵי נִדָּה לֹא־זֹרַק עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא׃", | 11.10. "And Moses heard the people weeping, family by family, every man at the door of his tent; and the anger of the LORD was kindled greatly; and Moses was displeased.", 15.38. "’Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.", 15.39. "And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;", 15.41. "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.’", 19.2. "This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 3.16, 3.18, 4.9, 4.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 261| 3.16. "אֹרֶךְ יָמִים בִּימִינָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאולָהּ עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד׃", 3.18. "עֵץ־חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ וְתֹמְכֶיהָ מְאֻשָּׁר׃", 4.9. "תִּתֵּן לְרֹאשְׁךָ לִוְיַת־חֵן עֲטֶרֶת תִּפְאֶרֶת תְּמַגְּנֶךָּ׃", 4.22. "כִּי־חַיִּים הֵם לְמֹצְאֵיהֶם וּלְכָל־בְּשָׂרוֹ מַרְפֵּא׃", | 3.16. "Length of days is in her right hand; In her left hand are riches and honour.", 3.18. "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her, And happy is every one that holdest her fast.", 4.9. "She will give to thy head a chaplet of grace; A crown of glory will she bestow on thee.’", 4.22. "For they are life unto those that find them, And health to all their flesh.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 12.7, 75.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 276, 278| 12.7. "אִמֲרוֹת יְהוָה אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף בַּעֲלִיל לָאָרֶץ מְזֻקָּק שִׁבְעָתָיִם׃", 75.3. "כִּי אֶקַּח מוֹעֵד אֲנִי מֵישָׁרִים אֶשְׁפֹּט׃", | 12.7. "The words of the LORD are pure words, As silver tried in a crucible on the earth, refined seven times.", 75.3. "'When I take the appointed time, I Myself will judge with equity.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel, 22.31 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 257| 22.31. "הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ אִמְרַת יְהוָה צְרוּפָה מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחֹסִים בּוֹ׃", | 22.31. "As for God, His way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: He is a shield to all them that trust in him.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 42.16, 42.21, 54.12 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 256, 263, 278| 42.16. "וְהוֹלַכְתִּי עִוְרִים בְּדֶרֶךְ לֹא יָדָעוּ בִּנְתִיבוֹת לֹא־יָדְעוּ אַדְרִיכֵם אָשִׂים מַחְשָׁךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם לָאוֹר וּמַעֲקַשִּׁים לְמִישׁוֹר אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים עֲשִׂיתִם וְלֹא עֲזַבְתִּים׃", 42.21. "יְהוָה חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר׃", 54.12. "וְשַׂמְתִּי כַּדְכֹד שִׁמְשֹׁתַיִךְ וּשְׁעָרַיִךְ לְאַבְנֵי אֶקְדָּח וְכָל־גְּבוּלֵךְ לְאַבְנֵי־חֵפֶץ׃", | 42.16. "And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not, In paths that they knew not will I lead them; I will make darkness light before them, and rugged places plain. These things will I do, And I will not leave them undone.", 42.21. "The LORD was pleased, for His righteousness’sake, To make the teaching great and glorious.", 54.12. "And I will make thy pinnacles of rubies, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy border of precious stones.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 10.29, 11.4 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 269| 10.29. "וַתַּעֲלֶה וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת כֶּסֶף וְסוּס בַּחֲמִשִּׁים וּמֵאָה וְכֵן לְכָל־מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים וּלְמַלְכֵי אֲרָם בְּיָדָם יֹצִאוּ׃", 11.4. "וַיְהִי לְעֵת זִקְנַת שְׁלֹמֹה נָשָׁיו הִטּוּ אֶת־לְבָבוֹ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא־הָיָה לְבָבוֹ שָׁלֵם עִם־יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו כִּלְבַב דָּוִיד אָבִיו׃", 11.4. "וַיְבַקֵּשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה לְהָמִית אֶת־יָרָבְעָם וַיָּקָם יָרָבְעָם וַיִּבְרַח מִצְרַיִם אֶל־שִׁישַׁק מֶלֶךְ־מִצְרַיִם וַיְהִי בְמִצְרַיִם עַד־מוֹת שְׁלֹמֹה׃", | 10.29. "And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty; and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram, did they bring them out by their means.", 11.4. "For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not whole with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 13.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 279| 13.2. "וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַכְרִית אֶת־שְׁמוֹת הָעֲצַבִּים מִן־הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא יִזָּכְרוּ עוֹד וְגַם אֶת־הַנְּבִיאִים וְאֶת־רוּחַ הַטֻּמְאָה אַעֲבִיר מִן־הָאָרֶץ׃", | 13.2. "And it shall come to pass in that day, Saith the LORD of hosts, That I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, And they shall no more be remembered; And also I will cause the prophets And the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 8.1 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 277| 8.1. "מִי כְּהֶחָכָם וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ פֵּשֶׁר דָּבָר חָכְמַת אָדָם תָּאִיר פָּנָיו וְעֹז פָּנָיו יְשֻׁנֶּא׃", 8.1. "וּבְכֵן רָאִיתִי רְשָׁעִים קְבֻרִים וָבָאוּ וּמִמְּקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יְהַלֵּכוּ וְיִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ בָעִיר אֲשֶׁר כֵּן־עָשׂוּ גַּם־זֶה הָבֶל׃", | 8.1. "Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, And the boldness of his face is changed.", |
|
13. Anon., Jubilees, 6.34-6.38 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in the letter of aristeas Found in books: Hayes (2015) 105 | 6.34. and I explained to thee its sacrifices that the children of Israel should remember and should celebrate it throughout their generations in this month, one day in every year. 6.35. And on the new moon of the first month, and on the new moon of the fourth month, and on the new moon of the seventh month, and on the new moon of the tenth month are the days of remembrance, and the days of the seasons in the four divisions of the year. 6.36. These are written and ordained as a testimony for ever. 6.37. And Noah ordained them for himself as feasts for the generations for ever, so that they have become thereby a memorial unto him. 6.38. And on the new moon of the first month he was bidden to make for himself an ark, and on that (day) the earth became dry and he opened (the ark) and saw the earth. |
|
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 12.14-12.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 277 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 12.14-12.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 277 |
16. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 2.12-2.17, 2.50-2.51 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in philo Found in books: Hayes (2015) 118, 119 | 2.12. But that he himself is the most admirable of all the lawgivers who have ever lived in any country either among the Greeks or among the barbarians, and that his are the most admirable of all laws, and truly divine, omitting no one particular which they ought to comprehend, there is the clearest proof possible in this fact, the laws of other lawgivers, 2.13. if any one examines them by his reason, he will find to be put in motion in an innumerable multitude of pretexts, either because of wars, or of tyrannies, or of some other unexpected events which come upon nations through the various alterations and innovations of fortune; and very often luxury, abounding in all kind of superfluity and unbounded extravagance, has overturned laws, from the multitude not being able to bear unlimited prosperity, but having a tendency to become insolent through satiety, and insolence is in opposition to law. 2.14. But the enactments of this lawgiver are firm, not shaken by commotions, not liable to alteration, but stamped as it were with the seal of nature herself, and they remain firm and lasting from the day on which they were first promulgated to the present one, and there may well be a hope that they will remain to all future time, as being immortal, as long as the sun and the moon, and the whole heaven and the whole world shall endure. 2.15. At all events, though the nation of the Hebrews experienced so many changes both in the direction of prosperity and of the opposite destiny, no one, no not even the very smallest and most unimportant of all his commandments was changed, since every one, as it seems, honoured their venerable and godlike character; 2.16. and what neither famine, nor pestilence, nor war, nor sovereign, nor tyrant, nor the rise of any passions or evil feelings against either soul or body, nor any other evil, whether inflicted by God or deriving its rise from men, ever dissolved, can surely never be looked upon by us in any other light than as objects of all admiration, and beyond all powers of description in respect of their excellence. 2.17. But this is not so entirely wonderful, although it may fairly by itself be considered a thing of great intrinsic importance, that his laws were kept securely and immutably from all time; but this is more wonderful by far, as it seems, that not only the Jews, but that also almost every other nation, and especially those who make the greatest account of virtue, have dedicated themselves to embrace and honour them, for they have received this especial honour above all other codes of laws, which is not given to any other code. 2.50. But he, thinking the first of the two courses above mentioned to be tyrannical and despotic, as indeed it is, namely, that of laying positive commands on persons as if they were not free men but slaves, without offering them any alleviation; and that the second course was better indeed, but was not entirely to be commended, must appear to all judges to be superior in each of the above considerations. 2.51. For both in his commandments and also in his prohibitions he suggests and recommends rather than commands, endeavouring with many prefaces and perorations to suggest the greater part of the precepts that he desires to enforce, desiring rather to allure men to virtue than to drive them to it, and looking upon the foundation and beginning of a city made with hands, which he has made the commencement of his work a commencement beneath the dignity of his laws, looking rather with the most accurate eye of his mind at the importance and beauty of his whole legislative system, and thinking it too excellent and too divine to be limited as it were by any circle of things on earth; and therefore he has related the creation of that great metropolis, the world, thinking his laws the most fruitful image and likeness of the constitution of the whole world. |
|
17. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.327 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in philo Found in books: Hayes (2015) 120 | 1.327. For this passage (if there is any passage at all in the whole scripture which does so |
|
| 18. Philo of Alexandria, On The Decalogue, 177, 97-98, 154 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 120 |
19. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 264| 7.1. Καὶ συνἄγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων 7.2. καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους. 7.3. —οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.4. καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων. 7.5. —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· 7.7. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· 7.8. ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 7.9. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε· 7.10. Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· 7.11. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12. οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13. ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.14. Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 7.15. οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 7.16. 7.17. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν. 7.18. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 7.19. ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται; —καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. 7.20. ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· 7.21. ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, 7.22. μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· 7.23. πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. | 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?" 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." |
|
20. New Testament, Romans, 5.20, 6.6-6.14, 7.14-7.24 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 253, 256, 257| 5.20. νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα· οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις, 6.6. τοῦτο γινώσκοντες ὅτι ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, 6.7. ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 6.8. εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνομεν σὺν Χριστῷ, πιστεύομεν ὅτι καὶ συνζήσομεν αὐτῷ· 6.9. εἰδότες ὅτι Χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκέτι ἀποθνήσκει, θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει· 6.10. ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ· 6.11. ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ. οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 6.12. Μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ, 6.13. μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας καὶ τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ θεῷ· 6.14. ἁμαρτία γὰρ ὑμῶν οὐ κυριεύσει, οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν. 7.14. οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν· ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι, πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 7.15. ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλʼ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ. 7.16. εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο ποιῶ, σύνφημι τῷ νόμῳ ὅτι καλός. 7.17. Νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ ἀλλὰ ἡ ἐνοικοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία. 7.18. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν· τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ· 7.19. οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν τοῦτο πράσσω. 7.20. εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο ποιῶ, οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ ἀλλὰ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία. 7.21. Εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλὸν ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται· 7.22. συνήδομαι γὰρ τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον, 7.23. βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με [ἐν] τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου. 7.24. ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος· τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου; | 5.20. The law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly; 6.6. knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin. 6.7. For he who has died has been freed from sin. 6.8. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him; 6.9. knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no more has dominion over him! 6.10. For the death that he died, he died to sin one time; but the life that he lives, he lives to God. 6.11. Thus also consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 6.12. Therefore don't let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 6.13. Neither present your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God, as alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 6.14. For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under law, but under grace. 7.14. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. 7.15. For I don't know what I am doing. For I don't practice what I desire to do; but what I hate, that I do. 7.16. But if what I don't desire, that I do, I consent to the law that it is good. 7.17. So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me. 7.18. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. For desire is present with me, but I don't find it doing that which is good. 7.19. For the good which I desire, I don't do; but the evil which I don't desire, that I practice. 7.20. But if what I don't desire, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me. 7.21. I find then the law, that, to me, while I desire to do good, evil is present. 7.22. For I delight in God's law after the inward man, 7.23. but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. 7.24. What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of this death? |
|
| 21. Mishnah, Makkot, a b c d\n0 3.18 (15) 3.18 (15) 3 18 (15) (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 255, 271 |
22. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 263| 4.5. "כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה: \n", | 4.5. "How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]", |
|
23. Mishnah, Parah, 3.3, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 275, 278| 3.3. "בָּאוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת וְיָרְדוּ. הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת, תַּחְתֵּיהֶם חָלוּל, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּבְפֶתַח הָעֲזָרָה הָיָה מְתֻקָּן קָלָל שֶׁל חַטָּאת, וּמְבִיאִין זָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים וְקוֹשְׁרִים חֶבֶל בֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְקוֹשְׁרִים מַקֵּל וּמְסַבֵּךְ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל חֶבֶל, וְזוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַקָּלָל, וּמַכֶּה אֶת הַזָּכָר וְנִרְתָּע לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְנוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַצְּדוֹקִים לִרְדּוֹת, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ: \n", 4.4. "כָּל הָעֲסוּקִין בַּפָּרָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וּפוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ בִּמְלָאכָה. אֵרַע בָּהּ פְּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. אֵרַע בָּהּ בְּהַזָּיָתָהּ, כֹּל הָעוֹסֵק בָּהּ לִפְנֵי פְסוּלָהּ, מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. נִמְצְאָה חֻמְרָהּ, קֻלָּהּ. לְעוֹלָם מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, וּמַרְבִּין לָהּ עֵצִים, וּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַיּוֹם, וּבְכֹהֵן, הַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ, עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר, וְהַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בַּמַּיִם, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּילוּ אֶת הָאֵפֶר: \n", | 3.3. "They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it.", 4.4. "All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.", |
|
24. Mishnah, Negaim, 8.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 275| 8.2. "בַּהֶרֶת כַּגְּרִיס וּבָהּ מִחְיָה כָעֲדָשָׁה, פָּרְחָה בְכֻלּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָלְכָה לָהּ הַמִּחְיָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכָה לָהּ הַמִּחְיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּרְחָה בְכֻלּוֹ, טָהוֹר. נוֹלְדָה לוֹ מִחְיָה, טָמֵא. נוֹלַד לוֹ שֵׂעָר לָבָן, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין: \n", | 8.2. "A bright spot the size of a split bean in which there was quick flesh the size of a lentil and then it broke out covering a person's entire skin and then the quick flesh disappeared, or if the quick flesh disappeared and then the bright spot broke out covering all his skin, he is clean. If quick flesh arose [subsequently], he is unclean. If white hair grew [subsequently]: Rabbi Joshua rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.", |
|
25. Mishnah, Avot, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 261| 1.3. "אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אִישׁ סוֹכוֹ קִבֵּל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּהְיוּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, אֶלָּא הֱווּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב שֶׁלֹּא עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, וִיהִי מוֹרָא שָׁמַיִם עֲלֵיכֶם: \n", | 1.3. "Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.", |
|
26. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 260, 270| 5.3. "הָאוֹמֵר עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ, וְעַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ, מוֹדִים מוֹדִים, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה וְטָעָה, יַעֲבֹר אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְלֹא יְהֵא סָרְבָן בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. מִנַּיִן הוּא מַתְחִיל, מִתְּחִלַּת הַבְּרָכָה שֶׁטָּעָה בָהּ: \n", | 5.3. "The one who says, “On a bird’s nest may Your mercy be extended,” [or] “For good may Your name be blessed” or “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who was passing before the ark and made a mistake, another should pass in his place, and he should not be as one who refuses at that moment. Where does he begin? At the beginning of the blessing in which the other made a mistake.", |
|
27. Mishnah, Hulin, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 275| 4.3. "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּת עֻבָּרָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְהוֹשִׁיט הָרוֹעֶה אֶת יָדוֹ וְנָגַע בּוֹ, בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, בִּטְמֵאָה, טָמֵא, וּבִטְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמֵּת וְלָדָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וּפָשְׁטָה חַיָּה אֶת יָדָהּ וְנָגְעָה בוֹ, הַחַיָּה טְמֵאָה טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַוָּלָד: \n", | 4.3. "If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.", |
|
28. Mishnah, Megillah, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 260| 4.9. "הָאוֹמֵר יְבָרְכוּךָ טוֹבִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּינוּת. עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ, וְעַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ, מוֹדִים מוֹדִים, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. הַמְכַנֶּה בָעֲרָיוֹת, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר, וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לְהַעֲבִיר לַמֹּלֶךְ (ויקרא יח), וּמִזַרְעָךְ לֹא תִתֵּן לְאַעְבָּרָא בְּאַרְמָיוּתָא, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ בִנְזִיפָה:", | 4.9. "If one says “May the good bless you,” this is the way of heresy. [If one says], “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird,” “May Your name be mentioned for the good,” “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden marriages, he is silenced. If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed to be passed to Moloch,” (Leviticus 18:21) “You shall not give [your seed] to pass to a Gentile woman,” he silenced with a rebuke.", |
|
29. New Testament, Galatians, 4.4-4.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 253| 4.4. ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, 4.5. ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν. 4.6. Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον Ἀββά ὁ πατήρ. 4.7. ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ. | 4.4. But when the fullness of the time came,God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law, 4.5. thathe might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive theadoption of sons. 4.6. And because you are sons, God sent out theSpirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, "Abba, Father!" 4.7. Soyou are no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heirof God through Christ. |
|
| 30. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265, 266, 274 |
| 31. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 8.7, 11.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources •rationality of torah, in 4 maccabees Found in books: Hayes (2015) 259, 263 |
| 32. Tosefta, Megillah, a b c d\n0 4(3).37 4(3).37 4(3) 37 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 263 |
| 33. Tosefta, Qiddushin, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265, 266, 274 |
| 34. Anon., Sifre Numbers, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 253, 268 |
| 35. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 114, 41, 48 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 261 |
| 36. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 262, 267 |
| 37. Palestinian Talmud, Megillah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 38. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan |
| 39. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271, 272 |
40. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 13.3, 35.5-35.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 13.3. דָּבָר אַחֵר, זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי ל, ה): כָּל אִמְרַת אֱלוֹהַּ צְרוּפָה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ל, ה): מָגֵן הוּא לְכָל הַחֹסִים בּוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כָּל בְּהֵמוֹת וְלִוְיָתָן הֵן קֶנִיגִין שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, וְכָל מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה קֶנִיגִין שֶׁל אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, זוֹכֶה לִרְאוֹתָהּ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, כֵּיצַד הֵם נִשְׁחָטִים, בְּהֵמוֹת נוֹתֵץ לַלִּוְיָתָן בְּקַרְנָיו וְקוֹרְעוֹ, וְלִוְיָתָן נוֹתֵץ לַבְּהֵמוֹת בִּסְנַפִּירָיו וְנוֹחֲרוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים זוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא, וְלֹא כָּךְ תָּנִינַן הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּבַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּלְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין חוּץ מִמַּגַּל קָצִיר, וְהַמְגֵרָה, וְהַשִּׁנַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן חוֹנְקִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (ישעיה נא, ד): תּוֹרָה חֲדָשָׁה מֵאִתִּי תֵצֵא, חִדּוּשׁ תּוֹרָה מֵאִתִּי תֵצֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אֲרִיסְטוֹן עָתִיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת לַעֲבָדָיו הַצַּדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא וְכָל מִי שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה זוֹכֶה לִרְאוֹתוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ויקרא ז, כד): וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה וְאָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלֻהוּ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, לְפִיכָךְ משֶׁה מַזְהִיר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם (ויקרא יא, ב): זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ. 35.5. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר חֻקִּים שֶׁהֵם חֲקוּקִים עַל יֵצֶר הָרָע, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה י, א): הוֹי הַחֹקְקִים חִקְקֵי אָוֶן, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מָשָׁל לִמְקוֹם אַדְרִימוֹן שֶׁהוּא מְשֻׁבָּשׁ בִּגְיָסוֹת, מֶה עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ הוֹשִׁיב בּוֹ קוֹסְטְרַיְנוֹס בִּשְׁבִיל לְשָׁמְרוֹ, כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא תּוֹרָה קְרוּיָה אֶבֶן וְיֵצֶר הָרָע קָרוּי אֶבֶן, תּוֹרָה קְרוּיָה אֶבֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד, יב): אֶת לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה. יֵצֶר הָרָע קָרוּי אֶבֶן, דִּכְתִיב (יחזקאל לו, כו): וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת לֵב הָאֶבֶן מִבְּשַׂרְכֶם. תּוֹרָה אֶבֶן, יֵצֶר הָרָע אֶבֶן, הָאֶבֶן תִּשְׁמֹר אֶת הָאָבֶן. 35.6. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בֶּן אֶלְיָשִׁיב חֻקִּים שֶׁמְבִיאִים אֶת הָאָדָם לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה ד, ג): וְהָיָה הַנִּשְׁאָר בְּצִיּוֹן וְהַנּוֹתָר בִּירוּשָׁלִַם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָמֶר לוֹ כָּל הַכָּתוּב לַחַיִּים בִּירוּשָׁלִָם, הוּא שֶׁעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהוּא עֵץ חַיִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג, יח): עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא. תָּנֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַסַּיִּף וְהַסֵּפֶר נִתְּנוּ מְכֹרָכִין מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם שְׁמַרְתֶּם מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר זֶה הֲרֵי אַתֶּם נִצּוֹלִים מִן הַסַּיִּף, וְאִם לָאו סוֹף שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג אֶתְכֶם, וְהֵיכָן הוּא מַשְׁמָעָן שֶׁל דְּבָרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ג, כט): וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם לִשְׁמֹר אֶת דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, אֶת דֶּרֶךְ, זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, זוֹ תּוֹרָה. תָּנֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַכִּכָּר וְהַמַּקֵּל נִתְּנוּ מְכֹרָכִין מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם אִם שְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי כִּכָּר לֶאֱכֹל, וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי מַקֵּל לִלְקוֹת בּוֹ, הֵיכָן הוּא מַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר (ישעיה א, יט כ): אִם תֹּאבוּ וּשְׁמַעְתֶּם טוּב הָאָרֶץ תֹּאכֵלוּ, וְאִם תְּמָאֲנוּ וּמְרִיתֶם חֶרֶב תְּאֻכְּלוּ, חֲרוּבִין תֹּאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא צְרִיכִים יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחָרוּבָא עֲבַדּוּן תָּתוֹבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא יָאָה מִסְכֵּנוּתָא לִבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּיַעֲקֹב כְּעַרְקָא סוּמְקָא בְּרֵישָׁא דְּסוּסְיָא חִוָרָא. | 35.6. "R’ Aba ben Elyashiv said: the statutes (chukkim) which bring a man to the life of the world to come, as it is written “And it shall come to pass that every survivor shall be in Zion, and everyone who is left, in Jerusalem; \"holy\" shall be said of him, everyone inscribed for life in Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 4:3) Those who are occupied with Torah, which is the tree of life…", |
|
41. Anon., Deuteronomy Rabbah, 2.13 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 263| 2.13. כִּי מִי גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים קְרֹבִים אֵלָיו. שָׁאֲלוּ הַמִּינִים אֶת רַבִּי שִׂמְלָאי כַּמָּה רְשׁוּיוֹת בָּרְאוּ אֶת הָעוֹלָם, אָמַר לָהֶם אֲנִי וְאַתֶּם נִשְׁאַל לְשֵׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִי כְּתִיב בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלוֹהַּ (בראשית א, א): בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים כְּתִיב. אָמַר לָהֶן מִי כְּתִיב בָּרְאוּ, בָּרָא כְּתִיב, וּמִי כְתִיב וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֱלֹהִים יְהִי רָקִיעַ, יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת, וַיֹּאמֶר כְּתִיב. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי הָיוּ שְׂמֵחִים, אָמְרוּ לוֹ הֲרֵי כְּתִיב (בראשית א, כו): נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ, אָמַר לָהֶם מִי כְתִיב וַיִּבְרְאוּ אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמֵיהֶם, אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא (בראשית א, כז): וַיִּבְרָא אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ וְהָא כְתִיב כִּי מִי גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים קְרֹבִים אֵלָיו, אָמַר לָהֶם מִי כְתִיב כַּה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכָל קָרְאֵנוּ אֲלֵיהֶם, בְּכָל קָרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו כְּתִיב. | |
|
42. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 8.8-8.9, 17.8, 43.9, 44.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 258, 263, 271| 8.8. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה משֶׁה כּוֹתֵב אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, הָיָה כּוֹתֵב מַעֲשֵׂה כָּל יוֹם וָיוֹם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים מָה אַתָּה נוֹתֵן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לַמִּינִים, אֶתְמְהָא. אָמַר לוֹ כְּתֹב, וְהָרוֹצֶה לִטְעוֹת יִטְעֶה. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, משֶׁה, הָאָדָם הַזֶּה שֶׁבָּרָאתִי, לֹא גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים אֲנִי מַעֲמִיד מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁאִם יָבוֹא הַגָּדוֹל לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַקָּטָן מִמֶּנוּ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מָה אֲנִי צָרִיךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַקָּטָן מִמֶּנִּי, וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לְמַד מִבּוֹרְאֶךָ, שֶׁהוּא בָּרָא אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנִים וְאֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא לִבְרֹאת אֶת הָאָדָם נִמְלַךְ בְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי לֵית הָכָא מַלְכוּ, אֶלָּא מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה מְטַיֵּל בְּפֶתַח פָּלָטִין שֶׁלּוֹ, וְרָאָה בְּלוֹרִין אַחַת מוּשְׁלֶכֶת, אָמַר מַה נַּעֲשֶׂה בָהּ, מֵהֶן אוֹמְרִים דִּימוּסִיּוֹת, וּמֵהֶן אוֹמְרִים פְּרִיבְטָאוֹת, אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אִינְדַרְטִין אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ, מִי מְעַכֵּב. 8.9. שָׁאֲלוּ הַמִּינִים אֶת רַבִּי שִׂמְלָאי, כַּמָּה אֱלֹהוֹת בָּרְאוּ אֶת הָעוֹלָם. אָמַר לָהֶם אֲנִי וְאַתֶּם נִשְׁאַל לְיָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דברים ד, לב): כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, אֲשֶׁר בָּרְאוּ אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מָה הוּא דֵין דִּכְתִיב: בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אָמַר לָהֶם בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׂמְלָאי בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לַמִּינִים, אַתָּה מוֹצֵא תְּשׁוּבָה בְּצִדָּהּ. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מָה הוּא דֵּין דִּכְתִיב: נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם קִרְאוּן מַה דְּבַתְרֵיהּ, וַיִּבְרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמֵיהֶם, לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו, רַבִּי, לְאֵלּוּ דָּחִית בְּקָנֶה, לָנוּ מָה אַתְּ מֵשִׁיב. אָמַר לָהֶם, לְשֶׁעָבַר אָדָם נִבְרָא מִן הָאֲדָמָה, חַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מִן הָאָדָם, מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ, לֹא אִישׁ בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה וְלֹא אִשָּׁה בְּלֹא אִישׁ וְלֹא שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּלֹא שְׁכִינָה. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ, מַה דֵּין דִּכְתִיב (יהושע כב, כב): אֵל אֱלֹהִים ה' וגו', אָמַר לָהֶם הֵם יוֹדְעִים אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא (יהושע כב, כב): הוּא יֹדֵעַ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו, לְאֵלּוּ דָּחִיתָ בְּקָנֶה, לָנוּ מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב. אָמַר לָהֶם, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שֵׁם אֱלֹהִים הֵן. כְּאֵינַשׁ דַּאֲמַר, בְּסִילוּגוּס קֵיסָר, אֲגוּסְטוּס קֵיסָר. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ לוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מָה הוּא דֵין דִּכְתִיב (יהושע כד, יט): כִּי אֱלֹהִים קְדשִׁים הוּא, אָמַר לָהֶן, קְדשִׁים הֵמָּה אֵין כְּתִיב, אֶלָּא קְדשִׁים הוּא. 17.8. שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ יוֹצֵא פָּנָיו לְמַטָּה, וְאִשָּׁה יוֹצֵאת פָּנֶיהָ לְמַעְלָה, אָמַר לָהֶם הָאִישׁ מַבִּיט לִמְקוֹם בְּרִיָּתוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה מַבֶּטֶת לִמְקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִשָּׁה צְרִיכָה לְהִתְבַּשֵֹּׂם וְאֵין הָאִישׁ צָרִיךְ לְהִתְבַּשֵֹּׂם, אָמַר לָהֶם אָדָם נִבְרָא מֵאֲדָמָה וְהָאֲדָמָה אֵינָהּ מַסְרַחַת לְעוֹלָם, וְחַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מֵעֶצֶם, מָשָׁל אִם תַּנִּיחַ בָּשָׂר שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים בְּלֹא מֶלַח מִיָּד הוּא מַסְרִיחַ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִשָּׁה קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ וְלֹא הָאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶם מָשָׁל אִם תְּמַלֵּא קְדֵרָה בָּשָׂר אֵין קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְתוֹכָהּ עֶצֶם מִיָּד קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ. מִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ נוֹחַ לְהִתְפַּתּוֹת וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נוֹחָה לְהִתְפַּתּוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶן אָדָם נִבְרָא מֵאֲדָמָה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ טִפָּה שֶׁל מַיִם מִיָּד הִיא נִשְׁרֵית, וְחַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מֵעֶצֶם וַאֲפִלּוּ אַתָּה שׁוֹרֶה אוֹתוֹ כַּמָּה יָמִים בַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁרֶה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ תּוֹבֵעַ בְּאִשָּׁה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה תּוֹבַעַת בְּאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶן מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁאָבַד אֲבֵדָה הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ אֲבֵדָתוֹ וַאֲבֵדָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְבַקְשַׁתּוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ מַפְקִיד זֶרַע בָּאִשָּׁה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַפְקֶדֶת זֶרַע בָּאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶם דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן וּמְבַקֵּשׁ אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שֶׁיַּפְקִידֶנוּ אֶצְלוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ יוֹצֵא רֹאשׁוֹ מְגֻלֶּה וְהָאִשָּׁה רֹאשָׁהּ מְכֻסֶּה, אָמַר לָהֶן לְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה וְהוּא מִתְבַּיֵּשׁ מִבְּנֵי אָדָם, לְפִיכָךְ יוֹצֵאת וְרֹאשָׁהּ מְכֻסֶּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֵן מְהַלְּכוֹת אֵצֶל הַמֵּת תְּחִלָּה, אָמַר לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי שֶׁגָּרְמוּ מִיתָה לָעוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ הֵן מְהַלְּכוֹת אֵצֶל הַמֵּת תְּחִלָּה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב כא, לג): וְאַחֲרָיו כָּל אָדָם יִמְשׁוֹךְ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נִדָּה, עַל יְדֵי שֶׁשָּׁפְכָה דָּמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נִדָּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת חַלָּה, עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקִּלְקְלָה אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיָה גְּמַר חַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת חַלָּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נֵר שַׁבָּת, אָמַר לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁכִּבְּתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נֵר שַׁבָּת. 43.9. וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם אֶל אַבְרָם תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וגו' וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי וגו' (בראשית יד, כא כב), רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר עֲשָׂאָן תְּרוּמָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יח, כו): וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה'. וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר עֲשָׂאָן שְׁבוּעָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (דניאל יב, ז): וַיָּרֶם יְמִינוֹ וּשְׂמֹאלוֹ אֶל הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיִּשָּׁבַע בְּחֵי הָעוֹלָם. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי עֲשָׂאָן שִׁירָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות טו, ב): זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְרַבִּי אַמִּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרוּ אָמַר משֶׁה בְּלָשׁוֹן שֶׁאָמַר אַבָּא שִׁירָה, הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל ה', בּוֹ בַּלָּשׁוֹן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שִׁירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרוֹמְמֶנְהוּ, אִם מִחוּט (בראשית יד, כג), אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מַמָּל אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ אִם מִחוּט, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְבָנֶיךָ מִצְוַת צִיצִית, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר טו, לח): וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן חוּטָא דִתְכֶלְתָּא. (בראשית יד, כג): וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְבָנֶיךָ מִצְוַת יְבָמָה, הָאֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (דברים כה, ט): וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם מִחוּט, זֶה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, שֶׁהוּא מְצֻיָּר בִּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן. וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, אֵלּוּ עוֹרוֹת הַתְּחָשִׁים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם מִחוּט, אֵלּוּ הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, כְּהַהִיא דִּתְנַן וְחוּט שֶׁל סִיקְרָא חוֹגְרוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין דָּמִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לְדָמִים הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, אֵלּוּ פַּעֲמֵי רְגָלִים, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמֵר (שיר השירים ז, ב): מַה יָּפוּ פְעָמַיִךְ בַּנְּעָלִים. בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים (בראשית יד, כד), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל א ל, כב כה): וַיַּעַן כָּל אִישׁ רָע וּבְלִיַּעַל מֵהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ עִם דָּוִד וַיֹּאמְרוּ יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלְכוּ עִמִּי לֹא נִתֵּן לָהֶם מֵהַשָּׁלָל אֲשֶׁר הִצַּלְנוּ כִּי אִם אִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וְיִנְהֲגוּ וְיֵלֵכוּ. וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ כֵן אֶחָי אֵת אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' לָנוּ וַיִּשְׁמֹר אֹתָנוּ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַגְּדוּד הַבָּא עָלֵינוּ בְּיָדֵינוּ. וּמִי יִשְׁמַע לָכֶם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה כִּי כְּחֵלֶק הַיֹּרֵד בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּכְחֵלֶק הַיּשֵׁב עַל הַכֵּלִים יַחְדָּו יַחֲלֹקוּ. וַיְהִי מֵהַיּוֹם הַהוּא וָמָעְלָה וַיְשִׂמֶהָ לְחֹק וּלְמִשְׁפָּט לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן וָהָלְאָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא וָמָעְלָה, וּמִמִּי לָמַד מֵאַבְרָהָם זְקֵנוֹ, שֶׁאָמַר: בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים וגו'. 44.1. אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר וגו' (בראשית טו, א), (תהלים יח, לא): הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, אִם דְּרָכָיו תְּמִימִים, הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכִי מָה אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר אוֹ מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעֹרֶף, הֱוֵי לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ח): וּמָצָאתָ אֶת לְבָבוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְפָנֶיךָ. אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה, שֶׁצֵּרְפוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכִבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ. מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, (בראשית טו, א): אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ. 44.1. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּ זָרַע (בראשית טו, ג), אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הַמַּזָּל דּוֹחְקֵנִי וְאוֹמֵר לִי אַבְרָם אֵין אַתְּ מוֹלִיד. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֵן כִּדְבָרֶיךָ, אַבְרָם לֹא מוֹלִיד אַבְרָהָם מוֹלִיד. (בראשית יז, טו): שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ לֹא תִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי, שָׂרַי לֹא תֵלֵד, שָׂרָה תֵּלֵד. | 8.8. "... “if a great person . . . says, ‘Why do I need to take permission from one lesser than me?’ . . . they say to him: Learn from your Creator, for He created upper ones and lower ones, and when He came to create the human, He ruled with the ministering angels.”", 8.9. "... [R’ Simlai] said to them: In the past Adam was created from the adamah and Chavah was created from the adam. From here and onward, “in our image as our likeness”—not man without woman and not woman without man, and not both of them without Shekhinah (God’s presence).", 44.1. "After these things the word of Hashem came to Abram in a vision, saying, etc. (Psalms 18:31) \"As for God — His ways are perfect; the Word of Hashem is tried; a shield is He for all who take refuge in Him.\" If His way is perfect, how much more is He Himself! Rav said: Were not the mitzvot given so that man might be refined by them? . Do you really think that The Holy One of Blessing cares if an animal is slaughtered by front or by the back of the neck? Therefore, mitzvot were only given to make humans better.", |
