1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 12.7, 75.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 276, 278| 12.7. "אִמֲרוֹת יְהוָה אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף בַּעֲלִיל לָאָרֶץ מְזֻקָּק שִׁבְעָתָיִם׃", 75.3. "כִּי אֶקַּח מוֹעֵד אֲנִי מֵישָׁרִים אֶשְׁפֹּט׃", | 12.7. "The words of the LORD are pure words, As silver tried in a crucible on the earth, refined seven times.", 75.3. "'When I take the appointed time, I Myself will judge with equity.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.38-15.39, 19.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 275, 276, 278, 280| 15.38. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל־כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם וְנָתְנוּ עַל־צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת׃", 15.39. "וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא־תָתֻרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃", 19.2. "זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל׃", 19.2. "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִטְמָא וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל כִּי אֶת־מִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה טִמֵּא מֵי נִדָּה לֹא־זֹרַק עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא׃", | 15.38. "’Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.", 15.39. "And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;", 19.2. "This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Job, 14.4, 28.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 275, 279| 14.4. "מִי־יִתֵּן טָהוֹר מִטָּמֵא לֹא אֶחָד׃", | 14.4. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.", 28.10. "He cutteth out channels among the rocks; And his eye seeth every precious thing. .", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 26.4-26.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 341| 26.4. "וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת־זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְנָתַתִּי לְזַרְעֲךָ אֵת כָּל־הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ׃", 26.5. "עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֺתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי׃", | 26.4. "and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves;", 26.5. "because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.’", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.16-17.17, 25.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 269, 278| 17.16. "רַק לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא־יָשִׁיב אֶת־הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס וַיהוָה אָמַר לָכֶם לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד׃", 17.17. "וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ מְאֹד׃", 25.5. "כִּי־יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין־לוֹ לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת־הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ׃", | 17.16. "Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: ‘Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.’", 17.17. "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.", 25.5. "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 42.16 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 278| 42.16. "וְהוֹלַכְתִּי עִוְרִים בְּדֶרֶךְ לֹא יָדָעוּ בִּנְתִיבוֹת לֹא־יָדְעוּ אַדְרִיכֵם אָשִׂים מַחְשָׁךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם לָאוֹר וּמַעֲקַשִּׁים לְמִישׁוֹר אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים עֲשִׂיתִם וְלֹא עֲזַבְתִּים׃", | 42.16. "And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not, In paths that they knew not will I lead them; I will make darkness light before them, and rugged places plain. These things will I do, And I will not leave them undone.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 10.29, 11.4 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 269| 10.29. "וַתַּעֲלֶה וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת כֶּסֶף וְסוּס בַּחֲמִשִּׁים וּמֵאָה וְכֵן לְכָל־מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים וּלְמַלְכֵי אֲרָם בְּיָדָם יֹצִאוּ׃", 11.4. "וַיְהִי לְעֵת זִקְנַת שְׁלֹמֹה נָשָׁיו הִטּוּ אֶת־לְבָבוֹ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא־הָיָה לְבָבוֹ שָׁלֵם עִם־יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו כִּלְבַב דָּוִיד אָבִיו׃", 11.4. "וַיְבַקֵּשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה לְהָמִית אֶת־יָרָבְעָם וַיָּקָם יָרָבְעָם וַיִּבְרַח מִצְרַיִם אֶל־שִׁישַׁק מֶלֶךְ־מִצְרַיִם וַיְהִי בְמִצְרַיִם עַד־מוֹת שְׁלֹמֹה׃", | 10.29. "And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty; and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram, did they bring them out by their means.", 11.4. "For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not whole with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 13.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 279| 13.2. "וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַכְרִית אֶת־שְׁמוֹת הָעֲצַבִּים מִן־הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא יִזָּכְרוּ עוֹד וְגַם אֶת־הַנְּבִיאִים וְאֶת־רוּחַ הַטֻּמְאָה אַעֲבִיר מִן־הָאָרֶץ׃", | 13.2. "And it shall come to pass in that day, Saith the LORD of hosts, That I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, And they shall no more be remembered; And also I will cause the prophets And the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 8.1 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 277| 8.1. "מִי כְּהֶחָכָם וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ פֵּשֶׁר דָּבָר חָכְמַת אָדָם תָּאִיר פָּנָיו וְעֹז פָּנָיו יְשֻׁנֶּא׃", 8.1. "וּבְכֵן רָאִיתִי רְשָׁעִים קְבֻרִים וָבָאוּ וּמִמְּקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יְהַלֵּכוּ וְיִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ בָעִיר אֲשֶׁר כֵּן־עָשׂוּ גַּם־זֶה הָבֶל׃", | 8.1. "Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, And the boldness of his face is changed.", |
|
| 10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 12.14-12.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 277 |
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 12.14-12.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 277 |
12. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 270| 5.3. "הָאוֹמֵר עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ, וְעַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ, מוֹדִים מוֹדִים, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה וְטָעָה, יַעֲבֹר אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְלֹא יְהֵא סָרְבָן בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. מִנַּיִן הוּא מַתְחִיל, מִתְּחִלַּת הַבְּרָכָה שֶׁטָּעָה בָהּ: \n", | 5.3. "The one who says, “On a bird’s nest may Your mercy be extended,” [or] “For good may Your name be blessed” or “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who was passing before the ark and made a mistake, another should pass in his place, and he should not be as one who refuses at that moment. Where does he begin? At the beginning of the blessing in which the other made a mistake.", |
|
13. Mishnah, Hulin, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 275| 4.3. "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּת עֻבָּרָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְהוֹשִׁיט הָרוֹעֶה אֶת יָדוֹ וְנָגַע בּוֹ, בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, בִּטְמֵאָה, טָמֵא, וּבִטְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמֵּת וְלָדָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וּפָשְׁטָה חַיָּה אֶת יָדָהּ וְנָגְעָה בוֹ, הַחַיָּה טְמֵאָה טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַוָּלָד: \n", | 4.3. "If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.", |
|
14. Mishnah, Parah, 3.3, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 275, 278| 3.3. "בָּאוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת וְיָרְדוּ. הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת, תַּחְתֵּיהֶם חָלוּל, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּבְפֶתַח הָעֲזָרָה הָיָה מְתֻקָּן קָלָל שֶׁל חַטָּאת, וּמְבִיאִין זָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים וְקוֹשְׁרִים חֶבֶל בֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְקוֹשְׁרִים מַקֵּל וּמְסַבֵּךְ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל חֶבֶל, וְזוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַקָּלָל, וּמַכֶּה אֶת הַזָּכָר וְנִרְתָּע לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְנוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַצְּדוֹקִים לִרְדּוֹת, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ: \n", 4.4. "כָּל הָעֲסוּקִין בַּפָּרָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וּפוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ בִּמְלָאכָה. אֵרַע בָּהּ פְּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. אֵרַע בָּהּ בְּהַזָּיָתָהּ, כֹּל הָעוֹסֵק בָּהּ לִפְנֵי פְסוּלָהּ, מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. נִמְצְאָה חֻמְרָהּ, קֻלָּהּ. לְעוֹלָם מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, וּמַרְבִּין לָהּ עֵצִים, וּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַיּוֹם, וּבְכֹהֵן, הַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ, עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר, וְהַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בַּמַּיִם, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּילוּ אֶת הָאֵפֶר: \n", | 3.3. "They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it.", 4.4. "All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.", |
|
| 15. Mishnah, Makkot, a b c d\n0 3.18 (15) 3.18 (15) 3 18 (15) (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271 |
| 16. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5.17, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 265, 266, 274, 341 |
| 17. Tosefta, Qiddushin, 5.17, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 265, 266, 274, 341 |
18. Mishnah, Negaim, 8.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 275| 8.2. "בַּהֶרֶת כַּגְּרִיס וּבָהּ מִחְיָה כָעֲדָשָׁה, פָּרְחָה בְכֻלּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָלְכָה לָהּ הַמִּחְיָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכָה לָהּ הַמִּחְיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּרְחָה בְכֻלּוֹ, טָהוֹר. נוֹלְדָה לוֹ מִחְיָה, טָמֵא. נוֹלַד לוֹ שֵׂעָר לָבָן, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין: \n", | 8.2. "A bright spot the size of a split bean in which there was quick flesh the size of a lentil and then it broke out covering a person's entire skin and then the quick flesh disappeared, or if the quick flesh disappeared and then the bright spot broke out covering all his skin, he is clean. If quick flesh arose [subsequently], he is unclean. If white hair grew [subsequently]: Rabbi Joshua rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.", |
|
| 19. Anon., Sifre Numbers, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 268 |
| 20. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 267 |
| 21. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 114 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271 |
| 22. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271, 272 |
23. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 13.3, 35.5-35.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271| 13.3. דָּבָר אַחֵר, זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי ל, ה): כָּל אִמְרַת אֱלוֹהַּ צְרוּפָה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ל, ה): מָגֵן הוּא לְכָל הַחֹסִים בּוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כָּל בְּהֵמוֹת וְלִוְיָתָן הֵן קֶנִיגִין שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, וְכָל מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה קֶנִיגִין שֶׁל אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, זוֹכֶה לִרְאוֹתָהּ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, כֵּיצַד הֵם נִשְׁחָטִים, בְּהֵמוֹת נוֹתֵץ לַלִּוְיָתָן בְּקַרְנָיו וְקוֹרְעוֹ, וְלִוְיָתָן נוֹתֵץ לַבְּהֵמוֹת בִּסְנַפִּירָיו וְנוֹחֲרוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים זוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא, וְלֹא כָּךְ תָּנִינַן הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּבַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּלְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין חוּץ מִמַּגַּל קָצִיר, וְהַמְגֵרָה, וְהַשִּׁנַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן חוֹנְקִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (ישעיה נא, ד): תּוֹרָה חֲדָשָׁה מֵאִתִּי תֵצֵא, חִדּוּשׁ תּוֹרָה מֵאִתִּי תֵצֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אֲרִיסְטוֹן עָתִיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת לַעֲבָדָיו הַצַּדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא וְכָל מִי שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה זוֹכֶה לִרְאוֹתוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ויקרא ז, כד): וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה וְאָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלֻהוּ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, לְפִיכָךְ משֶׁה מַזְהִיר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם (ויקרא יא, ב): זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ. 35.5. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר חֻקִּים שֶׁהֵם חֲקוּקִים עַל יֵצֶר הָרָע, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה י, א): הוֹי הַחֹקְקִים חִקְקֵי אָוֶן, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מָשָׁל לִמְקוֹם אַדְרִימוֹן שֶׁהוּא מְשֻׁבָּשׁ בִּגְיָסוֹת, מֶה עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ הוֹשִׁיב בּוֹ קוֹסְטְרַיְנוֹס בִּשְׁבִיל לְשָׁמְרוֹ, כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא תּוֹרָה קְרוּיָה אֶבֶן וְיֵצֶר הָרָע קָרוּי אֶבֶן, תּוֹרָה קְרוּיָה אֶבֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד, יב): אֶת לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה. יֵצֶר הָרָע קָרוּי אֶבֶן, דִּכְתִיב (יחזקאל לו, כו): וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת לֵב הָאֶבֶן מִבְּשַׂרְכֶם. תּוֹרָה אֶבֶן, יֵצֶר הָרָע אֶבֶן, הָאֶבֶן תִּשְׁמֹר אֶת הָאָבֶן. 35.6. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בֶּן אֶלְיָשִׁיב חֻקִּים שֶׁמְבִיאִים אֶת הָאָדָם לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה ד, ג): וְהָיָה הַנִּשְׁאָר בְּצִיּוֹן וְהַנּוֹתָר בִּירוּשָׁלִַם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָמֶר לוֹ כָּל הַכָּתוּב לַחַיִּים בִּירוּשָׁלִָם, הוּא שֶׁעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהוּא עֵץ חַיִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג, יח): עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא. תָּנֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַסַּיִּף וְהַסֵּפֶר נִתְּנוּ מְכֹרָכִין מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם שְׁמַרְתֶּם מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר זֶה הֲרֵי אַתֶּם נִצּוֹלִים מִן הַסַּיִּף, וְאִם לָאו סוֹף שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג אֶתְכֶם, וְהֵיכָן הוּא מַשְׁמָעָן שֶׁל דְּבָרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ג, כט): וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם לִשְׁמֹר אֶת דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, אֶת דֶּרֶךְ, זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, זוֹ תּוֹרָה. תָּנֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַכִּכָּר וְהַמַּקֵּל נִתְּנוּ מְכֹרָכִין מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם אִם שְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי כִּכָּר לֶאֱכֹל, וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי מַקֵּל לִלְקוֹת בּוֹ, הֵיכָן הוּא מַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר (ישעיה א, יט כ): אִם תֹּאבוּ וּשְׁמַעְתֶּם טוּב הָאָרֶץ תֹּאכֵלוּ, וְאִם תְּמָאֲנוּ וּמְרִיתֶם חֶרֶב תְּאֻכְּלוּ, חֲרוּבִין תֹּאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא צְרִיכִים יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחָרוּבָא עֲבַדּוּן תָּתוֹבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא יָאָה מִסְכֵּנוּתָא לִבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּיַעֲקֹב כְּעַרְקָא סוּמְקָא בְּרֵישָׁא דְּסוּסְיָא חִוָרָא. | 35.6. "R’ Aba ben Elyashiv said: the statutes (chukkim) which bring a man to the life of the world to come, as it is written “And it shall come to pass that every survivor shall be in Zion, and everyone who is left, in Jerusalem; \"holy\" shall be said of him, everyone inscribed for life in Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 4:3) Those who are occupied with Torah, which is the tree of life…", |
|
24. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 17.8, 43.9, 44.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271| 17.8. שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ יוֹצֵא פָּנָיו לְמַטָּה, וְאִשָּׁה יוֹצֵאת פָּנֶיהָ לְמַעְלָה, אָמַר לָהֶם הָאִישׁ מַבִּיט לִמְקוֹם בְּרִיָּתוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה מַבֶּטֶת לִמְקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִשָּׁה צְרִיכָה לְהִתְבַּשֵֹּׂם וְאֵין הָאִישׁ צָרִיךְ לְהִתְבַּשֵֹּׂם, אָמַר לָהֶם אָדָם נִבְרָא מֵאֲדָמָה וְהָאֲדָמָה אֵינָהּ מַסְרַחַת לְעוֹלָם, וְחַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מֵעֶצֶם, מָשָׁל אִם תַּנִּיחַ בָּשָׂר שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים בְּלֹא מֶלַח מִיָּד הוּא מַסְרִיחַ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִשָּׁה קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ וְלֹא הָאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶם מָשָׁל אִם תְּמַלֵּא קְדֵרָה בָּשָׂר אֵין קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְתוֹכָהּ עֶצֶם מִיָּד קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ. מִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ נוֹחַ לְהִתְפַּתּוֹת וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נוֹחָה לְהִתְפַּתּוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶן אָדָם נִבְרָא מֵאֲדָמָה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ טִפָּה שֶׁל מַיִם מִיָּד הִיא נִשְׁרֵית, וְחַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מֵעֶצֶם וַאֲפִלּוּ אַתָּה שׁוֹרֶה אוֹתוֹ כַּמָּה יָמִים בַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁרֶה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ תּוֹבֵעַ בְּאִשָּׁה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה תּוֹבַעַת בְּאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶן מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁאָבַד אֲבֵדָה הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ אֲבֵדָתוֹ וַאֲבֵדָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְבַקְשַׁתּוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ מַפְקִיד זֶרַע בָּאִשָּׁה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַפְקֶדֶת זֶרַע בָּאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶם דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן וּמְבַקֵּשׁ אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שֶׁיַּפְקִידֶנוּ אֶצְלוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ יוֹצֵא רֹאשׁוֹ מְגֻלֶּה וְהָאִשָּׁה רֹאשָׁהּ מְכֻסֶּה, אָמַר לָהֶן לְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה וְהוּא מִתְבַּיֵּשׁ מִבְּנֵי אָדָם, לְפִיכָךְ יוֹצֵאת וְרֹאשָׁהּ מְכֻסֶּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֵן מְהַלְּכוֹת אֵצֶל הַמֵּת תְּחִלָּה, אָמַר לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי שֶׁגָּרְמוּ מִיתָה לָעוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ הֵן מְהַלְּכוֹת אֵצֶל הַמֵּת תְּחִלָּה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב כא, לג): וְאַחֲרָיו כָּל אָדָם יִמְשׁוֹךְ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נִדָּה, עַל יְדֵי שֶׁשָּׁפְכָה דָּמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נִדָּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת חַלָּה, עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקִּלְקְלָה אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיָה גְּמַר חַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת חַלָּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נֵר שַׁבָּת, אָמַר לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁכִּבְּתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נֵר שַׁבָּת. 43.9. וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם אֶל אַבְרָם תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וגו' וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי וגו' (בראשית יד, כא כב), רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר עֲשָׂאָן תְּרוּמָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יח, כו): וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה'. וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר עֲשָׂאָן שְׁבוּעָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (דניאל יב, ז): וַיָּרֶם יְמִינוֹ וּשְׂמֹאלוֹ אֶל הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיִּשָּׁבַע בְּחֵי הָעוֹלָם. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי עֲשָׂאָן שִׁירָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות טו, ב): זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְרַבִּי אַמִּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרוּ אָמַר משֶׁה בְּלָשׁוֹן שֶׁאָמַר אַבָּא שִׁירָה, הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל ה', בּוֹ בַּלָּשׁוֹן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שִׁירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרוֹמְמֶנְהוּ, אִם מִחוּט (בראשית יד, כג), אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מַמָּל אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ אִם מִחוּט, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְבָנֶיךָ מִצְוַת צִיצִית, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר טו, לח): וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן חוּטָא דִתְכֶלְתָּא. (בראשית יד, כג): וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְבָנֶיךָ מִצְוַת יְבָמָה, הָאֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (דברים כה, ט): וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם מִחוּט, זֶה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, שֶׁהוּא מְצֻיָּר בִּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן. וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, אֵלּוּ עוֹרוֹת הַתְּחָשִׁים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם מִחוּט, אֵלּוּ הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, כְּהַהִיא דִּתְנַן וְחוּט שֶׁל סִיקְרָא חוֹגְרוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין דָּמִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לְדָמִים הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, אֵלּוּ פַּעֲמֵי רְגָלִים, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמֵר (שיר השירים ז, ב): מַה יָּפוּ פְעָמַיִךְ בַּנְּעָלִים. בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים (בראשית יד, כד), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל א ל, כב כה): וַיַּעַן כָּל אִישׁ רָע וּבְלִיַּעַל מֵהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ עִם דָּוִד וַיֹּאמְרוּ יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלְכוּ עִמִּי לֹא נִתֵּן לָהֶם מֵהַשָּׁלָל אֲשֶׁר הִצַּלְנוּ כִּי אִם אִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וְיִנְהֲגוּ וְיֵלֵכוּ. וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ כֵן אֶחָי אֵת אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' לָנוּ וַיִּשְׁמֹר אֹתָנוּ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַגְּדוּד הַבָּא עָלֵינוּ בְּיָדֵינוּ. וּמִי יִשְׁמַע לָכֶם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה כִּי כְּחֵלֶק הַיֹּרֵד בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּכְחֵלֶק הַיּשֵׁב עַל הַכֵּלִים יַחְדָּו יַחֲלֹקוּ. וַיְהִי מֵהַיּוֹם הַהוּא וָמָעְלָה וַיְשִׂמֶהָ לְחֹק וּלְמִשְׁפָּט לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן וָהָלְאָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא וָמָעְלָה, וּמִמִּי לָמַד מֵאַבְרָהָם זְקֵנוֹ, שֶׁאָמַר: בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים וגו'. 44.1. אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר וגו' (בראשית טו, א), (תהלים יח, לא): הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, אִם דְּרָכָיו תְּמִימִים, הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכִי מָה אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר אוֹ מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעֹרֶף, הֱוֵי לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ח): וּמָצָאתָ אֶת לְבָבוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְפָנֶיךָ. אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה, שֶׁצֵּרְפוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכִבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ. מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, (בראשית טו, א): אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ. 44.1. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּ זָרַע (בראשית טו, ג), אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הַמַּזָּל דּוֹחְקֵנִי וְאוֹמֵר לִי אַבְרָם אֵין אַתְּ מוֹלִיד. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֵן כִּדְבָרֶיךָ, אַבְרָם לֹא מוֹלִיד אַבְרָהָם מוֹלִיד. (בראשית יז, טו): שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ לֹא תִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי, שָׂרַי לֹא תֵלֵד, שָׂרָה תֵּלֵד. | 44.1. "After these things the word of Hashem came to Abram in a vision, saying, etc. (Psalms 18:31) \"As for God — His ways are perfect; the Word of Hashem is tried; a shield is He for all who take refuge in Him.