1. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 25.29 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 172| 25.29. "וַיָּקָם אָדָם לִרְדָפְךָ וּלְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־נַפְשֶׁךָ וְהָיְתָה נֶפֶשׁ אֲדֹנִי צְרוּרָה בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְאֵת נֶפֶשׁ אֹיְבֶיךָ יְקַלְּעֶנָּה בְּתוֹךְ כַּף הַקָּלַע׃", | 25.29. "Though a man rises to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bond of life with the Lord thy God; and the souls of thy enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the hollow of a sling.", |
|
2. Mishnah, Gittin, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 172| 9.10. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו: \n", | 9.10. "Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, “it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes.", |
|
| 3. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
4. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 171| 18b. והשחלים וחלגלוגות והביצים והגרגיר (מלכים ב ד, לט) ויצא אחד אל השדה ללקט אורות תנא משמיה דר' מאיר זה גרגיר אמר ר' יוחנן למה נקרא שמן אורות שמאירות את העינים אמר רב הונא (המוציא) גרגיר אם יכול לאכלו אוכלו ואם לאו מעבירו על גבי עיניו אמר רב פפא בגרגירא מצרנאה,אמר רב גידל אמר רב אכסנאי לא יאכל ביצים ולא יישן בטליתו של בעל הבית רב כי מקלע לדרשיש מכריז מאן הויא ליומא רב נחמן כד מקלע לשכנציב מכריז מאן הויא ליומא,והתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא ישא אדם אשה במדינה זו וילך וישא אשה במדינה אחרת שמא יזדווגו זה אצל זה ונמצא אח נושא אחותו (ואב נושא בתו) וממלא כל העולם כולו ממזרות ועל זה נאמר (ויקרא יט, כט) ומלאה הארץ זמה אמרי רבנן קלא אית להו,והאמר רבא תבעוה להנשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב שבעה נקיים רבנן אודועי הוו מודעו להו מקדם הוו מקדמי ומשדרי שלוחא,ואי בעית אימא יחודי הוו מיחדי להו לפי שאינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מסרוהו זקני בית דין לזקני כהונה והעלוהו בית אבטינס והשביעוהו ונפטרו והלכו להם ואמרו לו אישי כהן גדול אנו שלוחי בית דין ואתה שלוחנו ושליח בית דין משביעין אנו עליך במי ששכן שמו בבית הזה שלא תשנה דבר מכל מה שאמרנו לך הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין,אם (הוא) היה חכם דורש ואם לאו תלמידי חכמים דורשים לפניו ואם רגיל לקרות קורא ואם לאו קורין לפניו ובמה קורין לפניו באיוב ובעזרא ובדברי הימים זכריה בן קבוטל אומר פעמים הרבה קריתי לפניו בדניאל | 18b. b cress, purslane, eggs, and arugula. /b Apropos the arugula plant, the Gemara cites a verse: b “And one of them went out into the fields to collect i orot /i ” /b (II Kings 4:39). It was b taught in the name of Rabbi Meir /b with regard to i orot /i in this verse: b This is /b the plant called b arugula. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Why are /b these arugula plants b called i orot /i ? /b It is because b they enlighten [ i me’irot /i ] the eyes. Rav Huna said: /b With regard to b one who finds arugula, if he can eat it, he eats it, and if not, he passes it over his eyes, /b as that too is beneficial. b Rav Pappa said: Arugula /b is most effective when it grows b on the border /b of the field, where it is unadulterated by other plants., b Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: A guest /b should b neither eat eggs, /b because they lead to a seminal emission, b nor sleep in a garment belonging to the homeowner, /b his host, because if he experiences a seminal emission and it gets on the garment, he will be diminished in the estimation of his host. Apropos conduct of a guest, the Gemara relates: b When Rav would happen /b to come b to Darshish he would declare: Who will be /b married to me b for the day /b that I am here so that I will not be unwed in this place, after which I will divorce her? Similarly, b when Rav Naḥman would come to Shekhantziv he would declare: Who will be /b married to me b for the day /b that I am here?, b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A man should not marry a woman in one state and go and marry /b another b woman in a different state, lest /b a b match be arranged /b between the child of b this /b wife b with /b the child of b that /b wife who are unaware of their relationship. This would b lead to a brother marrying his sister /b or b a father marrying his daughter, filling the whole world in its entirety with i mamzerim /i . And concerning this it is stated: “And the land became filled with lewdness” /b (Leviticus 19:29). The Sages b say /b in response: b The Sages generate publicity. /b Since they were well-known, the identity of their children was also undoubtedly known. Therefore, there was no concern that errors of this kind would befall their children.,The Gemara raises a different problem with the practice of Rav and Rav Naḥman. b But didn’t Rava say: /b With regard to b one who proposed marriage to /b a woman b and she agreed, /b she b is required to sit seven clean days, /b as perhaps due to the anticipatory desire she might not notice that she experienced menstrual bleeding and she is therefore impure. How, then, could these i amora’im /i marry a woman on the day that they proposed? The Gemara answers: b The Sages would inform them by sending messengers before /b their arrival. The messenger would announce that the i amora /i sought to marry a local woman. The woman who agreed would in fact wait seven clean days before marrying him., b And if you wish, say /b instead that these Sages were not actually proposing marriage; rather, they proposed so that they could b be in seclusion with /b the women, without consummating the relationship. Since the women knew that the marriage would not be consummated, they did not experience anticipatory desire. b There is no similarity between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. /b One who does not have access to bread experiences hunger more acutely than one for whom bread is available and can eat whenever he chooses. Similarly, an unmarried man experiences a more acute desire. In order to mitigate that desire, these Sages made certain that women would be designated for them., strong MISHNA: /strong b The Elders of the court /b who read the order of the service of the day before the High Priest b passed him to the Elders of the priesthood, and they took him up to the House of Avtinas. And they administered him an oath and took leave /b of him b and went on their way. /b When they administered this oath b they said to him: My Master, High Priest. We are agents of the court, and you are our agent and the agent of the court. We administer an oath to you in /b the name of b Him who housed His name in this House, that you will not change /b even one b matter from all that we have said to you /b with regard to the burning of the incense or any other service that you will perform when alone. After this oath, b he would leave /b them b and cry, and they would leave /b him b and cry /b in sorrow that the oath was necessary.,They kept him occupied throughout the night to prevent him from sleeping. b If he was a scholar, he /b would b teach /b Torah. b If /b he was b not /b a scholar, b Torah scholars /b would b teach /b Torah b before him. And if /b he was b accustomed to read /b the Bible, b he /b would b read; and if /b he was b not, they /b would b read /b the Bible b before him. And what /b books would b they read before him /b to pique his interest so that he would not fall asleep? They would read b from Job, and from Ezra, and from Chronicles. Zekharya, son of Kevutal, says: Many times I read before him from /b the book of b Daniel. /b |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 172| 65a. קובעת לה וסת עד שתקבענה שלש פעמים ואין מטהרת מן הוסת עד שתעקר ממנה שלש פעמים ושור המועד דתנן אין השור נעשה מועד עד שיעידו בו שלשה פעמים:,ת"ר ניסת לראשון ולא היו לה בנים לשני ולא היו לה בנים לשלישי לא תנשא אלא למי שיש לו בנים נישאת למי שאין לו בנים תצא בלא כתובה,איבעיא להו נישאת לשלישי ולא היו לה בנים מהו דליתבעוה הנך קמאי מי מצו אמרי לה איגלאי מילתא דאת הוא דגרמת או דלמא מצית אמרה להו השתא הוא דכחשי מסתברא מצית אמרה להו השתא הוא דכחשי,איבעיא להו נישאת לרביעי והיו לה בנים מהו דתיתבעיה לשלישי אמרינן לה שתיקותיך יפה מדיבוריך דמצי אמר לה אנא אדעתא דהכי לא גרשתיך,מתקיף לה רב פפא אי איהי שתקא אנן מי שתקינן נמצא גט בטל ובניה ממזרין אלא אמרינן השתא הוא דברייתא:,הוא אמר מינה והיא אמרה מיניה אמר רבי אמי דברים שבינו לבינה נאמנת וטעמא מאי היא קיימא לה ביורה כחץ הוא לא קים ליה ביורה כחץ,אמר איהו איזיל אינסיב איתתא ואיבדוק נפשאי אמר רבי אמי אף בזו יוציא ויתן כתובה שאני אומר כל הנושא אשה על אשתו יוציא ויתן כתובה רבא אמר נושא אדם כמה נשים על אשתו והוא דאית ליה למיזיינינהי | 65a. b establish a set pattern /b of menstrual bleeding b for herself, /b so that it can be assumed that she will start bleeding at a particular time, b until she has established it three times. /b Similarly, b she is not purified from her set pattern until it is uprooted from her three times, /b i.e., until she did not experience menstrual bleeding at the expected time according to her pattern on three occasions. b And /b the case of a b forewarned ox /b is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Bava Kamma /i 23b): b An ox does not become forewarned until /b witnesses b testify /b that b it /b has gored b three times. /b Consequently, in the cases of set patterns and a forewarned ox, a legal presumption is created only after three occurrences, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel., b The Sages taught: /b If a woman b was married to /b her b first /b husband b and she did not have children, /b and then she was married b to /b her b second /b husband b and she did not have children, she may not get married to a third /b husband b unless /b it is b to one who /b already b has children /b and has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as it is presumed that she is unable to have children. If b she got married to one who does not have children /b and he had been unaware of her presumptive status, b she is divorced without /b receiving payment for her b marriage contract, /b as he married her erroneously., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If b she was married to a third /b husband b and she did not have children /b for ten years, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to whether b those first /b husbands b can demand /b the return of the money they paid for b her /b marriage contracts? b Can /b they b say to her: It has been revealed /b retroactively b that it was you who caused /b our inability to have children, and therefore we entered our marriages erroneously, b or perhaps /b she b can say to them: It is now that /b I am older that b I have become weak, /b but in my youth I could have had children with a different husband. The Sages answer: It is b reasonable /b that b she can say to them: It is now that I have become weak. /b ,Another b dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If b she was married to a fourth /b husband b and she had children /b with him, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to whether b she can demand /b the payment of her marriage contract from her b third /b husband by claiming that it is now evident that she was capable of having children? The Gemara answers: b We say to her: Your silence is preferable to your speech, /b i.e., you are better off not making this claim, b as he can say to her: I did not divorce you with this understanding, /b and now that I know you are capable of having children, I regret divorcing you. This would invalidate her divorce and, consequently, her marriage to her fourth husband, and would render her child a i mamzer /i ., b Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: If she was silent do we remain silent? /b If there is room for concern that the divorce might be invalid, the concern exists regardless of her claim, and therefore the b bill of divorce /b should be b found invalid and her children /b from her fourth husband should be rendered b i mamzerin /i . Rather, we say /b that b it is now that she has become healthy. /b In other words, she was previously incapable of bearing children, but she has since recovered from that disability.,§ The Gemara addresses a related case. If b he said /b that the cause for their failure to have children is b from her, /b i.e., it is she who is infertile, b and she said /b it is b from him, Rabbi Ami said: /b With regard to such b matters between him and her, she is believed. /b The Gemara inquires: b What is the reason /b for this ruling? b She is certain /b whether his semen b shoots like an arrow, /b whereas b he is not certain /b whether his semen b shoots like an arrow. /b ,If b he says: I will go /b and b marry a /b different b woman and examine myself /b to see if I am indeed the cause, b Rabbi Ami said: Even in this /b case he b must divorce /b his first wife b and give /b her the payment for her b marriage contract, as I say /b that b whoever marries a woman in addition to his /b first b wife must divorce /b his first wife b and give /b her the payment for her b marriage contract. /b Conversely, b Rava said /b that b a man may marry several women in addition to his /b first b wife, and /b there is nothing wrong with this practice b as long as he has /b enough b to support them /b all. |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 175| 2a. מתני׳ big strongהמקנא /strong /big לאשתו רבי אליעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי שנים ומשקה על פי עד אחד או ע"פ עצמו רבי יהושע אומר מקנא לה על פי שנים ומשקה ע"פ שנים,כיצד מקנא לה אומר לה בפני שנים אל תדברי עם איש פלוני ודברה עמו עדיין היא מותרת לביתה ומותרת לאכול בתרומה,נכנסה עמו לבית הסתר ושהתה עמו כדי טומאה אסורה לביתה ואסורה לאכול בתרומה ואם מת חולצת ולא מתייבמת, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מכדי תנא מנזיר סליק מאי תנא דקא תנא סוטה,כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה לומר לך שכל הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין,וליתני סוטה והדר ליתני נזיר איידי דתנא כתובות ותנא המדיר תנא נדרים ואיידי דתנא נדרים תנא נזיר דדמי לנדרים וקתני סוטה כדרבי,המקנא דיעבד אין לכתחילה לא קסבר תנא דידן אסור לקנאות,א"ר שמואל בר רב יצחק כי הוה פתח ריש לקיש בסוטה אמר הכי אין מזווגין לו לאדם אשה אלא לפי מעשיו שנא' (תהלים קכה, ג) כי לא ינוח שבט הרשע על גורל הצדיקים אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף, שנאמר (תהלים סח, ז) אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות,איני והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני בית פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני לא קשיא הא בזוג ראשון הא בזוג שני,ר"א אומר מקנא לה על פי שנים וכו' עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בקינוי וסתירה אבל בטומאה עד אחד מהימן,ותנן נמי עד אחד אומר אני ראיתי שניטמאת לא היתה שותה,מדאורייתא מנלן דמהימן עד אחד דתנו רבנן (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה בשנים הכתוב מדבר,או אינו אלא אפילו באחד ת"ל (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד אחד באיש | 2a. strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b one who issues a warning to his wife /b not to seclude herself with a particular man, so that if she does not heed his warning she will assume the status of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [ i sota /i ], b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b He b issues a warning to her based on, /b i.e., in the presence of, b two /b witnesses for the warning to be effective. If two witnesses were not present for the warning, she is not a i sota /i even if two witnesses saw her seclusion with another man. b And /b the husband b gives /b the bitter water to her b to drink based on /b the testimony of b one witness /b who saw the seclusion, b or /b even b based on his own /b testimony that he himself saw them secluded together, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that only the warning requires witnesses, not the seclusion. b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b He both b issues a warning to her based on two /b witnesses b and gives /b the bitter water to her b to drink based on /b the testimony of b two /b witnesses.,The mishna asks: b How /b does he b issue a warning to her /b in an effective manner? If he b says to her in the presence of two /b witnesses: b Do not speak with /b the b man /b called b so-and-so, and she /b nevertheless b spoke with him, she is still permitted to her home, /b i.e., she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, b and /b if she is the wife of a priest b she is /b still b permitted to partake of i teruma /i . /b ,However, if after he told her not to speak with so-and-so, b she entered into a secluded place and remained with /b that man long b enough to /b become b defiled, /b i.e., sufficient time to engage in sexual intercourse, b she is forbidden to her home /b from that moment until she undergoes the i sota /i rite. b And /b likewise, if she was the wife of a priest b she is prohibited from partaking of i teruma /i , /b as she was possibly disqualified by her infidelity, so long as her innocence is not proven by means of the bitter water. b And if /b her husband b dies /b childless before she drinks the bitter water, b she perform i ḥalitza /i /b with her late husband’s brother b and may not enter into levirate marriage, /b as, if she had been unfaithful, levirate marriage is forbidden., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara questions the placement of this tractate within the mishnaic order of i Nashim /i . b Now, /b the b i tanna /i arose from /b tractate b i Nazir /i , /b which is the tractate preceding i Sota /i in the order of the Mishna. b What /b did he b teach /b in i Nazir /i b that /b required that he b teach /b tractate b i Sota /i /b immediately afterward, as at first glance there seems to be no connection between this tractate and i Nazir /i ?,The Gemara answers: This was done b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi with regard to the sequence of passages in the Torah, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Why is the portion of a nazirite /b (Numbers, chapter 6) b placed adjacent to the portion of a i sota /i /b (Numbers, chapter 5)? This was done b to tell you that anyone who sees a i sota /i in her disgrace /b as she undergoes the rite of the bitter water b should renounce wine, /b as wine is one of the causes of sexual transgression, as it loosens inhibitions. For the same reason that the Torah teaches these passages one after the other, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged these tractates one after the other.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b let /b him b teach /b tractate b i Sota /i first and then let /b him b teach /b tractate b i Nazir /i , /b which is the way these topics are ordered in the Torah, and also accords better with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the i tanna /i b taught /b tractate b i Ketubot /i , and /b in that tractate he b taught /b a chapter that begins: b One who vows, /b in which there are several i mishnayot /i concerning vows between husbands and wives, he then b taught /b tractate b i Nedarim /i , /b whose subject is the i halakhot /i of vows. b And since /b he b taught /b tractate b i Nedarim /i , /b he then b taught /b tractate b i Nazir /i , which is similar to /b tractate b i Nedarim /i /b in that one becomes a nazirite by taking a vow. b And /b he then b teaches /b tractate b i Sota /i , in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi.,§ The Gemara begins clarifying the mishna. The mishna states: b One who issues a warning /b to his wife. By employing the descriptive phrase: One who issues a warning, and not the prescriptive phrase: One issues a warning, the i tanna /i indicates that b after the fact, yes, /b it is effective if he issues a warning in this manner, but ideally, b no, /b one should not issue a warning to his wife at all b i ab initio /i . /b Apparently, b the i tanna /i of our /b mishna b holds /b that it b is prohibited to issue a warning /b to one’s wife i ab initio /i in a manner that can cause her to become a i sota /i , and all the i halakhot /i concerning a i sota /i are for one who issued a warning when not obligated to do so., b Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: When Reish Lakish would introduce /b his discussion of the Torah passage b of i sota /i /b he would b say this: /b Heaven b matches a woman to a man only according to his actions, as it is stated: “For the rod of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous” /b (Psalms 125:3), indicating that if one has a wicked wife it is due to his own evil conduct. b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: And it is as difficult to match /b a couple together b as /b was b the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is stated /b in a verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt: b “God makes the solitary individuals dwell in a house; He brings out prisoners into prosperity [ i bakosharot /i ]” /b (Psalms 68:7). God takes single individuals and causes them to dwell in a house by properly matching a man to a woman. This is similar to the exodus from Egypt, which culminated in the splitting of the Red Sea, where He released prisoners into prosperity.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so /b that a man is matched to a woman according to his actions? b But Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Forty days before an embryo is formed a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is /b destined b to /b marry b so-and-so; such and such a house is /b destined b to /b be inhabited by b so-and-so; such and such a field is /b destined b to /b be farmed by b so-and-so. /b This clearly states that these matters, including marriage, are decreed for a person even before he is formed. The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. This /b statement that Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav is b with regard to a first match [ i zivug /i ], /b while b this /b statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa is b with regard to a second match. /b A first match is decreed in heaven; a second match is according to one’s actions.,§ The Gemara now clarifies the dispute in the mishna. b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The husband must b issue a warning to her based on, /b i.e., in the presence of, b two /b witnesses, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of one witness. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses and gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw them secluded together. The Gemara notes: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua b disagree only with regard to /b the requisite number of witnesses for the b warning and /b the b seclusion, /b whether one or two witnesses are required, b but with regard to /b the testimony concerning b defilement /b after the warning was issued and seclusion had occurred, they agree that even the testimony of b one witness is deemed credible /b to establish that the woman actually engaged in sexual intercourse with the man while secluded.,The Gemara comments: b And we learned also /b in another mishna (31a) that if b a single witness says: I saw that she was defiled, /b then b she would not drink /b the bitter water, as the testimony is accepted, and her husband must divorce her and she forfeits payment of her marriage contract. Therefore, there is no need to perform the i sota /i rite.,The Gemara asks: b By Torah law, from where do we /b derive b that one witness is deemed credible /b with regard to testifying that a i sota /i engaged in sexual intercourse? The Gemara answers: b As the Sages taught /b in reference to the verse describing the circumstances in which a woman defiled through an act of adultery becomes forbidden to her husband, which states: “And a man lie with her carnally and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, b and there is no witness [ i ed /i ] against her” /b (Numbers 5:13), b the verse is speaking of /b a lack of b two /b witnesses. When the verse refers to the lack of an i ed /i , written in the singular, it actually indicates that there are not two witnesses against her, but only one, as the i baraita /i will now explain.,The i baraita /i continues and asks: b Or /b perhaps the verse is referring b only /b to a case where there was not b even one /b witness to the act of sexual intercourse, as the singular usage of the word i ed /i would seem to indicate? The i baraita /i now proves that elsewhere the word i ed /i is used to indicate two witnesses, as b the verse states: “One witness [ i ed /i ] shall not rise up against a man /b for any iniquity or any sin that he sins; by the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 174, 192, 193| 116a. שאין זה מקומה ר' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה' וא"ר חמא בר' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) [ו] אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה [הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.],אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה | 116a. b that this is not its place, /b as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: It is not for that /b reason that signs were inserted. b Rather, /b the signs are there b because /b this portion b is considered a book unto itself. /b ,The Gemara asks: b According to whose /b opinion is b that /b which b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said, /b that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, b she carved its seven pillars” /b (Proverbs 9:1), b these are the seven books of the Torah? According to whose /b opinion? It is b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy., b Who is /b the b tanna who disagrees with Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? b It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here, /b where it appears, b and will be written in its /b proper b place. And why was it written here, /b even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is b in order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishment /b that appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: b “And the people complained /b wickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is b the first punishment? /b It is the verse: b “And they traveled from the mountain of God [ i mehar Hashem /i ] /b for three days” (Numbers 10:33), b and Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God [ i me’aḥarei Hashem /i ] /b and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: b And /b if so, b where is /b the proper b place /b for this paragraph? b Rav Ashi said: In /b the portion of the b flags, /b where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to b the blank folios /b of parchment b of a Torah scroll, /b does b one rescue them from the fire /b on Shabbat, b or /b does b one not rescue them from the fire? Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to b a Torah scroll that is worn, if there is /b enough b in it to compile eighty-five /b complete b letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues /b it from the fire, b and if not one does not rescue /b it. If even the blank folios are rescued, b why /b would one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to its blank folios. The Gemara /b answers: A Torah scroll that is b worn is different, /b because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters., b Come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from that which was taught in another i baraita /i : With regard to b a Torah scroll that was erased, if there is /b enough b in it to compile eighty-five /b complete b letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues /b it from the fire, b and if not, one does not rescue /b it. b And why /b is that so? b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to its blank folios, /b as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where b the place of the writing /b is erased b it is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due to /b the b writing. /b If the b writing is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me is /b with regard to the blank portions that are b above and below, that are between /b one b section and /b another b section, that are between /b one b page and /b another b page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, /b and b that are at the end of the scroll. /b The Gemara asks again: b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to that /b area that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case b where /b the blank area b was cut and thrown /b out, and all that remains is the place of the writing., b Come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that b the blank folios /b that are b above and below, that are between /b one b section and /b another b section, that are between /b one b page and /b another b page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, /b and b that are at the end of the scroll render the hands /b that touch them b ritually impure. /b Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as b perhaps /b when it is b part of the Torah scroll, it is different, /b and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, b come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from that which was taught in another i baraita /i : With regard to b the blank folios and the /b Torah b scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names /b of God contained therein. b What, /b is this b not /b referring to the b blank folios /b of b a Torah scroll? /b The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b it is referring to the b blank folios /b of b the scrolls of heretics. /b The Gemara is surprised at this: b Now, /b with regard to b the scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescue /b them; is it b necessary /b to say that one does not rescue their b blank folios? /b Rather, b this is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios. /b ,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes b the matter itself. /b With regard to b the blank folios and the /b Torah b scrolls of /b the b heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the names /b of God contained b therein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon said /b in the form of an oath: b I will bury my sons /b if I fail to do the following, b that if /b these books b come into my possession I will burn them and the names /b contained b therein. As even /b if b a person is pursuing him /b with the intent b to kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of these /b heretics. The reason is b that these /b heretics b are aware /b of the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, b and /b nevertheless, they b deny /b the existence of God; b whereas these /b idolators b are not aware, and /b that is the reason that they b deny /b the existence of God. b And with regard to the /b heretics, b the verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory” /b (Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door., b Rabbi Yishmael said: /b The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b Just as to make peace between a husband and his wife, /b the b Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the water /b in the framework of the ordeal of the i sota /i ; b these, /b the heretics, b who impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more so /b it is proper to erase God’s names because of them. b And with regard to /b heretics, b David said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me” /b (Psalms 139:21–22). b And just as they, /b the scrolls of heretics, b are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from /b any other b matter that destroys them. /b , b Yosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu: /b With regard to b these books of the house of Abidan, /b does b one rescue them from the fire or /b does b one not rescue /b them? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said b yes and no, and /b the matter was b uncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidan /b for conversation, b and all the more so /b he would not go b to the house of Nitzrefei, /b the Persian fire-temple. b Shmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go, /b but b to the house of Abidan he did go. /b The gentile scholars b said to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan? /b He evaded their question with an excuse and b said to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, and /b that makes the path b difficult for me. /b They said to him: b We will uproot it. /b He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in b its place /b will be b difficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I am /b one b of them, /b we are friends, b and I do not fear them. /b Still, b one time he went /b and argued with them and b they sought to endanger his /b life. b Rabbi Meir would call /b the Christian writing, the Evangelion, the b wicked folio [ i aven gilyon /i ]; Rabbi Yoḥa /b called it the b sinful folio [ i avon gilyon /i ]. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Imma Shalom, /b the b wife /b of b Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was /b a Christian b philosopher [ i pilosofa /i ] in their neighborhood /b |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 172| 113a. גזייתא נינהו דשמטי סוסיא ואתו דברי להו,(וא"ל) רב לרב אסי לא תדור במתא דלא צניף בה סוסיא ולא נבח בה כלבא ואל תדור בעיר דריש מתא אסיא ולא תנסיב תרתי אי נסבת תרתי נסיב תלת,א"ל רב לרב כהנא הפוך בנבילתא ולא תיפוך במילי פשוט נבילתא בשוקא ושקיל אגרא ולא תימא כהנא אנא וגברא רבא אנא וסניא בי מלתא סלקת לאיגרא שירותך בהדך מאה קרי במתא בזוזא תותי כנפיך ניהוו,א"ל רב לחייא בריה לא תשתי סמא ולא תשוור ניגרא ולא תעקר ככא ולא תקנא בחיויא ולא תקנא בארמאה,תנו רבנן ג' אין מתקנאין בהן ואלו הן נכרי קטן ונחש קטן ותלמיד קטן מ"ט דמלכותייהו אחורי אודנייהו קאי,א"ל רב לאיבו בריה טרחי בך בשמעתא ולא מסתייע מילתא תא אגמרך מילי דעלמא אדחלא אכרעיך זבינך זבין כל מילי זבין ותחרט בר מחמרא דזבין ולא תחרט,שרי כיסיך פתח שקיך קבא מארעא ולא כורא מאיגרא,תמרא בחלוזך לבית סודנא רהיט ועד כמה אמר רבא עד תלתא סאה אמר רב פפא אי לא דרמאי שכרא לא איעתרי א"ד אמר רב חסדא אי לא דרמאי שכרא לא איעתרי מאי סודנא אמר רב חסדא סוד נאה וגמילות חסדים,אמר רב פפא כל אגב גביא בעי כל אשראי ספק אתי ספק לא אתי ודאתי מעות רעות נינהו,ג' דברים א"ר יוחנן משום אנשי ירושלים כשאתה יוצא למלחמה אל תצא בראשונה אלא תצא באחרונה כדי שתכנס בראשונה ועשה שבתך חול ואל תצטרך לבריות והוי משתדל עם מי שהשעה משחקת לו,(א"ר) שלשה דברים א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום אנשי ירושלים אל תרבה בגנות משום מעשה שהיה בתך בגרה שחרר עבדך ותן לה והוי זהיר באשתך מחתנה הראשון מ"ט רב חסדא אמר משום ערוה רב כהנא אמר משום ממון הא והא איתנהו,אמר רבי יוחנן שלשה מנוחלי העוה"ב אלו הן הדר בא"י והמגדל בניו לתלמוד תורה והמבדיל על היין במוצאי שבתות מאי היא דמשייר מקידושא לאבדלתא,א"ר יוחנן שלשה מכריז עליהן הקב"ה בכל יום על רווק הדר בכרך ואינו חוטא ועל עני המחזיר אבידה לבעליה ועל עשיר המעשר פירותיו בצינעה רב ספרא רווק הדר בכרך הוה | 113a. b are /b found b on the paths [ i gazyata /i ] /b near the city, b as horses /b belonging to the demons b flee /b along those paths, b and /b the demons b come to lead them /b away. Generally, however, demons do not enter inhabited places., b And /b Rav b said to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neigh and where dogs do not bark, /b as these animals provide security and protection. b And do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor, /b as he will be too busy working to govern properly. b And do not marry two /b women, as they will likely join forces against you. And b if you /b do b marry two, marry a third /b as well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans., b Rav said to Rav Kahana: /b It is better for one b to turn over a carcass than to turn over his word, /b i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: b Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me. /b It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If b you ascend to the roof, /b carry b your food with you. /b One should always carry his sustece with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If b one hundred pumpkins in the city /b cost b a i zuz /i , place /b them carefully under b the corners /b of your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive., b Rav said to Ḥiyya, his son: Do not /b get into the habit of b drinking medications, /b lest you develop an addiction. b And do not leap over a ditch, /b as you might hurt yourself in the process. b And do not pull out a tooth, /b but try to heal it if possible. b And do not provoke a snake /b in your house to try to kill it or chase it away. b And do not provoke a gentile, /b as this too is dangerous.,Similarly, b the Sages taught: /b There are b three /b beings b one /b should b not provoke: A small gentile, and a small snake, and a small /b Torah b scholar. What is the reason? Because their authority stands behind their ears. /b They will eventually grow up, assume power, each in his own way, and avenge those who have harassed them., b Rav said to Ayvu, his son: I struggled /b to teach b you i halakha /i but /b my efforts b did not succeed, /b as you did not become a great scholar. b Come /b and b I will teach you /b about b mundane matters: Sell your merchandise while the dust /b from the road is still b on your feet. /b As soon you return from your travels, sell your wares, lest the prices fall in the meantime. Furthermore, it is possible that b anything you sell /b might later cause you to b regret /b the sale, b except for wine, which you /b can b sell without regret. /b Since wine might go bad and be entirely lost, its sale is always advisable.,Rav further advised his son: b Open your purse /b to accept payment, and only then b open your sack /b to deliver the goods, to ensure you will receive payment for your merchandise. It is better to earn b a i kav /i from the ground than a i kor /i from the roof. /b A i kor /i is one hundred and eighty times larger than a i kav /i . This proverb means that it is preferable to earn a small amount from a local, safe transaction than to attempt to earn more through a distant, risky venture.,Rav continued: If there are b dates in your storeroom, run to the brewery /b to sell them. If you wait, there is a good chance the dates will go bad. The Gemara asks: b And how many /b dates should one keep for himself? b Rava said: Up to three i se’a /i . Rav Pappa said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. Some say /b that it was b Rav Ḥisda who said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of the word b i sudana /i , /b the Aramaic term for a brewer? b Rav Ḥisda said: A pleasant secret [ i sod na’e /i ] and acts of loving kindness, /b as brewing is a good way to make money and also enables one to perform good deeds.,The Gemara continues to offer advice about mundane matters. b Rav Pappa said: Anything /b you acquire with a document b by means /b of which ownership is transferred, i.e., a bill of acquisition or obligation, b requires collection, /b despite the fact that you are the legal owner. b Any sale on credit is uncertain whether or not /b it b will come /b to fruition. b And /b even b if it /b does b come /b to fruition, b the money is bad. /b These funds are difficult to collect, and they are generally not paid on time., b Rabbi Yoḥa said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: When you go to war do not go out first, but go out last. /b The reason is b so that /b if your side is defeated and you need to flee for your life, b you will enter /b the refuge of the city b first. And /b it is better to b make your Shabbat /b like an ordinary b weekday and do not be beholden to /b other b beings. And exert yourself /b to join together b with one upon whom the hour smiles. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: Do not indulge in a shameful act /b in public, b because of the incident that occurred /b involving David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11–12). If b your daughter has grown up, /b it is better to b free your /b Canaanite b slave and give /b him b to her /b than to leave her to find a husband on her own. b And be careful with your wife with regard to her first son-in-law, /b as she is especially fond of him. b What is the reason /b for this warning? b Rav Ḥisda said: Due to /b the possibility of b licentiousness. Rav Kahana said: Due to /b the fact that she might give him all your b money /b and leave you impoverished. The Gemara comments: Since b either of these /b could b happen, /b it is best to be prudent., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Three /b people are b among those who inherit the World-to-Come: One who lives in Eretz Yisrael; one who raises his sons to /b engage b in Torah study; and one who recites i havdala /i over wine at the conclusion of Shabbat. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the special importance of b that /b mitzva, to recite i havdala /i over wine? The Gemara answers: This is referring to an individual with only a small amount of wine, b who /b nevertheless b leaves some of /b his kiddush wine b for i havdala /i . /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa /b further b said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about /b the goodness of b three /b kinds b of people every day, /b as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: b About a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sin /b with women; b about a poor person who returns a lost object to its owners /b despite his poverty; b and about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private, /b without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: b Rav Safra was a bachelor living in a city. /b |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 172, 192| 47a. חייבת בחלה ואינה נפסלת בטבול יום דברי ר"מ ור' יהודה ר' יוסי ור"ש פוטרין מן החלה,סברוה מאן דאמר תרומה דאורייתא חלה דאורייתא מאן דאמר תרומה דרבנן חלה דרבנן אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוסי חלה בזמן הזה דרבנן אתי דמוע דרבנן ומפקע חלה דרבנן,אלא אי אמרת חלה דאורייתא אתי דמוע דרבנן ומפקע חלה דאורייתא,ודלמא קסבר רבי יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא וחלה דרבנן,וכדאהדר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי אפילו למ"ד תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן חלה דאורייתא,שהרי שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו נתחייבו בחלה ולא נתחייבו במעשר,ואמינא להו אנא אפילו למ"ד תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא חלה דרבנן דתניא אי בבואכם יכול משנכנסו לה שנים ושלשה מרגלים ת"ל בבואכם בביאת כולכם אמרתי ולא בביאת מקצתכם,וכי אסקינהו עזרא לא כולהו סלוק, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big משל משלו חכמים באשה פגה בוחל וצמל פגה עודה תנוקת בוחל אלו ימי נעוריה,בזו ובזו אמרו אביה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה צמל כיון שבגרה שוב אין לאביה רשות בה,איזהו סימנין ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר משיעלה הקמט תחת הדד ר"ע אומר משיטו הדדים בן עזאי אומר משישחיר הפיטומת רבי יוסי אומר כדי שיהא נותן ידו על העוקץ והוא שוקע ושוהא לחזור, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big פגה עודה תנוקת כדכתיב {שיר השירים ב׳:י״ג } התאנה חנטה פגיה בוחל אלו ימי הנעורים כדתנן התאנים משיבחלו ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רב משילבין ראשיהן,ואיבעית אימא מהכא (זכריה יא, ח) ותקצר נפשי בהם וגם נפשם בחלה בי צמל כמ"ד יצתה מלאה,ואיזהו סימנים ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר משיעלה הקמט אמר שמואל לא משיעלה הקמט ממש אלא כדי שתחזיר ידיה לאחוריה ונראית כמי שיעלה הקמט תחת הדד,שמואל בדק באמתיה ויהב לה ד' זוזי דמי בושתה שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לעבודה נתתים ולא לבושה,שמואל מייחד להן רב נחמן מחליף להן רב ששת מסר להן לערבי ואמר להן אזדהרו מישראל,רבי יוסי אומר כו' מאי עוקץ אמר שמואל עוקצו של דד,ת"ר אלו הן סימני בגרות ר"א בר' צדוק אומר משיתקשקשו הדדין ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר משיכסיף ראש החוטם משיכסיף אזקונה לה אלא א"ר אשי משיפציל ראש החוטם ר' יוסי אומר משתקיף העטרה ר"ש אומר משנתמעך | 47a. it is b subject to the obligation /b of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b the portion of the dough designated for the priest. b And /b although i teruma /i fell into it, that produce does not have the status of i teruma /i , as the i teruma /i was nullified by a majority of non-sacred produce. Consequently, b it is not rendered unfit /b for consumption, i.e., rendered ritually impure, b by one /b who was ritually impure b who immersed that day /b and is waiting for nightfall for his purification process to be completed. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon deem /b the dough b exempt from the /b obligation of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b as this obligation does not apply to i teruma /i , and the entire dough is exempt due to the mixture of i teruma /i it contains.,The Sages b assumed /b that b the one who said /b that b i teruma /i /b in the present applies b by Torah law /b maintains that b i ḥalla /i /b likewise applies in the present b by Torah law, /b whereas b the one who said /b that b i teruma /i /b in the present applies b by rabbinic law /b holds that b i ḥalla /i /b also applies b by rabbinic law. /b If so, b granted, if you say /b that b Rabbi Yosei holds /b that b i ḥalla /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b one can understand that b a mixture /b which has the status of i teruma /i b by rabbinic law comes and abrogates /b the obligation of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b which also applies b by rabbinic law. /b , b But if you say /b that b i ḥalla /i /b in the present applies b by Torah law, /b can b a mixture /b that has the status of i teruma /i b by rabbinic law come and abrogate /b the mitzva of b i ḥalla /i /b which is b by Torah law? /b Evidently, according to Rabbi Yosei the obligation of separating i ḥalla /i in the present is by rabbinic law, and therefore i teruma /i likewise applies by rabbinic law. If so, Rabbi Yosei does not agree with the opinion he cites in i Seder Olam /i , according to which i teruma /i applies in the present by Torah law.