|
43. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 262| 28a. שמע מקצת תקיעה בבור ומקצת תקיעה על שפת הבור יצא מקצת תקיעה קודם שיעלה עמוד השחר ומקצת תקיעה לאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר לא יצא,אמר ליה אביי מאי שנא התם דבעינא כולה תקיעה בחיובא וליכא הכא נמי בעינא כולה תקיעה בחיובא וליכא,הכי השתא התם לילה לאו זמן חיובא הוא כלל הכא בור מקום חיובא הוא לאותן העומדין בבור,למימרא דסבר רבה שמע סוף תקיעה בלא תחילת תקיעה יצא וממילא תחילת תקיעה בלא סוף תקיעה יצא,ת"ש תקע בראשונה ומשך בשניה כשתים אין בידו אלא אחת ואמאי תסלק לה בתרתי פסוקי תקיעתא מהדדי לא פסקינן,ת"ש התוקע לתוך הבור או לתוך הדות או לתוך הפיטס אם קול שופר שמע יצא ואם קול הברה שמע לא יצא ואמאי ליפוק בתחילת תקיעה מקמי דליערבב קלא,כי קאמר רבה בתוקע ועולה לנפשיה,אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא זמנין דמפיק רישיה ואכתי שופר בבור וקא מיערבב קלא קמ"ל,אמר רב יהודה בשופר של עולה לא יתקע ואם תקע יצא בשופר של שלמים לא יתקע ואם תקע לא יצא,מ"ט עולה בת מעילה היא כיון דמעל בה נפקא לה לחולין שלמים דלאו בני מעילה נינהו איסורא הוא דרכיב בהו [ולא נפקי לחולין],מתקיף לה רבא אימת מעל לבתר דתקע כי קא תקע באיסורא תקע,אלא אמר רבא אחד זה ואחד זה לא יצא הדר אמר אחד זה ואחד זה יצא מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו,אמר רב יהודה בשופר של ע"ז לא יתקע ואם תקע יצא בשופר של עיר הנדחת לא יתקע ואם תקע לא יצא מ"ט עיר הנדחת כתותי מיכתת שיעוריה,אמר רבא המודר הנאה מחבירו מותר לתקוע לו תקיעה של מצוה המודר הנאה משופר מותר לתקוע בו תקיעה של מצוה,ואמר רבא המודר הנאה מחבירו מזה עליו מי חטאת בימות הגשמים אבל לא בימות החמה המודר הנאה ממעין טובל בו טבילה של מצוה בימות הגשמים אבל לא בימות החמה,שלחו ליה לאבוה דשמואל כפאו ואכל מצה יצא כפאו מאן אילימא כפאו שד והתניא עתים חלים עתים שוטה כשהוא חלים הרי הוא כפקח לכל דבריו כשהוא שוטה הרי הוא כשוטה לכל דבריו,אמר רב אשי שכפאוהו פרסיים אמר רבא זאת אומרת התוקע לשיר יצא,פשיטא היינו הך מהו דתימא התם אכול מצה אמר רחמנא והא אכל | 28a. If b one heard part of the blast in the pit and part of the blast at the edge of the pit, he has fulfilled /b his obligation. But if he heard b part of the blast before dawn, /b when it is not yet time to sound the i shofar /i , b and part of the blast after dawn, he has not fulfilled /b his obligation., b Abaye said to him: What is different there, /b in the case of one who heard part of the blast before dawn and part of it after dawn? If you say that there b the entire blast needs to be /b heard b in /b a time of b obligation, and /b when he hears part of the blast before dawn and part after dawn b it is not /b all within the same time of obligation, b here too, /b in the case of the pit, b the entire blast needs to be in /b a place where one can fulfill his b obligation, and /b when he hears part of the blast in a pit and part at the edge, b it is not /b all within a place where he can fulfill his obligation.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b How can /b these cases b be compared? There, night is not a time of obligation at all, /b and sounding the i shofar /i then has no meaning whatsoever, b but here, a pit is a place of obligation for those standing in the pit. /b That is to say, the part of the blast that was heard in the pit is not inherently invalid, but merely disqualified due to an external factor, so that it is possible to connect it with the part of the blast that was heard at the edge of the pit.,The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that Rabba maintains /b that if b one heard the end of a blast without /b hearing b the beginning of the blast, he has fulfilled /b his obligation? Because in the case where one heard the beginning of the blast in a pit, he is considered to have heard only the end of the i shofar /i blast, which he heard at the edge of the pit. b And it /b therefore b follows /b that if one heard b the beginning of a blast without /b hearing b the end of the blast, he has /b also b fulfilled /b his obligation., b Come /b and b hear /b a proof that this is not so, for we learned in the mishna: If b one blew the initial /b i tekia /i of the first set of i tekia-terua-tekia /i , b and /b then b drew out the second /b i tekia /i so that it spans the length of b two /b i tekiot /i , b it counts as only one /b i tekia /i , and is not considered two i tekiot /i , i.e., the concluding i tekia /i of the first set, and the initial i tekia /i of the second set. b But why /b is this so? If we consider part of a blast as a complete one, b let it count as two /b i tekiot /i . The Gemara explains: If one hears only the beginning or the end of a i shofar /i blast, he has indeed fulfilled his obligation, but nevertheless, b we do not divide /b a i shofar /i blast b into two. /b ,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b Come /b and b hear /b that which was taught in a mishna: If b one sounds /b a i shofar /i b into a pit, or into a cistern, or into a /b large b jug, if he /b clearly b heard the sound of the i shofar /i , he has fulfilled /b his obligation; b but if he heard the sound of an echo, he has not fulfilled /b his obligation. b But why /b is this so? If indeed half a blast is considered a blast, b let him fulfill /b his obligation b with the beginning of the blast, before the sound /b of the i shofar /i b is confused /b with the echo, since he heard the beginning of the blast clearly.,The Gemara answers: Indeed, half a blast is not considered a blast, and Rabba’s statement must be understood differently. b When Rabba spoke, /b he was speaking not about other people hearing the blast, but b about /b one who was b sounding /b the i shofar /i b for himself /b in a pit b and emerged /b from the pit as he was blowing. He has fulfilled his obligation, because he was located in the same place as the sound of the i shofar /i at all times, and so he heard the entire blast clearly.,The Gemara asks: b If so, what /b is the purpose of Rabba’s b statement? /b The i halakha /i in this case should be obvious, as there is no reason that the blast should be disqualified. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say that his head might sometimes emerge /b from the pit b while the i shofar /i /b itself b is still in the pit, and the sound may become confused /b with its echo, and so he would not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba b teaches us /b that we are not concerned about this, and the obligation is considered to have been fulfilled.,§ b Rav Yehuda said: One should not blow with the i shofar /i of /b an animal consecrated as b a burnt-offering, but if he /b nevertheless transgressed and b blew, he has fulfilled /b his obligation. b One should /b also b not blow with the i shofar /i of /b an animal consecrated as b a peace-offering, and if he /b nevertheless transgressed and b blew, he has not fulfilled /b his obligation.,The Gemara explains: b What is the reason /b for this distinction? b A burnt-offering is subject to misuse /b of consecrated objects before being offered, and b once one misuses it /b for mundane purposes, b it becomes non-sacred, /b so that the one who blows with its i shofar /i fulfills his obligation. In contrast, b peace-offerings are not subject to misuse /b of consecrated objects before being offered, since in the case of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, misuse is restricted to the fats and other portions that are offered on the altar, and even this applies only after the sprinkling of the blood. Since one is not considered to be misusing peace-offerings when utilizing them for mundane purposes, b the prohibition remains intact and they do not become non-sacred. /b Therefore, one who blows the i shofar /i of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering does not fulfill his obligation., b Rava strongly objects to this /b argument: b When does he commit misuse? After he has sounded /b it, for only then has he misused the consecrated animal. If so, b when he sounds /b it, b he is sounding with something that is /b still b prohibited, /b even in the case of the animal that was consecrated as a burnt-offering, and so he should not be able to fulfill his obligation with it., b Rather, Rava said: Both this one, /b the i shofar /i of a burnt-offering, b and the other one, /b the i shofar /i of a peace-offering, are governed by the same i halakha /i : If he sounded them, b he has not fulfilled /b his obligation. b Later, /b Rava retracted his statement and b then said /b the opposite: b Both this one, /b the i shofar /i of a burnt-offering, b and the other one, /b the i shofar /i of a peace-offering, are governed by the same i halakha /i : If he sounded them, b he has fulfilled /b his obligation. The reason for this is that b mitzvot were not given for benefit. /b That is to say, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit, and in the absence of benefit, one is not liable for misuse., b Rav Yehuda said /b further: b One should not sound a i shofar /i /b that was used for b idol worship, but if he /b nevertheless transgressed and b sounded it, he has fulfilled /b his obligation. b One should /b also b not sound a i shofar /i from a city /b whose residents were b incited /b to idolatry, where the majority of inhabitants committed idolatry, b but if he /b nevertheless transgressed and b sounded it, he has not fulfilled /b his obligation. b What is the reason /b for this last ruling? With regard to any object found in b a city /b whose residents were b incited /b to idolatry, b its size /b as required for the mitzva b is seen /b by i halakha /i b as crushed /b into powder. Since a i shofar /i from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burnt, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva., b Rava said: /b If b one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, /b i.e., if he took a vow not to receive any benefit whatsoever from a certain person, that other person b is /b nevertheless b permitted to sound a blast for him /b so that he fulfills the b mitzva, /b in accordance with the principle that the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. For the same reason, if b one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from a /b particular b i shofar /i , he is /b nevertheless b permitted to sound a blast with it /b so that he may fulfill the b mitzva. /b , b And Rava said /b further: If b one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, /b that other person b may /b nevertheless b sprinkle the waters of purification on him, /b i.e., water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, which was used to purify people and objects that had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse, b in the rainy season, /b for at that time the sprinkling is performed only in order to fulfill a mitzva. b But /b he may b not /b do so b in the summer season, /b since then he also benefits from the very fact that water is being sprinkled on him. Similarly, if b one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from /b a particular b spring, he may /b nevertheless b immerse in it /b an b immersion /b performed in order to fulfill b a mitzva in the rainy season, but not in the summer season, /b since then he also derives benefit from the very fact that he has immersed in cold water.,§ It is related that the following ruling b was sent /b from Eretz Yisrael b to Shmuel’s father: /b If one b was /b forcibly b compelled to eat i matza /i /b on Passover, b he has fulfilled /b his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the matter: b Who compelled him /b to eat the i matza /i ? b If we say /b that b a demon forced him, /b i.e., that he ate it in a moment of insanity, this is difficult. b Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b someone /b who b is at times sane /b and b at times insane, at the times when he is sane, he is considered /b halakhically b competent for all purposes /b and is obligated in all the mitzvot. And b when he is insane, he is considered insane for all purposes, /b and is therefore exempt from the mitzvot. If so, someone who was compelled by a demon to eat i matza /i is not considered obligated to perform the mitzvot at all., b Rav Ashi said: /b We are dealing with a case b where the Persians compelled him /b to eat. b Rava said: That is to say /b that b one who sounds /b a i shofar /i b for the music, /b having no intent to fulfill the mitzva, b fulfills /b his obligation, since the critical issue is hearing the blast and not the intent of the blower.,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious that this is /b identical to b that /b which was stated above, that one who was compelled to eat i matza /i fulfills the mitzva even if he had no intention of doing so? The same should apply in the case of the i shofar /i , that one who heard the blast of a i shofar /i fulfills his obligation even if he had no intention of doing so. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that there is a difference between the two cases, b there, the Merciful One says: Eat i matza /i , and he indeed ate /b it, thereby fulfilling the mitzva. |
|
44. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 67b. אף גזול דלית ליה תקנתא לא שנא לפני יאוש ולא שנא אחר יאוש,רבא אמר מהכא קרבנו ולא הגזול אימת אילימא לפני יאוש פשיטא למה לי קרא,אלא לאו לאחר יאוש וש"מ יאוש לא קני ש"מ,והא רבא הוא דאמר דגזל קרבן דחבריה איבעית אימא הדר ביה ואיבעית אימא חד מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:,ומדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה וכו':,ואמאי נילף שור שור משבת מה להלן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף כאן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן,אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לז) שור ושה שור ושה שני פעמים שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא,אמרי הי מייתר אילימא שור ושה דסיפא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב שור או שה וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחתיו אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא בעי שלומי תשעה לכל אחד ואחד,וכי תימא הא כתיב תחתיו תחתיו חד תחתיו מייתר,ההוא מיבעי ליה לדרשה אחרינא דתניא יכול גנב שור שוה מנה ישלם תחתיו נגידין ת"ל תחתיו תחתיו,אלא שור ושה דרישא מיותר דנכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחת השור וארבע צאן תחת השה,אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח להו וטבחו כתיב לחד,ואימא עד דגניב תרוייהו ומזבין להו ומכרו כתיב לחד,ואימא הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח חד ומזבין חד או מכרו כתיב,ואכתי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרוייהו וטבח חד ומשייר חד או מזבין חד ומשייר חד,אלא שור דסיפא ושה דרישא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש שור וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחת השה שור דסיפא ושה דרישא למה לי שמע מינה שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא:,אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל: אמר רב לא שנו אלא לפני יאוש אבל לאחר יאוש קנאו גנב ראשון וגנב שני משלם תשלומי כפל לגנב ראשון,אמר רב ששת אמינא כי ניים ושכיב רב אמר להא שמעתא דתניא אמר ר' עקיבא מפני מה אמרה תורה טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מפני שנשתרש בחטא אימת אילימא לפני יאוש | 67b. b so too a stolen /b animal b has no rectification /b for its disqualification. There is b no difference whether /b one is dealing with a stolen animal b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovering it, b and /b there is b no difference /b if it is b after /b the owner’s b despair. /b In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the owner’s despair does not effect acquisition for the thief., b Rava said: /b This i halakha /i may be derived b from here, /b a i baraita /i : The verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one’s offering must be b “his offering,” but not /b an animal b stolen /b from another. b When, /b i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this i halakha /i ? b If we say /b it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovery, b why do I /b need b a verse /b to teach this? It b is obvious /b that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him., b Rather, is it not /b referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal b after /b the owner’s b despair? /b And yet the i baraita /i teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. b Conclude from /b the i baraita /i that the owner’s b despair /b of recovering a stolen item b does not /b cause the thief to b acquire /b it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Gemara affirms: b Conclude from /b the i baraita /i that it is so.,The Gemara asks: b But Rava was the one who said /b that this proof can be refuted, as the i baraita /i can be interpreted as dealing with one b who robbed another of an offering /b that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that Rava b retracted /b one of these two statements. b And if you wish, say /b instead that b Rav Pappa, /b not Rava, b said one of these /b two statements.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: b But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment /b applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37).,The Gemara asks: b But why /b is the fourfold and fivefold payment limited to oxen and sheep? b Let us derive /b otherwise by a verbal analogy of the term b “ox” /b in this verse and b “ox” from /b a passage dealing with b Shabbat, /b where it is stated: “And the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor, you, your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant, and your ox, and your donkey, and all your animals, and the gentile that is within your gates” (Deuteronomy 5:13). b Just as there, /b with regard to Shabbat, the i halakha /i stated with regard to an ox is not limited to oxen, as b undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to /b oxen in that they too are included in this prohibition, as the verse states: “Nor any of your animals,” b so too here, /b in the case of theft, one can say that b undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to /b oxen in that the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred for their theft., b Rava said: The verse /b dealing with theft b states “ox” and “sheep,” “ox” and “sheep” twice. /b This repetition indicates that for b an ox and a sheep, yes, /b there is a fourfold or fivefold payment, and b for other items, no, /b there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.,The Gemara b says, /b with regard to Rava’s assertion that one of the instances of “ox” and “sheep” is superfluous: b Which /b instance of the word “ox” or “sheep” b is /b the b superfluous /b one? b If we say /b that the instance of b “ox” and “sheep” at the end /b of the verse b is superfluous, due to /b the following consideration: b Let the Merciful One write: If one steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it and four sheep for it, /b without repeating the words “ox” and “sheep,” this is not possible. b If the Merciful One had written /b the verse b like this, I would say /b that the thief is b required to pay nine /b animals, five oxen and four sheep, b for each and every /b animal stolen., b And if you would say /b that this interpretation is not possible, as the suggestion is that the verse would have b written: For it, for it, /b twice, whereas if a payment of nine animals were required for each stolen animal the verse would have written: For it, only once; then b one /b mention of: b For it, is superfluous, /b to teach us that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep.,The Gemara rejects this: b That /b repetition of: For it, b is required for another interpretation, /b and cannot teach that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : One b might /b have thought that if one b stole /b an expensive b ox worth one hundred dinars he may pay for it /b with b lean, /b inferior b animals [ i negidin /i ]. /b To counter this, b the verse states: “For /b the ox” and b “for /b the sheep,” which indicates that the oxen and sheep used for payment must be similar to the stolen animal in quality. Since one might have erred and understood that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen, that suggested version of the verse is not a possibility. The words “ox” and “sheep” at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.,The Gemara suggests: b Rather, /b the words b “ox” and “sheep” in the first /b part of the verse b are superfluous, due to /b the following consideration: b Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep, /b without mentioning “ox” or “sheep” at the beginning of the verse.,The Gemara objects: It is not possible for the verse to have been written this way, as b if the Merciful One had written /b it in b this /b manner b I would say: /b A thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals two /b animals, an ox and a sheep, b and slaughters them /b both. The Gemara responds: One could not interpret the verse in this manner, as it b is written: “And slaughter it.” /b The singular pronoun “it” is referring b to /b the slaughter of only b one /b animal.,The Gemara asks: b But /b one could b say /b that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals both /b of these animals, an ox and a sheep, b and sells them /b both. The Gemara rejects this suggestion in a similar manner: This interpretation is also not possible, as it is b written: “Or sell it,” /b which is referring b to /b the sale of only b one /b animal.,The Gemara further asks: b But /b one could b say /b a different interpretation: b I would say /b that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals two /b animals, an ox and a sheep, b and slaughters one /b of them b and sells /b the other b one. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: This interpretation is impossible, as it is b written: /b “And slaughter it b or sell it.” /b The term “or” indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.,The Gemara asks: b But still, /b had the verse been worded without mentioning an ox or sheep at the start, b I would say: /b A thief does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals two /b animals, an ox and a sheep, b and slaughters one /b of them b and leaves /b the other b one, or sells one and leaves /b the other b one. /b It is therefore impossible to omit the words “ox” and “sheep” in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.,The Gemara gives its final explanation of Rava’s statement: b Rather, “ox” at the end /b of the verse b and “sheep” in the first /b part of the verse b are superfluous, due to /b the following consideration: b Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it, and four sheep for a sheep. Why do I /b need the word b “ox” at the end /b of the verse b and /b the word b “sheep” in the first /b part of the verse? b Conclude from /b these apparently superfluous words that for b an ox and a sheep, yes, /b a thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, but for stealing b other items, no, /b he is not.,§ The mishna teaches: b One who steals /b an item b after a thief /b has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, b does not pay /b the b double payment /b to the thief or to the prior owner. Rather, he pays the principal amount alone. b Rav says: They taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b in a case where the second thief stole from the first thief b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovering his item. b But /b if the second thief stole it b after /b the owner’s b despair, the first thief had acquired /b the stolen item for himself as a result of the owner’s despair, b and the second thief pays /b the b double payment to the first thief, /b who at the time of the second theft was its legal owner., b Rav Sheshet said: I say /b that b when Rav was sleepy and lying down /b to rest b he said this i halakha /i , /b i.e., he did not give it enough thought. This ruling is incorrect, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Akiva said: For what reason did the Torah say that /b if a thief b slaughtered or sold /b a stolen ox or sheep b he pays /b the b fourfold or fivefold payment? /b It is b because /b by selling or slaughtering the animal the thief b becomes /b more b deeply entrenched in sin. /b Rav Sheshet analyzes Rabbi Akiva’s statement: b When /b did this sale of the stolen animal take place? b If we say /b it occurred b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovering his property, |
|
45. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 262| 17a. בפמליא של מעלה ובפמליא של מטה ובין התלמידים העוסקים בתורתך בין עוסקין לשמה בין עוסקין שלא לשמה וכל העוסקין שלא לשמה יהי רצון שיהו עוסקין לשמה.,ר' אלכסנדרי בתר צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו שתעמידנו בקרן אורה ואל תעמידנו בקרן חשכה ואל ידוה לבנו ואל יחשכו עינינו איכא דאמרי הא רב המנונא מצלי לה ור' אלכסנדרי בתר דמצלי אמר הכי רבון העולמים גלוי וידוע לפניך שרצוננו לעשות רצונך ומי מעכב שאור שבעיסה ושעבוד מלכיות יהי רצון מלפניך שתצילנו מידם ונשוב לעשות חוקי רצונך בלבב שלם.,רבא בתר צלותיה אמר הכי אלהי עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי ועכשיו שנוצרתי כאלו לא נוצרתי עפר אני בחיי ק"ו במיתתי הרי אני לפניך ככלי מלא בושה וכלימה יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שלא אחטא עוד ומה שחטאתי לפניך מרק ברחמיך הרבים אבל לא ע"י יסורין וחלאים רעים והיינו וידוי דרב המנונא זוטי ביומא דכפורי.,מר בריה דרבינא כי הוה מסיים צלותיה אמר הכי אלהי נצור לשוני מרע ושפתותי מדבר מרמה ולמקללי נפשי תדום ונפשי כעפר לכל תהיה פתח לבי בתורתך ובמצותיך תרדוף נפשי ותצילני מפגע רע מיצר הרע ומאשה רעה ומכל רעות המתרגשות לבא בעולם וכל החושבים עלי רעה מהרה הפר עצתם וקלקל מחשבותם יהיו לרצון אמרי פי והגיון לבי לפניך ה' צורי וגואלי.,רב ששת כי הוה יתיב בתעניתא בתר דמצלי אמר הכי רבון העולמים גלוי לפניך בזמן שבית המקדש קיים אדם חוטא ומקריב קרבן ואין מקריבין ממנו אלא חלבו ודמו ומתכפר לו ועכשיו ישבתי בתענית ונתמעט חלבי ודמי יהי רצון מלפניך שיהא חלבי ודמי שנתמעט כאילו הקרבתיו לפניך על גבי המזבח ותרצני.,ר' יוחנן כי הוה מסיים ספרא דאיוב אמר הכי סוף אדם למות וסוף בהמה לשחיטה והכל למיתה הם עומדים אשרי מי שגדל בתורה ועמלו בתורה ועושה נחת רוח ליוצרו וגדל בשם טוב ונפטר בשם טוב מן העולם ועליו אמר שלמה (קהלת ז, א) טוב שם משמן טוב ויום המות מיום הולדו.,מרגלא בפומיה דר"מ גמור בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך לדעת את דרכי ולשקוד על דלתי תורתי נצור תורתי בלבך ונגד עיניך תהיה יראתי שמור פיך מכל חטא וטהר וקדש עצמך מכל אשמה ועון ואני אהיה עמך בכל מקום.,מרגלא בפומייהו דרבנן דיבנה אני בריה וחברי בריה אני מלאכתי בעיר והוא מלאכתו בשדה אני משכים למלאכתי והוא משכים למלאכתו כשם שהוא אינו מתגדר במלאכתי כך אני איני מתגדר במלאכתו ושמא תאמר אני מרבה והוא ממעיט שנינו אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים.,מרגלא בפומיה דאביי לעולם יהא אדם ערום ביראה (משלי טו, א) מענה רך משיב חמה ומרבה שלום עם אחיו ועם קרוביו ועם כל אדם ואפילו עם נכרי בשוק כדי שיהא אהוב למעלה ונחמד למטה ויהא מקובל על הבריות,אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הקדימו אדם שלום מעולם ואפילו נכרי בשוק.,מרגלא בפומיה דרבא תכלית חכמה תשובה ומעשים טובים שלא יהא אדם קורא ושונה ובועט באביו ובאמו וברבו ובמי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין שנאמר (תהלים קיא, י) ראשית חכמה יראת ה' שכל טוב לכל עושיהם לעושים לא נאמר אלא לעושיהם לעושים לשמה ולא לעושים שלא לשמה וכל העושה שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא.,מרגלא בפומיה דרב [לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא] העולם הבא אין בו לא אכילה ולא שתיה ולא פריה ורביה ולא משא ומתן ולא קנאה ולא שנאה ולא תחרות אלא צדיקים יושבין ועטרותיהם בראשיהם ונהנים מזיו השכינה שנאמר (שמות כד, יא) ויחזו את האלהים ויאכלו וישתו:,גדולה הבטחה שהבטיחן הקב"ה לנשים יותר מן האנשים שנא' (ישעיהו לב, ט) נשים שאננות קומנה שמענה קולי בנות בוטחות האזנה אמרתי,א"ל רב לר' חייא נשים במאי זכיין באקרויי בנייהו לבי כנישתא ובאתנויי גברייהו בי רבנן ונטרין לגברייהו עד דאתו מבי רבנן.,כי הוו מפטרי רבנן מבי ר' אמי ואמרי לה מבי ר' חנינא אמרי ליה הכי עולמך תראה בחייך ואחריתך לחיי העולם הבא ותקותך לדור דורים לבך יהגה תבונה פיך ידבר חכמות ולשונך ירחיש רננות עפעפיך יישירו נגדך עיניך יאירו במאור תורה ופניך יזהירו כזוהר הרקיע שפתותיך יביעו דעת וכליותיך תעלוזנה מישרים ופעמיך ירוצו לשמוע דברי עתיק יומין.,כי הוו מפטרי רבנן מבי רב חסדא ואמרי לה מבי ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמרו ליה הכי (תהלים קמד, יד) אלופינו מסובלים וגו',אלופינו מסובלים רב ושמואל ואמרי לה רבי יוחנן ור' אלעזר חד אמר אלופינו בתורה ומסובלים במצות וחד אמר אלופינו בתורה ובמצות ומסובלים ביסורים | 17a. b in the heavenly entourage [ i pamalia /i ] /b of angels each of whom ministers to a specific nation (see Daniel 10), and whose infighting causes war on earth; br b and in the earthly entourage, /b the Sages, br b and among the disciples engaged in /b the study of b Your Torah, /b br b whether they engage in its /b study b for its own sake or not for its own sake. /b br b And all those engaged /b in Torah study b not for its own sake, /b br b may it be /b Your b will /b that b they will come to engage /b in its study b for its own sake. /b , b After his prayer, Rabbi Alexandri said the following: /b br b May it be Your will, Lord our God, /b br b that You station us in a lighted corner and not in a darkened corner, /b br b and do not let our hearts become faint nor our eyes dim. /b br b Some say that this was the prayer that Rav Hamnuna would recite, and that after Rabbi Alexandri prayed, he would say the following: /b br b Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You /b br b that our will is to perform Your will, and what prevents us? /b br On the one hand, b the yeast in the dough, /b the evil inclination that is within every person; br b and the subjugation to the kingdoms /b on the other. br b May it be Your will /b br b that You will deliver us from their hands, /b of both the evil inclination and the foreign kingdoms, br so that b we may return to perform the edicts of Your will with a perfect heart. /b , b After his prayer, Rava said the following: /b br b My God, before I was created I was worthless, /b br b and now that I have been created it is as if I had not been created, /b I am no more significant. br b I am dust in life, all the more so in my death. /b br b I am before You as a vessel filled with shame and humiliation. /b br Therefore, b may it be Your will, Lord my God, that I will sin no more, /b br b and that those /b transgressions b that I have committed, /b br b cleanse in Your abundant mercy; /b br b but /b may this cleansing b not /b be b by means of suffering and serious illness, /b but rather in a manner I will be able to easily endure. br b And this is the confession of Rav Hamnuna Zuti on Yom Kippur. /b , b When Mar, son of Ravina, would conclude his prayer, he said the following: /b br b My God, guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking deceit. /b br b To those who curse me let my soul be silent /b br b and may my soul be like dust to all. /b br b Open my heart to Your Torah, /b br b and may my soul pursue your mitzvot. /b br b And save me from a bad mishap, from the evil inclination, /b br b from a bad woman, and from all evils that suddenly come upon the world. /b br b And all who plan evil against me, /b br b swiftly thwart their counsel, and frustrate their plans. /b br b May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart find favor before You, /b br b Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer. /b ,The Gemara recounts that b when Rav Sheshet would sit in /b observance of b a fast, after he prayed he said as follows: /b br b Master of the Universe, it is revealed before You /b br that b when the Temple is standing, one sins and offers a sacrifice. /b br b And /b although b only its fat and blood were offered from /b that sacrifice on the altar, his transgression b is atoned for him. /b br b And now, I sat in /b observance of b a fast and my fat and blood diminished. /b br b May it be Your will that my fat and blood that diminished be /b considered as if b I offered /b a sacrifice b before You on the altar, /b br b and may I find favor in Your eyes. /b br Having cited statements that various Sages would recite after their prayers, the Gemara cites additional passages recited by the Sages on different occasions., b When Rabbi Yoḥa would conclude /b study of b the book of Job, he said the following: /b br b A person will ultimately die and an animal will ultimately be slaughtered, and all are destined for death. /b Therefore, death itself is not a cause for great anguish. br Rather, b happy is he who grew up in Torah, whose labor is in Torah, /b br b who gives pleasure to his Creator, /b br b who grew up with a good name and who took leave of the world with a good name. /b br Such a person lived his life fully, b and about him, Solomon said: /b br b “A good name is better than fine oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s birth” /b (Ecclesiastes 7:1); one who was faultless in life reaches the day of his death on a higher level than he was at the outset., b Rabbi Meir was wont to say /b the following idiom: br b Study with all your heart and with all your soul to know My ways /b br b and to be diligent at the doors of My Torah. /b br b Keep My Torah in your heart, /b br b and fear of Me should be before your eyes. /b br b Guard your mouth from all transgression, /b br b and purify and sanctify yourself from all fault and iniquity. /b br b And /b if you do so, b I, /b God, b will be with you everywhere. /b , b The Sages in Yavne were wont to say: /b br b I /b who learn Torah b am /b God’s b creature and my counterpart /b who engages in other labor b is /b God’s b creature. /b br b My work is in the city and his work is in the field. /b br b I rise early for my work and he rises early for his work. /b br b And just as he does not presume to /b perform b my work, so I do not presume to /b perform b his work. /b br b Lest you say: I /b engage in Torah study b a lot, while he /b only engages in Torah study b a little, /b so I am better than he, br b it has /b already b been taught: /b br b One who brings a substantial /b sacrifice b and one who brings a meager /b sacrifice have equal merit, br b as long as he directs his heart towards Heaven /b (Rav Hai Gaon, i Arukh /i )., b Abaye was wont to say: /b br b One must always be shrewd /b and utilize every strategy b in /b order to achieve b fear /b of Heaven and performance of mitzvot. br One must fulfill the verse: b “A soft answer turns away wrath” /b (Proverbs 15:1) br and take steps to b increase peace with one’s brethren and with one’s relatives, /b br b and with all people, even with a non-Jew in the marketplace, /b despite the fact that he is of no importance to him and does not know him at all ( i Me’iri /i ), br b so that he will be loved above /b in God’s eyes, br b pleasant below /b in the eyes of the people, br b and acceptable to all /b of God’s b creatures. /b ,Tangentially, the Gemara mentions that b they said about Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in /b issuing a b greeting, not even a non-Jew in the marketplace, /b as Rabban Yoḥa would always greet him first., b Rava was wont to say: /b br b The objective of /b Torah b wisdom /b is to achieve b repentance and good deeds; /b br b that one should not read /b the Torah b and study /b mishna and become arrogant br b and spurn his father and his mother and his teacher /b br b and one who is greater than he in wisdom or in /b the b number /b of students who study before him, br b as it is stated: “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord, a good understanding have all who fulfill them” /b (Psalms 111:10). br b It is not stated /b simply: b All who fulfill, but rather: All who fulfill them, /b those who perform these actions as they ought to be performed, meaning b those who do /b such deeds b for their own sake, /b for the sake of the deeds themselves, b not those who do them not for their own sake. /b br Rava continued: b One who does them not for their own sake, /b it would have been b preferable for him had he not been created. /b , b Rav was wont to say: /b br b The World-to-Come is not like this world. /b br b In the World-to-Come there is no eating, no drinking, /b br b no procreation, no /b business b negotiations, /b br b no jealousy, no hatred, and no competition. /b br b Rather, the righteous sit with their crowns upon their heads, enjoying the splendor of the Divine Presence, as it is stated: /b br b “And they beheld God, and they ate and drank” /b (Exodus 24:11), meaning that beholding God’s countece is tantamount to eating and drinking.,The Gemara states: b Greater is the promise /b for the future b made by the Holy One, Blessed be He, to women than to men, as it is stated: “Rise up, women at ease; hear My voice, confident daughters, listen to what I say” /b (Isaiah 32:9). This promise of ease and confidence is not given to men., b Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: /b By b what /b virtue b do women merit /b to receive this reward? Rabbi Ḥiyya answered: They merit this reward b for bringing their children to read /b the Torah b in the synagogue, and for sending their husbands to study /b mishna b in the study hall, and for waiting for their husbands until they return from the study hall. /b , b When the Sages /b who had been studying there b took leave of the study hall of Rabbi Ami, and some say /b it was b the study hall of Rabbi Ḥanina, they would say to him the following /b blessing: br b May you see your world, /b may you benefit from all of the good in the world, b in your lifetime, /b br b and may your end be to life in the World-to-Come, /b br b and may your hope /b be sustained b for many generations. /b br May b your heart meditate understanding, /b br b your mouth speak wisdom, and your tongue whisper with praise. /b br May b your eyelids look directly before you, /b br b your eyes shine in the light of Torah, /b br b and your face radiate like the brightness of the firmament. /b br May b your lips express knowledge, /b br b your kidneys rejoice in the upright, /b br b and your feet run to hear the words of the Ancient of Days, /b God (see Daniel 7)., b When the Sages took leave of the study hall of Rav Ḥisda, and some say /b it was b the study hall of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, they would say to him the following, /b in accordance with the verse: b “Our leaders are laden, /b there is no breach and no going forth and no outcry in our open places” (Psalms 144:14)., b Our leaders are laden. Rav and Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar, /b disputed the proper understanding of this verse. b One said: Our leaders in Torah are laden with mitzvot. And one said: Our leaders in Torah and mitzvot are laden with suffering. /b |
