1. Hebrew Bible, Micah, 7.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 299| 7.8. "אַל־תִּשְׂמְחִי אֹיַבְתִּי לִי כִּי נָפַלְתִּי קָמְתִּי כִּי־אֵשֵׁב בַּחֹשֶׁךְ יְהוָה אוֹר לִי׃", | 7.8. "Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy; Though I am fallen, I shall arise; Though I sit in darkness, the LORD is a light unto me.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 14.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 288| 14.7. "אַךְ אֶת־זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה הַשְּׁסוּעָה אֶת־הַגָּמָל וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶבֶת וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָן כִּי־מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הֵמָּה וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם׃", | 14.7. "Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger, because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you;", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 2.19, 6.11, 8.15-8.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 299| 2.19. "וּבְהִקָּבֵץ בְּתוּלוֹת שֵׁנִית וּמָרְדֳּכַי יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר־הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", 6.11. "וַיִּקַּח הָמָן אֶת־הַלְּבוּשׁ וְאֶת־הַסּוּס וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֶת־מָרְדֳּכָי וַיַּרְכִּיבֵהוּ בִּרְחוֹב הָעִיר וַיִּקְרָא לְפָנָיו כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הַמֶּלֶךְ חָפֵץ בִּיקָרוֹ׃", 8.15. "וּמָרְדֳּכַי יָצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בִּלְבוּשׁ מַלְכוּת תְּכֵלֶת וָחוּר וַעֲטֶרֶת זָהָב גְּדוֹלָה וְתַכְרִיךְ בּוּץ וְאַרְגָּמָן וְהָעִיר שׁוּשָׁן צָהֲלָה וְשָׂמֵחָה׃", 8.16. "לַיְּהוּדִים הָיְתָה אוֹרָה וְשִׂמְחָה וְשָׂשֹׂן וִיקָר׃", | 2.19. "And when the virgins were gathered together the second time, and Mordecai sat in the king’s gate—", 6.11. "Then took Haman the apparel and the horse, and arrayed Mordecai, and caused him to ride through the street of the city, and proclaimed before him: ‘Thus shall it be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to honour.’", 8.15. "And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a rob of fine linen and purple; and the city of Shushan shouted and was glad.", 8.16. "The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honour.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 16.25, 30.1-30.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 237; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 297, 298| 16.25. "וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אִכְלֻהוּ הַיּוֹם כִּי־שַׁבָּת הַיּוֹם לַיהוָה הַיּוֹם לֹא תִמְצָאֻהוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה׃", 30.1. "וְעָשִׂיתָ מִזְבֵּחַ מִקְטַר קְטֹרֶת עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ׃", 30.1. "וְכִפֶּר אַהֲרֹן עַל־קַרְנֹתָיו אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה מִדַּם חַטַּאת הַכִּפֻּרִים אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה יְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ־קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיהוָה׃", 30.2. "בְּבֹאָם אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יִרְחֲצוּ־מַיִם וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ אוֹ בְגִשְׁתָּם אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְשָׁרֵת לְהַקְטִיר אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה׃", 30.2. "אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה וְאַמָּתַיִם קֹמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ קַרְנֹתָיו׃", 30.3. "וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת־גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת־קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת־קַרְנֹתָיו וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב׃", 30.3. "וְאֶת־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת־בָּנָיו תִּמְשָׁח וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם לְכַהֵן לִי׃", 30.4. "וּשְׁתֵּי טַבְּעֹת זָהָב תַּעֲשֶׂה־לּוֹ מִתַּחַת לְזֵרוֹ עַל שְׁתֵּי צַלְעֹתָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל־שְׁנֵי צִדָּיו וְהָיָה לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ בָּהֵמָּה׃", 30.5. "וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת־הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב׃", 30.6. "וְנָתַתָּה אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת לִפְנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לְךָ שָׁמָּה׃", 30.7. "וְהִקְטִיר עָלָיו אַהֲרֹן קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת־הַנֵּרֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה׃", 30.8. "וּבְהַעֲלֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעֲרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה קְטֹרֶת תָּמִיד לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם׃", 30.9. "לֹא־תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה וְעֹלָה וּמִנְחָה וְנֵסֶךְ לֹא תִסְּכוּ עָלָיו׃", 30.11. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 30.12. "כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיהוָה בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם׃", 30.13. "זֶה יִתְּנוּ כָּל־הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה הַשֶּׁקֶל מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה׃", 30.14. "כֹּל הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמָעְלָה יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה׃", 30.15. "הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא־יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט מִמַּחֲצִית הַשָּׁקֶל לָתֵת אֶת־תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם׃", 30.16. "וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת־כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם׃", | 16.25. "And Moses said: ‘Eat that to-day; for to-day is a sabbath unto the LORD; to-day ye shall not find it in the field.", 30.1. "And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon; of acacia-wood shalt thou make it.", 30.2. "A cubit shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof; foursquare shall it be; and two cubits shall be the height thereof; the horns thereof shall be of one piece with it.", 30.3. "And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, the top thereof, and the sides thereof round about, and the horns thereof; and thou shalt make unto it a crown of gold round about.", 30.4. "And two golden rings shalt thou make for it under the crown thereof, upon the two ribs thereof, upon the two sides of it shalt thou make them; and they shall be for places for staves wherewith to bear it.", 30.5. "And thou shalt make the staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with gold.", 30.6. "And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the ark-cover that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.", 30.7. "And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn it.", 30.8. "And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations.", 30.9. "Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt-offering, nor meal-offering; and ye shall pour no drink-offering thereon.", 30.10. "And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it throughout your generations; it is most holy unto the LORD.’", 30.11. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 30.12. "’When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.", 30.13. "This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary—the shekel is twenty gerahs—half a shekel for an offering to the LORD.", 30.14. "Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of the LORD.", 30.15. "The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.", 30.16. "And thou shalt take the atonement money from the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.’", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 27.41 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 290| 27.41. "וַיִּשְׂטֹם עֵשָׂו אֶת־יַעֲקֹב עַל־הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרֲכוֹ אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו בְּלִבּוֹ יִקְרְבוּ יְמֵי אֵבֶל אָבִי וְאַהַרְגָה אֶת־יַעֲקֹב אָחִי׃", | 27.41. "And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him. And Esau said in his heart: ‘Let the days of mourning for my father be at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.’", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Job, 37.23 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 235| 37.23. "שַׁדַּי לֹא־מְצָאנֻהוּ שַׂגִּיא־כֹחַ וּמִשְׁפָּט וְרֹב־צְדָקָה לֹא יְעַנֶּה׃", | 37.23. "The Almighty, whom we cannot find out, is excellent in power, Yet to judgment and plenteous justice He doeth no violence.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 11.4-11.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 288| 11.4. "אַךְ אֶת־זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה אֶת־הַגָּמָל כִּי־מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.4. "וְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת־נִבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.5. "וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָן כִּי־מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.6. "וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי־מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם׃", 11.7. "וְאֶת־הַחֲזִיר כִּי־מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא וְשֹׁסַע שֶׁסַע פַּרְסָה וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא־יִגָּר טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.8. "מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם׃", | 11.4. "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.", 11.5. "And the rock-badger, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.", 11.6. "And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you", 11.7. "And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you.", 11.8. "of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 24.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 292| 24.17. "אֶרְאֶנּוּ וְלֹא עַתָּה אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ וְלֹא קָרוֹב דָּרַךְ כּוֹכָב מִיַּעֲקֹב וְקָם שֵׁבֶט מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּמָחַץ פַּאֲתֵי מוֹאָב וְקַרְקַר כָּל־בְּנֵי־שֵׁת׃", | 24.17. "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh; There shall step forth a star out of Jacob, And a scepter shall rise out of Israel, And shall smite through the corners of Moab, And break down all the sons of Seth.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Song of Songs, 1.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 298| 1.6. "אַל־תִּרְאוּנִי שֶׁאֲנִי שְׁחַרְחֹרֶת שֶׁשֱּׁזָפַתְנִי הַשָּׁמֶשׁ בְּנֵי אִמִּי נִחֲרוּ־בִי שָׂמֻנִי נֹטֵרָה אֶת־הַכְּרָמִים כַּרְמִי שֶׁלִּי לֹא נָטָרְתִּי׃", | 1.6. Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, That the sun hath tanned me; My mother’s sons were incensed against me, They made me keeper of the vineyards; But mine own vineyard have I not kept.’ |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Obadiah, 1.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 288| 1.21. "וְעָלוּ מוֹשִׁעִים בְּהַר צִיּוֹן לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת־הַר עֵשָׂו וְהָיְתָה לַיהוָה הַמְּלוּכָה׃", | 1.21. "And saviours shall come up on mount Zion To judge the mount of Esau; And the kingdom shall be the LORD’S.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 60.10, 95.7, 119.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 49; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 294, 297| 95.7. "כִּי הוּא אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַאֲנַחְנוּ עַם מַרְעִיתוֹ וְצֹאן יָדוֹ הַיּוֹם אִם־בְּקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ׃", 119.26. "דְּרָכַי סִפַּרְתִּי וַתַּעֲנֵנִי לַמְּדֵנִי חֻקֶּיךָ׃", | 60.10. "Moab is my washpot; Upon Edom do I cast my shoe; Philistia, cry aloud because of me!", 95.7. "For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, and the flock of His hand. To-day, if ye would but hearken to His voice!", 119.26. "I told of my ways, and Thou didst answer me; teach me Thy statutes.", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 49| 11.24. "יֵשׁ מְפַזֵּר וְנוֹסָף עוֹד וְחוֹשֵׂךְ מִיֹּשֶׁר אַךְ־לְמַחְסוֹר׃", 23.22. "שְׁמַע לְאָבִיךָ זֶה יְלָדֶךָ וְאַל־תָּבוּז כִּי־זָקְנָה אִמֶּךָ׃", | 11.24. "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; And there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth only to want.", 23.22. "Hearken unto thy father that begot thee, And despise not thy mother when she is old.", |
|
13. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 10.34, 11.1, 21.12, 30.15 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 292, 296, 297, 298| 10.34. "וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר בַּבַּרְזֶל וְהַלְּבָנוֹן בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל׃", 11.1. "וְיָצָא חֹטֶר מִגֵּזַע יִשָׁי וְנֵצֶר מִשָּׁרָשָׁיו יִפְרֶה׃", 11.1. "וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא שֹׁרֶשׁ יִשַׁי אֲשֶׁר עֹמֵד לְנֵס עַמִּים אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם יִדְרֹשׁוּ וְהָיְתָה מְנֻחָתוֹ כָּבוֹד׃", 21.12. "אָמַר שֹׁמֵר אָתָה בֹקֶר וְגַם־לָיְלָה אִם־תִּבְעָיוּן בְּעָיוּ שֻׁבוּ אֵתָיוּ׃", 30.15. "כִּי כֹה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשׁוּבָה וָנַחַת תִּוָּשֵׁעוּן בְּהַשְׁקֵט וּבְבִטְחָה תִּהְיֶה גְּבוּרַתְכֶם וְלֹא אֲבִיתֶם׃", | 10.34. "And He shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, And Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one.", 11.1. "And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, And a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.", 21.12. "The watchman said: ‘The morning cometh, and also the night— If ye will inquire, inquire ye; return, come.’", 30.15. "For thus said the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel: In sitting still and rest shall ye be saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength; And ye would not.", |
|
14. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 22.47 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 291| 22.47. "וְיֶתֶר הַקָּדֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁאַר בִּימֵי אָסָא אָבִיו בִּעֵר מִן־הָאָרֶץ׃", | 22.47. "And the remt of the sodomites that remained in the days of his father Asa, he put away out of the land.", |
|
15. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 11.17 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 295| 11.17. "הוֹי רֹעִי הָאֱלִיל עֹזְבִי הַצֹּאן חֶרֶב עַל־זְרוֹעוֹ וְעַל־עֵין יְמִינוֹ זְרֹעוֹ יָבוֹשׁ תִּיבָשׁ וְעֵין יְמִינוֹ כָּהֹה תִכְהֶה׃", | 11.17. "Woe to the worthless shepherd That leaveth the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, And upon his right eye; His arm shall be clean dried up, And his right eye shall be utterly darkened.", |
|
16. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 6.2, 9.7 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 49, 237| 6.2. "אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֶּן־לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים עֹשֶׁר וּנְכָסִים וְכָבוֹד וְאֵינֶנּוּ חָסֵר לְנַפְשׁוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִתְאַוֶּה וְלֹא־יַשְׁלִיטֶנּוּ הָאֱלֹהִים לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי אִישׁ נָכְרִי יֹאכֲלֶנּוּ זֶה הֶבֶל וָחֳלִי רָע הוּא׃", 9.7. "לֵךְ אֱכֹל בְּשִׂמְחָה לַחְמֶךָ וּשֲׁתֵה בְלֶב־טוֹב יֵינֶךָ כִּי כְבָר רָצָה הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת־מַעֲשֶׂיךָ׃", | 6.2. "a man to whom God giveth riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it; this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.", 9.7. "Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, And drink thy wine with a merry heart; For God hath already accepted thy works.", |
|
17. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 73| 1.1. "משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה: \n", | 1.1. "Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.", |
|
18. Mishnah, Maaser Sheni, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 104| 1.2. "מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי, וְלֹא בַעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט, וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ הָאִשָּׁה. הַבְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי, וּבַעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט, וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ הָאִשָּׁה. אֵין מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אֲסִימוֹן, וְלֹא עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא, וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ: \n", | |
|
| 19. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 2.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 104, 105 |
20. Mishnah, Shabbat, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 237| 2.6. "עַל שָׁלשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת נָשִׁים מֵתוֹת בִּשְׁעַת לֵדָתָן, עַל שֶׁאֵינָן זְהִירוֹת בַּנִּדָּה וּבַחַלָּה וּבְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר: \n", | 2.6. "For three sins women die in childbirth: because they are not observant of [the laws of] niddah, hallah, and the kindling of the [Shabbat] lights.", |
|
