1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 12.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 279| 12.7. אִמֲרוֹת יְהוָה אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף בַּעֲלִיל לָאָרֶץ מְזֻקָּק שִׁבְעָתָיִם׃ | 12.7. The words of the LORD are pure words, As silver tried in a crucible on the earth, refined seven times. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 2.1, 9.3, 19.2, 28.2, 31.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1, 191, 279| 9.3. בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר־יוֹם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה בֵּין הָעֲרְבַּיִם תַּעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ כְּכָל־חֻקֹּתָיו וּכְכָל־מִשְׁפָּטָיו תַּעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ׃ 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׃ 28.2. וּמִנְחָתָם סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים לַפָּר וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים לָאַיִל תַּעֲשׂוּ׃ 28.2. צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת־קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃ | 9.3. In the fourteenth day of this month, at dusk, ye shall keep it in its appointed season; according to all the statutes of it, and according to all the ordices thereof, shall ye keep it.’ 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. 28.2. Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season. 31.20. And as to every garment, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats’hair, and all things made of wood, ye shall purify.’ |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 11.29-11.30, 11.32, 24.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 191, 198, 230, 233| 11.29. וְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל־הָאָרֶץ הַחֹלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ׃ 11.32. וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּל־עָלָיו מֵהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא מִכָּל־כְּלִי־עֵץ אוֹ בֶגֶד אוֹ־עוֹר אוֹ שָׂק כָּל־כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר־יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בָּהֶם בַּמַּיִם יוּבָא וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר׃ 24.22. מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח יִהְיֶה כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃ | 11.29. And these are they which are unclean unto you among the swarming things that swarm upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds, 11.30. and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon. 11.32. And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherewith any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; then shall it be clean. 24.22. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am the LORD your God.’ |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 23.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 279| 23.2. הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ לְפָנֶיךָ לִשְׁמָרְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ וְלַהֲבִיאֲךָ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֲכִנֹתִי׃ 23.2. לֹא־תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי־רַבִּים לְרָעֹת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶה עַל־רִב לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת׃ | 23.2. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice; |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 13.15, 16.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 236| 13.15. וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר נֶעֶשְׂתָה הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּקִרְבֶּךָ׃ | 13.15. then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee; 16.20. Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 30.20 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 281 | 30.20. And though the Lord give you sparing bread and scant water, Yet shall not thy Teacher hide Himself any more, But thine eyes shall see thy Teacher; |
|
| 7. Cicero, De Oratore, 2.27.314 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 230 |
| 8. Cicero, Orator, 14.46 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1 |
9. Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, 5.12.14, 10.1.22-10.1.23, 12.2.25, 12.5.25 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1, 230, 233 | 12.2.25. Some authorities hold that the Academy will be the most useful school, on the ground that its habit of disputing on both sides of a question approaches most nearly to the actual practice of the courts. And by way of proof they add the fact that this school has produced speakers highly renowned for their eloquence. The Peripatetics also make it their boast that they have a form of study which is near akin to oratory. For it was with them in the main that originated the practice of declaiming on general questions by way of exercise. The Stoics, though driven to admit that, generally speaking, their teachers have been deficient both in fullness and charm of eloquence, still contend that no men can prove more acutely or draw conclusions with greater subtlety than themselves. |