\" If His way is perfect, how much more is He Himself! Rav said: Were not the mitzvot given so that man might be refined by them? . Do you really think that The Holy One of Blessing cares if an animal is slaughtered by front or by the back of the neck? Therefore, mitzvot were only given to make humans better.", |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272| 3a. ואיכא למימר כולה למר ואיכא למימר כולה למר אמר סומכוס ממון המוטל בספק חולקין בלא שבועה הכא דליכא דררא דממונא דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו היא לא כ"ש,אפילו תימא סומכוס שבועה זו מדרבנן היא כדרבי יוחנן דאמר ר' יוחנן שבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ותוקף בטליתו של חבירו ואומר שלי הוא,לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי דאי כרבי יוסי הא אמר א"כ מה הפסיד רמאי אלא הכל יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו,אלא מאי רבנן כיון דאמרי רבנן השאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הא נמי כשאר דמי דספיקא היא,האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא רבנן התם דודאי האי מנה דחד מינייהו הוא אמרי רבנן יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הכא דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו הוא אמרי רבנן פלגי בשבועה,אלא אי אמרת ר' יוסי היא השתא ומה התם דבודאי איכא מנה למר ואיכא מנה למר אמר ר' יוסי יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הכא דאיכא למימר דחד מינייהו הוא לא כ"ש,אפי' תימא ר' יוסי התם ודאי איכא רמאי הכא מי יימר דאיכא רמאי אימא תרוייהו בהדי הדדי אגבהוה,אי נמי התם קניס ליה רבי יוסי לרמאי כי היכי דלודי הכא מאי פסידא אית ליה דלודי,תינח מציאה מקח וממכר מאי איכא למימר אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא,בין לרבנן ובין לר' יוסי התם גבי חנוני על פנקסו דקתני זה נשבע ונוטל וזה נשבע ונוטל,מ"ש דלא אמרינן נפקיה לממונא מבעה"ב ויהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו דהא בודאי איכא רמאי,אמרי התם היינו טעמא דאמר ליה חנוני לבעה"ב אנא שליחותא דידך קא עבדינא מאי אית לי גבי שכיר אע"ג דקא משתבע לי לא מהימן לי בשבועה את האמנתיה דלא אמרת לי בסהדי הב ליה,ושכיר נמי א"ל לבעה"ב אנא עבדי עבידתא גבך מאי אית לי גבי חנוני אע"ג דמשתבע לי לא מהימן לי הלכך תרוייהו משתבעי ושקלי מבעל הבית:,תני רבי חייא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כלום והעדים מעידים אותו שיש לו חמשים זוז נותן לו חמשים זוז וישבע על השאר,שלא תהא הודאת פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדים מק"ו,ותנא תונא שנים אוחזין בטלית זה אומר אני מצאתיה וכו' והא הכא כיון דתפיס אנן סהדי דמאי דתפיס האי דידיה הוא ומאי דתפיס האי דידיה הוא וקתני ישבע,מאי שלא תהא הודאת פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדי' מק"ו שלא תאמר הודאת פיו הוא דרמיא רחמנא שבועה עליה כדרבה,דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בע"ח והאי בכוליה בעי דנכפריה והא דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו | 3a. b and there is /b room b to say /b that b it /b belongs b entirely to one /b of them, b and there is /b also room b to say /b that b it /b belongs b entirely to /b the other b one, /b and nevertheless b Sumakhos says /b that since it is b property of uncertain ownership they divide /b it b without /b taking b an oath, /b then b here, where /b the litigants have b no ficial association /b with the item, b as there is /b room b to say that it /b belongs to b both of them, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that they should divide it without taking an oath?,The Gemara answers: b You may even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Sumakhos: This oath is /b instituted b by rabbinic /b law b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa. As Rabbi Yoḥa says: This oath, /b administered in the case of two people holding a garment, b is an ordice /b instituted b by the Sages so that everyone will not go and seize the garment of another and say: It is mine. /b ,§ The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that the mishna /b is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. As, if /b you say that the ruling is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, doesn’t he say /b that a case cannot be decided in a manner in which there is no deterrent for one taking a false claim to court (37a)? He says this with regard to a case where two people deposited money with the same person. One deposited one hundred dinars and one deposited two hundred, and the bailee forgot which of them deposited the larger sum. Subsequently, each claimed ownership of the larger sum and was prepared to take an oath to that effect. The Rabbis say that each should receive the smaller sum and the remainder should be held until Elijah the prophet prophetically resolves the uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: b If so, what did /b the b swindler lose? Rather, the entire /b deposit b will be placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes. /b ,The Gemara counters: b Rather, what /b is suggested? Is it suggested that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? b Since the Rabbis say /b there: b The remainder is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, this /b case of the mishna concerning the garment b is also comparable to the remainder /b in the case of the deposit, b as it is uncertain /b to whom the entire garment belongs. It should therefore be placed in a safe place until the matter is resolved.,The Gemara answers: b What /b is b this /b comparison? b Granted, if you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis there, /b in the case of the depositors, b where these one hundred dinars certainly belong to /b only b one of them /b and b the Rabbis say /b that b it is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, here, /b in the case of this mishna, b where there is /b room b to say that it belongs to both of them, the Rabbis say /b that b they divide /b it b with /b the proviso that they take b an oath. /b , b But if you say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, /b there is a difficulty. b Now /b consider, b if there, /b in a case b where it is certain that there are one hundred dinars /b that belong b to one /b of the litigants b and there are one hundred dinars /b that belong b to /b the other b one, /b nevertheless, b Rabbi Yosei says /b that the entire sum b is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, here, where there is /b room b to say that it /b all b belongs to /b only b one of them, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it should be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes, as one of the claims may be entirely fraudulent?,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b You may even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei: There, /b in the case of the deposit, b there is certainly a swindler /b between the two depositors. By contrast, b here, /b in the case of the mishna, b who is to say that there is a swindler? Say /b that b both of them lifted /b the garment b at the same time, /b and therefore there is no reason to penalize them by placing the garment in a safe place., b Alternatively, /b there is room to distinguish between the cases: b There, Rabbi Yosei penalizes /b the b swindler /b by confiscating his deposit b so that he will admit /b that he lied in order to receive his original deposit of one hundred dinars from the bailee. b Here, /b in the case of the garment, b what loss /b would a swindler b incur that /b would prompt him to b admit /b that he is lying? If the item is placed in a safe place, he loses nothing.,The Gemara rejects this alternative explanation: This distinction b works out well /b in the case of b a found item /b where he did not pay anything for it. Consequently, he has no incentive to admit that he lied. But in a case of b buying and selling, what is there to say? /b Both parties paid for the item and prefer to receive the item. b Rather, /b the distinction b is clearly as we explained initially. /b The difference between the cases is that in the mishna, there is no certainty that one of them is lying.,The Gemara asks: b Both according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis and according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, there, with regard to /b the case of b a storekeeper /b relying b on his ledger, /b it is unclear why the money is not held until the matter is clarified. This is referring to a case where an employer tells a storekeeper to give food to his laborer in lieu of his salary, and later the storekeeper claims that he gave it to him but the laborer claims that he did not receive it. Both parties therefore claim payment from the employer. b As /b the mishna ( i Shevuot /i 45a) b teaches /b that b this /b one, the storekeeper, b takes an oath /b that he gave the food to the laborer b and receives /b payment from the employer, b and that /b one, the laborer, b takes an oath /b that he was not given the food b and takes /b his salary from the employer., b What is different /b in that case, b that we do not say: Appropriate the money from the employer, and it is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes? /b Apparently, we should say this b because there is certainly a swindler /b among the litigants, since it is impossible that both the storekeeper and the laborer are telling the truth.,The Sages b say /b in response: b There, this is the reason /b that the money is not set aside: b Because the storekeeper can say to the employer: I carried out your agency /b to give the food to the laborer, and I have dealings only with you. b What /b business b do I have with the hired laborer? Even if he takes an oath to me /b that he did not receive the food, he is b not trustworthy to me by /b virtue of his b oath. You /b are the one who b trusted him, as you did not say to me: Give him /b the food b in /b the presence of b witnesses. /b Therefore, you are obligated to pay me. If you have a grievance, settle it with your employee., b And /b the b hired laborer can also say to the employer: I worked for you. What /b relationship b do I have with the storekeeper? Even if he takes an oath to me /b that he gave me the change, he is b not trustworthy to me /b by virtue of his oath. b Therefore, both /b parties b take an oath and take /b payment b from the employer. /b ,§ b Rabbi Ḥiyya taught /b a i baraita /i : If one says to another: b I /b have b one hundred dinars [ i maneh /i ] in your possession /b that you borrowed from me and did not repay, b and the other /b party b says: Nothing of yours /b is b in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars /b that he owes the claimant, b he gives him fifty dinars and takes an oath about the remainder, /b i.e., that he did not borrow the fifty remaining dinars from him.,This ruling is derived b via an i a fortiori /i /b inference from the i halakha /i that one who admits to part of a claim that is brought against him is obligated to take an oath that he owes no more than the amount that he admits to have borrowed. The inference is: b As the admission of one’s /b own b mouth should not /b carry b greater /b weight b than the testimony of witnesses. /b Since in this case witnesses testify that he owes an amount equal to part of the claim, he is all the more so obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the sum.,The Gemara comments: b And /b the b i tanna /i /b of the mishna also b taught /b a similar i halakha /i : In a case of b two /b people who came to court b holding a garment, /b where b this /b one b says: I found it, /b and the other one says: I found it, each litigant takes an oath and they divide the garment. b And here, /b in the case of a found item, b since /b each litigant b is holding /b part of the garment, b it is clear to us that what /b is in b this one’s grasp is his, and what /b is in b that one’s grasp is his. /b This is tantamount to witnesses testifying that part of the claim of each litigant is legitimate. b And /b the mishna b teaches /b that each of them b takes an oath. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: For b what /b reason is it necessary to have the b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b As the admission of one’s /b own b mouth should not /b carry b greater /b weight b than the testimony of witnesses? /b Isn’t the comparison to the case of an admission to part of a claim self-evident? The Gemara answers: It is necessary so b that you will not say /b that b it is /b only in a case of b the admission of one’s /b own b mouth that the Merciful One imposes an oath upon him, in accordance with /b the explanation b of Rabba. /b , b As Rabba says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to part of the claim must take an oath? /b It is because there is b a presumption /b that b a person does not exhibit insolence /b by lying b in the presence of his creditor, /b who had done him a favor by lending money to him. b And this /b person who denies part of the claim actually b wants to deny all of /b the debt, so as to be exempt, b and this /b fact b that he does not deny /b all of b it /b is b because a person does not exhibit insolence. /b |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272| 67b. אף גזול דלית ליה תקנתא לא שנא לפני יאוש ולא שנא אחר יאוש,רבא אמר מהכא קרבנו ולא הגזול אימת אילימא לפני יאוש פשיטא למה לי קרא,אלא לאו לאחר יאוש וש"מ יאוש לא קני ש"מ,והא רבא הוא דאמר דגזל קרבן דחבריה איבעית אימא הדר ביה ואיבעית אימא חד מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:,ומדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה וכו':,ואמאי נילף שור שור משבת מה להלן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף כאן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן,אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לז) שור ושה שור ושה שני פעמים שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא,אמרי הי מייתר אילימא שור ושה דסיפא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב שור או שה וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחתיו אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא בעי שלומי תשעה לכל אחד ואחד,וכי תימא הא כתיב תחתיו תחתיו חד תחתיו מייתר,ההוא מיבעי ליה לדרשה אחרינא דתניא יכול גנב שור שוה מנה ישלם תחתיו נגידין ת"ל תחתיו תחתיו,אלא שור ושה דרישא מיותר דנכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחת השור וארבע צאן תחת השה,אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח להו וטבחו כתיב לחד,ואימא עד דגניב תרוייהו ומזבין להו ומכרו כתיב לחד,ואימא הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח חד ומזבין חד או מכרו כתיב,ואכתי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרוייהו וטבח חד ומשייר חד או מזבין חד ומשייר חד,אלא שור דסיפא ושה דרישא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש שור וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחת השה שור דסיפא ושה דרישא למה לי שמע מינה שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא:,אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל: אמר רב לא שנו אלא לפני יאוש אבל לאחר יאוש קנאו גנב ראשון וגנב שני משלם תשלומי כפל לגנב ראשון,אמר רב ששת אמינא כי ניים ושכיב רב אמר להא שמעתא דתניא אמר ר' עקיבא מפני מה אמרה תורה טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מפני שנשתרש בחטא אימת אילימא לפני יאוש | 67b. b so too a stolen /b animal b has no rectification /b for its disqualification. There is b no difference whether /b one is dealing with a stolen animal b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovering it, b and /b there is b no difference /b if it is b after /b the owner’s b despair. /b In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the owner’s despair does not effect acquisition for the thief., b Rava said: /b This i halakha /i may be derived b from here, /b a i baraita /i : The verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one’s offering must be b “his offering,” but not /b an animal b stolen /b from another. b When, /b i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this i halakha /i ? b If we say /b it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovery, b why do I /b need b a verse /b to teach this? It b is obvious /b that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him., b Rather, is it not /b referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal b after /b the owner’s b despair? /b And yet the i baraita /i teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. b Conclude from /b the i baraita /i that the owner’s b despair /b of recovering a stolen item b does not /b cause the thief to b acquire /b it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Gemara affirms: b Conclude from /b the i baraita /i that it is so.,The Gemara asks: b But Rava was the one who said /b that this proof can be refuted, as the i baraita /i can be interpreted as dealing with one b who robbed another of an offering /b that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that Rava b retracted /b one of these two statements. b And if you wish, say /b instead that b Rav Pappa, /b not Rava, b said one of these /b two statements.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: b But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment /b applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37).,The Gemara asks: b But why /b is the fourfold and fivefold payment limited to oxen and sheep? b Let us derive /b otherwise by a verbal analogy of the term b “ox” /b in this verse and b “ox” from /b a passage dealing with b Shabbat, /b where it is stated: “And the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor, you, your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant, and your ox, and your donkey, and all your animals, and the gentile that is within your gates” (Deuteronomy 5:13). b Just as there, /b with regard to Shabbat, the i halakha /i stated with regard to an ox is not limited to oxen, as b undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to /b oxen in that they too are included in this prohibition, as the verse states: “Nor any of your animals,” b so too here, /b in the case of theft, one can say that b undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to /b oxen in that the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred for their theft., b Rava said: The verse /b dealing with theft b states “ox” and “sheep,” “ox” and “sheep” twice. /b This repetition indicates that for b an ox and a sheep, yes, /b there is a fourfold or fivefold payment, and b for other items, no, /b there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.,The Gemara b says, /b with regard to Rava’s assertion that one of the instances of “ox” and “sheep” is superfluous: b Which /b instance of the word “ox” or “sheep” b is /b the b superfluous /b one? b If we say /b that the instance of b “ox” and “sheep” at the end /b of the verse b is superfluous, due to /b the following consideration: b Let the Merciful One write: If one steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it and four sheep for it, /b without repeating the words “ox” and “sheep,” this is not possible. b If the Merciful One had written /b the verse b like this, I would say /b that the thief is b required to pay nine /b animals, five oxen and four sheep, b for each and every /b animal stolen., b And if you would say /b that this interpretation is not possible, as the suggestion is that the verse would have b written: For it, for it, /b twice, whereas if a payment of nine animals were required for each stolen animal the verse would have written: For it, only once; then b one /b mention of: b For it, is superfluous, /b to teach us that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep.,The Gemara rejects this: b That /b repetition of: For it, b is required for another interpretation, /b and cannot teach that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : One b might /b have thought that if one b stole /b an expensive b ox worth one hundred dinars he may pay for it /b with b lean, /b inferior b animals [ i negidin /i ]. /b To counter this, b the verse states: “For /b the ox” and b “for /b the sheep,” which indicates that the oxen and sheep used for payment must be similar to the stolen animal in quality. Since one might have erred and understood that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen, that suggested version of the verse is not a possibility. The words “ox” and “sheep” at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.,The Gemara suggests: b Rather, /b the words b “ox” and “sheep” in the first /b part of the verse b are superfluous, due to /b the following consideration: b Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep, /b without mentioning “ox” or “sheep” at the beginning of the verse.,The Gemara objects: It is not possible for the verse to have been written this way, as b if the Merciful One had written /b it in b this /b manner b I would say: /b A thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals two /b animals, an ox and a sheep, b and slaughters them /b both. The Gemara responds: One could not interpret the verse in this manner, as it b is written: “And slaughter it.” /b The singular pronoun “it” is referring b to /b the slaughter of only b one /b animal.,The Gemara asks: b But /b one could b say /b that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals both /b of these animals, an ox and a sheep, b and sells them /b both. The Gemara rejects this suggestion in a similar manner: This interpretation is also not possible, as it is b written: “Or sell it,” /b which is referring b to /b the sale of only b one /b animal.,The Gemara further asks: b But /b one could b say /b a different interpretation: b I would say /b that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals two /b animals, an ox and a sheep, b and slaughters one /b of them b and sells /b the other b one. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: This interpretation is impossible, as it is b written: /b “And slaughter it b or sell it.” /b The term “or” indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.,The Gemara asks: b But still, /b had the verse been worded without mentioning an ox or sheep at the start, b I would say: /b A thief does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment b unless he steals two /b animals, an ox and a sheep, b and slaughters one /b of them b and leaves /b the other b one, or sells one and leaves /b the other b one. /b It is therefore impossible to omit the words “ox” and “sheep” in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.,The Gemara gives its final explanation of Rava’s statement: b Rather, “ox” at the end /b of the verse b and “sheep” in the first /b part of the verse b are superfluous, due to /b the following consideration: b Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it, and four sheep for a sheep. Why do I /b need the word b “ox” at the end /b of the verse b and /b the word b “sheep” in the first /b part of the verse? b Conclude from /b these apparently superfluous words that for b an ox and a sheep, yes, /b a thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, but for stealing b other items, no, /b he is not.,§ The mishna teaches: b One who steals /b an item b after a thief /b has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, b does not pay /b the b double payment /b to the thief or to the prior owner. Rather, he pays the principal amount alone. b Rav says: They taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b in a case where the second thief stole from the first thief b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovering his item. b But /b if the second thief stole it b after /b the owner’s b despair, the first thief had acquired /b the stolen item for himself as a result of the owner’s despair, b and the second thief pays /b the b double payment to the first thief, /b who at the time of the second theft was its legal owner., b Rav Sheshet said: I say /b that b when Rav was sleepy and lying down /b to rest b he said this i halakha /i , /b i.e., he did not give it enough thought. This ruling is incorrect, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Akiva said: For what reason did the Torah say that /b if a thief b slaughtered or sold /b a stolen ox or sheep b he pays /b the b fourfold or fivefold payment? /b It is b because /b by selling or slaughtering the animal the thief b becomes /b more b deeply entrenched in sin. /b Rav Sheshet analyzes Rabbi Akiva’s statement: b When /b did this sale of the stolen animal take place? b If we say /b it occurred b before /b the owner’s b despair /b of recovering his property, |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 265| 62a. תניא אמר רבי עקיבא פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר ר' יהושע לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג' דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר ליה בן עזאי עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך א"ל תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,תניא בן עזאי אומר פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר רבי עקיבא לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג' דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר לו ר' יהודה עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,רב כהנא על גנא תותיה פורייה דרב שמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו אמר ליה דמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילא א"ל כהנא הכא את פוק דלאו אורח ארעא אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,מפני מה אין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר רבא מפני שהתורה ניתנה בימין שנאמר (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו רבה בר בר חנה אמר מפני שהיא קרובה לפה ור' שמעון בן לקיש אמר מפני שקושר בה תפילין רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה,כתנאי רבי אליעזר אומר מפני שאוכל בה ר' יהושע אומר מפני שכותב בה ר' עקיבא אומר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה,א"ר תנחום בר חנילאי כל הצנוע בבית הכסא נצול משלשה דברים מן הנחשים ומן העקרבים ומן המזיקין ויש אומרים אף חלומותיו מיושבים עליו,ההוא בית הכסא דהוה בטבריא כי הוו עיילי ביה בי תרי אפי' ביממא מתזקי רבי אמי ורבי אסי הוו עיילי ביה חד וחד לחודיה ולא מתזקי אמרי להו רבנן לא מסתפיתו אמרי להו אנן קבלה גמירינן קבלה דבית הכסא צניעותא ושתיקותא קבלה דיסורי שתיקותא ומבעי רחמי,אביי מרביא ליה [אמיה] אמרא למיעל בהדיה לבית הכסא ולרביא ליה גדיא שעיר בשעיר מיחלף,רבא מקמי דהוי רישא מקרקשא ליה בת רב חסדא אמגוזא בלקנא בתר דמלך עבדא ליה כוותא ומנחא ליה ידא ארישיה,אמר עולא אחורי הגדר נפנה מיד ובבקעה כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע איסי בר נתן מתני הכי אחורי הגדר כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע ובבקעה כל זמן שאין חברו רואהו,מיתיבי יוצאין מפתח בית הבד ונפנין לאחורי הגדר והן טהורין,בטהרות הקלו,ת"ש כמה ירחקו ויהיו טהורין כדי שיהא רואהו שאני אוכלי טהרות דאקילו בהו רבנן,רב אשי אמר מאי כל זמן שאין חברו רואה דקאמר איסי בר נתן כל זמן שאין חברו רואה את פרועו אבל לדידיה חזי ליה,ההוא ספדנא דנחית קמיה דרב נחמן אמר האי צנוע באורחותיו הוה א"ל רב נחמן את עיילת בהדיה לבית הכסא וידעת אי צנוע אי לא דתניא אין קורין צנוע אלא למי שצנוע בבית הכסא,ורב נחמן מאי נפקא ליה מיניה משום דתניא כשם שנפרעין מן המתים כך נפרעין מן הספדנין ומן העונין אחריהן,תנו רבנן איזהו צנוע זה הנפנה בלילה במקום שנפנה ביום,איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק ותו רבא ביממא הוה אזיל עד מיל ובליליא א"ל לשמעיה פנו לי דוכתא ברחובה דמתא וכן אמר ליה רבי זירא לשמעיה חזי מאן דאיכא אחורי בית חבריא דבעינא למפני לא תימא במקום אלא אימא כדרך שנפנה ביום,רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא במקום לא נצרכה אלא לקרן זוית,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק,תניא נמי הכי בן עזאי אומר השכם וצא הערב וצא כדי שלא תתרחק משמש ושב ואל תשב ותמשמש שכל היושב וממשמש אפי' עושין כשפים באספמיא באין עליו,ואי אנשי ויתיב ואח"כ משמש מאי תקנתיה כי קאי לימא הכי לא לי לא לי לא תחים ולא תחתים לא הני ולא מהני לא חרשי דחרשא ולא חרשי דחרשתא | 62a. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i in tractate i Derekh Eretz /i that b Rabbi Akiva said: I once entered the bathroom after /b my teacher b Rabbi Yehoshua, and I learned three things from /b observing b his /b behavior: b I learned that one should not defecate /b while facing b east and west, but rather /b while facing b north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself /b while b standing, but /b while b sitting, /b in the interest of modesty; b and I learned that one should not wipe with his right /b hand, b but with his left. Ben Azzai, /b a student of Rabbi Akiva, b said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent /b that you observed that much? b He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. /b ,Similarly, b we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b Ben Azzai said: I once entered a bathroom after Rabbi Akiva, and I learned three things from /b observing b his /b behavior: b I learned that one should not defecate /b while facing b east and west, but rather /b while facing b north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself /b while b standing, but /b while b sitting; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right /b hand, b but with his left. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. /b ,On a similar note, the Gemara relates that b Rav Kahana entered and lay beneath Rav’s bed. He heard /b Rav b chatting and laughing /b with his wife, b and seeing to his needs, /b i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana b said to /b Rav: b The mouth /b of b Abba, /b Rav, b is like /b one whom b has never eaten a cooked dish, /b i.e., his behavior was lustful. Rav b said to him: Kahana, you are here? Leave, as /b this b is an undesirable mode of behavior. /b Rav Kahana b said to him: It is Torah, and I must learn. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why must one not wipe /b himself b with his right /b hand, b but with his left? Rava said: Because the Torah was given with the right /b hand, b as it is stated: “At His right hand was a fiery law unto them” /b (Deuteronomy 33:2). b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Because /b the right hand b is close to the mouth, /b i.e., people eat with the right hand. b And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Because one ties the phylacteries /b onto his left hand b with /b his right hand. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because one points to the /b cantillation b notes of the Torah with /b his right hand.,The Gemara notes that this is b parallel to a tannaitic /b dispute: b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b One is forbidden to wipe himself with his right hand b because he eats with it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Because he writes with it. Rabbi Akiva says: Because he points to the notes of the Torah with it. /b , b Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai said: Anyone who is modest in the bathroom will be saved from three things: From snakes, from scorpions and from demons. And some say /b that b even his dreams will be settling for him. /b ,The Gemara relates: b There was a particular bathroom in /b the city of b Tiberias, where, when two would enter it, even during the day, they would be harmed /b by demons. When b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would each enter alone, they were not harmed. The Sages said to them: Aren’t you afraid? /b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi b said to them: We have learned /b through tradition: The b tradition /b to avoid danger in the b bathroom /b is to conduct oneself with b modesty and silence. The tradition /b to end b suffering /b is with b silence and prayer. /b ,Because fear of demons in bathrooms was pervasive, the Gemara relates: b Abaye’s mother raised a lamb to accompany him to the bathroom. /b The Gemara objects: She should have b raised a goat for him. /b The Gemara responds: b A goat /b could be b interchanged with a goat-demon. /b Since both the demon and the goat are called i sa’ir /i , they were afraid to bring a goat to a place frequented by demons., b Before Rava became the head of the yeshiva, /b his wife, b the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, would rattle a nut in a copper vessel for him. /b This was in order to fend off demons when he was in the bathroom. b After /b he was chosen to b preside /b as head of the yeshiva, he required an additional degree of protection, so b she constructed a window for him, /b opposite where he would defecate, b and placed her hand upon his head. /b ,With regard to where one may or may not go to defecate, b Ulla said: Behind a fence, one /b need not distance himself from people and b may defecate immediately. In a valley /b or open field, one must distance himself b sufficiently so that if he passes wind, no one will hear him. Isi bar Natan taught as follows: Behind a fence /b one must distance himself b sufficiently so that if he passes wind another does not hear him, and in a valley, /b one must distance himself b sufficiently so that no one can see him. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based on what we learned in a mishna in i Teharot /i : Physical laborers, who usually fall into the category of i am ha’aretz /i and are not generally cautious with regard to the laws of ritual purity, b exit from the entrance of the olive press, defecate behind the fence, and are ritually pure. /b There is no reason to be concerned that they might become impure in the interim. This indicates that a greater distance is unnecessary.,The Gemara responds: b With regard to /b the laws of b ritual purity, they were lenient. /b To ensure maintece of purity, they were lenient and did not require a greater distance., b Come and hear /b from what we learned: b How far /b may workers b distance themselves, and /b the fruit and oil b will /b remain b pure? /b They may distance themselves only b so far that he /b still b sees him. /b This contradicts the opinion of Isi bar Natan, who required them to distance themselves sufficiently that they may not be seen. The Gemara responds: Those b who eat in purity are different, as the Sages were lenient with them. /b , b Rav Ashi said: What is /b the meaning of: b So long as another does not see him, which /b was the standard that b Isi bar Natan said? Sufficient that another person cannot see his nakedness, although he does see him. /b ,The Gemara relates: b There was a particular eulogizer who went /b to eulogize an important person b in the presence of Rav Naḥman. /b of the deceased, b he said: This /b man b was modest in his ways. Rav Naḥman said to him: Did you go to the bathroom with him and know whether or not he was modest? As we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b One can only describe as modest one who is modest /b even b in the bathroom, /b when no one else is there.,The Gemara asks: b And what difference /b did it make b to Rav Naḥman, /b that he was so insistent upon the details of whether or not this man was modest? The Gemara answers: b Because it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Just as the deceased are punished, so too are the eulogizers and those who answer after them. /b The deceased are punished for transgressions committed in their lifetimes. The eulogizers and those who answer are punished for accepting the attribution of virtues that the deceased did not possess., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Who is a modest person? One who defecates at night where he defecates during the day, /b i.e., who distances himself at night, in order to relieve himself, no less than he distances himself during the day.,The Gemara challenges: b Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav said: One must always accustom himself /b to defecate b in the morning and at night, /b when it is dark, b so that he will not need to distance himself? Moreover, during the day, Rava would go up to a i mil /i /b outside the city, b and at night he would tell his servant: Clear a place for me in the city street. And so too, Rabbi Zeira told his servant: See who is behind the study hall, as I need to defecate. /b These Sages did not defecate at night in the same place where they defecated during the day. b Rather, /b emend the statement and b say /b as follows: b In the manner that one defecates during the day, /b i.e. he should conduct himself at night with the same degree of modesty with which he removes his clothing when defecating during the day., b Rav Ashi said: Even if you say /b that the text can remain as it was: b Where he defecates during the day, /b it b was only necessary in /b the case of b a corner, /b where one may conceal himself. In the interest of modesty, he should go around the corner at night, just as he does during the day.,The Gemara discusses b the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: One must always accustom himself /b to defecate early b in the morning and /b late b at night so that he will not need to distance himself. /b , b That /b opinion b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Ben Azzai said: Rise early /b in the morning b and go /b defecate, wait for b evening and go /b defecate, b so that you will not /b need to b distance yourself. /b He also said: b Touch /b around the anus first to assist in the opening of orifices b and /b then b sit; do not sit and /b then b touch, for anyone who sits and /b then b touches, even if sorcery is performed in /b a distant place like b Aspamia, /b the sorcery b will come upon him. /b ,The Gemara says: b And if one forgets and sits and then touches, what is his remedy? When /b he b stands, /b he should b recite the following /b incantation: b Not for me, not for me, neither i taḥim /i nor i taḥtim /i , /b types of sorcery, b neither these nor from these, neither the sorcery of a sorcerer nor the sorcery of a sorceress. /b |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 265| 49b. תניא בהדיא (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי רבי ישמעאל רע"א מיטב שדהו של מזיק ומיטב כרמו של מזיק,רבינא אמר לעולם מתני' ר"ע היא דאמר מדאורייתא בדמזיק שיימינן ור"ש היא דדריש טעמא דקרא ומה טעם קאמר מה טעם הניזקין שמין להן בעידית מפני תיקון העולם,דתניא אמר ר"ש מפני מה אמרו הניזקין שמין להן בעידית מפני הגזלנים ומפני החמסנין כדי שיאמר אדם למה אני גוזל ולמה אני חומס למחר ב"ד יורדין לנכסי ונוטלין שדה נאה שלי וסומכים על מה שכתוב בתורה מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם לפיכך אמרו הניזקין שמין להן בעידית,מפני מה אמרו בעל חוב בבינונית כדי שלא יראה אדם לחבירו שדה נאה ודירה נאה ויאמר אקפוץ ואלונו כדי שאגבנו בחובי לפיכך אמרו בע"ח בבינונית,אלא מעתה יהא בזיבורית א"כ אתה נועל דלת בפני לווין,כתובת אשה בזיבורית דברי ר' יהודה ר"מ אומר בבינונית אמר ר"ש מפני מה אמרו כתובת אשה בזיבורית שיותר ממה שהאיש רוצה לישא האשה רוצה לינשא,דבר אחר אשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציאה אלא לרצונו,מאי דבר אחר וכ"ת כי היכי דכי מפיק לה איהו תקינו לה רבנן כתובה מיניה כי נפקא איהי נמי ליתקני ליה רבנן כתובה מינה ת"ש אשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו אפשר דמשהי לה בגיטא:,כתובת אשה בזיבורית: אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן לא אמרן אלא מיתמי אבל מיניה דידיה בבינונית,מיתמי מאי איריא כתובת אשה אפילו כל מילי נמי דהא תנן אין נפרעים מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית אלא לאו מיניה,לעולם מיתמי וכתובת אשה איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא משום חינא אקילו רבנן גבה קמ"ל,אמר רבא ת"ש ר"מ אומר כתובת אשה בבינונית ממאן אילימא מיתמי לית ליה לר"מ הא דתנן אין נפרעים מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית אלא לאו מיניה מכלל דרבנן סברי בזבורית,לא לעולם מיתמי ושאני כתובת אשה משום חינא,אמר אביי ת"ש הניזקין שמין להן בעידית ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית ממאן אילימא מיתמי מאי איריא כתובת אשה אפילו כל הני נמי אלא לאו מיניה,אמר רב אחא בר יעקב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנעשה ערב לנזקי בנו לבעל חוב בנו ולכתובת כלתו,והאי כי דיניה והאי כי דיניה ניזקין ובעל חוב דמחיים גבו איהו נמי כי מגבי כמחיים מגבי כתובת אשה דלאחר מיתה גביא ולאחר מיתה ממאן גביא מיתמי איהו נמי כי מגבי כלאחר מיתה מגבי,ותיפוק ליה דערב דכתובה לא משתעבד בקבלן,הניחא למאן דאמר קבלן אף על גב דלית ליה נכסי ללוה משתעבד שפיר אלא למאן דאמר אי אית ליה משתעבד אי לית ליה לא משתעבד מאי איכא למימר,איבעית אימא בדהוו ליה ואישתדוף,ואיבעית אימא כל לגבי בריה שעבודי משעבד נפשיה,איתמר ערב דכתובה דברי הכל לא משתעבד | 49b. It is b taught explicitly /b in a i baraita /i : The verse: b “of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay” /b (Exodus 22:4), teaches that the appraisal is of b the best of the fields of the injured /b party, b and /b of b the best of the vineyards of the injured /b party. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: /b The appraisal is of b the best of the fields of the one who caused the damage, and /b of b the best of the vineyards of the one who caused the damage. /b This clearly indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva compensation is collected from the superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage., b Ravina said: Actually, the mishna is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, who said: By Torah law, we appraise /b the property b of the one who caused the damage. And it is /b also in accordance with the principle of b Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason /b underlying b the verse /b as a basis for drawing halakhic conclusions. b And /b the mishna b is saying: What is the reason /b for the i halakha /i taught in the mishna? The mishna should be understood as follows: b What is the reason /b that the court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties? This is b for the betterment of the world. /b That is to say, the words: For the betterment of the world, do not indicate a rabbinic enactment. Rather, they provide a reason for the Torah law.,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Ketubot /i 12:2) that b Rabbi Shimon said: For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say /b that the court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties? It is b due to the robbers and due to those who take /b that which is not theirs b by force [ i ḥamsanin /i ]. /b How so? b So that a person will say: Why should I rob and why should I take by force? Tomorrow the court will come down to my property and take my finest field /b in order to compensate the victim for what I have robbed or taken by force. b And /b the Sages b rely on what is written in the Torah: “of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay” /b (Exodus 22:4). b Consequently, they said /b that the court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties.,The i baraita /i continues: b For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say that a creditor /b collects his debt b from intermediate-quality land? /b It is b so that a person should not see another’s fine field or fine house and say: I will jump /b in b and lend /b him money b so that /b later b I will collect /b the field or house b for my debt, /b if the borrower does not have enough money to repay the loan. b Therefore, /b the Sages b said /b that b a creditor /b collects his debt only b from intermediate-quality land, /b and he would not receive that fine field that would have prompted him to extend the loan in the first place.,The Gemara asks: b If it is so /b that the objective is that people not be tempted to lend money for the purpose of acquiring the borrower’s property should he default on the loan, then the i halakha /i governing a creditor b should be /b to collect his debt b from inferior-quality land. /b The Gemara answers: b If so, /b then b you would be locking the door before /b potential b borrowers, /b as no one would be willing to lend them money.,The i baraita /i continues: Payment of b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from inferior-quality land; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: /b It can be collected b from intermediate-quality land. Rabbi Shimon said: For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say that a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from inferior-quality land? /b It is b because more than a man wants to marry /b a woman, b a woman wants to become married /b to a man. Consequently, she will agree to marry even if she knows that she will not be able to collect payment of the marriage contract from superior-quality land., b Alternatively, /b it is because b a woman is sent out /b from her husband b with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends /b his wife b out /b from his house b only with his consent. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the reason that he mentions b an alternative /b explanation? What problem is there with the first explanation? The Gemara answers: The alternative explanation does not explain why she collects from inferior-quality land, but serves to explain a different matter. Since the Sages instituted a marriage contract in order to strengthen the institution of marriage, it is possible to ask: b And if you would say /b that b just as when /b a man b divorces /b his wife b the Sages instituted a marriage contract for her from him, /b so too, b when she leaves him they should similarly institute a marriage contract for him from her; /b then b come /b and b hear: A woman is sent out /b from her husband b with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends /b his wife b out /b from his house b only with his consent. /b Even if she instigates a quarrel with him to bait him into divorcing her, it is nevertheless b possible /b for the husband b to keep her waiting for a bill of divorce. /b A man gives his wife a bill of divorce only when he wishes to do so, and so in essence the divorce depends solely on him.,§ The mishna teaches that payment of b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from inferior-quality land. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: We said /b that a woman collects her marriage contract from inferior-quality land b only /b when her husband died and she collects payment b from /b the b orphans /b who inherit his estate. b But /b if she was divorced and she collects payment b from /b the husband b himself, /b then she collects it b from intermediate-quality land. /b ,The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to collecting b from orphans, /b then b why /b discuss b specifically a woman’s marriage contract? Even all matters, /b such as payment for damage, should b also /b be collected from inferior-quality land when it is collected from orphans, b as didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: If one who owed money died and his children inherited his property, the father’s debt b can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land. Rather, is it not /b that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the husband b himself? /b ,The Gemara rejects this argument: b Actually, /b the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the b orphans /b who inherit their father’s estate. b And it was necessary for /b the mishna to teach the i halakha /i specifically with regard to b a woman’s marriage contract. /b As b it could enter your mind to say /b that b the Sages were /b more b lenient with her for the sake of desirability, /b so that she would be a more desirable partner should she want to remarry, and consequently they allowed her to collect payment of her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even from orphans, the mishna b teaches us /b that even payment for a woman’s marriage contract is not collected from the intermediate-quality land of orphans, but only from their inferior-quality land., b Rava said: Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir says: /b Payment for b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from intermediate-quality land. /b The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: b From whom /b does she collect payment of her marriage contract in this case? b If we say /b that she is collecting b from /b the b orphans, /b it is possible to ask: b Does Rabbi Meir not agree with that which we learned /b in the mishna: The father’s debt b can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land? Rather, is it not /b that the woman collects payment of her marriage contract b from /b her husband b himself? /b And since Rabbi Meir maintains that she collects from intermediate-quality land, one can learn b by inference that the Rabbis hold /b that she collects b from inferior-quality land, /b contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b No, actually /b it is possible to explain that the i baraita /i is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the b orphans /b who inherit their father’s estate. b And /b payment of b a woman’s marriage contract is different /b from other debts collected from orphans, which can be collected only from inferior-quality land. The Sages were more lenient with her b for the sake of desirability; /b consequently, Rabbi Meir ruled that she may collect her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even if she is collecting it from orphans., b Abaye said: Come /b and b hear /b a proof from what is taught in the mishna: The court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties. b And a creditor /b collects his debt b from /b the debtor’s b intermediate-quality land. And /b payment of b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from /b her husband’s b inferior-quality land. /b The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: b From whom /b is the collection being made? b If we say /b that in all of these cases collection is being made b from /b the b orphans, why /b mention b specifically a woman’s marriage contract? Even all of these, /b i.e., even injured parties and creditors, should b also /b collect only from inferior-quality land when collecting from orphans. b Rather, is it not /b that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the husband b himself, /b and it rules that she collects from inferior-quality land, contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra?, b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b No proof can be brought from the mishna against the opinion of Mar Zutra, as the mishna can be understood as follows: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with a case b where /b one b became a guarantor /b for compensation b for his son’s damages, /b and similarly b for /b repayment to b his son’s creditor, and /b similarly b for /b payment of b his daughter-in-law’s marriage contract, /b and his son died. Since the guarantor stands in place of his son, collection is made from him as if it were being made from his son., b And /b payment is made in b this /b case b in accordance with its i halakha /i and /b payment is made in b this /b case b in accordance with its i halakha /i . /b Since b an injured /b party b and a creditor /b ordinarily b collect /b from those who owe them money b while they are alive, when /b the guarantor b pays /b the debt, b he too pays /b the debt b as though /b the one who caused the damage or borrowed the money b were /b still b alive. /b Therefore, in these cases collection is made from superior-quality or intermediate-quality land. But in this case, where the father serves as a guarantor for his son, payment of b a woman’s marriage contract is /b only b after /b her husband’s b death, and after /b his b death from whom does she collect? From the orphans. /b Consequently, b when /b the guarantor b pays /b the debt, b he too pays /b the debt b as though /b it were being paid by the orphans b after /b the husband’s b death. /b Accordingly, payment for her marriage contract is made from inferior-quality land.,The Gemara asks: b But let him derive /b this i halakha /i from another i halakha /i that states that b the guarantor /b of a marriage contract b does not become responsible /b for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property. The signature that he adds to the marriage contract serves merely as additional support but does not turn him into a true guarantor. Therefore, even if a collection is made, it is only from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here b with an unconditional guarantor, /b i.e., one who accepted unconditional responsibility for the obligation, allowing his daughter-in-law to collect payment of her marriage contract either from his son or from him, as she so desires.,The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to the one who says /b that b an unconditional guarantor becomes responsible /b for repayment of the loan b even if the borrower does not have property /b of his own. Therefore, it works out b well /b to explain the case in this manner. b But according to the one who says /b that b if /b the borrower b has /b property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor b becomes responsible, /b but b if /b the borrower b does not have /b property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor b does not become responsible, what is there to say /b in a case where the son did not have any property at the time of the marriage? In such a case, the father never became responsible for his son’s obligations.,The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that it is a case b where /b the son b had /b property of his own at the outset, b but /b afterward b it was blighted. /b Since the son had his own property, the father accepted responsibility for the obligation, and now that the property has no value, the daughter-in-law can collect payment for her marriage contract from the father., b And if you wish say: /b With respect to b anything relating to his son, /b it is common for a father to b pledge himself /b absolutely, even when the son has no property of his own.,§ Apropos a guarantor for a marriage contract, the Gemara notes: It b was stated /b that b everyone agrees /b that b a guarantor /b who signs b a marriage contract does not /b thereby b become responsible /b for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property. |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272| 17a. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בא לו לכתוב את המגילה מאיזה מקום הוא כותב (במדבר ה, יט) מואם,לא שכב איש וגו' ואת כי שטית תחת אישך ואינו,כותב והשביע הכהן את האשה וכותב יתן ה' אותך לאלה ולשבועה ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך לצבות בטן ולנפיל ירך ואינו כותב ואמרה האשה אמן אמן,רבי יוסי אומר לא היה מפסיק,ר' יהודה אומר כל עצמו אינו כותב אלא יתן ה' אותך לאלה ולשבועה וגו' ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך וגו' ואינו כותב ואמרה האשה אמן אמן, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big במאי קא מיפלגי בהאי קרא קמיפלגי (במדבר ה, כג) וכתב את האלות האלה הכהן בספר,ר"מ סבר אלות אלות ממש האלות לרבות קללות הבאות מחמת ברכות אלה למעוטי קללות שבמשנה תורה האלה למעוטי צוואות וקבלות אמן,ורבי יוסי כולהו כדקאמרת את לרבות צוואות וקבלות,ור"מ אתים לא דריש,ור' יהודה כולהו במיעוטי דריש להו אלות אלות ממש האלות למעוטי קללות הבאות מחמת ברכות אלה למעוטי קללות שבמשנה תורה האלה למעוטי צוואות וקבלות,ורבי מאיר מ"ש האי ה"י דמרבי ביה ומאי שנא האי ה"י דמעיט ביה,ה"י דגביה דריבויא ריבויא היא ה"י דגביה דמיעוטא מיעוטא,והא לית ליה לר"מ מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן,אמר רבי תנחום (במדבר ה, יט) הנקי כתיב,דריש ר"ע איש ואשה זכו שכינה ביניהן לא זכו אש אוכלתן,אמר רבא ודאשה עדיפא מדאיש (מ"ט) האי מצרף והאי לא מצרף,אמר רבא מפני מה אמרה תורה הבא עפר לסוטה זכתה יוצא ממנה בן כאברהם אבינו דכתיב ביה (בראשית יח, כז) עפר ואפר לא זכתה תחזור לעפרה,דריש רבא בשכר שאמר אברהם אבינו ואנכי עפר ואפר זכו בניו לב' מצות אפר פרה ועפר סוטה,והאיכא נמי עפר כיסוי הדם,התם הכשר מצוה איכא הנאה ליכא,דרש רבא בשכר שאמר אברהם אבינו (בראשית יד, כג) אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל זכו בניו לב' מצות חוט של תכלת ורצועה של תפלין,בשלמא רצועה של תפלין דכתיב (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ותניא ר"א הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש,אלא חוט של תכלת מאי היא דתניא היה ר"מ אומר מה נשתנה תכלת מכל מיני צבעונין,מפני שהתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע ורקיע דומה לכסא הכבוד שנאמר (שמות כד, י) ויראו את אלהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר וכתיב (יחזקאל א, כו) כמראה אבן ספיר דמות כסא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אינו כותב לא על הלוח ולא על הנייר ולא על | 17a. strong MISHNA: /strong b When /b the priest b comes to write the scroll /b of the i sota /i that is to be placed in the water, b from what place /b in the Torah passage concerning the i sota /i (Numbers 5:11–31) b does he write? /b ,He starts b from /b the verse: b “If no man has lain /b with you, and if you have not gone astray to defilement while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse” (Numbers 5:19); and continues: b “But if you have gone astray while under your husband, /b and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20)., b And /b then b he does not write /b the beginning of the following verse, which states: b “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear /b with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say to the woman” (Numbers 5:21), b but he does write /b the oath recorded in the continuation of the verse: b “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath /b among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. b And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away” /b (Numbers 5:21–22); b but he does not write /b the conclusion of the verse: b “And the woman shall say: Amen, amen” /b (Numbers 5:22)., b Rabbi Yosei says: He does not interrupt /b the verses but rather writes the entire passage without any omissions., b Rabbi Yehuda says: He writes nothing other /b than curses recorded in the final verses cited above: b “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath /b among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. b And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, /b and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away.” b And he does not write /b the conclusion of the verse: b “And the woman shall say: Amen, amen.” /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b With regard to what /b issue b do /b the Sages in the mishna b disagree? /b What is the source of their disagreement? b They disagree concerning the /b proper interpretation of the b verse: “And the priest shall write these [ i ha’eleh /i ] curses [ i et ha’alot /i ] in a scroll” /b (Numbers 5:23)., b Rabbi Meir, /b the first i tanna /i of the mishna, b reasons: /b The word b “ i alot /i ,” /b curses, is referring to b actual curses. /b The prefix i ha /i , meaning: The, in the word b “ i ha’alot /i ” /b serves b to include curses that come on account of /b the b blessings, /b i.e., the