21. Mishnah, Shekalim, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 237| 4.2. "פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית, בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִשְׁכָּה. כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה, וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, וְכָל צָרְכֵי הָעִיר, בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמָן: \n", | 4.2. "The [red] heifer and the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet came out of the appropriation of the chamber. The ramp for the [red] heifer and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet which was between its horns, and [the maintece of] the pool of water and the wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city came out of the remainder in the chamber. Abba Shaul says: the ramp for the [red] cow the high priests made out of their own [means].", |
|
22. New Testament, Mark, 8.33 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 235| 8.33. ὁ δὲ ἐπιστραφεὶς καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἐπετίμησεν Πέτρῳ καὶ λέγει Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. | 8.33. But he, turning around, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you have in mind not the things of God, but the things of men." |
|
| 23. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 47 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 104 |
| 24. Plutarch, Placita Philosophorum (874D-911C), None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 212 |
| 25. Tosefta, Qiddushin, 47 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 104 |
| 26. Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 1.2, 2.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 290 |
| 27. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Batra, 2.1, 2.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 100, 102 |
| 28. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 2.3-2.4, 2.6, 5.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 102, 211, 213, 214; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 291 |
| 29. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, 2.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98 |
30. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, 3.17 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 95| 3.17. עֵינִי נִגְּרָה וְלֹא תִדְמֶה וגו' עַד יַשְׁקִיף וְיֵרֶא ה' מִשָּׁמָיִם, רַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר בִּשְׁלשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת מָצִינוּ רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ סָמוּךְ לַגְּאֻלָּה, מַאי טַעְמָא (ישעיה לב, יד): מְשׂוֹשׂ פְּרָאִים מִרְעֵה עֲדָרִים, מַה כְּתִיב אַחֲרָיו (ישעיה לב, טו): עַד יֵעָרֶה עָלֵינוּ רוּחַ מִמָּרוֹם וְהָיָה מִדְבָּר לַכַּרְמֶל וְהַכַּרְמֶל לַיַּעַר יֵחָשֵׁב. וְדִכְוָותֵיהּ (ישעיה ס, כב): הַקָּטֹן יִהְיֶה לָאֶלֶף וְהַצָּעִיר וגו', וּכְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ (ישעיה סא, א): רוּחַ ה' אֱלֹהִים עָלָי יַעַן מָשַׁח ה' אֹתִי, וְהָדֵין: עֵינִי נִגְּרָה, וּכְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ: עַד יַשְׁקִיף וְיֵרֶא ה' מִשָּׁמָיִם. עֵינִי עוֹלְלָה לְנַפְשִׁי, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת בָּתֵּי סוֹפְרִים הָיוּ בְּבֵיתָר, וְהַקָּטָן שֶׁבָּהֶם לֹא הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת תִּינוֹקוֹת, וְהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים אִם יָבוֹאוּ הַשֹּׂוֹנְאִים עָלֵינוּ בַּמַּכְתְּבִים הַלָּלוּ אָנוּ יוֹצְאִין וְדוֹקְרִין אוֹתָן, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁגָּרְמוּ הָעֲוֹנוֹת וּבָאוּ הַשֹּׂוֹנְאִים, כָּרְכוּ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בְּסִפְרוֹ וְשָׂרְפוּ אוֹתָם, וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶם אֶלָּא אֲנִי, וְקָרָאתִי עַל עַצְמִי עֵינִי עוֹלְלָה לְנַפְשִׁי מִכֹּל בְּנוֹת עִירִי. | |
|
| 31. Palestinian Talmud, Horayot, 3.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98 |
| 32. Palestinian Talmud, Ketuvot, 12.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98 |
| 33. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 104 |
| 34. Palestinian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 1.8, 3.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 102 |
| 35. Palestinian Talmud, Nazir, 7.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 103 |
| 36. Palestinian Talmud, Orlah, 3.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 102 |
| 37. Anon., Targum Neofiti, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 73 |
| 38. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 104 |
| 39. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 2.1, 2.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 100 |
| 40. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, 19.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98 |
| 41. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, 7.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 102 |
| 42. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, 4.11 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98 |
| 43. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, 3.2.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 299 |
| 44. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, 3.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98 |
| 45. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, 5.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 102 |
| 46. Palestinian Talmud, Kilayim, 9.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 100, 102 |
| 47. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 3.3, 7.1.8, 9.7 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 95, 237 |
| 48. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, 2.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 100 |
| 49. Palestinian Talmud, Niddah, 1.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98 |
| 50. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, 8.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 95, 100, 102 |
51. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 100, 102| 96b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ואח"כ בא עליה אחיו שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד פוסל על ידו ר"ש אומר לא פוסל בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ואח"כ בא על צרתה פוסל על ידי עצמו רבי שמעון אומר לא פוסל:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא אמר להם רבי שמעון לחכמים אם ביאה ראשונה ביאה ביאה שנייה אינה ביאה ואם ביאה ראשונה אינה ביאה ביאה שנייה נמי אינה ביאה,מתניתין דלא כבן עזאי דתניא בן עזאי אומר יש מאמר אחר מאמר בשני יבמין ויבמה אחת,ואין מאמר אחר מאמר בשתי יבמות ויבם אחד:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ומת חולצת ולא מתייבמת נשא אשה ומת הרי זו פטורה בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ומשהגדיל נשא אשה אחרת ומת אם לא ידע את הראשונה משהגדיל הראשונה חולצת ולא מתייבמת והשנייה או חולצת או מתייבמת,רבי שמעון אומר מייבם לאי זו שירצה וחולץ לשנייה אחד שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד ואחד שהוא בן עשרים שלא הביא שתי שערות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבא הא דאמור רבנן זיקת שני יבמין מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מיבמה לא תימא היכא דאיכא צרה דאיכא למגזר משום צרה,דהא הכא ליכא צרה מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מיבמה:,נשא אשה ומת כו': תנינא להא דתנו רבנן שוטה וקטן שנשאו ומתו נשותיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום:,בן תשע וכו' משהגדיל וכו': ויעשו ביאת בן ט' כמאמר בגדול ותדחה צרה מיבום אמר רב לא עשו ביאת בן ט' כמאמר בגדול ושמואל אמר עשו ועשו וכן א"ר יוחנן עשו ועשו,ויעשו תנאי היא הך תנא דארבעה אחין גזר משום צרה,ואשמעינן בגדול וה"ה בקטן והאי דאמר גדול משום דבגדול קאי,והאי תנא דהכא סבירא ליה עשו ולא גזר משום צרה ואשמעינן בקטן והוא הדין בגדול והאי דקאמר בקטן דבקטן קאי,אזל ר' אלעזר אמר לשמעתא בי מדרשא ולא אמרה משמיה דר' יוחנן שמע רבי יוחנן איקפד עול לגביה רבי אמי ור' אסי אמרו ליה לא כך היה המעשה בבית הכנסת של טבריא בנגר שיש בראשו גלוסטרא,שנחלקו בו רבי אלעזר ורבי יוסי עד שקרעו ספר תורה בחמתן קרעו ס"ד אלא אימא שנקרע ס"ת בחמתן והיה שם רבי יוסי בן קיסמא אמר תמיה אני אם לא יהיה בית הכנסת זו עבודת כוכבים וכן הוה,הדר איקפד טפי אמר חברותא נמי,עול לגביה ר' יעקב בר אידי א"ל (יהושע יא, טו) כאשר צוה ה' את משה עבדו כן צוה משה את יהושע וכן עשה יהושע לא הסיר דבר מכל אשר צוה ה' את משה וכי על כל דבר שאמר יהושע היה אומר להם כך אמר לי משה אלא יהושע יושב ודורש סתם והכל יודעין שתורתו של משה היא אף ר' אלעזר תלמידך יושב ודורש סתם והכל יודעין כי שלך היא,אמר להם מפני מה אי אתם יודעין לפייס כבן אידי חברינו ורבי יוחנן מ"ט קפיד כולי האי דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (תהלים סא, ה) אגורה באהלך עולמים וכי אפשר לו לאדם לגור בשני עולמים אלא אמר דוד לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם יהי רצון | 96b. strong MISHNA: /strong If a boy b aged nine years and one day had /b sexual b relations with his i yevama /i , and afterward his brother, who is /b also b nine years and one day old, had relations with her, /b the second brother b disqualifies /b her b to /b the first one. b Rabbi Shimon says /b he does b not disqualify /b her. If a minor b aged nine years and one day had relations with his i yevama /i , and afterward /b that same boy b had relations with her rival wife, /b he thereby b disqualifies her to himself, /b and both women are now forbidden to him. b Rabbi Shimon says /b he does b not disqualify /b her., strong GEMARA: /strong b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If /b the b first sexual act /b of a nine-year-old is considered a proper act of b sexual relations, /b then the b second act is not an act /b of consequence, just as the intercourse of one adult i yavam /i after that of another adult i yavam /i is of no effect. b And if /b you say that the b first sexual act is not /b considered b a sexual act, /b the b second act /b of himself or his brother b is also not a sexual act. /b However, the Rabbis maintain that as the intercourse of a nine-year-old is like a levirate betrothal, one sexual act can take effect after another.,The Gemara comments that according to this explanation, b the mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b ben Azzai. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b ben Azzai says: There is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal /b in a case b of two i yevamin /i and one i yevama /i . /b In other words, if they both performed levirate betrothal with her, their actions are effective and she is forbidden to them both. The reason is that she has ties to each of the two men, which means that each levirate betrothal is effective in forbidding the other man., b But there is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal /b in a case b of two i yevamot /i and one i yavam /i , /b as the i yavam /i did not have a full-fledged levirate bond with both of them. Therefore, if he performs a levirate betrothal with one of them, he has completed the bond. In contrast, the conclusion of the mishna is that the sexual relations of a nine-year-old with two i yevamot /i is effective, and as the intercourse of a boy of this age is considered like a levirate betrothal the i tanna /i of the mishna evidently maintains that there is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal even in a case of one i yavam /i ., strong MISHNA: /strong If a boy b aged nine years and one day had relations with his i yevama /i and died, /b that i yevama /i b performs i ḥalitza /i and may not enter into levirate marriage. /b If the minor b married a woman /b in a regular manner b and died, she is exempt /b from levirate marriage and i ḥalitza /i , as by Torah law a minor cannot marry. If a boy b aged nine years and one day had relations with his i yevama /i , and after he matured he married a different woman and /b then b died /b childless, b if he did not /b carnally b know the first /b woman b after he matured, /b but only when he was a minor, b the first one performs i ḥalitza /i and may not enter into levirate marriage, /b as she is in essence a i yevama /i who had relations with a minor, b and the second /b woman b either performs i ḥalitza /i or enters into levirate marriage, /b as she is his full-fledged wife., b Rabbi Shimon says: /b The brother b consummates levirate marriage with whichever /b woman b he chooses, and performs i ḥalitza /i with the second one. /b The mishna comments: This is the i halakha /i b both /b for a boy b who is nine years and one day old, and also /b for one b who is twenty /b years b old who has not developed two /b pubic b hairs. /b He has the status of a nine-year-old boy in this regard, as his intercourse is not considered a proper act of intercourse., strong GEMARA: /strong If a brother performed levirate betrothal with a i yevama /i and died, she has a levirate bond in relation to the remaining brothers from two deceased brothers. b Rava said: /b With regard to b that which the Rabbis said, /b that when b the bond of two i yevamin /i /b exists, b she performs i ḥalitza /i and she does not enter into levirate marriage, you should not say /b that b this /b applies only b when there is a rival wife, as there is /b reason b to decree due to a rival wife. /b The suggestion is that as the rival wife can enter into levirate marriage by Torah law, if the woman who performed levirate betrothal with the second brother was also permitted to enter into levirate marriage, people might mistakenly permit levirate marriage to two rival wives from the same family.,The proof that this is not the case is b that here, /b in the first clause of the mishna, b there is no rival wife, /b as it is referring to one woman, which means that this i yevama /i who had relations with the nine-year-old is tied by the bonds of both her first husband and the underage i yavam /i , whose intercourse is like levirate betrothal, and even so b she performs i ḥalitza /i /b but b she does not enter into levirate marriage. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that if a nine-year-old boy b married a woman and died, /b she is exempt from levirate marriage and i ḥalitza /i . The Gemara comments: b We /b already b learned this, as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b an imbecile and a minor who married /b women b and died, their wives are exempt from i ḥalitza /i and from levirate marriage, /b as the marriage of a minor or an imbecile is of no account.,§ The mishna further teaches the case of b a nine-year-old /b boy who had relations with his i yevama /i and b after he matured /b married another woman. The Gemara asks: b And let /b the Sages at least b establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old /b to be b like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and /b it would therefore b override /b the requirement of the b rival wife to /b enter into b levirate marriage, /b in accordance with the i halakha /i of the rival wife of a woman who has the bond of two i yevamin /i . b Rav said: They did not establish the intercourse of a nine-year-old /b to be b like the levirate betrothal of an adult /b in all regards, b and Shmuel said: They certainly did. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥa said: They certainly did. /b ,If so, the question remains: b And let them establish /b the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be considered like levirate betrothal. Why is he able to perform levirate marriage with her rival wife? The Gemara answers: This b is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i . This i tanna /i /b who discusses the case b of four brothers, /b one of whom died, followed by the brother who performed levirate betrothal with the i yevama /i (31b), he maintains that the i yevama /i and her rival wife may not perform levirate marriage with one of the surviving brothers. The reason is that b he /b maintains that the Sages b decreed /b that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage b due to a rival wife. /b They must both perform i ḥalitza /i so that people will not say that two i yevamot /i from one family can perform levirate marriage., b And /b that i tanna /i b taught us /b this i halakha /i b with regard to an adult /b brother who performed levirate marriage, b and the same is true of a minor /b who had relations with her. b And /b the reason b that he stated /b the case of b an adult /b in particular is b because /b he was b referring to an adult. /b , b And /b conversely, b this i tanna /i , of /b the mishna b here, holds that they established /b the sexual relations of a minor entirely like the levirate betrothal of an adult, b and he /b maintains that the Sages b did not decree /b that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage b due to /b the case of b a rival wife. And he taught us /b this i halakha /i b with regard to a minor, and the same is true of an adult. And /b the reason b that he stated /b the case of b a minor /b in particular is b because /b he was b referring to a minor. /b ,§ b Rabbi Elazar went /b and b said this i halakha /i /b in b the study hall, but he did not state it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Instead, he issued the i halakha /i without attribution. b Rabbi Yoḥa heard /b that Rabbi Elazar omitted mention of his name b and became angry /b with him. b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi visited /b Rabbi Yoḥa, to placate him so that he would not be annoyed with his beloved disciple. b They said to him: Wasn’t there an incident in the synagogue of Tiberias involving a bolt /b that secures a door in place and b that has /b a thick b knob [ i gelustera /i ] at its end? /b The question was whether it may be moved on Shabbat as a vessel, or whether it is considered i muktze /i as raw material.,And it was stated b that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei argued over /b this case b until /b they became so upset with each other b that they tore a Torah scroll in their anger. /b The Gemara interrupts this account to clarify exactly what happened: b Tore? /b Can it b enter your mind /b that such great Sages would intentionally tear a Torah scroll? b Rather, /b you must b say that a Torah scroll was torn through their anger. /b In the heat of their debate they pulled the scroll from one side to another until it tore. b And Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma, /b who b was there /b at the time, b said: I would be surprised if this synagogue does not become /b a place of b idolatrous worship. /b This unfortunate event is a sign that this place is unsuitable for a synagogue. b And /b indeed b this /b eventually b occurred. /b ,Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi cited this i baraita /i to hint to Rabbi Yoḥa how careful one must be to avoid anger. However, Rabbi Yoḥa b grew even angrier, saying: /b You are b even /b making us b colleagues /b now? Those two Sages were peers, whereas Rabbi Elazar is merely my student., b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi visited /b Rabbi Yoḥa and b said to him: /b The verse states: b “As God commanded His servant Moses, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua, he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses” /b (Joshua 11:15). b Now did Joshua, with regard to every matter that he said, say to /b the Jews: b Thus Moses said to me? Rather, Joshua /b would b sit and teach /b Torah b without attributing /b his statements, b and everyone would know that it was /b from b the Torah of Moses. So too, your disciple Rabbi Elazar sits and teaches without attribution, and everyone knows that /b his teaching b is /b from b your /b instruction. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥa was appeased.,Later, after calming down, b he said to /b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: b Why don’t you know how to appease me like our colleague ben Idi? /b The Gemara asks: b And Rabbi Yoḥa, what is the reason /b that b he was so angry /b about this matter? The Gemara answers that this is b as Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “I will dwell in Your tent in worlds” /b (Psalms 61:5), literally, forever? b And is it possible for a person to live in two worlds /b simultaneously? b Rather, David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let it be Your will /b |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 102| 10b. נותנה ואינו יודע למי נותנה נוטלה ואינו יודע ממי נוטלה נותנה ואינו יודע למי נותנה לאפוקי מדמר עוקבא נוטלה ואינו יודע ממי נוטלה לאפוקי מדרבי אבא ואלא היכי ליעביד ליתיב לארנקי של צדקה,מיתיבי מה יעשה אדם ויהיו לו בנים זכרים רבי אליעזר אומר יפזר מעותיו לעניים ר' יהושע אומר ישמח אשתו לדבר מצוה ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא יתן אדם פרוטה לארנקי של צדקה אלא אם כן ממונה עליה כר' חנניא בן תרדיון כי קא אמרינן דממני עלה כר' חנניא בן תרדיון,א"ר אבהו אמר משה לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם במה תרום קרן ישראל אמר לו בכי תשא,וא"ר אבהו שאלו את שלמה בן דוד עד היכן כחה של צדקה אמר להן צאו וראו מה פירש דוד אבא (תהלים קיב, ט) פזר נתן לאביונים צדקתו עומדת לעד קרנו תרום בכבוד רבי אבא אמר מהכא (ישעיהו לג, טז) הוא מרומים ישכון מצדות סלעים משגבו לחמו נתן מימיו נאמנים מה טעם מרומים ישכון מצדות סלעים משגבו משום דלחמו נתן ומימיו נאמנים,וא"ר אבהו שאלו את שלמה איזהו בן העולם הבא אמר להם כל (ישעיהו כד, כג) שכנגד זקניו כבוד כי הא דיוסף בריה דר' יהושע חלש אינגיד א"ל אבוה מאי חזית אמר ליה עולם הפוך ראיתי עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה אמר ליה עולם ברור ראית ואנן היכי חזיתינן [א"ל] כי היכי דחשבינן הכא חשבינן התם,ושמעתי שהיו אומרים אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו ושמעתי שהיו אומרים הרוגי מלכות אין כל בריה יכולה לעמוד במחיצתן מאן נינהו אילימא ר"ע וחבריו משום הרוגי מלכות ותו לא פשיטא בלאו הכי נמי אלא הרוגי לוד,תניא אמר להן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לתלמידיו בני מהו שאמר הכתוב (משלי יד, לד) צדקה תרומם גוי וחסד לאומים חטאת נענה רבי אליעזר ואמר צדקה תרומם גוי אלו ישראל דכתיב (שמואל ב ז, כג) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ וחסד לאומים חטאת כל צדקה וחסד שאומות עובדי כוכבים עושין חטא הוא להן שאינם עושין אלא להתגדל בו כמו שנאמר (עזרא ו, י) די להוון מהקרבין ניחוחין לאלהה שמיא ומצליין לחיי מלכא ובנוהי,ודעביד הכי לאו צדקה גמורה היא והתניא האומר סלע זה לצדקה בשביל שיחיו בני ובשביל שאזכה לעולם הבא הרי זה צדיק גמור לא קשיא כאן בישראל כאן בעובד כוכבים,נענה רבי יהושע ואמר צדקה תרומם גוי אלו ישראל דכתיב ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד וחסד לאומים חטאת כל צדקה וחסד שאומות עובדי כוכבים עושין חטא הוא להן שאין עושין אלא כדי שתמשך מלכותן שנאמר (דניאל ד, כד) להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עליך וחטיך בצדקה פרוק ועויתך במיחן עניין הן תהוי ארכא לשלותיך וגו',נענה רבן גמליאל ואמר צדקה תרומם גוי אלו ישראל דכתיב ומי כעמך ישראל [וגו'] וחסד לאומים חטאת כל צדקה וחסד שעכו"ם עושין חטא הוא להן שאין עושין אלא להתיהר בו וכל המתיהר נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (משלי כא, כד) זד יהיר לץ שמו עושה בעברת זדון ואין עברה אלא גיהנם שנאמר (צפניה א, טו) יום עברה היום ההוא,אמר רבן גמליאל עדיין אנו צריכין למודעי רבי אליעזר המודעי אומר צדקה תרומם גוי אלו ישראל דכתיב ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד וחסד לאומים חטאת כל צדקה וחסד שעכו"ם עושין חטא הוא להן שאין עושין אלא לחרף אותנו בו שנאמר (ירמיהו מ, ג) ויבא ויעש ה' כאשר דבר כי חטאתם לה' ולא שמעתם בקולו והיה לכם הדבר הזה,נענה רבי נחוניא בן הקנה ואמר צדקה תרומם גוי וחסד לישראל ולאומים חטאת אמר להם רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לתלמידיו נראין דברי רבי נחוניא בן הקנה מדברי ומדבריכם לפי שהוא נותן צדקה וחסד לישראל ולעכו"ם חטאת מכלל דהוא נמי אמר מאי היא דתניא אמר להם רבן יוחנן בן זכאי כשם שהחטאת מכפרת על ישראל כך צדקה מכפרת על אומות העולם:,איפרא הורמיז אימיה דשבור מלכא שדרה ארבע מאה דינרי לקמיה דרבי אמי ולא קבלינהו שדרינהו קמיה דרבא וקבלינהו משום שלום מלכות שמע רבי אמי איקפד אמר לית ליה (ישעיהו כז, יא) ביבש קצירה תשברנה נשים באות מאירות אותה ורבא משום שלום מלכות,ורבי אמי נמי משום שלום מלכות דאיבעי ליה למפלגינהו לעניי עובדי כוכבים ורבא נמי לעניי עובדי כוכבים יהבינהו ור' אמי דאיקפד הוא | 10b. It is the type in which b one gives /b the charity b without knowing to whom he gave it, /b and the other b one takes it without knowing from whom he took it. /b The Gemara explains: b One gives it without knowing to whom he gave it, /b this serves b to exclude /b the practice b of Mar Ukva, /b who would personally give charity to poor people without their knowing he was the donor. The other one b takes it without knowing from whom he took it; /b this serves b to exclude /b the practice b of Rabbi Abba, /b who would render his money ownerless, so that poor people would come and take it without his knowing whom he helped, although they would know from whom the money came. The Gemara asks: b Rather, how /b then b should one act /b to conceal his own identity and also remain ignorant of the identities of the recipients? The Gemara answers: The best method is b to put /b the money b into the charity purse. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from what is taught in a i baraita /i : b What should a person do to have male offspring? Rabbi Eliezer says: He should distribute his money liberally among the poor. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should gladden his wife before /b engaging in the b mitzva /b of conjugal relations. b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A person should not donate a i peruta /i to the charity purse unless /b a great and trusted individual b like Rabbi Ḥaya ben Teradyon is appointed /b as supervisor b over it. /b This seems to indicate that putting money into the charity box is not always preferred. The Gemara answers: b When we say /b that putting money into the charity box is the preferred way to give charity, this is referring to b when /b a man b like Rabbi Ḥaya ben Teradyon is appointed /b as supervisor b over it. /b ,The Gemara discusses other matters concerning charity. b Rabbi Abbahu says: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, with what shall the horn of Israel be exalted? /b God b said to him: With /b the passage of b “When you raise,” /b i.e., Israel will be exalted by way of the donations and charity that they will give, as it is stated: “When you raise the heads of the children of Israel…then shall they give” (Exodus 30:12)., b And Rabbi Abbahu says: They asked /b King b Solomon, son of David: How far does the power of charity extend? /b King Solomon b said to them: Go out and see what my father David explained: “He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor, his righteousness endures forever, his horn shall be exalted with honor” /b (Psalms 112:9). b Rabbi Abba said: /b It is derived b from here /b how far the power of charity extends: b “He shall dwell on high, his place of defense shall be the fortress of rocks; his bread shall be given, his water shall be sure” /b (Isaiah 33:16). b What is the reason /b that b “He shall dwell on high, his place of defense shall be the fortress of rocks”? Because “his bread shall be given” /b to the poor, b and “his water shall be sure,” /b i.e., it shall be given faithfully and he can be trusted in the matter., b And Rabbi Abbahu says: They asked /b King b Solomon: Who is one /b who is destined b for the World-to-Come? /b King Solomon b said to them: All /b those about whom it is stated: b “And before His Elders will be His glory” /b (Isaiah 24:23), referring to those who are honored in this world due to their wisdom. This is b like /b the incident involving b Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, who became ill /b and b fainted. /b When he returned to good health, b his father said to him: What did you see /b when you were not conscious? Yosef b said to him: I saw an inverted world. Those above, /b i.e., those who are considered important in this world, were b below, /b insignificant, while b those below, /b i.e., those who are insignificant in this world, were b above. /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: You have seen a clear world. /b The world you have seen is the true world, one in which one’s spiritual and moral standing determines his true importance. Rabbi Yehoshua further asked him: b And how did you see us, /b the Torah scholars, there? Yosef b said to him: Just as we are important here, we are important there. /b ,Yosef added: b And I heard that they were saying /b in that world: b Happy is the one who arrives with his studies in hand. And I /b also b heard that they were saying: Those executed by the government /b enjoy such exalted status that b no one can stand in their section. /b The Gemara asks: b Who are these /b martyrs to whom Yosef was referring? b If we say /b that he was referring to b Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, /b who were killed by the Romans, this cannot be: Is their elevated status b due /b only b to /b the fact that b they were martyred by /b the Roman b government and nothing more? /b These men were exceptional in their piety and sanctity during their lives as well. Therefore b it /b is b obvious that even without /b their martyrdom they would be greater than other people. b Rather, /b it is referring to those like b the martyrs of Lod, /b who died for the sanctification of God’s name but were not Torah scholars., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to his students: My sons, what is /b the meaning of b that which the verse states: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but the kindness of the peoples is sin” /b (Proverbs 14:34)? b Rabbi Eliezer answered and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are /b the people of b Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, one nation on the earth?” /b (I Chronicles 17:21). b “But the kindness of the peoples is sin,” /b meaning that b all the /b acts of b charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is /b counted as b a sin for them, since they perform them only to elevate themselves /b in prestige, b as it is stated: “That they may sacrifice offerings of pleasing aroma to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons” /b (Ezra 6:10). Even though they donated offerings, they did so only for their own benefit.,The Gemara asks: b And if one acts this way, is it not full-fledged charity? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b one who says: /b I am contributing b this i sela /i to charity so that my sons will live, or /b if he says: I am performing the mitzva b so that I will merit /b a share in b the World-to-Come, this /b person b is a full-fledged righteous person, /b as far as that mitzva is concerned, even though he has his own welfare in mind? The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here, /b the statement that he is considered absolutely righteous is b with regard to a Jew; /b while b there, /b the statement that such benefaction is not credited as charity is b with regard to a gentile. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua answered /b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai’s challenge to interpret the verse b and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are /b the people of b Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, one nation /b on the earth.” b “But the kindness of the peoples is sin” /b means that b all the /b acts of b charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is /b counted as b a sin for them, since they perform them only to perpetuate their dominion, as it is stated /b by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar: b “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, and break off your sins by charity, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; that there may be an extension of your serenity” /b (Daniel 4:24). Since this is the argument that persuaded Nebuchadnezzar, it would appear that his actual motive was his own benefit., b Rabban Gamliel answered and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are /b the people of b Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, /b one nation on the earth.” b “But the kindness of the peoples is sin” /b means that b all the /b acts of b charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is /b counted as b a sin for them, since they perform them only in order to act haughtily through them, and whoever acts haughtily falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “The proud and haughty one, scorner is his name, acts in arrogant wrath” /b (Proverbs 21:24). b And wrath means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath” /b (Zephaniah 1:15)., b Rabban Gamliel said: We still need /b to hear what b the Moda’i /b has to say, as b Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i says: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are /b the people of b Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, one nation on the earth.” “But the kindness of the peoples is sin” /b means that b all the /b acts of b charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is /b counted as b a sin for them, since they perform them only to taunt us with them, as it is stated /b that the Babylonian officer Nebuzaradan said: b “The Lord has brought it, and done according as He has said; because you have sinned against the Lord and have not obeyed His voice, therefore this matter is come upon you” /b (Jeremiah 40:3)., b Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana answered and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation and kindness” /b is referring to b Israel; and /b in addition, b “of the peoples is sin.” Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to his students: The statement of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana appears /b to be more precise b than /b both b my statement and your statements, because he assigns /b both b righteousness and kindness to Israel, and sin to the peoples /b of the world. The Gemara asks: b By inference, /b it appears b that he, /b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai, b also offered /b an interpretation of this verse. b What is it? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to them /b that the verse should be understood as follows: b Just as a sin-offering atones for Israel, so charity atones for the nations of the world. /b ,It is related that b Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur, /b king of Persia, b sent four hundred dinars to Rabbi Ami, but he did not accept them. She /b then b sent them to Rava, and he accepted them for the sake of peace with the kingdom. Rabbi Ami heard /b what Rava had done b and was angry. He said: Does /b Rava b not accept /b the lesson of the verse: b “When the boughs are withered, they shall be broken off; the women shall come and set them on fire” /b (Isaiah 27:11), meaning that when righteousness has ceased from a particular nation, it is time for its citizens to be punished, and therefore we should not help them perform any meritorious deeds, which would delay their punishment? The Gemara asks: b And /b why did b Rava /b accept the money? The Gemara answers: He did so b for the sake of peace with the kingdom. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b did b Rabbi Ami /b not b also /b see the importance of accepting the money b for the sake of peace with the kingdom? /b The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami maintains that Rava b should have distributed /b the money b to the gentile poor /b rather than to the Jewish poor, as it is a disgrace to the Jews to require the kindness of the nations of the world in order to support their poor. The Gemara comments: In fact, b Rava also gave /b the money b to the gentile poor /b and not to the Jewish poor. b And Rabbi Ami got angry /b because |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 100, 102| 87b. אתא ר' חייא הדר לרישא עייל בר קפרא הדר לרישא אתא ר"ש ברבי הדר לרישא אתא ר' חנינא (בר) חמא אמר כולי האי נהדר וניזיל לא הדר איקפיד ר' חנינא אזל רב לגביה תליסר מעלי יומי דכפורי ולא איפייס,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר ר' יוסי בר חנינא כל המבקש מטו מחבירו אל יבקש ממנו יותר משלש פעמים רב שאני ור' חנינא היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבא כל המעביר על מדותיו מעבירין לו על כל פשעיו,אלא ר' חנינא חלמא חזי ליה לרב דזקפוהו בדיקלא וגמירי דכל דזקפוהו בדיקלא רישא הוי אמר שמע מינה בעי למעבד רשותא ולא איפייס כי היכי דליזיל ולגמר אורייתא בבבל,ת"ר מצות וידוי ערב יוה"כ עם חשכה אבל אמרו חכמים יתודה קודם שיאכל וישתה שמא תטרף דעתו בסעודה ואע"פ שהתודה קודם שאכל ושתה מתודה לאחר שיאכל וישתה שמא אירע דבר קלקלה בסעודה ואף על פי שהתודה ערבית יתודה שחרית שחרית יתודה במוסף במוסף יתודה במנחה במנחה יתודה בנעילה,והיכן אומרו יחיד אחר תפלתו ושליח צבור אומרו באמצע מאי אמר אמר רב אתה יודע רזי עולם ושמואל אמר ממעמקי הלב ולוי אמר ובתורתך כתוב לאמר ר' יוחנן אמר רבון העולמים,ר' יהודה אמר כי עונותינו רבו מלמנות וחטאתינו עצמו מספר רב המנונא אמר אלהי עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי עכשיו שנוצרתי כאילו לא נוצרתי עפר אני בחיי ק"ו במיתתי הרי אני לפניך ככלי מלא בושה וכלימה יהי רצון מלפניך שלא אחטא ומה שחטאתי מרוק ברחמיך אבל לא ע"י יסורין והיינו וידויא דרבא כולה שתא ודרב המנונא זוטא ביומא דכפורי,אמר מר זוטרא לא אמרן אלא דלא אמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו אבל אמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו תו לא צריך דאמר בר המדודי הוה קאימנא קמיה דשמואל והוה יתיב וכי מטא שליחא דצבורא ואמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו קם מיקם אמר שמע מינה עיקר וידוי האי הוא,תנן התם בשלשה פרקים בשנה כהנים נושאין את כפיהן ארבעה פעמים ביום בשחרית במוסף במנחה ובנעילת שערים ואלו הן שלשה פרקים בתעניות ובמעמדות וביום הכפורים,מאי נעילת שערים רב אמר צלותא יתירתא ושמואל אמר מה אנו מה חיינו מיתיבי אור יוה"כ מתפלל שבע ומתודה בשחרית מתפלל שבע ומתודה במוסף מתפלל שבע ומתודה במנחה מתפלל שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה,תנאי היא דתניא יום הכפורים עם חשיכה מתפלל שבע ומתודה וחותם בוידוי דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים מתפלל שבע ואם רצה לחתום בוידוי חותם תיובתא דשמואל תיובתא,עולא בר רב נחית קמיה דרבא פתח באתה בחרתנו וסיים במה אנו מה חיינו ושבחיה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן אמר ויחיד אומרה אחר תפלתו,אמר רב תפלת נעילה פוטרת את של ערבית רב לטעמיה דאמר צלותא יתירא היא וכיון דצלי ליה תו לא צריך,ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב הלכה כדברי האומר תפלת ערבית רשות לדברי האומר חובה קאמר,מיתיבי אור יום הכפורים מתפלל שבע ומתודה שחרית שבע ומתודה מוסף שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה ערבית מתפלל שבע מעין שמונה עשרה רבי חנינא בן גמליאל משום אבותיו מתפלל שמונה עשרה שלימות | 87b. b Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b Rav’s uncle and teacher, b came in, /b whereupon Rav b returned to the beginning /b of the portion and began to read it again. Afterward, b bar Kappara came in, /b and Rav b returned to the beginning /b of the portion out of respect for bar Kappara. Then b Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b came in, /b and b he returned /b again b to the beginning /b of the portion. Then, b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama came in, /b and Rav b said /b to himself: b Shall I go back /b and read b so many times? He did not return /b but continued from where he was. b Rabbi Ḥanina was offended /b because Rav showed that he was less important than the others. b Rav went before /b Rabbi Ḥanina b on Yom Kippur eve /b every year for b thirteen /b years to appease him, b but he would not be appeased. /b ,The Gemara asks: b How could /b Rav b act this way? Didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina say: Anyone who requests forgiveness from another should not ask more than three times? /b The Gemara answers: b Rav is different, /b since he was very pious and forced himself to act beyond the letter of the law. The Gemara asks: b And how could Rabbi Ḥanina act this way /b and refuse to forgive Rav, though he asked many times? b Didn’t Rava say: /b With regard to b anyone who suppresses his honor /b and forgives someone for hurting him, God b pardons all his sins? /b ,The Gemara explains: b Rather, /b this is what happened: b Rabbi Ḥanina saw in a dream /b that b Rav was being hung on a palm tree, and /b he b learned /b as a tradition that b anyone /b about whom there is a dream in b which he was being hung on a palm tree will become the head /b of a yeshiva. b He said: Learn from this that /b providence has decreed that b he must eventually become the head /b of the yeshiva. Therefore, b I will not be appeased, so that he will have to go and study Torah in Babylonia. /b He was conscious of the principle that one kingdom cannot overlap with another, and he knew that once Rav was appointed leader, he, Rabbi Ḥanina, would have to abdicate his own position or die. Therefore, he delayed being appeased, so that Rav would go to Babylonia and be appointed there as head of the yeshiva. In this way, the dream would be fulfilled, as Rav would indeed be appointed as head of a yeshiva, but since he would be in Babylonia, Rabbi Ḥanina would not lose his own position.,§ b The Sages taught: /b The main b mitzva of confession /b is on b Yom Kippur eve when darkness /b falls. b But the Sages said: /b One should also b confess /b on Yom Kippur eve b before he eats and drinks /b at his last meal before the fast b lest he become confused at the meal, /b due to the abundance of food and drink, and be unable to confess afterward. b And although one confessed before he ate and drank, he confesses /b again b after he eats and drinks, /b as b perhaps he committed some sin during the meal /b itself. b And although one confessed /b during b the evening prayer /b on the night of Yom Kippur, b he /b should b confess /b again during b the morning prayer. /b Likewise, although one confessed during the b morning prayer, he /b should still b confess during /b the b additional prayer. /b Similarly, although one confessed b during /b the b additional prayer, he /b should also b confess during /b the b afternoon prayer; /b and although one confessed b during /b the b afternoon prayer, he /b should b confess /b again b during /b the b closing prayer [ i ne’ila /i ]. /b , b And where /b in the Yom Kippur prayers b does one say /b the confession? b An individual /b says it b after his /b i Amida /i b prayer, and the prayer leader says it in the middle /b of the i Amida /i prayer. The Gemara asks: b What does one say; /b what is the liturgy of the confession? b Rav said: /b One says the prayer that begins: b You know the mysteries of the universe, /b in accordance with the standard liturgy. b And Shmuel said /b that the prayer begins with: b From the depths of the heart. And Levi said /b that it begins: b And in your Torah it is written, saying, /b and one then recites the forgiveness achieved by Yom Kippur as stated in the Torah. b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b that it begins: b Master of the Universe. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda said /b that one says: b For our iniquities are too many to count and our sins are too great to number. Rav Hamnuna said: /b This is the liturgy of the confession: b My God, before I was formed I was unworthy. Now that I have been formed, it is as if I had not been formed. I am dust while alive, how much more so when I am dead. See, I am before You like a vessel filled with shame and disgrace. May it be Your will that I may sin no more, and as for /b the sins b I have committed before You, erase /b them b in Your compassion, but not by suffering. /b The Gemara comments: b This is the confession that Rava /b used b all year /b long; b and /b it was the confession b that Rav Hamnuna Zuta /b used b on Yom Kippur. /b , b Mar Zutra said: We said only /b that one must follow all these versions b when he did not say /b the words: b But we have sinned. However, /b if b he said /b the words: b But we have sinned, he need not /b say b anything further /b because that is the essential part of the confession. b As bar Hamdudei said: I was standing before Shmuel and he was sitting; and when the prayer leader reached /b the words: b But we have sinned, /b Shmuel b stood. /b Bar Hamdudei b said: Learn from here that this is the main /b part of b the confession, /b and Shmuel stood up to emphasize the significance of these words.,§ b We learned /b in a mishna b there, /b in tractate i Ta’anit /i : b At three times in the year, priests raise their hands /b to recite the priestly benediction b four times in /b a single b day: In /b the b morning prayer, in /b the b additional prayer, in /b the b afternoon prayer, and at /b the b closing [ i ne’ila /i ] of the gates. And these are /b the b three times /b in the year: b During /b communal b fasts /b for lack of rain, on which the i ne’ila /i prayer is recited; b and during /b non-priestly b watches [ i ma’amadot /i ], /b when the Israelite members of the guard parallel to the priestly watch come and read the account of Creation (see i Ta’anit /i 26a); b and on Yom Kippur. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the closing of the gates, /b i.e., the i ne /i ’ i ila /i prayer? b Rav said: /b It is b an added prayer /b of i Amida /i . b And Shmuel said: /b It is not a full prayer but only a confession that begins with the words: b What are we, what are our lives? /b The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i , as it was taught: On b the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i prayer b and confesses; during /b the b morning prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; during /b the b additional prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; during /b the b afternoon prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; /b and b during /b the b i ne’ila /i prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses. /b This concurs with Rav’s opinion that i ne’ila /i is an added prayer., b This is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i /b They all agree that i ne’ila /i is an added prayer but disagree about the obligation to confess at the i ne’ila /i prayer, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : At the end of b Yom Kippur, as darkness /b falls, b one prays seven /b blessings of the i Amida /i b and confesses and ends with the confession; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He prays seven /b blessings of the i Amida /i , b and if he wishes to end /b his prayer b with a confession, he ends /b it in this way. The Gemara says: If so, b this is a refutation of /b the opinion of b Shmuel, /b since all agree that i ne’ila /i is a complete prayer. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is b a /b conclusive b refutation. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Ulla bar Rav went down /b to lead the i ne’ila /i prayer b before Rava, /b who was in the synagogue. b He opened /b the prayer b with: You have chosen us, and he concluded with: What are we, what are our lives? And /b Rava b praised him. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: And an individual says it after his /b i Amida /i b prayer. /b The individual says the confession after his i Amida /i prayer, not within the i Amida /i prayer as the prayer leader does., b Rav said: The i ne’ila /i prayer exempts /b one from b the evening prayer. /b Since one recited an added prayer after the afternoon prayer, when darkness fell, it serves as the evening prayer. The Gemara comments that b Rav /b conforms b to his /b line of b reasoning /b above, b as he said: It is an added prayer, and since he has prayed it he needs no further /b prayer in the evening.,The Gemara is surprised at this: b And did Rav /b actually b say this? Didn’t Rav say: /b The b i halakha /i is in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that the b evening prayer is optional? /b If it is optional, why would Rav use the term exempt? One is exempt even if he does not pray the closing prayer. The Gemara answers: b He said this in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that the evening prayer b is mandatory. /b Even according to the opinion that maintains that the evening prayer is mandatory, if one recites i ne’ila /i , he has fulfilled his obligation to recite the evening prayer.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from that which we learned in a i baraita /i : During the b evening /b after b Yom Kippur, one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b during the b morning prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b during the b additional prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; during i ne’ila /i one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b and during b the evening prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings b in /b an b abridged /b version of the b eighteen /b blessings of the weekday i Amida /i prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings. b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel /b says b in the name of his ancestors: One prays /b the b full eighteen /b blessings of the weekday i Amida /i prayer as usual, |
|
| 54. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 108 |
55. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98| 21a. תרי ירחי חסירי קלא אית להו,לוי אקלע לבבל בחדסר בתשרי אמר בסים תבשילא דבבלאי ביומא רבה דמערבא אמרי ליה אסהיד אמר להו לא שמעתי מפי ב"ד מקודש,מכריז ר' יוחנן כל היכא דמטו שלוחי ניסן ולא מטו שלוחי תשרי ליעבדו תרי יומי גזירה ניסן אטו תשרי,רבי אייבו בר נגרי ור' חייא בר אבא איקלעו לההוא אתרא דהוה מטו שלוחי ניסן ולא מטו שלוחי תשרי ועבדי חד יומא ולא אמרו להו ולא מידי שמע רבי יוחנן ואיקפד אמר להו לאו אמרי לכו היכא דמטו שלוחי ניסן ולא מטו שלוחי תשרי ליעבדו תרי יומי גזירה ניסן אטו תשרי,רבא הוה רגיל דהוה יתיב בתעניתא תרי יומי זימנא חדא אשתכח כוותיה,ר"נ יתיב בתעניתא כוליה יומי דכיפורי לאורתא אתא ההוא גברא א"ל למחר יומא רבה במערבא,א"ל מהיכא את א"ל מדמהריא א"ל דם תהא אחריתו קרי עליה (איכה ד, יט) קלים היו רודפינו,שלח ליה רב הונא בר אבין לרבא כד חזית דמשכה תקופת טבת עד שיתסר בניסן עברה לההיא שתא ולא תחוש לה דכתיב (דברים טז, א) שמור את חדש האביב שמור אביב של תקופה שיהא בחדש ניסן,אמר להו רב נחמן להנהו נחותי ימא אתון דלא ידעיתו בקביעא דירחא כי חזיתו סיהרא דמשלים ליומא בעירו חמירא,אימת משלים בחמיסר והא אנן מארביסר מבערינן לדידהו דמגלו להו עלמא מארביסר משלים: | 21a. The Gemara answers: It is a rare occurrence that b two /b consecutive b months are made short, /b and this b would generate publicity, /b so that everyone would know about it.,§ It was related that b Levi /b once b arrived in Babylonia on /b what was observed there as b the eleventh of Tishrei. He said: How tasty is the dish of the Babylonians on the great day /b of Yom Kippur, as they are observing Yom Kippur b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael. The month of Elul had been declared full in Eretz Yisrael, and according to the calendar there, it was only the tenth of Tishrei. b They said to him: Testify /b that today is Yom Kippur and we shall observe it. b He said to them: I /b myself b did not hear the court /b proclaim: b It is sanctified. /b Although I know that the month had been declared full, since I did not personally hear the proclamation, I cannot offer direct testimony such that you should change your calculations.,It was further related that b Rabbi Yoḥa /b used to b proclaim: Anywhere that can be reached /b by the b messengers /b who go out b in Nisan /b in time to inform the people when to observe Passover, b but cannot be reached by the messengers /b sent out b in Tishrei, let them /b also b observe /b the festival of Passover b for two days. /b The messengers did not travel on Rosh HaShana or Yom Kippur, and therefore they could travel three days further in Nisan than in Tishrei. The Sages instituted that two days must be observed in b Nisan as /b a rabbinic b decree due to Tishrei, /b for if they observe Passover for only one day, they will come to observe i Sukkot /i for one day as well, and this they are not permitted to do.,It was reported that b Rabbi Aivu bar Naggarei and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, /b two disciples of Rabbi Yoḥa, once b arrived in a certain place that could be reached by the messengers /b who go out b in Nisan, but could not be reached by the messengers /b who go out b in Tishrei. And /b they saw that the locals b