|
46. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 51b. הוא דאמר כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו כיצד מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס הרי זה נשבע וזה הוא שנשבע על טענת עצמו,וחכ"א אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור,ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור אמר רב בטוענו קטן,קטן מידי מששא אית ביה והתנן אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן,מאי קטן גדול ואמאי קרי ליה קטן דלגבי מילי דאביו קטן הוא,אי הכי טענת עצמו טענת אחרים הוא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו,כולהו טענתא נמי טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו,והאי בכוליה בעי למכפריה ליה והאי דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו ובכוליה בעי דלודי ליה והאי דלא אודי ליה אישתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט ליה סבר עד דהוו לי זוזי ופרענא ליה ואמר רחמנא רמי שבועה עילויה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה,ר' אליעזר בן יעקב סבר ל"ש בו ול"ש בבנו אינו מעיז והילכך לאו משיב אבידה הוא ורבנן סברי בו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בבנו מעיז ומדלא מעיז משיב אבידה הוא: | 51b. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yitzḥak b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Shevuot /i 5:10) that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b There are b times when a person takes an oath about his own claim. How so? /b One says to another: b One hundred dinars of your /b deceased b father’s was in my possession, /b as I had borrowed that sum from him. b And I /b already b paid him part [ i peras /i ] /b of it, but I still owe you fifty dinars. In this case, he is not believed unless b he takes an oath /b that he repaid the half, like anyone who admits to part of a claim. b And this is /b an example of a case b where /b one b takes an oath about his own claim. /b Although nobody has claimed anything from him, he still takes an oath on the basis of his own statement., b But the Rabbis say: /b In such a case, the borrower b is /b regarded b only as someone who is returning a lost item, and /b therefore b he is exempt /b from an oath. Rabbi Yitzḥak’s position is similar to that of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Since the finder says that he found only half of what the owner claims was lost, he is treated like someone who admits to part of a claim and therefore takes an oath.,The Gemara asks: b But does Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov not maintain /b that b someone who returns a lost item is exempt /b from an oath? b Rav says: /b The case in dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis is not one where nobody has claimed anything from the borrower, as in such a case all agree that the borrower is exempt from taking an oath. Rather, it is a case b where /b the creditor has died, leaving a child as his heir, and this b minor /b confronts the borrower and b claims /b a hundred dinars b from him, /b which he alleges was lent by his late father. The other admits to having borrowed the money but claims that he already repaid half the sum. Since he admits to part of the claim, he takes an oath that he did repay the other part.,The Gemara asks: Does the claim of b a minor have any substance? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Shevuot /i 38b): b One does not take an oath /b in response b to the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b as the claim of one who lacks halakhic competence has no significance whatsoever. According to this, if a minor brought a claim against the borrower, it is as though there were no claim at all but only the borrower’s admission, and so the borrower should be exempt from taking an oath.,The Gemara answers: To b which /b kind of b minor /b was Rav referring? It was to b an adult /b son of the creditor. b And why does /b Rav b call him a minor, /b if he is in fact an adult? It is b as with regard to his father’s affairs he is /b like b a minor. /b He does not know with certainty how much money the borrower repaid but merely says that he thinks he owes his father more.,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b that we are dealing with a case where the deceased creditor’s adult son made a claim against the debtor, how can Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say about this claim that it is his own claim? Is this an oath taken about b his own claim? It is /b an oath taken about b the claim of others, /b i.e., the son. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov calls it an oath taken about one’s own claim, although it is really b the claim of others, /b because it is b his own admission /b that obligates him to take the oath.,The Gemara objects: b All claims /b that lead to the oath of one who admits to part of the claim b are also /b a combination of b the claim of others and /b the defendant’s b own admission. Rather, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis b disagree with regard to /b the following explanation given by b Rabba, as Rabba says: For what reason did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to part of the claim /b brought against him b takes an oath /b with regard to the rest of the claim, which he denies, whereas one who denies the entire claim is not required to take an oath? Rabba answers: The oath of partial admission is based on a b presumption /b with regard to the defendant’s behavior. There is a presumption b that a person would not be so brazen /b as to stand b before his creditor /b and deny his debt when his creditor knows that he is lying.,Rabba continues: b And this /b one who admits to part of the claim would b want to deny all of it, and /b the only reason b he does not deny /b all of b it is because a person would not be so brazen before his creditor. And /b in fact, he would b want to admit /b to b all /b of the claim b to him. And /b the reason b that he did not admit /b the whole claim b to him /b and say that in fact he owes him the entire sum is that b he was evading /b his obligation temporarily. The debtor is short of money and b he thinks: /b I will pay my creditor as much as I can afford now, and I will evade paying the rest b until I have /b enough b money, and /b then b I will repay him /b the rest, to which I have not yet admitted. Therefore, b the Merciful One states: Impose an oath on /b the debtor b in order /b to induce him b to admit all /b of the debt b to /b the creditor.,Following Rabba’s reasoning, the difference of opinion between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis can be explained as follows: b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds /b that b there is no difference between /b the creditor b himself and /b the creditor’s b son, /b as in all cases the debtor b would not be so brazen /b as to deny his debt. b Therefore, /b the debtor b is not /b considered like b someone who is returning a lost item. /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains that Rabba’s reasoning applies in this case as well, so he is required to take an oath. b And the Rabbis hold /b that b he would not be so brazen /b as to deny a debt before the creditor b himself, but /b toward b his /b creditor’s b son he would be brazen /b and deny the claim completely. b And since he was not so brazen /b as to deny the entire claim, but admitted to part of it, b he is /b considered like b someone returning a lost item, /b and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath. |
|
47. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 264| 87a. הכי השתא התם משתא וברוכי בהדי הדדי לא אפשר הכא אפשר דשחיט בחדא ומכסי בחדא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שחט ולא כסה וראהו אחר חייב לכסות כסהו ונתגלה פטור מלכסות כסהו הרוח חייב לכסות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי ששפך יכסה שחט ולא כסה וראהו אחר מנין שחייב לכסות שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יד) ואומר לבני ישראל אזהרה לכל בני ישראל,תניא אידך ושפך וכסה במה ששפך בו יכסה שלא יכסנו ברגל שלא יהיו מצות בזויות עליו תניא אידך ושפך וכסה מי ששפך הוא יכסנו מעשה באחד ששחט וקדם חבירו וכסה וחייבו רבן גמליאל ליתן לו י' זהובים,איבעיא להו שכר מצוה או שכר ברכה למאי נפקא מינה לברכת המזון אי אמרת שכר מצוה אחת היא ואי אמרת שכר ברכה הויין ארבעים מאי,תא שמע דא"ל ההוא צדוקי לרבי מי שיצר הרים לא ברא רוח ומי שברא רוח לא יצר הרים דכתיב (עמוס ד, יג) כי הנה יוצר הרים ובורא רוח אמר ליה שוטה שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ה' צבאות שמו,אמר ליה נקוט לי זימנא תלתא יומי ומהדרנא לך תיובתא יתיב רבי תלת תעניתא כי הוה קא בעי מיברך אמרו ליה צדוקי קאי אבבא אמר (תהלים סט, כב) ויתנו בברותי רוש וגו',א"ל רבי מבשר טובות אני לך לא מצא תשובה אויבך ונפל מן הגג ומת אמר לו רצונך שתסעוד אצלי אמר לו הן לאחר שאכלו ושתו א"ל כוס של ברכה אתה שותה או ארבעים זהובים אתה נוטל אמר לו כוס של ברכה אני שותה יצתה בת קול ואמרה כוס של ברכה ישוה ארבעים זהובים,אמר רבי יצחק עדיין שנה לאותה משפחה בין גדולי רומי וקוראין אותה משפחת בר לויאנוס:,כסהו ונתגלה: אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מאי שנא מהשבת אבדה דאמר מר (דברים כב, א) השב אפילו מאה פעמים,אמר ליה התם לא כתיב מיעוטא הכא כתיב מיעוטא וכסהו:,כסהו הרוח: אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שחזר ונתגלה אבל לא חזר ונתגלה פטור מלכסות וכי חזר ונתגלה מאי הוי הא אידחי ליה אמר רב פפא זאת אומרת אין דיחוי אצל מצות,ומאי שנא מהא דתניא השוחט ונבלע דם בקרקע חייב לכסות התם כשרשומו ניכר:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראית דם חייב לכסות נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים נתערב בדם הבהמה | 87a. The Gemara rejects this: b How can /b these cases b be compared? There, /b in the incident involving the students of Rav, it is b impossible to drink and recite a blessing simultaneously. /b Accordingly, by requesting a cup over which to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, they demonstrated their desire to cease drinking. b Here, /b when one covers the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, it is b possible to slaughter /b the bird b with the one /b hand b and cover /b the blood of the undomesticated animal b with the /b other b one. /b Accordingly, the act of covering the blood of the undomesticated animal is not considered an interruption of the acts of slaughter, since they could have been performed simultaneously., strong MISHNA: /strong If one b slaughtered /b an undomesticated animal or bird b and did not cover /b the blood, b and another /b person b saw /b the uncovered blood, the second person is b obligated to cover /b the blood. If one b covered /b the blood b and it was /b then b uncovered, /b he is b exempt from covering it /b again. If b the wind /b blew earth on the blood and b covered it, /b and it was consequently uncovered, he is b obligated to cover /b the blood., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that b the one who poured out /b its blood, i.e., slaughtered the animal, b shall cover it. /b If one b slaughtered /b the animal or bird b and did not cover /b the blood, b and another person saw /b the uncovered blood, b from where /b is it derived b that /b the person who saw the blood b is obligated to cover /b it? It is derived from the following verse, b as it is stated: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel” /b (Leviticus 17:12), which is b a warning to all the children of Israel /b to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it with earth,” indicating that b with that which he poured out /b the blood b he shall cover it, /b i.e., he must use his hand, and b he /b may b not cover it with /b his b foot, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it with earth,” indicating that b the one who poured out /b the blood b shall cover it. An incident /b occurred b involving one who slaughtered /b an undomesticated animal or bird b and another /b individual b preempted /b him b and covered /b the blood, b and Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to give ten gold coins to /b the one who performed the act of slaughter., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: Are these ten gold coins b compensation /b for the stolen b mitzva or /b are they b compensation /b for the stolen b blessing /b recited over the mitzva? The Gemara elaborates: b What is the /b practical b difference? /b The difference is b with regard to /b a similar case involving b Grace after Meals. If you say /b the coins are b compensation for the mitzva, /b then with regard to Grace after Meals, since all its blessings constitute b one /b mitzva, one would be obligated to give only ten gold coins. b But if you say /b they are b compensation for the /b lost b blessing, /b then with regard to Grace after Meals the compensation b is forty /b gold coins, since Grace after Meals comprises four blessings. b What /b is the conclusion?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from an incident in b which a certain heretic said to Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b He who created mountains did not create wind, and he who created wind did not create mountains; /b rather, each was created by a separate deity, b as it is written: “For behold, He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind” /b (Amos 4:13), indicating that there are two deities: One who forms the mountains and one who creates the wind. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: Imbecile, go to the end of the verse, /b which states: b “The Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.” /b The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and creates.,The heretic b said to /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: b Give me three days’ time and I will respond to you /b with b a rebuttal /b of your claim. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b sat /b and fasted b three /b days of b fasting /b while awaiting the heretic, in order that he would not find a rebuttal. b When /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b wanted to have a meal /b at the conclusion of those three days, b they said to him: /b That b heretic is standing at the doorway. /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b recited /b the following verse about himself: b “They put gall into my food, /b and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence of this heretic.,When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to the door he saw that it was in fact a different heretic, not the one who asked for three days to prepare a rebuttal. This heretic b said to him: Rabbi, I am a bearer of good tidings for you: Your enemy did not find a response, and he threw himself from the roof and died. /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b the heretic: Since you have brought me good tidings, b would you like to dine with me? /b The heretic b said to him: Yes. After they ate and drank, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b the heretic: Would b you /b like to b drink the cup of blessing, /b i.e., the cup of wine over which the Grace after Meals is recited, b or /b would b you /b like to b take forty gold coins /b instead, and I will recite the Grace after Meals? The heretic b said to him: I /b will b drink the cup of blessing. A Divine Voice emerged and said: The cup of blessing is worth forty gold coins. /b Evidently, each one of the blessings in the Grace after Meals is worth ten gold coins.,The Gemara adds: b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: That family /b of the heretic who dined with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b still exists among the prominent /b families b of Rome, and /b that family b is called: The family of bar Luyyanus. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that if one b covered /b the blood b and it was /b then b uncovered /b he is not obligated to cover it again. b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different /b about this case from the mitzva of b returning a lost item, where the Master said: /b The verse states with regard to the obligation to return a lost item: b “You shall return /b them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), b even one hundred times? /b ,Rav Ashi b said to /b Rav Aḥa: b There, /b in the verse discussing the obligation to return a lost item, b a restriction is not written /b in the verse to limit the obligation. b Here, /b in the verse discussing the obligation to cover the blood, b a restriction is written, /b as the verse states: b “And he shall cover it.” /b The usage of the term “it” indicates that one must cover the blood only one time.,§ The mishna teaches that if b the wind /b blew earth on the blood and b covered it /b one is obligated to cover the blood. b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: They taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b if the blood b was again uncovered. But /b if the blood b was not again uncovered /b one is b exempt from /b the obligation b to cover it. /b The Gemara asks: b And when /b the blood b was again uncovered, what of it? Isn’t it /b already b rejected /b from the mitzva of covering since it was covered by the wind? b Rav Pappa said: That is to say /b that b there is no permanent /b rejection b with regard to mitzvot. /b Although the wind covered the blood, the mitzva to cover it was not rendered null; rather, the mitzva simply could not be performed. Consequently, once the blood is again uncovered, the mitzva to cover the blood remains in place.,The Gemara asks: b But /b even if the wind covered the blood and it remained covered, why is one exempt from performing the mitzva of covering the blood? b What is different /b about this case b from that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : In a case where b one slaughters /b an undomesticated animal or a bird b and /b its b blood is absorbed by the ground, /b one is b obligated to cover /b the blood? The Gemara responds: b There, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where the impression /b of the blood b is /b still b recognizable, /b i.e., it was not entirely absorbed in the ground., strong MISHNA: /strong In a case of the b blood /b of an undomesticated animal or bird b that was mixed with water, if there is in /b the mixture b the appearance of blood /b one is b obligated to cover /b it. If the blood b was mixed with wine one views /b the wine b as though it is water, /b and if a mixture with that amount of water would have the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. Likewise, if the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird b was mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal, /b which one does not have to cover, |
|
48. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 18a. דסתם יהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמו,וליתני מודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לויתי ממך ופרעתיו לך שהוא נאמן משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא אם יש עדים שהוא לוה ממנו והוא אומר פרעתיו אינו נאמן והא קיימא לן המלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפרעו בעדים,וליתני מודה ר' יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס שהוא נאמן,אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי משיב אבידה הוי אי אליבא דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא אמר שבועה בעי,דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו כיצד מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס הרי זה נשבע וזהו שנשבע על טענת עצמו וחכמים אומרים אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור,ור' אליעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור אמר רב בטוענו קטן והאמר מר אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן,מאי קטן גדול ואמאי קרי ליה קטן דלגבי מילי דאביו קטן הוא אי הכי טענת עצמו טענת אחרים היא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו,כולהי טענתא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו,אלא הכא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולה בעי דלכפריה והאי דלא כפר ליה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו הוא | 18a. The Gemara answers: The reason that the i tanna /i cited specifically a case where each is located in a different land is b that /b the b standard /b situation with regard to travel between b Judea and /b the b Galilee is tantamount to a crisis period, /b as war was commonplace, and there was a strip of Samaritan territory between Judea and the Galilee.,The Gemara asks: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b in the mishna: b And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in /b a case where b one says to another: I borrowed one hundred /b dinars b from you and repaid /b the loan b to you, that he is deemed credible. /b The Gemara answers: The i tanna /i chose not to teach that case of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted b due to /b the fact b that /b the i tanna /i b wanted to teach /b in b the latter clause: If there are witnesses that he borrowed /b money b from /b another, b and he says: I repaid /b the loan, b he is not deemed credible. /b However, the i tanna /i would not be able to distinguish between a case where witnesses testify and a case where there are no witnesses, b as don’t we hold /b that in the case of b one who lends /b money to b another in /b the presence of b witnesses, /b the borrower b need not repay /b the loan b in /b the presence of b witnesses? /b Therefore, even if witnesses testify that he took the loan, his claim that he repaid the loan is accepted.,The Gemara asks: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b in the mishna: b And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in /b a case where b one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession /b in the form of a loan, b but I provided him /b with repayment of b half /b that amount, that b his /b claim is b deemed credible. /b ,The Gemara answers: There is a tannaitic dispute with regard to that case and the case that the Gemara suggested does not correspond to either opinion. b In accordance with whose /b opinion would the mishna be taught? b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of the Rabbis, didn’t they say /b that in that case b he is /b the equivalent of b one returning a lost article? /b Since the son is unaware that the borrower owes his father money, and the borrower takes the initiative and admits that he owes part of the sum that he borrowed, it is as if he returned a lost article, and clearly his claim is accepted and no oath is required. b And if /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, didn’t he say /b that in that case the borrower is b required /b to take b an oath, /b and only then is his claim accepted?,This dispute is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b There are b times when /b although no one claimed that another owes him money, b a person takes an oath on /b the basis of b his own claim. How /b so? If one says to another: b Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him /b with repayment of b half /b that amount, b he /b is required to b take an oath /b that he repaid half, b and that is /b the case of one b who takes an oath on /b the basis of b his own claim. And the Rabbis say: /b In that case b he is merely /b the b equivalent of one returning a lost article, and is exempt /b from taking an oath.,The Gemara asks: b And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov not of /b the opinion that b one who returns a lost article is exempt from taking an oath /b that he did not take part of the sum? He returns what he admitted taking without an oath. b Rav says: /b The i baraita /i is referring to a case b where a minor makes a claim /b against b him. /b The lender’s minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower’s claim comes in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not at all comparable to returning a lost article. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t the Master say: One does not take an oath on /b the basis of b the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? /b Due to their lack of cognition, they are not deemed halakhically competent to require another to take an oath based on their claim.,The Gemara answers: In Rav’s statement, b what /b is the meaning of b minor? /b It means one who reached b majority, /b and is therefore halakhically competent. b And why does /b Rav b call him a minor? /b It is due to the fact b that with regard to his father’s matters, he is /b the equivalent of b a minor, /b as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father’s dealings. b If so, /b i.e., that the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the i baraita /i is imprecise. Why does the i tanna /i refer to this case as one taking an oath on the basis of b his own claim? /b This is not his own claim; it b is the claim of others. /b The Gemara answers: The i baraita /i employed that language for the following reason: It b is the claim of others, but /b he is taking an oath on the basis of b his own /b partial b admission. /b ,The Gemara asks: b All claims /b where an oath is required b are /b cases of b a claim of others and his own admission. /b However, in the i baraita /i , Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the phrase: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, that of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of taking an oath., b Rather, /b the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. b Here, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis b disagree with regard to /b the statement of b Rabba, as Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that /b one who b makes a partial admission /b in response to b the claim /b is required to b take an oath? /b It is because there is a b presumption /b that b a person /b would b not be /b so b insolent in the presence of his creditor /b as to deny his debt. Presumably, b this /b borrower who made a partial admission b would have liked to deny the entire /b loan, b and /b the fact b that he did not deny /b the entire loan b is due to /b the fact b that a person /b would b not be /b so b insolent /b in the presence of his creditor. |
|
49. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 279 | 29b. had the b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i in /b the term: b “The nation [ i ha’am /i ]” /b (Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, b severed by a perforation. He came before /b his son-in-law b Rabbi Abba /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Abba b said to him: If there remains in /b the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter b the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, /b i.e., the letter i yod /i , it is b fit. But if not, /b it is b unfit. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rami bar Tamrei, who /b was b the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, /b had the b leg of /b the letter b i vav /i in /b the term: b “And /b the Lord b slew [ i vayaharog /i ] /b all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, b severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Zeira b said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, /b but of average intelligence; b if he reads /b the term as b “And /b the Lord b slew [ i vayaharog /i ]” /b then it is b fit, /b as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a i vav /i . But b if not, /b then it is as though the term b were: Will be slain [ i yehareg /i ], /b written without the letter i vav /i , b and /b it is b unfit. /b ,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters /b of the Torah. Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, who is preventing You /b from giving the Torah without these additions? God b said to him: There is a man who is destined to be /b born b after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef /b is b his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn /b of these crowns b mounds /b upon b mounds of i halakhot /i . /b It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.,Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, show him to me. /b God b said to him: Return behind you. /b Moses b went and sat at the end of the eighth row /b in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall b and did not understand what they were saying. /b Moses’ b strength waned, /b as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. b When /b Rabbi Akiva b arrived at /b the discussion of b one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you /b derive this? Rabbi Akiva b said to them: /b It is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai. /b When Moses heard this, b his mind was put at ease, /b as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.,Moses b returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b and b said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man /b as great b as this and /b yet b You /b still choose to b give the Torah through me. /b Why? God b said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. /b Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, You have shown me /b Rabbi Akiva’s b Torah, /b now b show me his reward. /b God b said to him: Return /b to where you were. Moses b went back /b and b saw that they were weighing /b Rabbi Akiva’s b flesh in a butcher shop [ i bemakkulin /i ], /b as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses b said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? /b God b said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. /b ,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: b Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns [ i ziyyunin /i ], and they are /b the letters b i shin /i , i ayin /i , i tet /i , i nun /i , i zayin /i ; i gimmel /i /b and b i tzadi /i . Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of /b the letter b i ḥet /i and they would suspend the /b left b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i , /b i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.,Rava explains: b They would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of /b the letter b i ḥet /i as if to /b thereby b say: /b The Holy One, Blessed be b He, lives [ i ḥai /i ] in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend the /b left b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i , as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord [ i beYah /i ] is God, an everlasting [ i olamim /i ] Rock” /b (Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami b said to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b will have Him as b his refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come. /b This is alluded to in the word “ i olamim /i ,” which can also mean: Worlds.,Rabbi Yehuda Nesia b said to /b Rabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; b this is /b what poses b a difficulty for me: What is different /b about that b which is written: /b “For b in the Lord [ i beYah /i ],” and it is not written: /b For b the Lord [ i Yah /i ]? /b ,Rav Ashi responded: It is b as Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught: /b The verse “For in the Lord [ i beYah /i ] is God, an everlasting Rock [ i Tzur olamim /i ]” is understood as follows: The term “ i Tzur olamim /i ” can also mean Creator of worlds. b These /b letters i yod /i and i heh /i that constitute the word i yah /i are referring to the b two worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with [ i be /i ] /b the letter b i heh /i and one with [ i be /i ] /b the letter b i yod /i . And I do not know whether the World-to-Come /b was created b with /b the letter b i yod /i and this world /b was created b with /b the letter b i heh /i , /b or b whether this world /b was created b with /b the letter b i yod /i and the World-to-Come /b was created b with /b the letter b i heh /i . /b , b When /b the verse b states: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created [ i behibare’am /i ]” /b (Genesis 2:4), b do not read /b it as b i behibare’am /i , /b meaning: When they were created; b rather, /b read it as b i beheh bera’am /i , /b meaning: He created them with the letter i heh /i . This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e., this world, were created with the letter i heh /i , and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter i yod /i ., b And for what /b reason b was this world created /b specifically b with /b the letter b i heh /i ? /b It is b because /b the letter i heh /i , b which /b is open on its bottom, has b a similar /b appearance b to a portico, /b which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, b where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, /b i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil. b And what is the reason /b that the left b leg of /b the letter i heh /i b is suspended, /b i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is b because if one repents, he is brought /b back b in /b through the opening at the top.,The Gemara asks: b But /b why not b let him enter through that /b same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would b not be effective, /b since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” /b (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who b comes /b in order b to become pure, he is assisted /b from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who b comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening /b to do so. The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that the letter i heh /i b has a crown /b on its roof? The Gemara answers: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If /b a sinner b returns, /b repenting for his sin, b I tie /b a crown b for him /b from above.,The Gemara asks: b For what /b reason b was the World-to-Come created /b specifically b with /b the letter b i yod /i , /b the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is b because the righteous of /b the world b are /b so b few. And for what /b reason is the left side of b the top of /b the letter i yod /i b bent /b downward? It is b because the righteous who are in /b the World-to-Come b hang their heads /b in shame, b since the actions of one are not similar to those of another. /b In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.,§ b Rav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, and /b in each case a statement b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that constitutes b a refutation of his /b ruling. b One /b is b that which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected, /b but if there are b three /b errors on each and every column then it b shall be interred. /b , b And /b a statement b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that constitutes b a refutation of his /b ruling: A Torah scroll that contains b three /b errors on every column b may be corrected, /b but if there are b four /b errors on every column then it b shall be interred. /b A i tanna /i b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b the Torah scroll b contains one complete column /b with no errors, b it saves the entire /b Torah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this /b is the i halakha /i only b when the majority of the scroll is written properly /b and is not full of errors., b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, what /b is the i halakha /i ? Rav Yosef b said to him: Since /b the column itself b may be corrected, /b it b enables the correction /b of the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: b And /b with regard to the i halakha /i that a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, b this statement /b applies when letters b are missing /b and must be added in the space between the lines. b But /b if there were b extraneous /b letters, b we have no /b problem b with it, /b since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that a scroll with letters b missing /b may b not /b be corrected? b Rav Kahana said: Because it would look speckled /b if one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.,The Gemara relates: b Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had /b many b extraneous /b letters b in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Abba b said to him: We said /b that one may not correct the scroll b only in /b a case where the letters are b missing. /b |
