Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

   Search:  
validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       



Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.





17 results for "realism"
1. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 29.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 228
29.13. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי וְלִבּוֹ רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי וַתְּהִי יִרְאָתָם אֹתִי מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה׃", 29.13. "And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me, But have removed their heart far from Me, And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;",
2. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qmmt, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 227
3. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 228, 229
7.1. Καὶ συνἄγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων 7.2. καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους. 7.3. —οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.4. καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων. 7.5. —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· 7.7. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· 7.8. ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 7.9. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε· 7.10. Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· 7.11. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12. οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13. ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.14. Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 7.15. οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 7.16. 7.17. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν. 7.18. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 7.19. ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται; —καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. 7.20. ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· 7.21. ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, 7.22. μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· 7.23. πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?" 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
4. Mishnah, Yadayim, a b c d\n0 6 6 6 None\n1 None\n2 ) ) ) None\n3 4 4 4 None\n4 8 8 8 None\n5 - None\n6 1 1 1 None\n7 . . \n8 ( ( ( None (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 225, 226
5. Mishnah, Parah, 3.3, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 227
3.3. "בָּאוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת וְיָרְדוּ. הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת, תַּחְתֵּיהֶם חָלוּל, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּבְפֶתַח הָעֲזָרָה הָיָה מְתֻקָּן קָלָל שֶׁל חַטָּאת, וּמְבִיאִין זָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים וְקוֹשְׁרִים חֶבֶל בֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְקוֹשְׁרִים מַקֵּל וּמְסַבֵּךְ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל חֶבֶל, וְזוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַקָּלָל, וּמַכֶּה אֶת הַזָּכָר וְנִרְתָּע לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְנוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַצְּדוֹקִים לִרְדּוֹת, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ: \n", 4.4. "כָּל הָעֲסוּקִין בַּפָּרָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וּפוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ בִּמְלָאכָה. אֵרַע בָּהּ פְּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. אֵרַע בָּהּ בְּהַזָּיָתָהּ, כֹּל הָעוֹסֵק בָּהּ לִפְנֵי פְסוּלָהּ, מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. נִמְצְאָה חֻמְרָהּ, קֻלָּהּ. לְעוֹלָם מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, וּמַרְבִּין לָהּ עֵצִים, וּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַיּוֹם, וּבְכֹהֵן, הַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ, עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר, וְהַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בַּמַּיִם, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּילוּ אֶת הָאֵפֶר: \n", 3.3. "They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it.", 4.4. "All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.",
6. Mishnah, Eruvin, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 228
6.2. "אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַעֲשֶׂה בִצְדוֹקִי אֶחָד, שֶׁהָיָה דָר עִמָּנוּ בְּמָבוֹי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, מַהֲרוּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת כָּל הַכֵּלִים לַמָּבוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר, מַהֲרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ צָרְכֵיכֶם בַּמָּבוֹי עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם: \n", 6.2. "Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.",
7. Tosefta, Parah, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 227
3.3. "באו לשער היוצא מעזרת נשים לחיל וקלולי' של אבן היו קבועין בכותל מעלות של עזרת נשים וכסוייהן של אבן נראין בחיל ובתוכן אפר מכל פרה ופרה שהיו שורפים שנאמר (במדבר יט) והיתה לעדת בני ישראל למשמרת למי נדה חטאת הוא מכה את הזכר ונרתע לאחוריו ואפרו נשפך נוטל ומקדש ומזה שמשפך. מעשים אלו עשו כשעלו מן הגולה דברי ר' יהודה. ר\"ש אומר אפרן ירדה עמהן לבבל ועלה אמרו לו והלא נטמא בארץ העמים אמרו להם לא גזרו טומאה בארץ העמים אלא לאחר שעלו מן הגולה.",
8. Palestinian Talmud, Eruvin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan
9. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan
10. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
109a. מאן נשדר נשדר בהדי נחום איש גם זו דמלומד בנסים הוא,כי מטא לההוא דיורא בעא למיבת אמרי ליה מאי איכא בהדך אמר להו קא מובילנא כרגא לקיסר קמו בליליא שרינהו לסיפטיה ושקלו כל דהוה גביה ומלנהו עפרא כי מטא להתם אישתכח עפרא אמר אחוכי קא מחייכי בי יהודאי אפקוהו למקטליה אמר גם זו לטובה אתא אליהו ואידמי להו כחד מינייהו אמר להו דילמא האי עפרא מעפרא דאברהם אבינו הוא דהוה שדי עפרא הוו חרבי גילי הוו גירי בדוק ואשכחו הכי,הוה מחוזא דלא הוו קא יכלי ליה למיכבשיה שדו מההוא עפרא עליה וכבשוה עיילוהו לבי גנזא אמרי שקול דניחא לך מלייה לסיפטא דהבא כי הדר אתא אמרו ליה הנך דיורי מאי אמטית לבי מלכא אמר להו מאי דשקלי מהכא אמטאי להתם שקלי אינהו אמטו להתם קטלינהו להנך דיורי:,דור הפלגה אין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו': מאי עבוד אמרי דבי רבי שילא נבנה מגדל ונעלה לרקיע ונכה אותו בקרדומות כדי שיזובו מימיו מחכו עלה במערבא א"כ ליבנו אחד בטורא,(אלא) א"ר ירמיה בר אלעזר נחלקו לג' כיתות אחת אומרת נעלה ונשב שם ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה זו שאומרת נעלה ונשב שם הפיצם ה' וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה נעשו קופים ורוחות ושידים ולילין וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים (בראשית יא, ט) כי שם בלל ה' שפת כל הארץ,תניא רבי נתן אומר כולם לשם עבודת כוכבים נתכוונו כתיב הכא (בראשית יא, ד) נעשה לנו שם וכתיב התם (שמות כג, יג) ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו מה להלן עבודת כוכבים אף כאן עבודת כוכבים,אמר רבי יוחנן מגדל שליש נשרף שליש נבלע שליש קיים אמר רב אויר מגדל משכח אמר רב יוסף בבל ובורסיף סימן רע לתורה מאי בורסיף אמר ר' אסי בור שאפי:,אנשי סדום אין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו': ת"ר אנשי סדום אין להן חלק לעולם הבא שנאמר (בראשית יג, יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה' מאד רעים בעוה"ז וחטאים לעולם הבא,אמר רב יהודה רעים בגופן וחטאים בממונם רעים בגופן דכתיב (בראשית לט, ט) ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלהים וחטאים בממונם דכתיב (דברים טו, ט) והיה בך חטא לה' זו ברכת השם מאד שמתכוונים וחוטאים,במתניתא תנא רעים בממונם וחטאים בגופן רעים בממונם דכתיב (דברים טו, ט) ורעה עינך באחיך האביון וחטאים בגופן דכתיב (בראשית לט, ט) וחטאתי לאלהים לה' זו ברכת השם מאד זו שפיכות דמים שנאמר (מלכים ב כא, טז) גם דם נקי שפך מנשה (בירושלים) הרבה מאד [וגו'],ת"ר אנשי סדום לא נתגאו אלא בשביל טובה שהשפיע להם הקב"ה ומה כתיב בהם (איוב כח, ה) ארץ ממנה יצא לחם ותחתיה נהפך כמו אש מקום ספיר אבניה ועפרות זהב לו נתיב לא ידעו עיט ולא שזפתו עין איה לא הדריכוהו בני שחץ לא עדה עליו שחל,אמרו וכי מאחר שארץ ממנה יצא לחם ועפרות זהב לו למה לנו עוברי דרכים שאין באים אלינו אלא לחסרינו [מממוננו] בואו ונשכח תורת רגל מארצנו שנאמר (איוב כח, ד) פרץ נחל מעם גר הנשכחים מני רגל דלו מאנוש נעו,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים סב, ד) עד אנה תהותתו על איש תרצחו כולכם כקיר נטוי גדר הדחויה מלמד שהיו נותנין עיניהן בבעלי ממון ומושיבין אותו אצל קיר נטוי ודוחין אותו עליו ובאים ונוטלין את ממונו,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (איוב כד, טז) חתר בחשך בתים יומם חתמו למו לא (ראו) [ידעו] אור מלמד שהיו נותנים עיניהם בבעלי ממון ומפקידים אצלו אפרסמון ומניחים אותו בבית גנזיהם לערב באים ומריחין אותו ככלב שנא' (תהלים נט, ז) ישובו לערב יהמו ככלב ויסובבו עיר ובאים וחותרים שם ונוטלין אותו ממון,(איוב כד, י) ערום הלכו מבלי לבוש ואין כסות בקרה חמור יתומים ינהגו יחבלו שור אלמנה גבולות ישיגו עדר גזלו וירעו (איוב כא, לב) והוא לקברות יובל ועל גדיש ישקוד,דרש ר' יוסי בציפורי אחתרין ההיא ליליא תלת מאה מחתרתא בציפורי אתו וקא מצערי ליה אמרו ליה יהבית אורחיה לגנבי אמר להו מי הוה ידענא דאתו גנבי כי קא נח נפשיה דרבי יוסי שפעי מרזבי דציפורי דמא,אמרי דאית ליה חד תורא מרעי חד יומא דלית ליה לירעי תרי יומי ההוא יתמא בר ארמלתא הבו ליה תורי למרעיה אזל שקלינהו וקטלינהו אמר להו 109a. b whom shall we send /b the gift? They decided: b We will send /b it b with Naḥum of Gam Zo, as he is experienced in miracles. /b , b When he reached a certain lodging, he sought to sleep /b there. The residents of that lodging b said to him: What /b do you b have with you? /b Naḥum b said to them: I am taking the head tax to the emperor. They rose in the night, opened his chest and took everything that was in it, and /b then b filled /b the chest b with dirt. When he arrived there, /b in Rome, b earth was discovered /b in the chest. The emperor b said: The Jews are mocking me /b by giving me this gift. b They took /b Naḥum b out to kill him. /b Naḥum b said: This too is for the best. Elijah /b the prophet b came and appeared to them as one of /b Naḥum’s traveling party. Elijah b said to them: Perhaps this earth is from the earth of Abraham our forefather, who would throw dust /b and b it became swords, /b and who would throw b straw /b and b it became arrows. They examined /b the dust b and discovered /b that it was indeed the dust of Abraham., b There was a province that /b the Romans b were unable to conquer. They threw /b some b of this earth upon /b that province b and they conquered it. /b In appreciation for the gift that Naḥum of Gam Zo had brought on behalf of the Jewish people, b they brought him into the treasury /b and b said: Take /b that b which is preferable to you. He filled his chest /b with b gold. When he returned /b to that lodging, b those residents said to him: What did you bring to the king’s palace? /b Naḥum b said to them: What I took from here, I brought to there. /b The residents concluded that the earth with which they had filled the chest had miraculous properties. b They took /b earth and b brought it to /b the emperor. Once the Romans discovered that the earth was ineffective in battle, b they executed those residents. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that the members of b the generation of the dispersion have no share in the World-to-Come. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b sin b did they perform? /b Their sin is not explicitly delineated in the Torah. b The school of Rabbi Sheila say /b that the builders of the Tower of Babel said: b We will build a tower and ascend to heaven, and we will strike it with axes so that its waters will flow. They laughed at /b this explanation b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and asked: b If /b that was their objective, b let them build /b a tower b on a mountain; /b why did they build it specifically in a valley (see Genesis 11:2)?, b Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Elazar says: They divided into three factions; one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and dwell there. And one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and engage in idol worship. And one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and wage war. /b With regard to b that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and dwell there, God dispersed them. And that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and wage war, became apes, and spirits, and demons, and female demons. And /b with regard to b that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and engage in idol wor-ship, /b it is written: b “Because there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth” /b (Genesis 11:9)., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says: All of /b those factions b intended /b to build the tower b for the sake of idol worship. It is written here: “And let us make a name for us” /b (Genesis 11:4), b and it is written there: “And make no mention of the name of the other gods” /b (Exodus 23:13). b Just as there, /b the connotation of “name” b is idol worship, so too here, /b the connotation of “name” b is idol worship. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa says: The /b uppermost b third /b of the b tower was burned, /b the lowermost b third /b of the tower b was swallowed /b into the earth, and the middle b third remained /b intact. b Rav says: The atmosphere of the tower causes forgetfulness; /b anyone who goes there forgets what he has learned. As a result of the building of the tower, forgetting was introduced into the world. b Rav Yosef says: Babylonia and /b the adjacent place, b Bursif, are /b each b a bad omen for Torah, /b i.e., they cause one to forget his knowledge. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b Bursif? Rabbi Asi says: /b It is an abbreviation of b empty pit [ i bor shafi /i ]. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” /b (Genesis 13:13). b “Wicked” /b indicates b in this world; “and sinners” /b indicates b for the World-to-Come. /b , b Rav Yehuda says: “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies; “and sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money. “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies, as it is written /b with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: b “And how can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God” /b (Genesis 39:9). b “And sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money, as it is written: /b “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother, and you give him nothing… b for it shall be reckoned to you as a sin” /b (Deuteronomy 15:9). b “Before the Lord”; this /b is referring to b blessing, /b a euphemism for cursing, b God. “Exceedingly” /b means b that they had intent and sinned /b and did not sin unwittingly or driven by lust., b It was taught in a i baraita /i : “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money; “and sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies. “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money, as it is written: “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother /b and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). b “And sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies, as it is written /b with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: b “And sin against God” /b (Genesis 39:9). b “Before the Lord”; this /b is referring to b blessing, /b a euphemism for cursing, b God. “Exceedingly [ i meod /i ]” /b is referring to b bloodshed, as it is stated: “Moreover Manasseh shed very [ i meod /i ] much blood” /b (II Kings 21:16)., b The Sages taught: The people of Sodom became haughty /b and sinned b due only to the /b excessive b goodness that the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed upon them. And what is written concerning them, /b indicating that goodness? b “As for the earth, out of it comes bread, and underneath it is turned up as it were by fire. Its stones are the place of sapphires, and it has dust of gold. That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the falcon’s eye seen it. The proud beasts have not trodden it, nor has the lion passed thereby” /b (Job 28:5–8). The reference is to the city of Sodom, which was later overturned, as it is stated thereafter: “He puts forth His hand upon the flinty rock; He overturns the mountains by the roots” (Job 28:9).,The people of Sodom b said: Since /b we live in b a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold, /b we have everything that we need. b Why do we need travelers, as they come only to divest us of our property? Come, let us cause the /b proper b treatment of travelers to be forgotten from our land, as it is stated: “He breaks open a watercourse in a place far from inhabitants, forgotten by pedestrians, they are dried up, they have moved away from men” /b (Job 28:4)., b Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “How long will you seek to overwhelm a man? You will all be murdered like a leaning wall or a tottering fence” /b (Psalms 62:4)? This b teaches that /b the people of Sodom b set their sights on property owners. /b They would take one b and place him alongside an inclined, /b flimsy b wall /b that was about to fall, b and push it upon him /b to kill him, b and /b then b they /b would b come and take his property. /b , b Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “In the dark they dig through houses; by day they shut themselves up; they know not the light” /b (Job 24:16)? This b teaches that they would set their sights on property owners. /b They would take one b and /b they would b give him balsam, /b whose smell diffuses, b and /b the property owner would b place it in his treasury. In the evening, /b the people of Sodom b would come and sniff it /b out b like a dog /b and discover the location of the property owner’s treasury, b as it is stated: “They return at evening; they howl like a dog, and go round about the city” /b (Psalms 59:7). b And /b after discovering the location b they would come and dig there, and they would take that property. /b ,The Gemara cites verses that allude to the practices of the people of Sodom: b “They lie at night naked without clothing, and they have no covering in the cold” /b (Job 24:7). And likewise: b “They drive away the donkey of the fatherless; they take the widow’s ox as a pledge” /b (Job 24:3). And likewise: b “They trespass; they violently steal flocks and graze them” /b (Job 24:2). And likewise: b “For he is brought to the grave, and watch is kept over his tomb” /b (Job 21:32)., b Rabbi Yosei taught in Tzippori /b the methods of theft employed in Sodom. b That night three hundred tunnels were excavated in Tzippori /b in order to employ those methods. Homeowners b came and harassed him; they said to him: You have given a way for thieves /b to steal. Rabbi Yosei b said to them: Did I know that thieves would come /b as a result of my lecture? The Gemara relates: b When Rabbi Yosei died, the gutters of Tzippori /b miraculously b overflowed /b with b blood /b as a sign of his death.,The people of Sodom b would say: /b Anyone b who has one ox shall herd /b the city’s oxen b for one day. /b Anyone b who does not have /b any oxen b shall herd /b the city’s oxen b for two days. /b The Gemara relates: b They gave oxen to a certain orphan, son of a widow, to herd. He went /b and b took them and killed them. /b The orphan b said /b to the people of Sodom:
11. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
42a. הא גדילים תעשה לך מהם:,אמר מר וכולם שגילחו שלא בתער או ששיירו שתי שערות לא עשו ולא כלום אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא זאת אומרת רובו ככולו מדאורייתא,ממאי מדגלי רחמנא גבי נזיר (במדבר ו, ט) ביום השביעי יגלחנו הכא הוא דעד דאיכא כולו הא בעלמא רובו ככולו,מתקיף לה ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא האי בנזיר טמא כתיב מחכו עלה במערבא מכדי נזיר טמא דבתער מנלן מנזיר טהור יליף ליתי נזיר טהור ולילף מנזיר טמא מה טמא כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד הכא נמי כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד,בעי אביי נזיר שגילח ושייר שתי שערות צמח ראשו וחזר וגילחן מהו מי מעכבי או לא,בעי רבא נזיר שגילח והניח שתי שערות וגילח אחת ונשרה אחת מהו א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא גילח שערה שערה קא מיבעי ליה לרבא,אלא אימא נשרה אחת וגילח אחת מהו א"ל גילוח אין כאן שער אין כאן אי שער אין כאן גילוח יש כאן ה"ק אע"פ ששער אין כאן מצות גילוח אין כאן:,מתני' נזיר חופף ומפספס אבל לא סורק:,גמ' חופף ומפספס מני ר"ש היא דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר אבל לא סורק אתאן לרבנן,רישא ר"ש וסיפא רבנן אמר רבה כולה ר"ש היא כל הסורק להסיר נימין מדולדלות מתכוין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big רבי ישמעאל אומר לא יחוף באדמה מפני שמשרת את השער:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו מפני שהיא משרת את השער תנן או דלמא מפני המשרת תנן למאי נפקא מינה,כגון דאיכא אדמה דלא מתרא אי אמרת מפני שהיא משרת תנן היכא דידעינן דלא מתרא שפיר אלא אי אמרת מפני המשרת כלל כלל לא תיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מגלח כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תגלח אל תגלח והוא מגלח חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מטמא למתים כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא והוא מטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת: 42a. indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: b “You shall make for yourself fringes” /b (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be b from them, /b wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. b The Master said /b above: b And /b with regard to b all of them, if they shaved with /b an implement b other than a razor, or if they left two hairs /b uncut, b they have done nothing. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say /b that the principle: b The majority of /b an entity is considered b like all of it, /b applies b by Torah law. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where /b do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived b from /b the fact b that the Merciful One revealed /b in the Torah and specified b with regard to a nazirite: “On the seventh day he shall shave it” /b (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: “And he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.” This teaches that b it is /b only in this case b here /b that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving b until there is /b the removal b of all of it, /b i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that b in general the majority of /b an entity is b like all of it. /b , b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, objects to this /b assertion. b This /b verse: “On the seventh day he shall shave it,” b is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite, /b not a pure one, whereas the i halakha /i in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. b They laughed at /b this difficulty b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b After all, from where do we /b derive the i halakha /i that b an impure nazirite /b shaves b with a razor? /b It is b derived from /b the i halakha /i of b a pure nazirite. /b If so, b let /b the case of b a pure nazirite come and derive /b the following i halakha /i b from /b the case of b an impure nazirite: Just as /b with regard to b an impure /b nazirite, b if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too, /b if a pure nazirite b leaves two hairs he has done nothing. /b ,On the same topic, b Abaye raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, /b which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of b his head grew and he again shaved, /b this time those two hairs alone, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Do /b these hairs b invalidate /b the fulfillment of his obligation b or not? /b Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?,Similarly, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and /b afterward b shaved one /b of them, b and /b the other b one fell out /b of its own accord, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is this considered shaving one’s entire head or not? b Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma /b as to whether one can b shave /b his head one b hair by /b one b hair? /b How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?, b Rather, say /b that the dilemma is as follows: If b one /b hair b fell out and he shaved /b the other b one, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina b said to him: /b In that case b there is no shaving here; there is no hair here. /b The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: b If there is no hair here, /b then b there is shaving here, /b as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: b This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here, /b as only one hair remains, nevertheless b there is no /b fulfillment of the b mitzva of shaving here, /b as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite may shampoo [ i ḥofef /i ] /b his head b and separate [ i mefaspes /i ] /b his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. b However, he may not comb /b his hair., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara clarifies: b Who is /b the i tanna /i who maintains that a nazirite b may shampoo and separate /b his hairs? b It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted. /b Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: b However, he may not comb /b his hair, b we have come to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.,This leads to a surprising conclusion, that b the first clause /b represents the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis. Rabba said: /b The b entire /b mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b as he maintains that b anyone who combs /b his hair b intends to remove stray hairs, /b and therefore this is considered an intentional act., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Yishmael says: /b A nazirite b may not shampoo /b his hair b with earth because /b this b causes the hair to fall out. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do b we learn: Because it removes hair, /b i.e., earth in general removes hair, b or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes /b hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: b What /b is the b difference /b of this textual question?,The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case b where there is /b a type of b earth that does not remove /b hair. b If you say /b that b we learned /b in the mishna: b Because it removes /b hair, then in a case b where we know that it does not remove /b hair b it is fine /b to shampoo with that substance. b However, if you say /b the text reads: b Because of that which removes /b hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may b not /b shampoo his head with any earth b at all, /b not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If people b said to him /b during the course of the day: b Do not drink, do not drink, and /b nevertheless b he /b continues to b drink, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If a nazirite b kept shaving all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If he b became ritually impure from a corpse /b many times b all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he /b continues to b become impure, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned.
12. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
4a. שפתיו נהוי מעשה גבי מגדף אמר רבא שאני מגדף הואיל וישנו בלב אבל בעלמא עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה,מתיב רבי זירא יצאו עדים זוממין שאין בו מעשה ואמאי הא על פי כתיב בהן אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנן בראייה:,האוכל חלב: ת"ר (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו לחייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר' ישמעאל וחכ"א אינו חייב אלא אחת,נימא בהא קמיפלגי דר' ישמעאל סבר לוקין על לאו שבכללות ורבנן סברי אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,לעולם סבר ר' ישמעאל אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות ושאני הכא דמייתרי ליה קראי נכתוב קרא כל חלב לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן אי לא כתיב שור וכשב ועז ה"א אפילו חלב חיה במשמע להכי כתב שור כשב ועז למימרא דחלב שור וכשב ועז הוא דאסור אבל דחיה שרי,שפיר קאמרי ליה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי ישמעאל דקסבר א"כ לכתוב כל חלב שור לא תאכלו כשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב רחמנא כל חלב שור ה"א נילף שור שור מסיני,מה גבי סיני חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף גבי אכילה חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן להכי כתב רחמנא שור וכשב ועז למימרא דהני דאסור אבל חיה ועוף שרי,שפיר קא"ל אלא היינו טעמא דקסבר נכתוב כל חלב כשב לא תאכלו א"נ כל חלב עז לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב כל חלב כשב ה"א חלב כשב אסור ושור ועז שרי וכ"ת מאי אולמיה דכשב משום דנתרבה באליה,וכדתנא ר' חנניא למה מנה הכתוב אימורין בשור ואימורים בכשב ואימורים בעז דכתיב (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור וגו',צריכי דאי כתב שור ה"א כשב ועז לא ילפינן מיניה דאיכא למיפרך מה לשור שכן נתרבה בנסכים,נכתוב רחמנא בכשב ונילף שור ועז מכשב איכא למיפרך מה לכשב שכן נתרבה באליה,נכתוב רחמנא עז ונילף שור וכשב מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לעז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,מן חד לא ילפינן נכתוב תרתי ונילף חדא מתרתי הי דין נילף שור מכשב ועז אית להון פירכא מה לכשב ועז שכן נתרבו אצל הפסח,לא נכתוב כשב ונילף משור ועז אית להון פירכא מה לשור ועז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,לא נכתוב עז ונילף משור וכשב אית להון פירכא מה לשור וכשב שכן יש בו צד ריבוי הלכך לא ילפי מהדדי,שפיר קא"ל אלא לעולם טעמא דרבי ישמעאל כדאמרינן מעיקרא דאם כן נכתוב כל חלב ולישתוק מאי אמרת האי דכתב שור וכשב ועז למשרי חלב חיה,הא כי כתב קרא בעניינא דקדשים ודבר למד מעניינו,מכלל דרבנן סברי לא ילפינן דבר למד מעניינו לא דכולי עלמא ילפינן דבר הלמד מעניינו והכא בהא פליגי רבי ישמעאל סבר למידין לאו מלאו בין מלאו ובין מלאו דכרת,דכל חלב שור וכשב ועז מלאו (ויקרא ג, יז) דחוקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו דכתיב בעניינא דקדשים ובקדשים לא אית בהון חיה אף כל חלב שור כי כתיב ליה סתמא ליכא לספוקי בחיה הלכך שור וכשב ועז לחלק הוא דאתא לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,וילפינן לאו דכל חלב ולאו דחוקת עולם מכרת (ויקרא ז, כה) דכי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה מה ההוא לחלק אף הדין לחלק,ורבנן לאו מלאו ילפינן לאו מכרת לא ילפינן,ואיבעית אימא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן כדאמר ליה רב מרי לרב זביד אלא מעתה אליה דחולין תיתסר אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז דבר השוה בשלשתן בעינן וליכא,הלכך כי אתא שור וכשב ועז למישרי אליה דחולין הוא דאתא ור' ישמעאל אמר לך א"כ לימא קרא כל חלב שור וכשב עז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,א"ר חנינא מודה רבי ישמעאל לענין קרבן שאין מביא אלא חטאת אחת מ"ט דלא דמי הדין לאו ללאו דעריות,ת"ר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,שאם אכל חלב וחלב שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים שתי שמות בהעלם אחת חייב שתים,א"ל רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא בשלמא שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים משום דהעלמות מחלקין אלא שני שמות בהעלם אחת אמאי חייב שתים הא בעינן העלמות מוחלקין וליכא,א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאכל חלב דנותר דמחייב משום נותר ומשום חלב א"ל א"כ ניחייב נמי משום קודש,אלא אמר רב ששת כגון דאכל חלב דהקדש ור' יהודה היא דתניא אכל חלב נבלה אכל חלב מוקדשין חייב שתים ר' יהודה אומר חלב מוקדשין לוקה שלש,מחייכו עלה במערבא ונוקמה כגון חלב דשור וכשב ועז ור' ישמעאל היא דאמר לוקה שלש 4a. b his lips should be /b considered b an action in /b the case of one who b blasphemes. Rava said: /b The case of one who b blasphemes is different, since it is /b primarily b in the heart. /b In other words, the transgression of blasphemy is not the actual speech but the verbalizing of a sentiment. One is not liable to bring a sin offering for such an action, as it is essentially a matter of the heart. b But in general, the twisting of one’s lips is /b considered b an action. /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises an objection /b from that which is taught in a different context. It is stated in a i baraita /i that all who unwittingly transgress prohibitions punishable by death are liable to bring sin offerings, b except for conspiring witnesses, /b who are not obligated to bring sin offerings, b as /b their transgression b does not involve an action. But why /b is that so? b It is written with regard to /b such witnesses: b “At the mouth /b of two witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6). They acted through speech, and the twisting of their lips should be considered an action, as they are liable for what they actually said, not for what was in their hearts. b Rava said: /b The case of b conspiring witnesses is different, since their /b transgression b is /b primarily b through sight, /b i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not an action.,§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive i karet /i b one who eats /b forbidden b fat. /b With regard to this, b the Sages taught /b a i baraita /i which deals with the verse: b “You shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This verse serves b to render one liable /b to receive lashes b for each and every one, /b i.e., one who eats the fat of an ox, and a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive three sets of lashes. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And the Rabbis say he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis b disagree about this /b matter, b that Rabbi Yishmael maintains one is flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition and the Rabbis maintain one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition. /b This is referring to the violation of a prohibition that includes several different actions, such as this one, which pertains to eating the fat of an ox, sheep, and goat. The Rabbis contend that one does not receive multiple sets of lashes for transgressing each element of such a prohibition.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, Rabbi Yishmael /b also b maintains /b that b one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition, but here it is different, as /b elements of b the verse are superfluous. /b The Gemara explains: b Let the verse write /b only: b You shall eat no fat, /b and all the individual types of fat would be included. b Why do I /b need the additional terms: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b how do they respond to this reading of the verse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis would say that no element of the verse is superfluous, since b if /b it had b not written: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” I would say /b that b even /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal is included /b in the prohibition. b For this /b reason the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that it is /b the b fat of an ox, or a sheep, or a goat that is forbidden, but /b all the fats b of an undomesticated animal are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: If so, /b that the verse serves to exclude the fat of only an undomesticated animal from the prohibition, then b let it write: You shall eat no fat of an ox, /b which would be understood as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal. b Why do I /b need the phrase: b “Sheep or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if the Merciful One had written /b only: You shall eat no b fat of an ox, I would say: Let us derive /b a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “ox” /b stated here as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal [ i behema /i ] and the word b “ox,” /b i.e., i behema /i , stated with regard to a mitzva given in preparation for the revelation at b Sinai: /b “Whether it be animal [ i behema /i ] or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13).,The Gemara explains the meaning of this hypothetical verbal analogy: b Just as with regard to /b the command at b Sinai, undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the use of the term i behema /i , b so too, with regard to eating /b their fat, b undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the verse employing the example of an ox. b For this /b reason b the Merciful One writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that these are forbidden, but /b all the fats of b an undomesticated animal and birds are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. How could he say the terms in the verse are superfluous? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: Let /b the verse b write: You shall eat no fat of sheep; alternatively, /b let it state: b You shall eat no fat of goat. Why do I /b need the verse to state all three: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if /b the Torah b had written /b merely: b You shall eat no fat of sheep, I would say /b it is only b the fat of sheep /b that is b forbidden, but /b the fat of b an ox or a goat /b is b permitted. And if you would say: /b In b what /b way b is /b the category b of sheep stronger, /b i.e., more fitting to have its fats forbidden, than the categories of ox and goats, that one would think the prohibition applies only to sheep? The answer is that one might have thought so b due to /b the fact b that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as it is sacrificed upon the altar, which is not the case with an ox or a goat., b And /b this is b as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: Why does the verse list /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions /b on the altar b with regard to /b a firstborn b ox, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions [ i ve’eimurim /i ] with regard to /b a firstborn b sheep, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions with regard to /b a firstborn b goat? As it is written: “But the firstborn of a bull, /b or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire” (Numbers 18:17). The “fat” mentioned in this verse is their portions to be burned on the altar.,Rabbi Ḥanina explains: These repetitions b are necessary, as, if /b the Torah b had written /b this obligation only with regard to a firstborn b ox I would say /b that b we do not derive /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep and a goat from it, as /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about an ox? /b It is notable b in that /b an ox b has an increased /b number b of /b wine b libations, /b more than those poured with sheep and goat offerings. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation to burn the sacrificial portions applies only with regard to an ox.,And likewise, if you were to suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only b with regard to a sheep and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat from /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep, /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a sheep? /b It is notable b in that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as explained earlier.,And similarly, if you suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only with regard to b a goat, and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep from /b the i halakha /i of a goat, this too b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a goat? /b It is notable b in that /b a goat b has an increased /b applicability b with regard to idol worship, /b as one who sins unwittingly in the case of idol worship is liable to bring a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27), unlike one who transgresses other prohibitions unwittingly, for which they are liable to bring a sheep.,Rabbi Ḥanina continues: b We cannot derive /b these i halakhot /i b from /b the i halakha /i of any b one /b of the others, but b let /b the Torah b write two /b of them b and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b one /b of them b from /b the i halakha /i of the other b two. Which /b is b this /b animal that should not be written? If one suggests b we will derive /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of a firstborn b ox from /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about a sheep and a goat? /b They are notable b in that /b that b they have increased /b applicability, as they are suitable b for the Paschal offering, /b whereas an ox is not suitable for this purpose.,If one suggests the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a goat? /b They are notable b in that they have increased /b applicability as suitable offerings to atone b for /b an unwitting transgression of b idol worship, /b as when a community unwittingly sins with regard to idol worship they bring an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), while an individual brings a goat but not a sheep.,If one suggests that the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a goat, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a sheep? /b They are notable b in that each /b of them b has an increased aspect /b of applicability with regard to the altar, as the libations for an ox are greater than those for a goat, and the tail of a sheep, but not that of a goat, is burned on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina concludes: b Therefore, /b all three cases are necessary, as b they cannot be derived from each other. /b ,The Rabbis have explained why all three mentions of an ox, a sheep, and a goat are necessary. Consequently, the Gemara again states: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests: b Rather, the reason of Rabbi Yishmael /b is b actually as we said at the outset, that if so, /b that one who eats the forbidden fats of all three animals is liable to receive only one set of lashes, b let /b the verse b write: /b You shall eat no b fat, and be silent. What did you say /b in response? That b this /b fact b that /b the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b serves b to permit /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal? /b This is not a valid objection.,The Gemara explains: b When the verse /b concerning forbidden fat b is written /b it is b in the context of sacrificial /b animals, since the subsequent verse concerning the prohibition against eating forbidden fat states: “For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The verse categorizes an animal whose fat one may not eat as an “animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord,” i.e., offerings. b And /b one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles is: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, /b i.e., one interprets a verse according to the context in which it is written. Since offerings may be brought only from domesticated, not undomesticated, animals, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat applies only to such animals.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one conclude b by inference that the Rabbis maintain we do not derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context? /b This cannot be correct, as it is an accepted basic principle of exegesis. The Gemara answers: b No, everyone /b agrees that b we do derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, and here /b it is b about this /b issue b that they disagree: Rabbi Yishmael maintains /b that b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another b prohibition, /b and this applies b whether /b it is b from /b a standard b prohibition, /b whose transgression results in the punishment of lashes, b or whether from a prohibition /b whose transgression results in the punishment b of i karet /i . /b ,Accordingly, the prohibition b of: /b “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b can be derived b from the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood” /b (Leviticus 3:17), b which is written with regard to the matter of sacrificial /b animals. b And there are no undomesticated animals in /b the category of b sacrificial /b animals. b So too, /b with regard to the prohibition of: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, /b or sheep, or goat,” b when /b the verse b writes it without /b further b specification, there is no /b reason b to be uncertain /b whether or not it is referring also b to undomesticated animals. Therefore, /b the phrase b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes to separate, /b i.e., b to render one liable for /b eating the forbidden fat of b each and every one /b of them.,All this teaches only that a separate prohibition applies to each type of animal. b And /b with regard to the liability to receive lashes for eating each one b we derive the prohibition of: /b “You shall eat b no fat,” and the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute,” from the /b example of b i karet /i /b stated in the verse: b “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal, of which people present /b an offering of fire to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:25). b Just as that /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that if one unwittingly ate the fat of an ox, a goat, and a sheep he is liable to bring a sin offering for each one, b so too, this /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that one is liable to receive lashes for eating the fat of each one., b And the Rabbis /b maintain b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another standard b prohibition, /b but b we do not derive /b the i halakhot /i of a standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of a prohibition whose transgression results in the punishment of b i karet /i . /b ,The Gemara suggests: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this is the reason of the Rabbis: As Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid /b when asked about a different issue: b If that is so, /b that a sheep tail is categorized as fat by the verses and is included in the portions of an offering for which one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property, then the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal b should be prohibited /b for consumption as forbidden fat. Rav Zevid b said to /b Rav Mari: b With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states /b concerning forbidden fat: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that for the prohibition against eating forbidden fat to take effect b we require an item that is /b found b equally in all three /b types of animals, an ox, and a sheep, and a goat, b and that is not /b the case here. Since an ox and goat do not have tails, the tail is not prohibited even in the case of a sheep., b Therefore, /b the same applies with regard to the issue at hand: b When /b the verse b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes, it comes to permit /b consumption of the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal, and one cannot learn from here that a separate prohibition applies to each type of forbidden fat. b And Rabbi Yishmael /b could b say to you /b in response: b If so, let /b the verse b state: /b You shall eat b no fat of ox or sheep; why do I /b need the mention of b a goat? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b Although b Rabbi Yishmael /b maintains that one who unwittingly eats the fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each one, he b concedes with regard to /b bringing b an offering that /b if he ate those types of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness he b brings only one sin offering. What is the reason? /b The reason is b that this prohibition is not similar to the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden. /b As derived in the Gemara on 2b, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with many women to whom he is forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. In that context the verse states a separate prohibition for each forbidden relative, whereas in this case there is a single prohibition that applies to the forbidden fat of all domesticated animals.,§ With regard to the sin offering required of one who transgresses the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments of God that may not be performed, and from one of them” (Leviticus 4:2). This phrase should be interpreted as though it states: b And performs one, /b and again states: b And performs them, /b i.e., it serves b to render one liable /b to bring a sin offering b for each and every /b transgression.,The i baraita /i continues: This teaches b that if one ate /b forbidden b fat and /b again ate forbidden b fat, /b if it was from b one category, /b i.e., the same type of forbidden fat, and he ate it b in two lapses of awareness, /b that is, he was made aware of his sin after the first instance of consumption and then again ate unwittingly, he is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings. If he ate forbidden fat from b two categories, /b as the Gemara will soon explain, b in one lapse of awareness, /b he is likewise b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings., b Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: Granted, /b one who ate forbidden fat from b one category in two lapses of awareness /b is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings, as this is b due to /b the fact b that the lapses of awareness separate /b between his transgressions; each time he becomes aware of his transgression he is liable to bring another sin offering. b But /b in a case where he ate forbidden fat from b two categories in one lapse of awareness, why /b is he b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings? b We require separate lapses of awareness and that is not /b the case here.,Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Here we are dealing with /b a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [ i notar /i ], as he is liable due to /b eating b i notar /i and /b is also liable b due to /b eating forbidden b fat. /b These are the two categories mentioned in the i baraita /i . Rami bar Ḥama b said to him: If so, /b that the case involves more than one prohibition, b let him be liable due to /b eating b sacrificial /b food b as well, /b and he should be liable to bring a guilt offering for the unwitting misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16)., b Rather, Rav Sheshet said: /b Here we are dealing with a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, b and /b this ruling b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who renders one liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial food. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of an animal carcass, /b or if he b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, he is b liable /b to receive b two /b sets of lashes, either for transgressing the prohibitions of eating forbidden fat and eating an animal carcass, or for both eating forbidden fat and transgressing the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes, because there are two separate prohibitions of forbidden fat in the case of sacrificial animals, as the Gemara will soon explain, in addition to the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals.,The Gemara comments: b They laughed at this /b suggestion b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b And let us interpret /b this i baraita /i as referring to a case b where /b he ate the forbidden b fat of an ox, and /b of b a sheep, and /b of b a goat, and /b explain that b it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, who says /b that he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes for the different types of fat, if he did so intentionally and was forewarned.
13. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
14. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
16b. ללדת עולה לראש ההר כדי שיפול ממנה וימות ואני מזמין לה נשר שמקבלו בכנפיו ומניחו לפניה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מתאחר רגע אחד מיד מת בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לט, א) חולל אילות תשמור אילה זו רחמה צר בשעה שכורעת ללדת אני מזמין לה דרקון שמכישה בבית הרחם ומתרפה ממולדה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מאחר רגע אחד מיד מתה בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לד, לה) [איוב] לא בדעת ידבר ודבריו לא בהשכל (וכתיב (איוב מב, ז) כי לא דברתם אלי נכונה כעבדי איוב) אמר רבא מכאן שאין אדם נתפס בשעת צערו,(איוב ב, יא) וישמעו שלשת רעי איוב את כל הרעה הזאת הבאה עליו ויבאו איש ממקומו אליפז התימני ובלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ויועדו יחדו לבוא לנוד לו ולנחמו מאי ויועדו יחדו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שנכנסו כולן בשער אחד ותנא בין כל אחד ואחד שלש מאות פרסי,מנא הוו ידעי איכא דאמרי כלילא הוה להו ואיכא דאמרי אילני הוה להו וכיון דכמשי הוו ידעי אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברא כחברי דאיוב או מיתותא,(בראשית ו, א) ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב על פני האדמה ובנות יולדו להם רבי יוחנן אמר רביה באה לעולם ריש לקיש אמר מריבה באה לעולם אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן לדידך דאמרת רבייה באה לעולם מפני מה לא נכפלו בנותיו של איוב,אמר לו נהי דלא נכפלו בשמות אבל נכפלו ביופי דכתיב (איוב מב, יג) ויהי לו שבענה בנים ושלוש בנות ויקרא שם האחת ימימה ושם השנית קציעה ושם השלישית קרן הפוך,ימימה שהיתה דומה ליום קציעה שהיה ריחה נודף כקציעה קרן הפוך אמרי דבי רבי שילא שדומה לקרנא דקרש מחייכו עלה במערבא קרנא דקרש לקותא היא אלא אמר רב חסדא ככורכמא דרישקא במיניה שנאמר (ירמיהו ד, ל) כי תקרעי בפוך,רבי שמעון ברבי איתילידא ליה ברתא הוה קא חלש דעתיה אמר ליה אבוה רביה באה לעולם אמר ליה בר קפרא תנחומין של הבל ניחמך אבוך [דתניא] אי אפשר לעולם בלא זכרים ובלא נקבות אלא אשרי למי שבניו זכרים אוי לו למי שבניו נקבות אי אפשר לעולם בלא בסם ובלא בורסי אשרי מי שאומנותו בוסמי אוי למי שאומנותו בורסי,כתנאי (בראשית כד, א) וה' ברך את אברהם בכל מאי בכל רבי מאיר אומר שלא היתה לו בת רבי יהודה אומר שהיתה לו בת אחרים אומרים בת היתה לו לאברהם ובכל שמה רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר איצטגנינות היתה בלבו של אברהם אבינו שכל מלכי מזרח ומערב משכימין לפתחו רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אבן טובה היתה תלויה בצוארו של אברהם אבינו שכל חולה הרואה אותו מיד מתרפא ובשעה שנפטר אברהם אבינו מן העולם תלאה הקדוש ברוך הוא בגלגל חמה אמר אביי היינו דאמרי אינשי אידלי יומא אידלי קצירא,דבר אחר שלא מרד עשו בימיו דבר אחר שעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו שלא מרד עשו בימיו מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף ותנא אותו היום נפטר אברהם אבינו ועשה יעקב אבינו תבשיל של עדשים לנחם את יצחק אביו,[ומ"ש של עדשים] אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבה בר מרי מה עדשה זו אין לה פה אף אבל אין לו פה דבר אחר מה עדשה זו מגולגלת אף אבילות מגלגלת ומחזרת על באי העולם מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לנחומי בביעי,אמר רבי יוחנן חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע באותו היום בא על נערה מאורסה והרג את הנפש וכפר בעיקר וכפר בתחיית המתים ושט את הבכורה,בא על נערה מאורסה כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה וכתיב התם (דברים כב, כז) כי בשדה מצאה הרג את הנפש כתיב הכא עיף וכתיב התם (ירמיהו ד, לא) אוי נא לי כי עיפה נפשי להורגים וכפר בעיקר כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, לב) למה זה לי וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו וכפר בתחיית המתים דכתיב (בראשית כה, לב) הנה אנכי הולך למות ושט את הבכורה דכתיב (בראשית כה, לד) ויבז עשו את הבכורה,ושעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו מנלן כי הא דרבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי הוו יתבי קמיה דרבא וקא מנמנם רבא א"ל רבינא לרב חמא בר בוזי ודאי דאמריתו כל מיתה שיש בה גויעה זו היא מיתתן של צדיקים אמר ליה אין והא דור המבול אמר ליה אנן גויעה ואסיפה קאמרינן,והא ישמעאל דכתיב ביה גויעה ואסיפה אדהכי איתער בהו רבא אמר להו דרדקי הכי א"ר יוחנן ישמעאל עשה תשובה בחיי אביו שנאמר (בראשית כה, ט) ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו,ודילמא דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו אלא מעתה (בראשית לה, כט) ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו מאי טעמא לא חשיב להו דרך חכמתן אלא מדאקדמיה אדבורי אדבריה ומדאדבריה שמע מינה תשובה עבד בימיו,תנו רבנן שלשה הטעימן הקב"ה בעולם הזה 16b. b to give birth she ascends to the top of a mountain so that /b the kid b should fall down from her and die. And I summon her an eagle that receives it with his wings and places it before her; and if /b the eagle b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, /b the kid b would immediately die. /b Now, if b I do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,Similarly: b “Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” /b (Job 39:1). b The womb of this hind is narrow, /b which makes for a difficult delivery. b When she squats to give birth, I summon her a snake [ i derakon /i ] that bites her at the opening of the womb, which /b then b becomes loose, and she gives birth, and if /b the snake b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, she would immediately die. /b Now, if I b do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,The Gemara comments: On the one hand, the text states: b “Job has spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom” /b (Job 34:35). b But /b on the other hand, b it is written /b with regard to Job’s friends: b “You have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, like my servant Job” /b (Job 42:8). b Rava said: From here /b it may be inferred b that a person is not held responsible /b for what he says b when he is in distress. /b Although Job uttered certain words that were wrong and inappropriate, he was not punished for them because he said them at a time of pain and hardship.,The verse states: b “And Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him” /b (Job 2:11). b What /b does b “they had made an appointment together” /b mean? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: This /b phrase b teaches that they all entered /b through b one gate /b at the same time. b And /b a Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : There were b three hundred parasangs between each and every one /b of them, i.e., each one lived three hundred parasangs away from the other.,The Gemara asks: b How did they /b all b know /b at the same time what had happened to Job so that the three of them came together? b There are /b those b who say /b that b they /b each b had a crown /b which displayed certain signs when something happened to one of the others. b And there are /b those b who say they /b each b had trees and when /b the trees b withered they knew /b that sorrow had visited one of them. b Rava said /b that b this /b closeness between Job and his friends explains the adage b that people say: Either a friend like the friends of Job or death. /b If a person lacks close friends, he is better off dead.,The Gemara cites another place where Job is mentioned. b “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply [ i larov /i ] on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them” /b (Genesis 6:1). b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b i Larov /i means that b propagation [ i reviyya /i ] came to the world /b through these daughters. b Reish Lakish says: Strife [ i meriva /i ] came to the world. /b Once daughters were born, the men began to fight among themselves over them. b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: According to you who say /b that due to the daughters b propagation came to the world, for what /b reason b were /b the number of b Job’s daughters not doubled, /b when at the end of the story God doubled everything that Job had lost (see Job 1:3, 42:12)?,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Granted, /b the numbers of Job’s daughters b were not doubled in name, /b meaning they did not become twice as many, b but they were doubled in beauty, as it is written: “He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, and the name of the second was Keziah, and the name of the third one was Keren-happuch” /b (Job 42:13–14). All three names relate to the daughters’ beauty., b Jemimah [ i Yemima /i ]; /b in her beauty b she was similar to the day [ i yom /i ]. Keziah; her scent wafted like /b the b cassia [ i ketzia /i ] /b tree. b Keren-happuch; in the school of Rav Sheila they say: She was similar to the horn [ i keren /i ] of a i keresh /i , /b an animal whose horns are particularly beautiful. b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, since it is considered b a blemish /b when a person resembles b the horn of a i keresh /i . Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: /b She was b like garden saffron [ i kekurkema derishka /i ], /b which is the best b of its kind. /b i Keren /i refers to a garden, and i pukh /i means ornament, b as it is stated: “Though you enlarge /b your eyes b with paint [ i pukh /i ], /b you beautify yourself in vain” (Jeremiah 4:30).,It is reported that b a daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, and b he was upset /b that he did not have a son. b His father said to him: Propagation has come to the world /b through the birth of a daughter. b Bar Kappara said to /b Rabbi Shimon: b Your father has consoled you with meaningless consolation, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The world cannot endure without males and females, /b as both are needed for the perpetuation of humanity. b But fortunate is he whose children are males and woe to him whose children are females. /b Similarly, b the world cannot endure without either a spice dealer /b whose wares are sweet-smelling, b or a tanner [ i bursi /i ], /b who is engaged in a foul-smelling occupation. b Fortunate is he whose occupation is a spice seller, /b and b woe to him whose occupation is a tanner. /b ,The Gemara comments that this disagreement is b parallel to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i : /b The Torah states: b “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything [ i bakkol /i ]” /b (Genesis 24:1), and the Sages disagree about b what i bakkol /i /b means. b Rabbi Meir says: /b The blessing is b that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b On the contrary, the blessing was b that he had a daughter. Others say: Abraham had a daughter and her name was Bakkol. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Abraham our forefather was so knowledgeable in astrology [ i itztagninut /i ] that all the kings of the East and the West would come early to his door /b due to his wisdom. This is the blessing of i bakkol /i , that he possessed knowledge that everybody needed. b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A precious stone hung around the neck of Abraham our forefather; any sick person who looked at it would immediately be healed. When Abraham our forefather died, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hung /b this stone b from the sphere of the sun, /b which from that point on brought healing to the sick. b Abaye said: This /b explains the adage b that people say: As the day progresses, sickness is lifted. /b , b Alternatively, /b what is the blessing of i bakkol /i ? b That Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime, /b that is to say, as long as Abraham lived Esau did not sin. b Alternatively, /b the blessing of i bakkol /i is b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b The Gemara explains: b From where do we /b derive that b Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? As it is written: /b “And Jacob was cooking a stew b and Esau came in from the field and he was faint” /b (Genesis 25:29), b and /b a i baraita /i b taught: On that day Abraham our forefather passed away, and Jacob our forefather prepared a lentil stew to comfort Isaac, his father, /b as it was customary to serve mourners lentil stew.,The Gemara explains: b And what is different about lentils /b that they in particular are the fare customarily offered to mourners? b They say in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b in the name of Rabba bar Mari: Just as this lentil has no mouth, /b i.e., it does not have a crack like other legumes, b so too a mourner has no mouth, /b that is, his anguish prevents him from speaking. b Alternatively, just as this lentil is /b completely b round, so too mourning comes around to the inhabitants of the world. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between /b the two explanations? The Gemara answers: b There is /b a practical difference b between them /b with regard to whether it is appropriate b to console /b a mourner b with eggs, /b which have no opening but are not completely round., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: That wicked /b Esau b committed five transgressions on that day /b that Abraham died: b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, he killed a person, he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, b he denied resurrection of the dead, and he despised the birthright. /b ,The Gemara cites proofs to support these charges. b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, /b as b it is written here: “And Esau came in from the field”; and it is written there /b with regard to rape of a betrothed maiden: b “For he found her in a field” /b (Deuteronomy 22:27). b He killed a person, /b as b it is written here: /b “And he was b faint”; and it is written there: “Woe is me, for my soul faints before the slayers” /b (Jeremiah 4:31). b And he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, as b it is written here: “What profit is this to me” /b (Genesis 25:32); b and it is written there: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” /b (Exodus 15:2). When he questioned the profit of “this,” he was challenging the assertion that “this is my God.” b And he denied resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “Behold, I am at the point of death” /b (Genesis 25:32), indicating that he did not believe in resurrection after death. b And he despised the birthright, as it is written: “And Esau despised the birthright” /b (Genesis 25:34)., b And from where do we /b derive b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? From /b the incident involving b Ravina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi, /b who b were sitting before Rava, and Rava was dozing /b while they were talking. b Ravina said to Rav Ḥama bar Buzi: Is it true that you say /b that b any death with regard to which /b the word b i gevia /i , /b expire, is mentioned b is the death of the righteous? /b Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: Yes. /b For example: “And Isaac expired [ i vayyigva /i ], and died” (Genesis 35:29). Ravina objected: b But /b with regard to b the generation of the flood /b it states: “And all flesh expired [ i vayyigva /i ]” (Genesis 7:21), and there they died for their wickedness. Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: We say /b this only when both b i gevia /i and i asifa /i , /b gathering, are used; when these two terms are mentioned together they indicate the death of a righteous person.,Ravina asked: b But isn’t there Ishmael, about whom i gevia /i and i asifa /i are written, /b as it is stated: “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael…and he expired and died [ i vayyigva vayyamot /i ]; and was gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:17)? b Meanwhile Rava, /b who had heard the discussion in his dozed state, fully b awoke /b and b said to them: Children [ i dardekei /i ], this is what Rabbi Yoḥa says: Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father, as it is stated: “And Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 25:9). The fact that Ishmael allowed Isaac to precede him demonstrates that he had repented and accepted his authority.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b the verse b listed them in the order of their wisdom; /b that is to say, perhaps in fact Ishmael preceded Isaac but the Torah did not list them in that order. The Gemara answers: b But if that is so, /b consider that the verse states: b “And Esau and Jacob, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 35:29). b What is the reason /b that the verse there b did not list them in the order of their wisdom? Rather, since /b Ishmael b allowed /b Isaac b to precede him, /b it is clear that he b made /b Isaac b his leader, and since he made him his leader, learn from it that he repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b ,Incidental to the discussion of the verse “And God blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1), the Gemara states that b the Sages taught: /b There were b three /b people b to whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave /b already b in this world /b
15. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
26a. חדא מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:,ר' ישמעאל אומר אינו חייב אלא על העתיד לבא: ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) להרע או להיטיב אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים,אין לי אלא להבא לשעבר מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) לכל אשר יבטא האדם בשבועה דברי רבי עקיבא רבי ישמעאל אומר להרע או להיטיב להבא,אמר לו רבי עקיבא אם כן אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הטבה והרעה דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין אמר לו מרבוי הכתוב אמר לו אם ריבה הכתוב לכך ריבה הכתוב לכך,שפיר קא"ל רבי עקיבא לר' ישמעאל,א"ר יוחנן ר' ישמעאל ששימש את רבי נחוניא בן הקנה שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בכלל ופרט איהו נמי דורש בכלל ופרט רבי עקיבא ששימש את נחום איש גם זו שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בריבה ומיעט איהו נמי דורש ריבה ומיעט,מאי ר' עקיבא דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי דתניא או נפש כי תשבע ריבה להרע או להיטיב מיעט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל,מאי ריבה ריבה כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט דבר מצוה,ור' ישמעאל דריש כלל ופרט או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים כלל להרע או להיטיב פרט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש להבא אף כל להבא,אהני כללא לאתויי אפי' דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה להבא אהני פרטא למעוטי אפילו דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה לשעבר,איפוך אנא,א"ר יצחק דומיא דלהרע או להיטיב מי שאיסורו משום (במדבר ל, ג) בל יחל דברו יצאתה זו שאין איסורו משום בל יחל דברו אלא משום בל תשקרו,רב יצחק בר אבין אמר אמר קרא או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים מי שהשבועה קודמת לביטוי ולא שהביטוי קודמת לשבועה יצא זה אכלתי ולא אכלתי שהמעשה קודם לשבועה,ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס ונעלם פרט למזיד,ממנו שנתעלמה ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלמה ממנו חפץ ת"ל בשבועה ונעלם על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,אמר מר האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס היכי דמי,כדרב כהנא ורב אסי כי הוו קיימי מקמי דרב מר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב ומר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב כי אתו לקמיה דרב אמר כחד מינייהו אמר ליה אידך ואנא בשיקרא אישתבעי,אמר ליה לבך אנסך,ונעלם ממנו שנתעלם ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלם ממנו חפץ תלמוד לומר בשבועה ונעלם ממנו על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,מחכו עלי' במערבא בשלמא שבועה משכחת לה בלא חפץ כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור שאוכל קאמר דשבועתיה אינשי חפצא דכיר אלא חפץ בלא שבועה ה"ד,כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור של שעורים קאמר דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא אינשי כיון דחפצא אינשי להו היינו העלם שבועה,אלא אמר רבי אלעזר דא ודא אחת היא,מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלמא חפץ בלא שבועה לא משכחת לה והא משכחת לה כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין והושיט ידו לסל ליטול פת שעורין ועלתה בידו של חטין וכסבור שעורים היא ואכלה דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא הוא דלא ידע ליה,אמר ליה אביי כלום מחייבת ליה קרבן אלא אמאי דתפיס בידיה העלם שבועה הוא,לישנא אחרינא אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף סוף סוף קרבן דקא מייתי עלה דהאי פת מיהת העלם שבועה הוא,ורב יוסף אמר לך כיון דכי ידע ליה דחטין הוא פריש מיניה העלם חפץ הוא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו אמר ליה הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אדרבה הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,אמר רב אשי חזינן אי מחמת שבועה קא פריש הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אי מחמת חפץ קא פריש הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי כלום פריש משבועה אלא משום חפץ כלום פריש מחפץ אלא משום שבועה אלא לא שנא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן 26a. b Rav Pappa said one of those /b statements, not Abaye.