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by Torah law and /b yet b i ḥalla /i /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b and therefore the mixture discussed in the above i baraita /i , which has the status of i teruma /i by Torah law, abrogates the obligation of i ḥalla /i , which is by rabbinic law.,The Gemara adds: b And /b this answer is b as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, responded /b to the statement of the other Sages. b As Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I /b once b found the Sages of the study hall of Rav sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b the obligation to separate b i ḥalla /i /b is b by Torah law. /b ,The reason is b that /b during the b seven /b years b that /b the Jewish people b conquered /b Eretz Yisrael led by Joshua b and /b during the b seven /b years b that they divided /b the land, b they were obligated to /b separate b i ḥalla /i but they were not obligated to /b separate i teruma /i and b tithe. /b In the present as well, although there is no obligation to set aside i teruma /i in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i applies by Torah law.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, continued: b And I said to them: /b On the contrary, b even according to the one who said /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by Torah law, /b the obligation to separate b i ḥalla /i /b applies b by rabbinic law, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states with regard to i ḥalla /i : “When you come into the land where I bring you…from the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:18–20). b If /b the obligation applies b “when you come” /b into the land, one b might /b have thought that it took effect b from /b the moment b that two or three spies entered /b the land. Therefore b the verse states: “When you come,” /b from which it is derived that the Torah is saying: b I said /b that the obligation applies b when all of you come, and not when some of you come. /b ,According to this i baraita /i , the separation of i ḥalla /i is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people come to Eretz Yisrael. b And when Ezra brought /b the Jewish people to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period, b not all of them ascended. /b Since the majority of the Jewish people stayed behind, separating i ḥalla /i was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law., strong MISHNA: /strong b The Sages stated a parable /b based on the development of the fruit of a fig tree with regard to the three stages of development b in a woman: /b Minority, young womanhood, and grown womanhood. b An unripe fig, a ripening fig, and a ripe fig. An unripe fig /b represents the stage when b she is still a child /b and has not yet developed the signs of puberty; b a ripening fig /b represents b the days of her young womanhood, /b when she reaches twelve years and one day and has developed two pubic hairs.,With regard to the periods both b during this /b stage, minority, b and during that /b stage, young womanhood, the Sages b said /b that b her father is entitled to /b any lost object that b she finds /b that cannot be returned to its owner, b and to her earnings, and to nullification of her vows. A ripe fig /b represents the stage of grown womanhood: b Once she has reached her majority, her father no longer has authority over her. /b He can no longer nullify her vows, and he does not have a claim to lost objects found by her and her earnings belong to her., b What are the signs /b that indicate grown womanhood? b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: /b Grown womanhood begins b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that b a fold /b appears b below the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: /b It begins b from when the breasts sag /b onto the chest. b Ben Azzai says: /b It begins b from when the areola /b at the tip of the breast b darkens. Rabbi Yosei says: /b It begins when the breasts have developed to b a size where /b a person b places his hand on the nipple and it depresses and slows to return. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that b an unripe fig [ i paga /i ] /b represents the stage when a woman b is still a child. /b The Gemara explains that the meaning of the word i paga /i is b as it is written: “The fig tree puts forth her green fruits [ i fageha /i ]” /b (Song of Songs 2:13). The mishna further teaches that b a ripening fig [ i boḥal /i ] /b represents b the days of her young womanhood. /b The Gemara explains that the meaning of this word is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ma’asrot /i 1:2): The obligation of tithes applies to b the figs from when they begin to ripen [ i misheyyibaḥalu /i ]; and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rav says /b that this means b from when the heads /b of the figs b whiten. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And if you wish, say /b instead that the source is b from here: “For My soul became impatient of them, and their soul also grew in disgust [ i baḥala /i ] toward Me” /b (Zechariah 11:8). The verse indicates that this word denotes growth. As for the third term in the mishna, b a ripe fig [ i tzemel /i ], /b it is b as one would say: /b A fruit b has come forth complete [ i yatzeta mele’a /i ]. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b And what are the signs /b that indicate grown womanhood? b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: /b Grown womanhood begins b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that b a fold /b appears below the breast. b Shmuel says: /b This does b not literally /b mean b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that a permanent b fold /b appears below the breast. b Rather, /b it means that the breast has grown enough b so that /b if she were to b stretch her hand behind her /b back, b it would appear as though /b her breast has b grown /b sufficiently that there is b a fold below the breast. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Shmuel examined /b these stages b in his /b Canaanite b maidservant, and /b subsequently b gave her four dinars /b as b payment for her humiliation. /b The Gemara notes that in this regard b Shmuel /b conforms b to his /b line of b reasoning, as Shmuel said /b that the verse: b “You may enslave them forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46) teaches: b I gave them /b to you b for /b the b service /b of slaves, b but not for humiliation. /b Consequently, if a master humiliated his Canaanite slave, he must pay him damages.,The Gemara further relates, with regard to the attitude toward maidservants, that b Shmuel /b would b designate /b a particular slave b for /b each of his maidservants for intercourse, and he would not allow his slaves to engage in intercourse with whichever maidservant they chose. By contrast, b Rav Naḥman /b would b exchange /b his maidservants between his slaves, while b Rav Sheshet handed /b his maidservants b to an Arab, and said to them: /b You may engage in intercourse with whomever you choose, but b take care /b not to engage in intercourse b with a Jew. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Grown womanhood begins when the breasts have developed to a size where if a person places his hand on the nipple [ i oketz /i ] it depresses and slows to return. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b i oketz /i ? Shmuel said: /b It means b the protrusion [ i oketz /i ] of the breast, /b i.e., the nipple., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b What are the signs of maturity? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: From when the breasts knock against each other, /b due to their size. b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka says: From when the head /b of the protrusion in the center b of the nipple darkens. /b The Gemara asks with regard to this suggestion: b From when it darkens? One /b thereby b renders her old, /b i.e., if one accepts this sign, the beginning of maturity is delayed significantly. b Rather, Rav Ashi said: From when the head of the protrusion splits. Rabbi Yosei says: From when the nipple /b grows to such an extent that it b is surrounded by a circle. Rabbi Shimon says: From when /b there is b a softening /b |
|
10. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 68| 23b. חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני הרוצה שיאכל אצלו חבירו ומסרב בו ומדירו נדרי זירוזין הוא והרוצה שלא יתקיימו נדריו כל השנה יעמוד בראש השנה ויאמר כל נדר שאני עתיד לידור יהא בטל ובלבד שיהא זכור בשעת הנדר,אי זכור עקריה לתנאיה וקיים ליה לנדריה אמר אביי תני ובלבד שלא יהא זכור בשעת הנדר,רבא אמר לעולם כדאמרינן מעיקרא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהתנה בראש השנה ולא ידע במה התנה והשתא קא נדר אי זכור בשעת הנדר ואמר על דעת הראשונה אני נודר נדריה לית ביה ממשא לא אמר על דעת הראשונה אני נודר עקריה לתנאיה וקיים לנדריה,רב הונא בר חיננא סבר למידרשיה בפירקא אמר ליה רבא תנא קא מסתים לה סתומי כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים ואת דרשת ליה בפירקא,איבעיא להו פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב או לא ואם תימצי לומר פליגי הלכתא כוותיה או לא תא שמע דתנן האומר לחבירו | 23b. The Gemara answers: The mishna b is incomplete and is teaching like this: /b In the case of b one who wants another to eat with him, and he urges him /b to do so b and makes a vow with regard to him, this /b vow b is /b included in the category of b vows of exhortation, /b which do not require dissolution. b And /b in addition, b one who desires /b that b his vows not be upheld /b for b the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void. And /b this is statement is effective, b provided that he remembers at the time of the vow /b that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void.,The Gemara asks: b If he remembers /b at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void but still makes the vow, then b he has uprooted his stipulation /b that all his vows are void b and has upheld his vow. /b Why, then, does it state that the vows are void in this case? b Abaye said: Teach: And /b this is statement is effective, b provided that he does not remember at the time of the vow /b that his intention at the beginning of the year was to render it void., b Rava said: Actually, /b say b as we said initially, /b that he does remember his stipulation at the time of the vow. b With what are we dealing here? /b It is a case b where he stipulated /b a condition b on Rosh HaShana /b rendering void vows that he would make later in the year, b but he did not know with regard to which /b vows b he made the stipulation, and now he makes a vow. If he remembers at the time of the vow and says: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, /b when I stipulated that all vows should be void, b his vow has no substance. /b However, if b he did not say: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, /b then b he has uprooted his stipulation and upheld his vow. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rav Huna bar Ḥina intended to teach /b this topic b at /b the Festival b lecture, /b so that everyone would learn this manner of rendering vows void on Rosh HaShana. b Rava said to him: /b The b i tanna /i /b of the mishna b conceals it /b and does not say it explicitly, despite the fact that it is studied by Torah scholars, b in order that /b the public b not treat vows lightly, and you teach it /b publicly b at /b the Festival b lecture? /b ,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the scholars: Do b the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov /b in the mishna b or not? And if you say /b that b they disagree /b with him, is b the i halakha /i in accordance with his /b opinion b or not? /b The Gemara suggests a proof: b Come /b and b hear, as we learned /b in a mishna (63b): b One who says to another: /b |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 193| 11a. (עזרא ט, ט) כי עבדים אנחנו ובעבדותנו לא עזבנו אלהינו ויט עלינו חסד לפני מלכי פרס אימתי בזמן המן,רבי חנינא בר פפא פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (תהלים סו, יב) הרכבת אנוש לראשנו באנו באש ובמים באש בימי נבוכדנצר הרשע ובמים בימי פרעה ותוציאנו לרויה בימי המן,רבי יוחנן פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (תהלים צח, ג) זכר חסדו ואמונתו לבית ישראל ראו כל אפסי ארץ את ישועת אלהינו אימתי ראו כל אפסי ארץ את ישועת אלהינו בימי מרדכי ואסתר,ריש לקיש פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (משלי כח, טו) ארי נוהם ודוב שוקק מושל רשע על עם דל ארי נוהם זה נבוכדנצר הרשע דכתיב ביה (ירמיהו ד, ז) עלה אריה מסובכו דוב שוקק זה אחשורוש דכתיב ביה (דניאל ז, ה) וארו חיוה אחרי תניינה דמיה לדוב ותני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין בשר כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב,מושל רשע זה המן על עם דל אלו ישראל שהם דלים מן המצות,ר' אלעזר פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (קהלת י, יח) בעצלתים ימך המקרה ובשפלות ידים ידלוף הבית בשביל עצלות שהיה להם לישראל שלא עסקו בתורה נעשה שונאו של הקב"ה מך ואין מך אלא עני שנאמר (ויקרא כז, ח) ואם מך הוא מערכך ואין מקרה אלא הקב"ה שנאמר (תהלים קד, ג) המקרה במים עליותיו,רב נחמן בר יצחק פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (תהלים קכד, א) שיר המעלות לולי ה' שהיה לנו יאמר נא ישראל לולי ה' שהיה לנו בקום עלינו אדם (תהלים קכד,ב) אדם ולא מלך,רבא פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (משלי כט, ב) ברבות צדיקים ישמח העם ובמשול רשע יאנח עם ברבות צדיקים ישמח העם זה מרדכי ואסתר דכתיב והעיר שושן צהלה ושמחה ובמשול רשע יאנח עם זה המן דכתיב והעיר שושן נבוכה,רב מתנה אמר מהכא (דברים ד, ז) כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו רב אשי אמר מהכא (דברים ד, לד) או הנסה אלהים וגו',ויהי בימי אחשורוש אמר רב ויי והי הדא דכתיב (דברים כח, סח) והתמכרתם שם לאויביך לעבדים ולשפחות וגו',ושמואל אמר (ויקרא כו, מד) לא מאסתים ולא געלתים לכלותם לא מאסתים בימי יוונים ולא געלתים בימי נבוכדנצר לכלותם בימי המן להפר בריתי אתם בימי פרסיים כי אני ה' אלהיהם בימי גוג ומגוג,במתניתא תנא לא מאסתים בימי כשדים שהעמדתי להם דניאל חנניה מישאל ועזריה ולא געלתים בימי יוונים שהעמדתי להם שמעון הצדיק וחשמונאי ובניו ומתתיה כה"ג לכלותם בימי המן שהעמדתי להם מרדכי ואסתר להפר בריתי אתם בימי פרסיים שהעמדתי להם של בית רבי וחכמי דורות כי אני ה' אלהיהם לעתיד לבוא שאין כל אומה ולשון יכולה לשלוט בהם,רבי לוי אמר מהכא (במדבר לג, נה) ואם לא תורישו את יושבי הארץ,רבי חייא אמר מהכא (במדבר לג, נו) והיה כאשר דמיתי לעשות להם אעשה לכם,אחשורוש אמר רב אחיו של ראש ובן גילו של ראש אחיו של ראש אחיו של נבוכדנצר הרשע שנקרא ראש שנאמר (דניאל ב, לח) אנת הוא רישא די דהבא בן גילו של ראש הוא הרג הוא ביקש להרוג הוא החריב הוא ביקש להחריב שנאמר (עזרא ד, ו) ובמלכות אחשורוש בתחלת מלכותו כתבו שטנה על יושבי יהודה וירושלם,ושמואל אמר שהושחרו פניהם של ישראל בימיו כשולי קדרה ורבי יוחנן אמר כל שזוכרו אמר אח לראשו ורבי חנינא אמר שהכל נעשו רשין בימיו שנאמר (אסתר י, א) וישם המלך אחשורוש מס,הוא אחשורוש הוא ברשעו מתחילתו ועד סופו (בראשית לו, מג) הוא עשו הוא ברשעו מתחילתו ועד סופו (במדבר כו, ט) הוא דתן ואבירם הן ברשען מתחילתן ועד סופן (דברי הימים ב כח, כב) הוא המלך אחז הוא ברשעו מתחילתו ועד סופו,(דברי הימים א א, כז) אברם הוא אברהם הוא בצדקו מתחילתו ועד סופו (שמות ו, כו) הוא אהרן ומשה הן בצדקן מתחילתן ועד סופן (שמואל א יז, יד) ודוד הוא הקטן הוא בקטנותו מתחילתו עד סופו כשם שבקטנותו הקטין עצמו אצל מי שגדול ממנו בתורה כך במלכותו הקטין עצמו אצל מי שגדול ממנו בחכמה,המולך אמר רב שמלך מעצמו אמרי לה לשבח ואמרי לה לגנאי אמרי לה לשבח דלא הוה איניש דחשיב למלכא כוותיה ואמרי לה לגנאי דלא הוה חזי למלכותא וממונא יתירא הוא דיהב וקם,מהודו ועד כוש רב ושמואל חד אמר הודו בסוף העולם וכוש בסוף העולם וחד אמר הודו וכוש גבי הדדי הוו קיימי כשם שמלך על הודו וכוש כך מלך מסוף העולם ועד סופו,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (מלכים א ה, ד) כי הוא רודה בכל עבר הנהר מתפסח ועד עזה רב ושמואל חד אמר תפסח בסוף העולם ועזה בסוף העולם וחד אמר תפסח ועזה בהדי הדדי הוו קיימי כשם שמלך על תפסח ועל עזה כך מלך על כל העולם כולו,שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה אמר רב חסדא בתחילה מלך על שבע ולבסוף מלך על עשרים ולבסוף מלך על מאה אלא מעתה (שמות ו, כ) ושני חיי עמרם שבע ושלשים ומאת שנה מאי דרשת ביה שאני הכא דקרא יתירא הוא מכדי כתיב מהודו ועד כוש שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה למה לי ש"מ לדרשה:,תנו רבנן שלשה מלכו בכיפה ואלו הן אחאב ואחשורוש ונבוכדנצר אחאב דכתיב (מלכים א יח, י) חי ה' אלהיך אם יש גוי וממלכה אשר לא שלח אדוני שם לבקשך וגו' ואי לא דהוה מליך עלייהו היכי מצי משבע להו,נבוכדנצר דכתיב (ירמיהו כז, ח) והיה הגוי והממלכה אשר לא יתן את צוארו בעול מלך בבל אחשורוש הא דאמרן | 11a. b “For we are bondmen; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia” /b (Ezra 9:9). b When /b did this occur? b In the time of Haman. /b , b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa introduced this passage with an introduction from here: /b The verse states: b “You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; /b but You brought us out into abundance” (Psalms 66:12). b “Through fire”; /b this was b in the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, /b who cast the righteous into the furnace. b “And through water”; /b this was b in the days of Pharaoh, /b who decreed that all newborn males be cast into the water. b “But You brought us out into abundance”; /b this was b in the days of Haman, /b where abundant feasts played a pivotal role in their peril and salvation., b Rabbi Yoḥa introduced this passage with an introduction from here: /b The verse states: b “He has remembered His mercy and His faithfulness toward the house of Israel: All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God” /b (Psalms 98:3). b When did all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our God? In the days of Mordecai and Esther, /b for their peril and salvation became known through the letters sent throughout the empire., b Reish Lakish introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “As a roaring lion, and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people” /b (Proverbs 28:15). b “A roaring lion”; this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, as it is written about him: “The lion has come up from his thicket” /b (Jeremiah 4:7). b “A hungry bear”; this is Ahasuerus, as it is written about him: “And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear” /b (Daniel 7:5). b And Rav Yosef taught /b that b these /b who are referred to as a bear in the verse b are the Persians. /b They are compared to a bear, b as they eat and drink /b in large quantities b like a bear; and they are coated with flesh like a bear; and they grow their hair /b long b like a bear; and they never rest like a bear, /b whose manner it is to move about from place to place., b “A wicked ruler”; this is Haman. “Over a poor people”; this is the Jewish people, /b who are referred to in this manner b because they are poor in /b their observance of b the mitzvot. /b , b Rabbi Elazar introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “Through laziness the rafters [ i hamekare /i ] sink in [ i yimakh /i ]; and through idleness of the hands the house leaks” /b (Ecclesiastes 10:18). Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse homiletically: b Through the laziness of the Jewish people, who did not occupy themselves with Torah /b study, b the enemy of the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b a euphemism for God Himself, b became poor [ i makh /i ], /b so that, as it were, He was unable to help them, b as i makh /i /b is b nothing other than poor, as it is stated: “But if he be too poor [ i makh /i ] for the valuation” /b (Leviticus 27:8). b And /b the word b i mekare /i /b in the verse b is referring /b to b no /b one b other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Who lays the beams [ i hamekare /i ] of His chambers in the waters” /b (Psalms 104:3)., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “A song of ascents /b of David. b If not for the Lord Who was with us, let Israel now say; if not for the Lord who was with us, when a man rose up against us” /b (Psalms 124:1–2). The verse speaks of b “a man” /b who rose up against us b and not a king. /b This occurred in the days of Haman, as he, and not King Ahasuerus, was the chief enemy of the Jewish people., b Rava introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice; but when the wicked man rules, the people mourn” /b (Proverbs 29:2). b “When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice”; this is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad” /b (Esther 8:15). b “But when the wicked man rules, the people mourn”; this is Haman, as it is written: “But the city of Shushan was perplexed” /b (Esther 3:15)., b Rav Mattana said /b his introduction b from here: “For what nation is there so great, that has God so near to them” /b (Deuteronomy 4:7), as to witness the great miracles in the days of Mordecai and Esther? b Rav Ashi said /b his introduction b from here: /b The verse states: b “Or has God ventured /b to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation?” (Deuteronomy 4:34), as in the times of Esther, God saved the Jewish people who were scattered throughout the Persian Empire.,§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the book of Esther. The verse states: b “And it came to pass [ i vayhi /i ] in the days of Ahasuerus” /b (Esther 1:1). b Rav said: /b The word i vayhi /i may be understood as if it said b i vai /i and i hi /i , /b meaning b woe and mourning. This is as it is written: “And there you shall sell yourselves to your enemies for bondsmen and bondswomen, /b and no man shall buy you” (Deuteronomy 28:68). The repetitive nature of the verse, indicating that no one will be willing to buy you for servitude, but they will purchase you in order to murder you, indicates a doubly horrific situation, which is symbolized by the dual term i vayhi /i , meaning woe and mourning., b And Shmuel said /b his introduction from here: “And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, b I will not reject them, nor will I abhor them, /b to destroy them utterly, and to break My covet with them; for I am the Lord their God” (Leviticus 26:44). Shmuel explains: b “I will not reject them”; /b this was b in the days of the Greeks. “Nor will I abhor them”; /b this was b in the days of /b Vespasian. b “To destroy them utterly”; /b this was b in the days of Haman. “To break My covet with them”; /b this was b in the days of the Persians. “For I am the Lord their God”; /b this is b in the days of Gog and Magog. /b ,An alternative understanding b was taught in a i baraita /i : “I will not reject them”; /b this was b in the days of the Chaldeans, when I appointed for them Daniel, Haiah, Mishael, and Azariah /b to pray on their behalf. b “Nor will I abhor them”; /b this was b in the days of the Greeks, when I appointed Shimon HaTzaddik for them, and /b the b Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattithiah the High Priest. “To destroy them utterly”; /b this was b in the days of Haman, when I appointed for them /b the righteous leaders b Mordecai and Esther. “To break My covet with them”; /b this was b in the days of the Romans, when I appointed for them /b the Sages of b the house of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and the Sages of /b other b generations. “For I am the Lord their God”; /b this will be b in the future, when no nation or /b people of a foreign b tongue will be able /b to b subjugate them /b further., b Rabbi Levi said /b his introduction b from here: “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land /b from before you, then it shall come to pass, that those whom you allow to remain of them shall be as thorns in your eyes” (Numbers 33:55). King Saul’s failure to completely annihilate Amalek allowed for the existence of his descendant Haman, who acted as a thorn in the eyes of Israel during the Purim episode., b Rabbi Ḥiyya said /b his introduction b from here, /b the continuation of the previously cited verse: b “And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so I shall do unto you” /b (Numbers 33:56). Prior to the miracle of Purim, the Jewish people were subject to the punishment that the Torah designated for its enemies, because they did not fulfill God’s commandments.,The Gemara continues with its explanation of the book of Esther, beginning with a discussion of the name b Ahasuerus. Rav said: /b The name should be viewed as a contraction: b The brother of the head [ i aḥiv shel rosh /i ] and of the same character as the head [ i ben gilo shel rosh /i ]. /b Rav explains: b The brother of the head, /b i.e., b the brother of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who is called “head,” as it is stated: “You are the head of gold” /b (Daniel 2:38). b of the same character as the head, for he, /b Nebuchadnezzar, b killed /b the Jews, and b he, /b Ahasuerus, b sought to kill /b them. b He destroyed /b the Temple, and b he sought to destroy /b the foundations for the Temple laid by Zerubbabel, b as it is stated: “And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote to him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” /b (Ezra 4:6), and he ordered that the construction of the Temple cease., b And Shmuel said: /b The name Ahasuerus should be understood in the sense of black [ i shaḥor /i ], as b the face of the Jewish people was blackened in his days like the bottom of a pot. And Rabbi Yoḥa said /b a different explanation: b Everyone who recalled him said: “Woe upon his head” [ i aḥ lerosho /i ]. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b The name alludes to the fact b that everyone became poor /b [ b i rash /i ] in his days, as it is stated: “And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute /b upon the land” (Esther 10:1).,The Gemara continues: b “This is [ i hu /i ] Ahasuerus” /b (Esther 1:1); the term i hu /i , this is, comes to teach that b he /b remained as he was b in his wickedness from beginning to end. /b Similarly, wherever the words “this is” appear in this manner, the verse indicates that the individual under discussion remained the same from beginning to end, for example: b “This is [ i hu /i ] Esau” /b (Genesis 36:43); b he /b remained b in his wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [ i hu /i ] Dathan and Abiram” /b (Numbers 26:9); b they /b remained b in their wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [ i hu /i ] the king Ahaz” /b (II Chronicles 28:22); b he /b remained b in his wickedness from beginning to end. /b ,The Gemara continues: The word i hu /i is also used to recognize sustained righteousness. b “Abram, this is [ i hu /i ] Abraham” /b (I Chronicles 1:27); this indicates that Abraham didn’t change, as b he /b remained b in his righteousness from beginning to end. /b Similarly, b “This is [ i hu /i ] Aaron and Moses” /b (Exodus 6:26); b they remained in their righteousness from /b the b beginning /b of their life b to /b the b end /b of their life. Similarly, with respect to David: b “And David, this was [ i hu /i ] the youngest” /b (I Samuel 17:14), indicates that b he remained in his humility from beginning to end. Just as in his youth, /b when he was still an ordinary individual, b he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in Torah, so too, in his kingship, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in wisdom. /b ,The next term in the opening verse: b “Who reigned” /b (Esther 1:1), is now interpreted. b Rav said: /b This comes to teach b that he reigned on his own, /b without having inherited the throne. b Some say /b this b to /b his b credit, and some say it to /b his b disgrace. /b The Gemara explains: b Some say /b this b to /b his b credit, that there was no /b other b man as fit as him to be king. And some say it to /b his b disgrace, that he was not fit to be king, but he distributed large amounts of money, and /b in that way b rose /b to the throne.,The opening verse continues that Ahasuerus reigned b “from Hodu to Cush.” Rav and Shmuel /b disagreed about its meaning. b One said: Hodu /b is a country b at one end of the world, and Cush /b is a country b at the /b other b end of the world. And one said: Hodu and Cush are situated next to each other, /b and the verse means to say as follows: b Just as /b Ahasuerus b reigned /b with ease b over /b the adjacent countries of b Hodu and Cush, so too, he reigned /b with ease b from one end of the world to the other. /b , b On a similar /b note, b you say /b with regard to Solomon: b “For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza” /b (I Kings 5:4), and also with regard to this b Rav and Shmuel /b disagreed. b One said: Tiphsah is at one end of the world, whereas Gaza is at the other end of the world. And one said: Tiphsah and Gaza are situated next to each other, /b and the verse means to say as follows: b Just as /b Solomon b reigned /b with ease b over /b the adjacent b Tiphsah and Gaza, so too, he reigned /b with ease b over the entire world. /b ,The opening verse continues, stating that Ahasuerus reigned “over b seven and twenty and a hundred provinces” /b (Esther 1:1). b Rav Ḥisda said: /b This verse should be understood as follows: b At first he reigned over seven /b provinces; b and then he reigned over twenty /b more; b and finally he reigned over /b another b hundred. /b The Gemara asks: b However, if /b that is b so, /b with regard to the similarly worded verse: b “And the years of the life of Amram were seven and thirty and a hundred years” /b (Exodus 6:20), b what would you expound /b from b it? /b The Gemara answers: b It is different here, /b in the book of Esther, b as /b this part of b the verse is /b entirely b superfluous. Since it is /b already b written: “From Hodu to Cush,” why /b then b do I need “Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”? /b Rather, b learn from here /b that these words come b for /b this b exposition, /b to teach that Ahasuerus did not begin to reign over all of them at the same time.,§ Apropos the discussion of the kingdoms of Ahasuerus and Solomon, the Gemara cites a i baraita /i in which b the Sages taught: Three /b men b ruled over the /b entire b world, and they were Ahab, and Ahasuerus, and Nebuchadnezzar. /b The Gemara explains: b Ahab, as it is written /b in the words of Obadiah, servant of Ahab, to Elijah: b “As the Lord your God lives, there is no nation or kingdom where my master has not sent to seek you, /b and they said: He is not there; and he made the kingdom and nation swear, that they had not found you” (I Kings 18:10). b And if he did not reign over them, how could he have made them swear? /b Apparently, then, he reigned over the entire world., b Nebuchadnezzar /b also ruled over the whole world, b as it is written: “And it shall come to pass, that the nation and the kingdom /b that not serve this same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylonia, and that b will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylonia, /b that nation will I visit, says the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand” (Jeremiah 27:8). b Ahasuerus /b also ruled the world, b as we have said /b above. |
|
12. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 348 | 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 |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 72, 193| 106a. האי עשה והאי עשה עשה דכבוד תורה עדיף סלקיה לדינא דיתמי ואחתיה לדיניה כיון דחזא בעל דיניה יקרא דקא עביד ליה איסתתם טענתיה:,רב ענן הוה רגיל אליהו דאתי גביה דהוה מתני ליה סדר דאליהו כיון דעבד הכי איסתלק יתיב בתעניתא ובעא רחמי ואתא כי אתא הוה מבעית ליה בעותי,ועבד תיבותא ויתיב קמיה עד דאפיק ליה סידריה והיינו דאמרי סדר דאליהו רבה סדר אליהו זוטא,בשני דרב יוסף הוה ריתחא אמרי ליה רבנן לרב יוסף ליבעי מר רחמי אמר להו השתא ומה אלישע דכי הוו רבנן מיפטרי מקמיה הוו פיישי תרי אלפן ומאתן רבנן בעידן ריתחא לא הוה בעי רחמי אנא איבעי רחמי,וממאי דפיישי הכי דכתיב (מלכים ב ד, מג) ויאמר משרתו מה אתן זה לפני מאה איש מאי לפני מאה איש אילימא דכולהו לפני מאה איש בשני בצורת טובא הוו אלא דכל חד וחד קמי מאה איש,כי הוו מיפטרי רבנן מבי רב הוו פיישי אלפא ומאתן רבנן מבי רב הונא הוו פיישי תמני מאה רבנן רב הונא הוה דריש בתליסר אמוראי כי הוו קיימי רבנן ממתיבתא דרב הונא ונפצי גלימייהו הוה סליק אבקא וכסי ליה ליומא ואמרי במערבא קמו ליה ממתיבתא דרב הונא בבלאה,כי מיפטרי רבנן מבי רבה ורב יוסף הוו פיישי ארבע מאה רבנן וקרו לנפשייהו יתמי כי הוו מיפטרי רבנן מבי אביי ואמרי לה מבי רב פפא ואמרי לה מבי רב אשי הוו פיישי מאתן רבנן וקרו נפשייהו יתמי דיתמי,א"ר יצחק בר רדיפא א"ר אמי מבקרי מומין שבירושלים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ת"ח המלמדין הלכות שחיטה לכהנים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה,אמר רב גידל אמר רב ת"ח המלמדים הלכות קמיצה לכהנים נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן מגיהי ספרים שבירושלים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה,אמר רב נחמן אמר רב נשים האורגות בפרכות נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ואני אומר מקדשי בדק הבית הואיל ופרכות תחת בנין עשויות,מיתיבי נשים האורגות בפרכות ובית גרמו על מעשה לחם הפנים ובית אבטינס על מעשה הקטרת כולן היו נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה,התם בדבבי דאמר רבי זירא אמר רב שלשה עשר פרכות היו במקדש שני שבעה כנגד שבעה שערים אחד לפתחו של היכל ואחד לפתחו של אולם ב' בדביר ב' כנגדן בעליה:,ת"ר נשים המגדלות בניהן לפרה היו נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אבא שאול אומר נשים יקרות שבירושלים היו זנות אותן ומפרנסות אותן,בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב | 106a. b This is a positive mitzva, /b for judges to judge cases properly, b and this is a positive mitzva, /b to honor Torah scholars and their families. Rav Naḥman concluded that b the positive mitzva of /b giving b honor to the Torah takes precedence. /b Therefore, b he put aside the case of the orphans and settled down to judge /b the case of that man, under the mistaken assumption that he was a relative of Rav A. b Once the /b other b litigant saw the honor being accorded to /b that man by the judge, he grew nervous until his mouth, i.e., his ability to argue b his claim, became closed, /b and he lost the case. In this manner, justice was perverted by Rav A, albeit unwittingly and indirectly., b Elijah /b the Prophet b was accustomed to come /b and visit b Rav A, as /b the prophet b was teaching him /b the statements that would later be recorded in the volume b i Seder deEliyahu /i , /b the Order of Elijah. b Once /b Rav A b did this /b and caused a miscarriage of justice, Elijah b departed. /b Rav A b sat in /b observance of b a fast and prayed for mercy, and /b Elijah b came /b back. However, b when /b Elijah b came /b after that, b he would scare him, /b as he would appear in frightening forms., b And /b Rav A b made a box /b where he settled himself down b and he sat before /b Elijah b until he took out for him, /b i.e., taught him, all of b his i Seder /i . And this is what /b the Sages mean when b they say: i Seder deEliyahu Rabba /i , /b the Major Order of Elijah, and b i Seder Eliyahu Zuta /i , /b the Minor Order of Elijah, as the first order was taught prior to this incident and the second came after it.,§ The Gemara relates: b In the years of Rav Yosef there was /b a divine b anger, /b manifested by world hunger. b The Sages said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master pray for mercy /b concerning this decree. b He said to them: Now, if /b in the case of the prophet b Elisha, when the Sages would take their leave of him, 2,200 Sages would remain /b behind whom he would support from his own pocket, and yet he b would not pray for mercy at a time of /b divine b anger /b and famine, b should I pray for mercy? /b ,The Gemara asks: b And from where /b is it derived b that this /b number of scholars b would remain /b behind with Elisha? b As it is written: “And his servant said: How should I set this before a hundred men” /b (II Kings 4:43). b What /b is the meaning of b “before a hundred men”? If we say that all of /b the gifts that he had received, i.e., the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn mentioned in the preceding verse, were meant to be placed b before one hundred men, in years of drought /b and famine b this was a good /b deal of food, which would have sufficed for them. b Rather, /b it must mean b that each and every one /b of the loaves was to be placed b before one hundred men. /b Since he had twenty loaves plus two meals of first-fruits and ears of corn, there must have been 2,200 people present.,§ Incidentally, the Gemara relates: b When the Sages would take their leave from the school /b of b Rav, 1,200 Sages would remain /b behind to continue their studies. When the Sages would take their leave b from the school /b of b Rav Huna, eight hundred Sages would remain /b behind. b Rav Huna would expound /b the lesson b by /b means of b thirteen speakers, /b who would repeat his statements to the crowds that had gathered to hear him. b When the Sages would arise /b from listening to lectures b in the yeshiva of Rav Huna and dust off their cloaks, the dust would rise and block out the sun, /b forming a dust cloud that could be seen from afar. b And they would say in the West, /b in Eretz Yisrael: b The /b scholars b have /b just b arisen in the yeshiva of Rav Huna the Babylonian. /b , b When the Sages would take their leave from the school /b of b Rabba and Rav Yosef, four hundred Sages would remain /b behind, b and they would refer to themselves as orphans, /b as they were the only ones left from the entire crowd. b When the Sages would take their leave from the school /b of b Abaye, and some say from the school /b of b Rav Pappa, and some say from the school /b of b Rav Ashi, two hundred scholars would remain /b behind, b and they would refer to themselves as orphans of orphans. /b ,§ The Gemara returns to the issue of those who receive their wages from public funds. b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Redifa said /b that b Rabbi Ami said: Inspectors of blemishes /b of consecrated animals b in Jerusalem, /b who would examine all animals brought to be sacrificed in the Temple to verify that they were free of any blemishes that would disqualify them from being sacrificed on the altar, b would take their wages from the collection of the /b Temple treasury b chamber. Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: Torah scholars who teach the i halakhot /i of slaughter to the priests /b of the Temple b would take their wages from /b the b collection of the chamber. /b , b Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: Torah scholars who teach the i halakhot /i of the removal of a handful to the priests would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b All these scholars were constantly engaged in work necessary for the functioning of the Temple, and therefore they would receive their wages from the Temple treasury. b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The proofreaders of /b the Torah b scrolls in Jerusalem would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b , b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rav said: The women who weave the curtains /b that separate the Temple Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies b would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b Rav Naḥman added: b But I say /b that they would not be paid from the collection of the chamber; rather, their salary would come b from /b the funds b consecrated for Temple maintece. /b Why? b Since the curtains served in place /b of the solid construction of the b building, /b they were part of the Temple itself. Therefore, any work performed for the curtains should be paid for from money allocated for building purposes, not from the funds collected to pay for offerings and the daily needs of the Temple.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this: b The women who weave the curtains, and the house of Garmu, /b who were in charge b of the preparation of the shewbread, and the house of Avtinas, /b who were in charge b of the preparation of the incense, all would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b This contradicts Rav Naḥman’s claim.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b it is referring to the curtains b of the gates, /b which were not considered part of the actual Temple building but were decorative in purpose. b As Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rav said: There were thirteen curtains in the Second Temple, seven opposite, /b i.e., on the inside of, b seven gates, one at the entrance to the Sanctuary, one at the entrance to the Entrance Hall, two /b additional curtains b within the partition, /b in the Holy of Holies in place of the one-cubit partition, b and two corresponding to them /b above b in the upper chamber. /b , b The Sages taught: /b With regard to b the women who raise their children for /b the red b heifer, /b i.e., who would raise their children in special places so that they would live their entire lives up to that point in a state of ritual purity, enabling them to draw the water for the purposes of the ritual of the red heifer, these women b would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Abba Shaul said: /b Their wages would not come from the collection of the chamber. Instead, wealthy and b prominent women of Jerusalem would sustain them and provide them with a livelihood. /b , b Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav: /b |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 68| 15a. כל נרות של מתכת מטלטלין חוץ מן הנר שהדליקו בו באותה שבת,ודלמא שאני התם דהוא דחי ליה בידים,אלא אמר רב אשי רבי יהודה דמבשל היא דתנן המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל דברי רבי מאיר,רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג יאכל במוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכל עולמית,רבי יוחנן הסנדלר אומר בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו במזיד לא יאכל עולמית לא לו ולא לאחרים,ונוקמה במזיד ורבי מאיר,לא סלקא דעתך דקתני דומיא דיום הכפורים מה יום הכפורים לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל אף הכא נמי לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל,ומי מצית מוקמת לה בשוגג ורבי יהודה והא אף על פי שמתחייב בנפשו קתני הכי קאמר אע"פ דבמזיד מתחייב בנפשו הוא הכא דבשוגג שחיטתו כשרה,ונוקמה כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר דאמר לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל רבי יוחנן הסנדלר קמפליג במוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו תנא דידן שחיטתו כשרה קתני לא שנא לו ולא שנא לאחרים,תני תנא קמיה דרב המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל ומשתיק ליה רב,מאי טעמא משתיק ליה אילימא משום דסבירא ליה כרבי יהודה ותנא תני כרבי מאיר משום דסבירא ליה כרבי יהודה מאן דתני כרבי מאיר משתיק ליה,ועוד מי סבר לה כרבי יהודה והאמר רב חנן בר אמי כי מורי להו רב לתלמידיה מורי להו כר' מאיר וכי דריש בפירקא דריש כרבי יהודה משום עמי הארץ,וכי תימא תנא בפירקיה תנא קמיה אטו כולי עלמא לתנא צייתי לאמורא צייתי,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תנא שוחט תנא קמיה דרב השוחט בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל אמר ליה מאי דעתיך כרבי מאיר עד כאן לא קשרי רבי מאיר אלא במבשל דראוי לכוס אבל שוחט דאין ראוי לכוס לא,והא מתניתין דשוחט הוא ואמר רב הונא דרש חייא בר רב משמיה דרב אסורה באכילה ליומא ונסבין חבריא למימר רבי יהודה היא הא רבי מאיר שרי,כי שרי רבי מאיר | 15a. b One may move all metal lamps /b on Shabbat, even old ones, because they do not become repugt like earthenware lamps, b except for /b a metal b lamp that one kindled on that same Shabbat /b and that was burning when Shabbat began, which it is prohibited to move for the entire Shabbat due to the prohibition against extinguishing.,The Gemara rejects that analogy. b And perhaps /b it b is different there, /b in the case of the burning lamp, b as he set it aside by /b direct b action /b when he kindled the lamp. By contrast, in the case of an animal, he did not set it aside, and therefore, perhaps once it is slaughtered it is permitted., b Rather, Rav Ashi said: /b When Rav said that the i halakha /i that consumption of the animal is prohibited for that day is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the reference b is /b to the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one who cooks, as we learned /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b one who cooks on Shabbat, /b if he did so b unwittingly, he may eat /b what he cooked. If he acted b intentionally, he may not eat /b what he cooked. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If he cooked the food b unwittingly, he may eat /b it b at the conclusion of Shabbat, /b as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly by prohibiting him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked. If he cooked it b intentionally, he may never eat /b from it., b Rabbi Yoḥa HaSandlar says: /b If he acted b unwittingly, /b the food b may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others, but not by him. /b If he cooked the food b intentionally, it may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others. /b According to Rav, the mishna is referring to a case where one slaughtered the animal unwittingly. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the slaughter is valid but it is prohibited to eat the animal on Shabbat.,The Gemara challenges this: b And let us interpret /b the mishna as referring b to /b a case where he slaughtered the animal b intentionally, and /b explain that it is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, /b who rules that eating the animal in such a case is permitted only after the conclusion of Shabbat.,The Gemara responds: That possibility should b not enter your mind, as /b the case of slaughter on Shabbat is juxtaposed to and b taught /b in a manner b similar to /b the case of slaughter on b Yom Kippur. Just as /b with regard to slaughter on b Yom Kippur, /b it b is no different /b whether one slaughtered it b unwittingly and /b it b is no different /b whether he slaughtered it b intentionally, he may not eat /b it that day due to the fast, b so too here, /b with regard to slaughter on Shabbat, it b is no different /b whether he slaughtered it b unwittingly and /b it b is no different /b whether he slaughtered it b intentionally, he may not eat /b it that day. Rabbi Meir, though, deems it permitted for one who cooked unwittingly to eat the cooked food on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks: b And can you interpret /b the mishna as referring b to /b a case of b unwitting /b slaughter b and /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda? But isn’t it taught /b in the mishna: b Although he is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty? One is liable to be executed only if he intentionally performs labor on Shabbat. The Gemara answers that b this /b is what the mishna b is saying: Although /b if he slaughtered it b intentionally he is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty, b here, /b in a case b where /b he slaughtered the animal b unwittingly, his slaughter is valid. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b And let us interpret /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa HaSandlar, who says: /b It b is no different /b whether he cooked b unwittingly and /b it b is no different /b whether he cooked b intentionally; he may not eat it /b on Shabbat. The Gemara explains: b Rabbi Yoḥa HaSandlar draws a distinction with regard to the conclusion of Shabbat, /b in that he permits eating food cooked on Shabbat b for others and not for him, /b while b the i tanna /i of our /b mishna b teaches: His slaughter is valid, /b without qualification, indicating that with regard to his ruling it b is no different for him and /b it b is no different for others. /b ,§ b The i tanna /i taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rav: One who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly may eat /b the food that he cooked; if he did so b intentionally, he may not eat /b the food that he cooked, b and Rav silenced him. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that b Rav silenced him? If we say /b it is b because /b Rav b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda and the i tanna /i taught /b the i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, /b can it be that merely b because he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda he silences one who teaches /b a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir? /b , b And furthermore, does /b Rav b hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda? But doesn’t Rav Ḥa bar Ami say: When Rav issues a ruling to his students, he issues a ruling in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, and when he teaches in /b his b public lecture /b delivered on the Festival, b he teaches in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, due to /b his concern that b the ignoramuses /b would treat the prohibition of labor on Shabbat with disdain?, b And if you would say /b that b the i tanna /i taught /b the i baraita /i b before /b Rav b during the public lecture /b and Rav silenced him so that the ignoramuses would not learn from him, b is that to say /b that b everyone /b attending the public lecture b listens to the i tanna /i /b who is citing the i baraita /i ? There is no need to silence the i tanna /i , because b they listen to the disseminator [ i amora /i ], /b the Sage who repeats what he hears from Rav loudly for the benefit of those attending the lecture, and the i amora /i quoted Rav’s ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The i tanna /i taught /b the i halakha /i of one who b slaughters before Rav: One who slaughters /b an animal b on Shabbat unwittingly may eat /b from the slaughtered animal; if he slaughtered it b intentionally, he may not eat /b from the slaughtered animal. Rav b said to /b the i tanna /i : b What do you think, /b that the i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir? Rabbi Meir deems /b eating b permitted only in /b the case of b one who cooks /b unwittingly on Shabbat, b as /b even before he cooks the food b it is fit to be chewed [ i lakhos /i ], /b i.e., to be eaten uncooked, in a permitted manner, and therefore it was not set aside from use when Shabbat began. b But /b in the case of one who b slaughters /b an animal, b where /b the meat was b not fit to chew, /b Rabbi Meir does b not /b permit eating it on Shabbat, because it was set aside from use on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t the mishna /b addressing the case b of one who slaughters /b an animal, b and Rav Huna says /b that b Ḥiyya bar Rav taught in the name of Rav: Consumption /b of the animal is b prohibited for /b that b day, and /b the members of b the company /b of Sages, i.e., those in the academy, b tended to say /b that this i halakha /i b is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b from which it may be inferred: b But Rabbi Meir permits /b consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat, and he is not concerned that the animal was set aside from use when Shabbat began?,The Gemara answers: b When Rabbi Meir permits /b consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat, |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 193| 14a. לא היה קרב אמר לו מי הם הללו שמימיהם אנו שותים ושמותם אין אנו מזכירים אמר ליה בני אדם שבקשו לעקור כבודך וכבוד בית אביך,אמר ליה (קהלת ט, ו) גם אהבתם גם שנאתם גם קנאתם כבר אבדה אמר ליה (תהלים ט, ז) האויב תמו חרבות לנצח אמר ליה הני מלי היכא דאהנו מעשייהו רבנן לא אהנו מעשייהו הדר אתני ליה אמרו משום רבי מאיר אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב אמר רבא אפילו רבי דענוותנא הוא תנא אמרו משום ר"מ אמר ר"מ לא אמר,אמר רבי יוחנן פליגו בה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן חד אמר סיני עדיף וחד אמר עוקר הרים עדיף,רב יוסף סיני רבה עוקר הרים שלחו לתמן איזה מהם קודם שלחו להו סיני עדיף דאמר מר הכל צריכין למרי חטיא ואפילו הכי לא קביל רב יוסף עליה מלך רבה עשרין ותרתי שנין והדר מלך רב יוסף וכל שני דמלך רבה רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתיה לא חליף,אביי ורבא ורבי זירא ורבה בר מתנה הוו יתבי והוו צריכי רישא אמרי כל דאמר מלתא ולא מפריך להוי רישא דכולהו איפריך דאביי לא איפריך חזייה רבה לאביי דגבה רישא א"ל נחמני פתח ואימא,איבעיא להו רבי זירא ורבה בר רב מתנה הי מנייהו עדיף רבי זירא חריף ומקשה ורבה בר רב מתנה מתון ומסיק מאי תיקו:, br br big strongהדרן עלך כהן משיח וסליקא לה מסכת הוריות /strong /big br br | |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 174| 11a. בשמות מובהקין,היכי דמי שמות מובהקין אמר רב פפא כגון הורמיז ואבודינא בר שיבתאי ובר קידרי ובאטי ונקים אונא,אבל שמות שאין מובהקים מאי לא אי הכי אדתני סיפא לא הוזכרו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט לפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל שמות שאין מובהקין לא,הכי נמי קאמר בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל בשמות שאין מובהקין נעשה כמי שנעשו בהדיוט ופסולין,ואיבעית אימא סיפא אתאן לגיטי ממון והכי קאמר לא הוזכרו גיטי ממון דפסולים אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט,תניא אמר ר' אלעזר בר' יוסי כך אמר ר"ש לחכמים בצידן לא נחלקו ר"ע וחכמים על כל השטרות העולין בערכאות של עובדי כוכבי' שאע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשרים ואפי' גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים לא נחלקו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט שר"ע מכשיר וחכמים פוסלים חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים,רשב"ג אומר אף אלו כשירין במקום שאין ישראל חותמין אבל במקום שישראל חותמין לא,מקום שאין ישראל חותמין נמי ליגזור אטו מקום שישראל חותמין שמא בשמא מחליף אתרא באתרא לא מחליף,רבינא סבר לאכשורי בכנופיאתה דארמאי א"ל רפרם ערכאות תנן,אמר רבא האי שטרא פרסאה דמסריה ניהליה באפי סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה מבני חרי,והא לא ידעי למיקרא בדידעי,והא בעינא כתב שאינו יכול לזייף וליכא בדאפיצן והא בעינא צריך שיחזיר מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה וליכא בדמהדר,א"ה ממשעבדי נמי לית ליה קלא,בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר' יוחנן | 11a. We are dealing b with unambiguous /b gentile b names, /b in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.,The Gemara clarifies: b What are the circumstances /b of b unambiguous /b gentile b names? Rav Pappa said: /b This is referring to names b such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una. /b ,The Gemara infers: b However, /b if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with b ambiguous names, what /b is the i halakha /i ? Is this b not /b a valid document? b If so, instead of teaching /b in b the latter clause /b of the mishna: These two types of documents are b mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, /b not in court, b let him distinguish and teach /b the distinction b within /b the case of gentile courts b itself, /b as follows: b In what /b case b is this statement, /b that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, b said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, /b in a case of b ambiguous names, no, /b gentile witnesses are not valid.,The Gemara answers: b That is also what he is saying, /b i.e., Rabbi Shimon’s statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: b In what /b case b is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names, /b the document b becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and /b therefore such documents b are invalid. /b , b And if you wish, say /b a different answer: In the b last clause /b of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, b we arrive at /b the case of b ficial documents. /b Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first i tanna /i . b And this is what /b the mishna b is saying: Ficial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person, /b whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 1:4): b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said /b that b Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in /b the city of b Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, /b these documents are b valid, even /b in the case of b bills of divorce and /b bills b of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, /b outside a court, b as Rabbi Akiva deems /b a document of this kind b valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and /b bills b of manumission. /b , b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, /b bills of divorce and manumission, b are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. /b In other words, the i halakha /i that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. b However, in a place where Jews sign, no, /b these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us also decree /b in b a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign. /b The Gemara answers: One might b confuse /b one b name with /b another b name. /b It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is b not /b likely to b confuse /b one b place with /b another b place. /b Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.,§ The Gemara relates that b Ravina thought to deem valid /b a document that was written b by a group of gentiles [ i arma’ei /i ]. Rafram said to him /b that b we learned: /b Gentile b courts, /b in the mishna, i.e., these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.,Similarly, b Rava said: /b With regard to b this Persian document [ i shetara parsa’a /i ] /b written by the Persian authorities b that was transferred to /b the recipient b in the presence of Jewish witnesses, /b he b can collect with it non-liened /b property, i.e., property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.,The Gemara asks: b But /b the witnesses for the transmission of this document b do not know /b how b to read /b Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation b where /b the witnesses b know /b how to read Persian.,The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: b But I require /b that the document be b written /b in a manner b that cannot be forged, and it is not /b so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava’s statement applies b in /b a case where the paper of the documents was processed b with gall. /b Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). b But I require that /b a document b review the /b essential b topic of the document in its last line, and it is not /b so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement applies b in /b a case b where it returned /b to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b he should be able to collect b from liened /b property b as well, /b as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn’t Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does b not /b generate b publicity, /b i.e., a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase., b Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥa: /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 174| 51a. במידי דלא ממאיס נמי לסלקינהו לצד אחד וליברך תרגמא רב יצחק קסקסאה קמיה דרבי יוסי בר אבין משמיה דרבי יוחנן משום שנאמר (תהלים עא, ח) ימלא פי תהלתך,בעו מיניה מרב חסדא מי שאכל ושתה ולא ברך מהו שיחזור ויברך אמר להו מי שאכל שום וריחו נודף יחזור ויאכל שום אחר כדי שיהא ריחו נודף,אמר רבינא הלכך אפילו גמר סעודתו יחזור ויברך דתניא טבל ועלה אומר בעלייתו ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על הטבילה,ולא היא התם מעיקרא גברא לא חזי הכא מעיקרא גברא חזי והואיל ואידחי אידחי:,תנו רבנן אספרגוס יפה ללב וטוב לעינים וכ"ש לבני מעים והרגיל בו יפה לכל גופו והמשתכר הימנו קשה לכל גופו,מדקתני יפה ללב מכלל דבחמרא עסקינן וקתני וכל שכן לבני מעים והתניא ללע"ט יפה לרמ"ת קשה,כי תניא ההיא במיושן כדתנן קונם יין שאני טועם שהיין קשה לבני מעים אמרו לו והלא מיושן יפה הוא לבני מעים ושתק אסור בחדש ומותר במיושן שמע מינה:,תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו באספרגוס אין שותין אותו אלא כשהוא חי ומלא מקבלו בימין ושותהו בשמאל ואין משיחין אחריו ואין מפסיקין בו ואין מחזירין אותו אלא למי שנתנו לו ורק אחריו ואין סומכין אותו אלא במינו,והתניא אין סומכין אותו אלא בפת לא קשיא הא בדחמרא הא בדשכרא,תני חדא ללע"ט יפה לרמ"ת קשה ותניא אידך לרמ"ת יפה ללע"ט קשה לא קשיא הא בדחמרא הא בדשכרא,תני חדא רק אחריו לוקה ותניא אידך לא רק אחריו לוקה לא קשיא הא בדחמרא הא בדשכרא,א"ר אשי השתא דאמרת לא רק אחריו לוקה מימיו נזרקין אפילו בפני המלך:,א"ר ישמעאל בן אלישע שלשה דברים סח לי סוריאל שר הפנים אל תטול חלוקך בשחרית מיד השמש ותלבש ואל תטול ידיך ממי שלא נטל ידיו ואל תחזיר כוס אספרגוס אלא למי שנתנו לך מפני שתכספית ואמרי לה אסתלגנית של מלאכי חבלה מצפין לו לאדם ואומרים אימתי יבא אדם לידי אחד מדברים הללו וילכד,אמר ריב"ל שלשה דברים סח לי מלאך המות אל תטול חלוקך שחרית מיד השמש ותלבש ואל תטול ידיך ממי שלא נטל ידיו ואל תעמוד לפני הנשים בשעה שחוזרות מן המת מפני שאני מרקד ובא לפניהן וחרבי בידי ויש לי רשות לחבל,ואי פגע מאי תקנתיה לינשוף מדוכתיה ארבע אמות אי איכא נהרא ליעבריה ואי איכא דרכא אחרינא ליזיל בה ואי איכא גודא ליקו אחורא ואי לא ליהדר אפיה ולימא (זכריה ג, ב) ויאמר ה' אל השטן יגער ה' בך וגו' עד דחלפי מיניה:,א"ר זירא א"ר אבהו ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא עשרה דברים נאמרו בכוס של ברכה טעון הדחה ושטיפה חי ומלא עיטור ועיטוף נוטלו בשתי ידיו ונותנו בימין ומגביהו מן הקרקע טפח ונותן עיניו בו ויש אומרים אף משגרו במתנה לאנשי ביתו,אמר ר' יוחנן אנו אין לנו אלא ארבעה בלבד הדחה שטיפה חי ומלא תנא הדחה מבפנים ושטיפה מבחוץ,א"ר יוחנן כל המברך על כוס מלא נותנין לו נחלה בלי מצרים שנאמר (דברים לג, כג) ומלא ברכת ה' ים ודרום ירשה ר' יוסי בר חנינא אומר זוכה ונוחל שני עולמים העולם הזה והעולם הבא,עיטור רב יהודה מעטרהו בתלמידים רב חסדא מעטר ליה בנטלי אמר ר' חנן ובחי אמר רב ששת ובברכת הארץ,עיטוף רב פפא מעטף ויתיב רב אסי פריס סודרא על רישיה,נוטלו בשתי ידיו א"ר חיננא בר פפא מאי קראה (תהלים קלד, ב) שאו ידיכם קדש וברכו את ה',ונותנו לימין א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן ראשונים שאלו שמאל מהו שתסייע לימין אמר רב אשי הואיל וראשונים איבעיא להו ולא איפשט להו | 51a. The Gemara asks: b With regard to a /b food b item that does not become disgusting as well, let him shift it to the side and recite the blessing. /b Why need he spit it out? b Rav Yitzḥak Kaskesa’a explained before Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b One spits it out b because it is stated: “My mouth will be filled with Your praise” /b (Psalms 71:8), meaning that one should recite God’s praises with his entire mouth, not merely half., b They raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: One who ate and drank and did not recite a blessing, what is /b the ruling? Does he b return and recite /b the blessing that he should have recited beforehand before he continues eating or not? In response, Rav Ḥisda b said to them /b an analogy: Should b one who ate garlic and the odor /b on b his /b breath b smells return and eat another garlic so that the odor /b on b his /b breath b will smell? /b That is to say, one must recite a blessing. Should one who committed a transgression and failed to recite a blessing before eating, remedy his situation by continuing to eat without reciting a blessing ( i Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona /i )?, b Ravina said: Therefore, even if one finished his meal, he must return and recite a blessing. /b He cites a proof, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the laws of immersion: b One /b who was ritually impure b who immersed /b himself in a ritual bath b and emerged, as he emerges he recites: Blessed…Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us about ritual immersion. /b Evidently, in certain cases, one may recite the blessing after completing the act.,The Gemara rejects the parallel between the cases: b That is not so, /b as b there, /b in the case of immersion, b initially, /b before he immersed himself, b the man was unfit /b to recite the blessing because he was ritually impure; b here, /b in the case where one did not recite a blessing before eating, b initially he was fit /b to recite the blessing, b and since /b he did not recite the blessing before he ate and he concluded his meal b and is, therefore, excluded /b from reciting the blessing, he is completely b excluded /b and has no way to remedy the situation.,Tangential to the laws concerning wine that the Gemara cited earlier, b the Sages taught: i Asparagus /i , /b wine or other alcoholic beverages that they were accustomed to drink early in the morning before eating, b is agreeable for the heart and beneficial for the eyes, and all the more so for the intestines. And /b in extolling the virtues of this drink, the Gemara says: b One who is accustomed to /b drink it, b it is agreeable for his entire body. /b However, one must be careful, as b one who /b drinks excessively and b becomes drunk, it is harmful for his entire body. /b ,The Gemara discusses this: b From the fact that it was taught /b that i asparagus /i is b agreeable for the heart, /b it may be inferred that b we are dealing with /b i asparagus /i made from b wine, /b which is known to be agreeable for the heart. b And we learned: And all the more so, /b i asparagus /i is b beneficial for the intestines. Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b For i L-E-T /i , /b which is an acronym for i lev /i , heart; i einayim /i , eyes; i teḥol /i , spleen, b it is beneficial, /b but b for i R-M-T /i , /b i rosh /i , head; i me’ayim /i , intestines; i taḥtoniot /i , hemorrhoids, b it is harmful. /b Apparently, i asparagus /i is harmful for one’s intestines.,The Gemara responds: b That /b i baraita /i , in which b it was taught /b that i asparagus /i is beneficial to one’s intestines, refers to i asparagus /i made b with old /b wine. b As we learned /b in the mishna concerning the laws of vows that one who vowed: b Wine is i konam /i for me to taste because it is harmful to the intestines, and /b those who heard him b said to him: But isn’t old /b wine b beneficial to the intestines? If he was silent /b and did not argue the point, he is b forbidden /b to drink b new /b wine because of his vow, b but he is permitted /b to drink b old /b wine. b Conclude from this /b that old wine is beneficial for the intestines., b The Sages taught: Six things were said with regard to i asparagus /i : One only drinks it undiluted and /b from a b full /b cup; b he receives it /b from the attendant b in /b his b right /b hand b and drinks it with /b his b left /b hand; b one should not converse after /b drinking it b and one does not stop /b while drinking b it, /b but should drink it all at once; b one only returns it to /b the one b who gave it to him; and he spits after /b drinking b it; and one may only supplement it with its own kind, /b meaning that after drinking i asparagus /i , one should only eat something that is used to make similar beverages, e.g., dates after date beer, etc.,The Gemara challenges: b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b one may only supplement /b i asparagus /i b with bread? /b The Gemara responds: That is b not difficult. This /b i baraita /i b , /b in which it was taught that one supplements it with bread, refers to i asparagus /i made b of wine, /b while b that /b i baraita /i b , /b in which it was taught that one supplements it with its own kind, refers to i asparagus /i made b of beer. /b , b It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i that i asparagus /i b is beneficial for i L-E-T /i , /b heart, eyes, and spleen, b and harmful for i R-M-T /i , /b head, intestines, and hemorrhoids. b And it was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that i asparagus /i b is beneficial for i R-M-T /i , /b head, intestines, and hemorrhoids, b and harmful for i L-E-T /i , /b heart, eyes, and spleen. The Gemara responds: That is b not difficult. This /b i baraita, /i in which it was taught that i asparagus /i is beneficial for i L-E-T /i , refers to i asparagus /i made b of wine, /b while b that /b i baraita, /i in which it was taught that i asparagus /i is harmful for i L-E-T /i , refers to i asparagus /i made b of beer. /b ,The Gemara resolves a contradiction between two other i baraitot /i in the same manner. b It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i that b if he spit after /b drinking i asparagus /i , he b suffers /b an illness. b And it was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that b if he did not spit after /b drinking i asparagus /i , he b suffers /b an illness. The Gemara responds: That is b not difficult. This /b i baraita, /i in which it was taught that if he spit after drinking it he b suffers /b an illness, refers to i asparagus /i made b of wine, /b while b that /b i baraita, /i in which it was taught that if he did not spit he suffers an illness, refers to i asparagus /i made b of beer. /b , b Rav Ashi said: Now /b that b you said /b that b if he did not spit after /b drinking it he b suffers /b an illness, b its water, /b the saliva in his mouth after drinking i asparagus /i b , /b may be expelled b even /b when standing b before the king, /b as failure to do so will endanger him., b Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: Suriel, the /b heavenly b ministering /b angel b of the Divine Presence, told me three things /b from on high: b Do not take your cloak in the morning from the hand of your servant and wear it; do not /b ritually b wash your hands from one who has not /b ritually b washed his /b own b hands; and only return a cup of i asparagus /i to /b the one b who gave it to you. /b Why is this? b Because a band of demons and some say a band of angels of destruction /b lie in b wait for a person and say: When will a person encounter one of these circumstances and be captured? /b ,Similarly, the Gemara relates that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The Angel of Death told me three things: Do not take your cloak in the morning from the hand of your servant and wear it; do not /b ritually b wash your hands from one who has not /b ritually b washed his /b own b hands; and do not stand before the women when they return from /b the burial of b the deceased, because I dance and come before them and my sword is in hand, and I have license to destroy. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And if one encounters /b women returning from a funeral, b what is his remedy? /b The Gemara answers: b Let him jump four cubits from where he stands; if there is a river, let him cross it; if there is another path, let him go down it; if there is a wall, let him stand behind it; and if not, he should turn his face around and recite /b the verse: b “And the Lord said to the Satan: The Lord rebukes you, /b Satan, the Lord that has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you; is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?” (Zechariah 3:2), b until they pass him. /b , b Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say that this /b i halakha /i b was taught in a i baraita /i : Ten things were said with regard to a cup of blessing, /b e.g., the cup of wine over which Grace after Meals is recited: b It requires rinsing and washing; /b it must be b undiluted /b wine, b and full; /b it requires b adorning and wrapping; he takes it in his two hands and places it in his right /b hand, b and he lifts it /b at least b one handbreadth from the ground, and /b when reciting the blessing b he fixes his eyes upon it. And some say: He also sends it as a gift to members of his household. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa said: We only have four /b of those ten things: b Rinsing, washing, /b the wine must be b undiluted, and /b the cup must be b full. /b In explanation, b it was taught: Rinsing is from the inside /b of the cup, b and washing is from the outside /b of the cup., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Anyone who recites a blessing over a full cup, they give him a boundless inheritance, as it is stated: “And full of the blessing of the Lord, possess the sea and the south” /b (Deuteronomy 33:23), indicating that one whose cup is full will receive God’s blessing and will inherit from all sides. b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: He merits and inherits two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come. /b ,The Gemara continues explaining the ten things said with regard to the cup of blessing: The Sages would b adorn /b the cup of blessing in different ways. b Rav Yehuda /b would b adorn it with students, /b as when he recited the blessing he would surround himself with students to accord honor to the blessing. b Rav Ḥisda, /b however, would b adorn it with /b other b cups; /b he would surround the cup of blessing with other cups. b Rabbi Ḥa said: And /b specifically b with undiluted /b wine. b Rav Sheshet said: And in the blessing of the land. /b ,The Sages also had different customs with regard to b wrapping. Rav Pappa /b would b wrap /b himself in his prayer shawl b and sit /b and recite Grace after Meals. b Rav Asi spread a cloth on his head /b as an sign of respect.,With regard to what was said that b he takes it in his two hands, Rabbi Ḥina bar Pappa said: What is the verse /b that proves this? As it is stated: b “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord” /b (Psalms 134:2).,As for what was said after he takes it in his two hands: b And he places it in his right /b hand, b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The early /b Sages b asked: What is /b the ruling, may b the left /b hand b assist the right /b when taking the cup? b Rav Ashi said: Since the early /b Sages b raised this dilemma and it was not resolved for them, /b |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 174| 25b. אורח ארעא קמ"ל,כדתניא לא יאכל אדם שום ובצל מראשו אלא מעליו ואם אכל ה"ז רעבתן כיוצא בו לא ישתה אדם כוסו בבת אחת ואם שתה ה"ז גרגרן תנו רבנן השותה כוסו בבת אחת ה"ז גרגרן שנים דרך ארץ שלשה מגסי הרוח,ואמר רמי בר אבא חצובא מקטע רגליהון דרשיעיא,נטיעה מקטע רגליהון דקצביא ודבועלי נדות,תורמוסא מקטע רגליהון דשנאיהון של ישראל שנאמר (שופטים י, ו) ויוסיפו בני ישראל לעשות הרע בעיני ה' ויעבדו את הבעלים ואת העשתרות ואת אלהי ארם ואת אלהי צידון ואת אלהי מואב ואת אלהי בני עמון ואת אלהי פלשתים ויעזבו את ה' ולא עבדוהו,ממשמע שנאמר ויעזבו את ה' איני יודע שלא עבדוהו ומה ת"ל ולא עבדוהו א"ר אלעזר אמר הקב"ה אפילו כתורמוס הזה ששולקין אותו שבע פעמים ואוכלין אותו בקנוח סעודה לא עשאוני בני,תנא משמיה דר"מ מפני מה נתנה תורה לישראל מפני שהן עזין תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו אמר הקב"ה ראויין הללו שתנתן להם דת אש איכא דאמרי דתיהם של אלו אש שאלמלא (לא) נתנה תורה לישראל אין כל אומה ולשון יכולין לעמוד בפניהם,והיינו דאמר ר"ש בן לקיש ג' עזין הן ישראל באומות כלב בחיות תרנגול בעופות וי"א אף עז בבהמה דקה וי"א אף צלף באילנות:,שחטה בשדה לא יביאנה במוט: ת"ר אין הסומא יוצא במקלו ולא הרועה בתרמילו ואין יוצאין בכסא אחד האיש ואחד האשה,איני והא שלח ר' יעקב בר אידי זקן אחד היה בשכונתינו והיה יוצא בגלודקי שלו ובאו ושאלו את ר' יהושע בן לוי ואמר אם רבים צריכין לו מותר,וסמכו רבותינו על דברי אחי שקיא דאמר אנא אפיקתיה לרב הונא מהיני לשילי ומשילי להיני ואמר ר"נ בר יצחק אנא אפיקתיה למר שמואל משמשא לטולא ומטולא לשמשא התם כדאמר טעמא אם היו רבים צריכין לו מותר,א"ל רב נחמן לחמא בר אדא שליח ציון כי סלקת להתם אקיף וזיל אסולמא דצור וזיל לגבי דר' יעקב בר אידי ובעי מיניה כסא מה אתון ביה,אדאזל להתם נח נפשיה דר' יעקב בר אידי כי סליק אשכחיה לרבי זריקא א"ל כסא מה אתון ביה א"ל הכי אמר ר' אמי ובלבד שלא יכתף מאי ובלבד שלא יכתף אמר רב יוסף בריה דרבא באלונקי,איני והא רב נחמן שרא לה לילתא למיפק אאלונקי שאני ילתא דבעיתא,אמימר ומר זוטרא מכתפי להו בשבתא דרגלא משום ביעתותא ואמרי לה משום דוחקא דצבורא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בכור שנפל לבור רבי יהודה אומר ירד מומחה ויראה | |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 69| 84a. קטן שהרג את הגדול וגדול שהרג את הקטן היכי קטלינן ליה התורה אמרה (ויקרא כד, כב) משפט אחד יהיה לכם משפט השוה לכולכם אלא נשמה שקיל מיניה נשמה אמר רחמנא נשקול מיניה ה"נ נהורא שקיל מיניה נהורא אמר רחמנא נשקול מיניה:,תניא אידך רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר עין תחת עין ממון אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא עין ממש הרי שהיה סומא וסימא קיטע וקיטע חיגר וחיגר היאך אני מקיים בזה עין תחת עין והתורה אמרה משפט אחד יהיה לכם משפט השוה לכולכם,אמרי ומאי קושיא דלמא היכא דאפשר אפשר היכא דלא אפשר לא אפשר ופטרינן ליה דאי לא תימא הכי טרפה שהרג את השלם מאי עבדינן ליה,אלא היכא דאפשר אפשר היכא דלא אפשר לא אפשר ופטרינן ליה,דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, כ) כן ינתן בו ואין נתינה אלא ממון אלא מעתה (ויקרא כד, כ) כאשר יתן מום באדם הכי נמי דממון הוא,אמרי דבי רבי ישמעאל קרא יתירא דרשי מכדי כתיב (ויקרא כד, יט) ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו כן ינתן בו למה לי ש"מ ממון כאשר יתן מום באדם למה לי איידי דבעי מיכתב כן ינתן בו כתב נמי כאשר יתן מום באדם,דבי רבי חייא תנא אמר קרא (דברים יט, כא) יד ביד דבר הניתן מיד ליד ומאי ניהו ממון אלא מעתה (דברים יט, כא) רגל ברגל נמי הכי הוא,אמרי דבי רבי חייא קרא יתירא קא דרשי מכדי כתיב (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו אי סלקא דעתך ממש יד ביד למה לי ש"מ ממון רגל ברגל למה לי איידי דכתיב יד ביד כתב נמי רגל ברגל,אביי אומר אתיא מדתני דבי חזקיה דתנא דבי חזקיה (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין נפש תחת נפש ולא נפש ועין תחת עין ואי סלקא דעתך ממש זימנין דמשכחת לה עין ונפש תחת עין דבהדי דעויר ליה נפקא ליה נשמתיה,ומאי קושיא דלמא מימד אמדינן ליה אי מצי מקבל עבדינן ואי לא מצי מקבל לא עבדינן ואי אמדינן דמצי' מקבל ועבדינן ביה ונפק רוחיה אי מיית לימות מי לא תנן גבי מלקות אמדוהו ומת תחת ידו פטור,רב זביד משמיה דרבה אמר אמר קרא (שמות כא, כה) פצע תחת פצע ליתן צער במקום נזק ואי סלקא דעתך ממש כי היכי דלהאי הוי ליה צערא להאי נמי אית ליה צערא,ומאי קושיא דלמא איכא איניש דמפנק אית ליה צערא טפי ואיכא איניש דלא מפנק לית ליה צערא למאי נפקא מינה למתבי ליה היאך דביני ביני,רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר אמר קרא (שמות כא, יט) ורפא ירפא ליתן רפואה במקום נזק ואי סלקא דעתך ממש כי היכי דהאי בעי אסייא האי נמי בעי אסייא,מאי קושיא דלמא איכא דסליק בשריה הייא ואיכא דלא סליק בשריה הייא למאי נפקא מינה למיתב ליה היאך דביני ביני,רב אשי אמר אתיא תחת תחת משור כתיב הכא (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין וכתיב התם (שמות כא, לו) שלם ישלם שור תחת השור מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון,מאי חזית דילפת תחת תחת משור נילף תחת תחת מאדם דכתיב (שמות כא, כג) ונתת נפש תחת נפש מה להלן ממש אף כאן ממש,אמרי דנין נזקין מנזקין ואין דנין נזקין ממיתה אדרבה דנין אדם מאדם ואין דנין אדם מבהמה,אלא אמר רב אשי (דברים כב, כט) מתחת אשר ענה יליף ליה אדם מאדם ונזיקין מנזיקין,תניא ר"א אומר עין תחת עין ממש ממש סלקא דעתך רבי אליעזר לית ליה ככל הני תנאי,אמר רבה לומר שאין שמין אותו כעבד א"ל אביי אלא כמאן כבן חורין בן חורין מי אית ליה דמי אלא אמר רב אשי לומר שאין שמין אותו בניזק אלא במזיק:,ההוא חמרא דקטע ידא דינוקא אתא לקמיה דרב פפא בר שמואל אמר להו זילו שומו ליה ארבעה דברים אמר ליה רבא והא אנן חמשה תנן א"ל לבר מנזק קאמינא אמר ליה אביי והא חמור הוא וחמור אינו משלם אלא נזק אמר להו זילו שומו ליה נזקיה והא כעבדא בעי למשיימיה אמר להו זילו שיימוהו כעבדא,אמר להו אבוה דינוקא לא בעינא דזילא ביה מילתא אמרו ליה והא קא מחייבת ליה לינוקא אמר להו לכי גדיל מפייסנא ליה מדידי,ההוא תורא דאלס ידיה דינוקא אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר להו זילו שיימוהו כעבדא אמרו ליה והא מר הוא דאמר כל הנישום כעבד אין גובין אותו בבבל אמר להו לא צריכא דאי תפס,רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא נזקי שור בשור ונזקי שור באדם גובין אותו בבבל נזקי אדם באדם ונזקי אדם בשור אין גובין אותו בבבל,מ"ש נזקי אדם באדם ונזקי אדם בשור דלא אלהים בעינן וליכא נזקי שור בשור ושור באדם נמי | 84a. in the case of b a small /b person b who killed a large /b person, b or a large /b person b who killed a small /b person, b how do we kill /b the murderer? If one suggests that in such a case a monetary penalty will be imposed, b the Torah stated: “You shall have one manner of law” /b (Leviticus 24:22), teaching that the b law /b shall be b equal for all of you, /b so the punishment must be the same for all murderers. b Rather, /b explain that since the murderer b took the life of /b the victim, b the Merciful One states that /b the court should likewise b take the life from him. So too, /b since the one who caused the injury b took /b the b sight from /b the eye of the injured party, b the Merciful One states /b that the court should likewise b take /b the b sight from /b his eye. Therefore, the Gemara does not accept the derivation of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, in accordance with the objection of the Sages.,The Gemara presents another derivation: It b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: “An eye for an eye” /b (Leviticus 24:20), is referring to b monetary restitution. /b Do b you say /b that this is referring to b monetary restitution, or is it only /b teaching that the one who caused the injury must lose b an actual eye? /b There may be a case where b there was a blind person and he blinded /b another, or there was b one with a severed limb and he severed /b the limb of another, or there was b a lame person and he caused /b another b to be lame. In this /b case, b how can I fulfill “an eye for an eye” /b literally, when he is already lacking the limb that must be injured? If one will suggest that in that case, a monetary penalty will be imposed, that can be refuted: b But the Torah stated: “You shall have one manner of law” /b (Leviticus 24:22), which teaches that b the law /b shall be b equal for all of you. /b ,The Sages object to this derivation and b say: And what /b is b the difficulty? Perhaps /b in a case b where it is possible /b to render the guilty party liable according to the punishment listed in the Torah, it is b possible /b and the court does so; but in a case b where it is not possible /b to enact such a punishment, it is b not possible, and we exempt him. As if you do not say so, /b that punishing one and exempting another is not counter to the principle of: “One manner of law,” then by the same logic, in the case of b one who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [ i tereifa /i ] /b and b who killed a healthy person, what do we do to him? /b , b Rather, /b one must say that in a case b where it is possible /b to render the guilty party liable according to the punishment listed in the Torah, it is b possible /b and the court does so; but in a case b where it is not possible /b to do so, it is b not possible, and we exempt him. /b Therefore, the Gemara does not accept the derivation of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, in accordance with the objection of the Sages.,The Gemara presents another derivation: b The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught /b that b the verse states: /b “A fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he has given a blemish to a person, b so shall it be given unto him” /b (Leviticus 24:20), b and giving can /b refer b only /b to a payment of b money. /b The Gemara challenges: b But if that is so, /b then when the same verse states: b “As he has given [ i yitten /i ] a blemish to a person,” /b does b this /b word, “ i yitten /i ,” b also /b refer b to money? /b The word “ i yitten /i ” means that he caused an actual injury, even though it employs a term whose literal meaning is give.,The Sages b say /b in response: The rabbis b of the school of Rabbi Yishmael are interpreting a superfluous verse. Now, it is written: “And if a man gives a blemish to his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him” /b (Leviticus 24:19), so b why do I /b need the verse: b “So shall it be given unto him” /b (Leviticus 24:20)? b Learn from /b the repetition that the verse is referring to b monetary restitution. /b The Gemara asks: But if this is so, b why do I /b need the verse: b “As he has given [ i yitten /i ] a blemish to a person” /b (Leviticus 24:20)? What does the usage of the term “ i yitten /i ” teach? The Gemara answers: In fact, it does not teach anything, but rather, b since /b the Merciful One b needs to write /b at the end of that verse: b “So shall it be given unto him,” /b where the employment of a term of giving is accurate, the Merciful One b also wrote /b earlier in the verse: b “As he has given [ i yitten /i ] a blemish to a person.” /b ,The Gemara presents another derivation: b The school of Rabbi Ḥiyya taught /b that b the verse states /b with regard to conspiring witnesses: “And your eye shall not pity; a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, b a hand for a hand, /b a foot for a foot” (Deuteronomy 19:21). This teaches that the witnesses pay compensation with b that which is given from hand to hand. And what /b type of compensation b is that? Monetary restitution. /b The Gemara challenges: b But if that is so, is /b the phrase: b “A foot for a foot” /b (Deuteronomy 19:21), b also like that, /b i.e., is it teaching that the witnesses pay compensation with an item passed from foot to foot?,The Sages b say: /b The rabbis of b the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya are interpreting a superfluous /b phrase in the b verse. Now, it is written: “And you shall do to him as he purposed to do to his brother” /b (Deuteronomy 19:19). b If it enters your mind /b to say that the verse means this b literally, why do I /b need the Torah to specify: b “A hand for a hand” /b (Deuteronomy 19:21)? The punishment will be whatever he purported to do to his brother. b Learn from /b the extra phrase that the punishment is b monetary restitution. /b If so, b why do I /b need the phrase: b “A foot for a foot” /b (Deuteronomy 19:21)? b Since it is written: “A hand for a hand,” /b the Merciful One b also wrote /b in the Torah: b “A foot for a foot.” /b ,The Gemara presents another derivation: b Abaye says /b that this principle is b derived from /b that which b was taught /b by b the school of Ḥizkiyya, as the school of Ḥizkiyya taught /b that the Torah states: b “An eye for an eye” /b (Exodus 21:24), and: b “A life for a life” /b (Exodus 21:23), b but not an eye and a life for an eye. And if it enters your mind /b to say that the verse means this b literally, /b there could be b times when you find /b a case where both b an eye and a life /b are taken b for an eye, /b i.e., when the one who caused the damage is so weak b that as /b the court b blinds /b his eye, b his soul departs /b from his body.,The Gemara objects: b And what /b is b the difficulty? Perhaps we evaluate /b the physical condition b of /b the guilty party; b if he can withstand /b this punishment, then b we do /b blind his eye; b if he cannot withstand /b this punishment, then b we do not /b do so and he goes unpunished. b And if we evaluate /b him and determine b that /b he b can withstand /b this punishment, b and we do so to him /b and blind his eye, b and /b yet b his soul departs /b his body as a result, b if he dies, he will die. Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna b with regard to lashes /b ( i Makkot /i 22b): If one was sentenced to be flogged, and the court b evaluated him /b and determined that he could withstand a certain number of lashes, b and he dies at the hand /b of the officer tasked with administering the lashes, then the officer is b exempt, /b even though the one who was flogged was not sentenced to the death penalty? Therefore, the Gemara does not accept the derivation of Abaye.,The Gemara presents another derivation: b Rav Zevid said in the name of Rabba /b that the b verse states: “A wound for a wound” /b (Exodus 21:25), to teach that one who injures another must b pay /b compensation for b pain, /b even b in a case /b where he pays compensation for b damage. And if it enters your mind /b that the phrase: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), refers to the removal of b an actual /b eye from the one who injured the other, then b just as /b it is so that the injured party b has pain /b from the loss of his eye, the one who caused him injury b also has pain /b when the court removes his eye; why then does the Torah require that he pay compensation for pain as well?,The Gemara objects: b And what /b is b the difficulty? Perhaps there is a person who is delicate, /b so b he has more pain, and there is a person who is not delicate, /b so b he does not have /b the same amount of b pain. /b Therefore, even if the court actually removes an eye for an eye, the one who caused the injury might still need to compensate the injured party for pain. b What is the /b practical b difference /b when the Torah states: “A wound for a wound” (Exodus 21:25)? It renders the one who caused the injury liable b to give /b the injured party compensation for b the difference between /b them in pain tolerance. Therefore, the Gemara does not accept the derivation of Rav Zevid.,The Gemara presents another derivation: b Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava /b that concerning one who was injured by another, who must pay for damage, the b verse states: /b “If he rises again, and walks outside upon his staff, then he that struck him shall be absolved; only he shall pay for his loss of livelihood, b and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” /b (Exodus 21:19), which teaches that one who injures another must b pay /b compensation for b medical costs /b even b in a case /b where he pays compensation for b damage. And if it enters your mind /b that the phrase: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), is referring to an b actual /b eye, then b just as /b it is so b that /b the injured party b needs healing, /b the one who caused him the injury b also needs healing /b after the court removes his eye; why, then, does the Torah require that he pay compensation for medical costs as well?,The Gemara objects: b What /b is b the difficulty? Perhaps there is /b one b whose flesh heals quickly, and there is /b another b whose flesh does not heal quickly. /b Therefore, even if the court actually removes an eye for an eye, the one who caused the injury might still need to compensate the injured party for medical costs. b What is the /b practical b difference /b when the Torah states: “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exodus 21:19)? It renders the one who caused the injury liable b to give /b the injured party compensation for b the difference between /b their respective medical costs.,The Gemara presents another derivation: b Rav Ashi said /b that the fact that one who injures another pays monetary restitution b is derived /b from a verbal analogy of the word b “for,” /b as written with regard to injuries caused to people b from /b the word b “for,” /b as written with regard to b an ox /b that gored another ox. b It is written here: “An eye for an eye” /b (Exodus 21:24), b and it is written there, /b with regard to a forewarned ox that gored the ox of another: b “He shall pay an ox for an ox” /b (Exodus 21:36). b Just as there, /b the verse does not mean that the owner pays compensation with an actual ox, but rather pays b monetary restitution, so too here, /b one who injures another pays b monetary restitution. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What did you see that /b led b you /b to b derive /b the i halakha /i from a verbal analogy of the word b “for” /b as stated in the verse with regard to injuries to a person b from /b the word b “for” /b as stated with regard to b an ox? Let us learn /b a verbal analogy of the word b “for” /b as stated in the verse with regard to injuries to a person b from /b the word b “for” /b as stated with regard to b a person, as it is written /b about one who kills another: b “You shall give a life for a life” /b (Exodus 21:23). b Just as there, /b the court punishes the guilty party by taking his b actual /b life, b so too here, /b why not say that the court should take his b actual /b eye?,The Sages b say /b in response: The i halakha /i concerning b damages is derived from /b a verse concerning b damages, and /b the i halakha /i concerning b damages is not derived from /b a verse concerning b death. /b The Gemara objects: b On the contrary, /b say that the i halakha /i concerning b a person is derived from /b a verse concerning b a person, and /b the i halakha /i concerning b a person is not derived from /b a verse concerning b animals. /b , b Rather, Rav Ashi /b retracted his original statement and b said /b a different derivation: The i halakha /i is b derived from /b a verbal analogy of the word “for” as written with regard to injuries from the word “for” as written with regard to a man who rapes a woman, who must pay monetary compensation. The verse states: “Then the man that lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, b for he has afflicted her; /b he may not send her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:29). Based on this verbal analogy, the i halakha /i concerning b a person /b is derived b from /b a verse concerning b a person, and /b the i halakha /i concerning b damages /b is derived b from /b a verse concerning b damages. /b ,§ It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The verse that states: b “An eye for an eye” /b (Exodus 21:24), is referring to b an actual /b eye. The Gemara asks: Can it b enter your mind /b that the verse is referring to b an actual /b eye? b Doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer /b understand the verse b like all these i tanna’im /i , /b who explained that this verse is referring to monetary payment?, b Rabba said /b in response: Rabbi Eliezer means b to say that /b the court b does not appraise /b the injured party b as a slave /b to assess the compensation for the injury. b Abaye said to /b Rabba: b Rather, like whom /b does the court appraise the injured party? If you say that the court appraises him b like a freeman, does a freeman have monetary /b value? b Rather, Rav Ashi said: /b Rabbi Eliezer means b to say that /b the court b does not appraise the injured /b party as if he were going to be sold as a slave, but b rather, /b they appraise b the one who caused /b him b damage. /b The court appraises how much the latter’s value would be reduced were he to sustain the same injury he caused to the injured party, and he pays this amount as indemnity.,§ The Gemara relates: There was b a certain donkey that severed the hand of a child. /b The case b came before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel. He said /b to the officers of the court: b Go appraise the four types /b of indemnity b for /b the child. b Rava said to him: But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna that there are b five /b types of indemnity? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel b said to him: I was saying /b to include the indemnities the responsible party is liable to pay b other than damage. Abaye said to him: But /b was b this /b not b a donkey /b that caused this injury, b and /b the owner of b a donkey /b that causes injury b pays only for /b the b damage? /b Rav Pappa bar Shmuel b said to /b the officers of the court: b Go appraise for /b the child the value of b his damage. /b They said to him: b But /b doesn’t the child b need to be appraised as a slave? He said to them: Go appraise him as a slave. /b , b The father of the child said to them: I do not want /b my child to be appraised as a slave, b because this matter /b would b demean him. They said to /b the father: b But /b you are b acting to the detriment of the child, /b as he will not receive compensation for his injury. b He said to them: When he matures, I will appease him with my own /b money, rather than see him demeaned now.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain ox that chewed [ i da’alas /i ] the hand of a child, /b injuring him. The case b came before Rava. He said to /b the officers of the court: b Go appraise him as a slave. They said to /b Rava: b But wasn’t it /b you, b Master, who said: /b With regard to b anyone who is appraised as a slave /b in order to determine the amount of a monetary penalty, that penalty b is not collected /b by courts b in Babylonia? /b Rava b said to them: /b It b is not necessary /b to appraise his value in order to force the guilty party to pay restitution, but it is nevertheless necessary to determine his value. This is b because if /b the injured party b seizes /b property from the one who caused him injury, and that property is equal in value to what the payment should be, the court will not compel him to return it.,The Gemara notes: b Rava /b conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning, as Rava says: /b Compensation for b damage /b to b an ox /b caused b by an ox and /b for b damage /b to b an ox /b caused b by a person is collected /b by courts b in Babylonia, /b but compensation for b damage /b to b a person /b caused b by a person and /b for b damage /b to b a person /b caused b by an ox is not collected /b by courts b in Babylonia. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b What is different /b about compensation for b damage /b to b a person /b caused b by a person and /b for b damage /b to b a person /b caused b by an ox, /b that it is b not /b collected in Babylonia? If you say that b we require ordained judges /b to collect damages, b and there are not /b any ordained judges in Babylonia, then b so too, /b in a case of b damage /b caused by b an ox to an ox, and /b damage caused by b a person to an ox, /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 69| 84a. כי האי מעשה לידיה פגע ביה אליהו,אמר ליה עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלהינו להריגה אמר ליה מאי אעביד הרמנא דמלכא הוא אמר ליה אבוך ערק לאסיא את ערוק ללודקיא,כי הוו מקלעי ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי ור' אלעזר בר' שמעון בהדי הדדי הוה עייל בקרא דתורי בינייהו ולא הוה נגעה בהו,אמרה להו ההיא מטרוניתא בניכם אינם שלכם אמרו לה שלהן גדול משלנו כל שכן איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה (שופטים ח, כא) כי כאיש גבורתו איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה אהבה דוחקת את הבשר,ולמה להו לאהדורי לה והא כתיב (משלי כו, ד) אל תען כסיל כאולתו שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם,א"ר יוחנן איבריה דר' ישמעאל [בר' יוסי] כחמת בת תשע קבין אמר רב פפא איבריה דרבי יוחנן כחמת בת חמשת קבין ואמרי לה בת שלשת קבין דרב פפא גופיה כי דקורי דהרפנאי,אמר רבי יוחנן אנא אישתיירי משפירי ירושלים האי מאן דבעי מחזי שופריה דרבי יוחנן נייתי כסא דכספא מבי סלקי ונמלייה פרצידיא דרומנא סומקא ונהדר ליה כלילא דוורדא סומקא לפומיה ונותביה בין שמשא לטולא ההוא זהרורי מעין שופריה דר' יוחנן,איני והאמר מר שופריה דרב כהנא מעין שופריה דרבי אבהו שופריה דר' אבהו מעין שופריה דיעקב אבינו שופריה דיעקב אבינו מעין שופריה דאדם הראשון ואילו ר' יוחנן לא קא חשיב ליה שאני ר' יוחנן דהדרת פנים לא הויא ליה,ר' יוחנן הוה אזיל ויתיב אשערי טבילה אמר כי סלקן בנות ישראל מטבילת מצוה לפגעו בי כי היכי דלהוו להו בני שפירי כוותי גמירי אורייתא כוותי,אמרו ליה רבנן לא מסתפי מר מעינא בישא אמר להו אנא מזרעא דיוסף קאתינא דלא שלטא ביה עינא בישא דכתיב (בראשית מט, כב) בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין ואמר ר' אבהו אל תקרי עלי עין אלא עולי עין,ר' יוסי בר חנינא אמר מהכא (בראשית מח, טז) וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ מה דגים שבים מים מכסים אותם ואין העין שולטת בהן אף זרעו של יוסף אין העין שולטת בהן,יומא חד הוה קא סחי ר' יוחנן בירדנא חזייה ריש לקיש ושוור לירדנא אבתריה אמר ליה חילך לאורייתא אמר ליה שופרך לנשי א"ל אי הדרת בך יהיבנא לך אחותי דשפירא מינאי קביל עליה בעי למיהדר לאתויי מאניה ולא מצי הדר,אקרייה ואתנייה ושוייה גברא רבא יומא חד הוו מפלגי בי מדרשא הסייף והסכין והפגיון והרומח ומגל יד ומגל קציר מאימתי מקבלין טומאה משעת גמר מלאכתן,ומאימתי גמר מלאכתן רבי יוחנן אמר משיצרפם בכבשן ריש לקיש אמר משיצחצחן במים א"ל לסטאה בלסטיותיה ידע אמר ליה ומאי אהנת לי התם רבי קרו לי הכא רבי קרו לי אמר ליה אהנאי לך דאקרבינך תחת כנפי השכינה,חלש דעתיה דרבי יוחנן חלש ריש לקיש אתאי אחתיה קא בכיא אמרה ליה עשה בשביל בני אמר לה (ירמיהו מט, יא) עזבה יתומיך אני אחיה עשה בשביל אלמנותי אמר לה (ירמיהו מט, יא) ואלמנותיך עלי תבטחו,נח נפשיה דר' שמעון בן לקיש והוה קא מצטער ר' יוחנן בתריה טובא אמרו רבנן מאן ליזיל ליתביה לדעתיה ניזיל רבי אלעזר בן פדת דמחדדין שמעתתיה,אזל יתיב קמיה כל מילתא דהוה אמר רבי יוחנן אמר ליה תניא דמסייעא לך אמר את כבר לקישא בר לקישא כי הוה אמינא מילתא הוה מקשי לי עשרין וארבע קושייתא ומפריקנא ליה עשרין וארבעה פרוקי וממילא רווחא שמעתא ואת אמרת תניא דמסייע לך אטו לא ידענא דשפיר קאמינא,הוה קא אזיל וקרע מאניה וקא בכי ואמר היכא את בר לקישא היכא את בר לקישא והוה קא צוח עד דשף דעתיה [מיניה] בעו רבנן רחמי עליה ונח נפשיה | 84a. b Elijah /b the prophet b encountered him /b ,and b said to him: Until when /b will b you inform on the nation of our God /b to be sentenced b to execution? /b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b said to /b Elijah: b What should I do? It is the king’s edict /b that I must obey. Elijah b said to him: /b Faced with this choice, b your father fled to Asia. You /b should b flee to Laodicea /b rather than accept this appointment.,§ With regard to these Sages, the Gemara adds: b When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would meet each other, /b it was possible for b a pair of oxen to enter /b and fit b between them, /b under their bellies, b without touching them, /b due to their excessive obesity., b A certain /b Roman b noblewoman [ i matronita /i ] /b once b said to them: Your children are not /b really b your own, /b as due to your obesity it is impossible that you engaged in intercourse with your wives. b They said to her: Theirs, /b i.e., our wives’ bellies, b are larger than ours. /b She said to them: b All the more so /b you could not have had intercourse. b There are /b those b who say /b that b this is what they said to her: “For as the man is, so is his strength” /b (Judges 8:21), i.e., our sexual organs are proportionate to our bellies. b There are /b those b who say /b that b this is what they said to her: Love compresses the flesh. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And why did they respond to her /b audacious and foolish question? After all, b it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, /b lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4). The Gemara answers: They answered her b in order not to cast aspersions on /b the lineage of b their children. /b ,The Gemara continues discussing the bodies of these Sages: b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The b organ of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b was the size b of a jug of nine i kav /i . Rav Pappa said: /b The b organ of Rabbi Yoḥa /b was the size b of a jug of five i kav /i , and some say /b it was the size of a jug b of three i kav /i . Rav Pappa himself /b had a belly b like the baskets [ i dikurei /i ] /b made b in Harpanya. /b ,With regard to Rabbi Yoḥa’s physical features, the Gemara adds that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: I /b alone b remain of the beautiful /b people b of Jerusalem. /b The Gemara continues: b One who wishes to see /b something resembling b the beauty of Rabbi Yoḥa should bring /b a new, shiny b silver goblet from the smithy and fill it /b with b red pomegranate seeds [ i partzidaya /i ] and place a diadem of red roses upon /b the b lip /b of the goblet, b and position it between the sunlight and shade. That luster /b is b a semblance of Rabbi Yoḥa’s beauty. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? /b Was Rabbi Yoḥa so beautiful? b But doesn’t the Master say: The beauty of Rav Kahana /b is b a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu; the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu /b is b a semblance of the beauty of Jacob, our forefather; /b and b the beauty of Jacob, our forefather, /b is b a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first /b man, who was created in the image of God. b And yet Rabbi Yoḥa is not included /b in this list. The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Yoḥa /b is b different /b from these other men, b as he did not have a beauty of countece, /b i.e., he did not have a beard.,The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yoḥa’s beauty. b Rabbi Yoḥa would go and sit by the entrance to the ritual bath. He said /b to himself: b When Jewish women come up from /b their b immersion /b for the sake b of a mitzva, /b after their menstruation, b they should encounter me /b first, b so that they have beautiful children like me, /b and sons b learned in Torah like me. /b This is based on the idea that the image upon which a woman meditates during intercourse affects the child she conceives., b The Rabbis said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b Isn’t the Master worried about /b being harmed by b the evil eye /b by displaying yourself in this manner? Rabbi Yoḥa b said to them: I come from the offspring of Joseph, over whom the evil eye does not have dominion, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [ i alei ayin /i ]” /b (Genesis 49:22); b and Rabbi Abbahu says: Do not read /b the verse as saying: b “By a fountain [ i alei ayin /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b Those who rise above /b the evil b eye [ i olei ayin /i ]. /b Joseph’s descendants are not susceptible to the influence of the evil eye., b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said /b that this idea is derived b from here: “And let them grow [ i veyidgu /i ] into a multitude in the midst of the earth” /b (Genesis 48:16). b Just as /b with regard to b fish [ i dagim /i ] in the sea, the water covers them and the /b evil b eye /b therefore b has no dominion over them, /b as they are not seen, b so too, /b with regard to b the offspring of Joseph, the /b evil b eye has no dominion over them. /b ,The Gemara relates: b One day, Rabbi Yoḥa was bathing in the Jordan /b River. b Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. /b At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to /b Reish Lakish: b Your strength /b is fit b for Torah /b study. Reish Lakish b said to him: Your beauty /b is fit b for women. /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: If you return /b to the pursuit of Torah, b I will give you my sister /b in marriage, b who is more beautiful than I am. /b Reish Lakish b accepted upon himself /b to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish b wanted to jump back /b out of the river b to bring /b back b his clothes, but he was unable to return, /b as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself.,Rabbi Yoḥa b taught /b Reish Lakish b Bible, and taught him Mishna, and turned him into a great man. /b Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation. b One day /b the Sages b of the study hall were engaging in a dispute /b concerning the following i baraita /i : With regard to b the sword, the knife, the dagger [ i vehapigyon /i ], the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? /b The i baraita /i answers: It is b from the time of the completion of their manufacture, /b which is the i halakha /i with regard to metal vessels in general.,These Sages inquired: b And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b It is b from when one fires /b these items b in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: /b It is b from when one scours them in water, /b after they have been fired in the furnace. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to /b Reish Lakish: b A bandit knows about his banditry, /b i.e., you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakish b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b What benefit did you provide me /b by bringing me close to Torah? b There, /b among the bandits, b they called me: Leader /b of the bandits, and b here, /b too, b they call me: Leader /b of the bandits. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close /b to God, b under the wings of the Divine Presence. /b ,As a result of the quarrel, b Rabbi Yoḥa was offended, /b which in turn affected b Reish Lakish, /b who b fell ill. /b Rabbi Yoḥa’s b sister, /b who was Reish Lakish’s wife, b came crying /b to Rabbi Yoḥa, begging that he pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery. b She said to him: Do /b this b for the sake of my children, /b so that they should have a father. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her /b the verse: b “Leave your fatherless children, I will rear them” /b (Jeremiah 49:11), i.e., I will take care of them. She said to him: b Do /b so b for the sake of my widowhood. He said to her /b the rest of the verse: b “And let your widows trust in Me.” /b ,Ultimately, b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, /b Reish Lakish, b died. Rabbi Yoḥa was sorely pained over /b losing b him. The Rabbis said: Who will go to calm /b Rabbi Yoḥa’s b mind /b and comfort him over his loss? They said: b Let Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat go, as his statements are sharp, /b i.e., he is clever and will be able to serve as a substitute for Reish Lakish.,Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat b went and sat before /b Rabbi Yoḥa. With regard to b every matter that Rabbi Yoḥa would say, /b Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would b say to him: /b There is a ruling which b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b that supports your /b opinion. Rabbi Yoḥa b said /b to him: b Are you /b comparable b to the son of Lakish? /b In my discussions with b the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me /b in an attempt to disprove my claim, b and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the i halakha /i by itself would become broadened /b and clarified. b And /b yet b you say /b to me: There is a ruling which b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b that supports your /b opinion. b Do I not know that what I say is good? /b Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not.,Rabbi Yoḥa b went around, rending his clothing, weeping and saying: Where are you, son of Lakish? Where are you, son of Lakish? /b Rabbi Yoḥa b screamed until his mind was taken from him, /b i.e., he went insane. b The Rabbis /b prayed and b requested /b for God to have b mercy on him /b and take his soul, b and /b Rabbi Yoḥa b died. /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 174| 54b. ושאינה מסויימת במצריה עד כמה אמר רב פפא כדאזיל תיירא דשורי והדר,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נכסי עובד כוכבים הרי הן כמדבר כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן מאי טעמא עובד כוכבים מכי מטו זוזי לידיה אסתלק ליה ישראל לא קני עד דמטי שטרא לידיה הלכך הרי הן כמדבר וכל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן,א"ל אביי לרב יוסף מי אמר שמואל הכי והאמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא ומלכא אמר לא ליקני ארעא אלא באיגרתא אמר ליה אנא לא ידענא עובדא הוה בדורא דרעותא בישראל דזבן ארעא מעובד כוכבי' ואתא ישראל אחרינא רפיק בה פורתא אתא לקמיה דרב יהודה אוקמה בידא דשני,אמר ליה דורא דרעותא קאמרת התם באגי מטמרי הוו דאינהו גופייהו לא הוו יהבי טסקא למלכא ומלכא אמר מאן דיהיב טסקא ליכול ארעא,רב הונא זבן ארעא מעובד כוכבים אתא ישראל אחר רפיק בה פורתא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אוקמה בידיה אמר ליה מאי דעתיך דאמר שמואל נכסי עובד כוכבים הרי הן כמדבר וכל המחזיק בהם זכה | 54b. b And if it is not defined by its boundaries, up to how much /b of the field is acquired by one strike of the hoe? b Rav Pappa said: /b He acquires as far b as an ox driver goes and returns, /b i.e., the size of a standard furrow, beginning where the hoe entered the ground.,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: /b With regard to the b property of a gentile /b that was sold to a Jew for money, b it is /b ownerless b like a desert /b until the purchaser performs an act of acquisition; b anyone who takes possession of it /b in the interim has b acquired it. What is the reason /b for this? The b gentile relinquishes /b ownership of it b from /b the moment b when /b the b money reaches his hand, /b while the b Jew /b who purchased it b does not acquire /b it b until the deed reaches his hand. Therefore, /b in the period of time between the giving of the money and the receiving of the deed, the property b is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it /b has b acquired it. /b , b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel /b actually b say this? But doesn’t Shmuel say /b that b the law of the kingdom is the law, /b i.e., the i halakha /i obligates Jews to observe the laws of the locale in which they reside, b and the king said /b that b land may not be acquired without a document? /b Therefore, taking possession should not be effective for acquisition. Rav Yosef b said to him: I do not know /b how to reconcile this contradiction, but b there was an incident in /b the village of b Dura that /b was founded by b shepherds, where /b there was b a Jew who purchased land from a gentile /b by giving money, b and /b in the interim b another Jew came /b and b plowed it a bit. /b The two Jews b came before Rav Yehuda /b for a ruling, and he b established /b the property b in the possession of the second /b individual. This accords with the ruling of Shmuel that the property is ownerless until a Jew performs an act of acquisition.,Abaye b said to him: Are you saying /b that the incident occurred in b Dura that /b was founded by b shepherds? /b Proof cannot be brought from that case, as b there /b the b fields were concealed, since /b the owners of fields b would not pay the land tax [ i taska /i ] to the king, and the king says /b that b one who pays land tax /b may b profit /b from b the field. /b Therefore, in that case, the gentile who sold the property did not actually own it, and consequently by the laws of the kingdom could not sell it. The one who took possession of the property acquired it in accordance with the law of the kingdom, as he committed to pay the land tax. Elsewhere, one would not acquire the field until he received a deed of sale from the gentile.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Huna purchased land from a gentile. Another Jew came and plowed it slightly. /b Rav Huna and that Jew b came before Rav Naḥman, /b who b established /b the property b in the possession /b of the latter. Rav Huna b said to /b Rav Naḥman: b What are you thinking /b in issuing this ruling? Is it b because Shmuel says /b that b the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it /b has b acquired it? /b |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 68 | 28b. b once one /b party in the transaction b acquires /b the item he is receiving, b this /b party b is obligated /b with regard to the item being b exchanged for it. /b The novelty of the mishna is that all items, not only vessels, can be used to perform the act of acquisition of exchange. Therefore, one should not infer that the same is the i halakha /i with regard to coins. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna b is also precise, as it teaches /b afterward: b How so? /b If b one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, /b once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This clause apparently explains the previous clause, and employs the example of animals, not coins. The Gemara summarizes: b Learn from /b this clause that the mishna is referring to acquisition through the exchange of items, not money.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard b to what entered our minds initially, that a coin effects /b symbolic b exchange, what /b is the meaning of the clause: b How so, /b if one exchanged an ox for a cow, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This example does not involve a coin. The Gemara explains that it was assumed that b this is what /b the mishna b is saying: /b Not only can a coin be used in for the act of acquisition of exchange, but b produce can also effect exchange. How so? /b If b one exchanged meat of an ox for a cow, or /b the b meat of a donkey for an ox, once this /b party b acquires /b the item that he is receiving, this party b is obligated /b with regard to the item being b exchanged /b for it.,The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to /b the opinion of b Rav Sheshet, who says: Produce effects exchange, /b i.e., the mode of acquisition of exchange applies not only to vessels but also to produce and animals. b But according to /b the opinion of b Rav Naḥman, who says: Produce does not effect exchange, what can be said? /b ,The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, the mishna is dealing with money alone, and b this is what /b the mishna b is saying: There is /b a transaction involving b money that is like an exchange. How so? /b If b one exchanged the monetary /b value b of an ox for a cow, or the monetary /b value b of a donkey for an ox, /b the transaction is effective. In this case, one sold his ox to another for an agreed sum of money, and after the buyer acquired the ox by pulling it, he then offered to give the seller his cow in exchange for the money that he owes him. In this case the cow is acquired without the seller having to pull it. Although this acquisition initially was to be an exchange, it is ultimately a purchase for money, as the second animal is acquired as a result of the forgiving of the monetary debt., b What is the reason /b for this ruling in light of the i halakha /i that one cannot acquire movable property by means of money alone? The Gemara explains that Rav Naḥman b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa, who said: By Torah law money effects acquisition, /b i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. b And what is /b the b reason /b that the Sages b said /b that b pulling acquires /b an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic b decree lest /b the seller b say to /b the buyer after receiving the money: b Your wheat was burned in the loft. /b If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.,The Sages therefore decreed that acquisition takes effect only when a buyer pulls the item. The reason that the mishna allows a transaction that indicates that one can effect acquisition using only money is because that case of the mishna as explained by Rav Naḥman is an uncommon occurrence. It is rare for one who has sold his animal in exchange for money to change his mind and request an animal from the purchaser instead. With regard to b a common occurrence, the Sages issued a decree, /b whereas in the case of b an uncommon occurrence, the Sages did not issue a decree. /b Consequently, the Sages did not apply their decree to this situation.