curses that are inferred from the phrase: “You shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse” (5:19). The word b “ i eleh /i ,” /b meaning these, is a limiting term that serves b to exclude the /b long list of b curses that are /b recorded b in i Mishne Torah /i , /b the book of Deuteronomy (chapter 28). Although these curses are also referred to as “ i alot /i ,” the priest does not write them. The addition of the definite article in the word b “ i ha’eleh /i ” /b serves b to exclude the commands /b recorded in the i sota /i passage b and the acceptances /b by the word b “amen” /b recorded there as well. The priest need not write these sections of the passage., b And Rabbi Yosei /b interprets it: b It /b would b all /b be b as you, /b Rabbi Meir, b said; /b however, the additional word b “ i et /i ” /b in the verse amplifies its scope. It serves b to include /b both b commands and acceptances, /b as they must be written in the scroll as well., b And /b why does b Rabbi Meir /b disagree? As a rule, he b does not interpret /b the additional word b i et /i /b as amplifying a verse’s scope., b And /b as for b Rabbi Yehuda, he interprets all of /b the terms in the verse b as exclusionary: /b The word b “ i alot /i ” /b is referring specifically to the b actual curses /b recorded in the verses. The definite article in the word b “ i ha’alot /i ” /b serves b to exclude curses that come on account of blessings. /b The word b “ i eleh /i ” /b serves b to exclude the curses /b recorded b in /b the b i Mishne Torah /i . /b And the definite article in the word b “ i ha’eleh /i ” /b serves b to exclude /b the b commands and acceptances /b recorded in the verses.,The Gemara asks: b But /b according to b Rabbi Meir, what is different /b about b this /b letter b i heh /i /b at the beginning of the word “ i ha’alot /i ” such b that it amplifies /b the i halakha /i to include curses that come on account of the blessings, b and what is different /b about b that /b letter b i heh /i /b in the word “ i ha’eleh /i ” such b that it excludes /b the commands and acceptances by the word “amen”? Why should one amplify while the other excludes?,The Gemara answers: The letter b i heh /i when /b written b near an amplifier is an amplifier. /b The word “ i alot /i ” itself amplifies the i halakha /i , and the definite article extends that amplification; and a b i heh /i when /b written b near /b a b restrictor is a restrictor. /b The word “ i eleh /i ” itself restricts the i halakha /i , and the definite article before it extends that restriction.,The Gemara asks: b But Rabbi Meir does not /b accept the principle that b from a negative /b statement b you /b can b infer a positive /b statement. What is to be gained by writing the blessings if one cannot infer the curses from them?, b Rabbi Tanḥum says: It is written: /b “If no man has lain with you… b you shall be free [ i hinnaki /i ]” /b (Numbers 5:19). The word “ i hinnaki /i ” should be interpreted as if it were in fact i ḥinnaki /i , meaning: You shall choke. When read with the beginning of the next verse, it then forms the sentence: You shall choke… if you have gone astray while under your husband. Therefore, Rabbi Meir understands the blessings themselves to have a dimension of a curse.,§ b Rabbi Akiva taught: /b If b a man [ i ish /i ] and woman [ i isha /i ] merit /b reward through a faithful marriage, b the Divine Presence /b rests b between them. /b The words i ish /i and i isha /i are almost identical; the difference between them is the middle letter i yod /i in i ish /i , and the final letter i heh /i in i isha /i . These two letters can be joined to form the name of God spelled i yod /i , i heh /i . But if due to licentiousness b they do not merit /b reward, the Divine Presence departs, leaving in each word only the letters i alef /i and i shin /i , which spell i esh /i , fire. Therefore, b fire consumes them. /b , b Rava said: And /b the fire b that /b consumes b the woman is stronger /b and more immediate b than that /b which consumes b the man. What is the reason /b for this? The letters i alef /i and i shin /i in the word i isha /i b are /b adjacent, b joined /b together, b but /b in the word i ish /i b they are not joined, /b as the letter i yod /i is written between them.,Additionally, b Rava says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say: Bring dust for the i sota /i ? /b It is because if b she merits /b to be proven faith-ful after drinking the water of the i sota /i , b a child like our Patriarch Abraham will emerge from her, as it is written with regard to /b Abraham that he said: “I am but b dust and ashes” /b (Genesis 18:27). But b if she does not merit /b to be proven faithful after drinking the water of the i sota /i , b she shall /b die and b return to her dust, /b the soil from which mankind was formed.,And b Rava /b further b taught: As reward /b for that b which our Patriarch Abraham said: “And I am but dust and ashes” /b (Genesis 18:27), b his children merited two mitzvot: The ashes of the /b red b heifer /b (see Numbers, chapter 19) b and the dust of the i sota /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b But there is also /b another mitzva involving dust: b The dust /b used for b covering the blood /b of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl (see Leviticus 17:13).,The Gemara answers: b There, /b the dust b does /b serve as an b accessory to the mitzva /b of covering the blood, but b there is no benefit /b imparted by it. It occurs after the animal has been slaughtered and does not itself render the meat fit for consumption., b Rava /b further b taught: As reward /b for that b which our Patriarch Abraham said /b to the king of Sodom: b “That /b I will not take b a thread nor a shoe strap /b nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, b his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue /b wool worn on ritual fringes b and the strap of phylacteries. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, the strap of /b the b phylacteries /b impart benefit, b as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; /b and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is /b a reference to b the phylacteries of the head, /b upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward., b But what is /b the benefit imparted by b the thread of sky-blue /b wool? The Gemara answers: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors /b such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes?,It is b because sky-blue /b dye b is similar /b in its color b to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” /b (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, b and it is written: /b “And above the firmament that was over their heads was b the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” /b (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence., strong MISHNA: /strong The priest b does not write /b the scroll of the i sota /i b upon /b a wooden b tablet, and not upon paper /b made from grass, b and not upon /b |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272| 42b. כולהו נמי טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו,אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולי' בעי דליכפריה והאי דלא כפריה משום דאינו מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו,ובכוליה בעי דלודי ליה והאי דלא אודי ליה אישתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט מיניה סבר עד דהוי לי זוזי ופרענא ליה ורחמנא אמר רמי שבועה עילויה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה,ר' אליעזר בן יעקב סבר לא שנא בו ולא שנא בבנו אינו מעיז והלכך לאו משיב אבידה הוא ורבנן סברי בפניו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בפני בנו מעיז ומדלא מעיז משיב אבידה הוא,מי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא קתני רישא מנה לאבא בידך אין לך בידי אלא חמשים דינר פטור מפני שמשיב אבידה הוא התם דלא אמר ברי לי הכא דאמר ברי לי,שמואל אמר לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש,לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן תנינא מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה תרתי למה לי,הא קמשמע לן כדאביי קשישא דתני אביי קשישא יתומין שאמרו גדולים ואין צריך לומר קטנים בין לשבועה בין לזיבורית,להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש תנינא מנכסים משועבדים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה ומה לי משועבדים להדיוט ומה לי משועבדים לגבוה,איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הדיוט הוא דאדם עושה קנוניא על הדיוט אבל הקדש דאין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש קא משמע לן,והאמר רב הונא שכיב מרע שהקדיש כל נכסיו ואמר מנה לפלוני בידי נאמן חזקה אין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש אמרי ה"מ שכיב מרע דאין אדם חוטא ולא לו אבל גבי בריא ודאי חיישינן:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ואלו דברים שאין נשבעין עליהן העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וההקדשות אין בהן תשלומי כפל ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שומר חנם אינו נשבע נושא שכר אינו משלם,ר' שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן נשבעין עליהן ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין נשבעין עליהן,רבי מאיר אומר יש דברים שהן בקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש רבי מאיר מחייב שבועה וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע,אין נשבעין אלא על דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין כיצד בית מלא מסרתי לך וכיס מלא מסרתי לך והלה אומר איני יודע אלא מה שהנחת אתה נוטל פטור זה אומר עד הזיז וזה אומר עד החלון חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תשלומי כפל מנלן דתנו רבנן (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל על שור ועל חמור ועל שה ועל שלמה פרט על כל אבדה חזר וכלל,כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון,יצאו קרקעות שאין מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאע"פ שהן מטלטלין אין גופן ממון הקדש רעהו כתיב:,(ולא תשלומי כפל) ולא ארבעה וחמשה: מ"ט תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אמר רחמנא ולא תשלומי שלשה וארבעה:,שומר חנם אינו נשבע: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן | 42b. The Gemara challenges: b All /b other cases where the defendant is required to take an oath due to a partial admission are b also /b cases of b a claim of others and his own admission. /b Yet in the i baraita /i Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the term: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of an oath due to a partial admission.,The Gemara answers: b Rather, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis b disagree with regard to /b the statement b of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? /b It is because there is b a presumption /b that b a person does not exhibit insolence /b by lying b in the presence of his creditor, /b who did him a favor by lending money to him. b And this /b person who denies part of the claim actually b wants to deny all of /b the debt, so as to be exempt, b and this /b fact, i.e., b that he does not deny /b all of b it, /b is b because a person does not exhibit insolence in the presence of his creditor. /b ,Rabba continues: b And /b in order not to exhibit insolence, he b wants to admit to /b the creditor b with regard to all of /b the debt; b and this /b fact, i.e., b that he did not admit /b the entire debt b to him, /b is because he may be temporarily b avoiding /b paying b him. /b He b rationalizes /b doing so by saying to himself: I am avoiding him only b until /b the time b that I have /b enough b money, and /b then b I will repay him. And /b therefore, b the Merciful One says /b in the Torah: b Impose an oath on him in order /b to induce the debtor b to admit the entire /b debt b to him. /b ,With regard to this principle, b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains: /b It b is no different with regard to /b the creditor b himself, and /b it b is no different with regard to his son; /b the debtor b would not exhibit insolence /b and deny the debt. b And therefore, he is not /b deemed as b one returning a lost item /b on his own initiative; rather, this is an ordinary case where one admits to a part of a claim and is therefore required to take an oath. b And the Rabbis maintain: It is in the presence of /b the original creditor b that /b one b would not exhibit insolence; but in the presence of his son, /b who did not lend him the money, he would b exhibit insolence /b and deny the claim entirely. b And since /b this debtor b is not exhibiting insolence, /b as he could have denied the loan completely but instead is opting to admit to part of the claim, b he is /b deemed as b one returning a lost item, /b and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.,The Gemara asks: b Can you interpret /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? Isn’t it taught /b in b the former clause /b that if the claimant said: My late b father had one hundred dinars in your possession, /b and the defendant responded: b You have only fifty dinars in my possession, /b he is b exempt /b from taking an oath, b as he is /b like b one returning a lost item? /b The Gemara answers: b There, /b it is referring to a case b where /b the claimant b did not say: I am certain /b that you owe my father this money, but rather made an uncertain claim. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov agrees that the defendant is like one returning a lost item. b Here, /b by contrast, it is a case b where he said: I am certain /b that you owe him.,Returning to the Gemara’s question with regard to the last clause of the mishna, which states that one takes an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury, b Shmuel said /b a different answer: When the mishna spoke about taking an oath b to a minor, /b it was referring to a case where the debtor died; the creditor must take an oath to the minor heir attesting that he was not repaid in order b to collect from /b the b minor’s property. /b Similarly, if one’s debtor consecrated his property, he takes an oath b to /b a representative of b the Temple /b treasury in order b to collect from the consecrated property. /b ,The Gemara challenges: The i halakha /i that one takes an oath b to a minor /b in order b to collect from a minor’s property /b is one that b we learn /b in the mishna (45a): A woman who comes to collect the payment for her marriage contract b from the property of orphans collects only by means of an oath. Why do I /b need b two /b i mishnayot /i to teach this i halakha /i ?,The Gemara answers: By mentioning this i halakha /i twice, the Mishna b teaches us this: /b The i halakha /i applies with regard to both minor and adult orphans, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Abaye the Elder; as Abaye the Elder taught: /b The b orphans of which /b the Sages b spoke /b are b adult /b orphans, b and needless to say, /b the same i halakha /i also applies to b minor /b orphans. This principle applies b with regard to both /b the i halakha /i that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only by means of b an oath, and to /b the i halakha /i that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only from b inferior-quality /b land.,With regard to Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna that one takes an oath b to /b a representative of b the Temple /b treasury in order b to collect /b a debt b from consecrated property, /b the Gemara asks: b We learn /b this i halakha /i in the mishna (45a): b From liened property /b that has been sold one b collects /b a debt b only by means of an oath. And what /b difference is it b to me /b whether the property was b liened to an ordinary /b person, b and what /b difference is it b to me /b whether the property was b liened to the Most High, /b i.e., it was consecrated?,The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b for this i halakha /i to be stated separately with regard to collecting a debt from the Temple treasury. Otherwise it might b enter your mind to say /b that b it is /b specifically in order to collect a debt from b an ordinary /b person that one is required to take an oath, b as a person /b is liable to b collude /b with another b against an ordinary /b person who purchased property, by producing a promissory note for a debt that was already repaid in order to collect property from the purchasers of land that had been liened to that debt. b But /b one might have thought that in order to collect a debt from the b Temple /b treasury, a person is not required to take an oath, b as a person does not collude /b with another b against /b the b Temple /b treasury. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that one is required to take an oath even in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, as one is suspected of collusion in this case as well.,The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t Rav Huna say /b that in the case of b a person on his deathbed who consecrated all of his property, and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, /b his statement is b deemed credible, /b as the b presumption /b is that b a person does not collude /b with another b against /b the b Temple /b treasury? The Sages b said /b in response: b That statement /b applies only in the case of b a person on his deathbed, as a person sins only for his own /b benefit. One is not suspected of deceiving the Temple treasury for the benefit of his heirs. b But with regard to a healthy person, we are certainly concerned /b about collusion, even against the Temple treasury., strong MISHNA: /strong b And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath /b by Torah law: Canaanite b slaves, and /b ficial b documents, and land, and consecrated /b property. b In /b a case where b these /b items are stolen, b there is no payment of double /b the principal, b nor is there payment of four or five /b times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it. b An unpaid bailee /b who lost one of these items b does not take an oath /b that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and b a paid bailee does not pay /b for the loss or theft of one of these items., b Rabbi Shimon says /b there is a distinction between different types of consecrated property: With regard to b consecrated /b property b for which /b one b bears /b the ficial b responsibility /b to compensate the Temple treasury in the event b of their /b loss, such as in a case where he vowed to bring an offering and then set aside an animal to be sacrificed in fulfillment of the vow, b one takes an oath concerning them, /b as they are considered his own property. b But /b with regard to consecrated property b for which /b he b does not bear /b the ficial b responsibility for their /b loss, b one does not take an oath concerning them. /b , b Rabbi Meir says: There are /b certain b items that are /b physically b on the land but are not /b treated b like land /b from a halakhic perspective, b and the Rabbis do not concede to him /b concerning this point. b How so? /b If one makes the claim: b I assigned you ten grapevines laden /b with fruit to safeguard, b and the other one says: They are only five /b vines, b Rabbi Meir deems /b the defendant b liable /b to take b an oath, /b as he admitted to a part of the claim, and although the claim concerned grapevines, the primary aspect of the claim was the grapes. b And the Rabbis say: /b The halakhic status of b anything that is attached to the land is like the land /b itself, and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath., b One takes an oath only concerning an item that is /b defined b by size, by weight, or by number. How so? /b If the claimant says: b I transferred to you a house full /b of produce, b or: I transferred to you a pouch full /b of money, b and the other /b person b says: I do not know /b how much you gave me, b but what you left /b in my possession b you may take, /b and the amount in the house or pouch at that time is less than that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is b exempt /b from taking an oath, as the amounts in the claim and the admission are undefined. But if b this /b party b says /b that the house was full b up to the ledge, and that /b party b says /b that it was full b up to the window, /b the defendant is b liable /b to take an oath, as the dispute relates to a defined amount., strong GEMARA: /strong b From where do we /b derive that one is exempt from the b payment of double /b the principal with regard to the items mentioned in the mishna? It is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For every matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing…he shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The phrase b “for every matter of trespass” is a generalization; /b the phrase b “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing” is a detail; /b and when the verse states: b “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalized again. /b ,Consequently, this verse contains b a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, /b and one of the thirteen principles of exegesis states that in such a case b you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. /b Applying this principle here, one may conclude that b just as /b each of the items mentioned in the b detail /b is clearly b defined as an item that is movable /b property b and has intrinsic monetary /b value, b so too, anything that is movable /b property b and has intrinsic monetary /b value is subject to double payment., b Land is /b therefore b excluded, as it is not movable property. /b Canaanite b slaves are /b also b excluded, as they are compared to land /b in many areas of i halakha /i . Ficial b documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary /b value. The value of the paper itself is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof of monetary claims. Finally, b consecrated /b property is excluded because it b is written /b in the verse: “He shall pay double to b his neighbor,” /b i.e., to his fellow man, but not to a representative of the Temple treasury.,The mishna teaches: b And there is no payment of double /b the principal, b nor /b is there payment of b four or five /b times the principal for stealing consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the exclusion of the payment of four or five times the principal? The Gemara answers: Since payment of double the principal is excluded, that leaves, in a case where one steals and then slaughters or sells a consecrated animal, a total payment of only three or four times the principal, as the payment of double the principal is included in the larger payment for selling or slaughtering it. Therefore, since b the Merciful One states /b in the Torah b fourfold or fivefold payment, and not threefold or fourfold payment, /b one who steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it or sells it is exempt from the additional payments.,§ The mishna teaches: b An unpaid bailee /b who lost one of the excluded items b does not take an oath. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? The Gemara answers that it is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 279 | 29b. had the b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i in /b the term: b “The nation [ i ha’am /i ]” /b (Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, b severed by a perforation. He came before /b his son-in-law b Rabbi Abba /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Abba b said to him: If there remains in /b the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter b the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, /b i.e., the letter i yod /i , it is b fit. But if not, /b it is b unfit. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rami bar Tamrei, who /b was b the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, /b had the b leg of /b the letter b i vav /i in /b the term: b “And /b the Lord b slew [ i vayaharog /i ] /b all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, b severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Zeira b said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, /b but of average intelligence; b if he reads /b the term as b “And /b the Lord b slew [ i vayaharog /i ]” /b then it is b fit, /b as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a i vav /i . But b if not, /b then it is as though the term b were: Will be slain [ i yehareg /i ], /b written without the letter i vav /i , b and /b it is b unfit. /b ,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters /b of the Torah. Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, who is preventing You /b from giving the Torah without these additions? God b said to him: There is a man who is destined to be /b born b after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef /b is b his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn /b of these crowns b mounds /b upon b mounds of i halakhot /i . /b It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.,Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, show him to me. /b God b said to him: Return behind you. /b Moses b went and sat at the end of the eighth row /b in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall b and did not understand what they were saying. /b Moses’ b strength waned, /b as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. b When /b Rabbi Akiva b arrived at /b the discussion of b one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you /b derive this? Rabbi Akiva b said to them: /b It is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai. /b When Moses heard this, b his mind was put at ease, /b as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.,Moses b returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b and b said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man /b as great b as this and /b yet b You /b still choose to b give the Torah through me. /b Why? God b said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. /b Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, You have shown me /b Rabbi Akiva’s b Torah, /b now b show me his reward. /b God b said to him: Return /b to where you were. Moses b went back /b and b saw that they were weighing /b Rabbi Akiva’s b flesh in a butcher shop [ i bemakkulin /i ], /b as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses b said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? /b God b said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. /b ,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: b Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns [ i ziyyunin /i ], and they are /b the letters b i shin /i , i ayin /i , i tet /i , i nun /i , i zayin /i ; i gimmel /i /b and b i tzadi /i . Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of /b the letter b i ḥet /i and they would suspend the /b left b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i , /b i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.,Rava explains: b They would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of /b the letter b i ḥet /i as if to /b thereby b say: /b The Holy One, Blessed be b He, lives [ i ḥai /i ] in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend the /b left b leg of /b the letter b i heh /i , as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord [ i beYah /i ] is God, an everlasting [ i olamim /i ] Rock” /b (Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami b said to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b will have Him as b his refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come. /b This is alluded to in the word “ i olamim /i ,” which can also mean: Worlds.,Rabbi Yehuda Nesia b said to /b Rabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; b this is /b what poses b a difficulty for me: What is different /b about that b which is written: /b “For b in the Lord [ i beYah /i ],” and it is not written: /b For b the Lord [ i Yah /i ]? /b ,Rav Ashi responded: It is b as Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught: /b The verse “For in the Lord [ i beYah /i ] is God, an everlasting Rock [ i Tzur olamim /i ]” is understood as follows: The term “ i Tzur olamim /i ” can also mean Creator of worlds. b These /b letters i yod /i and i heh /i that constitute the word i yah /i are referring to the b two worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with [ i be /i ] /b the letter b i heh /i and one with [ i be /i ] /b the letter b i yod /i . And I do not know whether the World-to-Come /b was created b with /b the letter b i yod /i and this world /b was created b with /b the letter b i heh /i , /b or b whether this world /b was created b with /b the letter b i yod /i and the World-to-Come /b was created b with /b the letter b i heh /i . /b , b When /b the verse b states: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created [ i behibare’am /i ]” /b (Genesis 2:4), b do not read /b it as b i behibare’am /i , /b meaning: When they were created; b rather, /b read it as b i beheh bera’am /i , /b meaning: He created them with the letter i heh /i . This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e., this world, were created with the letter i heh /i , and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter i yod /i ., b And for what /b reason b was this world created /b specifically b with /b the letter b i heh /i ? /b It is b because /b the letter i heh /i , b which /b is open on its bottom, has b a similar /b appearance b to a portico, /b which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, b where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, /b i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil. b And what is the reason /b that the left b leg of /b the letter i heh /i b is suspended, /b i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is b because if one repents, he is brought /b back b in /b through the opening at the top.,The Gemara asks: b But /b why not b let him enter through that /b same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would b not be effective, /b since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” /b (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who b comes /b in order b to become pure, he is assisted /b from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who b comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening /b to do so. The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that the letter i heh /i b has a crown /b on its roof? The Gemara answers: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If /b a sinner b returns, /b repenting for his sin, b I tie /b a crown b for him /b from above.,The Gemara asks: b For what /b reason b was the World-to-Come created /b specifically b with /b the letter b i yod /i , /b the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is b because the righteous of /b the world b are /b so b few. And for what /b reason is the left side of b the top of /b the letter i yod /i b bent /b downward? It is b because the righteous who are in /b the World-to-Come b hang their heads /b in shame, b since the actions of one are not similar to those of another. /b In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.,§ b Rav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, and /b in each case a statement b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that constitutes b a refutation of his /b ruling. b One /b is b that which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected, /b but if there are b three /b errors on each and every column then it b shall be interred. /b , b And /b a statement b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that constitutes b a refutation of his /b ruling: A Torah scroll that contains b three /b errors on every column b may be corrected, /b but if there are b four /b errors on every column then it b shall be interred. /b A i tanna /i b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b the Torah scroll b contains one complete column /b with no errors, b it saves the entire /b Torah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this /b is the i halakha /i only b when the majority of the scroll is written properly /b and is not full of errors., b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, what /b is the i halakha /i ? Rav Yosef b said to him: Since /b the column itself b may be corrected, /b it b enables the correction /b of the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: b And /b with regard to the i halakha /i that a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, b this statement /b applies when letters b are missing /b and must be added in the space between the lines. b But /b if there were b extraneous /b letters, b we have no /b problem b with it, /b since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that a scroll with letters b missing /b may b not /b be corrected? b Rav Kahana said: Because it would look speckled /b if one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.,The Gemara relates: b Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had /b many b extraneous /b letters b in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba /b to clarify the i halakha /i . Rabbi Abba b said to him: We said /b that one may not correct the scroll b only in /b a case where the letters are b missing. /b |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 275| 9a. קושי סמוך ללידה רחמנא טהריה אמר רב פפי הנח מעת לעת דרבנן,רב פפא אמר מידי הוא טעמא אלא משום דראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדין עליה הכא נמי ראשה ואבריה כבדין עליה,בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא ראתה ואח"כ הוכר עוברה מהו כיון דבעידנא דחזאי לא הוכר עוברה מטמיא או דלמא כיון דסמוך לה חזאי לא מטמיא,א"ל מידי הוא טעמא אלא משום דראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדין עליה בעידנא דחזאי אין ראשה כבד עליה ואין אבריה כבדין עליה,בעא מיניה ההוא סבא מר' יוחנן הגיע עת וסתה בימי עבורה ולא בדקה מהו קא מיבעיא לי אליבא דמ"ד וסתות דאורייתא מאי כיון דוסתות דאורייתא בעיא בדיקה או דלמא כיון דדמיה מסולקין לא בעיא בדיקה,א"ל תניתוה רבי מאיר אומר אם היתה במחבא והגיע שעת וסתה ולא בדקה טהורה שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים טעמא דאיכא חרדה הא ליכא חרדה והגיע וסתה ולא בדקה טמאה,אלמא וסתות דאורייתא וכיון דאיכא חרדה דמיה מסולקין ולא בעיא בדיקה הכא נמי דמיה מסולקין ולא בעיא בדיקה,מניקה עד שתגמול וכו' ת"ר מניקה שמת בנה בתוך עשרים וארבע חדש הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה לפיכך אם היתה מניקתו והולכת ארבע או חמש שנים דיה שעתה דברי ר"מ,רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים דיין שעתן כל עשרים וארבע חדש לפיכך אם היתה מניקתו ארבע וחמש שנים מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה,כשתמצא לומר לדברי ר"מ דם נעכר ונעשה חלב לדברי רבי יוסי ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון אבריה מתפרקין ואין נפשה חוזרת עד עשרים וארבע חדש,לפיכך דר"מ למה לי משום לפיכך דרבי יוסי,ולפיכך דרבי יוסי למה לי מהו דתימא רבי יוסי תרתי אית ליה קמ"ל,תניא נמי הכי דם נעכר ונעשה חלב דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר אבריה מתפרקין ואין נפשה חוזרת עליה עד עשרים וארבע חדש א"ר אלעאי מאי טעמא דר"מ דכתיב (איוב יד, ד) מי יתן טהור מטמא לא אחד,ורבנן א"ר יוחנן זו שכבת זרע שהוא טמא ואדם הנוצר ממנו טהור,ור"א אומר אלו מי הנדה שהמזה ומזין עליו טהור ונוגע טמא ומזה טהור והכתיב (במדבר יט, כא) ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו מאי מזה נוגע,והכתיב מזה והכתיב נוגע ועוד מזה בעי כבוס נוגע לא בעי כבוס אלא מאי מזה נושא,וליכתוב נושא קמ"ל דעד דדרי כשיעור הזאה הניחא למ"ד הזאה צריכה שיעור אלא למ"ד אין צריכה שיעור מאי איכא למימר,אפילו למ"ד אינה צריכה שיעור ה"מ אגבא דגברא אבל במנא בעינא שיעור כדתנן כמה יהיו במים ויהא בהן כדי הזאה כדי שיטבול ראשי גבעולין ויזה,והיינו דאמר שלמה (קהלת ו, ג) אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני,איזו היא זקנה כל שעברו עליה שלש עונות [סמוך לזקנתה] היכי דמי סמוך לזקנתה אמר רב יהודה כל שחברותיה אומרות עליה זקנה היא ורבי שמעון אומר | 9a. as with regard to blood emitted while experiencing b labor /b pain b close to /b the time of a proper b birth, the Merciful One deems it pure, /b and it should not be treated as the blood of a i zava /i . b Rav Pappi says: /b The miscarriage is not considered a proper birth and therefore her blood is considered the blood of a i zava /i . And b leave /b aside the first i baraita /i and do not raise a contradiction from it, as the i halakha /i that a woman who sees menstrual blood is retroactively impure b for /b a twenty-four-hour b period, /b which is the topic under discussion in that i baraita /i , applies b by rabbinic law, /b and they did not impose this stringency in the case of a woman who miscarries., b Rav Pappa says: That reason /b for the i halakha /i that a pregt woman is not retroactively impure when she experiences bleeding is b only because her head and limbs /b feel b heavy to her. /b Her physical state is compromised, which also causes her regular menstrual cycle to cease. b Here, too, /b in the case of a pregcy that precedes a miscarriage, even if it is not considered a proper birth, b her head and limbs /b felt b heavy to her /b during her pregcy, and therefore it can be assumed that she did not experience a prior menstrual flow.,With regard to the mishna’s ruling that the time of a pregt woman is sufficient, b Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: /b If b she saw /b blood b and /b only b afterward her fetus became known /b to all who see her, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? One can claim that b since at the time when she saw /b the blood b her fetus was not /b yet b known, /b therefore she b becomes impure; or perhaps, since she saw /b blood b in close /b proximity b to /b the time that her fetus became known, she does b not become impure. /b ,Rabbi Zeira b said to him: That reason /b for the i halakha /i that a pregt woman’s time is sufficient is b only because her head and limbs /b feel b heavy to her. /b In this case, where she was yet unaware of her pregcy b at the time when she saw /b her menstrual flow, b neither her head nor her limbs /b felt b heavy to her. /b Therefore she is impure retroactively, like any other woman.,§ b A certain elder asked Rabbi Yoḥa: /b If the b time /b of a woman’s fixed menstrual b cycle arrived during her pregcy and she did not perform an examination, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b I raise /b this b dilemma /b only b according to /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that the obligation for a woman to perform a self-examination during her fixed menstrual b cycle /b applies b by Torah law. What /b is the i halakha /i ? According to that opinion, one can claim that b since /b the obligation of an examination during one’s fixed menstrual b cycle /b is b by Torah law, /b she is b required /b to perform b an examination /b even during her pregcy. b Or perhaps, since her blood has stopped, /b as a pregt woman generally does not experience a flow of menstrual blood, she is b not required /b to perform b an examination. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: You learned /b the answer to your dilemma from a mishna (39a): b Rabbi Meir says: If /b a woman b was in hiding /b from danger, b and the time of her /b fixed menstrual b cycle came and she did not examine /b herself, nevertheless she is b ritually pure, as /b it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because b fear dispels /b the flow of menstrual b blood. /b Rabbi Yoḥa explains the proof: The b reason /b she is pure is b that there is fear, /b from which it may be inferred that in a case where b there is no fear and the time of her /b fixed menstrual b cycle arrived and she did not examine /b herself, she would be b impure. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa concludes: b Evidently, /b from the fact that Rabbi Meir rules that a woman is impure if the time of her period passed without a proper examination, he maintains that the obligation for a woman to perform an examination at the time of her fixed menstrual b cycle /b applies b by Torah law. And, /b nevertheless, b since there is fear, her blood has stopped and /b she is b not required /b to perform b an examination. Here, too, /b in the case of a pregt woman, b her blood has stopped and /b therefore she is b not required /b to perform b an examination. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: The time of b a nursing woman /b is sufficient b until she weans /b her child from nursing. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i (see i Tosefta /i 2:1): With regard to b a nursing woman whose child dies within twenty-four months /b of his birth, b she is like all /b other b women /b with regard to her impurity status after seeing menstrual blood, b and /b therefore b she transmits ritual impurity /b retroactively b for /b a twenty-four-hour b period or from examination to examination. Therefore, if /b a woman b continued to nurse /b her child b for four or five years, her time is sufficient /b and she does not retroactively transmit impurity for the entire four or five years. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon /b all b say: /b With regard to nursing women, b their time is sufficient /b for b an entire twenty-four months. Therefore, if she nursed him for four or five years, /b then after the first twenty-four months have passed, b she transmits ritual impurity /b retroactively b for /b a twenty-four-hour b period or from examination to examination. /b ,The Gemara discusses the reasoning of each opinion: b When /b you analyze the matter b you will find /b that one must b say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir /b the case is that menstrual b blood spoils and becomes milk. /b Therefore, it follows that this status continues for as long as she is nursing. By contrast, b according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, her limbs become dislocated and her spirit, /b i.e., her full strength and her regular menstrual cycle, b does not return /b to her b until twenty-four months /b have passed.,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the statement b of Rabbi Meir: Therefore, /b if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient? Since his reasoning is that the menstrual blood of a nursing woman spoils and becomes milk, it is obvious that this applies as long as she continues to nurse him. The Gemara answers: This statement is indeed extraneous. It merely serves to form a parallel between the statement of Rabbi Meir and that of the other Sages. In other words, it was appended b due to /b the statement: b Therefore, /b if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei. /b ,The Gemara further asks: b And why do I /b need the statement: b Therefore, /b if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei? /b The Gemara explains that this clause is necessary, b lest you say /b that b Rabbi Yosei holds /b that there are b two /b reasons that a pregt woman’s time is sufficient, both because her blood spoils and because her limbs become dislocated. Therefore, the additional clause b teaches us /b that Rabbi Yosei maintains that the reason is only that her limbs become dislocated, and consequently she transmits retroactive impurity after twenty-four months., b That /b explanation b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : Menstrual b blood spoils and becomes milk; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: Her limbs become dislocated and her spirit does not return to her until twenty-four months /b have passed. The Gemara analyzes their respective reasons. b Rabbi Ilai says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? /b It is based upon a verse, b as it is written: “Who can bring a pure thing out of an impure? /b Is it b not the One?” /b (Job 14:4). In other words, is it not true that the One, i.e., God, can bring a pure thing, such as milk, out of an impure thing, such as menstrual blood?,The Gemara asks: b And the /b other b Sages, /b i.e., Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, how do they interpret this verse? b Rabbi Yoḥa says /b that according to those Sages b this /b verse is referring to b semen, which is impure, and /b yet b the person that is formed from it is pure. /b , b And Rabbi Elazar says: /b Those Sages maintain that this verse is referring to b the water of sprinkling, /b i.e., the purification water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. b As /b the individual who b sprinkles /b the water and the one b upon whom /b the water is b sprinkled /b are both b pure, and /b yet one who b touches /b the purification water is rendered b impure. /b The Gemara asks: b Is /b the b one who sprinkles /b the water actually b pure? But isn’t it written: “He who sprinkles the water of sprinkling will wash his clothes, /b and he who touches the water of sprinkling will be impure until evening” (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: b What /b is the meaning of the term: b “He who sprinkles”? /b It means: b He who touches. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But it is written: “He who sprinkles,” and it is written /b in the same verse: “And b he who touches.” /b How can these two terms be referring to the same individual? b And furthermore, /b that verse states that b one who sprinkles requires /b the b washing /b of his b clothes, /b indicating a severe level of impurity, whereas b one who touches does not require /b the b washing /b of his b clothes. /b Evidently, the phrase “he who sprinkles” is not referring to one who touches. b Rather, /b the Gemara explains: b What /b is the meaning of: b “He who sprinkles”? /b This is referring to b one who carries /b the purification waters.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b let /b the Torah b write /b explicitly: b One who carries. /b Why does it state “he who sprinkles” when it is referring to carrying? The Gemara answers: The use of the term sprinkling in reference to carrying b teaches us /b that one becomes impure b only by carrying /b the b measure /b required for b sprinkling. /b The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to the one who said /b that b sprinkling requires /b a minimum b measure /b of water. b But according to the one who said /b that b sprinkling does not require /b a minimum b measure /b of water, b what can be said? /b According to this opinion, there is apparently no concept of a measure required for sprinkling.,The Gemara answers: b Even according to the one who said /b that b sprinkling does not require /b a minimum b measure /b of water, b that statement /b applies only to the measure of purification water that must be sprinkled b onto the back, /b i.e., onto the body, b of /b the impure b man. /b In this regard, any amount will suffice. b But with regard to the vessel /b into which one dips the hyssop in order to sprinkle the water, it b requires /b a certain b measure /b of water. b As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Para /i 12:5): b How much /b water must b be in /b the vessel so that it b will be enough for sprinkling? /b It must be b enough to dip the tops of the stems /b of the hyssop branch, used in the rite of purification, into the water b and sprinkle /b it.,The Gemara concludes the discussion of the purification waters with the following observation: b And that is /b the meaning of that b which /b King b Solomon said: “I said I would become wise, but it eludes me” /b (Ecclesiastes 7:23). According to tradition, even Solomon in his great wisdom could not understand the contradictory nature of the sprinkling of purification water, as it renders an impure person pure, and a pure person impure.,§ The mishna teaches: b Who is /b the woman characterized as b an elderly woman /b in this context? It is b any /b woman for b whom three /b typical menstrual b cycles /b of thirty days b passed /b at a stage of her life b close to her old age, /b during which she saw no menstrual blood. The Gemara asks: b What is considered close to old age? Rav Yehuda says: Any /b woman b about whom her friends say /b that b she is an elderly woman. And Rabbi Shimon says: /b |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 266, 274| 119a. זה המכיר מקום חבירו בישיבה איכא דאמרי אמר ר"א זה המקבל פני חבירו בישיבה,מאי למכסה עתיק (יומין) זה המכסה דברים שכיסה עתיק יומין ומאי נינהו סתרי תורה ואיכא דאמרי זה המגלה דברים שכיסה עתיק יומין מאי נינהו טעמי תורה,אמר רב כהנא משום רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי מאי דכתיב (תהלים ד, א) למנצח מזמור לדוד זמרו למי שנוצחין אותו ושמח,בא וראה שלא כמדת הקב"ה מדת בשר ודם בשר ודם מנצחין אותו ועצב אבל הקב"ה נוצחין אותו ושמח שנאמר (תהלים קו, כג) ויאמר להשמידם לולי משה בחירו עמד בפרץ לפניו,אמר רב כהנא משום רבי ישמעאל בר' יוסי אמר ר"ש בן לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה מאי דכתיב (יחזקאל א, ח) וידי אדם מתחת כנפיהם ידו כתיב זה ידו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שפרוסה תחת כנפי החיות כדי לקבל בעלי תשובה מיד מדת הדין,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל כסף וזהב שבעולם יוסף לקטו והביאו למצרים שנאמר (בראשית מז, יד) וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף הנמצא אין לי אלא שבארץ מצרים ושבארץ כנען בשאר ארצות מנין תלמוד לומר (בראשית מא, נז) וכל הארץ באו מצרימה,וכשעלו ישראל ממצרים העלוהו עמהן שנאמר (שמות יב, לו) וינצלו את מצרים רב אסי אמר עשאוה כמצודה זו שאין בה דגן רבי שמעון אמר כמצולה שאין בה דגים,והיה מונח עד רחבעם בא שישק מלך מצרים ונטלו מרחבעם שנאמר (מלכים א יד, כה) ויהי בשנה החמישית למלך רחבעם עלה שישק מלך מצרים [על ירושלים] ויקח את אוצרות בית ה' ואת אוצרות בית המלך בא זרח מלך כוש ונטלו משישק,בא אסא ונטלוהו מזרח מלך כוש ושיגרו להדרימון בן טברימון באו בני עמון ונטלום מהדרימון בן טברימון בא יהושפט ונטלו מבני עמון והיה מונח עד אחז,בא סנחריב ונטלו מאחז בא חזקיה ונטלו מסנחריב והיה מונח עד צדקיה באו כשדיים ונטלוהו מצדקיה באו פרסיים ונטלוהו מכשדיים באו יוונים ונטלוהו מפרסיים באו רומיים ונטלוהו מיד יוונים ועדיין מונח ברומי:,אמר רבי חמא (בר) חנינא שלש מטמוניות הטמין יוסף במצרים אחת נתגלה לקרח ואחת נתגלה לאנטונינוס בן אסוירוס ואחת גנוזה לצדיקים לעתיד לבא,(קהלת ה, יב) עושר שמור לבעליו לרעתו אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש זו עשרו של קרח (שנאמר) (דברים יא, ו) ואת כל היקום אשר ברגליהם א"ר אלעזר זה ממונו של אדם שמעמידו על רגליו א"ר לוי משאוי שלש מאות פרדות לבנות היו מפתחות בית גנזיו של קרח וכולהו אקלידי וקליפי דגלדא:,(דיא"ש אדי"ש כשד"ך מאוד"ך סימן) א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן (תהלים קיח, כא) אודך כי עניתני אמר דוד אבן מאסו הבונים היתה לראש פנה אמר ישי מאת ה' היתה זאת אמרו אחיו זה היום עשה ה' אמר שמואל,אנא ה' הושיעה נא אמרו אחיו אנא ה' הצליחה נא אמר דוד ברוך הבא בשם ה' אמר ישי ברכנוכם מבית ה' אמר שמואל אל ה' ויאר לנו אמרו כולן אסרו חג בעבותים אמר שמואל אלי אתה ואודך אמר דוד אלהי ארוממך אמרו כולן:,תנן התם מקום שנהגו | 119a. b This is one who recognizes his colleague’s place in the yeshiva, /b as he is there often enough to know where everyone sits. b Some say /b that b Rabbi Elazar said /b a different explanation: b This is /b one b who greets his colleague in the yeshiva, /b as he is always there to meet him.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the continuation of this verse: b “For stately clothing [ i limekhaseh atik /i ]” This is /b one b who conceals [ i mekhaseh /i ] /b matters b that the Ancient of Days [ i atik yomin /i ], /b i.e., God, b concealed. And what are these? /b These are b the secrets of the Torah, /b the esoteric Act of Creation and the Act of the Divine Chariot, which should remain hidden. b And some say: This /b verse is referring to one b who reveals matters that the Ancient of Days concealed. And what are these? /b These are the b reasons /b for different mitzvot in the b Torah, /b which should be kept secret.,The Gemara cites another statement attributed to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. b Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “ i Lamenatzeaḥ /i a psalm of David” /b (e.g., Psalms 13:1)? It means: b Sing to the One who rejoices when conquered [ i shenotzḥin oto /i ]. /b , b Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood: When a flesh and blood /b person b is conquered, he is sad; however, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, is conquered, He rejoices, as it is stated: “Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach, /b to turn back His wrath lest He should destroy them” (Psalms 106:23). In this verse Moses is called “His chosen,” although he defeated God, as it were, by preventing Him from destroying the Jewish people.,Furthermore, b Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b who said that b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, citing Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written /b in the description of the sacred i ḥayyot /i , the angels that carried the Divine chariot: b “And they had the hands of a man under their wings” /b (Ezekiel 1:8)? Although the word is read hands in the plural, actually b “his hand” is written /b in the singular. b This is the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He, that is spread under the wings of the i ḥayyot /i to accept penitents from /b the claims of b the attribute of justice. /b God accepts sincere penitents, despite the fact that in accordance with the strict attribute of justice they should not be given the opportunity to repent., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: Joseph collected all the silver and gold in the world and brought it to Egypt, as it is stated: “And Joseph collected all the money found /b in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 47:14). b I have /b derived b only /b that he collected the money b that /b was b in the land of Egypt and that /b was b in the Land of Canaan. From where /b do I derive that he also collected all the money b that /b was b in other lands? The verse states “And all the land came to Egypt /b to buy food from Joseph, because the famine was sore in all the earth” (Genesis 41:57)., b And when the Jewish people ascended from Egypt they took /b this treasure b with them, as it is stated: “They despoiled [ i vayenatzlu /i ] Egypt” /b (Exodus 12:36). The Sages explain this term. b Rav Asi said: They made /b Egypt b like this trap [ i metzuda /i ] /b for birds, where grain is usually placed as bait, b in which there is no grain. Rabbi Shimon said: /b They made Egypt b like the depths [ i kimetzula /i ] /b of the sea b in which there are no fish. /b , b And /b this treasure b remained /b in Eretz Yisrael b until /b the time of b Rehoboam, /b at which point b Shishak, king of Egypt, came and took it from Rehoboam, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. And he took the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; /b and he took away all” (I Kings 14:25–26). b Zerah, king of Kush, /b who ruled over Egypt, later b came and took it from Shishak. /b , b Asa came and took it from Zerah, king of Kush, /b when he defeated him in battle (II Chronicles 14) b and sent it to Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon, /b king of Aram (see I Kings 15). b The children of Ammon came and took it from Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon, /b as learned by tradition. b Jehosaphat came and took it from the children of Ammon /b (see II Chronicles 20), b and it remained /b in Eretz Yisrael b until /b the reign of b Ahaz. /b , b Sennacherib came and took it from Ahaz. Hezekiah came and took it from Sennacherib, and it remained /b in Jerusalem b until /b the reign of b Zedekiah. The Chaldeans came and took it from Zedekiah. The Persians came and took it from the Chaldeans. The Greeks came and took it from the Persians. The Romans came and took it from the Greeks, and /b this treasure of silver and gold b still remains in Rome. /b ,With regard to this matter, b Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Joseph hid three treasures in Egypt. One /b of them b was revealed to Korah, one was revealed to Antoninos ben Asveiros, /b king of Rome, b and one is hidden for the righteous in the future. /b ,With regard to Korah’s wealth, the Gemara cites the verse: b “Riches kept by his owner to his hurt” /b (Ecclesiastes 5:12). b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This is the wealth of Korah, /b which caused him to grow arrogant and lead to his destruction. b As it is stated: /b “And what He did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben; how the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, b and all the sustece that was at their feet” /b (Deuteronomy 11:6). b Rabbi Elazar said: This /b is referring to b a person’s money that stands him upon his /b own two b feet. Rabbi Levi said: The keys to Korah’s treasuries were /b a b load of three hundred /b strong b white mules, and they were all keys [ i aklidei /i ] and locks /b made b of leather. /b , b i Dalet, yod, alef, shin, alef, dalet, yod, shin, khaf, shin, dalet, khaf, mem, alef, vav, dalet, khaf /i /b is b a mnemonic /b device for the following passage. Returning to the issue of i hallel /i , the Gemara states that these psalms include choruses in which each section is sung by a different person. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said /b that b David recited: “I will give thanks to You, for You have answered me” /b (Psalms 118:21), with regard to the success of his reign. b Yishai recited: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief keystone” /b (Psalms 118:22). b The brothers of /b David b recited: “This is the Lord’s doing; /b it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalms 118:23). b Samuel /b the Prophet b recited: “This is the day which the Lord has made; /b we will rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalms 118:24)., b The brothers of /b David b recited: “We beseech You, Lord, save now” /b (Psalms 118:25). b David recited: “We beseech You, Lord, make us prosper now” /b (Psalms 118:25). b Yishai recited: “Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord” /b (Psalms 118:26). b Samuel recited: “We bless you out of the house of the Lord” /b (Psalms 118:26). b They all recited: “The Lord is God, and has given us light” /b (Psalms 118:27). b Samuel recited: “Order the Festival procession with boughs, /b even to the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27). b David recited: “You are my God, and I will give thanks to You” /b (Psalms 118:28). b They all recited: “You are my God, I will exalt You” /b (Psalms 118:28)., b We learned /b in a mishna b there, /b in i Sukka /i : In b a place where they were accustomed /b |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272| 2b. אי נמי שדות בכסף יקנו (ירמיה לב,מד) תני האישה נקנית,וניתני התם האיש קונה מעיקרא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן ומאי לישנא דרבנן דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש,וניתני הכא האיש קונה משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא וקונה את עצמה בדידה תנא נמי רישא בדידה,וניתני האיש קונה ומקנה משום דאיכא מיתת הבעל דלאו איהו קא מקני מן שמיא הוא דמקני לה,ואי בעית אימא אי תנא קונה ה"א אפילו בעל כרחה תנא האשה נקנית דמדעתה אין שלא מדעתה לא,ומאי איריא דתני שלוש ליתני שלושה משום דקא בעי למיתני דרך ודרך לשון נקבה הוא דכתיב והדעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה (שמות יח,כ),ואלא הא דתניא בשבעה דרכים בודקין את הזב ניתני שבע משום דקא בעי למיתני דרך ואשכחן דרך דאיקרי לשון זכר דכתיב בדרך אחד יצאו אליך ובשבעה דרכים ינוסו לפניך (דברים כח,ז) אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי וקשיא נמי מתני' אהדדי,קראי אהדדי לא קשיין הכא דבתורה קאי ותורה איקרי לשון נקבה דכתיב תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש (תהילים יט,ח) כתב לה בלשון נקבה התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה כתב לה בלשון זכר,מתני' אהדדי לא קשיין הכא דלגבי אשה קאי קתני לה בלשון נקבה התם דלגבי איש קאי דדרכו של איש ליבדק ואין דרכה של אשה ליבדק דהא אשה נמי באונס מיטמאה תני לשון זכר,מ"ט תני שלוש משום דרכים ניתני דברים וניתני שלושה משום דקבעי למיתני ביאה וביאה איקרי דרך דכתיב ודרך גבר בעלמה כן דרך אשה מנאפת (משלי ל,יט-כ),הא תינח ביאה כסף ושטר מאי איכא למימר משום ביאה,ותני תרתי אטו חדא הנך נמי צורך ביאה נינהו,ואי בעית אימא הא מני ר' שמעון היא דתניא ר"ש אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה כי יקח איש אישה (דברים כב,יג) ולא כתב כי תלקח אשה לאיש מפני שדרכו של איש לחזר על אשה ואין דרכה של אשה לחזר על איש משל לאדם שאבדה לו אבידה מי חוזר על מי בעל האבידה מחזר על אבידתו,והא דתנן בז' דרכים בודקין את הזב ליתני דברים התם הא קמ"ל דדרכא דמיכלא יתירא לאותיי לידי זיבה ודרכה דמישתיא יתירא לאתויי לידי זיבה,והא דתנן אתרוג שווה לאילן בג' דרכים ליתני דברים משום דבעינן מתני סיפא ולירק בדרך אחד סיפא נמי ניתני דבר | 2b. b Alternatively, /b it can be proven that purchasing a field with money is called an acquisition from the verse: b “They shall acquire fields with money” /b (Jeremiah 32:44). Consequently, as the i tanna /i wanted to teach that a woman can be betrothed with money, b he taught: A woman is acquired. /b This explains why the terminology of acquisition is used in this mishna.,The Gemara asks: b But let /b the mishna b teach there, /b in the next chapter: b A man acquires. /b The Gemara explains: b Initially, /b the mishna b taught /b using b the language of the Torah, /b in which betrothal is called taking. b And ultimately, /b in the next chapter, b it taught /b using b the language of the Sages. And what /b is the reason that betrothal is called i kiddushin /i , literally, consecration, in the b language of the Sages? /b The reason is b that /b through betrothal the husband b renders her forbidden to everyone like consecrated /b property. Therefore, this act is referred to as consecration.,The Gemara asks another question with regard to the difference in wording between the two i mishnayot /i : b And let it teach here, /b as in the following chapter: b A man acquires. /b Why does this mishna teach: The woman is acquired, with the woman as the subject of the sentence? The Gemara answers: This is b because /b the i tanna /i b wanted to teach /b in b the latter clause /b of the mishna: b And she acquires herself, /b which is stated b with regard to her. /b Therefore, the i tanna /i b also taught /b the i halakha /i stated b with regard to her /b in b the first clause. /b ,The Gemara further asks: b But /b if this is the reason, the mishna could have been formulated entirely differently. b Let it teach: The man can acquire /b a woman b and transfer /b authority, i.e., grant her the release from marriage in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara answers: The mishna could not use the expression: Transfer, b because there is /b the case of b the husband’s death, in /b which b it is not he who transfers /b authority. Rather, b it is from Heaven that /b her freedom b is transferred to her. /b Therefore, the mishna could not issue a general statement that the man can actively transfer to the woman her release from marriage., b And if you wish, say /b instead another explanation. b If /b the mishna had b taught: /b The man b acquires /b the woman, b I would say /b that he can acquire her b even against her will, /b as indicated by the expression: He acquires. One might have assumed that the betrothal depends on the husband, without the need for the woman’s consent. Therefore the mishna b taught: The woman is acquired, /b from which it may be inferred b that with her consent, yes, /b he can acquire her as a wife, but b when /b he acts b without her consent, no, /b she is not betrothed to him.,The Gemara continues to analyze the style of the mishna: b And why does /b the i tanna /i b specifically teach: Three [ i shalosh /i ] /b ways, formulated in the feminine? b Let it teach: Three [ i shelosha /i ] /b ways, formulated in the masculine. The Gemara explains: The mishna uses this form b because it wants to teach /b the word b way [ i derekh /i ], and i derekh /i is formulated /b in the b feminine, as it is written: “And you shall show them the way [ i derekh /i ] in which [ i bah /i ] they must walk” /b (Exodus 18:20). The term i bah /i , which is referring to i derekh /i , is formulated in the feminine.,The Gemara challenges: b But /b with regard to b that which is taught /b in a mishna ( i Nazir /i 65b): b One examines a i zav /i in seven [ i shiva /i ] ways [ i derakhim /i ], /b where i shiva /i is formulated in the masculine, b let it teach: Seven [ i sheva /i ] /b ways, formulated in the feminine. The Gemara answers: The mishna uses the masculine formulation of the term seven b because it wanted to teach: i Derekh /i , and we find /b that the word b i derekh /i is referred to /b in the b masculine form, as it is written: “They shall come out against you one way [ i derekh /i ], and shall flee before you seven [ i shiva /i ] ways” /b (Deuteronomy 28:7). The Gemara asks: b If so, the verses contradict each other, /b as in one verse the term i derekh /i is masculine, and in the other verse it is feminine. b And /b furthermore, b the i mishnayot /i contradict each other, /b as in one mishna i derekh /i is masculine while in the other it is feminine.,The Gemara answers: b The verses do not contradict each other. Here, /b that verse: “The way in which they must walk” (Exodus 18:20), b is referring to the Torah, /b i.e., the way mentioned here is referring to the path of the Torah, b and Torah is referred to /b in the b feminine form, as it is written: “The Torah of the Lord is perfect [ i temima /i ], restoring the soul” /b (Psalms 19:8). The word i temima /i is in the feminine. Consequently, in reference to the Torah the verse b writes: /b i Derekh /i , b formulated /b in the b feminine. There, that /b verse: “Shall flee before you seven ways” (Deuteronomy 28:7), b is referring to war, /b and b as it is the way of a man to wage war and it is not the way of a woman to wage war, /b it is appropriate to speak in the masculine. Therefore, the verse b writes /b the word i derekh /i b formulated /b in the b masculine. /b ,Likewise, the b i mishnayot /i do not contradict each other: Here, where it is referring to a woman, the mishna teaches /b i derekh /i b formulated /b in the b feminine. There, /b with regard to the examination of a i zav /i , b where it is referring to a man, as /b it is b common for a man to undergo an examination /b to determine if his emission has a cause other than a gonorrhea-like discharge [ i ziva /i ] b but it is not common for a woman to undergo an examination, since, /b unlike a man, b a woman is rendered impure even by circumstances beyond /b her b control, it taught /b and used the word i derekh /i b formulated /b in the b masculine. /b Even if a woman has an emission of blood for a reason other than illness, she is still impure. Consequently, in her case there is no reason for an examination to see what might have caused her discharge.,The Gemara asks another question with regard to the language of the mishna: b What is the reason /b that the mishna b teaches: Three [ i shalosh /i ], /b formulated in the feminine? This is b because /b it wanted to teach: b Ways. But /b if so, b let it teach /b instead the word: b Matters, /b i.e., a woman can be acquired through three matters, b and /b as this term is masculine, b let it teach three [ i shelosha /i ], /b in the masculine. The Gemara answers: The mishna did do so b because it wanted to teach intercourse /b as one of these ways, b and intercourse is called a way /b in the Torah, b as it is written: “And the way of a man with a young woman, so is the way of an adulterous woman” /b (Proverbs 30:19–20). For this reason the mishna used the term ways rather than matters.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b This works out well /b with regard to b intercourse, /b which is referred to as a way. But b what is there to say /b concerning b money and a document? /b The mishna could have used the word matters with regard to these modes of betrothal. The Gemara answers: b Because /b it was necessary to mention b intercourse, /b which is called a way, the mishna used the word way in reference to the other two modes as well.,The Gemara asks: b And /b would the mishna b teach two /b cases in a particular manner b due to one? /b Since the word way suits only one of the three modes of betrothal, why didn’t the mishna use the term: Matters, on account of the other two? The Gemara answers: b These, too, are for the sake of sexual intercourse. /b Since the marital relationship, in which intercourse is paramount, is the ultimate purpose of betrothal, the mishna considers this clause as the most important part of the i halakha /i ., b And if you wish, say /b instead: In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b mishna, which teaches i derekh /i ? b It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say: “When a man takes a woman” /b (Deuteronomy 22:13) b and did not write: “When a woman is taken by a man? Because it is the way [ i derekh /i ] of a man to pursue a woman, and it is not the way of a woman to pursue a man. /b The Gemara cites b a parable of a man who lost an item. Who searches for what? /b Certainly b the owner of the lost item searches for his lost item, /b not the other way around. Since woman was created from man’s lost side, the man seeks that which he has lost. To allude to this statement of Rabbi Shimon, the mishna employs the term i derekh /i in this context.,The Gemara asks: b But /b with regard to b that which we learned /b in a mishna: b One examines a i zav /i in seven ways, /b why does it use this phraseology? b Let it teach /b the word: b Matters. /b The Gemara answers that the mishna b there teaches us this /b i halakha /i , b that it is the way of excessive eating to lead to i ziva /i , and /b likewise b it is the way of excessive drinking to lead to i ziva /i . /b Therefore, the mishna uses the phrase: Seven ways, to emphasize that there are ways of behavior that can cause the emission of a i zav /i .,The Gemara further challenges: b And /b with regard to b that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Bikkurim /i 2:6): The i halakhot /i of b an i etrog /i /b tree b correspond to /b those of b a tree in three ways. Let it teach /b instead: Three b matters. /b The Gemara answers: b Because it wants to teach in /b the b latter clause: And /b the i halakhot /i of an i etrog /i tree correspond b to /b those of b a vegetable in one way, /b therefore the mishna uses the term: Ways, in the first clause as well. The Gemara asks: In the b latter clause too, let /b the mishna b teach: Matter, /b rather than: Way. |
|
| 35. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272 |
36. 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, 265, 266, 269, 274| 21b. על הייחוד ועל הפנויה,יחוד דאורייתא הוא דאמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יהוצדק רמז לייחוד מן התורה מניין שנאמר (דברים יג, ז) כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך וכי בן אם מסית בן אב אינו מסית אלא לומר לך בן מתייחד עם אמו ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה,אלא אימא גזרו על ייחוד דפנויה,(מלכים א א, ה) ואדניה בן חגית מתנשא לאמר אני אמלוך אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שביקש להולמו ולא הולמתו,(מלכים א א, ה) ויעש לו רכב ופרשים וחמשים איש רצים לפניו מאי רבותא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כולן נטולי טחול וחקוקי כפות רגלים היו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא ירבה לו סוסים אלא כדי מרכבתו וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד אלא כדי ליתן אספניא וכותב לו ס"ת לשמו יוצא למלחמה מוציאה עמה נכנס הוא מכניסה עמו יושב בדין היא עמו מיסב היא כנגדו שנאמר (דברים יז, יט) והיתה עמו וקרא בו כל ימי חייו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן (דברים יז, טז) לא ירבה לו סוסים יכול אפילו כדי מרכבתו ופרשיו תלמוד לומר לו לו אינו מרבה אבל מרבה הוא כדי רכבו ופרשיו הא מה אני מקיים סוסים סוסים הבטלנין מניין שאפילו סוס א' והוא בטל שהוא בלא ירבה ת"ל (דברים יז, טז) למען הרבות סוס,וכי מאחר דאפילו סוס אחד והוא בטל קאי בלא ירבה סוסים למה לי לעבור בל"ת על כל סוס וסוס,טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו הא לאו הכי ה"א אפילו כדי רכבו ופרשיו נמי לא לא צריכא לאפושי:,וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו אלא כדי ליתן אספניא: ת"ר (דברים יז, יז) וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו יכול אפילו כדי ליתן אספניא ת"ל לו לו אינו מרבה אבל מרבה הוא כדי ליתן אספניא,טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא אפילו כדי ליתן אספניא נמי לא לא צריכא להרווחה,השתא דאמרת לו לדרשה (דברים יז, יז) לא ירבה לו נשים מאי דרשת ביה למעוטי הדיוטות,רב יהודה רמי כתיב (מלכים א ה, ו) ויהי לשלמה ארבעים אלף ארוות סוסים למרכבתו וכתיב (דברי הימים ב ט, כה) ויהי לשלמה ארבעת אלפים (ארוות) סוסים הא כיצד אם ארבעים אלף איצטבלאות היו כל אחד ואחד היו בו ד' אלפים ארוות סוסים ואם ד' אלפים איצטבלאות היו כל אחד ואחד היו בו ארבעים אלף ארוות סוסים,(רבי) יצחק רמי כתיב (דברי הימים ב ט, כ) אין כסף נחשב בימי שלמה למאומה וכתיב (מלכים א י, כז) ויתן) שלמה את הכסף בירושלים כאבנים לא קשיא כאן קודם שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה כאן לאחר שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה,אמר רבי יצחק בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים והעלה שירטון ועליו נבנה כרך גדול שברומי,ואמר ר' יצחק מפני מה לא נתגלו טעמי תורה שהרי שתי מקראות נתגלו טעמן נכשל בהן גדול העולם כתיב (דברים יז, יז) לא ירבה לו נשים אמר שלמה אני ארבה ולא אסור וכתיב (מלכים א יא, ד) ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו,וכתיב (דברים יז, טז) לא ירבה לו סוסים ואמר שלמה אני ארבה ולא אשיב וכתיב (מלכים א י, כט) ותצא מרכבה ממצרים בשש וגו':,וכותב ספר תורה לשמו: תנא ובלבד שלא יתנאה בשל אבותיו,אמר (רבא) אף על פי שהניחו לו אבותיו לאדם ספר תורה מצוה לכתוב משלו שנאמר (דברים לא, יט) ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה איתיביה אביי וכותב לו ספר תורה לשמו שלא יתנאה בשל אחרים מלך אין הדיוט לא,לא צריכא לשתי תורות וכדתניא (דברים יז, יח) וכתב לו את משנה וגו' כותב לשמו שתי תורות אחת שהיא יוצאה ונכנסת עמו ואחת שמונחת לו בבית גנזיו,אותה שיוצאה ונכנסת עמו (עושה אותה כמין קמיע ותולה בזרועו שנאמר (תהלים טז, ח) שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד כי מימיני בל אמוט) אינו נכנס בה לא לבית המרחץ ולא לבית הכסא שנאמר (דברים יז, יט) והיתה עמו וקרא בו מקום הראוי לקראות בו,אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא מר עוקבא בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי,מאן הדיוטות אמר רב חסדא כותאי מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה,תניא רבי יוסי אומר ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל אילמלא (לא) קדמו משה במשה הוא אומר (שמות יט, ג) ומשה עלה אל האלהים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז, ו) הוא עזרא עלה מבבל מה עלייה האמור כאן תורה אף עלייה האמור להלן תורה,במשה הוא אומר (דברים ד, יד) ואותי צוה ה' בעת ההיא ללמד אתכם חקים ומשפטים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז, י) כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרוש את תורת ה' (אלהיו) ולעשות וללמד בישראל חוק ומשפט ואף על פי שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו נשתנה על ידו הכתב שנאמר | 21b. b about seclusion, /b that a man should not be secluded with women who are forbidden to him, b and about a single woman. /b ,The Gemara objects: b Seclusion /b with a woman forbidden by familial ties b is /b prohibited b by Torah /b law, and was not a rabbinic decree issued in the time of David. b As Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where /b is there b an allusion to /b the i halakha /i that b seclusion /b is forbidden b by Torah /b law? b As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” /b (Deuteronomy 13:7). One can ask: b But does the son of a mother entice, and does the son of a father not entice? /b Why mention only the son of a mother? b Rather, /b this verse serves b to tell you /b that only b a son /b may b be secluded with his mother. /b Sons are frequently with their mother, and two half-brothers of one mother consequently have the opportunity to grow close to one another. b But another /b individual b may not be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, /b including a stepmother. Therefore, half-brothers of one father spend less time together.,Since seclusion, then, is prohibited by Torah law, how did Rav say that it was prohibited by a decree issued in King David’s time? b Rather, say /b that b they decreed against seclusion /b of a man b with a single woman, /b to prevent occurrences like that of Amnon and Tamar.,Apropos Amnon, the Gemara cites traditions about another son of David: b “Now Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king” /b (I Kings 1:5). b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b The term “exalted himself” b teaches that he sought /b for the monarchy b to fit him, but it did not fit him. /b ,The verse continues: b “And he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him” /b (I Kings 1:5). The Gemara asks: b What is the novelty /b of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings, with designs on the throne? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b What was unique was that the runners b all had /b their b spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, /b removing the flesh of their feet, and these two procedures enhanced their speed., strong MISHNA: /strong The king b “shall not accumulate many horses for himself” /b (Deuteronomy 17:16), but b only /b enough b for his chariot /b in war and in peace. b “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” /b (Deuteronomy 17:17), but b only enough to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece [ i aspanya /i ]. And /b the king b writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, /b as stipulated in Deuteronomy 17:18. When b he goes out to war, he brings it out with him. /b When b he comes in /b from war, b he brings it in with him. /b When b he sits in judgment, it is with him. /b When b he reclines /b to eat, b it is opposite him, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life” /b (Deuteronomy 17:19)., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “He shall not accumulate many horses [ i susim /i ] for himself /b nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses [ i sus /i ]” (Deuteronomy 17:16): One b might /b have thought that he shall not have b even /b enough horses b for his chariot and riders. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “For himself,” /b teaching that only if the horses are b for himself, /b for personal pleasure, b he shall not accumulate /b them, b but he may accumulate /b horses b for his chariot and riders. How, then, do I realize /b the meaning of b “horses [ i susim /i ]” /b in the verse? It is referring to b idle horses, /b which serve no purpose other than glorifying the king. b From where /b is it derived b that even /b if the king has b one horse that is idle, that he /b transgresses b “he shall not accumulate”? The verse states: “For the sake of accumulating horses [ i sus /i ],” /b with the term for horses written in the singular.,The Gemara asks: b But once /b the verse taught b that even one horse that is idle stands /b to be included in the prohibition of b “he shall not accumulate,” why do I /b need the plural form b “horses” /b in the first clause of the verse? The Gemara responds: Its purpose is b to /b teach that a king would b transgress /b the b prohibition /b an additional time b for each and every /b idle b horse. /b ,The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific b reason /b for limiting the prohibition to idle horses is b that the Merciful One writes: /b “He shall not accumulate b for himself,” /b which indicates, b consequently, /b that if the Torah had b not /b written b this, I would say /b that b even /b enough horses b for his chariot and riders /b are b not /b permitted; and this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: b No, /b the term “for himself” is b necessary /b to teach that it is permitted for the king b to add /b a reasonable number of horses beyond the necessary minimum, and it is only strictly personal use that is prohibited.,The mishna teaches: b “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” /b (Deuteronomy 17:17), but b only enough to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : From the command b “neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” /b one b might /b have thought that he should not have b even enough to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece. /b To counter this, b the verse states: “For himself,” /b teaching that only if the silver and gold is b for himself, /b for personal pleasure, b he shall not accumulate /b it, b but he may accumulate enough /b silver and gold b to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece. /b ,The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific b reason /b for limiting the prohibition to personal wealth accumulation is b that the Merciful One writes: /b “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold b for himself,” /b which indicates, b consequently, /b that if the Torah had b not /b written b this, I would say /b that it b is not /b permitted for the king to accumulate b even enough /b silver and gold b to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece; /b this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: b No, /b the term “for himself” is b necessary /b to teach that the king is permitted b to /b allow for b a liberal appropriation /b to the military budget, so that the army has a comfortable ficial cushion.,The Gemara asks: b Now that you have said /b that the term b “for himself” /b in the verse is stated b for /b the purpose of b a derivation /b for practical i halakha /i , which limits and narrows the verse’s scope, b what do you derive from /b the next phrase in the verse: b “He shall not add many wives for himself”? /b The Gemara answers: That usage of “for himself” serves b to exclude ordinary /b people, to specify that only the king is restricted from having many wives, but a civilian may marry as many women as he wants, provided he can support them ficially.,§ b Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction: It is written /b in one verse: b “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots” /b (I Kings 5:6), b and it is written /b in another verse: b “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses /b and chariots” (II Chronicles 9:25). b How /b can b these /b texts be reconciled? b If there were forty thousand large stables [ i itztablaot /i ], each and every one /b of them b had in it four thousand stalls, /b or rows, b for horses. And /b alternatively, b if there were four thousand large stables, each and every one had in it forty thousand stalls for horses. /b Therefore the two verses are reconciled., b Rabbi Yitzḥak raises a contradiction: It is written /b in one verse: b “Silver was not worth anything in the days of Solomon” /b (II Chronicles 9:20), b and it is written /b in another verse: b “And the king made silver in Jerusalem as stones” /b (I Kings 10:27), i.e., gems. The Gemara responds: It is b not difficult: Here, /b where silver was worthless, this was b before Solomon /b sinfully b married Pharaoh’s daughter. There, /b where the silver was valuable, this was b after Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, /b the angel b Gabriel descended /b from Heaven b and implanted a pole in the sea. And /b it gradually b raised up a sandbar [ i sirton /i ] /b around it, creating new, dry land, b and on it the great city of Rome was built. /b This shows that the beginning of the Jewish people’s downfall to Rome came with Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter., b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what /b reason b were the rationales of Torah /b commandments b not revealed? /b It was b because the rationales of two verses were revealed, /b and b the greatest in the world, /b King Solomon, b failed in /b those matters. b It is written /b with regard to a king: b “He shall not add many wives for himself, /b that his heart should not turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17). b Solomon said: I will add many, but I will not turn away, /b as he thought that it is permitted to have many wives if one is otherwise meticulous not to stray. b And /b later, b it is written: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart /b after other gods” (I Kings 11:4)., b And it is /b also b written: /b “Only b he shall not accumulate many horses for himself /b nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses” (Deuteronomy 17:16), b and Solomon said: I will accumulate many, but I will not return. And it is written: “And a chariot /b came up b and went out of Egypt for six /b hundred shekels of silver” (I Kings 10:29), teaching that not only did Solomon violate the Torah, but he also failed in applying the rationale given for its commandments. This demonstrates the wisdom in the Torah’s usual silence as to the rationale for its mitzvot, as individuals will not mistakenly rely on their own wisdom to reason that the mitzvot are inapplicable in some circumstances.,§ The mishna teaches that the king b writes a Torah scroll for his sake. /b The Sages b taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 4:4): The king fulfills the mitzva b provided that he does not beautify himself with /b the Torah scroll b of his ancestors /b for this purpose, i.e., he must write his own scroll., b Rava says: /b With regard to the mitzva for every Jew to write himself a Torah scroll, b even if a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, /b it is b a mitzva to write /b a scroll b of one’s own, as it is stated: “Now, therefore, write for yourselves /b this b song /b and teach it to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19). b Abaye raised an objection to him /b from a i baraita /i concerning the king’s Torah scroll: b And he writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, so that he does not beautify himself with /b the Torah scroll b of others. /b Read precisely, this indicates that b a king, yes, /b he is included in the i halakha /i not to have a scroll inherited from his ancestors suffice, but b an ordinary /b person is b not. /b ,The Gemara dismisses Abaye’s objection: b No, /b the ruling of that i baraita /i is b necessary /b to teach that the king is commanded to write b two Torah /b scrolls; he writes one scroll as does any Jew, and he writes an additional scroll because he is king. b And /b this is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “That he shall write for himself a second /b Torah in a scroll, out of that which is before the priests the Levites” (Deuteronomy 17:18). This teaches that b he writes for his sake two Torah /b scrolls, b one that goes out and comes in with him /b at all times, b and one that is placed in his treasury. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: With regard to b the one that goes out and comes in with him, he makes it /b very small, b like an amulet, and he hangs /b it b on his arm, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me; He is at my right hand, that I shall not be moved” /b (Psalms 16:8). This alludes to the small Torah scroll that is always on his right hand. b He does not go into the bathhouse with it, nor into the bathroom, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read from it” /b (Deuteronomy 17:19), meaning, it shall remain in b a place that is appropriate for reading from it. /b ,§ b Mar Zutra says, and some say /b that it is b Mar Ukva /b who says: b Initially, /b the b Torah was given to the Jewish people in i Ivrit /i script, /b the original form of the written language, b and the sacred tongue, /b Hebrew. b It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in i Ashurit /i script and /b the b Aramaic tongue. The Jewish people selected i Ashurit /i script and the sacred tongue /b for the Torah scroll b and left i Ivrit /i script and /b the b Aramaic tongue for the commoners. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who are /b these b commoners? Rav Ḥisda said: The Samaritans [ i Kutim /i ]. /b The Gemara asks: b What is i Ivrit /i script? Rav Ḥisda says: i Libona’a /i script. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 4:5): b Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was suitable, /b given his greatness, b for /b the b Torah to be given by him to the Jewish people, had Moses not come first /b and received the Torah already. b With regard to Moses /b the verse b states: “And Moses went up to God” /b (Exodus 19:3), and b with regard to Ezra /b the verse b states: “This Ezra went up from Babylon /b and he was a ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (Ezra 7:6). b Just as /b the b going up stated here, /b with regard to Moses, is for the b Torah, /b which he received from God and transmitted to the Jewish people, b so too, /b the b going up stated there, /b with regard to Ezra, is for the b Torah, /b as he taught Torah to the Jewish people and was suitable to have originally merited to give it.,The i baraita /i continues: b With regard to Moses /b the verse b states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordices” /b (Deuteronomy 4:14), and b with regard to Ezra /b the verse b states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordices” /b (Ezra 7:10). b And even though /b the b Torah was not given /b literally b by him, the script /b of the Torah b was changed by him, as it is stated: /b |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271| 39a. בא למדוד נפט אומר לו מדוד אתה לעצמך בא למדוד אפרסמון אומר לו המתן לי עד שאמדוד עמך כדי שנתבסם אני ואתה,תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל עבירה מטמטמת לבו של אדם שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מג) ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אל תקרי ונטמאתם אלא ונטמטם,תנו רבנן (אל) תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אדם מטמא עצמו מעט מטמאין אותו הרבה מלמטה מטמאין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מטמאין אותו לעולם הבא,תנו רבנן (ויקרא יא, מד) והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים אדם מקדש עצמו מעט מקדשין אותו הרבה מלמטה מקדשין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מקדשין אותו לעולם הבא, br br big strongהדרן עלך אמר להם הממונה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongטרף /strong /big בקלפי והעלה שני גורלות אחד כתוב עליו לשם ואחד כתוב עליו לעזאזל הסגן בימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו אם של שם עלה בימינו הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם של שם עלה בשמאלו ראש בית אב אומר לו אישי כ"ג הגבה שמאלך,נתנן על שני השעירים ואומר לה' חטאת רבי ישמעאל אומר לא היה צריך לומר חטאת אלא לה' והן עונין אחריו ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big למה לי טרף בקלפי כי היכי דלא ניכוין ולישקול,אמר רבא קלפי של עץ היתה ושל חול היתה ואינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים,מתקיף לה רבינא בשלמא אינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים כי היכי דלא ליכוין ולישקול אלא של חול נקדשה אם כן הוה לה כלי שרת של עץ וכלי שרת דעץ לא עבדינן ונעבדה דכסף ונעבדה דזהב התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל,מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר הסגן וכהן גדול מכניסין ידן בקלפי אם בימינו של כהן גדול עולה הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם בימינו של סגן עולה ראש בית אב אומר לו לכהן גדול דבר מילך,ונימא ליה סגן כיון דלא סליק בידיה חלשא דעתיה,במאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר ימינא דסגן עדיף משמאליה דכהן גדול ומר סבר כי הדדי נינהו,ומאן האי תנא דפליג עליה דרבי יהודה רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים הוא דתניא רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר למה סגן מימינו שאם אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול נכנס סגן ומשמש תחתיו,תנו רבנן ארבעים שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק היה גורל עולה בימין מכאן ואילך פעמים עולה בימין פעמים עולה בשמאל והיה לשון של זהורית מלבין מכאן ואילך פעמים מלבין פעמים אינו מלבין והיה נר מערבי דולק מכאן ואילך פעמים דולק פעמים כבה,והיה אש של מערכה מתגבר ולא היו כהנים צריכין להביא עצים למערכה חוץ משני גזירי עצים כדי לקיים מצות עצים מכאן ואילך פעמים מתגבר פעמים אין מתגבר ולא היו כהנים נמנעין מלהביא עצים למערכה כל היום כולו,ונשתלחה ברכה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן שמגיעו כזית יש אוכלו ושבע ויש אוכלו ומותיר מכאן ואילך נשתלחה מאירה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן מגיעו כפול הצנועין מושכין את ידיהן והגרגרנין נוטלין ואוכלין ומעשה באחד שנטל חלקו וחלק חבירו והיו קורין אותו בן | 39a. In the case of one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b naphtha, /b the merchant b says to him: Measure /b it b for yourself, /b as I prefer to keep my distance from the foul odor. With regard to one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b balsam, /b the merchant b says to him: Wait for me until I /b can b measure /b it b with you, so that you and I will /b both b be perfumed. /b Similarly, with regard to sin God merely provides an opening, whereas with regard to mitzvot God assists the individual in their performance.,In b the school of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught: Sin stupefies the heart of a person /b who commits it, b as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified” /b (Leviticus 11:43) b Do not read /b that term as: b “And be impurified [ i venitmetem /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b And your /b hearts will b be stupefied /b [ b i venitamtem /i ]. /b , b The Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified”; a person who impurifies himself a bit, they impurify him greatly. /b If a person impurifies himself of his own volition b below, /b on earth, b they impurify him /b even more so b above, /b in Heaven. If a person impurifies himself b in this world, they impurify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,Conversely, b the Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “Sanctify yourselves and you will be sanctified” /b (Leviticus 11:44); b a person /b who b sanctifies himself a bit, they sanctify him /b and assist him b greatly. /b If a person sanctifies himself b below, they sanctify him above. /b If a person sanctifies himself b in this world, they sanctify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,, strong MISHNA: /strong The High Priest b would mix /b the lots b in the /b lottery b receptacle /b used to hold them b and draw /b the b two lots /b from it, one in each hand. b Upon one was written: For God. And upon /b the other b one was written: For Azazel. The deputy /b High Priest would stand b to /b the High Priest’s b right, and the head of the patrilineal family /b would stand b to his left. If /b the lot b for the name /b of God b came up in his right /b hand, b the Deputy would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand so that all can see with which hand the lot for God was selected. b And if /b the lot for the b name /b of God b came up in his left /b hand, b the head of the patrilineal family would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your left /b hand.,Then b he would place /b the two lots b upon the two goats, /b the lot that arose in his right hand on the goat standing to his right side and the lot in his left hand on the goat to his left. b And /b upon placing the lot for God upon the appropriate goat, b he would say: For God, /b as b a sin-offering. Rabbi Yishmael says: He need not say: /b As b a sin-offering. Rather, /b it is sufficient to say: b For God. And /b upon saying the name of God, the priests and the people b respond after him: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Why do I /b need the High Priest to have b mixed /b the lots in b a receptacle /b before he draws the lots? b In order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. Since it is a fortuitous omen for the lot for God to arise in his right hand, there is a concern that he might force the result, in contravention of the requirement that the designation of the goats be made through a random lottery., b Rava said: /b The b receptacle was /b made out b of wood and /b did not have the status of a sacred vessel. Rather, it b was unconsecrated, and it had enough /b space inside b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b , b Ravina strongly objects to this: Granted, /b it was constructed so that it b had enough /b space inside it b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b This was done so that he could not maneuver his hands inside the box to feel and examine the lots, b in order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. b But /b why was the receptacle b unconsecrated? Let it be consecrated /b as a sacred vessel. b If so, /b if it were to be consecrated, b it would be a sacred vessel /b made b of wood, and /b the i halakha /i is that b we do not make a sacred vessel from wood. /b But if this is the only issue, b let it be made /b out b of silver /b or b let it be made /b out b of gold. /b However, b the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people /b and did not want to burden them with the expense of having to make the receptacle from expensive materials. Therefore, it is made from wood, and as such it is precluded from being a sacred vessel.,The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i /b whose opinion b was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The Deputy and the High Priest insert their hands into the receptacle. If /b the lot for God b comes up in the High Priest’s right /b hand, b the Deputy says to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand. b And if /b the lot for God b comes up in the right /b hand b of the Deputy, the head of the patrilineal family says to the High Priest: Speak your word /b and declare the goat to your left side to be the sin-offering for God.,The Gemara asks: Why should the head of the patrilineal family instruct the High Priest to speak? b Let the Deputy say /b this b to him. /b The Gemara answers: b Since the lot /b for God b did not come up in /b the High Priest’s b hand, /b rather in the Deputy’s, b he /b might b be discouraged /b if the Deputy himself instructs him to speak, as it may appear that he is mocking him., b With regard to what do /b the i tanna’im /i of the mishna and i baraita /i b disagree? /b One b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i , b holds /b that b the Deputy’s right /b hand b is preferable to the High Priest’s left /b hand. As such, the ideal way for the lots to be drawn is for both the Deputy and High Priest to use their right hands. b And /b the other b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna, b holds they are equivalent. /b Therefore, there is no reason for the Deputy to be involved, and the entire process is performed by the High Priest., b And who is this i tanna /i who argues with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, says: Why /b did the b Deputy /b remain b at the /b High Priest’s b right /b side throughout the day’s service? b Because if some disqualification befalls the High Priest, the Deputy can step in and serve in his stead. /b It is apparent from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that as long as the High Priest remains qualified, the Deputy has no role in the day’s service, which disputes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.,§ b The Sages taught: /b During all b forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served /b as High Priest, b the lot /b for God arose in b the right /b hand. b From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right /b hand and b sometimes it arose in the left /b hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, b the strip of crimson /b wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel b turned white, /b indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven, as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). b From then onward, it sometimes turned white /b and b sometimes it did not turn white. /b Furthermore, b the western lamp /b of the candelabrum b would burn /b continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. b From then onward, it sometimes burned /b and b sometimes it went out. /b , b And /b during the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, b the fire on the arrangement /b of wood on the altar b kept going strongly, /b perpetually by itself, b such that the priests did not need to bring /b additional b wood to the arrangement /b on a daily basis, b except for the two logs /b that were brought b in order to fulfill the mitzva of /b placing b wood /b upon the arrangement. b From then onward, /b the fire b sometimes kept going strongly /b and b sometimes it did not, and so the priests could not avoid bringing wood to the arrangement throughout the entire day. /b , b And a blessing was sent upon the /b offering of the b i omer /i ; and to the /b offering of b the two loaves /b from the new wheat, which was sacrificed on i Shavuot /i ; b and to the shewbread, /b which was placed on the table in the Temple. b And /b due to that blessing, b each priest that received an olive-bulk /b of them, b there were those /b who b ate it and were satisfied, and there were those /b who b ate /b only a part b of it and left over /b the rest because they were already satisfied from such a small amount. b From then onward, a curse was sent upon the i omer /i , and to the two loaves, and to the shewbread, /b that there were not sufficient quantities to give each priest a full measure. Therefore, b each priest received /b just an amount the b size of a bean; the discreet, /b pious b ones would withdraw their hands, /b a bean-bulk being less that the quantity needed to properly fulfill the mitzva, b and /b only b the voracious ones would take and eat /b it. b And an incident occurred with one who took his portion and that of his fellow, and they called him: Son of /b |
|
38. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 265, 266| 76b. הא לא צריכא ליה,[ותיפוק ליה] דהא מצרית ראשונה היא וכי תימא הנך אזלי לעלמא והני אחריני נינהו,והא תניא א"ר יהודה מנימין גר מצרי היה לי חבר מתלמידי ר"ע אמר אני מצרי ראשון ונשאתי מצרית ראשונה אשיא לבני מצרית שניה כדי שיהא בן בני ראוי לבא בקהל,אמר רב פפא אנן משלמה ליקו ונתיב שלמה לא נסיב מידי דכתיב ביה (מלכים א יא, ב) מן הגוים אשר אמר ה' אל בני ישראל לא תבואו בהם והם לא יבואו בכם אכן יטו את לבבכם אחרי אלהיהם בהם דבק שלמה לאהבה אלא קשיא ויתחתן,מתוך אהבה יתירה שאהבה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו נתחתן בה,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי והא אנן תנן פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה מותרים בגיורת ומשוחררת הא בנתינה אסירי,א"ל וליטעמיך אימא סיפא ואינן אסורין אלא מלבא בקהל הא בנתינה שרו אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big עמוני ומואבי אסורים ואיסורן איסור עולם אבל נקבותיהם מותרות מיד,מצרי ואדומי אינם אסורים אלא עד שלשה דורות אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות ר"ש מתיר את הנקבות מיד א"ר שמעון ק"ו הדברים ומה אם במקום שאסר את הזכרים איסור עולם התיר את הנקבות מיד מקום שלא אסר את הזכרים אלא עד שלשה דורות אינו דין שנתיר את הנקבות מיד,אמרו לו אם הלכה נקבל ואם לדין יש תשובה אמר להם לא כי הלכה אני אומר:, big strongגמ' /strong /big מנא ה"מ א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (שמואל א יז, נה) וכראות שאול את דוד יוצא לקראת הפלשתי אמר אל אבנר שר הצבא בן מי זה הנער אבנר ויאמר אבנר חי נפשך המלך אם ידעתי ולא ידע ליה והכתיב (שמואל א טז, כא) ויאהבהו מאד ויהי לו נושא כלים אלא אאבוה קא משאיל,ואביו לא ידע ליה והכתיב (שמואל א יז, יב) והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים ואמר רב ואיתימא רבי אבא זה ישי אבי דוד שנכנס באוכלוסא ויצא באוכלוסא,ה"ק שאול אי מפרץ אתי אי מזרח אתי אי מפרץ אתי מלכא הוי שהמלך פורץ לעשות דרך ואין ממחין בידו אי מזרח אתי חשיבא בעלמא הוי,מ"ט אמר ליה שאל עליה דכתיב (שמואל א יז, לח) וילבש שאול את דוד מדיו כמדתו וכתיב ביה בשאול (שמואל א ט, ב) משכמו ומעלה גבוה מכל העם א"ל דואג האדומי עד שאתה משאיל עליו אם הגון הוא למלכות אם לאו שאל עליו אם ראוי לבא בקהל אם לאו מ"ט דקאתי מרות המואביה,א"ל אבנר תנינא עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית אלא מעתה ממזר ולא ממזרת ממזר כתיב מום זר,מצרי ולא מצרית שאני הכא דמפרש טעמא דקרא (דברים כג, ה) על אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים דרכו של איש לקדם ולא דרכה של אשה לקדם היה להם לקדם אנשים לקראת אנשים ונשים לקראת נשים אישתיק,מיד ויאמר המלך שאל אתה בן מי זה העלם התם קרי ליה נער הכא קרי ליה עלם הכי קא אמר ליה הלכה נתעלמה ממך צא ושאל בבית המדרש שאל אמרו ליה עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית | 76b. But b this one, /b Pharaoh’s daughter, b did not require such /b things, as she herself was the daughter of royalty, and therefore there would have been no reason to doubt the sincerity of her conversion.,The Gemara asks: b But let him derive /b that Pharaoh’s daughter was forbidden to Solomon for a different reason, b as she /b was b a first- /b generation b Egyptian /b convert. Even if she converted, she would still have been an Egyptian convert of the first generation, and as such neither she nor her children would have been permitted to marry a Jew by birth (Deuteronomy 23:8–9). b And if you would say /b that b those /b whom the Torah rendered forbidden have already b left /b Egypt and are now living elsewhere b in the world, and those /b currently living in Egypt b are others, /b there is a difficulty.,As, b isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, /b and b he said: /b After I converted b I /b was b a first- /b generation b Egyptian /b convert, b and /b so b I married /b another b first- /b generation b Egyptian /b convert. b I will marry off my son, /b who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, b to /b another b second- /b generation b Egyptian /b convert, b so that my grandson will be fit to enter into the congregation. /b This indicates that first- and second-generation converts of Egyptian extraction were prohibited from entering into the congregation even during the period of the Mishna., b Rav Pappa said: Shall we stand up and raise an objection from Solomon? Solomon did not marry anyone, as it is written in his regard: “of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel, You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods; Solomon cleaved to these in love” /b (I Kings 11:2). Solomon cleaved to these women in love, but was not legally married to them. As Solomon had other forbidden wives, the case of Pharaoh’s daughter presents no special difficulty. In fact, none of these marriages were valid at all. b But /b the phrase b “and /b Solomon b married” /b (I Kings 3:1) that appears in connection with Pharaoh’s daughter is b difficult, /b as it indicates that this marriage was in fact valid.,The Gemara answers: b Due to the extraordinary love that he had for her, the verse relates to him as if he had married her /b through a legally valid marriage, even though this was not the case., b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna that b a man with crushed testicles and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to /b marry a female b convert and an emancipated /b maidservant? That indicates that it is only these women whom they are permitted to marry, b but they are prohibited from /b marrying b a Gibeonite woman. /b This appears to contradict the i baraita /i that permits a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite.,Rav Ashi b said to /b Ravina: b And according to your /b line of b reasoning, say the latter clause /b of the mishna as follows: b And they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation, /b and infer just the opposite, that it is only a woman who was born Jewish whom they are prohibited from marrying, b but they are permitted to /b marry b a Gibeonite woman, /b as she is not part of the congregation of the Lord. b Rather, no /b inference is b to be learned from this /b mishna, as the possible inferences are contradictory, and one must therefore rely on the i halakha /i that was expressly taught.,mishna b Ammonite and Moabite /b converts b are prohibited /b from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, b and their prohibition is eternal, /b for all generations. b However, their female /b counterparts, even the convert herself, b are permitted immediately. /b , b Egyptian and Edomite /b converts b are prohibited /b from entering into the congregation b only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon renders permitted /b Egyptian and Edomite b females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: The matter /b may be derived by way of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference: b If in a place where /b the Torah rendered b prohibited the males with an eternal prohibition, /b i.e., Ammonites and Moabites, it b rendered permitted the females immediately, /b then in b a place where it rendered prohibited the males for only three generations, /b i.e., Egyptians and Edomites, b is it not right that we should render permitted the females immediately? /b ,Rabbi Shimon’s colleagues b said to him: If /b you are reporting a b i halakha /i /b that you received from your teachers, b we will accept /b it from you. b But if /b you merely wish to prove your case with an i a fortiori /i b inference /b based on your own reasoning, b there is a refutation /b of your argument. Rabbi Shimon b said to them: /b That is b not so. /b I disagree with your claim that the i a fortiori /i inference can be refuted, but in any case b I am stating a i halakha /i /b handed down to me by my teachers.,gemara The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived that female Ammonites and Moabites are permitted immediately? b Rabbi Yoḥa said: As the verse states: “And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the host: Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said: As your soul lives, O king, I cannot tell” /b (I Samuel 17:55). This verse is puzzling: b Did /b Saul really b not recognize him? But isn’t it /b previously b written: /b “And David came to Saul, and stood before him; b and he loved him greatly; and he became his armor-bearer” /b (I Samuel 16:21)? b Rather, /b it must be that b he was asking about /b David’s b father. /b ,The Gemara is still puzzled by this verse: b And did /b Saul b not recognize /b David’s b father? But isn’t it written /b with regard to Jesse, David’s father: b “And the man in the days of Saul was old, and came among men” /b (I Samuel 17:12), b and Rav, and some say Rabbi Abba, said: This /b is referring to b Jesse, father of David, who /b always b entered with multitudes [ i ukhlusa /i ] and left with multitudes. /b As he was clearly a man of importance, everyone must have known who he was.,Rather, b this is /b what b Saul was saying, /b in his attempt to clarify David’s lineage: b Does /b he b come from /b the descendants of b Perez, or does /b he b come from /b the descendants of b Zerah? /b What is the significance of this question? b If /b he b comes from Perez he will be king, as a king may breach [ i poretz /i ] a way /b for himself b and no one can stop him. /b And b if he comes from Zerah he will be merely a man of importance, /b but not a king.,The Gemara continues with its explanation: b For what reason did /b Saul b say to /b Abner that he should b inquire about /b David? b As it is written: “And Saul clad David with his apparel [ i maddav /i ]” /b (I Samuel 17:38), which indicates that the clothes were b of /b David’s b size [ i kemiddato /i ]. And it is written with regard to Saul: “From his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people” /b (I Samuel 9:2). Upon seeing that his clothes fit David, Saul began to fear that it might be David who was destined for the throne, and he therefore inquired into his background. At that point, b Doeg the Edomite said to /b Saul: b Before you inquire as to whether or not he is fit for kingship, inquire as to whether or not he is /b even b fit to enter into the congregation. What is the reason /b for such doubts? It is b that /b he b descends from Ruth the Moabite, /b and Moabites are permanently barred from entering the congregation., b Abner said to him: We /b already b learned /b that there is no room for such concern. As the verse states: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4), teaching that b an Ammonite /b man is barred from entering into the congregation, b but not an Ammonite woman; /b and similarly, b a Moabite /b man is barred from entering into the congregation, b but not a Moabite woman. /b Doeg said to him: b However, if that is so, /b say that the verse that renders it prohibited for a i mamzer /i to enter the congregation renders prohibited only a male b i mamzer /i , but not a female i mamzer /i . /b Abner replied: b It is written: “A i mamzer /i ,” /b which should be understood not as a noun but as an adjective, denoting b a strange blemish [ i mum zar /i ], /b one who is defective due to a forbidden relationship, and this applies to males and females alike.,Doeg retorted: If so, say that it is prohibited for only b an Egyptian /b man to enter into the congregation, b but not an Egyptian woman. /b Abner answered: b Here it is different, as the reason for /b the prohibition recorded in this b verse /b with regard to Ammonites b is explicit: “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water /b on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since b it is the way of a man /b to go forth b to meet /b guests b but it is not the way of a woman /b to go forth, females were not included in this prohibition. Doeg countered: Still, b the men should have gone /b forth b to meet the men, and the women to meet the women. /b Abner b was silent, /b as he did not know how to respond to this objection., b Immediately: “And the king said, inquire you whose son is this lad” /b (I Samuel 17:56). The Gemara comments: b There, /b in the previous verse, Saul b calls him youth [ i na’ar /i ], /b and b here he calls him lad [ i elem /i ]. /b This change in the wording hints at the following discussion. Saul b said to /b Doeg b as follows: /b The b i halakha /i is hidden [ i nitalma /i ] from you, /b and you are ignorant of the law. b Go and inquire /b about the matter b in the study hall. He /b went to the study hall and b asked. They said to him: /b The i halakha /i is: b An Ammonite /b man is forbidden, b but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite /b man is forbidden, b but not a Moabite woman. /b |