|
50. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 262| 23a. ומתניתין כגון דאמר לה הריני נזיר ואת מאי משום הכי מיפר את שלה ושלו קיים:,מתני' האשה שנדרה בנזיר והיתה שותה ביין ומטמאה למתים ה"ז סופגת את הארבעים הפר לה בעלה והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה בעלה והיתה שותה ביין ומטמאה למתים אינה סופגת את הארבעים רבי יהודה אומר אם אינה סופגת את הארבעים תספוג מכת מרדות:,גמ' ת"ר (במדבר ל, יג) אישה הפרם וה' יסלח לה באשה שהפר לה בעלה והיא לא ידעה הכתוב מדבר שהיא צריכה כפרה וסליחה,וכשהיה מגיע ר"ע אצל פסוק זה היה בוכה ומה מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה טעון כפרה וסליחה המתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (ויקרא ה, יז) ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו,ומה מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר טלה ועלה בידו בשר חזיר כגון חתיכה ספק של שומן ספק של חלב אמר קרא ונשא עונו מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר עאכ"ו,איסי בן יהודה אומר ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו ומה מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר טלה ועלה בידו בשר חזיר כגון שתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן ונשא עונו המתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה,על דבר זה ידוו הדווים,וכל הני למה לי צריכין דאי תנא גבי אשה התם הוא דבעיא כפרה וסליחה משום דמעיקרא לאיסורא איכוון אבל חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן דלהיתרא איכוין לא בעי כפרה וסליחה,ואי איתמר הדא דאיכא איסורא אבל אשה דהפר לה בעלה דהתירא לא תיבעי כפרה וסליחה,ואי איתמר הני תרתי הוה אמינא הני תרתי הוא דסגי להון בכפרה וסליחה דלא איקבע איסורא אבל שתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן דאיקבע איסורא לא סגי ליה בכפרה וסליחה קמ"ל דלא שנא,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (הושע יד, י) כי ישרים דרכי ה' וצדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם משל לשני בני אדם שצלו את פסחיהן אחד אכלו לשום מצוה ואחד אכלו לשום אכילה גסה זה שאכלו לשום מצוה וצדיקים ילכו בם וזה שאכלו לשום אכילה גסה ופושעים יכשלו בם,אמר ליה ר"ל האי רשע קרית ליה נהי דלא קא עביד מצוה מן המובחר פסח מיהא קא עביד אלא משל לשני בני אדם זה אשתו ואחותו עמו וזה אשתו ואחותו עמו לזה נזדמנה לו אשתו ולזה נזדמנה לו אחותו זה שנזדמנה לו אשתו צדיקים ילכו בם וזה שנזדמנה לו אחותו ופושעים יכשלו בם,מי דמי אנן קאמרינן חדא דרך הכא שני דרכים אלא משל ללוט ושתי בנותיו עמו הן שנתכוונו לשם מצוה וצדיקים ילכו בם הוא שנתכוין לשם עבירה ופושעים יכשלו בם,ודלמא הוא נמי לשום מצוה איכווין אמר רבי יוחנן כל הפסוק הזה על שם עבירה נאמר,(בראשית יג, י) וישא לוט (בראשית לט, ז) ותשא אשת אדוניו את עיניה [את עיניו] (שופטים יד, ג) כי היא ישרה בעיני,וירא (בראשית לד, ב) וירא אותה שכם בן חמור את כל ככר הירדן (משלי ו, כו) כי בעד אשה זונה עד ככר לחם כי כלה משקה (הושע ב, ז) אלכה אחרי מאהבי נותני לחמי ומימי צמרי ופשתי שמני ושיקויי,והא מינס אניס תנא משום רבי יוסי בר רב חוני למה נקוד על וי"ו (בראשית יט, לג) ובקומה של בכירה לומר שבשכבה לא ידע אבל בקומה ידע,ומאי הוה ליה למיעבד מאי דהוה הוה נפקא מינה דלפניא אחרינא לא איבעי למישתי חמרא:,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (משלי יח, יט) אח נפשע מקרית עוז | 23a. b And the mishna /b is referring to a case b where he said to her /b in the form of a question: b I am hereby a nazirite, and what /b about b you? /b This indicates that he himself has completely accepted his naziriteship, and he is simply asking his wife if she would like to join him. b Due to that /b reason, as he did not link his vow to hers, b he may nullify hers and his is intact. /b ,mishna With regard to b a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and /b she transgressed her vow since b she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by /b contact with b the dead, she incurs the forty /b lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If b her husband nullified her /b vow, b and she did not know that her husband had nullified her /b vow, b and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by /b contact with b the dead, she does not incur the forty /b lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b Even b if she does not incur the forty /b lashes by Torah law, b she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [ i makat mardut /i ], /b an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.,gemara b The Sages taught /b with regard to a verse in the section discussing vows: b “Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will forgive her” /b (Numbers 30:13), that b the verse is speaking of a woman whose husband nullified her /b vow b and she did not know /b that he had done so. It teaches b that /b if she performs the actions prohibited by the vow b she requires atonement and forgiveness. /b , b And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would cry, /b saying: b And if one who intended to pick up pork in his hand /b and eat it, b and /b in fact b he picked up the meat of a lamb in his hand /b and ate it, so that he did not in fact commit a transgression, like this woman who tried to sin and was unaware that her husband had nullified her vow, nevertheless b requires atonement and forgiveness, /b then with regard to b one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and /b in fact b picked up pork in his hand, all the more so /b does he require atonement., b On a similar note, you /b can b say /b and quote the following verse with regard to one who is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering, which is brought for a possible transgression: b “Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:17).,This verse teaches: b And if /b in a case similar to b one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand /b and eat it, which is permitted, b and he picked up pork in his hand /b and ate it, thereby sinning unintentionally, b for example, /b where one took b a piece /b of meat with regard to which it is b uncertain /b whether it is permitted b fat /b and b uncertain /b whether it is forbidden b fat, /b and he ate it, rendering him liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, b the verse states: “And shall bear his iniquity,” /b indicating that he requires atonement via an offering; then with regard to b one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and /b in fact b picked up pork in his hand, all the more so /b he requires atonement., b Isi ben Yehuda says /b that this verse: b “Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:17), should be explained in a slightly different manner: b And if /b in a case similar to b one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and he picked up pork in his hand, e.g., /b where there were b two pieces /b before him, b one of /b forbidden b fat and one of /b permitted b fat, /b and he picked up one and ate it without knowing which of them was forbidden, it states with regard to him: b “And shall bear his iniquity,” /b i.e., he is obligated to bring an offering; then with regard to b one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and picked up pork in his hand, all the more so /b is he in need of atonement.,The Gemara adds: b And with regard to this matter, those who suffer should suffer, /b i.e., one can see from here the extent to which one requires atonement and forgiveness.,The Gemara asks: b And why do I /b need b all these /b examples for the same idea? The Gemara answers: All of them b are necessary, as had we taught /b this idea only b with regard to /b the case of b a woman, /b one might have said that b it is there that she requires atonement and forgiveness because at the outset her intention was to sin. However, /b in the case of one who took b a piece /b with regard to which it was b uncertain /b whether it was permitted b fat /b and b uncertain /b whether it was forbidden b fat, who intended /b to eat b permitted /b food, one might have said that b he does not require atonement and forgiveness. /b , b And had this /b case concerning one who eats a piece that might be forbidden b been stated /b alone, one could say that atonement is required in this situation, b as there is /b possibly b a prohibition /b present before him. b However, /b with regard to b a woman whose husband nullified her /b vow, b where /b she was in fact b permitted /b to perform the actions she performed, perhaps b she does not require atonement and forgiveness. /b , b And had /b only b these two /b cases b been stated, I would say: It is /b in b these two /b cases in b which atonement and forgiveness are enough for them, as the prohibition is not established; /b even one who ate the piece that was possibly forbidden fat has not necessarily committed a sin. b However, /b if there were b two pieces, one of /b forbidden b fat and one of /b permitted b fat, where the prohibition is established, /b as there was definitely a forbidden piece before him and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them, one might have said that b atonement and forgiveness should not suffice for him. /b Isi ben Yehuda therefore b teaches us that /b there, it b is no different, /b as even this individual is included in the verse: “And he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:18).,§ b Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “For the paths of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but transgressors stumble over them” /b (Hosea 14:10)? How can the same path lead to such different outcomes? This is b comparable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings /b on Passover eve, in the proper manner. b One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of excessive eating. This /b one, b who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, /b has fulfilled: b “And the just walk in them,” while that /b one, b who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, /b is described by the end of the verse: b “But transgressors stumble over them.” /b , b Reish Lakish said to /b Rabba bar bar Ḥanna: b You call this /b individual b wicked? /b Even b though he had not performed the mitzva in the optimal manner /b when he eats this Paschal offering, b he has at least performed /b the mitzva of the b Paschal offering. Rather, /b this is b comparable to two people; this /b one has b his wife and sister /b in the same house b with him, and that /b one has b his wife and sister with him. /b Each husband arrives home and engages in sexual intercourse with one of the women. b This /b one b happened upon his wife, and that /b one b happened upon his sister. This /b one, b who happened upon his wife, /b is described by the phrase b “And the just walk in them,” and that /b one, b who happened upon his sister, /b is described by the phrase b “But transgressors stumble over them.” /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b Is it comparable? We said one path; /b i.e., two people follow the same path by performing the very same action with two different outcomes; whereas b here /b there are b two paths. /b Each person engaged in sexual intercourse with a different relative and therefore they cannot be said to have followed the same path. b Rather, /b it is b comparable to Lot and his two daughters, /b who were b with him. They, who intended /b to engage in sexual intercourse with him b for the sake of a mitzva, /b as they thought that the entire world was destroyed and wished to preserve the human race, are described in the first part of the verse: b “And the just walk in them.” He who intended /b to act b for the sake of a transgression /b is described by the last part: b “But transgressors stumble over them.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b And perhaps /b Lot b too intended /b that his actions should be b for the sake of a mitzva? /b The Gemara answers: This was not the case, as b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b with regard to Lot: b This entire verse: /b “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), b is stated with regard to /b the b sin /b of licentiousness. Since this verse teaches that Lot was a lustful man, it can therefore be assumed he meant to sin with his daughters as well.,Rabbi Yoḥa explains: b “And Lot lifted up /b his eyes” employs the same expression as a verse that refers to Joseph’s temptation: b “That his master’s wife lifted up her eyes” /b (Genesis 39:7), which is clearly referring to sin. The phrase used in reference to Lot, b “his eyes,” /b is stated similarly to Samson’s appraisal of the Philistine girl he sought to marry: b “For she is pleasing in my eyes” /b (Judges 14:3).,Rabbi Yoḥa continues to interpret the verse as a series of references to licentiousness. The phrase b “and saw” /b is reminiscent of the verse dealing with Jacob’s daughter Dinah: b “And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, saw her /b and he took her, and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). The verse continues: b “All the plain [ i kikar /i ] of the Jordan,” /b which alludes to the verse: b “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf [ i kikar /i ] of bread” /b (Proverbs 6:26). The last part of the verse: b “That it was well watered everywhere,” /b recalls: b “I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” /b (Hosea 2:7).,The Gemara asks: b But /b Lot b was forced /b to participate in the sexual intercourse, as he was asleep at the time; how can he be considered a sinner? The Gemara answers that this is as a Sage b taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Ḥoni: Why is there a dot /b in a Torah scroll b over /b the letter b i vav /i of /b the word b “ i uvekumah /i ,” with regard to /b Lot’s b elder /b daughter, in the verse: “And he did not know when she lay down and when she arose [ i uvekumah /i ]” (Genesis 19:33)? This dot serves b to say that when she lay down he did not know; however, when she arose he knew /b what she had done, as he later understood what had happened.,The Gemara asks: b And what could he have done /b about it? b What has happened has happened; /b i.e., Lot could not change the past. The Gemara answers: The b difference /b is b that on the other, /b following, b night, he should not have drunk wine /b again. By allowing himself to get drunk a second time, he showed that the end result, engaging in sexual intercourse with his younger daughter, was something he desired.,§ b Rava interpreted /b a verse b homiletically /b with regard to Lot: b What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, /b |
|
51. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 259| 69a. ואמר רחמנא איש איש אתה צריך לחזור עליו אם יש לו גואלין ואם לאו קטן אי אתה צריך לחזור עליו בידוע שאין לו גואלין,איתיביה אביי איש אין לי אלא איש בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שראוי לביאה מניין ת"ל ואיש,א"ל יש לו ואינו מוליד כתבואה שלא הביאה שליש דמי,דבי חזקיה תנא (שמות כא, יד) וכי יזיד איש איש מזיד ומזריע ואין קטן מזיד ומזריע א"ל רב מרדכי לרב אשי מאי משמע דהאי מזיד לישנא דבשולי הוא דכתיב (בראשית כה, כט) ויזד יעקב נזיד,והא תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל בן ולא אב,היכי דמי אילימא דאיעבר בתר דאייתי שתי שערות ואוליד מקמי דלקיף זקן מי איכא שהות כולי האי והא א"ר כרוספדאי כל ימיו של בן סורר ומורה אינו אלא ג' חדשים בלבד אלא לאו דאיעבר מקמי דלייתי שתי שערות ואוליד מקמיה דלקיף זקן וש"מ קטן מוליד,לא לעולם דאיעבר בתר דאייתי שתי שערות ואוליד בתר דאקיף זקן ודקא קשיא דרבי כרוספדאי כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא בן ולא הראוי לקרותו אב,גופא אמר ר' כרוספדאי א"ר שבתי כל ימיו של בן סורר ומורה אינן אלא ג' חדשים בלבד והאנן תנן משיביא שתי שערות ועד שיקיף זקן הקיף זקן אע"ג דלא מלו ג' חדשים מלו ג' חדשים אע"ג דלא הקיף,יתיב רבי יעקב מנהר פקוד קמיה דרבינא ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ש"מ מדרבי כרוספדאי א"ר שבתי יולדת לשבעה אין עוברה ניכר לשליש ימיה,דאי ס"ד עוברה ניכר לשליש ימיה למה לי ג' בתרי ותילתא סגיא,א"ל לעולם אימא לך עוברה ניכר לשליש ימיה זיל בתר רובא,אמרוה קמיה דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר ליה ובדיני נפשות מי אזלינן בתר רובא התורה אמרה (במדבר לה, כד) ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה ואת אמרת זיל בתר רובא,אהדרוה קמיה דרבינא א"ל ובדיני נפשות לא אזלינן בתר רובא והתנן אחד אומר בשנים בחדש ואחד אומר בג' עדותן קיימת שזה יודע בעיבורו של חדש וזה אינו יודע,ואי ס"ד לא אמרינן זיל בתר רובא נימא הני דוקא קא מסהדי ואכחושי הוא דקא מכחשי אהדדי אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא ורובא דאינשי עבדי דטעו בעיבורא דירחא,אמר רבי ירמיה מדפתי אף אנן נמי תנינא בת שלש שנים ויום אחד מתקדשת בביאה ואם בא עליה יבם קנאה וחייבין עליה משום אשת איש,ומטמא את בועלה לטמא משכב התחתון כעליון נישאת לכהן אוכלת בתרומה בא עליה אחד מן הפסולין פסלה מן הכהונה ואם בא עליה אחד מכל העריות האמורות בתורה מומתין עליה והיא פטורה | 69a. b And the Merciful One states: /b “But if the b man /b has no relative,” teaching that it is only in the case of a convert who is b a man /b that b you must go around /b seeking b whether or not he has relatives, /b i.e., children who were born to him after his conversion. But in the case of a convert who is b a minor, you do not have to go around /b searching for relatives; b it is known that he has no relative, /b since a minor cannot father a child., b Abaye raised an objection to /b Rabba from a i baraita /i discussing a designated maidservant, about whom the verse states: “And if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a maidservant designated to a man, and not fully redeemed, nor freedom given her, inquiry shall be made; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free” (Leviticus 19:20). From the word b “man,” I have /b derived b only /b that this i halakha /i applies to an adult b man. /b But as for a minor b aged nine years and one day, who is fit for /b engaging in b intercourse, from where /b is it derived that he too is subject to this i halakha /i ? b The verse states: “And /b if b a man.” /b The extraneous letter i vav /i , meaning “and,” serves to include a minor who is nine years old, as already at that age he can perform complete intercourse.,Rabba b said to /b Abaye: There is no proof from here, as even though a nine-year-old boy b has /b sperm, b he cannot father /b a child. His sperm is b like /b the seed of b grain that /b was cut even though it b had not /b yet b reached one-third /b of its growth. Such seed, even if planted, will not grow.,A Sage b of the school of Ḥizkiyya taught: /b The verse states: b “But if a man comes intentionally [ i yazid /i ] /b against his neighbor, to slay him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14). The use of the term i yazid /i in this context and its juxtaposition to the word “man” teaches that b a man can heat [ i mezid /i ] /b himself up b and produce /b viable b sperm, but a minor cannot heat /b himself up b and produce /b viable b sperm. /b Therefore, even though a minor can engage in full intercourse with a woman, he cannot father a child. b Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: From where may /b it b be inferred that this /b word b i mezid /i is a term /b meaning b heating /b up? b As it is written /b in a different verse: b “And Jacob cooked [ i vayyazed /i ] pottage” /b (Genesis 25:29).,The Gemara asks: b But didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach /b the following i baraita /i concerning a stubborn and rebellious son: The verse that states: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son,” teaches that b a son /b can become a stubborn and rebellious son, b but not a father, /b so that one who has a child cannot be sentenced as a stubborn and rebellious son.,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances? If we say that /b his wife b conceived after he grew two /b pubic b hairs and /b the baby b was born before he grew a beard around /b his genitals, b is there such a long interval /b between these two times to allow for carrying the child to term? b But doesn’t Rabbi Kruspedai say: The entire time /b during which it is possible to judge and sentence b a stubborn and rebellious son is only three months, /b the time between the appearance of two pubic hairs and the growth of a beard around the genitals? Consequently, it is impossible for a child to be born to the stubborn and rebellious son during this period. b Rather, is it not that /b his wife b conceived before he grew two /b pubic b hairs, and /b the baby b was born before he grew a beard around /b his genitals? b And you can learn from it /b that b a minor can, /b in fact, b father /b a child.,The Gemara rejects this reasoning: b No, actually, /b you can explain b that /b his wife b conceived /b only b after he grew two /b pubic b hairs, and /b the baby b was born after he grew a beard around /b his genitals. b And /b as for b that which /b is b difficult /b for you based on the statement b of Rabbi Kruspedai /b that the i halakha /i governing a stubborn and rebellious son applies for only three months, it can be explained as follows: b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said /b that b they say in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, that the term “son” teaches that only b a son /b can become a stubborn and rebellious son, b but not one who is fit to be called a father. /b That is to say, the verse does not exclude someone whose child was born during this period, but rather one whose wife conceived during this time, so that he is fit to be called a father.,§ Returning to b the /b matter b itself: Rabbi Kruspedai says /b that b Rabbi Shabbtai says: The entire time /b during which it is possible to judge and sentence b a stubborn and rebellious son is only three months. /b The Gemara asks: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna that a boy can be judged as a stubborn and rebellious son b from when he grows two /b pubic b hairs until he grows a beard around /b his genitals? This seems to indicate that his liability depends on his physical maturity, and not on any specific time period. The Gemara answers: If b he grew a beard around /b his genitals, then b even if three months have not passed, /b he can no longer become liable as a stubborn and rebellious son. And if b three months passed, /b then b even if he has not grown /b a beard b around /b his genitals, he is similarly exempt., b Rabbi Ya’akov from Nehar Pekod sat before Ravina and sat and said in the name of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Learn from /b the statement b that Rabbi Kruspedai /b says that b Rabbi Shabbtai says /b that when a woman b gives birth at seven /b months, b her fetus cannot /b yet b be discerned after one-third of her days /b of pregcy. In a nine-month pregcy, the fetus can be discerned after three months, which is one-third of the pregcy. In the case of a pregcy that lasts seven months, the fetus cannot be discerned at the end of one-third of the pregcy, i.e., after two and one-third months, but after three months, as in a standard nine-month pregcy.,Rabbi Ya’akov explains the inference: b As if it enters your mind /b that when a woman gives birth at seven months, b her fetus can /b already b be discerned after one-third of her days /b of pregcy, i.e., after two and one-third months, b why do I /b need b three /b months from the time the boy reaches adulthood until the end of the time that he can become liable as a stubborn and rebellious son? A period of b two and one-third /b months should b suffice. /b If he engaged in intercourse with a woman immediately upon reaching adulthood and the intercourse resulted in a seven-month pregcy, the fetus would be able to be discerned after two and one-third months, and he would be fit to be called a father already from then. From the statement of Rabbi Kruspedai, citing Rabbi Shabbtai, it is clear that the earliest time the fetus can be discerned is after three months of the pregcy have passed.,Ravina b said to /b Rabbi Ya’akov: b Actually, I /b could b say to you /b that even when a woman gives birth at seven months, b her fetus can /b already b be discerned after one-third of her days /b of pregcy. But the i halakha /i with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son was not adjusted accordingly because of the principle that one b follows the majority. /b Most women give birth at nine months, and their fetuses are discernible only after three months. Therefore, the fact that one would be fit to be called a father in the case of a seven-month pregcy is disregarded.,The Sages b stated this /b answer b before Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, /b whereupon b he said to /b them: b But do we /b blindly b follow the majority in /b cases of b capital law /b and not judge each case on its own merits? Doesn’t b the Torah state: “And the congregation shall judge…and the congregation shall deliver” /b (Numbers 35:24–25), from which it is derived that the court must make every effort to find exculpatory arguments in support of the accused; b and /b yet b you say /b that one b follows the majority? /b If it is possible that already after two and one-third months the stubborn and rebellious son will be fit to be called a father, from that time on he should be exempt from punishment.,The Sages then b brought /b Rav Huna’s analysis b back to Ravina /b and presented it b before /b him. Ravina b said to /b them: b And do we not follow the majority in /b cases of b capital law? But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna ( i Sanhedrin /i 40a): If b one /b witness b says /b that the event occurred b on the second of the month, and one /b witness b says /b that the event occurred b on the third /b of the month, this is not regarded as a contradiction and b their testimony stands, /b since it is possible to say b that this /b witness b knows of /b the b addition of /b a day to the previous b month, /b and according to his tally the event occurred on the second of the month, b and that /b witness b does not know /b of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the third of the month., b And if it enters your mind /b that b we do not say /b that one b follows the majority /b in cases of capital law, b let us /b then b say /b that b these /b witnesses b are testifying with precision, and /b that b they contradict each other, /b and therefore the accused should be acquitted. b Rather, is it not because we say /b that one b follows the majority, and the majority of people are apt to err with regard to the addition /b of an extra day b to the month? /b , b Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: We learn /b in another mishna ( i Nidda /i 44b) b as well /b that one follows the majority even in cases of capital law: A girl who is b three years and one day old /b whose father arranged her betrothal b can be betrothed with intercourse, /b as, despite her age, the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. b And /b in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, b if /b his brother, the b i yavam /i , engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her /b as his wife. b And /b if a girl of that age is married, a man other than her husband is b liable /b for engaging in intercourse b with her due to /b violation of the prohibition against adultery, as despite her age she is legally considered to be b a married woman. /b ,The mishna continues: b And /b if she is impure due to menstruation, b she transmits impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her, /b who then b renders /b all the items designated for b lying beneath /b him b impure like /b the items designated for lying b above /b him. If b she marries a priest, she may partake of i teruma /i /b like any other wife of a priest. If she is unmarried and b one /b of the men b who is unfit /b for the priesthood, e.g., a i mamzer /i or i ḥalal /i , b engaged in intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from /b marrying into b the priesthood, /b and if she is the daughter of a priest, she is disqualified from partaking of i teruma /i . b And if one of any of those with whom relations are forbidden, which are enumerated in the Torah, engaged in intercourse with her, /b e.g., her father or father-in-law, the man is b executed by /b the court for engaging in intercourse with b her, and she is exempt /b because she is a minor. |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 39a. בא למדוד נפט אומר לו מדוד אתה לעצמך בא למדוד אפרסמון אומר לו המתן לי עד שאמדוד עמך כדי שנתבסם אני ואתה,תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל עבירה מטמטמת לבו של אדם שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מג) ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אל תקרי ונטמאתם אלא ונטמטם,תנו רבנן (אל) תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אדם מטמא עצמו מעט מטמאין אותו הרבה מלמטה מטמאין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מטמאין אותו לעולם הבא,תנו רבנן (ויקרא יא, מד) והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים אדם מקדש עצמו מעט מקדשין אותו הרבה מלמטה מקדשין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מקדשין אותו לעולם הבא, br br big strongהדרן עלך אמר להם הממונה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongטרף /strong /big בקלפי והעלה שני גורלות אחד כתוב עליו לשם ואחד כתוב עליו לעזאזל הסגן בימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו אם של שם עלה בימינו הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם של שם עלה בשמאלו ראש בית אב אומר לו אישי כ"ג הגבה שמאלך,נתנן על שני השעירים ואומר לה' חטאת רבי ישמעאל אומר לא היה צריך לומר חטאת אלא לה' והן עונין אחריו ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big למה לי טרף בקלפי כי היכי דלא ניכוין ולישקול,אמר רבא קלפי של עץ היתה ושל חול היתה ואינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים,מתקיף לה רבינא בשלמא אינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים כי היכי דלא ליכוין ולישקול אלא של חול נקדשה אם כן הוה לה כלי שרת של עץ וכלי שרת דעץ לא עבדינן ונעבדה דכסף ונעבדה דזהב התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל,מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר הסגן וכהן גדול מכניסין ידן בקלפי אם בימינו של כהן גדול עולה הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם בימינו של סגן עולה ראש בית אב אומר לו לכהן גדול דבר מילך,ונימא ליה סגן כיון דלא סליק בידיה חלשא דעתיה,במאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר ימינא דסגן עדיף משמאליה דכהן גדול ומר סבר כי הדדי נינהו,ומאן האי תנא דפליג עליה דרבי יהודה רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים הוא דתניא רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר למה סגן מימינו שאם אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול נכנס סגן ומשמש תחתיו,תנו רבנן ארבעים שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק היה גורל עולה בימין מכאן ואילך פעמים עולה בימין פעמים עולה בשמאל והיה לשון של זהורית מלבין מכאן ואילך פעמים מלבין פעמים אינו מלבין והיה נר מערבי דולק מכאן ואילך פעמים דולק פעמים כבה,והיה אש של מערכה מתגבר ולא היו כהנים צריכין להביא עצים למערכה חוץ משני גזירי עצים כדי לקיים מצות עצים מכאן ואילך פעמים מתגבר פעמים אין מתגבר ולא היו כהנים נמנעין מלהביא עצים למערכה כל היום כולו,ונשתלחה ברכה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן שמגיעו כזית יש אוכלו ושבע ויש אוכלו ומותיר מכאן ואילך נשתלחה מאירה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן מגיעו כפול הצנועין מושכין את ידיהן והגרגרנין נוטלין ואוכלין ומעשה באחד שנטל חלקו וחלק חבירו והיו קורין אותו בן | 39a. In the case of one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b naphtha, /b the merchant b says to him: Measure /b it b for yourself, /b as I prefer to keep my distance from the foul odor. With regard to one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b balsam, /b the merchant b says to him: Wait for me until I /b can b measure /b it b with you, so that you and I will /b both b be perfumed. /b Similarly, with regard to sin God merely provides an opening, whereas with regard to mitzvot God assists the individual in their performance.,In b the school of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught: Sin stupefies the heart of a person /b who commits it, b as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified” /b (Leviticus 11:43) b Do not read /b that term as: b “And be impurified [ i venitmetem /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b And your /b hearts will b be stupefied /b [ b i venitamtem /i ]. /b , b The Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified”; a person who impurifies himself a bit, they impurify him greatly. /b If a person impurifies himself of his own volition b below, /b on earth, b they impurify him /b even more so b above, /b in Heaven. If a person impurifies himself b in this world, they impurify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,Conversely, b the Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “Sanctify yourselves and you will be sanctified” /b (Leviticus 11:44); b a person /b who b sanctifies himself a bit, they sanctify him /b and assist him b greatly. /b If a person sanctifies himself b below, they sanctify him above. /b If a person sanctifies himself b in this world, they sanctify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,, strong MISHNA: /strong The High Priest b would mix /b the lots b in the /b lottery b receptacle /b used to hold them b and draw /b the b two lots /b from it, one in each hand. b Upon one was written: For God. And upon /b the other b one was written: For Azazel. The deputy /b High Priest would stand b to /b the High Priest’s b right, and the head of the patrilineal family /b would stand b to his left. If /b the lot b for the name /b of God b came up in his right /b hand, b the Deputy would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand so that all can see with which hand the lot for God was selected. b And if /b the lot for the b name /b of God b came up in his left /b hand, b the head of the patrilineal family would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your left /b hand.,Then b he would place /b the two lots b upon the two goats, /b the lot that arose in his right hand on the goat standing to his right side and the lot in his left hand on the goat to his left. b And /b upon placing the lot for God upon the appropriate goat, b he would say: For God, /b as b a sin-offering. Rabbi Yishmael says: He need not say: /b As b a sin-offering. Rather, /b it is sufficient to say: b For God. And /b upon saying the name of God, the priests and the people b respond after him: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Why do I /b need the High Priest to have b mixed /b the lots in b a receptacle /b before he draws the lots? b In order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. Since it is a fortuitous omen for the lot for God to arise in his right hand, there is a concern that he might force the result, in contravention of the requirement that the designation of the goats be made through a random lottery., b Rava said: /b The b receptacle was /b made out b of wood and /b did not have the status of a sacred vessel. Rather, it b was unconsecrated, and it had enough /b space inside b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b , b Ravina strongly objects to this: Granted, /b it was constructed so that it b had enough /b space inside it b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b This was done so that he could not maneuver his hands inside the box to feel and examine the lots, b in order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. b But /b why was the receptacle b unconsecrated? Let it be consecrated /b as a sacred vessel. b If so, /b if it were to be consecrated, b it would be a sacred vessel /b made b of wood, and /b the i halakha /i is that b we do not make a sacred vessel from wood. /b But if this is the only issue, b let it be made /b out b of silver /b or b let it be made /b out b of gold. /b However, b the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people /b and did not want to burden them with the expense of having to make the