|
| 10. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 198 |
| 11. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 9.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 230 |
12. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 230, 237| 4.1. אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: 4.2. דִּינֵי הַטֻּמְאוֹת וְהַטָּהֳרוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצָּד. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא כֹהֲנִים, לְוִיִּם, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים הַמַּשִּׂיאִין לַכְּהֻנָּה: 4.3. סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין: 5.1. הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁנָה, בְּאֵיזֶה חֹדֶשׁ, בְּכַמָּה בַחֹדֶשׁ, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. הִתְרֵיתֶם בּוֹ. הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶת מִי עָבַד, וּבַמֶּה עָבָד: 5.4. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין, פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵינֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו: 5.5. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, מַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ לְמָחָר. הָיוּ מִזְדַּוְּגִין זוּגוֹת זוּגוֹת, וּמְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל, וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְלַמָּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין לְבֵית דִּין. הַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי, וְהַמְחַיֵּב אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְחַיֵּב וּמְחַיֵּב אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי. הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. טָעוּ בְדָּבָר, שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, עוֹמְדִים לְמִנְיָן. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין, וַאֲפִלּוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. עַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין, שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין, דָּנִין אֵלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד אֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמְחַיְּבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין: | 4.1. Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival. 4.2. In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness [the judges declare their opinion] beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from [them that sit at] the side. All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give [their daughters] in marriage to priests. 4.3. The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction. 5.1. They used to examine witnesses with seven inquiries: In what week of years? In what year? In what month? On what date in the month? On what day? In what hour? In what place? Rabbi Yose says: [They only asked:] On what day? In what hour? In what place? [Moreover they asked:] Do you recognize him? Did you warn him? If one had committed idolatry [they asked the witnesses:] What did he worship and how did he worship it? 5.4. They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him. If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him. If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words. 5.5. If they find him not guilty, he is discharged, if not, it [the trial] is adjourned till the following day. During this time they [the judges] go about in pairs, practice moderation in food, drink no wine the whole day, and discuss the case throughout the night. Early next morning they reassemble in court. He who is in favor of acquittal states, ‘I declare him innocent and I stand by my opinion.’ While he who is in favor of condemnation says: ‘I declare him guilty and stand by my opinion.’ One who [previously] argued for conviction may now argue for acquittal, but one who [previously] argued for acquittal may not now argue for conviction. If they have made any mistake, the two judges’ scribes are to remind them. If they find him not guilty, they discharge him. If not, they take a vote. If twelve acquit and eleven condemn, he is acquitted. If twelve condemn and eleven acquit, or if eleven condemn and eleven acquit and one says, ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two acquit or condemn and a single one says, ‘I do not know,’ they add to the judges. Up to what number is the court increased? By twos up to the limit of seventy-one. If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted. But if thirty-six condemn and thirty-five acquit, the two sides debate the case together until one of those who condemn agrees with the view of those who are for acquittal. |
|
13. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 26.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1| 26.2. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִמִּלְחַיָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמְרוּ, מָצִינוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת בִּימֵי דָוִד עַד שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמוּ טַעַם חֵטְא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין לִדְרשׁ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מ"ט פָּנִים טָמֵא וּמ"ט פָּנִים טָהוֹר, וַהֲוָה דָּוִד מַצְלֵי עֲלַיְהוּ, הֲדָא הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים יב, ח): אַתָּה ה' תִּשְׁמְרֵם, אַתָּה ה' נְטַר אוֹרַיְתְהוֹן בְּלִבֵּהוֹן, [עפ"י (תהלים יב, ח)]: תִּנְצְרֵם מִן הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם, מִן הַדּוֹר הַהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב כְּלָיָה, אַחַר כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח הַזֶּה יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹפְלִין, אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶם דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין, הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים נז, ה): נַפְשִׁי בְּתוֹךְ לְבָאִם, לְבָאִם זֶה אַבְנֵר וַעֲמָשָׂא שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָאִים בַּתּוֹרָה. (תהלים נז, ה): אֶשְׁכְּבָה לֹהֲטִים, זֶה דּוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל שֶׁהָיוּ לְהוּטִין אַחַר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. (תהלים נז, ה): בְּנֵי אָדָם שִׁנֵּיהֶם חֲנִית וְחִצִּים, אֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי קְעִילָה דִּכְתִיב בָּהֶם (שמואל א כג, יא): הֲיַסְגִּרֻנִי בַעֲלֵי קְעִילָה בְיָדוֹ. (תהלים נז, ה): וּלְשׁוֹנָם חֶרֶב חַדָּה, אֵלּוּ הַזִּיפִים דִּכְתִיב בְּהוֹן (תהלים נד, ב): בְּבוֹא הַזִּיפִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְשָׁאוּל, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר דָּוִד וְכִי מָה הַשְּׁכִינָה עוֹשָׂה בָּאָרֶץ (תהלים נז, ב): רוּמָה עַל הַשָּׁמַיִם אֱלֹהִים, סַלֵּק שְׁכִינָתְךָ מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. אֲבָל דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אַחְאָב כֻּלָּן עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הָיוּ, וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָּהֶן דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹצְחִין, הוּא שֶׁעוֹבַדְיָה אָמַר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ (מלכים א יח, יג): הֲלֹא הֻגַּד לַאדֹנִי וגו' וָאֲכַלְכְּלֵם לֶחֶם וָמָיִם, אִם לֶחֶם לָמָּה מָיִם, אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ הַמַּיִם קָשִׁים לוֹ לְהָבִיא יוֹתֵר מִן הַלֶּחֶם, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ מַכְרִיז בְּהַר הַכַּרְמֶל וְאוֹמֵר (מלכים א יח, כב): אֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי נָבִיא לַה' לְבַדִּי, וְכָל עַמָּא יָדְעֵי וְלָא מְפַרְסְמֵי לְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמְרוּ לוֹ לַנָּחָשׁ מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מָצוּי בֵּין הַגְּדֵרוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּרַצְתִּי גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַנָּחָשׁ פָּרַץ גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם תְּחִלָּה לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲשָׂה סְפֶּקָלָטוֹר לְכָל פּוֹרְצֵי גְדֵרוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ, מָה אַתָּה מוֹעִיל, אֲרִי דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, זְאֵב טוֹרֵף וְאוֹכֵל, וְאַתְּ נוֹשֵׁךְ וּמֵמִית. אָמַר לָהֶם (קהלת י, יא): אִם יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ בְּלוֹא לָחַשׁ, אֶפְשָׁר דַּאֲנָא עָבֵיד כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם מִתְאֲמַר לִי מִן עֲלִיּוּתָא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ בְּאֵבֶר אֶחָד וְאַרְסְךָ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּכָל הָאֵבָרִים, אָמַר לָהֶם וְלִי אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים (קהלת י, יא): אֵין יִתְרוֹן לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן, דְּיָתֵיב בְּרוֹמִי וְקָטֵל בְּסוּרְיָא, בְּסוּרְיָא וְקָטֵל בְּרוֹמִי. וְלָמָּה קוֹרֵא שְׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג שְׁלשָׁה, הָאוֹמְרוֹ, הַמְּקַבְּלוֹ וְהַנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּגְבַר דַּהֲוַת לֵיהּ כַּלָּה בִּישָׁא וַהֲוַת צְמִידָה אֲמָרָה לִשָּׁן בִּישׁ, וַהֲוָה מְפַיֵּס יָתָהּ תְּרֵין זִמְנִין בְּיוֹמָא, חַד בְּרַמְשָׁא וְחַד בְּצַפְרָא, אֲמַר לָהּ אֲנָא בָּעֵי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תֵימְרִין לִשַּׁן בִּישׁ, מָה עֲבָדַת אֲזָלַת וַאֲמָרַת לְבַעֲלָהּ הָדֵין אֲבוּךְ בָּעֵי לְשַׁמָּשָׁא יָתִי, וְאִי לֵית אַתְּ מְהֵימַנְתְּ לִי עוּל אָתֵית לְרַמְשָׁא וְאַתְּ מַשְׁכַּח יָתֵיהּ יָתֵיב וּמְפַיֵּס לִי, אָזַל וּרְצַד עֲלוֹי וְחָמָא יָתֵיהּ קָאֵים גָּחִין וְסָיַח יָתָהּ. אֲמַר כְּבָר מִלָּא קוּשְׁטָן, מָה עֲבַד מְחָא לַאֲבוֹי וּקְטָלֵיהּ. אוֹבִילִין יָתֵיהּ לְדִינָא וְאִתְחַיַּיב קָטוֹלִין, וּלְהַהִיא אִנְתְּתָא דַּאֲמָרַת עַל אֲבוֹי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע וְאִיתְחַיְיבָא קָטוֹלִין, וְאִשְׁתַּכַּח לִשָּׁנָא קָטֵל תְּלָתֵיהוֹן. וּבִימֵי שָׁאוּל הָרַג אַרְבָּעָה, דּוֹאֵג שֶׁאָמַר, שָׁאוּל שֶׁקִּבְּלוֹ, אֲחִימֶלֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו, אַבְנֵר לָמָּה נֶהֱרַג, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אַבְנֵר נֶהֱרַג עַל שֶׁעָשָׂה דָמָן שֶׁל נְעָרִים שְׂחוֹק, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ב, יד): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְנֵר אֶל יוֹאָב יָקוּמוּ נָא הַנְּעָרִים וִישַׂחֲקוּ לְפָנֵינוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַל שֶׁהִקְדִּים שְׁמוֹ לְשֵׁם דָּוִד, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ג, יב): וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְנֵר מַלְאָכִים אֶל דָּוִד תַּחְתָּיו לֵאמֹר לְמִי אָרֶץ, וְהָכֵי כָּתַב לֵיהּ מֵאַבְנֵר לְדָוִד. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְשָׁאוּל לְהִתְפַּיֵּס בְּדָוִד וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ אַבְנֵר, שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דָּוִד (שמואל א כד, יא): וְאָבִי רְאֵה גַּם רְאֵה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי, מִן גְּלַגּוֹי דִּידָךְ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, כַּד אָתוֹן לַמַּעֲגָל. אָמַר לוֹ (שמואל א כו, יד): הֲלוֹא תַעֲנֶה אַבְנֵר, בַּכָּנָף אָמַרְתָּ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, חֲנִית וְצַפַּחַת בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת בְּשָׁאוּל עַל נוֹב וְלֹא מִחָה. | |
|
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 4.1-4.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1, 198, 233, 236, 278 |
| 15. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 49.17 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 279 |
16. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 17a, 17b, 32b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 236| 32b. טעו לא ישלמו כל שכן שתנעול דלת בפני לווין,רבא אמר מתניתין דהכא בדיני קנסות ואידך בהודאות והלואות,רב פפא אמר אידי ואידי בהודאה והלואה כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאינו מרומה,כדריש לקיש דריש לקיש רמי כתיב (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך וכתיב (דברים טז, כ) צדק צדק תרדף הא כיצד כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאין מרומה,רב אשי אמר מתני׳ כדשנין קראי אחד לדין וא' לפשרה,כדתניא צדק צדק תרדף אחד לדין ואחד לפשרה כיצד שתי ספינות עוברות בנהר ופגעו זה בזה אם עוברות שתיהן שתיהן טובעות בזה אחר זה שתיהן עוברות וכן שני גמלים שהיו עולים במעלות בית חורון ופגעו זה בזה אם עלו שניהן שניהן נופלין בזה אחר זה שניהן עולין,הא כיצד טעונה ושאינה טעונה תידחה שאינה טעונה מפני טעונה קרובה ושאינה קרובה תידחה קרובה מפני שאינה קרובה היו שתיהן קרובות שתיהן רחוקות הטל פשרה ביניהן ומעלות שכר זו לזו,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר ב"ד יפה אחר רבי אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל,תנא קול ריחים בבורני שבוע הבן שבוע הבן אור הנר בברור חיל משתה שם משתה שם,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר חכמים לישיבה אחר ר' אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל אחר רבי יהושע לפקיעין אחר רבן גמליאל ליבנא אחר רבי עקיבא לבני ברק אחר רבי מתיא לרומי אחר רבי חנניא בן תרדיון לסיכני אחר ר' יוסי לציפורי אחר רבי יהודה בן בתירה לנציבין אחר רבי יהושע לגולה אחר רבי לבית שערים אחר חכמים ללשכת הגזית:,דיני ממונות פותחין כו': היכי אמרינן אמר רב יהודה הכי אמרינן להו מי יימר כדקאמריתו,א"ל עולא והא חסמינן להו וליחסמו מי לא תניא רבי שמעון בן אליעזר אומר מסיעין את העדים ממקום למקום כדי שתיטרף דעתן ויחזרו בהן,מי דמי התם ממילא קא מידחו הכא קא דחינן להו בידים,אלא אמר עולא הכי אמרינן יש לך עדים להזימם א"ל רבה וכי פותחין בזכותו של זה שהיא חובתו של זה,ומי הויא חובתו והתנן אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין,הכי אמינא אילו שתיק האי עד דמיגמר דיניה ומייתי עדים ומזים להו הויא ליה חובתו של זה אלא אמר רבה אמרינן ליה יש לך עדים להכחישן,רב כהנא אמר מדבריכם נזדכה פלוני אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו אמרי' ליה אי לא קטלת לא תדחל רב אשי אמר כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו,תניא כוותיה דאביי ורבא רבי אומר (במדבר ה, יט) אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית וגו' | 32b. then if the judges erred they should not need to pay the party they wronged, as they can claim that they were prevented from examining the witnesses effectively. The Gemara answers: If that were to be the halakha, all the more so that this would lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. If people know that the courts are not responsible for an error in judgment, they will not be willing to lend money.,Rava says: The ruling of the mishna here, that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to laws of fines, not standard cases of monetary law. And the other sources, i.e., the mishna in tractate Shevi’it and the baraita, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, are stated with regard to cases of admissions and loans, in which there is cause to relax the procedures of deliberation, as explained.,Rav Pappa says: This and that, i.e., both the mishna here and the other sources, are stated with regard to cases of an admission and a loan. The distinction between them is that the mishna