|
39. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271| 134b. ראשית הגז והמתנות ופדיון הבן ופדיון פטר חמור לפטור,כי אתא רבין אמר קמה אקמה רמי ליה,לוי זרע בכישר ולא הוו עניים למשקל לקט אתא לקמיה דרב ששת אמר ליה (ויקרא יט, י) לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם ולא לעורבים ולא לעטלפים,מיתיבי אין מביאין תרומה לא מגורן לעיר ולא ממדבר לישוב ואם אין שם כהן שוכר פרה ומביאה מפני הפסד תרומה,שאני תרומה דטבלה ולא סגיא דלא מפריש לה,והרי מתנות דלא טבלי ותניא מקום שנהגו למלוג בעגלים לא יפשיט את הזרוע,להפשיט את הראש לא יפשיט את הלחי ואם אין שם כהן מעלין אותן בדמים ואוכלן מפני הפסד כהן,שאני מתנות כהונה דנתינה כתיבא ביה השתא דאתית להכי תרומה נמי נתינה כתיבא ביה,ואלא תעזוב יתירא למה לי,לכדתניא המפקיר את כרמו ולשחר השכים ובצרו חייב בפרט ובעוללות ובשכחה ובפאה ופטור מן המעשרות,ההוא שקא דדינרי דאתא לבי מדרשא קדים רבי אמי וזכה בהן והיכי עביד הכי והא כתיב ונתן ולא שיטול מעצמו רבי אמי נמי לעניים זכה בהן,ואיבעית אימא אדם חשוב שאני דתניא (ויקרא כא, י) והכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בנוי בחכמה ובעושר,אחרים אומרים מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו תלמוד לומר והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big איזהו הזרוע מן הפרק של ארכובה עד כף של יד והוא של נזיר וכנגדו ברגל שוק ר' יהודה אומר שוק מן הפרק של ארכובה עד סובך של רגל אי זהו לחי מן הפרק של לחי עד פיקה של גרגרת:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר (דברים יח, ג) הזרוע זה זרוע ימין אתה אומר זה זרוע ימין או אינו אלא זרוע שמאל ת"ל הזרוע,מאי תלמודא כדאמר רבא הירך המיומנת שבירך הכא נמי הזרוע המיומן שבזרוע,והלחיים למאי אתא להביא צמר שבראש כבשים ושער שבזקן תיישים והקבה למאי אתא להביא חלב שעל גבי הקבה וחלב שבתוך הקבה דאמר ר' יהושע כהנים נהגו בו עין יפה ונתנוהו לבעלים טעמא דנהגו הא לא נהגו דידיה הוא,דורשי חמורות היו אומרים הזרוע כנגד היד וכן הוא אומר (במדבר כה, ז) ויקח רומח בידו,ולחיים כנגד תפלה וכן הוא אומר (תהלים קו, ל) ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל קבה כמשמעה וכן הוא אומר (במדבר כה, ח) ואת האשה אל קבתה,ותנא מייתי לה מהכא (ויקרא ז, לב) שוק הימין אין לי אלא שוק הימין זרוע מוקדשין מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ז, יד) תרומה זרוע חולין מנין ת"ל תתנו:,איזהו לחי מן הפרק של לחי ועד פיקה של גרגרת: והתניא נוטלה ובית שחיטה עמה,לא קשיא הא רבנן והא רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס,דתניא מוגרמת פסולה העיד רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס על מוגרמת שהיא כשרה,איבעית אימא הא והא רבנן ומאי עמה עמה דבהמה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך הזרוע והלחיים /strong /big br br | |
|
40. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272| 18a. דסתם יהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמו,וליתני מודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לויתי ממך ופרעתיו לך שהוא נאמן משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא אם יש עדים שהוא לוה ממנו והוא אומר פרעתיו אינו נאמן והא קיימא לן המלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפרעו בעדים,וליתני מודה ר' יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס שהוא נאמן,אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי משיב אבידה הוי אי אליבא דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא אמר שבועה בעי,דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו כיצד מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס הרי זה נשבע וזהו שנשבע על טענת עצמו וחכמים אומרים אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור,ור' אליעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור אמר רב בטוענו קטן והאמר מר אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן,מאי קטן גדול ואמאי קרי ליה קטן דלגבי מילי דאביו קטן הוא אי הכי טענת עצמו טענת אחרים היא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו,כולהי טענתא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו,אלא הכא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולה בעי דלכפריה והאי דלא כפר ליה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו הוא | 18a. The Gemara answers: The reason that the i tanna /i cited specifically a case where each is located in a different land is b that /b the b standard /b situation with regard to travel between b Judea and /b the b Galilee is tantamount to a crisis period, /b as war was commonplace, and there was a strip of Samaritan territory between Judea and the Galilee.,The Gemara asks: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b in the mishna: b And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in /b a case where b one says to another: I borrowed one hundred /b dinars b from you and repaid /b the loan b to you, that he is deemed credible. /b The Gemara answers: The i tanna /i chose not to teach that case of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted b due to /b the fact b that /b the i tanna /i b wanted to teach /b in b the latter clause: If there are witnesses that he borrowed /b money b from /b another, b and he says: I repaid /b the loan, b he is not deemed credible. /b However, the i tanna /i would not be able to distinguish between a case where witnesses testify and a case where there are no witnesses, b as don’t we hold /b that in the case of b one who lends /b money to b another in /b the presence of b witnesses, /b the borrower b need not repay /b the loan b in /b the presence of b witnesses? /b Therefore, even if witnesses testify that he took the loan, his claim that he repaid the loan is accepted.,The Gemara asks: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b in the mishna: b And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in /b a case where b one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession /b in the form of a loan, b but I provided him /b with repayment of b half /b that amount, that b his /b claim is b deemed credible. /b ,The Gemara answers: There is a tannaitic dispute with regard to that case and the case that the Gemara suggested does not correspond to either opinion. b In accordance with whose /b opinion would the mishna be taught? b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of the Rabbis, didn’t they say /b that in that case b he is /b the equivalent of b one returning a lost article? /b Since the son is unaware that the borrower owes his father money, and the borrower takes the initiative and admits that he owes part of the sum that he borrowed, it is as if he returned a lost article, and clearly his claim is accepted and no oath is required. b And if /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, didn’t he say /b that in that case the borrower is b required /b to take b an oath, /b and only then is his claim accepted?,This dispute is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b There are b times when /b although no one claimed that another owes him money, b a person takes an oath on /b the basis of b his own claim. How /b so? If one says to another: b Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him /b with repayment of b half /b that amount, b he /b is required to b take an oath /b that he repaid half, b and that is /b the case of one b who takes an oath on /b the basis of b his own claim. And the Rabbis say: /b In that case b he is merely /b the b equivalent of one returning a lost article, and is exempt /b from taking an oath.,The Gemara asks: b And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov not of /b the opinion that b one who returns a lost article is exempt from taking an oath /b that he did not take part of the sum? He returns what he admitted taking without an oath. b Rav says: /b The i baraita /i is referring to a case b where a minor makes a claim /b against b him. /b The lender’s minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower’s claim comes in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not at all comparable to returning a lost article. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t the Master say: One does not take an oath on /b the basis of b the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? /b Due to their lack of cognition, they are not deemed halakhically competent to require another to take an oath based on their claim.,The Gemara answers: In Rav’s statement, b what /b is the meaning of b minor? /b It means one who reached b majority, /b and is therefore halakhically competent. b And why does /b Rav b call him a minor? /b It is due to the fact b that with regard to his father’s matters, he is /b the equivalent of b a minor, /b as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father’s dealings. b If so, /b i.e., that the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the i baraita /i is imprecise. Why does the i tanna /i refer to this case as one taking an oath on the basis of b his own claim? /b This is not his own claim; it b is the claim of others. /b The Gemara answers: The i baraita /i employed that language for the following reason: It b is the claim of others, but /b he is taking an oath on the basis of b his own /b partial b admission. /b ,The Gemara asks: b All claims /b where an oath is required b are /b cases of b a claim of others and his own admission. /b However, in the i baraita /i , Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the phrase: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, that of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of taking an oath., b Rather, /b the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. b Here, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis b disagree with regard to /b the statement of b Rabba, as Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that /b one who b makes a partial admission /b in response to b the claim /b is required to b take an oath? /b It is because there is a b presumption /b that b a person /b would b not be /b so b insolent in the presence of his creditor /b as to deny his debt. Presumably, b this /b borrower who made a partial admission b would have liked to deny the entire /b loan, b and /b the fact b that he did not deny /b the entire loan b is due to /b the fact b that a person /b would b not be /b so b insolent /b in the presence of his creditor. |
|
41. Anon., Exodus Rabbah, 30.13 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 271| 30.13. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (משלי כט, ד): מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, זֶה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁבָּרָא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית א, א): בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, בָּרָא ה' לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אֱלֹהִים. וַיֹּאמֶר ה' יְהִי רָקִיעַ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר, אֶלָּא אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן כֻּלְּהוֹן. וְכֵן דָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים עה, ח): כִּי אֱלֹהִים שֹׁפֵט, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁבַּדִּין נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. (משלי כט, ד): וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, זֶה אָדָם, מַה דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלָּתָהּ, מְגַבֶּלֶת אֶת הַקֶּמַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֶלֶת חַלָּה, כָּךְ עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, גִּבֵּל אֶת הָעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָטַל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ב, ו): וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ (בראשית ב, ז): וַיִּיצֶר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָטָא אָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים (בראשית ג, יז): אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, זֶה יְהוֹשָׁפָט, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים ב יט, ו): וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשָׁפָט אֶל הַשֹּׁפְטִים רְאוּ מָה אַתֶּם עֹשִׂים. וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, זֶה חָכָם, שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ הֲלָכוֹת וּמִדְרָשׁוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, וְיָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה הוֹלְכִין אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה דִּין בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן עָסוּק אֲנִי בְּמִשְׁנָתִי אֵינִי פָּנוּי, וְאָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ כְּאִלּוּ הֶחֱרַבְתָּ אֶת הָעוֹלָם, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יט, ו): וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים. וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, אֵלּוּ דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל שֶׁלֹא הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַדִּין, רְאֵה מַה כְּתִיב בָּהֶם (איוב כד, ג ד): חֲמוֹר יְתוֹמִים יִנְהָגוּ יַטּוּ אֶבְיֹנִים מִדָּרֶךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בִּקֵּשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִתֵּן לָהֶם אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים, תּוֹרָה וְיִסּוּרִין וַעֲבוֹדַת קָרְבָּנוֹת וּתְפִלָּה, וְלֹא בִקְּשׁוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כא, יד): וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָאֵל סוּר מִמֶּנּוּ, אֵלּוּ הַיִּסּוּרִין. (איוב כא, יד): וְדַעַת דְּרָכֶיךָ לֹא חָפַצְנוּ, זֶה תּוֹרָה. (איוב כא, טו): וּמַה שַּׁדַּי כִּי נַעַבְדֶנּוּ, אֵלּוּ הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. (איוב כא, טו): וּמַה נּוֹעִיל כִּי נִפְגַע בּוֹ, זֶה תְּפִלָּה. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִי גָרַם לָכֶם שֶׁתֹּאבְדוּ מִן הָעֶרֶב שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וּמִן הַבֹּקֶר שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹא קִבַּלְתֶּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב ד, כ): מִבֹּקֶר לָעֶרֶב יֻכַּתּוּ, לָמָּה, מִבְּלִי מֵשִׂים לָנֶצַח יֹאבֵדוּ, וְאֵין מֵשִׂים אֶלָּא דִינִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם. | |
|
42. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 9.15 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272| 9.15. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ (במדבר ה, יז), אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא הִשְׁקַתְּהוּ יַיִן מְשֻׁבָּח בְּכוֹסוֹת מְשֻׁבָּחִין, לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים בְּמַקֵּדָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס. (במדבר ה, יז): וּמִן הֶעָפָר, מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבֵא עָפָר לַסּוֹטָה, זָכְתָה יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּהּ בֵּן כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ (בראשית יח, כז): וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר, לֹא זָכְתָה תַּחְזֹר לַעֲפָרָהּ. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאָמַר אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר, זָכוּ בָנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְווֹת אֵפֶר פָּרָה וַעֲפַר סוֹטָה, אֲבָל עֲפַר כִּסּוּי לֹא מָנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הֶכְשֵׁר מִצְוָה וְאֵין מִמֶּנּוּ הֲנָאָה. לָמָּה הָיָה בּוֹדְקָה בְּמַיִם וּבְעָפָר, לְפִי שֶׁהָאָדָם נִבְרָא מִן הֶעָפָר וְהִיא נוֹצְרָה בַּמַּיִם, לְכָךְ הִיא נִבְדֶקֶת בַּמַּיִם וּבֶעָפָר אִם טְהוֹרָה כִּבְרִיָּתָהּ. וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה, יָכוֹל יַתְקִין בַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, אִי בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, יָכוֹל יַחְפֹּר בְּדֶקֶר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה, הָא כֵיצַד, יֵשׁ שָׁם הָבֵא, אֵין שָׁם תֵּן שָׁם. (במדבר ה, יז): יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמַּיִם, תָּנֵי שְׁלשָׁה צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֵּרָאוּ, עֲפַר סוֹטָה וְאֵפֶר פָּרָה וְרֹק יְבָמָה, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ אַף דַּם צִפּוֹר שֶׁל מְצֹרָע. | |
|
| 43. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 4.7 Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 267, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 |
| 44. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qdb, None Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 272 |
45. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 269| 35a. מכלל דאיסורי הנאה שרו פרשייהו,ומדקא"ל מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבת עגלי עבודת כוכבים וקא מהדר ליה א"כ למה לא אסרוה בהנאה מכלל דעבודת כוכבים אסור פרשייהו,ולהדר ליה משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,דהא מורייס לרבנן דלא אסרוהו בהנאה מ"ט לאו משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,אמרי הכא כיון דאוקמיה קא מוקים חשיב ליה כמאן דאיתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה:,השיאו לדבר אחר וכו': מאי (שיר השירים א, ב) כי טובים דודיך מיין כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרה כנסת ישראל לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע עריבים עלי דברי דודיך יותר מיינה של תורה,מ"ש האי קרא דשייליה אר"ש בן פזי ואיתימא ר"ש בר אמי מרישיה דקרא קא"ל (שיר השירים א, ב) ישקני מנשיקות פיהו אמר ליה ישמעאל אחי חשוק שפתותיך זו בזו ואל תבהל להשיב,מ"ט אמר עולא ואיתימא רב שמואל בר אבא גזרה חדשה היא ואין מפקפקין בה מאי גזירתא אר"ש בן פזי אמר ריב"ל משום ניקור,ולימא ליה משום ניקור כדעולא דאמר עולא כי גזרי גזירתא במערבא לא מגלו טעמא עד תריסר ירחי שתא דלמא איכא איניש דלא ס"ל ואתי לזלזולי בה,מגדף בה ר' ירמיה אלא מעתה יבשה תשתרי ישן תשתרי דא"ר חנינא יבש מותר אין מניחו ליבש ישן מותר אין מניחו לישן,א"ר חנינא לפי שא"א לה בלא צחצוחי חלב ושמואל אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בעור קיבת נבילה,הא קיבה גופא שריא ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן קיבת העובד כוכבים ושל נבילה הרי זו אסורה,והוינן בה אטו דעובד כוכבים לאו נבלה היא,ואמר שמואל חדא קתני קיבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה אסורה,ל"ק | 35a. One can learn b by inference /b from here b that /b with regard to animals b from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited, their excrement, /b which is the content of their stomach, b is permitted. /b Although deriving benefit from both a burnt-offering and an unslaughtered animal carcass is prohibited, the excrement of each is permitted. Similarly, although deriving benefit from an ox that is to be stoned is prohibited, its excrement is permitted., b And from /b the fact b that /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to /b Rabbi Yishmael: Cheese of gentiles is prohibited b because they curdle it with the stomach /b contents b of calves /b used for b idol worship, and /b that Rabbi Yishmael b responded to him: If /b that is b so, why didn’t /b the Sages b prohibit /b deriving b benefit /b from the cheese, one may learn b by inference that /b with regard to animals of b idol worship, their excrement is prohibited. /b Since the cheese formed with the stomach contents of an animal of idol worship is prohibited, it is evident that the excrement formed in the stomach of such an animal is also prohibited.,The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael’s final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: b But let him respond to /b Rabbi Yishmael’s query by explaining that the Sages did not prohibit deriving benefit from cheese curdled in the stomach contents of an animal used for idolatry b because there is no substantive prohibited /b entity in such cheese.,The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn’t the i halakha /i with regard to b fish stew, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b an application of this rationale, b as they did not prohibit /b deriving b benefit /b from fish stew prepared by a gentile? b What is the reason /b for this leniency? b Is it not because there is no substantive prohibited /b entity in it? Although fish stew may contain the wine of a gentile, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited because the wine is not discernible. Why didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: The Sages b say /b in response that b here, /b with regard to cheese, b since /b the rennet b curdles /b it, b it is considered like /b an item b that contains a substantive prohibited /b entity. Although the prohibited rennet is not discernible in the cheese, it is nevertheless considered a substantive prohibited entity because it is essential to the formation of the cheese.,§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua b diverted /b Rabbi Yishmael’s attention b to another matter, /b and began discussing the verse: “For your love is better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the verse: b “For your love [ i dodekha /i ] is better than wine”? When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he b said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the statements of Your beloved ones [ i dodekha /i ], /b i.e., the Sages, b are more pleasant to me than the wine of /b the written b Torah /b itself.,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about b this verse that /b led Rabbi Yehoshua to b ask /b Rabbi Yishmael a question specifically with regard to it? b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, and some say Rabbi Shimon bar Ami /b said: He chose that verse because he sought to b tell him /b a message that can be derived b from the beginning of the verse: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” /b (Song of Songs 1:2). In essence, Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: Yishmael, my brother, press your lips one to the other, and do not be so hasty to retort, /b i.e., do not persist in your questioning.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that Rabbi Yehoshua instructed Rabbi Yishmael not to question him further? b Ulla says, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Abba /b says: The ordice prohibiting the cheese of gentiles b was a new decree, and /b therefore b one does not scrutinize its /b origins. The Gemara asks: b What /b was, in fact, the reason for the Sages’ b decree /b prohibiting the cheese of gentiles? b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: /b It was b due to /b the concern for b puncturing, /b i.e., the concern that a snake might have deposited its venom in the cheese, as gentiles are not assumed to be careful about this.,The Gemara comments: b But /b if so, b let /b Rabbi Yehoshua simply b say to /b Rabbi Yishmael: It is prohibited b due to /b the concern for b puncturing. /b Why did he choose to avoid answering? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua reasoned b in accordance with /b a statement b of Ulla, as Ulla said: When /b the Sages b decreed a decree in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b they would not reveal the reason /b behind it b until twelve months /b of b the year /b had passed, b lest there be a person who does not agree with it and will come to treat it with contempt. /b , b Rabbi Yirmeya /b would b ridicule [ i megaddef /i ] /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s explanation that the prohibition was due to the concern for puncturing: b If that is so, dry /b cheese b should be permitted, /b and likewise b aged /b cheese should b be permitted, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b With regard to exposure, b a dry /b substance b is permitted /b even if it was originally in the form of an uncovered liquid, because a snake’s venom b does not let it dry, /b i.e., congeal. And b an aged /b liquid b is permitted, /b as a snake’s venom b does not let it age, /b as it causes it to spoil instead.,The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b The cheese is prohibited b because it is not possible for it /b to have been made b without /b containing b particles of /b non-kosher b milk. And Shmuel says: /b The cheese is prohibited b because it is curdled with the skin of the stomach of /b an unslaughtered b animal carcass. /b ,The Gemara comments: Shmuel’s statement indicates that only the skin of the animal’s stomach is prohibited, whereas the contents of the b stomach, /b i.e., the rennet b itself, is permitted. /b The Gemara asks: b And did Shmuel /b actually b say this? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Ḥullin /i 116a): With regard to b the stomach /b contents b of /b an animal slaughtered by b a gentile and /b the stomach contents b of /b an unslaughtered b animal carcass, /b each of these b is prohibited. /b , b And we discussed it /b and asked: Why does the mishna mention both an animal slaughtered by a gentile and an unslaughtered animal carcass? b Is that to say that /b an animal slaughtered by b a gentile is not /b classified as b an animal carcass? /b By mentioning each of these separately, the mishna indicates that generally they are subject to different i halakhot /i . This is difficult, as an animal slaughtered by a gentile has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered animal carcass., b And /b in answer to this difficulty, b Shmuel says: /b The mishna b is /b in fact b teaching a single /b i halakha /i , which is that b the stomach /b contents b of /b an animal b slaughtered by a gentile /b are considered to be like the stomach contents of an unslaughtered b animal carcass /b and are therefore b prohibited. /b Earlier, Shmuel asserted that only the physical skin of an animal’s stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in i Ḥullin /i , Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited.,The Gemara explains that this is b not difficult: /b |
|
| 46. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 14 Tagged with subjects: •reasons for the commandments Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 266 |