observed /b only b one day /b of Passover. b They said nothing to them /b to correct their practice. b Rabbi Yoḥa heard /b this b and he became angry /b with Rabbi Aivu and Rabbi Ḥiyya, for they had failed to rebuke the people who were acting contrary to Rabbi Yoḥa’s explicit ruling. b He said to them: Did I not say to you /b that b anywhere that can be reached by the messengers /b sent out b in Nisan but not by those /b sent out b in Tishrei must observe two days /b of Passover, for the Sages instituted a rabbinic b decree in Nisan due to Tishrei? /b ,§ The Gemara relates that b Rava would regularly sit in /b observance of b the fast /b of Yom Kippur b for two days, /b in case Elul had been declared a thirty-day month and Yom Kippur should be observed on what was observed in Babylonia as the eleventh of Tishrei. b It once happened in accordance with his /b opinion. Elul had been declared a thirty-day month, and he was the only one who observed Yom Kippur on the correct day.,It was related that b Rav Naḥman had /b once b fasted the entire /b day of b Yom Kippur /b as usual. b In the evening, /b toward the end of his fast, b a certain man came /b and b said to him: Tomorrow is the great day, /b Yom Kippur, b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and it is therefore necessary to fast tomorrow., b Rav Naḥman said to him: From where do you /b come? b He said to him: From /b a place called b Damihareya. He said to him, /b playing on the name of his place: b Blood will be his end, /b meaning Rav Naḥman’s own end. Due to this information, Rav Naḥman would have to fast two successive days, and thereby suffer greatly, as if his blood were being shed. b He read /b the verse b about him: “Our pursuers were swifter /b than vultures in the sky” (Lamentations 4:19), for had this messenger arrived just a little bit later, they would have eaten and drunk in the meantime.,§ b Rav Huna bar Avin sent /b this instruction b to Rava: When you see that, /b according to your calculations, b the season of Tevet, /b i.e., winter, will b extend to the sixteenth of Nisan, /b and the spring equinox will occur after the sixteenth of Nisan, b add /b an extra month b to that year, /b making it a leap year. b And do not worry /b about finding an additional reason to justify making it a leap year, b as it is written: “Observe the month of spring” /b (Deuteronomy 16:1). That is to say, b see to it that the spring of the season, /b i.e., the spring equinox, b is in the new part of Nisan, /b i.e., the first half, before Passover.,It was related that b Rav Naḥman said to those setting out to sea /b before Nisan: Since b you will not know the determination of the /b first day of the new b month, /b this is what you should do: b When you see that the moon sets at daybreak, /b i.e., that it is visible all night from sundown to sunrise, know that it is the middle of the month of Nisan and b burn /b your b leaven. /b ,The Gemara asks: b When does /b the moon b set /b at daybreak? b On the fifteenth /b of the month. b But on the fourteenth /b of Nisan b we burn /b leaven. The Gemara answers: b For /b those out at sea, b to whom the world is revealed, /b to whom the horizon is wide open and clearly visible, the moon b completes /b its course at sunrise already b on the fourteenth /b of the month. They can therefore rely on this sign to establish the date of Passover and the time for burning leaven. |
|
56. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 95, 235| 31a. שמשדלתו בדברים לפיכך הקדים הקב"ה כיבוד אב לכיבוד אם וגלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שהבן מתיירא מאביו יותר מאמו מפני שמלמדו תורה לפיכך הקדים הקב"ה מורא האם למורא האב,תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בזמן שאדם מצער את אביו ואת אמו אמר הקב"ה יפה עשיתי שלא דרתי ביניהם שאלמלי דרתי ביניהם ציערוני אמר ר' יצחק כל העובר עבירה בסתר כאילו דוחק רגלי שכינה שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) כה אמר ה' השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אסור לאדם שיהלך ארבע אמות בקומה זקופה שנא' (ישעיהו ו, ג) מלא כל הארץ כבודו רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא מסגי ארבע אמות בגילוי הראש אמר שכינה למעלה מראשי,שאל בן אלמנה אחת את ר' אליעזר אבא אומר השקיני מים ואימא אומרת השקיני מים איזה מהם קודם אמר ליה הנח כבוד אמך ועשה כבוד אביך שאתה ואמך חייבים בכבוד אביך בא לפני רבי יהושע אמר לו כך,אמר לו רבי נתגרשה מהו אמר ליה מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן אלמנה אתה הטל להן מים בספל וקעקע להן כתרנגולין,דרש עולא רבה אפיתחא דבי נשיאה מאי דכתיב (תהלים קלח, ד) יודוך ה' כל מלכי ארץ כי שמעו אמרי פיך מאמר פיך לא נאמר אלא אמרי פיך בשעה שאמר הקב"ה (שמות כ, ב) אנכי ולא יהיה לך אמרו אומות העולם לכבוד עצמו הוא דורש,כיון שאמר (שמות כ, יא) כבד את אביך ואת אמך חזרו והודו למאמרות הראשונות רבא אמר מהכא (תהלים קיט, קס) ראש דברך אמת ראש דברך ולא סוף דברך אלא מסוף דברך ניכר שראש דברך אמת,בעו מיניה מרב עולא עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם אמר להם צאו וראו מה עשה עובד כוכבים אחד באשקלון ודמא בן נתינה שמו פעם אחת בקשו חכמים פרקמטיא בששים ריבוא שכר והיה מפתח מונח תחת מראשותיו של אביו ולא ציערו,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שאלו את ר' אליעזר עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם אמר להם צאו וראו מה עשה עובד כוכבים אחד לאביו באשקלון ודמא בן נתינה שמו בקשו ממנו חכמים אבנים לאפוד בששים ריבוא שכר ורב כהנא מתני בשמונים ריבוא והיה מפתח מונח תחת מראשותיו של אביו ולא ציערו,לשנה האחרת נתן הקב"ה שכרו שנולדה לו פרה אדומה בעדרו נכנסו חכמי ישראל אצלו אמר להם יודע אני בכם שאם אני מבקש מכם כל ממון שבעולם אתם נותנין לי אלא אין אני מבקש מכם אלא אותו ממון שהפסדתי בשביל כבוד אבא,וא"ר חנינא ומה מי שאינו מצווה ועושה כך מצווה ועושה עאכו"כ דאר"ח גדול מצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה,אמר רב יוסף מריש ה"א מאן דהוה אמר לי הלכה כר"י דאמר סומא פטור מן המצות עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן דהא לא מיפקידנא והא עבידנא השתא דשמעיתא להא דא"ר חנינא גדול מצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה אדרבה מאן דאמר לי דאין הלכה כרבי יהודה עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן,כי אתא רב דימי אמר פעם אחת היה לבוש סירקון של זהב והיה יושב בין גדולי רומי ובאתה אמו וקרעתו ממנו וטפחה לו על ראשו וירקה לו בפניו ולא הכלימה,תני אבימי בריה דרבי אבהו יש מאכיל לאביו פסיוני וטורדו מן העולם ויש מטחינו בריחים | 31a. b she persuades him with /b many b statements /b of encouragement and does not treat him harshly. b Therefore, /b in the mitzva of: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), b the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded /b the mention of b the honor /b due one’s b father before /b mentioning the b honor /b due one’s b mother. /b The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, b it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because /b his father b teaches him Torah, /b and consequently he is strict with him. b Therefore, /b in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), b the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded /b the mention of b fear of the mother before /b the mention of b fear of the father. /b , b A i tanna /i taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rav Naḥman: When a person causes his father and mother suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I did well in not dwelling among them, for if I had dwelled among them they would have caused Me suffering /b as well, as it were. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who transgresses in private, it is /b considered b as though he is pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence, /b i.e., he distances God from him, so to speak. b As it is stated: “So says the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool” /b (Isaiah 66:1). When someone sins in secret, he demonstrates that he thinks God is absent from that place, and it is as though he pushes His feet away from the earth.,With regard to the same issue, b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: /b It is b prohibited for a person to walk /b even b four cubits with an upright posture, /b which is considered an arrogant manner, b as it is stated: “The entire world is full of His glory” /b (Isaiah 6:3). One who walks in an arrogant manner indicates a lack of regard for the glory and honor of God that is surrounding him, and thereby chases God from that place, as it were. The Gemara relates: b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, /b and I must act respectfully., b The son of one widow asked Rabbi Eliezer: /b If my b father says /b to me: b Give me water to drink, and /b my b mother /b also b says /b to me: b Give me water to drink, which of them /b should I honor b first? /b Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Set /b aside b the honor of your mother, and perform the honor of your father, as you and your mother are /b both b obligated in the honor of your father. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua and /b asked him the same question, and Rabbi Yehoshua b said this /b same answer b to him. /b ,The man b said to him: My teacher, /b if one’s mother b is divorced, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: From your eyelashes, /b which are filled with tears, b it is evident that you are the son of a widow, /b and you have no father. Why, then, are you asking this question as though it were relevant for you? Consequently, Rabbi Yehoshua answered him sarcastically: b Pour water for them into a pitcher and squawk at them as /b one does to summon b chickens. /b In other words, if one’s mother is divorced, the same honor is due to both parents, and neither takes precedence.,§ b Ulla the Great interpreted /b a verse b homiletically at the entrance to the house of the i Nasi /i . What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “All the kings of the earth shall give You thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth” /b (Psalms 138:4)? It b is not stated: The word of Your mouth, /b in the singular. b Rather, /b the verse uses the expression: b “The words of Your mouth,” /b in the plural. To what is this phrase referring? b When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I am /b the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), b and, /b in the same verse: b “You shall have no /b other gods before Me,” b the nations of the world said: He teaches /b this b for His own honor, /b as both statements entail respect for God., b Once He said: “Honor your father and your mother” /b (Exodus 20:11), b they returned and conceded /b the truth b of the first statements, /b which is why the verse uses the plural expression: “Words of Your mouth,” i.e., all the words of God’s mouth. b Rava said: /b This can be derived b from here: “The beginning of Your word is truth” /b (Psalms 119:160). Is b the beginning of Your word /b truth b but not the end of Your word? Rather, from the end of Your word it is apparent /b to everyone b that the beginning of Your word is truth. /b ,The Sages b raised a dilemma before Rav Ulla: How far /b must one go to fulfill the mitzva of b honoring one’s father and mother? /b Rav Ulla b said to them: Go and see what one gentile did in Ashkelon, and his name was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages sought /b to purchase b merchandise [ i perakmatya /i ] /b from him b for six hundred thousand /b gold dinars’ b profit, but the key /b for the container in which the merchandise was kept b was placed under his father’s head, /b and he was sleeping at the time. b And /b Dama ben Netina would b not disturb /b his father by waking him, although he could have made a substantial profit., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: They asked Rabbi Eliezer: How far /b must one go to fulfill the mitzva b of honoring one’s father and mother? /b Rabbi Eliezer b said to them: Go and see what one gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and /b the b name /b of the son b was Dama ben Netina. /b Once b the Sages wished /b to purchase precious b stones from him for the ephod /b of the High Priest b for six hundred thousand /b gold dinars’ b profit, and Rav Kahana taught /b that it was b eight hundred thousand /b gold dinars’ profit. b And the key /b to the chest holding the jewels b was placed under his father’s head, and he /b would b not disturb him. /b , b The next year the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave /b Dama ben Netina b his reward, as a red heifer was born in his herd, /b and the Jews needed it. When b the Sages of Israel came to him he said to them: I know, /b concerning b you, that if I /b were to b ask for all the money in the world you /b would b give /b it b to me. But I ask only that money that I lost due to /b the b honor of Father. /b , b And Rabbi Ḥanina says: And if /b this is related about b one who is not commanded /b by the Torah to honor his father, as Dama was a gentile, b and /b nevertheless when b he performs /b the mitzva he is given b this /b great reward, b all the more so /b is one rewarded who is b commanded /b to fulfill a mitzva b and performs /b it. b As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater /b is one who b is commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it b than one who is not commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it., b Rav Yosef, /b who was blind, b said: At first I would say: /b If b someone would tell me /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A blind person is exempt from /b fulfilling b the mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis, as I am not commanded and yet I perform /b the mitzvot. This means my reward is very great. b Now that I have heard that which Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater /b is one who b is commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it b than one who is not commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it, b on the contrary: /b If b someone would tell me /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and a blind person is obligated in mitzvot, b I would make a festive day for the rabbis. /b , b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: Once /b Dama ben Netina b was wearing a fine cloak [ i sirkon /i ] of gold, and was sitting among the nobles /b of b Rome. And his mother came to him and tore /b his garment b from him and smacked him on the head and spat in his face, and /b yet b he did not embarrass her. /b , b Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There is /b a type of son b who feeds his father pheasant [ i pasyonei /i ] and /b yet this behavior b causes him to be removed from the World, /b i.e., the World-to-Come; b and there is /b one b who makes him grind with a millstone, /b which is difficult work, |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 213| 9a. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אין חוששין שמא גיררה חולדה מבית לבית וממקום למקום דא"כ מחצר לחצר ומעיר לעיר אין לדבר סוף:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big טעמ' דלא חזינא דשקל הא חזינא דשקל חיישינן ובעי בדיקה,ואמאי נימא אכלתיה מי לא תנן מדורו' העכו"ם טמאים וכמה ישהה במדור ויהא המדור צריך בדיקה ארבעים יום,ואע"פ שאין לו אשה וכל מקום שחולדה וחזיר יכולין להלוך א"צ בדיקה,א"ר זירא לא קשיא הא בבשר והא בלחם בבשר לא משיירא בלחם משיירא,אמר רבא האי מאי בשלמא התם אימור הוה אימור לא הוה ואם תמצא לומר הוה אימור אכלתיה אבל הכא דודאי דחזינא דשקל מי יימר דאכלתיה הוי ספק וודאי ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי,ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי והא תניא חבר שמת והניח מגורה מליאה פירות ואפילו הן בני יומן הרי הן בחזקת מתוקנין והא הכא דודאי טבילי הני פירי וספק מעושרין וספק לא מעושרין וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי,התם ודאי וודאי הוא דודאי מעשרי כדר' חנינא חוזאה דא"ר חנינא חוזאה חזקה על חבר שאין מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן,ואי בעית אימא ספק וספק הוא דילמא מעיקר' אימור דלא טבילי כר' אושעיא,דא"ר אושעיא מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר,ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי והתניא אמר ר' יהודה מעשה בשפחתו של מציק אחד ברימון שהטילה נפל לבור | 9a. strong MISHNA: /strong After conducting the search, b one /b need b not /b be b concerned that perhaps a marten dragged /b leaven b from house to house, or from place to place, /b placing leaven in a house that was already searched. b As if so, /b one need also be concerned that perhaps leaven might have been dragged b from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city. /b In that case, b there is no end to the matter, /b and it would be impossible to rely on any search for leaven., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara infers from the mishna: b The reason /b that one need not search again b is that we did not see /b the marten b drag /b the leaven from the house; b however, if we saw /b the marten b drag /b leaven from the house, b we /b are indeed b concerned /b that it dragged the leaven into the second house, and it therefore b requires searching /b for leaven.