here, which rules that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to a possibly fraudulent trial, where the court suspects that one party is attempting to defraud the other party and have witnesses offer false testimony on his own behalf. There, in the baraita and in the mishna in tractate Shevi’it, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, the ruling is stated with regard to a trial that does not appear fraudulent.,This distinction is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish raises a contradiction between two verses: It is written in one verse: “In justice shall you judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15), and it is written in another verse: “Justice, justice, shall you follow” (Deuteronomy 16:21), with the repetition indicating that it is not enough to merely judge with justice. He continues: How can these texts be reconciled? Here, this latter verse is stated with regard to a possibly fraudulent trial, where the court must take extra care to judge with justice; and there, that former verse is stated with regard to a trial that does not appear fraudulent.,Rav Ashi says: The ruling of the mishna here, that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is as we answered, i.e., in accordance with any one of the answers offered by the other amora’im. And those verses were not stated with regard to fraudulent trials; rather, one is stated with regard to judgment, in which the court must pursue justice extensively, and one is stated with regard to compromise.,As it is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “Justice, justice, shall you follow,” one mention of “justice” is stated with regard to judgment and one is stated with regard to compromise. How so? Where there are two boats traveling on the river and they encounter each other, if both of them attempt to pass, both of them sink, as the river is not wide enough for both to pass. If they pass one after the other, both of them pass. And similarly, where there are two camels who were ascending the ascent of Beit Ḥoron, where there is a narrow steep path, and they encounter each other, if both of them attempt to ascend, both of them fall. If they ascend one after the other, both of them ascend.,How does one decide which of them should go first? If there is one boat that is laden and one boat that is not laden, the needs of the one that is not laden should be overridden due to the needs of the one that is laden. If there is one boat that is close to its destination and one boat that is not close to its destination, the needs of the one that is close should be overridden due to the needs of the one that is not close. If both of them were close to their destinations, or both of them were far from their destinations, impose a compromise between them to decide which goes first, and the owners of the boats pay a fee to one other, i.e., the owners of the first boat compensate the owner of the boat that waits, for any loss incurred.,§ The Sages taught: The verse states: “Justice, justice, shall you follow.” This teaches that one should follow the best, most prestigious, court of the generation. For example, follow after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil.,The Sages taught: When the gentile authorities issued decrees outlawing observance of the mitzvot, members of Jewish communities devised clandestine ways of indicating observance of mitzvot to each other. For example: If one produces the sound of a millstone in the city called Burni, this is tantamount to announcing: Week of the son, week of the son, i.e., there will be a circumcision. If one displays the light of a lamp in the city called Beror Ḥayil, this is tantamount to announcing: There is a wedding feast there, there is a wedding feast there.,The Sages taught: The verse states: “Justice, justice, shall you follow.” This teaches that one should follow the Sages to the academy where they are found. For example, follow after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil, after Rabbi Yehoshua to Peki’in, after Rabban Gamliel to Yavne, after Rabbi Akiva to Bnei Brak, after Rabbi Matya to Rome [Romi], after Rabbi Ḥaya ben Teradyon to Sikhnei, after Rabbi Yosei to Tzippori, after Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to Netzivin, after Rabbi Yehoshua to the exile [gola], i.e., Babylonia, after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to Beit She’arim, and after the Sages in the time of the Temple to the Chamber of Hewn Stone.,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of monetary law, the court opens the deliberations either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court opens the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused, but does not open the deliberations with a claim to find him liable. The Gemara asks: How do we say this opening stage of the deliberations? In other words, with what claim does the court begin deliberating? Rav Yehuda said: We