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how is the mishna explained b according to /b the opinion of b Reish Lakish, who /b disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥa and b says /b that b pulling /b is b explicitly /b stated b in the Torah? /b Reish Lakish maintains that the acquisition of movable property cannot be performed with money by Torah law, and therefore there can be no distinction between common and uncommon cases. b This works out well if /b Reish Lakish b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Sheshet, who says /b that b produce effects exchange. /b If so, he can b explain /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Sheshet. /b , b But if he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Naḥman, who says /b that b produce does not effect exchange and a coin does not effect acquisition /b by Torah law or by rabbinic law, b in what /b manner b does he establish /b the mishna? The Gemara answers: b Perforce /b Reish Lakish b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Sheshet. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b The authority of the Temple /b treasury effects acquisition b by /b means of b money /b to the seller. b And the authority, /b i.e., the mode of acquisition, b of a commoner /b [ b i hedyot /i /b ] b is by possession. /b Furthermore, b one’s declaration to the Most High, /b i.e., when one consecrates an item through speech, b is equivalent to transferring /b an item b to a common person, /b and the item is acquired by the Temple treasury through his mere speech., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 1:6): b How does the authority of the Temple /b treasury effect acquisition b by /b means of b money? /b With regard to the Temple b treasurer who gives coins for an animal, even /b if the b animal is at the /b other b end of the world, he acquires it /b immediately. b And with regard to a commoner, he does not acquire /b the animal b until he pulls /b it., b How is one’s declaration to the Most High equivalent to transferring /b an item b to a common person? /b With regard to b one who says: This ox is a burnt-offering, /b or: b This house is consecrated /b property, the Temple treasury b acquires /b these b even /b if they are b at the /b other b end of the world. /b There is no need for a further act of acquisition, as that statement alone is sufficient. Whereas b with regard to a commoner, he does not acquire /b property in this manner |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 181| 19a. כנגד אצילי ידיהן,אמר רב אשי אמר לי הונא בר נתן זימנא חדא הוה קאימנא קמיה דאיזגדר מלכא והוה מדלי לי המיינאי ותיתייה ניהליה ואמר לי (שמות יט, ו) ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש כתיב בכו כי אתאי קמיה דאמימר א"ל אקיים בך (ישעיהו מט, כג) והיו מלכים אומניך:,תנן התם כהן שלקה באצבעו כורך עליה גמי במקדש אבל לא במדינה ואם להוציא ממנה דם כאן וכאן אסור,אמר ר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לא שנו אלא גמי אבל צילצול קטן הוי יתור בגדים ורבי יוחנן אמר לא אמרו יתור בגדים אלא במקום בגדים אבל שלא במקום בגדים לא הוי יתור,ותיפוק ליה משום חציצה בשמאל א"נ שלא במקום עבודה,ופליגא דרבא דאמר רבא אמר רב חסדא במקום בגדים אפי' נימא אחת חוצצת שלא במקום בגדים שלש על שלש חוצצות פחות מכאן אינן חוצצות,אדרבי יוחנן ודאי פליגא אדר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מי לימא דפליגא,שאני צילצול קטן דחשיב,לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר ר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לא שנו אלא גמי אבל צילצול קטן חוצץ ורבי יוחנן אמר לא אמרו חציצה בפחות משלש על שלש אלא במקום בגדים אבל שלא במקום בגדים שלש על שלש חוצצות פחות מיכן אינה חוצצת והיינו דרבא אמר רב חסדא,לימא פליגא אדר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא שאני צילצול קטן דחשיב,ולר' יוחנן מאי איריא גמי לשמועינן צילצול קטן מילתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דגמי מסי,בעי רבא נכנסה לו רוח בבגדו מהו על בשרו בעינן והא ליכא או דלמא דרך לבישה בכך,כינה מהו שתחוץ,מתה לא תבעי לך דודאי חייצא חיה מאי מי אמרינן כיון דאתא ואזלא רביתא היא ולא חייצא או דלמא כיון דקפיד עלה חייצא,עפר מהו שיחוץ עפר ודאי חייץ אלא אבק עפר מהו,בית השחי מהו שיחוץ על בשרו בעינן והא ליכא או דלמא דרך לבישה בכך,הכניס ידו לתוך חיקו מהו גופו מי חייץ או לא,נימא מהו שתחוץ נימא ודאי חייצא אלא נימא מדולדלת מהו,בעי מר בר רב אשי יצא שערו בבגדו מהו שערו כגופו דמי או לאו כגופו דמי,בעי רבי זירא תפילין מהו שיחוצו אליבא דמאן דאמר לילה לאו זמן תפילין הוא לא תבעי לך כיון דלילה חייצי יום נמי חייצי כי תיבעי לך למ"ד לילה זמן תפילין מאי מצוה דגופיה חייץ או לא חייץ,איגלגל מילתא ומטא לקמיה דרבי אמי א"ל תלמוד ערוך הוא בידינו תפילין חוצצות,מיתיבי כהנים בעבודתן ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן פטורין מן התפלה ומן התפילין מאי לאו אם הניחן אינן חוצצות לא אם הניחן חוצצות,א"ה פטורים אסורים מיבעי ליה כיון דאיכא לוים וישראל דלא מתנו ליה אסור משום הכי תנא פטורין,והתניא אם הניחן אינן חוצצות לא קשיא הא דיד הא דראש,מאי שנא דיד דכתיב (ויקרא ו, ג) ילבש על בשרו שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבשרו דראש נמי כתיב (שמות כט, ו) ושמת המצנפת על ראשו,תנא שערו היה נראה בין ציץ למצנפת | 19a. b at the level of their elbows. /b , b Rav Ashi says: Huna bar Natan said to me: Once, I was standing before Izgadar, king /b of Persia, b and my belt was raised /b above its appropriate height, b and he lowered it /b into place b and said to me: “A kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” /b (Exodus 19:6), b is written about you; /b therefore, you should always look dignified. b When I came before Ameimar /b and recounted this incident, b he said to me: With regard to you, /b God’s promise to Israel: b “And kings shall be your foster fathers” /b (Isaiah 49:23), b was fulfilled. /b ,§ With regard to the priestly vestments, b we learned /b in a mishna b elsewhere /b ( i Eiruvin /i 103b): b A priest who was injured on his finger /b on Shabbat may temporarily b wrap it with a reed /b so that his wound is not visible while he is serving in the Temple. This leniency applies b in the Temple, but not in /b the rest of b the country, /b as the reed also heals the wound, and medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. b But if /b his intention is b to draw blood from /b the wound, b it is prohibited /b both b here and there. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: They taught only /b that b a reed /b is permitted. b But a small sash [ i tziltzul /i ] /b as a bandage b is /b considered b an extra garment /b and is therefore forbidden, since it is prohibited for a priest to add to the priestly vestments prescribed by the Torah. b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: They said /b that wearing b extra garments /b is prohibited b only /b if the extra garment is worn b in a place /b on the priest’s body where the requisite b vestments /b are worn. b But /b if the sash is b in a place /b on his body where the b vestments /b are b not /b worn, e.g., on his hand, it b is not /b considered b an extra /b garment.,The Gemara challenges: b And let /b Rabbi Yoḥa b derive /b that a sash is prohibited b because /b it acts as b an interposition /b between the priest’s hand and the sacred vessel he grips, which disqualifies the service. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Yoḥa is referring to a case where the wound is b on /b the priest’s b left /b hand. Since the entire service is performed exclusively with his right hand, a bandage on his left hand is not an interposition. b Alternatively, /b the wound is on the priest’s right hand, but b not in a place /b used for the b service, /b such that the bandage does not interpose between his hand and the sacred vessel., b And /b Rabbi Yoḥa b disagrees /b with the opinion b of Rava, as Rava says /b that b Rav Ḥisda says: In a place /b on the priest’s body where the b vestments /b are worn, b even one /b extra b thread interposes /b and is prohibited, whereas b in a place /b on his body where the b vestments /b are b not /b worn, if the fabric is b three /b fingerbreadths b by three /b fingerbreadths b it interposes, /b but if it is b less than that it does not interpose. /b ,The Gemara notes: Rava b certainly disagrees with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa, /b who holds that fabric of any size that is in a place on his body where the vestments are not worn is not considered an interposition. b Shall we say /b that b he /b also b disagrees with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b who deems any sash an interposition, even one smaller than three by three fingerbreadths?,The Gemara responds: Even according to Rava, b a small sash is different, as it is significant, /b and it is therefore considered a garment even if it is less than three by three fingerbreadths., b Some say /b that there is b another version /b of the dispute: b Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says /b that b they taught only /b that b a reed /b is permitted, b but a small sash interposes. And Rabbi Yoḥa says: They said /b that an item acts as b an interposition when /b it is b less than three by three /b fingerbreadths b only in a place /b on the priest’s body where the b vestments /b are worn. b But in a place /b on his body where the b vestments /b are b not /b worn, the following distinction applies: If the fabric is b three /b fingerbreadths b by three /b fingerbreadths, b it interposes, /b but if it is b less than this, it does not interpose. And this is /b the same ruling b that Rava /b says that b Rav Ḥisda says. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that Rava b disagrees with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b who deems any sash an interposition, even one smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. The Gemara rejects this: This is not necessarily so, as b a small sash is different, since it is significant. /b It is therefore like a vestment, even if it is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.,The Gemara raises a question: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa, why /b does the mishna teach the i halakha /i b specifically /b with regard to b a reed? Let /b the mishna b teach us /b that a priest may wrap his wounded finger with b a small sash, /b since this would teach the greater novelty that although a sash is significant, it does not constitute an interposition. The Gemara responds: b It teaches us a matter in passing, that a reed heals. /b ,§ b Rava raises a dilemma: /b If a gust of b wind entered /b the priest’s b vestment, /b raising it slightly off his body, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do b we require /b that the vestment be: b “Upon his body” /b (Leviticus 6:3), in a literal sense, b and this /b is b not /b the case when the wind raises his vestment? b Or perhaps /b the service is valid because b this /b is the normal b manner of wearing /b clothes.,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a louse /b found under the priest’s vestments? b Does it interpose /b between the vestments and his body, disqualifying the service?,The Gemara clarifies: b Do not raise a dilemma /b with regard to b a dead /b louse, b as /b it b certainly interposes, /b like any other item. Rather, b what /b is the i halakha /i with regard to b a live /b louse? b Do we say /b that b since it comes and goes, /b i.e., it moves around on his body, b it is /b like b a growth and does not interpose? Or perhaps, since he objects to its /b presence, b it interposes? /b ,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b dirt /b found under the priest’s vestments? b Does it interpose? /b The Gemara objects: But b dirt certainly interposes. /b The Gemara clarifies: b Rather, /b the question is: b What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b dust of dirt, /b i.e., a minute amount of dust?,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to the gap between the underarm of the vestment and the priest’s b armpit? Does it interpose? /b Do b we require /b that the vestment is b “upon his body” /b in a literal sense, b and this /b is b not /b the case? b Or perhaps /b the service is valid since b this /b is the normal b manner of wearing /b clothes.,Furthermore, if the priest b inserted his hand into /b his vestments and touched b his chest, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Does his body interpose or not? /b ,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a thread [ i nima /i ]? Does it interpose? /b The Gemara interjects: But b a thread certainly interposes. Rather, /b the question is: b What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a thread /b that b hangs /b off the vestment itself and will soon fall off? Is such a thread considered as though it has already detached from the vestment, in which case it interposes?, b Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: /b If b his hair emerged /b from his head and extended b into his vestment /b and separated it from his skin, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Is his hair considered like his body, /b in which case it does not interpose, b or is it not considered like his body? /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b phylacteries? Do they interpose? /b The Gemara clarifies: b According to /b the opinion b of one who says /b that b night is not /b an appropriate b time /b to don b phylacteries, do not raise the dilemma. Since they interpose /b at b night, they also interpose /b during the b day. /b Rather, b when you raise the dilemma, /b do so b according to the one who says /b that b night is /b an appropriate b time /b to don b phylacteries. /b According to this opinion, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? b Does a mitzva /b that one fulfills b with his body interpose, or does it not interpose? /b ,This b matter circulated and /b eventually b came before Rabbi Ami, /b who b said to him: It is a settled tradition in our possession /b that b phylacteries interpose. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Priests in their service; and Levites on their platform /b in the Temple, where they recite songs; b and Israelites at their watches, /b where they observe the sacrifice of the daily offering, b are /b all b exempt from prayer and from /b donning b phylacteries. What, is it not /b that the term: Exempt, indicates that b if they donned /b phylacteries anyway, b they do not interpose? /b Apparently, priests may wear phylacteries while performing the Temple service. The Gemara responds: b No, if they donned /b phylacteries, b they interpose. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b why does the i baraita /i use the word: b Exempt? It should have /b used the word: b Prohibited, /b since wearing phylacteries disqualifies the priests’ service. The Gemara responds: b Since there are /b also b Levites and Israelites /b mentioned in the i baraita /i , b concerning whom /b the i baraita /i could b not teach /b the word: b Prohibited, /b as it is permitted for them to don phylacteries, b due to that /b reason the i baraita /i b taught /b the word: b Exempt, /b which is applicable to all.,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b a priest b donned /b phylacteries b they do not interpose? /b The Gemara responds: That is b not difficult. This /b i baraita /i , which teaches that phylacteries interpose is referring to the phylacteries b of the hand, /b whereas b that /b i baraita /i , which teaches that they do not is referring to the phylacteries b of the head. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about the phylacteries b of the hand /b that only they interpose? The verse indicates the difference, b as it is written /b with regard to the vestments covering the body: b “Shall he put upon his body” /b (Leviticus 6:3), indicating b that nothing may interpose between /b the vestment b and his body. /b The Gemara challenges: But there is b also /b a verse b written with regard to the head: “And you shall set the mitre upon his head” /b (Exodus 29:6), indicating that there must be no interposition between the mitre and the head. If so, the phylacteries of the head should be considered an interposition as well.,The Gemara responds: The Sages b taught: The hair of /b the High Priest b was visible between the frontplate and the mitre. /b The frontplate was set on the forehead, below the hairline, while the mitre was set above it; |
|
| 24. Anon., Mhd (Book of A Thousand Judgments), 73.8-73.10 Tagged with subjects: •rav (abba arikha) Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 171 |
25. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 175| 58a. איקלע רב הונא בריה דר"נ למחוזא א"ל רבא לרב אליקים שמעיה טרוק טרוק גלי דלא ניתו אינשי דניטריד,על לגביה א"ל כי האי גוונא מאי א"ל אסור אפילו בהנאה והא מר הוא דאמר שיכשך אין עושה יין נסך אימר דאמרי אנא לבר מדמיה דההוא חמרא דמי דההוא חמרא מי אמרי,אמר רבא כי אתאי לפומבדיתא אקפן נחמני שמעתתא ומתניתא דאסיר,שמעתתא דההוא עובדא דהוה בנהרדעא ואסר שמואל בטבריא ואסר רבי יוחנן ואמרי ליה לפי שאינן בני תורה ואמר לי טבריא ונהרדעא אינן בני תורה דמחוזא בני תורה,מתניתא דאגרדמים עובד כוכבים שקדח במינקת והעלה או שטעם מן הכוס והחזירו לחבית זה היה מעשה ואסרוהו מאי לאו בהנאה לא בשתייה,אי הכי ליתני ימכר כדקתני סיפא חרם עובד כוכבים שהושיט ידו לחבית וכסבור של שמן היא ונמצאת של יין זה היה מעשה ואמרו ימכר תיובתא דרבא תיובתא,רבי יוחנן בן ארזא ור' יוסי בן נהוראי הוו יתבו וקא שתו חמרא אתא ההוא גברא אמרו ליה תא אשקינן לבתר דרמא לכסא איגלאי מילתא דעובד כוכבים הוא חד אסר אפי' בהנאה וחד שרי אפי' בשתייה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאן דאסר שפיר אסר ומאן דשרי שפיר שרי מאן דאסר | 58a. b Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, happened /b to come b to Meḥoza. Rava said to his attendant, Rav Elyakim: Close, close the gates, /b so b that people who /b might b disturb /b us b should not come, /b and we may focus on clarifying the matter.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, b entered into /b Rava’s presence. Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, b said to /b Rava: b What /b is the i halakha /i in b a case like this /b where a gentile stirred the wine without intending to offer it as an idolatrous libation? Rava b said to /b Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman: It is b prohibited even to /b derive b benefit /b from it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, asked him: b But wasn’t it /b you, b Master, who said: /b If a gentile b stirs /b the wine, he does b not /b thereby b render /b it b wine /b used for b a libation, /b as Rava permitted the sale of the wine in the barrel to gentiles? Rava answered: b Say that I said /b that it is permitted to sell the wine that was in the barrel and benefit from all the proceeds b except for the monetary /b value b of that /b prohibited b wine /b that was poured into the barrel of wine. b Did I say /b that it is permitted to derive benefit from b the monetary /b value b of that /b prohibited b wine? /b , b Rava said: When I arrived at Pumbedita, Naḥmani, /b i.e., Abaye, b surrounded us /b with amoraic b traditions and /b with tannaitic sources cited in b a i baraita /i /b that indicate b that /b in the case of wine that was stirred by a gentile it is b prohibited /b even to derive benefit from the wine.,Rava explains: Abaye cited amoraic b traditions, as there was a certain incident in Neharde’a /b in which a gentile stirred the wine, b and Shmuel deemed /b the wine b prohibited, /b and there was a similar incident b in Tiberias and Rabbi Yoḥa deemed /b the wine b prohibited. /b Rava recounts his reply: b And I said to /b Abaye: Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥa deemed the wine prohibited only b because /b the people in those towns were b not people /b well-versed in b Torah, /b and it was necessary to distance them from transgression. b And /b Abaye b said to me: /b Are you saying that the people of b Tiberias and Neharde’a /b are b not people /b well-versed in b Torah /b whereas the people b of Meḥoza /b are b people /b well-versed in b Torah? /b This is obviously not the case, and therefore you should not have permitted the sale of the wine in Meḥoza, even according to your reasoning.,Abaye cited b a i baraita /i /b that teaches as follows: In the case b of a gentile market inspector [ i de’agardamim /i ] /b who was in charge of measures and prices in the marketplace, b who drilled /b a hole in a barrel b with a tube and drew /b wine from the barrel through the tube in order to taste it, b or who tasted /b the wine b from the cup /b that was poured for him b and /b then b returned /b the residue b to the barrel, /b what is the i halakha /i ? b This was an incident /b that occurred, b and /b the Sages b prohibited /b the wine. Abaye said: b What /b does this mean? b Is /b the i baraita /i b not /b prohibiting one b from /b deriving b benefit /b from the wine? Rava replied: b No, /b it is prohibiting one only b from drinking /b it.,Abaye said: b If so, let /b the i baraita /i b teach /b that the wine b may be sold, as the latter clause /b of the i baraita /i b teaches: /b In the case of b a gentile confiscator who extended his hand into a barrel /b of wine, b thinking it was /b a barrel b of oil, and it was found /b to be a barrel b of wine, /b what is the i halakha /i ? b This was an incident /b that occurred, b and /b the Sages b said: It may be sold, /b as the gentile had no intention of touching wine. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rava /b is indeed b a conclusive refutation. /b ,§ The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Arza and Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai were sitting and drinking wine. A certain man came /b and b they said to him: Come, serve us drinks. After he poured /b the wine b into the cup, it was revealed that /b the person b was a gentile. One /b of those Sages b prohibited /b one from b even /b deriving b benefit /b from the wine, b and one /b of them b permitted /b the wine b even for drinking. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The one who prohibited /b the wine b properly /b deemed it b prohibited, and the one who permitted /b it b properly /b deemed it b permitted, /b as both opinions are viable. b The one who prohibited /b the wine holds that |
|