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yishmael says: One is liable only /b for an oath on an utterance taken b about the future. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to an oath on an utterance: From the verse: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips b to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4), b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips,” /b which includes other matters., b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for oaths referring b to the future. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for oaths referring b to the past? The verse /b subsequently b states: “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath” /b (Leviticus 5:4); this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: /b The verse states: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b referring exclusively to oaths b about the future. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, /b then b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? /b Rabbi Yishmael b said to /b Rabbi Akiva in response: It is derived b from an amplification /b of the meaning b of the verse. /b Rabbi Akiva b said to him: If the verse is amplified for this, /b i.e., to extend the i halakha /i of an oath on an utterance to matters that do not involve doing evil or good, b the verse is amplified for that, /b i.e., oaths about the past.,The Gemara questions: b Rabbi Akiva said well /b his critique of the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael. /b Why does Rabbi Yishmael disagree?, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b It is because b Rabbi Yishmael /b was the one b who served /b as a disciple of b Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael b also interprets /b the Torah b with /b the method of b a generalization and a detail. Rabbi Akiva /b was one b who served /b as a disciple of b Naḥum of Gam Zo, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b amplification and restriction. /b Therefore, Rabbi Akiva b also interprets /b the Torah by b amplification and restriction. /b , b What /b is the specific instance in this context where one finds b that Rabbi Akiva interprets /b with b amplifications and restrictions? /b It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that when the verse states: b “Or if anyone take an oath /b clearly with his lips” (Leviticus 5:4), it b amplifies /b the range of possible oaths for which one could be liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance. When the verse continues: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b it b restricts /b that range. When it further continues: b “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” it b then amplifies /b again. According to the hermeneutical principle that when a verse b amplified, and /b then b restricted, and /b then b amplified, it amplified /b the relevant category to include b everything /b except for the specific matter that was excluded by the restriction., b What /b was included when the verse b amplified /b the range of liability? b It amplified /b it to include b all matters /b about which one might take an oath. b And /b in b what /b way did it b restrict /b it when it continued: “To do evil, or to do good”? It b restricted /b the range of liability for an oath on an utterance to exclude an oath that is b a matter /b involving b a mitzva, /b i.e., an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva., b And Rabbi Yishmael interprets /b the verse following the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips” /b (Leviticus 5:4), is b a generalization; “to do evil, or to do good,” /b is b a detail; “whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” the verse b then /b further b generalized. /b There is a hermeneutical principle that when a verse contains b a generalization, and a detail, and /b another b generalization, you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. Just as the detail /b in the verse is b explicitly /b an oath referring b to the future, so too, all /b the oaths for which one is liable must be referring b to the future. /b , b The generalization serves to include even /b those b matters that do not concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the future; the detail serves to exclude even matters that concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the past. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b I will reverse /b it and say that the generalization serves to include oaths concerning the past, and the detail serves to exclude matters that do not involve doing evil or doing good. Why is that not an equally legitimate interpretation of the verse?, b Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that Rabbi Yishmael understands that liability is extended to one whose oath b is similar to an oath “to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4). b He whose prohibition is due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word” /b (Numbers 30:3), is liable, as liability for an oath about the future entails breaking one’s word. b Excluded is that /b oath b whose prohibition is not due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word”; rather, /b it is b due to /b the verse b : “You shall not lie” /b (Leviticus 19:11), since liability for an oath about the past applies when the oath itself was a lie., b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin says /b that there is a different explanation of Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion: b The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips /b to do evil, or to do good,” referring to b one whose oath precedes /b its b clarification, /b i.e., the action that breaks it, b and not /b to one who takes an oath b where the clarification, /b i.e., the action prohibited in the oath, b precedes the oath. Excluded is that /b oath where one said, for example: b I ate, or: I did not eat, where the action precedes the oath. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; and, when he knows of it, be guilty in one of these things” (Leviticus 5:4). The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control /b from liability to bring an offering. The term b “and it is hidden” /b serves b to exclude /b from liability one who broke his oath b intentionally, /b as he does not deserve to be able to achieve atonement through bringing an offering.,The i baraita /i continues: The term b “from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of /b his b oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that an oath taker is also liable when he broke an oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b The Master says /b above in the i baraita /i : The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control. /b The Gemara asks: b What are /b such b circumstances? /b ,The Gemara answers: It is b as /b it was b with Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, /b who, b when they were standing up in the presence of Rav, /b their teacher, at the conclusion of a lesson, disagreed with regard to exactly what he said. One b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like this, and /b the other b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like that. When they came before Rav /b to clarify what he had said, b he stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b what b one of them /b had said. b The other said to /b Rav: b Did I /b then b take a false oath? /b ,Rav b said to him: Your heart compelled you. /b It is not regarded as a false oath, since at the time that you took the oath you were certain that you were telling the truth.,§ The i baraita /i teaches: The phrase b “and it is hidden from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of his oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that the oath taker is also liable when he broke the oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath, but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and said: b Granted, you find /b lack of awareness of one’s b oath without /b there being lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath, as in a case b where one said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: I will eat /b wheat bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is forgotten /b and b the object /b of it b is remembered. But /b under b what circumstances /b is there a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath /b itself?,The Gemara suggests: It can be found in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: /b On my oath I will not eat b barley /b bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is remembered by him /b and b the object /b of it b is forgotten. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Once the object /b of the oath b is forgotten by him, that is /b a case of b lack of awareness of his oath. /b , b Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: /b The distinction made in the i baraita /i between lack of awareness of one’s oath and lack of awareness of the object of one’s oath is not valid, and both b this and that are one /b and the same., b Rav Yosef objects to this. /b Is it b really /b the case that b you do not find /b a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of an oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath? But you find /b it in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he extended his hand to the basket to take barley bread, and wheat /b bread b came up in his hand, and he thought it was barley /b bread b and ate it. /b That is a case b where his oath is remembered by him, and it is the object /b of the oath b of which he is unaware. /b , b Abaye said to him: Don’t you deem him liable /b to bring b an offering /b for breaking his oath b only for that which he holds in his hand /b and eats? When he eats the bread, that b is lack of awareness of the oath, /b since he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted.,The Gemara presents b another formulation /b of this statement. b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Ultimately, the offering he brings for this bread is in any event /b due to b lack of awareness of the oath, /b as he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted., b And Rav Yosef /b could b say to you: Since were he to know of it that it is wheat /b bread b he would refrain from /b eating b it, /b this should be regarded as a case of b lack of awareness of the object. /b , b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b In a case where one b has a lack of awareness of this, /b the oath, b and that, /b its object, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rav Naḥman b said to him: He /b breaks the oath while b having a lack of awareness of the oath and /b is therefore b liable. /b Rava replied: b On the contrary, he has a lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath b and /b should therefore be b exempt. /b , b Rav Ashi said: We see: If he refrains /b from eating b due to the oath, /b i.e., when he is reminded that he took an oath, b he had a lack of awareness of the oath and is liable. If he refrains due to the object /b of the oath, i.e., when he is reminded what it is he is about to eat, b he had a lack of awareness due to the object, and is exempt. /b , b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Doesn’t he refrain only from /b breaking the b oath due to /b his recognition of the b object? Doesn’t he refrain from /b the b object due only to /b the b oath? /b In either case, he needs to remember both the oath and its object, and the manner in which he was reminded does not serve to indicate anything. b Rather, there is no difference /b between the two., b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b
16. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
15a. אפשר לתקונה או לא אפשר לתקונה,ת"ש קבל הכשר ונתן לפסול יחזיר לכשר,ונהי נמי דיחזור הכשר ויקבלנו אי סלקא דעתך לא אפשר לתקונה איפסלא לה,מי סברת דקאי זר גואי לא דקאי זר בראי,איתמר אמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן הולכה שלא ברגל פסולה אלמא לא אפשר לתקונה,איתיביה רב נחמן לעולא נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו כשר,הכא במאי עסקינן כשיצא לחוץ,לבראי נפיק לגואי לא עייל במקום מדרון איבעית אימא בגומא ואיבעית אימא בסמיכא,ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן כל הני ועוד אדתני באידך פירקין נשפך על הרצפה ואספו פסול ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לחוץ אבל נכנס לפנים פסול תיובתא,אתמר הולכה שלא ברגל מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן בהולכה רבתי דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דפסולה כי פליגי בהולכה זוטרתי,מחכו עלה במערבא אלא חטאת העוף דפסולה בה מחשבה לר"ש היכי משכחת לה אי דחשיב עלה מקמי דליפוק דם לא כלום היא ואי בתר דנפק דם איתעבידא ליה מצותו,מאי קושיא דלמא מדפריש ועד דמטא למזבח,דהא בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא היה מזה ונקטעה ידו של מזה עד שלא הגיע דם לאויר המזבח מהו וא"ל [פסולה מ"ט] והזה ונתן בעינן,כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא ובהולכה רבתי לא פליגי והא כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי פליגי,אלא בהולכה זוטרתי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פסלה כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי,הוליכו זר והחזירו כהן וחזר והוליכו פליגי בה בני רבי חייא ור' ינאי חד אמר כשר וחד אמר פסול מר סבר אפשר לתקונה ומר סבר לא אפשר לתקונה,הוליכו כהן והחזירו וחזר והוליכו זר אמר רב שימי בר אשי לדברי המכשיר פסול לדברי הפוסל מכשיר,רבא אמר אף לדברי הפוסל פסול מאי טעמא דהא צריך 15a. The Gemara asks: If the blood was conveyed by hand, is it b possible to correct it /b by conveying it again properly, b or /b is it b not possible to correct it, /b and the offering is disqualified permanently?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from the aforementioned mishna: If a priest b fit /b for Temple service b collected /b the blood in a vessel b and gave /b the vessel b to an unfit /b person standing next to the altar, the latter b should return /b it b to the fit /b priest. Apparently, even after the blood is conveyed in an inappropriate manner, it can be corrected., b And though /b one can b indeed /b explain b that the fit /b priest b should then receive it /b from him, as posited above, b if it enters your mind /b that if the blood is conveyed incorrectly it is b not possible to correct it, /b the offering b was /b already b disqualified /b when the priest gave the blood to the unfit person. Taking it back is of no consequence.,The Gemara rejects this inference: b Do you maintain that /b this is referring to a case where the b non-priest is standing inside, /b between the fit priest and the altar? b No, /b it is a case b where /b the b non-priest is standing outside, /b farther away from the altar than the priest. Therefore, when the priest gave him the blood, he was not conveying it toward the altar at all; he was moving it farther away from the altar., b It was stated: Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Conveying /b the blood b not by foot /b renders the offering b unfit. Apparently, it is not possible to correct it, /b as otherwise Rabbi Yoḥa would have merely stated that it is not considered conveying, as in his earlier statement (14b)., b Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Ulla /b from a mishna (32a): If the blood b spilled from the vessel onto the floor and one collected it /b from the floor, it is b fit /b for sacrifice. Apparently, although spilling the blood on the floor constitutes a not valid conveying toward the altar, it can still be corrected after the fact.,The Gemara explains: b Here we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the blood that spilled b went outward, /b i.e., away from the altar, so it did not constitute conveying at all.,The Gemara asks: Can spilled blood b go outward /b and b not come inward? /b Clearly, spilled blood spreads to all sides. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the blood spilled b on an inclined plane, /b and it therefore spilled only outward, away from the altar. And b if you wish, say /b instead that it spilled b into a hole /b in the ground, so it did not spread in any direction. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is a case b where /b the blood is b thick, /b so it did not spread in all directions.,The Gemara asks: b But did the i tanna /i go to all that trouble [ i ikhpal /i /b ] just b to teach us all these /b unlikely cases? b And furthermore, rather than teaching in another chapter /b (see 25a) that if the blood b spilled /b from the animal’s neck b onto the floor and one collected it /b in a vessel from the floor it is b unfit, let /b the mishna b teach a distinction within /b the case where the blood spilled from the vessel b itself: In what /b case b is this statement, /b that the blood is fit, b said? /b In a case b where /b the spilled blood b went outward, /b away from the altar, b but /b if it b came inward /b it is b unfit. /b The Gemara concludes: This is b a conclusive refutation; /b if the blood is conveyed in a not valid manner, it can be corrected.,§ b It was stated: /b The b dispute /b in the mishna (13a) between b Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis /b as to whether improper intent while conveying the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to b conveying /b the blood b not by foot. With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by moving the feet, b everyone agrees that /b if one performs it with prohibited intent, the offering is b unfit. When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand without moving the feet, in a case where the offering was slaughtered next to the altar., b They laughed at /b this statement b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, saying: b But /b if so, one encounters difficulty with regard to b a bird sin offering, which /b is killed through pinching its nape on the altar and whose blood is sprinkled directly from its neck. It is known that if one sprinkled its blood with prohibited b intent, /b the offering is b unfit. /b And b according to Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that prohibited intent while conveying the blood by hand does not disqualify the offering, b how can you find these /b circumstances? b If /b the priest b has /b prohibited b intent with regard to /b the offering b before /b the b blood comes out /b of the bird, this intent b is nothing, /b since his waving it is like conveying by hand. b And if /b he has such intent b after the blood came out, its mitzva was /b already b performed, /b as the blood already reached the altar.,The Gemara asks: b What is the difficulty? Perhaps /b the offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent b from /b the moment the blood b leaves /b the bird b until /b the moment b it reaches the altar. /b ,This is b as Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: /b If the priest b was sprinkling /b the blood, b and the hand of the one sprinkling was severed before /b the b blood reached the airspace of the altar, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the sprinkling not valid since it was performed by a blemished priest, or is it valid because the blood left the bird before he was blemished? b And /b Rabbi Zeira b said to him: /b It is b not valid. What is the reason? We require /b that the verse: b “And sprinkle /b of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), be fulfilled in the same manner as the verse that follows it: b “And /b the priest shall b place /b of the blood upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), namely, that the blood reach the altar. Therefore, the blood can be disqualified anytime until it reaches the altar, whether through the priest becoming blemished or through prohibited intent., b When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall, they said: This is /b the reason for b the laughter /b of the scholars of Eretz Yisrael: b With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying by foot, can one say Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis b do not disagree? /b Clearly, b when they disagree /b in the mishna, b they disagree with regard to greater conveying, /b as Rabbi Shimon reasons that conveying is a dispensable rite. Only conveying by foot is dispensable, since even if the offering is slaughtered next to the altar, the priest will need to move its blood somewhat with his hand., b Rather, /b the statement under discussion should be emended to say: b With regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand, b everyone agrees that it does not disqualify /b the offering due to prohibited intent. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood for a distance by foot. Rabbi Shimon holds that improper intent even then does not disqualify the offering, as the rite is dispensable, and the Rabbis maintain that it does disqualify it.,§ If b a non-priest conveyed /b the blood to the altar, b and a priest returned it /b to its original location, b and /b a priest then b conveyed it again /b to the altar, b the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai disagree with regard to /b the i halakha /i . b One says /b that the offering is b fit, and one says /b it is b unfit. /b This is because one b Sage holds /b that if the blood is conveyed improperly, it is b possible to correct it, and /b one b Sage holds /b that it is b not possible to correct it. /b ,If b a priest conveyed it /b to the altar, b and /b then b returned it, and a non-priest /b then b conveyed it again, Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b fit /b in the previous case, where a non-priest conveyed it the first time and a priest conveyed it the second time, in this case the offering is b unfit, /b as a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in the previous case, as a non-priest conveyed it the first time, in this case, where a priest conveyed it the first time, b he deems /b the offering b fit. /b , b Rava says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in a case where a non-priest conveyed it the first time, it is b unfit /b in this case as well, where a priest conveyed it the first time and a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b What is the reason? Because /b after the blood is returned to its original location, b it is necessary /b
17. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q199, None  Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, and heretics Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229