say this to the witnesses: Who says that the event occurred as you said? Perhaps you erred?,Ulla said to him: But by confronting the witnesses in this manner, we silence them. The witnesses will think that the court suspects them of lying, and they will not testify. Rav Yehuda said to him: And let them be silenced. Isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.,The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the halakhot comparable? There, where Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says to bring the witnesses from place to place, the witnesses are repressed by themselves, whereas here, we repress them by direct action, and that the court should not do.,Rather, Ulla says: We say this to the accused: Do you have witnesses to determine that the witnesses who testified against you are conspiring witnesses? Rabba said to him: But do we open the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused that is to the liability of this one, i.e., the witnesses? This claim can lead to the witnesses incurring liability for their testimony.,The Gemara questions Rabba’s assumption: But is this to the liability of the witnesses? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Makkot 5b): Conspiring witnesses are not killed for their testimony until the verdict of the one concerning whom they testified is issued? Therefore, if they will be shown to be conspiring witnesses at this early stage of the proceedings, they will not be liable.,The Gemara restates Rabba’s objection: This is what I say: If the accused would be silent until his verdict is issued and then brings witnesses and the court determines them to be conspiring witnesses, it will be found that the statement of the court is to the liability of this one, i.e., the witnesses. Rather, Rabba says: We say to the accused: Do you have witnesses to contradict them? If the first witnesses are contradicted as to the facts of the case, no one is liable.,Rav Kahana said: We say to the witnesses: Based on your statements, so-and-so is acquitted. The court issues a pro forma declaration that it is possible to find a reason to acquit based on the testimony of the witnesses, and then they begin the deliberations. Abaye and Rava both say: We say to the accused: For example, if you did not kill anyone, do not fear the consequences of these proceedings, as you will be acquitted. Rav Ashi says: The court announces: Whoever knows of a reason to acquit the accused should come and teach this reason concerning him.,The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the explanation of Abaye and Rava. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The priest administering the sota rite to the sota says to her: “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray to impurity while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband…” (Numbers 5:19–20). The priest first states the scenario in which the woman is innocent of adultery. |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1, 198 13b. ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו,| 13b. but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.,The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.,On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.,It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates [meir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.,It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.,Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.,Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.,The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.,As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.,This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.,The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.,The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, which measures three handbreadths, i.e., a handbreadth and a half. It is sufficient that the cross beam will be a handbreadth in width, not a handbreadth and a half, enough to hold a small brick across its width.,And the cross beam must be wide enough to hold a small brick and also sturdy enough to hold a small brick and not collapse. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is wide enough to hold the brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal.,If the cross beam is curved, so that a small brick cannot rest on it, one considers it as though it were straight; if it is round, one considers it as though it were square. The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: Any beam with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, i.e., in diameter. | |
|
| 18. Anon., V. Theodorae,, 38 Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 279 |
| 21. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 21 Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1, 279 |
| 22. Anon., V. Marcelli, 4.2 Tagged with subjects: •reptile purity argument Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 1 |