receptacle from expensive materials. Therefore, it is made from wood, and as such it is precluded from being a sacred vessel.,The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i /b whose opinion b was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The Deputy and the High Priest insert their hands into the receptacle. If /b the lot for God b comes up in the High Priest’s right /b hand, b the Deputy says to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand. b And if /b the lot for God b comes up in the right /b hand b of the Deputy, the head of the patrilineal family says to the High Priest: Speak your word /b and declare the goat to your left side to be the sin-offering for God.,The Gemara asks: Why should the head of the patrilineal family instruct the High Priest to speak? b Let the Deputy say /b this b to him. /b The Gemara answers: b Since the lot /b for God b did not come up in /b the High Priest’s b hand, /b rather in the Deputy’s, b he /b might b be discouraged /b if the Deputy himself instructs him to speak, as it may appear that he is mocking him., b With regard to what do /b the i tanna’im /i of the mishna and i baraita /i b disagree? /b One b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i , b holds /b that b the Deputy’s right /b hand b is preferable to the High Priest’s left /b hand. As such, the ideal way for the lots to be drawn is for both the Deputy and High Priest to use their right hands. b And /b the other b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna, b holds they are equivalent. /b Therefore, there is no reason for the Deputy to be involved, and the entire process is performed by the High Priest., b And who is this i tanna /i who argues with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, says: Why /b did the b Deputy /b remain b at the /b High Priest’s b right /b side throughout the day’s service? b Because if some disqualification befalls the High Priest, the Deputy can step in and serve in his stead. /b It is apparent from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that as long as the High Priest remains qualified, the Deputy has no role in the day’s service, which disputes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.,§ b The Sages taught: /b During all b forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served /b as High Priest, b the lot /b for God arose in b the right /b hand. b From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right /b hand and b sometimes it arose in the left /b hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, b the strip of crimson /b wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel b turned white, /b indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven, as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). b From then onward, it sometimes turned white /b and b sometimes it did not turn white. /b Furthermore, b the western lamp /b of the candelabrum b would burn /b continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. b From then onward, it sometimes burned /b and b sometimes it went out. /b , b And /b during the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, b the fire on the arrangement /b of wood on the altar b kept going strongly, /b perpetually by itself, b such that the priests did not need to bring /b additional b wood to the arrangement /b on a daily basis, b except for the two logs /b that were brought b in order to fulfill the mitzva of /b placing b wood /b upon the arrangement. b From then onward, /b the fire b sometimes kept going strongly /b and b sometimes it did not, and so the priests could not avoid bringing wood to the arrangement throughout the entire day. /b , b And a blessing was sent upon the /b offering of the b i omer /i ; and to the /b offering of b the two loaves /b from the new wheat, which was sacrificed on i Shavuot /i ; b and to the shewbread, /b which was placed on the table in the Temple. b And /b due to that blessing, b each priest that received an olive-bulk /b of them, b there were those /b who b ate it and were satisfied, and there were those /b who b ate /b only a part b of it and left over /b the rest because they were already satisfied from such a small amount. b From then onward, a curse was sent upon the i omer /i , and to the two loaves, and to the shewbread, /b that there were not sufficient quantities to give each priest a full measure. Therefore, b each priest received /b just an amount the b size of a bean; the discreet, /b pious b ones would withdraw their hands, /b a bean-bulk being less that the quantity needed to properly fulfill the mitzva, b and /b only b the voracious ones would take and eat /b it. b And an incident occurred with one who took his portion and that of his fellow, and they called him: Son of /b |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 263| 48b. כמין שני חוטמין דקין (ואחד) מעובה ואחד דק כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת מערבו של מים מזרחו של יין עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא,ר' יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה ולמנסך אומר לו הגבה ידך שפעם אחד נסך אחד על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן,כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת אלא שהיה ממלא מערב שבת חבית של זהב שאינה מקודשת מן השילוח ומניחה בלשכה נשפכה נתגלתה היה ממלא מן הכיור שהיין והמים מגולין פסולין לגבי מזבח:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנא הנ"מ אמר רב עינא דאמר קרא (ישעיהו יב, ג) ושאבתם מים בששון וגו',הנהו תרי מיני חד שמיה ששון וחד שמיה שמחה א"ל ששון לשמחה אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (ישעיהו לה, י) ששון ושמחה ישיגו וגו' א"ל שמחה לששון אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (אסתר ח, יז) שמחה וששון ליהודים א"ל ששון לשמחה חד יומא שבקוך ושויוך פרוונקא דכתיב (ישעיהו נה, יב) כי בשמחה תצאו א"ל שמחה לששון חד יומא שבקוך ומלו בך מיא דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון,א"ל ההוא מינא דשמיה ששון לר' אבהו עתידיתו דתמלו לי מים לעלמא דאתי דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון א"ל אי הוה כתיב לששון כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב בששון משכיה דההוא גברא משוינן ליה גודא ומלינן ביה מיא:,עלה בכבש ופנה לשמאלו כו': ת"ר כל העולים למזבח עולין דרך ימין ומקיפין ויורדין דרך שמאל חוץ מן העולה לשלשה דברים הללו שעולין דרך שמאל וחוזרין על העקב ואלו הן ניסוך המים וניסוך היין ועולת העוף כשרבתה במזרח:,אלא שהיו משחירין: בשלמא דיין משחיר דמיא אמאי משחיר כיון דאמר מר עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא של מים אתי לאשחורי:,ומנוקבים כמין ב' חוטמין וכו': לימא מתניתין ר' יהודה היא ולא רבנן דתנן רבי יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה דאי רבנן כי הדדי נינהו,אפי' תימא רבנן חמרא סמיך מיא קליש,הכי נמי מסתברא דאי רבי יהודה רחב וקצר אית ליה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר שני קשוואות היו שם אחד של מים ואחד של יין של יין פיה רחב של מים פיה קצר כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת ש"מ:,מערבו של מים: ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שניסך על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן ואותו היום נפגמה קרן המזבח והביאו בול של מלח וסתמוהו לא מפני שהוכשר לעבודה אלא מפני שלא יראה מזבח פגום | 48b. with b two thin /b perforated b nose-like /b protrusions. b One /b of the basins, used for the wine libation, had a perforation that was b broad, and one, /b used for the water libation, had a perforation that was b thin, so that /b the flow of b both /b the water and the wine, which do not have the same viscosity, would b conclude simultaneously. /b The basin to the b west of /b the altar was b for water, /b and the basin to the b east of /b the altar was b for wine. /b However, if b one poured /b the contents of the basin b of water into /b the basin b of wine, or /b the contents of the basin b of wine into /b the basin b of water, he fulfilled /b his obligation, as failure to pour the libation from the prescribed location does not disqualify the libation after the fact., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The basin for the water libation was not that large; rather, b one would pour /b the water b with /b a vessel that had a capacity of b one i log /i /b on b all eight /b days of the Festival and not only seven. b And /b the appointee b says to the one pouring /b the water into the silver basin: b Raise your hand, /b so that his actions would be visible, b as one time /b a Sadducee priest intentionally b poured /b the water b on his feet, /b as the Sadducees did not accept the oral tradition requiring water libation, and in their rage b all the people pelted him with their i etrogim /i . /b ,Rabbi Yehuda continues: b As its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat, except /b that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, b on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated /b for exclusive use in the Temple b from the Siloam /b pool, b and he /b would b place it in the /b Temple b chamber /b and draw water from there on Shabbat. If the water in the barrel b spilled, /b or if it b was exposed /b overnight, leading to concern that a snake may have deposited poison in the water, b one would fill /b the jug with water b from the basin /b in the Temple courtyard, b as exposed wine or water is unfit for the altar. /b Just as it is prohibited for people to drink them due to the potential danger, so too, they may not be poured on the altar., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the customs accompanying the drawing of the water, the Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Eina said /b that it is b as the verse states: “With joy [ i sason /i ] you shall draw water /b out of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), indicating that the water was to be drawn from the spring and the rite performed in extreme joy.,Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were b these two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simḥa. Sason said to Simḥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy [ i sason /i ] and happiness [ i simḥa /i ], /b and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. b Simḥa said to Sason, /b On the contrary, b I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness [ i simḥa /i ] and joy [ i sason /i ] for the Jews” /b (Esther 8:17). b Sason said to Simḥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger [ i parvanka /i ], as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness [ i simḥa /i ]” /b (Isaiah 55:12). b Simḥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy [ i sason /i ] you shall draw water.” /b ,The Gemara relates a similar incident: b A certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You are /b all b destined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With i sason /i you shall draw water.” /b Rabbi Abbahu b said to him: If it had been written: For i sason /i , /b it would have been b as you say; now that it is written: With i sason /i , /b it means that b the skin of that man, /b you, b will be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it. /b ,§ The mishna continues: The priest b ascended the ramp /b of the altar b and turned to his left. The Sages taught: All who ascend the altar ascend /b and turn b via /b the b right, and circle /b the altar, b and descend via /b the b left. /b This is the case b except for one ascending /b to perform one of b these three tasks, as /b the ones who perform these tasks b ascend via /b the b left, and /b then b turn on /b their b heel and return /b in the direction that they came. b And /b these tasks b are: The water libation, and the wine libation, and the bird /b sacrificed as b a burnt-offering when there were /b too b many /b priests engaged in the sacrifice of these burnt-offerings b in the /b preferred location b east /b of the altar. When that was the case, additional priests engaged in sacrificing the same offering would pinch the neck of the bird west of the altar.,The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda said that they were limestone, not silver, basins, b but they would blacken /b due to the wine. The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b the basin b for wine blackened /b due to the wine; however, b why did the /b basin b for water blacken? /b The Gemara answers: b Since the Master said /b in the mishna: However, if b one /b inadvertently b poured /b the contents of the basin b of water into /b the basin b of wine or /b the contents of the basin b of wine into /b the basin b of water, he fulfilled /b his obligation. Then even the basin b for water /b would b come to blacken /b over the course of time as well.,§ The mishna continues: b And /b the two basins were b perforated /b at the bottom with b two thin, /b perforated, b nose-like /b protrusions, one broad and one thin. The Gemara asks: b Let us say /b that b the mishna is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda and not /b with that of b the Rabbis, as we learned /b in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda says: One would pour /b the water b with /b a vessel that had a capacity of b one i log /i /b on b all eight /b days of the Festival, unlike the wine libation, for which a three- i log /i basin was used. According to his opinion, there is a difference between the capacity of the wine vessel and that of the water vessel; therefore, it is clear why the opening in the wine vessel was broader. b As, if /b the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, they are the same /b as the capacity of the water basin, three i log /i . Why, then, were there different sized openings?,The Gemara answers: b Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b the reason for the different-sized openings is that b wine is thick /b and b water is thin, /b and therefore wine flows more slowly than water. In order to ensure that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously, the wine basin required a wider opening., b So too, it is reasonable /b to establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, b as, if /b it is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b unlike the description of the two openings in the mishna as broad and thin, elsewhere he b is of /b the opinion that the openings b as wide and narrow, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two /b small b pipes there, one for water and one for wine. The mouth of /b the pipe b for wine was wide and the mouth of /b the pipe b for water was narrow, so that /b the emptying of both basins b would conclude simultaneously. /b The disparity between wide and narrow is greater than the disparity between broad and thin, thereby facilitating the simultaneous emptying of the three- i log /i and one- i log /i basins according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from it /b that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,§ The mishna continues: The basin to the b west of /b the altar was b for water, /b and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine, and they would tell the one pouring the water to raise his hand. b The Sages taught: /b There was b an incident involving one Sadducee /b priest b who poured /b the water b on his feet, /b and in anger b all the people pelted him with their i etrogim /i . And that day, the horn of the altar was damaged /b as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. b They brought a fistful of salt and sealed /b the damaged section, b not because it rendered /b the altar b fit for the /b Temple b service, but /b in deference to the altar, b so that the altar would not be seen /b in its b damaged /b state. |
|
54. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 46a. והכהנים אומרים (דברים כא, ח) כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית [ה'] ואל תתן דם נקי בקרב עמך ישראל לא היו צריכין לומר ונכפר להם הדם אלא רוח הקודש מבשרתן אימתי שתעשו ככה הדם מתכפר להם, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ויהא מום פוסל בעגלה מקל וחומר ומה פרה שאין השנים פוסלות בה מום פוסל בה עגלה ששנים פוסלות בה אינו דין שיהא מום פוסל בה שאני התם דאמר קרא אשר אין בה מום בה מום פוסל ואין מום פוסל בעגלה,אלא מעתה לא יהו שאר עבודות פוסלות בה,אלמה א"ר יהודה אמר רב הניח עליה עודה של שקין פסולה ובעגלה עד שתמשוך שאני פרה דילפינן (דברים כא, ג) עול (במדבר יט, ב) עול מעגלה,עגלה נמי תיתי עול עול מפרה הא מיעט רחמנא בה,בעגלה נמי כתיב בה ההוא מיבעי ליה למעוטי קדשים דלא פסלה בהו עבודה סלקא דעתך אמינא ליתי בק"ו מעגלה ומה עגלה שאין מום פוסל בה עבודה פוסלת בה קדשים שמום פוסלת בהן אינו דין שעבודה פוסלת בהן,איכא למיפרך מה לעגלה שכן שנים פוסלות בה אטו קדשים מי ליכא דפסלי בהו שנים כי איצטריך קרא להנך קדשים דפסלה בהו שנים,וקדשים דלא פסלה בהו עבודה מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (ויקרא כב, כב) עורת או שבור או חרוץ או יבלת או גרב או ילפת לא תקריבו אלה לה' אלה אי אתה מקריב אבל אתה מקריב קדשים שנעבדה בהן עבודה איצטריך סד"א ה"מ היכא דעבד בהן עבודת היתר אבל עבודת איסור אימא ליתסרו צריכא,והא נמי מהכא נפקא (ויקרא כב, כה) ומיד בן נכר לא תקריבו את לחם אלהיכם מכל אלה אלה אי אתה מקריב אבל אתה מקריב קדשים שנעבדה בהן עבודה,איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הני מילי היכא דעבד בהן כשהן חולין אבל עבד בהן כשהן קדשים אימא ליתסרו צריכא,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הניח עליה עודה של שקין פסולה ובעגלה עד שתמשוך מיתיבי עול אין לי אלא עול שאר עבודות מנין אמרת ק"ו ומה עגלה שאין מום פוסל בה שאר עבודות פוסלות בה פרה שמום פוסל בה אינו דין ששאר עבודות פוסלין בה,ואם נפשך לומר נאמר כאן עול ונאמר להלן עול מה להלן שאר עבודות פוסלות בה אף כאן שאר עבודות פוסלות,מאי אם נפשך לומר וכי תימא איכא למיפרך מה לעגלה שכן שנים פוסלות בה אי נמי קדשים יוכיחו שמום פוסל בהן ואין עבודה פוסלת בהן,נאמר כאן עול ונאמר להלן עול מה להלן שאר עבודות אף כאן שאר עבודות וממקום שבאתה מה להלן עד שתמשוך אף כאן עד שתמשוך,תנאי היא דאיכא דמייתי לה מעגלה איכא דמייתי לה מגופה דפרה,דתניא עול אין לי אלא עול שאר עבודות מנין ת"ל (במדבר יט, ב) אשר לא עלה עליה עול מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל עול עול פוסל בין בשעת עבודה בין שלא בשעת עבודה שאר עבודות אין פוסלות אלא בשעת עבודה,ואימא אשר לא עלה עליה כלל עול פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עול אין מידי אחרינא לא אשר רבויא הוא,ותניא נמי גבי עגלה כי האי גוונא עול אין לי אלא עול שאר עבודות מנין ת"ל (דברים כא, ג) אשר לא עובד בה מ"מ א"כ מה ת"ל עול עול פוסל בין בשעת עבודה בין שלא בשעת עבודה שאר עבודות אין פוסלות אלא בשעת עבודה,ואימא אשר לא עובד בה כלל עול פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עול אין מידי אחרינא לא אשר רבויא הוא,א"ר אבהו בעי מיניה מר' יוחנן משיכת עול בכמה א"ל כמלא עול איבעיא להו לארכו או לרחבו אמר להו ההוא מרבנן ור' יעקב שמיה לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוחנן משיכת עול לרחבו טפח,ולימא טפח הא קמ"ל שיעורא דעול טפח הוי למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר,א"ר יוחנן בן שאול מפני מה אמרה תורה הביא עגלה בנחל אמר הקב"ה יבא דבר שלא עשה פירות ויערף במקום שאין עושה פירות ויכפר על מי שלא הניחו לעשות פירות מאי פירות אילימא פריה ורביה אלא מעתה אזקן ואסריס ה"נ דלא ערפינן אלא מצות,ומורידין אותה אל נחל איתן איתן כמשמעו קשה תנו רבנן מנין לאיתן שהוא קשה שנאמר | 46a. b And the priests recite: “Forgive, Lord, Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Your people Israel” /b (Deuteronomy 21:8). b They did not have to recite /b the conclusion of the verse: b “And the blood shall be forgiven for them,” /b as this is not part of the priests’ statement, b but /b rather b the Divine Spirit informs them: When you shall do so, the blood is forgiven for you. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s statement that the heifer is not disqualified by a blemish, the Gemara suggests: b And a blemish should disqualify in /b the case of the b heifer, by /b means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference: b And if /b in the case of the red heifer, b which is not disqualified /b by b years, /b as it may be of any age, and yet b a blemish disqualifies it, /b then b a heifer /b for this ritual, b which is disqualified by years, /b as it is valid only until two years of age, b is it not logical that a blemish should disqualify it? /b The Gemara answers: It b is different there, /b in the case of the red heifer, b as the verse states: “Wherein [ i bah /i ] has no blemish” /b (Numbers 19:2). This serves as an exclusion and teaches that it is only b with regard to it [ i bah /i ] /b that b a blemish is disqualifying, but a blemish is not disqualifying with regard to /b the b heifer /b of the ritual of the breaking of the neck.,The Gemara asks: b However, if that is so, /b if the word “ i bah /i ” precludes a derivation by an i a fortiori /i inference, then any b other labor /b performed with the red heifer, apart from pulling a yoke, b should not disqualify it. /b While the verse disqualifies a red heifer only if it pulled a yoke, as it states: “And upon which never came a yoke” (Numbers 19:2), a similar i a fortiori /i inference could be learned from the heifer whose neck is to be broken to disqualify a red heifer that has performed any labor. However, since the verse states with regard to the heifer whose neck is to be broken: “That has not been worked with [ i bah /i ]” (Deuteronomy 21:3), this indicates that labor is disqualifying only for “ i bah /i ,” a heifer whose neck is to be broken, but not for a red heifer., b Why, /b then, does b Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav says: /b If b he placed a bundle [ i uda /i ] of sacks on /b a red heifer b , /b the heifer is immediately b disqualified /b from being used as the red heifer; b and /b as b for the heifer /b whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified by such labor b until it pulls /b and moves the burden, as the verse states: “That has not pulled a yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3). Why does bearing the weight of the bundle disqualify the red heifer? The Gemara explains: The i halakha /i with regard to the red b heifer is different, as we learn /b by a verbal analogy between the word b “yoke” /b used with regard to the red heifer and the word b “yoke” /b used with regard b to /b the b heifer /b whose neck is broken that any labor disqualifies the former.,The Gemara raises an objection: If there is a verbal analogy between the red heifer and the heifer that will have its neck broken, then the i halakha /i that a blemish should disqualify the heifer whose neck is broken b should also be derived /b from the usage of b “yoke” /b with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken and b from /b the usage of b “yoke” /b with regard b to /b the red b heifer. /b The Gemara answers: b The Merciful One has excluded /b this possibility by placing in the verse the word b “ i bah /i ,” /b which indicates that disqualification due to blemish applies only to the red heifer and not to the heifer whose neck is broken.,The Gemara counters this claim: b In /b the verse concerning b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, the Torah b also writes “ i bah /i ”; /b it should be the case that forms of labor other than pulling a yoke are disqualifying only with regard to it and not with regard to the red heifer. The Gemara answers: b That /b word “ i bah /i ” b is required by /b Rav Yehuda in order b to exclude sacred /b offerings, i.e., b which are not disqualified by labor, /b and one may bring an animal that has been used for labor as an offering. b It might enter your mind to say /b that this b should be derived by an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from a heifer /b whose neck is broken, as follows: b And if /b with regard to b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, b which is not disqualified by a blemish, labor /b nevertheless b disqualifies it, /b then with regard to b sacred /b offerings, b which are disqualified by a blemish, is it not right that labor should disqualify them? /b In order to counter this argument, the word “ i bah /i ” teaches us that a sacred offering is not disqualified by labor.,With regard to this suggested i a fortiori /i inference, the Gemara observes that b it can be refuted /b in the following manner: b What /b about the fact that b a heifer /b whose neck is broken b is disqualified by years, /b as once it reaches two years of age it is no longer classified as a heifer? As it is clear that the heifer whose neck is to be broken carries some restrictions that do not apply to sacred offerings, perhaps being disqualified by labor is another such restriction. The Gemara refutes this argument: b Is that to say that there are no sacred /b offerings b that are disqualified by years? /b There are several offerings that may be brought only in their first or second year, and b where the verse is necessary /b to teach that sacred offerings are not disqualified by labor, it is with regard to b those sacred /b offerings b that are disqualified by years. /b ,The Gemara raises an objection: b But is /b the i halakha /i b that sacred /b offerings b are not disqualified by labor derived from this /b verse? b It is derived from elsewhere. /b The verse states with regard to sacred offerings: b “Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wart, or scabbed, or scurvy, you shall not offer these to the Lord” /b (Leviticus 22:22). This verse serves to create an exclusion, teaching that it is b these /b that b you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice sacred /b animals b that have been used for labor. /b The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b to state the i halakha /i twice. b It might enter your mind to say /b that b this /b i halakha /i , that one may sacrifice animals that have been used for labor, b applies only /b in a case where b they were used for permitted labor, but /b if they were used for b prohibited labor, /b e.g., on Shabbat, you might b say that it is prohibited /b to bring b them /b as offerings. In order to refute this argument, it is b necessary /b to state the i halakha /i again.,The Gemara poses another question: b But this /b i halakha /i that prohibited labor does not disqualify offerings b is also derived from here, /b a verse with regard to the sacrifice of blemished animals: b “And from the hand of a stranger you shall not offer the bread of your God from any of these, because… /b there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25). This verse emphasizes that it is only b “these,” /b i.e., blemished animals, that b you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice sacred /b animals b that have been used for labor. /b Since this verse is discussing the possibility of accepting offerings from a gentile, who presumably also performed prohibited labor with the animal, this demonstrates that prohibited labor does not disqualify animals from being sacrificed as offerings.,The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i a third time. b It might enter your mind to say: This /b i halakha /i , that labor does not disqualify offerings, b applies /b only where b one performed labor with them when they were non-sacred /b and afterward dedicated them as offerings, b but /b if b one performed labor with them when they were /b already b sacred /b animals, you might b say that it is prohibited /b to bring b them /b as offerings. In order to refute this argument, it is b necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i in three separate places.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss b the /b matter b itself: Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b If b one placed a bundle of sacks on /b a red heifer, b it is disqualified. And /b as b for a heifer /b whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified b until it pulls /b a burden. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : It states with regard to the red heifer: “That upon which never came b a yoke” /b (Numbers 19:2). b I have /b derived b only a yoke; from where /b do I derive that other types of labor also disqualify the animal? b You /b can b say /b the following b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b And if /b with regard to b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, b which is not disqualified by a blemish, other /b types of b labor disqualify it, /b then with regard to a red b heifer, which is disqualified by a blemish, is it not right that other /b types of b labor should disqualify it? /b , b And if it is your wish to say /b that this i a fortiori /i inference is unsound, you can learn this i halakha /i by a verbal analogy: b It is stated here, /b with regard to the red heifer, b “yoke” /b (Numbers 19:2), b and it is stated there, /b with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, b “yoke” /b (Deuteronomy 21:3). b Just as there, other /b types of b labor disqualify it, so too here, /b in the case of the red heifer, b other /b types of b labor disqualify /b it.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b If it is your wish to say? /b What potential problem with the i a fortiori /i inference necessitates the verbal analogy? The Gemara explains: b And perhaps you would say /b that the i a fortiori /i inference b can be refuted /b in the following manner: b What /b is unique b about a heifer /b whose neck is broken is b that it is disqualified by years, /b which is not the case for a red heifer. b Alternatively, /b one could suggest that b sacred /b offerings b will prove /b that this inference should not be made, b as a blemish is disqualifying with regard to them, but labor is not disqualifying with regard to them. /b ,As the i a fortiori /i inference can be refuted in either of these ways, there is a need for the verbal analogy: b It is stated here “yoke,” and it is stated there “yoke.” Just as there, /b in the case of b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, b other /b types of b labor /b disqualify it, b so too, other /b types of b labor /b disqualify a red heifer. The Gemara raises an objection to this verbal analogy: b And from the place that you came /b you can offer an alternative exposition: b Just as below, /b in the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified by carrying a burden b until it pulls /b the yoke, b so too here, /b a red heifer should not be disqualified b until it pulls /b the yoke, contrary to the statement of Rav.,The Gemara answers the objection to the statement of Rav from the i baraita /i : It b is /b a dispute among b i tanna’im /i , as there are those who cite /b the source of b this /b i halakha /i , that labor disqualifies a red heifer, by verbal analogy b from a heifer /b whose neck is broken, and therefore the red heifer is disqualified only if it pulls the burden. b There are /b also b those who cite /b the source of b this /b i halakha /i b from /b a red b heifer itself, /b and consequently they disqualify the red heifer even if it did not pull the yoke.,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to a red heifer: From the term b “yoke” I have /b derived b only /b that b a yoke /b disqualifies a red heifer; b from where /b do I derive the b other /b types of b labor? The verse states: “That upon which never came a yoke” /b (Numbers 19:2). The verse could be read with a pause after the word “came,” which would teach that it is disqualified b in any case, /b no matter what labor was performed with it. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states “yoke,” /b if all forms of labor disqualify it? It teaches us that b a yoke /b placed on the animal b disqualifies /b it b whether /b the yoke was on the animal b at the time of /b performing b labor /b or b whether /b it was on the animal b not at the time of /b performing b labor, /b i.e., it was merely placed on the animal. However, b other /b types of b labor /b actions b disqualify /b animals b only at the time of /b actually performing b labor. /b Rav ruled in accordance with this opinion.,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b perhaps one can b say /b a different exposition of the verse: b “That upon which never came” /b is b a generalization /b that disqualifies the animal after any type of labor, while b “yoke” /b is b a detail. /b There is b a generalization and a detail, /b and the principle of halakhic exposition in that case is that b there is nothing in the generalization other /b than b what is in the detail. /b Therefore, with regard to b a yoke, yes, /b it will disqualify an animal from being used as a red heifer; but with regard to b anything else, no, /b it will not disqualify the animal. The Gemara answers: b “That /b upon which never came” b is an amplification, /b and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details.,The Gemara comments: b And a case like this is also taught in /b a i baraita /i b with regard to a heifer /b whose neck is broken: From the word b “yoke” I have /b derived b only /b that b a yoke /b disqualifies; b from where /b do I derive the b other /b types of b labor? The /b same b verse states: “That has not been worked with” /b (Deuteronomy 21:3), to teach that it is disqualified b in any case, /b no matter what labor was performed with it. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states “yoke”? /b It serves to teach us that b a yoke /b placed on the animal b disqualifies /b it b whether /b the yoke was on the animal b at the time of /b performing b labor or whether /b it was on the animal b not at the time of performing labor, /b i.e., it was merely placed on the animal, whereas b other /b types of b labor /b actions b disqualify /b animals b only at the time of /b actually performing b labor. /b ,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b perhaps one can b say /b a different exposition of the verse: b “That has not been worked with” /b is b a generalization /b that disqualifies the animal after any type of labor, while b “yoke” /b is b a detail. /b There is b a generalization and a detail, /b and the principle of halakhic exposition in that case is that b there is nothing in the generalization other /b than b what is in the detail, /b which means: With regard to b a yoke, yes, /b it will disqualify an animal, but with regard to b anything else, no, /b it will not disqualify it. The Gemara answers: The phrase b “that /b has not been worked with” b is an amplification, /b and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details., b Rabbi Abbahu said: I asked of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b This b pulling of a yoke /b that disqualifies a heifer whose neck is broken, b with how much, /b i.e., how far, must the animal pull the yoke for it to be disqualified? b He said to me: Like /b the measure of the size of b a full yoke. A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: Does this mean according b to its length or /b according b to its width? One of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to them: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥa himself: The pulling of a yoke is /b according b to its width, /b which is b a handbreadth. /b ,The Gemara poses a question: b And /b since he stated a fixed measurement, b let him /b merely b state: A handbreadth. /b Why was it necessary to add that this is the width of a yoke? The Gemara answers: b This teaches us /b that b the measure /b of b a yoke /b along its width b is a handbreadth. What difference is there /b in knowing this fact? This teaches that b in /b the case of b commercial transactions, /b a buyer may retract his purchase if the yoke he was given is less than a handbreadth wide., b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Shaul says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b to b bring a heifer /b whose neck is broken b to a stream? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let something that did not produce fruit, /b i.e., a heifer that has not given birth, b come and /b have its neck b be broken at /b a stream that flows forcefully, which is b a place that does not produce fruit, and atone for /b the murder of b one who was not given an opportunity to produce fruit. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is this b fruit /b that he was not given an opportunity to produce? b If we say /b it refers to b being fruitful and multiplying, /b i.e., that the killer prevented him from having more children, b but if that is so, /b in the case b of an elderly person or a eunuch, so too /b will you say b that we do not break /b the heifer’s neck because they could not have had any more children even had they lived? b Rather, /b the fruit are b mitzvot, /b as the killer deprived the victim of the opportunity to perform additional mitzvot.,The mishna taught: b And they bring it down to a stream /b that is b i eitan /i . i Eitan /i /b in this context means b as /b the word generally b indicates, /b forceful. b The Sages taught: From where /b is it derived b that i eitan /i is forceful? /b It is b as /b it b is stated: /b |
|
55. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 42b. כולהו נמי טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו,אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולי' בעי דליכפריה והאי דלא כפריה משום דאינו מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו,ובכוליה בעי דלודי ליה והאי דלא אודי ליה אישתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט מיניה סבר עד דהוי לי זוזי ופרענא ליה ורחמנא אמר רמי שבועה עילויה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה,ר' אליעזר בן יעקב סבר לא שנא בו ולא שנא בבנו אינו מעיז והלכך לאו משיב אבידה הוא ורבנן סברי בפניו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בפני בנו מעיז ומדלא מעיז משיב אבידה הוא,מי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא קתני רישא מנה לאבא בידך אין לך בידי אלא חמשים דינר פטור מפני שמשיב אבידה הוא התם דלא אמר ברי לי הכא דאמר ברי לי,שמואל אמר לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש,לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן תנינא מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה תרתי למה לי,הא קמשמע לן כדאביי קשישא דתני אביי קשישא יתומין שאמרו גדולים ואין צריך לומר קטנים בין לשבועה בין לזיבורית,להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש תנינא מנכסים משועבדים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה ומה לי משועבדים להדיוט ומה לי משועבדים לגבוה,איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הדיוט הוא דאדם עושה קנוניא על הדיוט אבל הקדש דאין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש קא משמע לן,והאמר רב הונא שכיב מרע שהקדיש כל נכסיו ואמר מנה לפלוני בידי נאמן חזקה אין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש אמרי ה"מ שכיב מרע דאין אדם חוטא ולא לו אבל גבי בריא ודאי חיישינן:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ואלו דברים שאין נשבעין עליהן העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וההקדשות אין בהן תשלומי כפל ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שומר חנם אינו נשבע נושא שכר אינו משלם,ר' שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן נשבעין עליהן ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין נשבעין עליהן,רבי מאיר אומר יש דברים שהן בקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש רבי מאיר מחייב שבועה וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע,אין נשבעין אלא על דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין כיצד בית מלא מסרתי לך וכיס מלא מסרתי לך והלה אומר איני יודע אלא מה שהנחת אתה נוטל פטור זה אומר עד הזיז וזה אומר עד החלון חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תשלומי כפל מנלן דתנו רבנן (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל על שור ועל חמור ועל שה ועל שלמה פרט על כל אבדה חזר וכלל,כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון,יצאו קרקעות שאין מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאע"פ שהן מטלטלין אין גופן ממון הקדש רעהו כתיב:,(ולא תשלומי כפל) ולא ארבעה וחמשה: מ"ט תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אמר רחמנא ולא תשלומי שלשה וארבעה:,שומר חנם אינו נשבע: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן | 42b. The Gemara challenges: b All /b other cases where the defendant is required to take an oath due to a partial admission are b also /b cases of b a claim of others and his own admission. /b Yet in the i baraita /i Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the term: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of an oath due to a partial admission.,The Gemara answers: b Rather, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis b disagree with regard to /b the statement b of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? /b It is because there is b a presumption /b that b a person does not exhibit insolence /b by lying b in the presence of his creditor, /b who did him a favor by lending money to him. b And this /b person who denies part of the claim actually b wants to deny all of /b the debt, so as to be exempt, b and this /b fact, i.e., b that he does not deny /b all of b it, /b is b because a person does not exhibit insolence in the presence of his creditor. /b ,Rabba continues: b And /b in order not to exhibit insolence, he b wants to admit to /b the creditor b with regard to all of /b the debt; b and this /b fact, i.e., b that he did not admit /b the entire debt b to him, /b is because he may be temporarily b avoiding /b paying b him. /b He b rationalizes /b doing so by saying to himself: I am avoiding him only b until /b the time b that I have /b enough b money, and /b then b I will repay him. And /b therefore, b the Merciful One says /b in the Torah: b Impose an oath on him in order /b to induce the debtor b to admit the entire /b debt b to him. /b ,With regard to this principle, b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains: /b It b is no different with regard to /b the creditor b himself, and /b it b is no different with regard to his son; /b the debtor b would not exhibit insolence /b and deny the debt. b And therefore, he is not /b deemed as b one returning a lost item /b on his own initiative; rather, this is an ordinary case where one admits to a part of a claim and is therefore required to take an oath. b And the Rabbis maintain: It is in the presence of /b the original creditor b that /b one b would not exhibit insolence; but in the presence of his son, /b who did not lend him the money, he would b exhibit insolence /b and deny the claim entirely. b And since /b this debtor b is not exhibiting insolence, /b as he could have denied the loan completely but instead is opting to admit to part of the claim, b he is /b deemed as b one returning a lost item, /b and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.,The Gemara asks: b Can you interpret /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? Isn’t it taught /b in b the former clause /b that if the claimant said: My late b father had one hundred dinars in your possession, /b and the defendant responded: b You have only fifty dinars in my possession, /b he is b exempt /b from taking an oath, b as he is /b like b one returning a lost item? /b The Gemara answers: b There, /b it is referring to a case b where /b the claimant b did not say: I am certain /b that you owe my father this money, but rather made an uncertain claim. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov agrees that the defendant is like one returning a lost item. b Here, /b by contrast, it is a case b where he said: I am certain /b that you owe him.,Returning to the Gemara’s question with regard to the last clause of the mishna, which states that one takes an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury, b Shmuel said /b a different answer: When the mishna spoke about taking an oath b to a minor, /b it was referring to a case where the debtor died; the creditor must take an oath to the minor heir attesting that he was not repaid in order b to collect from /b the b minor’s property. /b Similarly, if one’s debtor consecrated his property, he takes an oath b to /b a representative of b the Temple /b treasury in order b to collect from the consecrated property. /b ,The Gemara challenges: The i halakha /i that one takes an oath b to a minor /b in order b to collect from a minor’s property /b is one that b we learn /b in the mishna (45a): A woman who comes to collect the payment for her marriage contract b from the property of orphans collects only by means of an oath. Why do I /b need b two /b i mishnayot /i to teach this i halakha /i ?,The Gemara answers: By mentioning this i halakha /i twice, the Mishna b teaches us this: /b The i halakha /i applies with regard to both minor and adult orphans, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Abaye the Elder; as Abaye the Elder taught: /b The b orphans of which /b the Sages b spoke /b are b adult /b orphans, b and needless to say, /b the same i halakha /i also applies to b minor /b orphans. This principle applies b with regard to both /b the i halakha /i that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only by means of b an oath, and to /b the i halakha /i that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only from b inferior-quality /b land.,With regard to Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna that one takes an oath b to /b a representative of b the Temple /b treasury in order b to collect /b a debt b from consecrated property, /b the Gemara asks: b We learn /b this i halakha /i in the mishna (45a): b From liened property /b that has been sold one b collects /b a debt b only by means of an oath. And what /b difference is it b to me /b whether the property was b liened to an ordinary /b person, b and what /b difference is it b to me /b whether the property was b liened to the Most High, /b i.e., it was consecrated?,The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b for this i halakha /i to be stated separately with regard to collecting a debt from the Temple treasury. Otherwise it might b enter your mind to say /b that b it is /b specifically in order to collect a debt from b an ordinary /b person that one is required to take an oath, b as a person /b is liable to b collude /b with another b against an ordinary /b person who purchased property, by producing a promissory note for a debt that was already repaid in order to collect property from the purchasers of land that had been liened to that debt. b But /b one might have thought that in order to collect a debt from the b Temple /b treasury, a person is not required to take an oath, b as a person does not collude /b with another b against /b the b Temple /b treasury. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that one is required to take an oath even in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, as one is suspected of collusion in this case as well.,The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t Rav Huna say /b that in the case of b a person on his deathbed who consecrated all of his property, and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, /b his statement is b deemed credible, /b as the b presumption /b is that b a person does not collude /b with another b against /b the b Temple /b treasury? The Sages b said /b in response: b That statement /b applies only in the case of b a person on his deathbed, as a person sins only for his own /b benefit. One is not suspected of deceiving the Temple treasury for the benefit of his heirs. b But with regard to a healthy person, we are certainly concerned /b about collusion, even against the Temple treasury., strong MISHNA: /strong b And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath /b by Torah law: Canaanite b slaves, and /b ficial b documents, and land, and consecrated /b property. b In /b a case where b these /b items are stolen, b there is no payment of double /b the principal, b nor is there payment of four or five /b times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it. b An unpaid bailee /b who lost one of these items b does not take an oath /b that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and b a paid bailee does not pay /b for the loss or theft of one of these items., b Rabbi Shimon says /b there is a distinction between different types of consecrated property: With regard to b consecrated /b property b for which /b one b bears /b the ficial b responsibility /b to compensate the Temple treasury in the event b of their /b loss, such as in a case where he vowed to bring an offering and then set aside an animal to be sacrificed in fulfillment of the vow, b one takes an oath concerning them, /b as they are considered his own property. b But /b with regard to consecrated property b for which /b he b does not bear /b the ficial b responsibility for their /b loss, b one does not take an oath concerning them. /b , b Rabbi Meir says: There are /b certain b items that are /b physically b on the land but are not /b treated b like land /b from a halakhic perspective, b and the Rabbis do not concede to him /b concerning this point. b How so? /b If one makes the claim: b I assigned you ten grapevines laden /b with fruit to safeguard, b and the other one says: They are only five /b vines, b Rabbi Meir deems /b the defendant b liable /b to take b an oath, /b as he admitted to a part of the claim, and although the claim concerned grapevines, the primary aspect of the claim was the grapes. b And the Rabbis say: /b The halakhic status of b anything that is attached to the land is like the land /b itself, and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath., b One takes an oath only concerning an item that is /b defined b by size, by weight, or by number. How so? /b If the claimant says: b I transferred to you a house full /b of produce, b or: I transferred to you a pouch full /b of money, b and the other /b person b says: I do not know /b how much you gave me, b but what you left /b in my possession b you may take, /b and the amount in the house or pouch at that time is less than that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is b exempt /b from taking an oath, as the amounts in the claim and the admission are undefined. But if b this /b party b says /b that the house was full b up to the ledge, and that /b party b says /b that it was full b up to the window, /b the defendant is b liable /b to take an oath, as the dispute relates to a defined amount., strong GEMARA: /strong b From where do we /b derive that one is exempt from the b payment of double /b the principal with regard to the items mentioned in the mishna? It is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For every matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing…he shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The phrase b “for every matter of trespass” is a generalization; /b the phrase b “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing” is a detail; /b and when the verse states: b “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalized again. /b ,Consequently, this verse contains b a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, /b and one of the thirteen principles of exegesis states that in such a case b you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. /b Applying this principle here, one may conclude that b just as /b each of the items mentioned in the b detail /b is clearly b defined as an item that is movable /b property b and has intrinsic monetary /b value, b so too, anything that is movable /b property b and has intrinsic monetary /b value is subject to double payment., b Land is /b therefore b excluded, as it is not movable property. /b Canaanite b slaves are /b also b excluded, as they are compared to land /b in many areas of i halakha /i . Ficial b documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary /b value. The value of the paper itself is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof of monetary claims. Finally, b consecrated /b property is excluded because it b is written /b in the verse: “He shall pay double to b his neighbor,” /b i.e., to his fellow man, but not to a representative of the Temple treasury.,The mishna teaches: b And there is no payment of double /b the principal, b nor /b is there payment of b four or five /b times the principal for stealing consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the exclusion of the payment of four or five times the principal? The Gemara answers: Since payment of double the principal is excluded, that leaves, in a case where one steals and then slaughters or sells a consecrated animal, a total payment of only three or four times the principal, as the payment of double the principal is included in the larger payment for selling or slaughtering it. Therefore, since b the Merciful One states /b in the Torah b fourfold or fivefold payment, and not threefold or fourfold payment, /b one who steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it or sells it is exempt from the additional payments.,§ The mishna teaches: b An unpaid bailee /b who lost one of the excluded items b does not take an oath. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? The Gemara answers that it is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : |
|
56. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 263| 152b. כל יומא הוה דבר רב יהודה בי עשרה ויתבי בדוכתיה לאחר שבעה ימים איתחזי ליה בחילמיה דרב יהודה ואמר ליה תנוח דעתך שהנחת את דעתי,א"ר אבהו כל שאומרים בפני המת יודע עד שיסתם הגולל פליגי בה רבי חייא ור"ש ברבי חד אמר עד שיסתם הגולל וחד אמר עד שיתעכל הבשר,מאן דאמר עד שיתעכל הבשר דכתיב (איוב יד, כב) אך בשרו עליו יכאב ונפשו עליו תאבל מאן דאמר עד שיסתם הגולל דכתיב (קהלת יב, ז) וישוב העפר על הארץ כשהיה וגו',ת"ר (קהלת יב, ז) והרוח תשוב אל האלהים אשר נתנה תנה לו כמו שנתנה לך בטהרה אף אתה בטהרה משל למלך ב"ו שחלק בגדי מלכות לעבדיו פקחין שבהן קיפלום והניחום בקופסא טפשים שבהן הלכו ועשו בהן מלאכה לימים ביקש המלך את כליו פקחין שבהן החזירום לו כשהן מגוהצין טפשין שבהן החזירום לו כשהן מלוכלכין שמח המלך לקראת פקחין וכעס לקראת טפשין,על פקחין אמר ינתנו כלי לאוצר והם ילכו לבתיהם לשלום ועל טפשין אמר כלי ינתנו לכובס והן יתחבשו בבית האסורים,אף הקב"ה על גופן של צדיקים אומר (ישעיהו נז, ב) יבא שלום ינוחו על משכבותם ועל נשמתן הוא אומר (שמואל א כה, כט) והיתה נפש אדוני צרורה בצרור החיים על גופן של רשעים הוא אומר (ישעיהו מח, כב) אין שלום אמר ה' לרשעים ועל נשמתן הוא אומר (שמואל א כה, כט) ואת נפש אויביך יקלענה בתוך כף הקלע,תניא ר' אליעזר אומר נשמתן של צדיקים גנוזות תחת כסא הכבוד שנאמר והיתה נפש אדני צרורה בצרור החיים ושל רשעים זוממות והולכות [ומלאך אחד עומד בסוף העולם ומלאך אחר עומד בסוף העולם ומקלעין נשמתן זה לזה] שנא' ואת נפש אויביך יקלענה בתוך כף הקלע,א"ל רבה לר"נ של בינונים מאי א"ל איכא שכיבנא לא אמרי לכו האי מילתא הכי אמר שמואל אלו ואלו לדומה נמסרין הללו יש להן מנוח הללו אין להן מנוח אמר (ליה) רב מרי עתידים צדיקים דהוו עפרא דכתיב (קהלת יב, ז) וישוב העפר על הארץ כשהיה,הנהו קפולאי דהוו קפלי בארעא דרב נחמן) נחר בהו רב אחאי בר יאשיה אתו ואמרו ליה לרב נחמן נחר בן גברא אתא ואמר ליה מאן ניהו מר אמר ליה אנא אחאי בר יאשיה א"ל ולאו אמר רב מרי עתידי צדיקי דהוו עפרא א"ל ומני מרי דלא ידענא ליה א"ל והא קרא כתיב וישוב העפר על הארץ כשהיה,אמר ליה דאקרייך קהלת לא אקרייך משלי דכתיב (משלי יד, ל) ורקב עצמות קנאה כל מי שיש לו קנאה בלבו עצמותיו מרקיבים כל שאין לו קנאה בלבו אין עצמותיו מרקיבים,גששיה חזייה דאית ביה מששא אמר ליה ליקום מר לגוויה דביתא אמר ליה גלית אדעתך דאפילו נביאי לא קרית דכתיב (יחזקאל לז, יג) וידעתם כי אני ה' בפתחי את קברותיכם,א"ל והכתיב (בראשית ג, יט) כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב א"ל ההוא שעה אחת קודם תחיית המתים,א"ל ההוא צדוקי לר' אבהו אמריתו נשמתן של צדיקים גנוזות תחת כסא הכבוד אובא טמיא היכא אסקיה לשמואל בנגידא א"ל התם בתוך שנים עשר חדש הוה דתניא כל י"ב חדש גופו קיים ונשמתו עולה ויורדת לאחר י"ב חדש הגוף בטל | 152b. b every day /b of the seven-day mourning period, b Rav Yehuda would take ten /b people b and /b they would b sit in his place, /b in the house of the deceased. b After seven days /b had passed the deceased b appeared /b to b Rav Yehuda in his dream and said to him: Put your mind to rest, for you have put my mind to rest. /b , b Rabbi Abbahu said: Everything people say before the deceased, he knows, until /b the tomb b is sealed /b with b the top-stone. Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b disagreed with regard to /b the meaning of b this /b statement. b One /b of them b said /b that the deceased is aware b until /b the tomb b is sealed /b with b the top-stone, /b which is referring to the covering of the grave ( i Tosafot /i ). b And one /b of them b said /b that it is b until the flesh decomposes. /b , b The one who said /b that it is b until the flesh decomposes /b can support his position based on that b which is written /b in the following verse: b “But his flesh grieves for him, and his soul mourns over him” /b (Job 14:22). This indicates that the deceased is aware of the pain of his flesh in the grave. b The one /b who b said /b that the deceased is aware only b until /b the tomb b is sealed /b with b the top-stone /b can support his view based on that b which is written /b in a different verse: b “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, /b and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7). This indicates that when the body returns to the earth, the spirit also returns to its place and is no longer aware of what is happening to the body., b The Sages taught /b with regard to the verse: b “And the spirit returns to God who gave it” /b (Ecclesiastes 12:7) that the words: Who gave it, mean: As it was given. In other words, b give it to Him as He gave it to you; /b just as He gave it to you b in purity, you too /b should return it to God b in purity. /b The Gemara cites b a parable of a king of flesh and blood who distributed royal garments to his servants. The wise ones folded them and placed them in a box [ i kufsa /i ] /b to protect them, whereas b the foolish ones went and worked in them. /b After b a period of time the king requested /b that b his garments /b be returned to him. The b wise ones returned them to him pressed, /b as they were when the servants received them, and b the foolish ones returned them dirty. The king was happy to greet the wise ones and angry to greet the foolish ones. /b , b With regard to the wise ones he said: My garments shall be given /b back b to the storehouse, and let them go to their homes in peace. And with regard to the foolish ones he said: My garments shall be given to the launderer, and they, /b the fools, b will be locked up in prison /b as a punishment for degrading the king’s garments for their own purposes., b The Holy One, Blessed be He, also /b acts in this way. b With regard to the bodies of the righteous, /b which are likened to the royal garments that are well kept, b it states: “He enters into peace, they rest on their beds /b each one that walks in his uprightness” (Isaiah 57:2). b And with regard to their souls, it states: “And the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life /b with the Lord your God” (I Samuel 25:29). And conversely, b with regard to the bodies of the wicked, it states: “There is no peace, says the Lord, for the wicked” /b (Isaiah 57:21), b and with regard to their souls, it states: “And the souls of your enemies He shall sling out in the hollow of a sling” /b (I Samuel 25:29)., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: The souls of the righteous are stored beneath the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life” /b (I Samuel 25:29). b And /b the souls b of the wicked are continuously tied up, and one angel stands at /b one b end of the world and another angel stands at /b the other b end of the world and they sling the souls /b of the wicked back and forth b to one another, as it is stated: “And the souls of your enemies He shall sling out in the hollow of a sling” /b (I Samuel 25:29)., b Rabba said to Rav Naḥman: What /b happens to the souls b of middling people, /b who are neither righteous nor wicked? Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b It is good that you asked me this question, for even b if I were dead I would not /b have been able b to tell you /b that. As b Shmuel said as follows: These and those, /b the souls of the wicked and of the middling people, b are handed over to Duma, /b the angel in charge of spirits. But b these, /b the souls of the middling people, b have rest, and these, /b the souls of the wicked, b do not have rest. Rav Mari said: /b Even the bodies of b the righteous will /b not be preserved and will b become dust, as it is written: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was” /b (Ecclesiastes 12:7).,The Gemara cites a related story: b The diggers who were digging in Rav Naḥman’s land /b came upon a grave, and b Rav Aḥai bar Yoshiya, /b who was buried there, b rebuked them. They came and said to Rav Naḥman: A /b deceased b person /b just b rebuked us. /b Rav Naḥman b came and said to /b the person buried there: b Who is the Master, /b i.e., who are you? He b said to him: I am Aḥai bar Yoshiya. /b Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b How has your body been preserved? b Didn’t Rav Mari say /b that b the righteous will turn to dust? /b Rav Aḥai b said to him: And who is Mari, whom I do not know? /b Why should I be concerned about what he says? Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b Even without Rav Mari’s statement, b there is an /b explicit b verse which is written: “And the dust will return to the earth as it was” /b (Ecclesiastes 12:7).,Rav Aḥai b said to him: Whoever taught you /b the book of b Ecclesiastes did not teach you /b the book of b Proverbs, for it is written /b in Proverbs: “A tranquil heart is the life of the flesh, b but envy is the rotting of the bones” /b (Proverbs 14:30). This means that b anyone who has envy in his heart /b during his lifetime, b his bones rot /b in the grave, and b anyone who does not have envy in his heart, his bones do not rot. /b ,Rav Naḥman b touched him /b and b saw that he had substance. /b Rav Naḥman b said to him: Let the Master arise /b and come b into my house. /b Rav Aḥai b said to him: You have revealed /b that b you have not even studied Prophets, /b and it is not just the Writings of which you are ignorant, b for it is written: “And you shall know that I am the Lord when I open up your graves /b and lift you up from your graves, My nation” (Ezekiel 37:13). As long as the dead have not been instructed to leave their graves, leaving of their own accord is prohibited.,Rav Naḥman once again asked Rav Aḥai about the preservation of the flesh, and b he said: But it is written: “For you are dust and you shall return to dust” /b (Genesis 3:19), so why has your body not turned into dust? He b said to him: That /b verse applies to the righteous only b one hour before the resurrection of the dead, /b so that they, too, may be created anew (Maharsha)., b A certain apostate /b once b said to Rabbi Abbahu: You say /b that b the souls of the righteous are stored beneath the Throne of Glory, /b but if so, b how did the oracle woman raise up Samuel using necromancy /b if his soul was no longer in this world? Rabbi Abbahu b said to him: There, it was within twelve months /b of his death, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : For b a full twelve months /b a deceased person’s b body remains and his soul ascends and descends, /b such that it is sometimes in this world with its body. b After twelve months, the body ceases /b to exist |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 3a. ואיכא למימר כולה למר ואיכא למימר כולה למר אמר סומכוס ממון המוטל בספק חולקין בלא שבועה הכא דליכא דררא דממונא דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו היא לא כ"ש,אפילו תימא סומכוס שבועה זו מדרבנן היא כדרבי יוחנן דאמר ר' יוחנן שבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ותוקף בטליתו של חבירו ואומר שלי הוא,לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי דאי כרבי יוסי הא אמר א"כ מה הפסיד רמאי אלא הכל יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו,אלא מאי רבנן כיון דאמרי רבנן השאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הא נמי כשאר דמי דספיקא היא,האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא רבנן התם דודאי האי מנה דחד מינייהו הוא אמרי רבנן יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הכא דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו הוא אמרי רבנן פלגי בשבועה,אלא אי אמרת ר' יוסי היא השתא ומה התם דבודאי איכא מנה למר ואיכא מנה למר אמר ר' יוסי יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הכא דאיכא למימר דחד מינייהו הוא לא כ"ש,אפי' תימא ר' יוסי התם ודאי איכא רמאי הכא מי יימר דאיכא רמאי אימא תרוייהו בהדי הדדי אגבהוה,אי נמי התם קניס ליה רבי יוסי לרמאי כי היכי דלודי הכא מאי פסידא אית ליה דלודי,תינח מציאה מקח וממכר מאי איכא למימר אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא,בין לרבנן ובין לר' יוסי התם גבי חנוני על פנקסו דקתני זה נשבע ונוטל וזה נשבע ונוטל,מ"ש דלא אמרינן נפקיה לממונא מבעה"ב ויהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו דהא בודאי איכא רמאי,אמרי התם היינו טעמא דאמר ליה חנוני לבעה"ב אנא שליחותא דידך קא עבדינא מאי אית לי גבי שכיר אע"ג דקא משתבע לי לא מהימן לי בשבועה את האמנתיה דלא אמרת לי בסהדי הב ליה,ושכיר נמי א"ל לבעה"ב אנא עבדי עבידתא גבך מאי אית לי גבי חנוני אע"ג דמשתבע לי לא מהימן לי הלכך תרוייהו משתבעי ושקלי מבעל הבית:,תני רבי חייא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כלום והעדים מעידים אותו שיש לו חמשים זוז נותן לו חמשים זוז וישבע על השאר,שלא תהא הודאת פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדים מק"ו,ותנא תונא שנים אוחזין בטלית זה אומר אני מצאתיה וכו' והא הכא כיון דתפיס אנן סהדי דמאי דתפיס האי דידיה הוא ומאי דתפיס האי דידיה הוא וקתני ישבע,מאי שלא תהא הודאת פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדי' מק"ו שלא תאמר הודאת פיו הוא דרמיא רחמנא שבועה עליה כדרבה,דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בע"ח והאי בכוליה בעי דנכפריה והא דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו | 3a. b and there is /b room b to say /b that b it /b belongs b entirely to one /b of them, b and there is /b also room b to say /b that b it /b belongs b entirely to /b the other b one, /b and nevertheless b Sumakhos says /b that since it is b property of uncertain ownership they divide /b it b without /b taking b an oath, /b then b here, where /b the litigants have b no ficial association /b with the item, b as there is /b room b to say that it /b belongs to b both of them, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that they should divide it without taking an oath?,The Gemara answers: b You may even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Sumakhos: This oath is /b instituted b by rabbinic /b law b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa. As Rabbi Yoḥa says: This oath, /b administered in the case of two people holding a garment, b is an ordice /b instituted b by the Sages so that everyone will not go and seize the garment of another and say: It is mine. /b ,§ The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that the mishna /b is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. As, if /b you say that the ruling is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, doesn’t he say /b that a case cannot be decided in a manner in which there is no deterrent for one taking a false claim to court (37a)? He says this with regard to a case where two people deposited money with the same person. One deposited one hundred dinars and one deposited two hundred, and the bailee forgot which of them deposited the larger sum. Subsequently, each claimed ownership of the larger sum and was prepared to take an oath to that effect. The Rabbis say that each should receive the smaller sum and the remainder should be held until Elijah the prophet prophetically resolves the uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: b If so, what did /b the b swindler lose? Rather, the entire /b deposit b will be placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes. /b ,The Gemara counters: b Rather, what /b is suggested? Is it suggested that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? b Since the Rabbis say /b there: b The remainder is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, this /b case of the mishna concerning the garment b is also comparable to the remainder /b in the case of the deposit, b as it is uncertain /b to whom the entire garment belongs. It should therefore be placed in a safe place until the matter is resolved.,The Gemara answers: b What /b is b this /b comparison? b Granted, if you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis there, /b in the case of the depositors, b where these one hundred dinars certainly belong to /b only b one of them /b and b the Rabbis say /b that b it is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, here, /b in the case of this mishna, b where there is /b room b to say that it belongs to both of them, the Rabbis say /b that b they divide /b it b with /b the proviso that they take b an oath. /b , b But if you say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, /b there is a difficulty. b Now /b consider, b if there, /b in a case b where it is certain that there are one hundred dinars /b that belong b to one /b of the litigants b and there are one hundred dinars /b that belong b to /b the other b one, /b nevertheless, b Rabbi Yosei says /b that the entire sum b is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, here, where there is /b room b to say that it /b all b belongs to /b only b one of them, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it should be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes, as one of the claims may be entirely fraudulent?,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b You may even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei: There, /b in the case of the deposit, b there is certainly a swindler /b between the two depositors. By contrast, b here, /b in the case of the mishna, b who is to say that there is a swindler? Say /b that b both of them lifted /b the garment b at the same time, /b and therefore there is no reason to penalize them by placing the garment in a safe place., b Alternatively, /b there is room to distinguish between the cases: b There, Rabbi Yosei penalizes /b the b swindler /b by confiscating his deposit b so that he will admit /b that he lied in order to receive his original deposit of one hundred dinars from the bailee. b Here, /b in the case of the garment, b what loss /b would a swindler b incur that /b would prompt him to b admit /b that he is lying? If the item is placed in a safe place, he loses nothing.,The Gemara rejects this alternative explanation: This distinction b works out well /b in the case of b a found item /b where he did not pay anything for it. Consequently, he has no incentive to admit that he lied. But in a case of b buying and selling, what is there to say? /b Both parties paid for the item and prefer to receive the item. b Rather, /b the distinction b is clearly as we explained initially. /b The difference between the cases is that in the mishna, there is no certainty that one of them is lying.,The Gemara asks: b Both according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis and according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, there, with regard to /b the case of b a storekeeper /b relying b on his ledger, /b it is unclear why the money is not held until the matter is clarified. This is referring to a case where an employer tells a storekeeper to give food to his laborer in lieu of his salary, and later the storekeeper claims that he gave it to him but the laborer claims that he did not receive it. Both parties therefore claim payment from the employer. b As /b the mishna ( i Shevuot /i 45a) b teaches /b that b this /b one, the storekeeper, b takes an oath /b that he gave the food to the laborer b and receives /b payment from the employer, b and that /b one, the laborer, b takes an oath /b that he was not given the food b and takes /b his salary from the employer., b What is different /b in that case, b that we do not say: Appropriate the money from the employer, and it is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes? /b Apparently, we should say this b because there is certainly a swindler /b among the litigants, since it is impossible that both the storekeeper and the laborer are telling the truth.,The Sages b say /b in response: b There, this is the reason /b that the money is not set aside: b Because the storekeeper can say to the employer: I carried out your agency /b to give the food to the laborer, and I have dealings only with you. b What /b business b do I have with the hired laborer? Even if he takes an oath to me /b that he did not receive the food, he is b not trustworthy to me by /b virtue of his b oath. You /b are the one who b trusted him, as you did not say to me: Give him /b the food b in /b the presence of b witnesses. /b Therefore, you are obligated to pay me. If you have a grievance, settle it with your employee., b And /b the b hired laborer can also say to the employer: I worked for you. What /b relationship b do I have with the storekeeper? Even if he takes an oath to me /b that he gave me the change, he is b not trustworthy to me /b by virtue of his oath. b Therefore, both /b parties b take an oath and take /b payment b from the employer. /b ,§ b Rabbi Ḥiyya taught /b a i baraita /i : If one says to another: b I /b have b one hundred dinars [ i maneh /i ] in your possession /b that you borrowed from me and did not repay, b and the other /b party b says: Nothing of yours /b is b in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars /b that he owes the claimant, b he gives him fifty dinars and takes an oath about the remainder, /b i.e., that he did not borrow the fifty remaining dinars from him.,This ruling is derived b via an i a fortiori /i /b inference from the i halakha /i that one who admits to part of a claim that is brought against him is obligated to take an oath that he owes no more than the amount that he admits to have borrowed. The inference is: b As the admission of one’s /b own b mouth should not /b carry b greater /b weight b than the testimony of witnesses. /b Since in this case witnesses testify that he owes an amount equal to part of the claim, he is all the more so obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the sum.,The Gemara comments: b And /b the b i tanna /i /b of the mishna also b taught /b a similar i halakha /i : In a case of b two /b people who came to court b holding a garment, /b where b this /b one b says: I found it, /b and the other one says: I found it, each litigant takes an oath and they divide the garment. b And here, /b in the case of a found item, b since /b each litigant b is holding /b part of the garment, b it is clear to us that what /b is in b this one’s grasp is his, and what /b is in b that one’s grasp is his. /b This is tantamount to witnesses testifying that part of the claim of each litigant is legitimate. b And /b the mishna b teaches /b that each of them b takes an oath. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: For b what /b reason is it necessary to have the b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b As the admission of one’s /b own b mouth should not /b carry b greater /b weight b than the testimony of witnesses? /b Isn’t the comparison to the case of an admission to part of a claim self-evident? The Gemara answers: It is necessary so b that you will not say /b that b it is /b only in a case of b the admission of one’s /b own b mouth that the Merciful One imposes an oath upon him, in accordance with /b the explanation b of Rabba. /b , b As Rabba says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to part of the claim must take an oath? /b It is because there is b a presumption /b that b a person does not exhibit insolence /b by lying b in the presence of his creditor, /b who had done him a favor by lending money to him. b And this /b person who denies part of the claim actually b wants to deny all of /b the debt, so as to be exempt, b and this /b fact b that he does not deny /b all of b it /b is b because a person does not exhibit insolence. /b |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 31b. שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה שיהו בניהם זכרים מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו הם מרבים בנים ובני בנים והיינו דאמר רב קטינא יכולני לעשות כל בני זכרים אמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לוסתה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) הן בעון חוללתי,ורבי יוחנן אמר סמוך לטבילה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) ובחטא יחמתני אמי,מאי משמע דהאי חטא לישנא דדכויי הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מט) וחטא את הבית ומתרגמינן וידכי ית ביתא ואי בעית אימא מהכא (תהלים נא, ט) תחטאני באזוב ואטהר,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו טז, א) שלחו כר מושל ארץ זכר זה כר,ואמר ר' יצחק דבי רבי אמי בא זכר בעולם בא ככרו בידו זכר זה כר דכתיב (מלכים ב ו, כג) ויכרה להם כירה גדולה,נקבה אין עמה כלום נקבה נקייה באה עד דאמרה מזוני לא יהבי לה דכתיב (בראשית ל, כח) נקבה שכרך עלי ואתנה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן אמר להן בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן,מתקיף לה רב יוסף והא מזידה היא ובחרטה תליא מילתא ועוד קרבן שבועה בעי איתויי,ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר זכר שהכל שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר,ומפני מה אמרה תורה מילה לשמונה שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים,תניא היה ר"מ אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה נדה לשבעה מפני שרגיל בה וקץ בה אמרה תורה תהא טמאה שבעה ימים כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי דוסתאי ברבי ינאי מפני מה איש מחזר על אשה ואין אשה מחזרת על איש משל לאדם שאבד לו אבידה מי מחזר על מי בעל אבידה מחזיר על אבידתו,ומפני מה איש פניו למטה ואשה פניה למעלה כלפי האיש זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,ומפני מה האיש מקבל פיוס ואין אשה מקבלת פיוס זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,מפני מה אשה קולה ערב ואין איש קולו ערב זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת שנאמר {שיר השירים ב } כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה, br br big strongהדרן עלך המפלת חתיכה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongבנות /strong /big כותים נדות מעריסתן והכותים מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון מפני שהן בועלי נדות,והן יושבות על כל דם ודם,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה מפני שטומאתן ספק, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ה"ד אי דקא חזיין אפילו דידן נמי ואי דלא קחזיין דידהו נמי לא,אמר רבא בריה דרב אחא בר רב הונא אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן בסתמא דכיון דאיכא מיעוטא דחזיין חיישינן ומאן תנא דחייש למיעוטא | 31b. b they delay /b while b in /b their wives’ b abdomen, /b initially refraining from emitting semen b so that their wives will emit seed first, /b in order b that their children will be male, the verse ascribes them /b credit b as though they have many sons and sons’ sons. And this /b statement b is /b the same as that b which Rav Ketina said: I could have made all of my children males, /b by refraining from emitting seed until my wife emitted seed first. b Rava says /b another method through which one can cause his children to be males: b One who wishes to make all of his children males should engage in intercourse /b with his wife b and repeat /b the act.,§ b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b that b Rabbi Ami says: A woman becomes pregt only /b by engaging in intercourse b close to the onset of her /b menstrual b cycle, as it is stated: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity” /b (Psalms 51:7). This iniquity is referring to intercourse close to the woman’s menstrual cycle, when intercourse is prohibited. Accordingly, David is saying that his mother presumably conceived him at this time., b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b A woman becomes pregt only by engaging in intercourse b near /b the time of her b immersion /b in a ritual bath, through which she is purified from her status as a menstruating woman, b as it is stated /b in the continuation of the same verse: b “And in sin [ i uvḥet /i ] did my mother conceive me” /b (Psalms 51:7).,The Gemara explains this derivation: b From where may /b it b be inferred that this term “ i ḥet /i ” is /b a reference b to purity? /b The Gemara answers: b As it is written /b with regard to leprosy of houses: b “ i Veḥittei /i the house” /b (Leviticus 14:52), b and we translate /b the verse into Aramaic as: b And he shall purify the house. And if you wish, say /b that the interpretation is derived b from here: “Purge me [ i teḥatte’eni /i ] with hyssop, and I shall be pure” /b (Psalms 51:9). Evidently, the root i ḥet /i , i tet /i , i alef /i refers to purification.,§ b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b that b Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, /b i.e., when a male baby is born, b peace comes to the world, as it is stated: “Send the lambs [ i khar /i ] for the ruler of the land” /b (Isaiah 16:1). This i khar /i , or i kar /i , a gift one sends the ruler, contributes to the stability of the government and peace, and the word b male [ i zakhar /i ] /b can be interpreted homiletically as an abbreviation of: b This is a i kar /i [ i zeh kar /i ]. /b , b And Rabbi Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, his loaf /b of bread, i.e., his sustece, b comes into his possession. /b In other words, a male can provide for himself. This is based on the aforementioned interpretation of the word b male [ i zakhar /i ] /b as an abbreviation of: b This is a i kar /i [ i zeh kar /i ], /b and the term i kar /i refers to sustece, b as it is written: “And he prepared great provision [ i kera /i ] for them” /b (II Kings 6:23).,By contrast, b when a female comes into the world, nothing, /b i.e., no sustece, comes b with her. /b This is derived from the homiletic interpretation of the word b female [ i nekeva /i ] /b as an abbreviation of the phrase: b She comes clean [ i nekiya ba’a /i ], /b i.e., empty. Furthermore, b until she says: /b Give me b sustece, /b people b do not give her, as it is written /b in Laban’s request of Jacob: b “Appoint me [ i nokva /i ] your wages, and I will give it” /b (Genesis 30:28). Laban used the word i nokva /i , similar to i nekeva /i , when he said that he would pay Jacob only if he explicitly demanded his wages., b The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b a woman after childbirth brings an offering? He said to them: At the time that /b a woman b crouches to give birth, /b her pain is so great that b she impulsively takes an oath that she will not engage in intercourse with her husband /b ever again, so that she will never again experience this pain. b Therefore, the Torah says /b that b she must bring an offering /b for violating her oath and continuing to engage in intercourse with her husband., b Rav Yosef objects to this /b answer: b But isn’t /b the woman b an intentional violator /b of her oath? b And /b if she wishes that her oath be dissolved, so that she may engage in intercourse with her husband, b the matter depends on /b her b regret /b of her oath. One is obligated to bring an offering for violating an oath of an utterance only if his transgression is unwitting. b And furthermore, /b if the purpose of the offering that a woman brings after childbirth is to atone for violating an oath, then b she /b should be b required to bring /b a female lamb or goat as b an offering, /b which is the requirement of one who violated b an oath, /b rather than the bird offering brought by a woman after childbirth., b And /b the students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai further inquired of him: b For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that a woman who gives birth to b a male /b is ritually impure b for seven /b days, b but /b a woman who gives birth to b a female /b is impure b for fourteen /b days? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai answered them: When a woman gives birth to b a male, over which everyone is happy, she regrets /b her oath, that she will never again engage in intercourse with her husband, already b seven /b days after giving birth. By contrast, after giving birth to b a female, over which everyone is unhappy, she regrets /b her oath only b fourteen /b days after giving birth., b And /b the students further asked him: b For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b circumcision /b is performed only b on the eighth /b day of the baby’s life, and not beforehand? He answered them: It is b so that /b there b will not be /b a situation where b everyone /b is b happy /b at the circumcision ceremony b but the father and mother of /b the infant b are unhappy, /b as they are still prohibited from engaging in intercourse., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b a menstruating woman /b is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband b for seven /b days? It is b because /b if a woman were permitted to engage in intercourse with her husband all the time, her husband would be too b accustomed to her, and /b would eventually be b repulsed by her. /b Therefore, b the Torah says /b that a menstruating woman b shall be ritually impure /b for b seven days, /b during which she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband, b so that /b when she becomes pure again b she will be dear to her husband as /b at b the time when she entered the wedding canopy /b with him.,§ b The students of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, asked him: For what /b reason is it the norm that b a man pursues a woman /b for marriage, b but a woman does not pursue a man? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them by citing b a parable of a person who lost an item. Who searches for what? /b Certainly b the owner of the lost item searches for his item; /b the item does not search for its owner. Since the first woman was created from the body of the first man, the man seeks that which he has lost., b And /b the students of Rabbi Dostai further asked him: b For what /b reason does b a man /b engage in intercourse b facing down, and a woman /b engage in intercourse b facing up toward the man? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them: b This /b man faces b the place from which he was created, /b i.e., the earth, b and that /b woman faces b the place from which she was created, /b namely man., b And /b the students also inquired: b For what /b reason is b a man /b who is angry likely to b accept appeasement, but a woman /b is b not /b as likely to b accept appeasement? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them: It is b because this /b man behaves like b the place from which he was created, /b i.e., the earth, which yields to pressure, b and that /b woman behaves like b the place from which she was created, /b i.e., from bone, which cannot be molded easily.,The students continued to ask Rabbi Dostai: b For what /b reason b is a woman’s voice pleasant, but a man’s voice is not pleasant? /b He answered: b This /b man is similar to b the place from which he was created, /b the earth, which does not issue a sound when it is struck, b and that /b woman is similar to b the place from which she was created, /b a bone, which makes a sound when it is struck. The proof that a woman’s voice is pleasant is b that it is stated /b in Song of Songs that the man says to his beloved: b “For sweet is your voice, and your countece is beautiful” /b (Song of Songs 2:14).,, strong MISHNA: /strong Samaritan b girls /b are considered b menstruating women from /b the time they lie in b their cradle. And the Samaritan /b men b impart ritual impurity /b to the b lower bedding like the upper /b bedding, i.e., all layers of bedding beneath them are impure, and their status is like the bedding above a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ i zav /i ]: The status of both levels of bedding is that of first-degree ritual impurity, which can impart impurity to food and drink. This is b due to /b the fact b that /b Samaritan men are considered men who b engage in intercourse with menstruating women. /b , b And /b they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because Samaritan women b observe /b the seven-day menstrual period of ritual impurity b for each and every /b emission of b blood, /b even for blood that does not render them impure. Accordingly, if a Samaritan woman has an emission of impure blood during the seven-day period, she will nevertheless continue counting seven days from the first emission. It is therefore possible that the Samaritan men will engage in intercourse with their wives while they are still halakhically considered menstruating women, as the seven-day period of impurity should have been counted from the emission of the impure blood., b But /b one who enters the Temple while wearing b those /b garments upon which a Samaritan had lain b is not liable /b to bring an offering b for entering the Temple /b in a status of impurity, b nor does one burn i teruma /i /b that came into contact with b those /b garments, b because their impurity /b is b uncertain. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of this statement? b If /b the mishna is referring to girls b who /b already b see /b menstrual blood, then b even our own, /b i.e., Jewish girls, are b also /b considered menstruating women under such circumstances. b And if /b it is referring to girls b who do not /b yet b see /b menstrual blood, then b their /b girls, i.e., those of the Samaritans, should b also not /b have the status of menstruating women., b Rava, son of Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, says /b that b Rav Sheshet says: Here we are dealing with an unspecified /b case, i.e., it is unknown whether these girls have experienced their first menstrual period. b Since there is a minority /b of girls b who see /b menstrual blood, b we are concerned /b with regard to each Samaritan girl that she might be from this minority. The Gemara asks: b And who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught that one must be concerned for the minority? /b |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 266, 274| 119a. זה המכיר מקום חבירו בישיבה איכא דאמרי אמר ר"א זה המקבל פני חבירו בישיבה,מאי למכסה עתיק (יומין) זה המכסה דברים שכיסה עתיק יומין ומאי נינהו סתרי תורה ואיכא דאמרי זה המגלה דברים שכיסה עתיק יומין מאי נינהו טעמי תורה,אמר רב כהנא משום רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי מאי דכתיב (תהלים ד, א) למנצח מזמור לדוד זמרו למי שנוצחין אותו ושמח,בא וראה שלא כמדת הקב"ה מדת בשר ודם בשר ודם מנצחין אותו ועצב אבל הקב"ה נוצחין אותו ושמח שנאמר (תהלים קו, כג) ויאמר להשמידם לולי משה בחירו עמד בפרץ לפניו,אמר רב כהנא משום רבי ישמעאל בר' יוסי אמר ר"ש בן לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה מאי דכתיב (יחזקאל א, ח) וידי אדם מתחת כנפיהם ידו כתיב זה ידו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שפרוסה תחת כנפי החיות כדי לקבל בעלי תשובה מיד מדת הדין,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל כסף וזהב שבעולם יוסף לקטו והביאו למצרים שנאמר (בראשית מז, יד) וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף הנמצא אין לי אלא שבארץ מצרים ושבארץ כנען בשאר ארצות מנין תלמוד לומר (בראשית מא, נז) וכל הארץ באו מצרימה,וכשעלו ישראל ממצרים העלוהו עמהן שנאמר (שמות יב, לו) וינצלו את מצרים רב אסי אמר עשאוה כמצודה זו שאין בה דגן רבי שמעון אמר כמצולה שאין בה דגים,והיה מונח עד רחבעם בא שישק מלך מצרים ונטלו מרחבעם שנאמר (מלכים א יד, כה) ויהי בשנה החמישית למלך רחבעם עלה שישק מלך מצרים [על ירושלים] ויקח את אוצרות בית ה' ואת אוצרות בית המלך בא זרח מלך כוש ונטלו משישק,בא אסא ונטלוהו מזרח מלך כוש ושיגרו להדרימון בן טברימון באו בני עמון ונטלום מהדרימון בן טברימון בא יהושפט ונטלו מבני עמון והיה מונח עד אחז,בא סנחריב ונטלו מאחז בא חזקיה ונטלו מסנחריב והיה מונח עד צדקיה באו כשדיים ונטלוהו מצדקיה באו פרסיים ונטלוהו מכשדיים באו יוונים ונטלוהו מפרסיים באו רומיים ונטלוהו מיד יוונים ועדיין מונח ברומי:,אמר רבי חמא (בר) חנינא שלש מטמוניות הטמין יוסף במצרים אחת נתגלה לקרח ואחת נתגלה לאנטונינוס בן אסוירוס ואחת גנוזה לצדיקים לעתיד לבא,(קהלת ה, יב) עושר שמור לבעליו לרעתו אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש זו עשרו של קרח (שנאמר) (דברים יא, ו) ואת כל היקום אשר ברגליהם א"ר אלעזר זה ממונו של אדם שמעמידו על רגליו א"ר לוי משאוי שלש מאות פרדות לבנות היו מפתחות בית גנזיו של קרח וכולהו אקלידי וקליפי דגלדא:,(דיא"ש אדי"ש כשד"ך מאוד"ך סימן) א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן (תהלים קיח, כא) אודך כי עניתני אמר דוד אבן מאסו הבונים היתה לראש פנה אמר ישי מאת ה' היתה זאת אמרו אחיו זה היום עשה ה' אמר שמואל,אנא ה' הושיעה נא אמרו אחיו אנא ה' הצליחה נא אמר דוד ברוך הבא בשם ה' אמר ישי ברכנוכם מבית ה' אמר שמואל אל ה' ויאר לנו אמרו כולן אסרו חג בעבותים אמר שמואל אלי אתה ואודך אמר דוד אלהי ארוממך אמרו כולן:,תנן התם מקום שנהגו | 119a. b This is one who recognizes his colleague’s place in the yeshiva, /b as he is there often enough to know where everyone sits. b Some say /b that b Rabbi Elazar said /b a different explanation: b This is /b one b who greets his colleague in the yeshiva, /b as he is always there to meet him.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the continuation of this verse: b “For stately clothing [ i limekhaseh atik /i ]” This is /b one b who conceals [ i mekhaseh /i ] /b matters b that the Ancient of Days [ i atik yomin /i ], /b i.e., God, b concealed. And what are these? /b These are b the secrets of the Torah, /b the esoteric Act of Creation and the Act of the Divine Chariot, which should remain hidden. b And some say: This /b verse is referring to one b who reveals matters that the Ancient of Days concealed. And what are these? /b These are the b reasons /b for different mitzvot in the b Torah, /b which should be kept secret.,The Gemara cites another statement attributed to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. b Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “ i Lamenatzeaḥ /i a psalm of David” /b (e.g., Psalms 13:1)? It means: b Sing to the One who rejoices when conquered [ i shenotzḥin oto /i ]. /b , b Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood: When a flesh and blood /b person b is conquered, he is sad; however, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, is conquered, He rejoices, as it is stated: “Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach, /b to turn back His wrath lest He should destroy them” (Psalms 106:23). In this verse Moses is called “His chosen,” although he defeated God, as it were, by preventing Him from destroying the Jewish people.,Furthermore, b Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b who said that b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, citing Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written /b in the description of the sacred i ḥayyot /i , the angels that carried the Divine chariot: b “And they had the hands of a man under their wings” /b (Ezekiel 1:8)? Although the word is read hands in the plural, actually b “his hand” is written /b in the singular. b This is the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He, that is spread under the wings of the i ḥayyot /i to accept penitents from /b the claims of b the attribute of justice. /b God accepts sincere penitents, despite the fact that in accordance with the strict attribute of justice they should not be given the opportunity to repent., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: Joseph collected all the silver and gold in the world and brought it to Egypt, as it is stated: “And Joseph collected all the money found /b in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 47:14). b I have /b derived b only /b that he collected the money b that /b was b in the land of Egypt and that /b was b in the Land of Canaan. From where /b do I derive that he also collected all the money b that /b was b in other lands? The verse states “And all the land came to Egypt /b to buy food from Joseph, because the famine was sore in all the earth” (Genesis 41:57)., b And when the Jewish people ascended from Egypt they took /b this treasure b with them, as it is stated: “They despoiled [ i vayenatzlu /i ] Egypt” /b (Exodus 12:36). The Sages explain this term. b Rav Asi said: They made /b Egypt b like this trap [ i metzuda /i ] /b for birds, where grain is usually placed as bait, b in which there is no grain. Rabbi Shimon said: /b They made Egypt b like the depths [ i kimetzula /i ] /b of the sea b in which there are no fish. /b , b And /b this treasure b remained /b in Eretz Yisrael b until /b the time of b Rehoboam, /b at which point b Shishak, king of Egypt, came and took it from Rehoboam, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. And he took the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; /b and he took away all” (I Kings 14:25–26). b Zerah, king of Kush, /b who ruled over Egypt, later b came and took it from Shishak. /b , b Asa came and took it from Zerah, king of Kush, /b when he defeated him in battle (II Chronicles 14) b and sent it to Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon, /b king of Aram (see I Kings 15). b The children of Ammon came and took it from Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon, /b as learned by tradition. b Jehosaphat came and took it from the children of Ammon /b (see II Chronicles 20), b and it remained /b in Eretz Yisrael b until /b the reign of b Ahaz. /b , b Sennacherib came and took it from Ahaz. Hezekiah came and took it from Sennacherib, and it remained /b in Jerusalem b until /b the reign of b Zedekiah. The Chaldeans came and took it from Zedekiah. The Persians came and took it from the Chaldeans. The Greeks came and took it from the Persians. The Romans came and took it from the Greeks, and /b this treasure of silver and gold b still remains in Rome. /b ,With regard to this matter, b Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Joseph hid three treasures in Egypt. One /b of them b was revealed to Korah, one was revealed to Antoninos ben Asveiros, /b king of Rome, b and one is hidden for the righteous in the future. /b ,With regard to Korah’s wealth, the Gemara cites the verse: b “Riches kept by his owner to his hurt” /b (Ecclesiastes 5:12). b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This is the wealth of Korah, /b which caused him to grow arrogant and lead to his destruction. b As it is stated: /b “And what He did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben; how the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, b and all the sustece that was at their feet” /b (Deuteronomy 11:6). b Rabbi Elazar said: This /b is referring to b a person’s money that stands him upon his /b own two b feet. Rabbi Levi said: The keys to Korah’s treasuries were /b a b load of three hundred /b strong b white mules, and they were all keys [ i aklidei /i ] and locks /b made b of leather. /b , b i Dalet, yod, alef, shin, alef, dalet, yod, shin, khaf, shin, dalet, khaf, mem, alef, vav, dalet, khaf /i /b is b a mnemonic /b device for the following passage. Returning to the issue of i hallel /i , the Gemara states that these psalms include choruses in which each section is sung by a different person. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said /b that b David recited: “I will give thanks to You, for You have answered me” /b (Psalms 118:21), with regard to the success of his reign. b Yishai recited: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief keystone” /b (Psalms 118:22). b The brothers of /b David b recited: “This is the Lord’s doing; /b it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalms 118:23). b Samuel /b the Prophet b recited: “This is the day which the Lord has made; /b we will rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalms 118:24)., b The brothers of /b David b recited: “We beseech You, Lord, save now” /b (Psalms 118:25). b David recited: “We beseech You, Lord, make us prosper now” /b (Psalms 118:25). b Yishai recited: “Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord” /b (Psalms 118:26). b Samuel recited: “We bless you out of the house of the Lord” /b (Psalms 118:26). b They all recited: “The Lord is God, and has given us light” /b (Psalms 118:27). b Samuel recited: “Order the Festival procession with boughs, /b even to the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27). b David recited: “You are my God, and I will give thanks to You” /b (Psalms 118:28). b They all recited: “You are my God, I will exalt You” /b (Psalms 118:28)., b We learned /b in a mishna b there, /b in i Sukka /i : In b a place where they were accustomed /b |
|
60. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 2b. אי נמי שדות בכסף יקנו (ירמיה לב,מד) תני האישה נקנית,וניתני התם האיש קונה מעיקרא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן ומאי לישנא דרבנן דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש,וניתני הכא האיש קונה משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא וקונה את עצמה בדידה תנא נמי רישא בדידה,וניתני האיש קונה ומקנה משום דאיכא מיתת הבעל דלאו איהו קא מקני מן שמיא הוא דמקני לה,ואי בעית אימא אי תנא קונה ה"א אפילו בעל כרחה תנא האשה נקנית דמדעתה אין שלא מדעתה לא,ומאי איריא דתני שלוש ליתני שלושה משום דקא בעי למיתני דרך ודרך לשון נקבה הוא דכתיב והדעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה (שמות יח,כ),ואלא הא דתניא בשבעה דרכים בודקין את הזב ניתני שבע משום דקא בעי למיתני דרך ואשכחן דרך דאיקרי לשון זכר דכתיב בדרך אחד יצאו אליך ובשבעה דרכים ינוסו לפניך (דברים כח,ז) אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי וקשיא נמי מתני' אהדדי,קראי אהדדי לא קשיין הכא דבתורה קאי ותורה איקרי לשון נקבה דכתיב תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש (תהילים יט,ח) כתב לה בלשון נקבה התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה כתב לה בלשון זכר,מתני' אהדדי לא קשיין הכא דלגבי אשה קאי קתני לה בלשון נקבה התם דלגבי איש קאי דדרכו של איש ליבדק ואין דרכה של אשה ליבדק דהא אשה נמי באונס מיטמאה תני לשון זכר,מ"ט תני שלוש משום דרכים ניתני דברים וניתני שלושה משום דקבעי למיתני ביאה וביאה איקרי דרך דכתיב ודרך גבר בעלמה כן דרך אשה מנאפת (משלי ל,יט-כ),הא תינח ביאה כסף ושטר מאי איכא למימר משום ביאה,ותני תרתי אטו חדא הנך נמי צורך ביאה נינהו,ואי בעית אימא הא מני ר' שמעון היא דתניא ר"ש אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה כי יקח איש אישה (דברים כב,יג) ולא כתב כי תלקח אשה לאיש מפני שדרכו של איש לחזר על אשה ואין דרכה של אשה לחזר על איש משל לאדם שאבדה לו אבידה מי חוזר על מי בעל האבידה מחזר על אבידתו,והא דתנן בז' דרכים בודקין את הזב ליתני דברים התם הא קמ"ל דדרכא דמיכלא יתירא לאותיי לידי זיבה ודרכה דמישתיא יתירא לאתויי לידי זיבה,והא דתנן אתרוג שווה לאילן בג' דרכים ליתני דברים משום דבעינן מתני סיפא ולירק בדרך אחד סיפא נמי ניתני דבר | 2b. b Alternatively, /b it can be proven that purchasing a field with money is called an acquisition from the verse: b “They shall acquire fields with money” /b (Jeremiah 32:44). Consequently, as the i tanna /i wanted to teach that a woman can be betrothed with money, b he taught: A woman is acquired. /b This explains why the terminology of acquisition is used in this mishna.,The Gemara asks: b But let /b the mishna b teach there, /b in the next chapter: b A man acquires. /b The Gemara explains: b Initially, /b the mishna b taught /b using b the language of the Torah, /b in which betrothal is called taking. b And ultimately, /b in the next chapter, b it taught /b using b the language of the Sages. And what /b is the reason that betrothal is called i kiddushin /i , literally, consecration, in the b language of the Sages? /b The reason is b that /b through betrothal the husband b renders her forbidden to everyone like consecrated /b property. Therefore, this act is referred to as consecration.,The Gemara asks another question with regard to the difference in wording between the two i mishnayot /i : b And let it teach here, /b as in the following chapter: b A man acquires. /b Why does this mishna teach: The woman is acquired, with the woman as the subject of the sentence? The Gemara answers: This is b because /b the i tanna /i b wanted to teach /b in b the latter clause /b of the mishna: b And she acquires herself, /b which is stated b with regard to her. /b Therefore, the i tanna /i b also taught /b the i halakha /i stated b with regard to her /b in b the first clause. /b ,The Gemara further asks: b But /b if this is the reason, the mishna could have been formulated entirely differently. b Let it teach: The man can acquire /b a woman b and transfer /b authority, i.e., grant her the release from marriage in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara answers: The mishna could not use the expression: Transfer, b because there is /b the case of b the husband’s death, in /b which b it is not he who transfers /b authority. Rather, b it is from Heaven that /b her freedom b is transferred to her. /b Therefore, the mishna could not issue a general statement that the man can actively transfer to the woman her release from marriage., b And if you wish, say /b instead another explanation. b If /b the mishna had b taught: /b The man b acquires /b the woman, b I would say /b that he can acquire her b even against her will, /b as indicated by the expression: He acquires. One might have assumed that the betrothal depends on the husband, without the need for the woman’s consent. Therefore the mishna b taught: The woman is acquired, /b from which it may be inferred b that with her consent, yes, /b he can acquire her as a wife, but b when /b he acts b without her consent, no, /b she is not betrothed to him.,The Gemara continues to analyze the style of the mishna: b And why does /b the i tanna /i b specifically teach: Three [ i shalosh /i ] /b ways, formulated in the feminine? b Let it teach: Three [ i shelosha /i ] /b ways, formulated in the masculine. The Gemara explains: The mishna uses this form b because it wants to teach /b the word b way [ i derekh /i ], and i derekh /i is formulated /b in the b feminine, as it is written: “And you shall show them the way [ i derekh /i ] in which [ i bah /i ] they must walk” /b (Exodus 18:20). The term i bah /i , which is referring to i derekh /i , is formulated in the feminine.,The Gemara challenges: b But /b with regard to b that which is taught /b in a mishna ( i Nazir /i 65b): b One examines a i zav /i in seven [ i shiva /i ] ways [ i derakhim /i ], /b where i shiva /i is formulated in the masculine, b let it teach: Seven [ i sheva /i ] /b ways, formulated in the feminine. The Gemara answers: The mishna uses the masculine formulation of the term seven b because it wanted to teach: i Derekh /i , and we find /b that the word b i derekh /i is referred to /b in the b masculine form, as it is written: “They shall come out against you one way [ i derekh /i ], and shall flee before you seven [ i shiva /i ] ways” /b (Deuteronomy 28:7). The Gemara asks: b If so, the verses contradict each other, /b as in one verse the term i derekh /i is masculine, and in the other verse it is feminine. b And /b furthermore, b the i mishnayot /i contradict each other, /b as in one mishna i derekh /i is masculine while in the other it is feminine.,The Gemara answers: b The verses do not contradict each other. Here, /b that verse: “The way in which they must walk” (Exodus 18:20), b is referring to the Torah, /b i.e., the way mentioned here is referring to the path of the Torah, b and Torah is referred to /b in the b feminine form, as it is written: “The Torah of the Lord is perfect [ i temima /i ], restoring the soul” /b (Psalms 19:8). The word i temima /i is in the feminine. Consequently, in reference to the Torah the verse b writes: /b i Derekh /i , b formulated /b in the b feminine. There, that /b verse: “Shall flee before you seven ways” (Deuteronomy 28:7), b is referring to war, /b and b as it is the way of a man to wage war and it is not the way of a woman to wage war, /b it is appropriate to speak in the masculine. Therefore, the verse b writes /b the word i derekh /i b formulated /b in the b masculine. /b ,Likewise, the b i mishnayot /i do not contradict each other: Here, where it is referring to a woman, the mishna teaches /b i derekh /i b formulated /b in the b feminine. There, /b with regard to the examination of a i zav /i , b where it is referring to a man, as /b it is b common for a man to undergo an examination /b to determine if his emission has a cause other than a gonorrhea-like discharge [ i ziva /i ] b but it is not common for a woman to undergo an examination, since, /b unlike a man, b a woman is rendered impure even by circumstances beyond /b her b control, it taught /b and used the word i derekh /i b formulated /b in the b masculine. /b Even if a woman has an emission of blood for a reason other than illness, she is still impure. Consequently, in her case there is no reason for an examination to see what might have caused her discharge.,The Gemara asks another question with regard to the language of the mishna: b What is the reason /b that the mishna b teaches: Three [ i shalosh /i ], /b formulated in the feminine? This is b because /b it wanted to teach: b Ways. But /b if so, b let it teach /b instead the word: b Matters, /b i.e., a woman can be acquired through three matters, b and /b as this term is masculine, b let it teach three [ i shelosha /i ], /b in the masculine. The Gemara answers: The mishna did do so b because it wanted to teach intercourse /b as one of these ways, b and intercourse is called a way /b in the Torah, b as it is written: “And the way of a man with a young woman, so is the way of an adulterous woman” /b (Proverbs 30:19–20). For this reason the mishna used the term ways rather than matters.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b This works out well /b with regard to b intercourse, /b which is referred to as a way. But b what is there to say /b concerning b money and a document? /b The mishna could have used the word matters with regard to these modes of betrothal. The Gemara answers: b Because /b it was necessary to mention b intercourse, /b which is called a way, the mishna used the word way in reference to the other two modes as well.,The Gemara asks: b And /b would the mishna b teach two /b cases in a particular manner b due to one? /b Since the word way suits only one of the three modes of betrothal, why didn’t the mishna use the term: Matters, on account of the other two? The Gemara answers: b These, too, are for the sake of sexual intercourse. /b Since the marital relationship, in which intercourse is paramount, is the ultimate purpose of betrothal, the mishna considers this clause as the most important part of the i halakha /i ., b And if you wish, say /b instead: In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b mishna, which teaches i derekh /i ? b It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say: “When a man takes a woman” /b (Deuteronomy 22:13) b and did not write: “When a woman is taken by a man? Because it is the way [ i derekh /i ] of a man to pursue a woman, and it is not the way of a woman to pursue a man. /b The Gemara cites b a parable of a man who lost an item. Who searches for what? /b Certainly b the owner of the lost item searches for his lost item, /b not the other way around. Since woman was created from man’s lost side, the man seeks that which he has lost. To allude to this statement of Rabbi Shimon, the mishna employs the term i derekh /i in this context.,The Gemara asks: b But /b with regard to b that which we learned /b in a mishna: b One examines a i zav /i in seven ways, /b why does it use this phraseology? b Let it teach /b the word: b Matters. /b The Gemara answers that the mishna b there teaches us this /b i halakha /i , b that it is the way of excessive eating to lead to i ziva /i , and /b likewise b it is the way of excessive drinking to lead to i ziva /i . /b Therefore, the mishna uses the phrase: Seven ways, to emphasize that there are ways of behavior that can cause the emission of a i zav /i .,The Gemara further challenges: b And /b with regard to b that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Bikkurim /i 2:6): The i halakhot /i of b an i etrog /i /b tree b correspond to /b those of b a tree in three ways. Let it teach /b instead: Three b matters. /b The Gemara answers: b Because it wants to teach in /b the b latter clause: And /b the i halakhot /i of an i etrog /i tree correspond b to /b those of b a vegetable in one way, /b therefore the mishna uses the term: Ways, in the first clause as well. The Gemara asks: In the b latter clause too, let /b the mishna b teach: Matter, /b rather than: Way. |
|
61. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 263| 102b. ומי איכא כי האי גוונא אין דחזיוה רבנן לרב יהודה דנפק בחמשא זוזי מוקי לשוקא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יבמה שהגדילה בין האחין מותרת לינשא לאחד מן האחין ואין חוששין שמא חלצה סנדל לאחד מהן טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חיישינן,והא תניא בין שנתכוון הוא ולא נתכוונה היא בין שנתכוונה היא ולא נתכוון הוא חליצתה פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם כאחד הכי קאמר אע"ג דחזינן אין חוששין שמא כוונו,ואיכא דאמרי טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חוששין ודקא תנא בעי כוונה הני מילי לאישתרויי לעלמא אבל לאחין מיפסלא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב סנדל התפור בפשתן אין חולצין בו שנאמר (יחזקאל טז, י) ואנעלך תחש ואימא תחש אין מידי אחרינא לא נעל נעל ריבה,אי נעל נעל ריבה אפי' כל מילי נמי אם כן תחש מאי אהני ליה,בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב הוא של עור ותריסיותיו של שער מהו אמר ליה מי לא קרינן ביה ואנעלך תחש אי הכי כולו של שער נמי ההוא קרקא מקרי,אמר ליה רב כהנא לשמואל ממאי דהאי וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו מישלף הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מ) וחלצו את האבנים אשר בהן הנגע,ואימא זרוזי הוא דכתיב (במדבר לא, ג) החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא התם נמי שלופי מביתא לקרבא,והכתיב (איוב לו, טו) יחלץ עני בעניו בשכר עניו יחלצו מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (תהלים לד, ח) חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם בשכר יראיו יחלצם מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יא) ועצמותיך יחליץ ואמר רבי אלעזר זו מעולה שבברכות ואמר רבא זרוזי גרמי אין משמע הכי ומשמע הכי דהכא אי ס"ד זרוזי הוא א"כ לכתוב רחמנא וחלצה נעלו ברגלו,אי כתב רחמנא ברגלו ה"א ברגלו אין בשוקו לא כתב רחמנא מעל רגלו דאפילו בשוקו א"כ לכתוב רחמנא במעל רגלו מאי מעל רגלו ש"מ מישלף הוא,אמר ליה ההוא מינא לר"ג עמא דחלץ ליה מריה מיניה דכתיב (הושע ה, ו) בצאנם ובבקרם ילכו לבקש את ה' ולא ימצאו חלץ מהם,אמר ליה שוטה מי כתיב חלץ להם חלץ מהם כתיב ואילו יבמה דחלצו לה אחין מידי מששא אית ביה:,באנפיליא חליצתה פסולה כו': למימרא דאנפיליא לאו מנעל הוא,ותנן נמי אין התורם נכנס לא בפרגוד חפות ולא באנפיליא ואין צריך לומר במנעל וסנדל לפי שאין נכנסין במנעל וסנדל לעזרה,ורמינהו אחד מנעל וסנדל ואנפיליא לא יטייל בהן לא מבית לבית ולא ממטה למטה,אמר אביי דאית ביה כתיתי ומשום תענוג אמר ליה רבא ומשום תענוג בלא מנעל ביום הכפורים מי אסירי והא רבה בר רב הונא כריך סודרא אכרעיה ונפיק אלא אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד,ה"נ מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא יום הכפורים איום הכפורים דתניא לא יטייל אדם בקורדקיסין בתוך ביתו אבל מטייל הוא באנפילין בתוך ביתו אלא לאו ש"מ כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד ש"מ,תניא כוותיה דרבא חלצה במנעל הנפרם שחופה את רוב הרגל בסנדל הנפחת שמקבל את רוב הרגל בסנדל של שעם ושל סיב בקב הקיטע במוק בסמיכת הרגלים באנפיליא של עור והחולצת מן הגדול | 102b. The Gemara asks: b Is there really a case like this /b where people wear one shoe on top of another? The Gemara answers: b Yes, for the Sages saw Rav Yehuda, who went out /b once b to the market wearing five pairs of /b shoes, which were similar to b slippers, /b one on top of another., b Rav Yehuda said /b another i halakha /i that b Rav said: /b An underage b i yevama /i who grew up among /b her husband’s b brothers /b before any i ḥalitza /i was performed b is permitted to marry one of the brothers /b through levirate marriage, b and we are not concerned /b about the possibility b that /b during the time she was in the company of her i yevamin /i b she removed a sandal from one of them, /b and thereby she would have already performed i ḥalitza /i . The Gemara infers from this statement: b The reason /b it is permitted to perform levirate marriage now b is /b specifically b that we did not see /b her remove one of their shoes, b but if /b in fact b we did see /b her do so, b we are concerned /b and treat her as a i yevama /i who already performed i ḥalitza /i and is thereby forbidden to all the brothers.,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Whether he intended /b to perform i ḥalitza /i b and she did not intend /b to, b or whether she intended /b to perform i ḥalitza /i b and he did not intend to, the i ḥalitza /i is invalid, unless they both intended it as one /b to perform a proper act of i ḥalitza /i ? The Gemara answers: b This is what /b Rav b said: Even if we /b did b see /b that she removed a shoe from one of them, b we are not concerned that perhaps they intended to /b perform i ḥalitza /i ., b And there are /b those b who say /b the inference from Rav’s statement should be made in the opposite manner: b The reason /b it is permitted for her to perform levirate marriage now b is /b specifically b that we did not see /b her remove a shoe from one of the brothers. b But if we did see, we would be concerned /b and would treat her as a i yevama /i who already performed i ḥalitza /i , despite our knowledge that she did not intend to perform i ḥalitza /i . b And /b with regard to b that which was taught /b in the i baraita /i , b that intention is required, this applies /b only as far as validating the act of i ḥalitza /i in order b to permit her to marry a stranger. But /b performing an act of i ḥalitza /i even without intention is sufficient to b disqualify her for the brothers, /b rendering prohibited an act of levirate marriage afterward., b Rav Yehuda /b also b said /b that b Rav said: One may not perform i ḥalitza /i using a sandal /b that was b sewn /b together b with /b threads made of b flax, as it is stated: “And I made you shoes of i taḥash /i skin” /b (Ezekiel 16:10), which is the skin of an animal, implying that a shoe is something made entirely of leather. The Gemara challenges: If the source is “ i taḥash /i ,” b let us say: /b A shoe made of b i taḥash /i skin, yes, /b it is valid; but if made of b anything else, no. /b The Gemara rejects this: Because b “shoe” /b and b “shoe” /b are written in the Torah multiple times, this b amplifies /b and includes all types of shoes crafted from leather skins as valid for performing i ḥalitza /i .,The Gemara asks: b If /b the inclusion of the words b “shoe” /b and b “shoe” amplifies, /b then should one include as valid for performing i ḥalitza /i shoes crafted from b even any /b other b materials as well, /b including those not produced from leather at all? The Gemara answers: b If so, what purpose does “ i taḥash /i ” serve, /b as nothing is learned from it? Rather, from the word i taḥash /i it is derived that the shoe must be crafted entirely of leather, but all types of leather are included because the word “shoe” is repeated in the Torah numerous times., b Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: /b What is the status of the following type of sandal used for performing i ḥalitza /i ? In a case where b it, /b the shoe itself, b is made of leather, and /b the sections that hold b its straps [ i tereisiyyot /i ] /b are made b of hair, /b as they were woven together with goat’s hair, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b He said to him: Do we not refer to /b such a sandal b as: “And I made you shoes of i taḥash /i ”? /b Since it is crafted from material that comes from an animal it is valid. The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b i.e., that anything derived from an animal is valid, then even if it is fashioned b entirely of hair it should also be /b valid. The Gemara answers: b That would be called a slipper, /b not a shoe., b Rav Kahana said to Shmuel: From where is it known that this /b phrase: b “And she shall remove [ i ḥaltza /i ] his shoe from on his foot” /b (Deuteronomy 25:9), b means to remove? As it is written: /b “Then the priest shall command, b and they shall take out [ i ḥiltzu /i ] the stones in which the plague is” /b (Leviticus 14:40), indicating that the word i ḥaltza /i means that they shall remove the stones from their place.,The Gemara asks whether the word i ḥaltza /i can be interpreted differently based upon its apparent meaning in other contexts: b But /b could you b say it is /b a term for b strengthening, as it is written: “Arm [ i heḥaletzu /i ] men from among you for the army” /b (Numbers 31:3), meaning that men among you will be strengthened and take up arms to prepare for battle? The Gemara answers: b There too, /b the meaning of the word is referring to taking something from its place, as it means b removing /b people b from their houses /b in order b to go /b out b to war. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it written: “He delivers [ i yeḥaletz /i ] the afflicted by His affliction [ i be’onyo /i ]” /b (Job 36:15)? This indicates that the afflicted one becomes stronger due to his affliction, as, if the intention was to deliver him from his affliction, it should have said: From His affliction, rather than “by His affliction.” The Gemara answers that the verse should be interpreted as follows: i Be’onyo /i , in other words, b as reward for his /b suffering from b affliction, He shall deliver him from the judgment of Gehenna, /b as is understood from the term i be’onyo /i , through the reward due to his affliction.,The Gemara challenges further: b But /b with regard to b that it is written: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them [ i vayeḥaltzem /i ]” /b (Psalms 34:8), doesn’t i vayeḥaltzem /i rather mean: He shall strengthen them? The Gemara answers: The verse means: b As a reward for those that fear Him, He shall deliver them from the judgment of Gehenna. /b Therefore, the Gemara interprets i vayeḥaltzem /i as “delivers them,” not as: Strengthens them.,The Gemara challenges further: b But /b with regard to b that which is written: /b “And the Lord will guide you, and satisfy your soul in drought, b and make your bones strong [ i yaḥalitz /i ]” /b (Isaiah 58:11), b and Rabbi Elazar said /b regarding that verse: b This is the greatest of blessings, and Rava said /b it means: b Strengthening of bones. /b This seems to indicate that the root of the word i ḥalitza /i is referring to strengthening. The Gemara answers: b Yes, it has this connotation, and it has this connotation, /b i.e., the root i ḥ-l-tz /i sometimes connotes removal and sometimes connotes strengthening. b But here, /b only one meaning is possible, as, b if it enters your mind /b that i ḥalitza /i here b connotes strengthening, then let the Merciful One write /b in the Torah: b She shall strengthen [ i ḥaletza /i ] his shoe on his foot [ i beraglo /i ], /b indicating that she should tighten the shoe on his foot, rather than stating: “From on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” which indicates that she is removing something from his foot.,The Gemara responds: b If the Merciful One had written /b in the Torah: b On his foot [ i beraglo /i ], I would have said /b she must strengthen and tighten the shoe b on his foot, yes, but on his calf, no; /b and if his foot were amputated she may no longer perform i ḥalitza /i . Therefore, b the Merciful One writes /b in the Torah: b “From on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” /b to teach that she may strengthen the shoe b even on his calf, /b which is part of the leg, or i regel /i , above the foot. The Gemara answers: b If so, /b and i ḥalitza /i really means strengthening, b let the Merciful One write /b in the Torah: She shall strengthen his shoe b on the upper part of his foot [ i beme’al raglo /i ], /b indicating that the shoe can also be tightened on the area of the calf. b What /b then b is /b the meaning of b “from on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” /b which is written in the verse? b Learn from here /b that in this context the word i ḥalitza /i clearly b indicates removal, /b meaning that the mitzva of i ḥalitza /i is for the i yevama /i to remove the shoe of the i yavam /i and not to tighten it on his foot.,Parenthetical to this discussion, the Gemara relates: b A certain heretic said to Rabban Gamliel: /b You, the children of Israel, are b a nation whose Master removed [ i ḥalatz /i ] Himself from them, /b for God has left you in much the same way in which a i yavam /i would perform i ḥalitza /i with his i yevama /i , b as it is written: “With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they shall not find Him. He has removed [ i ḥalatz /i ] Himself from them [ i meihem /i ]” /b (Hoshea 5:6). The heretic tried to use this verse as scriptural support that God has performed i ḥalitza /i with the Jewish people., b He, /b Rabban Gamliel, b said to him: Imbecile, does it say: He performed i ḥalitza /i to them [ i lahem /i ]? /b Rather, b it says “ i ḥalatz /i from them [ i meihem /i ],” /b meaning it is as if they, the Jewish people, performed i ḥalitza /i on Him. b But if a i yevama /i had her shoe removed by her i yevamin /i , does this have any significance? /b Here too, the meaning of the verse is that the nation of Israel abandoned God by removing themselves from Him, and this abandonment has no significance.,The Gemara analyzes the phrase used in the mishna that discusses the types of shoes that can be used for i ḥalitza /i . It was taught in the mishna that if he was wearing b a soft shoe [ i anpileya /i ] /b made of cloth for i ḥalitza /i , b her i ḥalitza /i is invalid. /b The Gemara explains: b That is to say that an i anpileya /i is not /b considered b a shoe. /b , b And we also learned /b similarly in a mishna ( i Shekalim /i 3:2): b The one who collects the funds /b of shekels donated to the Temple from the chamber and puts them it into baskets in order to be used b may not enter /b to collect the funds b wearing a garment [ i pargod /i ] that is cuffed [ i ḥafut /i ], nor wearing an i anpileya /i , and needless to say /b that he may not enter wearing b a shoe or a sandal, because one may not enter /b the Temple b courtyard wearing a shoe or a sandal. /b It is prohibited for the one collecting funds from the chamber to enter the chamber wearing a garment or footwear in which money could be hidden, lest people come to suspect that he hid in them funds collected from the chamber. In any case, the wording of the mishna indicates that an i anpileya /i is not considered a type of shoe, since it is permitted to enter the Temple wearing an i anpileya /i when there is no reason for suspicion, unlike a shoe or sandal, which can never be worn in the Temple., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i concerning what footwear is permitted on Yom Kippur, which seems to indicate otherwise: The halakha is b the same for a /b soft leather b shoe, and a /b hard leather b sandal, and an i anpileya /i , as one may not walk in them from one house to another, nor from one bed to another /b on Yom Kippur, due to the prohibition against wearing shoes, indicating that at least as far as Yom Kippur is concerned, an i anpileya /i is considered a shoe., b Abaye said: /b There, with regard to Yom Kippur, it is referring to an i anpileya /i b that has cushioning, and /b this is forbidden b due to the pleasure /b that one derives from cushioned footwear on a day when people are commanded to afflict themselves. b Rava said to him: But /b is footwear b that is not considered /b to be b shoes forbidden on Yom Kippur due to /b the b pleasure /b one derives from wearing them? b But Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a scarf on his feet and go out /b on Yom Kippur so his feet would not be injured, implying that there is no prohibition against wearing something comfortable on one’s foot, as long as it is not defined as a shoe. b Rather, Rava said: This /b is b not difficult. Here, /b when they said that an i anpileya /i has the status of a shoe, it is referring to b an i anpileya /i /b made b of leather. There, /b when they do not consider it a shoe, it is referring to b an i anpileya /i /b made b of cloth. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And so too, it is reasonable /b to distinguish in this manner, b as, if you do not say so, it /b is b difficult /b to reconcile the seeming contradiction between one statement about b Yom Kippur and /b another statement about b Yom Kippur. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A person shall not walk /b while wearing b slippers [ i kordakisin /i ] within his house /b on Yom Kippur, b but he may walk /b while wearing b an i anpileya /i within his house. /b This would imply that wearing an i anpileya /i is permitted, but the i baraita /i quoted above taught that it is prohibited. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from here /b that b here, /b where it indicates that an i anpileya /i is forbidden, it is referring b to an i anpileya /i /b made b of leather, /b as they are considered like a shoe, and b there, /b where an i anpileya /i is permitted, it is referring b to an i anpileya /i /b made b of cloth? /b The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from here /b that it is so.,It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rava: /b If b she performed i ḥalitza /i using a shoe whose seams were opened up, which /b still b covered most of the foot; /b or if she performed i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal /b whose sole b was /b partially b opened that /b still b held most of the foot; /b or if she performed i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal /b made b of cork [ i sha’am /i ], or of fibers /b from a tree; or b with a prosthetic foot of an amputee; /b or b with a felt shoe [ i muk /i ]; /b or b with a leg blanket /b that an amputee makes for his feet as a covering in which to put the stumps of his legs, which is not an actual shoe; or b with a leather i anpileya /i ; and /b likewise, a woman b who performs i ḥalitza /i /b with her i yavam /i when he is an b adult man, /b |
|
62. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 261| 62b. לפתוח ראשון ולברך ראשון וליטול מנה יפה ראשון,אמר רבא שרי ליה לצורבא מרבנן למימר לא יהיבנא אכרגא דכתיב (עזרא ז, כד) מנדה בלו והלך לא שליט למירמא עליהון וא"ר יהודה מנדה זו מנת המלך בלו זו כסף גולגלתא והלך זו ארנונא,ואמר רבא שרי ליה לצורבא מרבנן למימר עבדא דנורא אנא לא יהיבנא אכרגא מ"ט לאברוחי אריא מיניה קאמר,רב אשי הוה ליה ההוא אבא זבניה לבי נורא א"ל רבינא לרב אשי האיכא (ויקרא יט, יד) לפני עור לא תתן מכשול א"ל רוב עצים להסקה ניתנו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big עד הקציר עד שיתחיל העם לקצור קציר חטין אבל לא קציר שעורין הכל לפי מקום נדרו אם היה בהר בהר ואם היה בבקעה בבקעה,עד הגשמים עד שיהו הגשמים עד שתרד רביעה שניה רשב"ג אומר עד שיגיע זמנה של רביעה עד שיפסקו גשמים עד שיצא ניסן כולו דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר עד שיעבור הפסח:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא הנודר עד הקיץ בגליל וירד לעמקים אע"פ שהגיע הקיץ בעמקים אסור עד שיגיע הקיץ בגליל:,עד הגשמים עד שיהו גשמים עד שתרד רביעה שניה רשב"ג אומר וכו': אמר ר' זירא מחלוקת דאמר עד הגשמים אבל אמר עד הגשם עד זמן גשמים קאמר | 62b. b To open /b the Torah reading b first, to recite a blessing first, and to take a fine portion first. /b When portions are distributed equally, a priest can choose his share first. The verse with regard to the sons of David proves that the same i halakha /i applies to Torah scholars.,Furthermore, b Rava said: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I will not pay the head tax [ i karga /i ], as it is written /b that the king of Persia wrote to Ezra, with regard to the priests, the Levites, and others who worked in the Temple: b “It shall not be lawful to impose i minda /i , i belo /i , and i halakh /i upon them” /b (Ezra 7:24). b And Rabbi Yehuda said: i Minda /i ; this is the king’s portion. i Belo /i ; this is the money /b of the b head /b tax. b And i halakh /i ; this is i arnona /i , /b a levy on people and their animals to perform physical labor in the service of the ruling authority. Since a Torah scholar is considered equivalent to a priest, as he is also dedicated to a sacred task, this exemption applies to him as well., b And Rava said /b further: b It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I am a servant /b of the priests b of fire /b worship and therefore b I will not pay the head tax. /b Rava maintains that a scholar may issue a statement of this kind in a place where the priests of fire-worshippers are exempt from the head tax, because he actually is declaring himself a servant of God, who is referred to as “a devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24). b What is the reason /b that he is allowed to make this statement? He b is saying /b it merely in order b to chase a lion /b away b from him, /b i.e., to avoid suffering a loss.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Ashi had a particular forest, /b and b he sold it /b for its wood b to the temple of fire /b worship. b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Isn’t there /b the prohibition: b “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” /b (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits assisting others in committing transgressions? And yet you are providing assistance to an idolatrous cult. b He said to him: Most /b of the b wood /b they use b is for kindling, /b not for their ritual service. Consequently, I need not be concerned that the particular wood that I have sold them will be used for idolatry., strong MISHNA: /strong If one takes a vow b until the harvest, /b the vow remains in effect b until people begin to harvest. /b This is referring to b the wheat harvest but not the barley harvest. /b As for the exact date of this event, b all /b is determined b according to the place /b where he took b his vow. If he was on a mountain, /b it is assumed that he referred to the time of the harvest on b the mountain, and if he was in a valley, /b it is assumed that he meant the time of the harvest b in the valley. /b ,If one takes a vow b until the rains, /b or b until there are rains, /b the vow remains in effect b until the second rain /b of the rainy season b falls. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the time of the /b second b rainfall arrives, /b even if rain does not fall. If one takes a vow b until /b the b rains end, /b the vow remains in effect b until the entire /b month of b Nisan has ended; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until Passover has passed. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b one who vows until the summer in the Galilee and /b subsequently b descends to the valleys, even if the summer /b season b has /b already b arrived in the valleys, /b the subject of his vow remains b forbidden /b to him b until summer arrives in the Galilee, /b in accordance with the mishna’s ruling that the duration of a vow is in accordance with the place where it was made.,The mishna states that if one takes a vow b until the rains, /b or b until there are rains, /b he means b until the second rain /b of the rainy season. b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: /b Until the time of the second rainfall arrives. The Gemara comments: b Rabbi Zeira said: /b The b dispute /b is in a case b where /b one b said: Until the rains. However, /b if b he says: Until the rain, /b everyone agrees that b he is saying /b that the vow should remain in effect b until the time of the rains, /b but not necessarily until the rain actually falls. |
|
63. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 9.15 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 9.15. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ (במדבר ה, יז), אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא הִשְׁקַתְּהוּ יַיִן מְשֻׁבָּח בְּכוֹסוֹת מְשֻׁבָּחִין, לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים בְּמַקֵּדָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס. (במדבר ה, יז): וּמִן הֶעָפָר, מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבֵא עָפָר לַסּוֹטָה, זָכְתָה יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּהּ בֵּן כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ (בראשית יח, כז): וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר, לֹא זָכְתָה תַּחְזֹר לַעֲפָרָהּ. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאָמַר אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר, זָכוּ בָנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְווֹת אֵפֶר פָּרָה וַעֲפַר סוֹטָה, אֲבָל עֲפַר כִּסּוּי לֹא מָנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הֶכְשֵׁר מִצְוָה וְאֵין מִמֶּנּוּ הֲנָאָה. לָמָּה הָיָה בּוֹדְקָה בְּמַיִם וּבְעָפָר, לְפִי שֶׁהָאָדָם נִבְרָא מִן הֶעָפָר וְהִיא נוֹצְרָה בַּמַּיִם, לְכָךְ הִיא נִבְדֶקֶת בַּמַּיִם וּבֶעָפָר אִם טְהוֹרָה כִּבְרִיָּתָהּ. וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה, יָכוֹל יַתְקִין בַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, אִי בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, יָכוֹל יַחְפֹּר בְּדֶקֶר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה, הָא כֵיצַד, יֵשׁ שָׁם הָבֵא, אֵין שָׁם תֵּן שָׁם. (במדבר ה, יז): יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמַּיִם, תָּנֵי שְׁלשָׁה צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֵּרָאוּ, עֲפַר סוֹטָה וְאֵפֶר פָּרָה וְרֹק יְבָמָה, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ אַף דַּם צִפּוֹר שֶׁל מְצֹרָע. | |
|
64. Anon., Exodus Rabbah, 30.13 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 30.13. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (משלי כט, ד): מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, זֶה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁבָּרָא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית א, א): בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, בָּרָא ה' לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אֱלֹהִים. וַיֹּאמֶר ה' יְהִי רָקִיעַ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר, אֶלָּא אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן כֻּלְּהוֹן. וְכֵן דָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים עה, ח): כִּי אֱלֹהִים שֹׁפֵט, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁבַּדִּין נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. (משלי כט, ד): וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, זֶה אָדָם, מַה דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלָּתָהּ, מְגַבֶּלֶת אֶת הַקֶּמַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֶלֶת חַלָּה, כָּךְ עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, גִּבֵּל אֶת הָעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָטַל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ב, ו): וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ (בראשית ב, ז): וַיִּיצֶר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָטָא אָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים (בראשית ג, יז): אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, זֶה יְהוֹשָׁפָט, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים ב יט, ו): וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשָׁפָט אֶל הַשֹּׁפְטִים רְאוּ מָה אַתֶּם עֹשִׂים. וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, זֶה חָכָם, שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ הֲלָכוֹת וּמִדְרָשׁוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, וְיָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה הוֹלְכִין אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה דִּין בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן עָסוּק אֲנִי בְּמִשְׁנָתִי אֵינִי פָּנוּי, וְאָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ כְּאִלּוּ הֶחֱרַבְתָּ אֶת הָעוֹלָם, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יט, ו): וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים. וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, אֵלּוּ דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל שֶׁלֹא הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַדִּין, רְאֵה מַה כְּתִיב בָּהֶם (איוב כד, ג ד): חֲמוֹר יְתוֹמִים יִנְהָגוּ יַטּוּ אֶבְיֹנִים מִדָּרֶךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בִּקֵּשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִתֵּן לָהֶם אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים, תּוֹרָה וְיִסּוּרִין וַעֲבוֹדַת קָרְבָּנוֹת וּתְפִלָּה, וְלֹא בִקְּשׁוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כא, יד): וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָאֵל סוּר מִמֶּנּוּ, אֵלּוּ הַיִּסּוּרִין. (איוב כא, יד): וְדַעַת דְּרָכֶיךָ לֹא חָפַצְנוּ, זֶה תּוֹרָה. (איוב כא, טו): וּמַה שַּׁדַּי כִּי נַעַבְדֶנּוּ, אֵלּוּ הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. (איוב כא, טו): וּמַה נּוֹעִיל כִּי נִפְגַע בּוֹ, זֶה תְּפִלָּה. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִי גָרַם לָכֶם שֶׁתֹּאבְדוּ מִן הָעֶרֶב שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וּמִן הַבֹּקֶר שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹא קִבַּלְתֶּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב ד, כ): מִבֹּקֶר לָעֶרֶב יֻכַּתּוּ, לָמָּה, מִבְּלִי מֵשִׂים לָנֶצַח יֹאבֵדוּ, וְאֵין מֵשִׂים אֶלָּא דִינִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם. | |
|
65. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 269| 35a. מכלל דאיסורי הנאה שרו פרשייהו,ומדקא"ל מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבת עגלי עבודת כוכבים וקא מהדר ליה א"כ למה לא אסרוה בהנאה מכלל דעבודת כוכבים אסור פרשייהו,ולהדר ליה משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,דהא מורייס לרבנן דלא אסרוהו בהנאה מ"ט לאו משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,אמרי הכא כיון דאוקמיה קא מוקים חשיב ליה כמאן דאיתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה:,השיאו לדבר אחר וכו': מאי (שיר השירים א, ב) כי טובים דודיך מיין כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרה כנסת ישראל לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע עריבים עלי דברי דודיך יותר מיינה של תורה,מ"ש האי קרא דשייליה אר"ש בן פזי ואיתימא ר"ש בר אמי מרישיה דקרא קא"ל (שיר השירים א, ב) ישקני מנשיקות פיהו אמר ליה ישמעאל אחי חשוק שפתותיך זו בזו ואל תבהל להשיב,מ"ט אמר עולא ואיתימא רב שמואל בר אבא גזרה חדשה היא ואין מפקפקין בה מאי גזירתא אר"ש בן פזי אמר ריב"ל משום ניקור,ולימא ליה משום ניקור כדעולא דאמר עולא כי גזרי גזירתא במערבא לא מגלו טעמא עד תריסר ירחי שתא דלמא איכא איניש דלא ס"ל ואתי לזלזולי בה,מגדף בה ר' ירמיה אלא מעתה יבשה תשתרי ישן תשתרי דא"ר חנינא יבש מותר אין מניחו ליבש ישן מותר אין מניחו לישן,א"ר חנינא לפי שא"א לה בלא צחצוחי חלב ושמואל אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בעור קיבת נבילה,הא קיבה גופא שריא ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן קיבת העובד כוכבים ושל נבילה הרי זו אסורה,והוינן בה אטו דעובד כוכבים לאו נבלה היא,ואמר שמואל חדא קתני קיבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה אסורה,ל"ק | 35a. One can learn b by inference /b from here b that /b with regard to animals b from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited, their excrement, /b which is the content of their stomach, b is permitted. /b Although deriving benefit from both a burnt-offering and an unslaughtered animal carcass is prohibited, the excrement of each is permitted. Similarly, although deriving benefit from an ox that is to be stoned is prohibited, its excrement is permitted., b And from /b the fact b that /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to /b Rabbi Yishmael: Cheese of gentiles is prohibited b because they curdle it with the stomach /b contents b of calves /b used for b idol worship, and /b that Rabbi Yishmael b responded to him: If /b that is b so, why didn’t /b the Sages b prohibit /b deriving b benefit /b from the cheese, one may learn b by inference that /b with regard to animals of b idol worship, their excrement is prohibited. /b Since the cheese formed with the stomach contents of an animal of idol worship is prohibited, it is evident that the excrement formed in the stomach of such an animal is also prohibited.,The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael’s final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: b But let him respond to /b Rabbi Yishmael’s query by explaining that the Sages did not prohibit deriving benefit from cheese curdled in the stomach contents of an animal used for idolatry b because there is no substantive prohibited /b entity in such cheese.,The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn’t the i halakha /i with regard to b fish stew, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b an application of this rationale, b as they did not prohibit /b deriving b benefit /b from fish stew prepared by a gentile? b What is the reason /b for this leniency? b Is it not because there is no substantive prohibited /b entity in it? Although fish stew may contain the wine of a gentile, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited because the wine is not discernible. Why didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: The Sages b say /b in response that b here, /b with regard to cheese, b since /b the rennet b curdles /b it, b it is considered like /b an item b that contains a substantive prohibited /b entity. Although the prohibited rennet is not discernible in the cheese, it is nevertheless considered a substantive prohibited entity because it is essential to the formation of the cheese.,§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua b diverted /b Rabbi Yishmael’s attention b to another matter, /b and began discussing the verse: “For your love is better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the verse: b “For your love [ i dodekha /i ] is better than wine”? When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he b said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the statements of Your beloved ones [ i dodekha /i ], /b i.e., the Sages, b are more pleasant to me than the wine of /b the written b Torah /b itself.,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about b this verse that /b led Rabbi Yehoshua to b ask /b Rabbi Yishmael a question specifically with regard to it? b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, and some say Rabbi Shimon bar Ami /b said: He chose that verse because he sought to b tell him /b a message that can be derived b from the beginning of the verse: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” /b (Song of Songs 1:2). In essence, Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: Yishmael, my brother, press your lips one to the other, and do not be so hasty to retort, /b i.e., do not persist in your questioning.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that Rabbi Yehoshua instructed Rabbi Yishmael not to question him further? b Ulla says, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Abba /b says: The ordice prohibiting the cheese of gentiles b was a new decree, and /b therefore b one does not scrutinize its /b origins. The Gemara asks: b What /b was, in fact, the reason for the Sages’ b decree /b prohibiting the cheese of gentiles? b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: /b It was b due to /b the concern for b puncturing, /b i.e., the concern that a snake might have deposited its venom in the cheese, as gentiles are not assumed to be careful about this.,The Gemara comments: b But /b if so, b let /b Rabbi Yehoshua simply b say to /b Rabbi Yishmael: It is prohibited b due to /b the concern for b puncturing. /b Why did he choose to avoid answering? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua reasoned b in accordance with /b a statement b of Ulla, as Ulla said: When /b the Sages b decreed a decree in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b they would not reveal the reason /b behind it b until twelve months /b of b the year /b had passed, b lest there be a person who does not agree with it and will come to treat it with contempt. /b , b Rabbi Yirmeya /b would b ridicule [ i megaddef /i ] /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s explanation that the prohibition was due to the concern for puncturing: b If that is so, dry /b cheese b should be permitted, /b and likewise b aged /b cheese should b be permitted, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b With regard to exposure, b a dry /b substance b is permitted /b even if it was originally in the form of an uncovered liquid, because a snake’s venom b does not let it dry, /b i.e., congeal. And b an aged /b liquid b is permitted, /b as a snake’s venom b does not let it age, /b as it causes it to spoil instead.,The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b The cheese is prohibited b because it is not possible for it /b to have been made b without /b containing b particles of /b non-kosher b milk. And Shmuel says: /b The cheese is prohibited b because it is curdled with the skin of the stomach of /b an unslaughtered b animal carcass. /b ,The Gemara comments: Shmuel’s statement indicates that only the skin of the animal’s stomach is prohibited, whereas the contents of the b stomach, /b i.e., the rennet b itself, is permitted. /b The Gemara asks: b And did Shmuel /b actually b say this? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Ḥullin /i 116a): With regard to b the stomach /b contents b of /b an animal slaughtered by b a gentile and /b the stomach contents b of /b an unslaughtered b animal carcass, /b each of these b is prohibited. /b , b And we discussed it /b and asked: Why does the mishna mention both an animal slaughtered by a gentile and an unslaughtered animal carcass? b Is that to say that /b an animal slaughtered by b a gentile is not /b classified as b an animal carcass? /b By mentioning each of these separately, the mishna indicates that generally they are subject to different i halakhot /i . This is difficult, as an animal slaughtered by a gentile has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered animal carcass., b And /b in answer to this difficulty, b Shmuel says: /b The mishna b is /b in fact b teaching a single /b i halakha /i , which is that b the stomach /b contents b of /b an animal b slaughtered by a gentile /b are considered to be like the stomach contents of an unslaughtered b animal carcass /b and are therefore b prohibited. /b Earlier, Shmuel asserted that only the physical skin of an animal’s stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in i Ḥullin /i , Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited.,The Gemara explains that this is b not difficult: /b |
|
66. Septuagint, 4 Maccabees, 1.16, 1.18, 1.33-1.35, 5.8-5.11, 5.18-5.26, 5.35, 7.7, 7.9, 7.16-7.23 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 110, 111 | 1.16. Wisdom, next, is the knowledge of divine and human matters and the causes of these. 1.18. Now the kinds of wisdom are rational judgment, justice, courage, and self-control. 1.33. Otherwise how is it that when we are attracted to forbidden foods we abstain from the pleasure to be had from them? Is it not because reason is able to rule over appetites? I for one think so. 1.34. Therefore when we crave seafood and fowl and animals and all sorts of foods that are forbidden to us by the law, we abstain because of domination by reason. 1.35. For the emotions of the appetites are restrained, checked by the temperate mind, and all the impulses of the body are bridled by reason. 5.8. Why, when nature has granted it to us, should you abhor eating the very excellent meat of this animal? 5.9. It is senseless not to enjoy delicious things that are not shameful, and wrong to spurn the gifts of nature. 5.10. It seems to me that you will do something even more senseless if, by holding a vain opinion concerning the truth, you continue to despise me to your own hurt. 5.11. Will you not awaken from your foolish philosophy, dispel your futile reasonings, adopt a mind appropriate to your years, philosophize according to the truth of what is beneficial, 5.18. Even if, as you suppose, our law were not truly divine and we had wrongly held it to be divine, not even so would it be right for us to invalidate our reputation for piety. 5.19. Therefore do not suppose that it would be a petty sin if we were to eat defiling food; 5.20. to transgress the law in matters either small or great is of equal seriousness, 5.21. for in either case the law is equally despised. 5.22. You scoff at our philosophy as though living by it were irrational, 5.23. but it teaches us self-control, so that we master all pleasures and desires, and it also trains us in courage, so that we endure any suffering willingly; 5.24. it instructs us in justice, so that in all our dealings we act impartially, and it teaches us piety, so that with proper reverence we worship the only real God. 5.25. Therefore we do not eat defiling food; for since we believe that the law was established by God, we know that in the nature of things the Creator of the world in giving us the law has shown sympathy toward us. 5.26. He has permitted us to eat what will be most suitable for our lives, but he has forbidden us to eat meats that would be contrary to this. 5.35. I will not put you to shame, philosophical reason, nor will I reject you, honored priesthood and knowledge of the law. 7.7. O man in harmony with the law and philosopher of divine life! 7.9. You, father, strengthened our loyalty to the law through your glorious endurance, and you did not abandon the holiness which you praised, but by your deeds you made your words of divine philosophy credible. 7.16. If, therefore, because of piety an aged man despised tortures even to death, most certainly devout reason is governor of the emotions. 7.17. Some perhaps might say, "Not every one has full command of his emotions, because not every one has prudent reason." 7.18. But as many as attend to religion with a whole heart, these alone are able to control the passions of the flesh, 7.19. ince they believe that they, like our patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, do not die to God, but live in God. 7.20. No contradiction therefore arises when some persons appear to be dominated by their emotions because of the weakness of their reason. 7.21. What person who lives as a philosopher by the whole rule of philosophy, and trusts in God, 7.22. and knows that it is blessed to endure any suffering for the sake of virtue, would not be able to overcome the emotions through godliness? 7.23. For only the wise and courageous man is lord of his emotions. |
|
| 67. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 4.7 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 267, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 |
| 68. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qdb, None Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272 |
69. Anon., Letter of Aristeas, 128, 129, 130, 131, 139, 139-40, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 148 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 106 | 148. and do not tyrannize to the destruction of their own kindred. Our legislator taught us therefore that it is by such methods as these that indications are given to the wise, that they must be just and effect nothing by violence, and refrain from tyrannizing over others in reliance upon their own |
|
| 70. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 14 Tagged with subjects: •rationality of torah, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015) 266 |