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But why /b is this so? b Let us say /b that the marten b ate /b the bread it took. b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b The residences of gentiles are ritually impure, /b as their wives may have miscarried, and due to the fact that gentiles would bury their stillborn babies in their houses, all their residences are deemed ritually impure due to the possibility of impurity imparted by a corpse. b And how long /b must a gentile have b stayed in a residence /b for b the residence to require searching? /b He must have lived there for b forty days. /b The reason is that until forty days after conception the miscarried fetus is not classified as a stillborn, as it is not sufficiently developed before that stage.,This mishna continues: b And /b this decree applies b even though /b the gentile resident b has no wife. /b In issuing the decree, the Sages did not distinguish between a married couple and a single man, so that people would not err in its application ( i Me’iri /i ). b And any place where a marten or a pig can enter /b unimpeded b need not be searched, /b as presumably if a stillborn was buried there, one of these animals would have taken it. As this mishna indicates that there is a presumption that martens eat whatever they find, the Gemara suggests that the same should apply to leaven. Therefore, even if one actually saw the marten take the bread, he can assume that the animal ate it, obviating the need for an additional search., b Rabbi Zeira said: /b This is b not difficult, /b as in b this /b case, where no search is required, it is referring b to flesh, /b whereas in b that /b case, where one is required to search again, it is referring b to bread. /b Rabbi Zeira elaborates: b With regard to flesh, /b a marten b does not leave /b remts behind, and therefore the stillborn would have been entirely consumed. b With regard to bread, /b however, the marten b leaves /b remts behind, requiring an additional search., b Rava said: What is this /b comparison? These cases are not comparable. b Granted, there, /b with regard to the stillborn, one could b say /b that it b was /b in the house b and /b one could b say /b that it b was not /b in the house. b And /b even b if you say /b it b was /b there, b say /b that the marten b ate it. /b The very presence of the stillborn in the house is based on an assumption, and even if it was there, it was probably consumed. b However, here, where one definitely saw /b the marten b take /b the bread, b who will say that /b the marten b ate it? It is /b a conflict between b an uncertainty /b whether or not the marten ate the bread, b and a certainty /b that the bread was there. The principle is that b an uncertainty does not override a certainty. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this principle: b And /b is it so that b an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasn’t /b it b taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b a i ḥaver /i who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even /b if the produce was there only b that day, /b the fruit has the b presumptive status /b of produce that was ritually b prepared, /b i.e., properly tithed. The assumption is that the owner tithed it himself or commanded others to do so. b However, here, this produce /b was b certainly untithed /b at the outset, b and /b there is b uncertainty /b whether b they /b are b tithed or whether they are not tithed. /b Despite this conflict, b the uncertainty /b whether they were tithed b comes and overrides the certainty /b that they were untithed produce.,The Gemara rejects this contention: b There, /b the conflict b is /b between b certainty and certainty, as /b the produce is b certainly tithed, in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a. As Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said: /b There is b a presumption with regard to a i ḥaver /i that he does not /b allow produce b that is not /b ritually b prepared, /b to b leave his possession. /b It is therefore certain that the produce is tithed., b And if you wish, say /b instead that in that case the conflict b is /b between b uncertainty and uncertainty, /b as b perhaps one could say /b that the produce was b never initially untithed. /b It is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Oshaya. /b , b As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person may employ artifice /b to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing b with his grain, and bring it into /b the courtyard b in its chaff so that his animal may eat /b from it. b And /b this grain b is exempt /b from b tithes. /b Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this i halakha /i it is possible that the fruit of the i ḥaver /i in the storehouse may not have been subject to the obligation to be tithed. Consequently, the aforementioned case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not the i ḥaver /i tithed it.,The Gemara raises a further difficulty against Rava: b And /b is it so that b an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasn’t /b it b taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b There was b an incident involving the maidservant of a certain violent person in /b the city of b Rimon, who threw a stillborn /b baby b into a pit, /b |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 213| 15b. לא שנו אלא שאין לה וסת לימים אלא יש לה וסת לימים ולקפיצות כיון דבמעשה תליא מילתא אימא לא קפיץ ולא חזאי אבל יש לה וסת לימים אסורה לשמש,קסבר וסתות דאורייתא,רבה בר בר חנה אמר אפילו יש לה וסת לימים מותרת קסבר וסתות דרבנן,אמר רב שמואל משמיה דרבי יוחנן אשה שיש לה וסת בעלה מחשב ימי וסתה ובא עליה,אמר ליה רב שמואל בר ייבא לרבי אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו ילדה דבזיזא למטבל,אמר ליה אטו ודאי ראתה מי אמר רבי יוחנן אימר דאמר רבי יוחנן ספק ראתה ספק לא ראתה ואם תמצא לומר ראתה אימא טבלה,אבל ודאי ראתה מי יימר דטבלה הוה ליה ספק וודאי ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי,ולא והתניא חבר שמת והניח מגורה מלאה פירות אפילו הן בני יומן הרי הן בחזקת מתוקנין והא הכא ודאי טבל ספק מעושר ספק אינו מעושר וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי,התם ודאי וודאי הוא כדרב חנינא חוזאה דאמר רב חנינא חוזאה חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן,ואיבעית אימא ספק וספק הוא וכדרבי אושעיא דא"ר אושעיא מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר,ואכתי אין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי והתניא מעשה בשפחתו של מסיק אחד ברימון שהטילה נפל לבור ובא כהן והציץ בו לידע אם זכר אם נקבה,ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטהרוהו מפני שחולדה וברדלס מצויים שם,והא הכא דודאי הטילה נפל ספק גררוהו ספק לא גררוהו וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי,לא תימא הטילה נפל לבור אלא אימא | 15b. The Sages b taught /b this i halakha /i , that a woman has a presumptive status of purity to her husband, b only /b in a case b where she does not have /b a menstrual b cycle of days /b alone, b but has /b a menstrual b cycle /b that is determined both b by /b fixed b days and by /b physical actions she might perform, such as b jumps. /b The reason is that b since /b the b matter is /b also b dependent on /b a particular b action, /b one can b say /b that b she did not jump and /b therefore b she did not see /b blood, and consequently she is presumed to be pure. b But /b with regard to a woman who b has /b a menstrual b cycle of days /b alone, and the projected day of her period arrived, b it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse /b with her husband.,The Gemara explains that Rav Huna b maintains /b that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their b periods /b applies b by Torah law. /b Since she has an uncertain status of impurity by Torah law when the projected day of her period arrives, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband only after an examination., b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Even /b if b she has /b a menstrual b cycle of days /b alone, b she is permitted /b to her husband. Rabba bar bar Ḥana b maintains /b that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their b periods /b applies b by rabbinic law. /b Consequently, she is not considered to have experienced bleeding, though by rabbinic law she should have examined herself to ascertain if she was pure., b Rav Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b With regard to b a woman who has /b a fixed menstrual b cycle, /b and her husband was away for seven days after the expected onset of her period, at which point he returned home, b her husband calculates the days of her cycle; and /b if in the elapsed time it was possible for her to immerse and purify herself, he can presume that she did so, and b he may engage in intercourse with her /b even without asking her whether she is pure., b Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva said to Rabbi Abba: /b Did b Rabbi Yoḥa state /b this ruling b even /b with regard to b a young girl, who is embarrassed to /b go and b immerse /b herself, in which case one can claim that if her husband was away she would not have gone to the ritual bath?,Rabbi Abba b said to /b Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva: b Is that to say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa applied this i halakha /i to all cases? b Did Rabbi Yoḥa say /b that a woman who b definitely saw /b blood is also permitted to her husband? You can b say that Rabbi Yoḥa said /b his ruling with regard to a case where b it is uncertain /b whether the woman b saw /b blood and b it is uncertain /b whether b she did not see /b blood, b and /b therefore her husband may engage in intercourse with her, as one can reason as follows: b If you say /b that b she saw /b blood, one can still b say /b that perhaps b she immersed. /b , b But /b if b she definitely saw /b blood, it is not permitted for the husband to engage in intercourse with her. The reason is: b Who is to say that she immersed? It is /b a conflict between b an uncertainty /b as to whether or not she immersed, b and a certainty /b that she saw blood, b and /b there is a principle that b an uncertainty does not override a certainty. /b In the case of a young girl, since it is uncertain whether she saw blood, and it is uncertain whether she immersed, she is permitted to her husband.,The Gemara raises a difficulty with this principle: b And /b does an uncertainty b not /b override a certainty? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a i ḥaver /i who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even /b if the produce was there only b that day, /b it has the b presumptive status /b of produce that was ritually b prepared, /b i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the i ḥaver /i tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so. The Gemara infers: b And here, /b the produce was b definitely untithed /b at the outset, and there is b uncertainty /b whether the i ḥaver /i b tithed it, /b and there is b uncertainty /b whether b he did not tithe it. And /b despite this conflict, b the uncertainty /b whether it was tithed b comes and overrides the certainty /b that it was untithed produce.,The Gemara rejects this claim: b There, /b the conflict that leads to the question with regard to the produce’s status b is /b between b certainty and certainty, /b as the i ḥaver /i certainly tithed the produce. This presumption is b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a; as Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said: /b There is b a presumption with regard to a i ḥaver /i that he does not release an item from his possession that is not /b ritually b prepared. /b , b And if you wish, say /b instead that in that case the conflict b is /b between b uncertainty and uncertainty, /b as it is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Oshaya. As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person can employ artifice /b to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing b with his grain, and bring it into /b his courtyard b in its chaff, so that his animal may eat /b from it, b and /b this grain b is exempt from tithe. /b Although the obligation to tithe produce applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that was brought into one’s home before being fully processed. Consequently, the case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.,The Gemara challenges: b And still, /b is it correct that b an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving the maidservant of a certain olive gatherer [ i massik /i ] in /b the city of b Rimon, who cast a non-viable newborn into a pit, and a priest came and looked /b into the pit b to ascertain whether /b the baby was b male /b or b whether /b it was b female, /b as the length of time of a woman’s ritual impurity after childbirth, even if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, depends on whether the child was male or female (see Leviticus, chapter 12)., b And /b the b incident came before the Sages /b to rule whether or not the priest contracted ritual impurity while standing over the corpse, b and they deemed him ritually pure. /b The basis for this ruling was: b Due to /b the fact b that martens and hyenas are common there, /b it is likely that the body was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.,The Gemara explains the challenge from this i baraita /i : b And here, where it is certain /b that the maidservant b cast /b the b non-viable newborn /b into the pit, and it is b uncertain /b whether an animal b dragged it /b away and it is b uncertain /b whether b no /b animal b dragged it /b away, the Sages nevertheless ruled that b an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty. /b ,The Gemara rejects this challenge: b Do not say /b in the i baraita /i b that /b the woman certainly b cast a non-viable newborn into a pit; rather, say /b |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 100, 108| 22a. אילו לא חמאת בה אימה מילין דעזיבה בכדי לא אדרתה מי אדרתה אמרה ליה לא ושרייה,בר ברתיה דרבי ינאי סבא אתא לקמיה דרבי ינאי סבא אמר ליה אילו הוה ידעת דפתחין פינקסך וממשמשין בעובדך מי נדרת אמר ליה לא ושרייה,אמר רבי אבא מאי קראה ואחר נדרים לבקר ואף על גב דפתח רבי ינאי ליה אנן לא פתחינן ליה בהא,ולא פתחינן בהדא אחרנייתא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי פתח ליה רבן גמליאל לההוא סבא יש בוטה כמדקרות חרב ולשון חכמים מרפא כל הבוטה ראוי לדוקרו בחרב; אלא לשון חכמים מרפא.,ולא פתחינן בהדא אחרנייתא דתניא רבי נתן אומר הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו מקריב עליו קרבן ברישא פתחינן בסיפא אביי אמר פתחינן רבא אמר לא פתחינן,רב כהנא מתני לה להא שמעתא בהדין לישנא... רב טביומי מתני הכי בסיפא לא פתחינן ברישא אביי אמר פתחינן רבא אמר לא פתחינן והלכתא לא פתחינן לא ברישא ולא בסיפא,ולא פתחינן בהא נמי דשמואל דאמר שמואל אף על פי שמקיימו נקרא רשע אמר רבי אבהו מאי קרא וכי תחדל לנדור לא יהיה בך חטא ויליף חדלה חדלה כתיב הכא כי תחדל לנדור וכתיב התם שם רשעים חדלו רוגז,אמר רב יוסף אף אנן נמי תנינא כנדרי כשרים לא אמר כלום כנדרי רשעים נדר בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן כל הכועס כל מיני גיהנם שולטין בו שנאמר והסר כעס מלבך והעבר רעה מבשרך ואין רעה אלא גיהנם שנאמר כל פעל ה' למענהו וגם רשע ליום רעה,ולא עוד אלא שהתחתוניות שולטות בו שנאמר ונתן ה' לך שם לב רגז וכליון עינים ודאבון נפש איזהו דבר שמכלה את העינים ומדאיב את הנפש הוי אומר אלו התחתוניות,עולא במיסקיה לארעא דישראל איתלוו ליה תרין בני חוזאי בהדיה קם חד שחטיה לחבריה אמר ליה לעולא יאות עבדי אמר ליה אין ופרע ליה בית השחיטה כי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר ליה דילמא חס ושלום אחזיקי ידי עוברי עבירה אמר ליה נפשך הצלת,קא תמה רבי יוחנן מכדי כתיב ונתן ה' לך שם לב רגז בבבל כתיב אמר ליה ההוא שעתא | 22a. b Had her mother not seen inappropriate [ i aziva /i ] matters /b or behavior b in her /b that should be stopped, b she would not have taken a vow with regard to her for nothing; /b had you known that the neighbors would say that, b would you have taken a vow with regard to her? She said to him: No, and he dissolved /b the vow b for her. /b ,The Gemara relates: b The son of the daughter of Rabbi Yannai the Elder came before Rabbi Yannai the Elder /b to dissolve a vow. b He said to him: Had you known that /b when you make a vow b they open your record book [ i pinekas /i ] /b in heaven b and examine your actions, would you have vowed? He said to him: No, and he dissolved /b the vow b for him. /b , b Rabbi Abba said: What is the verse /b from which it is derived that taking a vow leads to one’s deeds being examined? It is b “And after vows to make inquiry” /b (Proverbs 20:25). This is interpreted to mean that after one takes a vow, his actions are reviewed in heaven. The Gemara comments: b And although Rabbi Yannai broached /b dissolution b with him /b in this way, b we do not broach /b dissolution b in this /b manner b for /b one who vows, by asking if he regrets it because his actions will be examined in heaven. This is because one might be embarrassed, upon hearing such a question, to say that he does not have regret, and he will claim untruthfully that he is regretful., b And we /b also b do not broach /b dissolution b in this other /b way, b as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What /b type of dissolution b did Rabban Gamliel broach for a certain elderly man /b who had taken a vow and came before him for dissolution? He informed him that it is written: b “There is one who speaks like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is health” /b (Proverbs 12:18), which is interpreted to mean: b Anyone who verbally expresses /b the language of a vow, it is b appropriate to pierce him with a sword, but /b he has another option: b “The tongue of the wise is health,” /b since the Sages can release him from his vow. Quoting this verse with its interpretation is also not an acceptable method of broaching dissolution., b We /b also b do not broach /b dissolution b using this other /b method, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says: One who vows /b is considered b as if he built /b a personal b altar /b outside the Temple, which is prohibited, b and one who fulfills /b this vow is considered b as if he sacrifices an offering on it. With the first clause, we may broach /b dissolution by informing the one who vowed that vowing is akin to building an altar outside the Temple, but with regard to b the latter clause /b there is a dispute among the Sages. b Abaye said: We do broach /b dissolution by telling someone that fulfilling a vow is like sacrificing an offering on a forbidden altar, while b Rava said: We do not broach /b dissolution with it., b Rav Kahana taught this i halakha /i in this wording, /b i.e., the wording that was just cited. However, b Rav Tavyumei taught /b this i halakha /i in b this way: /b With regard to what is written b in the last clause, /b all agree that b we do not broach /b dissolution in this way. With regard to what is written b in the first clause, /b there is a dispute among the Sages. b Abaye said: We do broach /b dissolution in this manner, while b Rava said: We do not broach dissolution /b in this manner either. The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is /b that b we do not broach /b dissolution using b either /b the language b in the first clause or /b the language b in the latter clause. /b , b And /b furthermore, b we also do not broach /b dissolution b with this /b statement b of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: /b With regard to one who vows, b although he fulfills it, he is called wicked. Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse /b from which this is derived? It is b “But if you refrain [ i teḥdal /i ] from vowing there will be no sin in you” /b (Deuteronomy 23:23), b and he derives /b the word b i ḥadala /i /b here from the word b i ḥadala /i /b elsewhere. b It is written here: “But if you refrain [ i teḥdal /i ] from vowing,” and it is written there: “There the wicked cease [ i ḥadlu /i ] from troubling” /b (Job 3:17). The parallel language demonstrates that vowing is an act of the wicked., b Rav Yosef said: We, too, learn /b in the mishna (9a): If one says he vows b like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything. /b If he says: b Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to /b becoming b a nazirite, or with regard to /b obligating himself in b an offering, or with regard to /b taking b an oath. /b From here it is also apparent that vowing is an act of the wicked.,§ Apropos the verse “There the wicked cease from troubling,” the Gemara cites a related statement: b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna rule over him, /b because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, b as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” /b (Ecclesiastes 11:10), b and the evil /b mentioned b is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” /b (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive., b And not only that, but /b also b hemorrhoids will control him, as it is stated: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul” /b (Deuteronomy 28:65). b Which /b is the b matter /b of sickness b that causes failing of the eyes /b in pain b and causes languishing of the soul? You must say this /b is referring to b hemorrhoids. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Ulla, on his ascent to Eretz Yisrael, had two residents of Ḥozai join him. /b Because of a brawl between them, b one arose /b and b slaughtered the other. /b The assailant b said to Ulla: Did I act properly? He said to him: Yes, and open the place of the slaughter, /b i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster. b When /b Ulla b came before Rabbi Yoḥa, /b Ulla b said to him: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I strengthened the hands of sinners /b by commending him, although I did so merely because I was afraid that he would kill me. b He said to him: You saved yourself /b by doing so, as it is permitted for one to say words like this in order to save his own life.,With regard to the narrative itself, b Rabbi Yoḥa wondered: Now, it is written /b in the passage of curses: b “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart” /b (Deuteronomy 28:65) and this b is written with regard to Babylonia, /b because in the exile an individual possesses a trembling and angry heart. How is it possible that in Eretz Yisrael a person can get so angry as to murder another? Ulla b said to him: At that moment /b when the incident occurred |
|
60. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 103| 9b. מתני' דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי נתן אומר בש"א נדור ונזיר וב"ה אומרים נדור ואין נזיר ב"ש סברי לה כר"מ וכר' יהודה וב"ה סברי לה כרבי יוסי,לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה רבי נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים נדור ואינו נזיר ובית הלל אומרים לא נדור ולא נזיר ב"ש כרבי יהודה וב"ה כר"ש,תנן התם האומר הרי עלי מנחה להביא מן השעורים יביא מן החיטים קמח יביא סולת שלא בשמן ולבונה יביאנה בשמן ולבונה חצי עשרון יביא עשרון שלם עשרון ומחצה יביא שנים ר"ש פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבים,מאן תנא דכי אמר הרי עלי מנחה מן השעורים מביא מן החיטים אמר חזקיה במחלוקת שנויה וב"ש היא לאו אמרי ב"ש כי אמר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה הוי נזיר הכי נמי כי אמר מן השעורין מביא מן החיטים,ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא דברי הכל באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא נדרתי כך אלא כך,אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא שאמר מן השעורים אבל אמר מן העדשים לא מייתי ולא כלום,מכדי חזקיה כמאן מוקים לה למתני' כבית שמאי והא עדשים לגבי מנחה כגרוגרות לגבי נזיר דמו וקאמרי בית שמאי הוי נזיר הדר ביה חזקיה,ואמאי הדר ביה אמר רבא מתני' קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני מן השעורים ליתני מן העדשים אלא סבר חזקיה כי קאמרי ב"ש התם כרבי יהודה,ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מן העדשים והא רבי יוחנן הוא דאמר באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא נדרתי כך אלא כך לדבריו דחזקיה הוא דקאמר,את מ"ט קא הדרת בך משום דלא קתני מן העדשים דלמא לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעי' כי אמר מעדשים דמייתי מנחה מעלייתא דאיכא למימר מיהדר הוא דהדר ביה ותפוס לשון ראשון אלא כי אמר מן השעורין ודאי דהכי קאמר אי קדשה כמנחת העומר | 9b. § The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i . As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says /b that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs, b Beit Shammai say: /b He has rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow, and /b he is also b a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: /b He has rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow, but /b he is b not a nazirite. /b According to Rabbi Natan, b Beit Shammai hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b that a person does not utter statements for naught and that he becomes a nazirite as soon as he says: I am hereby a nazirite; b and /b he explains the opinion of Beit Shammai b as Rabbi Yehuda /b does, i.e., that one in this situation has vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him, since the rest of his statement also has significance. b And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei /b that one is held to the conclusion of his statement, and he has therefore vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him., b Some say a different version /b of the i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b He has rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow and he is not a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: /b He has b not /b rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow, and /b he is b not a nazirite. /b According to this version, the opinion of b Beit Shammai is as Rabbi Yehuda /b explained in the mishna, b and Beit Hillel hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who maintains that a donation not performed in the manner typical of donors is not a donation.,§ The Gemara discusses a case mentioned earlier. b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Menaḥot /i 103a): With regard to b one who says: It is /b incumbent b upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, /b since voluntary meal-offerings are made only with wheat b he must bring /b a meal-offering b from wheat. /b If one vows to bring a meal-offering from b flour, /b since a standard meal-offering is made from fine flour b he must bring /b one from b fine flour. /b If one vows to bring a meal-offering b without oil and frankincense, he must bring it with oil and frankincense, /b in accordance with the i halakha /i . If one vows to bring a meal-offering with b half of a tenth /b of an ephah of fine flour, b he must bring /b a meal-offering with b a full tenth, /b since a meal-offering cannot have less than one-tenth of an ephah of flour. If one vows to bring a meal-offering with b a tenth and a half, he brings two /b units of a tenth of an ephah in his meal-offering. Since half of one-tenth of an ephah is the minimum, his vow is increased to two full tenths. b Rabbi Shimon exempts /b him entirely in all these cases, b as he did not donate in the manner /b typical b of donors. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught that when one said: It is /b incumbent b upon me /b to bring b a meal-offering from barley, he brings /b a meal-offering b from wheat? Ḥizkiyya said /b that this i halakha /i b is taught as a dispute /b between i tanna’im /i , b and it is /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai. /b He explains: b Didn’t Beit Shammai say that when one said: /b I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain b from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he is a nazirite, /b indicating that he is held to only the first part of his statement, and the conflicting details are ignored? b So too, when he said /b that he will bring a meal-offering b from barley, he brings /b it b from wheat, /b and the same analysis applies to the other cases listed in this mishna., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: You /b can b even say /b that b all, /b including Beit Hillel, b agree /b with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, as the mishna may be stated b with regard to one who /b later b says, /b to clarify his earlier statement: b Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, /b that one cannot bring a voluntary meal-offering from barley, b I would not have vowed that way, only this way, /b to bring a meal-offering from wheat. Mentioning barley was an error on his part rather than a condition, and he actually meant to bring a standard meal-offering. In this case even Beit Hillel, who maintain in the mishna here that there is no vow at all, deem him liable to bring a proper meal-offering.,With regard to this ruling b Ḥizkiyya says: They taught /b that he must bring a meal-offering from wheat b only if he said /b that he will bring a meal-offering b from barley. But /b if b he said /b he will bring a meal-offering b from lentils, he does not bring anything. /b The difference is that the meal-offerings of the i omer /i and of a i sota /i are made from barley, so if he said: From barley, he may have mistakenly believed that a voluntary meal-offering can be prepared from barley as well. As everyone knows that no meal-offering is made from lentils, his statement demonstrates that he never intended to bring a meal-offering.,The Gemara asks: b Now /b consider, b in accordance with whose /b opinion b does Ḥizkiyya establish the mishna /b in i Menaḥot /i ? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai. But lentils relative to a meal-offering are comparable to dried figs relative to a nazirite, /b as everyone is likewise aware that one cannot be a nazirite and therefore refrain from figs, b and /b yet b Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite. /b Why not say that one who vows to bring a meal-offering from lentils is obligated to bring a standard meal-offering? The Gemara answers: b Ḥizkiyya retracted from it /b and no longer holds that the mishna in i Menaḥot /i is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.,The Gemara asks: b And why did he /b in fact b retract from it? Rava said: /b The b mishna caused him difficulty /b and demonstrated his error. If the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion with regard to a nazirite, b why does /b the i tanna /i b specifically teach /b the case of one who says that he will bring a meal-offering b from barley? Let him teach /b a greater novelty, i.e., that even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering b from lentils /b is obligated to bring a meal-offering made from wheat. b Rather, Ḥizkiyya holds /b that b when Beit Shammai stated /b their opinion b there, /b i.e., in the mishna with regard to a nazirite, their intention was b as /b explained by b Rabbi Yehuda, /b that one’s statement is interpreted to be meaningful and it can have the meaning of creating a vow that dried figs are forbidden to him. In the case of the meal-offering, even they agree that since one’s vow has no meaning, as there cannot be a meal-offering made of lentils, no vow takes effect., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even /b one who vowed to bring a meal-offering b from lentils /b must bring a meal-offering from wheat. The Gemara asks: b But Rabbi Yoḥa is he who said /b that the mishna is referring to a case of one b who says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, I would not have vowed that way, only this way? /b In the case of the lentils, it is not reasonable to say that he erred in thinking that one may vow to bring a meal-offering from lentils. The Gemara answers: b He stated /b this ruling b in accordance with the statement of Ḥizkiyya. /b Rabbi Yoḥa was not stating his own opinion; he was challenging the ruling of Ḥizkiyya.,The Gemara explains his challenge: b What is the reason you retracted /b your earlier opinion that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? You did so b because it does not teach: From lentils. /b That is not conclusive, as b perhaps it is speaking /b utilizing the style of: b It is not necessary, /b as follows: b It is not necessary /b to say that b when one says: /b It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering b from lentils, that he brings a proper meal-offering /b of wheat. In that situation b it can be said /b that by saying: From lentils, b he is retracting /b his first statement and now wants to rescind his vow. b And /b yet Beit Shammai hold that he is b held to the first /b part of his b statement, /b and they do not allow the rescinding of a vow of consecration. b But if he said: /b It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering b from barley, /b since it is possible to explain that b certainly this is what he said: If /b this meal-offering that I have vowed to bring from barley b is consecrated like the i omer /i meal-offering, /b |
|
61. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98| 16b. אף דברי תורה בסתר,יצא רבי חייא ושנה לשני בני אחיו בשוק לרב ולרבה בר בר חנה שמע ר' איקפד אתא ר' חייא לאיתחזויי ליה א"ל עייא מי קורא לך בחוץ ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה תלתין יומין,ביום תלתין שלח ליה תא הדר שלח ליה דלא ליתי,מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר מעיקרא סבר מקצת היום ככולו ולבסוף סבר לא אמרינן מקצת היום ככולו,לסוף אתא א"ל אמאי אתית א"ל דשלח לי מר דליתי והא שלחי לך דלא תיתי א"ל זה ראיתי וזה לא ראיתי קרי עליה (משלי טז, ז) ברצות ה' דרכי איש גם אויביו ישלים אתו,מ"ט עבד מר הכי א"ל דכתיב (משלי א, כ) חכמות בחוץ תרונה א"ל אם קרית לא שנית ואם שנית לא שילשת ואם שילשת לא פירשו לך,חכמות בחוץ תרונה כדרבא דאמר רבא כל העוסק בתורה מבפנים תורתו מכרזת עליו מבחוץ,והא כתיב (ישעיהו מח, טז) לא מראש בסתר דברתי ההוא ביומי דכלה,ור' חייא האי חמוקי ירכיך מאי עביד לה מוקי לה בצדקה ובגמילות חסדים,אלמא נזיפה דידהו תלתין יומין נזיפת נשיא שאני,ונזיפה דידן כמה הוי חד יומא כי הא דשמואל ומר עוקבא כי הוו יתבי גרס שמעתא הוה יתיב מר עוקבא קמיה דשמואל ברחוק ד' אמות וכי הוו יתבי בדינא הוה יתיב שמואל קמיה דמר עוקבא ברחוק ד' אמות והוו חייקי ליה דוכתא למר עוקבא בציפתא ויתיב עילויה כי היכי דלישתמען מיליה,כל יומא הוה מלוי ליה מר עוקבא לשמואל עד אושפיזיה יומא חד איטריד בדיניה הוה אזיל שמואל בתריה כי מטא לביתיה א"ל לא נגה לך לישרי לי מר בתיגריה ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה חד יומא,ההיא איתתא דהוות יתבה בשבילא הוות פשטה כרעה וקא מניפה חושלאי והוה חליף ואזיל צורבא מרבנן ולא איכנעה מקמיה אמר כמה חציפא ההיא איתתא אתאי לקמיה דר"נ אמר לה מי שמעת שמתא מפומיה אמרה ליה לא אמר לה זילי נהוגי נזיפותא חד יומא בנפשיך,זוטרא בר טוביה הוה קפסיק סידרא קמיה דרב יהודה כי מטא להאי פסוקא (שמואל ב כג, א) ואלה דברי דוד האחרונים א"ל אחרונים מכלל דאיכא ראשונים ראשונים מאי נינהו,שתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי הדר א"ל אחרונים מכלל דאיכא ראשונים ראשונים מאי היא א"ל מאי דעתך דלא ידע פירושא דהאי קרא לאו גברא רבה הוא ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה חד יומא,ודאתן עלה מיהא אחרונים מכלל דאיכא ראשונים ראשונים מאי היא (שמואל ב כב, א) וידבר דוד לה' את דברי השירה הזאת ביום הציל ה' אותו מכף כל אויביו ומכף שאול,אמר לו הקב"ה לדוד דוד שירה אתה אומר על מפלתו של שאול אלמלי אתה שאול והוא דוד איבדתי כמה דוד מפניו,היינו דכתיב (תהלים ז, א) שגיון לדוד אשר שר לה' על דברי כוש בן ימיני וכי כוש שמו והלא שאול שמו אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף שאול משונה במעשיו,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר יב, א) על אודות האשה הכושית אשר לקח וכי כושית שמה והלא ציפורה שמה אלא מה כושית משונה בעורה אף ציפורה משונה במעשיה כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (ירמיהו לח, ז) וישמע עבד מלך הכושי וכי כושי שמו והלא צדקיה שמו אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף צדקיה משונה במעשיו,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (עמוס ט, ז) הלא כבני כושיים אתם לי (בית) ישראל וכי כושיים שמן והלא ישראל שמן אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף ישראל משונין במעשיהן מכל האומות,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מאי דכתיב (שמואל ב כג, א) נאם דוד בן ישי ונאם הגבר הוקם על נאם דוד בן ישי שהקים עולה של תשובה,(שמואל ב כג, ג) אמר אלהי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל מושל באדם צדיק מושל יראת אלהים מאי קאמר א"ר אבהו ה"ק אמר אלהי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל אני מושל באדם מי מושל בי צדיק שאני גוזר גזרה ומבטלה,(שמואל ב כג, ח) אלה שמות הגבורים אשר לדוד יושב בשבת וגו' מאי קאמר א"ר אבהו ה"ק ואלה שמות גבורותיו של דוד,יושב בשבת בשעה שהיה יושב בישיבה לא היה יושב על גבי כרים וכסתות אלא על גבי קרקע דכל כמה דהוה רביה עירא היאירי קיים הוה מתני להו לרבנן על גבי כרים וכסתות כי נח נפשיה הוה מתני דוד לרבנן והוה יתיב על גבי קרקע אמרו ליה ליתיב מר אכרים וכסתות לא קביל עליה,תחכמוני אמר רב אמר לו הקב"ה הואיל והשפלת עצמך תהא כמוני שאני גוזר גזרה ואתה מבטלה,ראש השלישים תהא ראש לשלשת אבות הוא עדינו העצני כשהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה היה מעדן עצמו כתולעת ובשעה שיוצא למלחמה היה מקשה עצמו כעץ,על שמונה מאות חלל בפעם אחת שהיה זורק חץ ומפיל שמונה מאות חלל בפעם אחת והיה מתאנח על מאתים דכתיב (דברים לב, ל) איכה ירדף אחד אלף,יצתה בת קול ואמרה (מלכים א טו, ה) רק בדבר אוריה החתי,אמר רבי תנחום בריה דרבי חייא איש כפר עכו אמר רבי יעקב בר אחא אמר ר' שמלאי ואמרי לה אמר ר' תנחום אמר רב הונא ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא לחודיה | 16b. b so too, the words of Torah, /b which are “the work of the hands of an artist,” i.e., God, must remain b hidden /b in the study hall.,Despite Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s decree, b Rabbi Ḥiyya went out and taught his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana, in the marketplace. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b heard /b what he had done and b became angry /b with him. When b Rabbi Ḥiyya came /b at some later date b to visit him, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mockingly b said to him: Iyya, who is calling you outside? /b By asking this question Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was intimating that Rabbi Ḥiyya should leave his house. Rabbi Ḥiyya b understood that /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b had taken the matter to heart /b and was insulted, and so b he conducted /b himself as if he had been b admonished, /b as a self-imposed punishment, b for thirty days. /b , b On the thirtieth day, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b sent him /b a message, saying: b Come /b and visit me. However, b he later /b reversed his opinion and b sent him /b another message, telling him b not to come. /b ,The Gemara asks: b At the outset what did he hold, and ultimately what did he hold? Initially, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b held that /b the legal status of b part of the day is like /b that b of an entire /b day, and since the thirtieth day already begun, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s time of admonition had ended. b But ultimately he held /b that with regard to this issue b we do not say /b that the legal status of b part of the day is like /b that b of an entire /b day., b In the end /b Rabbi Ḥiyya b came /b on that same day. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b asked him: Why have you come? /b Rabbi Ḥiyya b responded: Because /b you, b Master, sent /b me a message that b I should come. /b He said to him: b But I sent /b you a second message b that you should not come. He responded: This /b messenger that you sent, i.e., the first one, b I saw /b him and I did as he said, b but that /b messenger, i.e., the second one, b I did not see. /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b read /b the verse b about /b Rabbi Ḥiyya: b “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” /b (Proverbs 16:7), as it was clear to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya had merited divine assistance.,§ Concerning the issue with which the entire incident had begun, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked Rabbi Ḥiyya: b What is the reason that /b you, b the Master, acted as /b you did, ignoring my instructions not to teach Torah in the marketplace? Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to him: As it is written: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets” /b (Proverbs 1:20), which implies that Torah should be publicized in the streets. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: If you read /b this verse once, b you /b certainly b did not read /b it b a second time /b in greater depth; b and if you read /b it b a second time, you /b certainly b did not read /b it b a third time; /b and b if you read /b it b a third time, /b then b it was not /b adequately b explained to you, /b as it is clear that you do not understand it properly.,The words: b “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets,” /b should be understood b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rava. As Rava said: /b With regard to b everyone who occupies himself with Torah /b study b inside /b the privacy of his home, b his Torah /b knowledge b will proclaim his /b greatness b outside, /b as it will be revealed to the masses and they will see his greatness.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it written: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret” /b (Isaiah 48:16), implying that the Torah should be taught and proclaimed in public? The Gemara answers: b That /b verse is referring to b the days of the i kalla /i , /b the gathering for Torah study held during Elul and Adar, when many people come to listen to Torah discourses. During this time, it is not only permitted but even recommended to teach Torah to the masses. In this way, the verse can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.,The Gemara asks: b And what did Rabbi Ḥiyya do with this /b verse: b “Your rounded thighs are like jewels”? /b How did he understand it? This verse implies that the Torah must be kept hidden in the study hall and not publicized in the marketplace. The Gemara explains: b He interprets it /b not as a reference to Torah, but as referring b to /b acts of b charity and loving-kindness, /b which should certainly be performed in private.,This incident demonstrates b that, apparently, admonition of those /b who live in Eretz Yisrael lasts for b thirty days /b and not for seven days. The Gemara answers that this is not a conclusive proof, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the i Nasi /i . b The admonition of the i Nasi /i /b of the Sanhedrin b is different /b i.e., more severe, than the admonition of anyone else.,The Gemara asks: b And how /b long b is our admonition /b in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: It is only b one day, as in /b the case involving b Shmuel and /b the Exilarch b Mar Ukva. When they would sit and study i halakha /i , Mar Ukva would sit before Shmuel at a distance of four cubits /b as a sign of respect. Mar Ukva would conduct himself as though Shmuel were his teacher because Shmuel was much greater than him in Torah matters. b And when they would sit /b together b in judgment, Shmuel would sit before Mar Ukva at a distance of four cubits /b because Mar Ukva was the Exilarch and the chief judge. b But they would lower a place for Mar Ukva in the matting /b upon which he sat, b and he would sit on it so that he could hear /b Shmuel’s b words /b of Torah even when they were engaged in judgment., b Every day, Mar Ukva would accompany Shmuel to his lodgings, /b in the manner that a student would show honor toward his teacher. b One day, /b Mar Ukva b was /b so heavily b preoccupied with a case /b that had been brought before him for judgment that he did not realize that b Shmuel was walking behind him /b to show him respect due to his position as the Exilarch. b When /b Mar Ukva b reached his home, /b Shmuel b said to him: Is it not enough for you /b that I accompanied you until here? b Release me, Master, from my obligation, /b so that I may return home. Mar Ukva b understood that /b Shmuel b had taken the matter to heart /b and was insulted. Therefore, b he conducted /b himself as if he had been b admonished, for one day /b as a self-imposed punishment.,It was related that b a certain woman was sitting alongside a path /b with b her leg extended /b while b she was sifting barley. A Torah scholar passed /b by her on this path, b but she did not yield to him /b and move her leg to make room for him. b He said: How rude is that woman! /b The woman b came before Rav Naḥman /b to ask if this statement should be deemed as excommunication. b He said to her: Did you hear /b the word b excommunication /b explicitly issue b from his mouth? She said to him: No. He said to her: /b If this is the case, then b go and observe an admonition for one day, /b as it appears that the Torah scholar sought only to admonish you.,§ b Zutra bar Toviyya was /b once b reading the portion /b of the Bible b before Rav Yehuda. When he reached the verse: “Now these are the last words of David” /b (II Samuel 23:1), Zutra bar Toviyya b said to /b Rav Yehuda: If it is written that these are the b last /b of David’s words, b by inference there are first /b words as well. If this is the case, b what are these first /b words of David? Prior to this, it mentions only David’s song, but not his words.,Rav Yehuda b remained silent and said nothing to him. /b Zutra bar Toviyya thought that Rav Yehuda did not hear what he had said, so he b then said to him /b a second time: If it is written that these are the b last /b of David’s words, b by inference there are first /b words as well. If this is the case, b what are these first /b words of David? b He said to him: What do you think? /b Do you think that anyone b who does not know the meaning of this verse is not a great man? /b Why are you stressing the fact that I do not know the answer to your question? Zutra bar Toviyya b understood that /b Rav Yehuda b had taken the matter to heart /b and was insulted. Therefore, b he conducted /b himself as if had been b admonished for one day /b as a self-imposed punishment.,The Gemara asks: b But /b now b that we have come /b to discuss this issue, since the verse mentions David’s b last /b words, b by inference there are /b also b first /b words. b What /b then b are these first /b words of David? The Gemara answers: The first words are: b “And David spoke to the Lord the words of this song in the day that the Lord delivered him out of the hand of his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul” /b (II Samuel 22:1), as that song is also referred to as words.,The Gemara elaborates: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to David: David, do you recite a song over the fall of Saul? Had you been Saul and he were David, /b then b I would have destroyed many Davids before him. /b Although I decreed that Saul’s kingdom would not continue, as an individual he was far greater and more important than you.,The response to this admonishment b is /b found in the verse, b as it is written: “Shiggaion of David, which he sang to the Lord, concerning the words of Cush the Benjaminite” /b (Psalms 7:1). b Is Cush his name? Saul is his name. Rather, /b this is a designation that indicates: b Just as a Cushite, /b a native of the ancient kingdom of Cush in eastern Africa, b is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, Saul was distinguished by his actions, /b as he was absolutely righteous and performed many good deeds. Therefore, David uses the word i shiggaion /i as an allusion to the error [ i shegia /i ] that he had made when he sang a song of praise over Saul’s downfall.,The Gemara notes: b Similarly, you can explain /b the verse: “And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses b due to the Cushite woman whom he had married, /b for he had taken a Cushite woman” (Numbers 12:1). b But is her name Cushite? Zipporah is her name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, Zipporah was distinguished by her actions. /b The Gemara continues: b Similarly, you can explain /b the verse: b “Now when Ebed-Melech the Cushite heard” /b (Jeremiah 38:7). b Is his name Cushite? Zedekiah is his name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, Zedekiah was distinguished by his /b righteous b actions. /b , b Similarly, you can explain /b the verse: b “Are you not as much Mine as the children of the Cushites, O children of Israel?” /b (Amos 9:7). b Is their name Cushite? Israel is their name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, the Jewish people are distinguished by their actions, /b and they are different b from all the /b other b nations. /b ,§ Having mentioned the last words of David, the Gemara continues to explain other expressions in that passage. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “The saying of David, son of Yishai, and the saying of the man who was raised up on high [ i al /i ]” /b (II Samuel 23:1)? It means as follows: b The saying of David, son of Yishai, who raised the yoke of [ i ulla /i ] repentance, /b as through his actions he taught the power of repentance. The word i al /i , on high, and the word i ulla /i are comprised of the same consots in Hebrew.,The passage continues: b “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that rules over men must be righteous, ruling in the fear of God” /b (II Samuel 23:3). The Gemara asks: b What is /b this verse b saying? /b What does it mean? b Rabbi Abbahu said: This is what /b the verse b is saying: The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me: /b Although b I rule over man, who rules over Me? /b It is b a righteous person. /b How is it possible to say that a righteous person rules over God, as it were? b As I, /b God, b issue a decree /b and the righteous person b nullifies it. /b ,Similarly, the verse states there: b “These are the names of David’s warriors; Josheb-Basshebeth /b a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; he raised his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time” (II Samuel 23:8). The Gemara asks: b What is /b this verse b saying? Rabbi Abbahu said: This is what /b the verse b is saying: These are the names of the mighty actions of David. /b These expressions should not be read as names of people but instead as descriptions of David’s good deeds., b Josheb-Basshebeth [ i yoshev bashevet /i ] /b indicates that b when /b David b would sit [ i yoshev /i ] in the study hall, he would not sit upon pillows and cushions, /b as an important person ordinarily would. b Rather, /b he would sit b on the ground /b like one of the students. b For as long as /b David’s b teacher, Ira the Jairite, was alive, /b Ira b would teach the Sages /b while sitting b on pillows and cushions. When /b Ira b passed away, David would teach the Sages, and he /b did this while b sitting on the ground. They said to him: Master, /b you b should sit upon pillows and blankets. He did not accept /b their suggestions, since in his humility he did not wish to appear as the teacher of the Jewish people.,In this verse, David is described as b “a Tahchemonite [ i taḥkemoni /i ].” Rav said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Since you have humbled yourself, be you /b now b like Me [ i tehe kamoni /i ]. /b How so? b As I issue a decree, and you, /b owing to your righteousness, b may nullify it. /b ,David is also described here as b “chief of the captains [ i rosh hashalishim /i ]” /b because God said to him: b You will be the head [ i rosh /i ] of the three [ i sheloshet /i ] Patriarchs. “The same was Adino the Eznite”; /b this alludes to the fact that b when /b David b would sit and occupy himself with Torah, he would make himself soft [ i me’aden /i ] as a worm, and when he would go out to war, he would make himself hard /b and strong b as a tree [ i etz /i ]. /b ,The expression: b “Against eight hundred people, which he slew at one time,” /b means b that he would throw an arrow /b in the air b and /b with it b kill eight hundred people at one time. And /b David b would sigh over the two hundred /b who were missing from fulfillment of the Torah’s promise, b as it is written: “How should one man chase a thousand” /b (Deuteronomy 32:30)., b A Divine Voice issued forth and said /b by way of explanation as to why the promise was not entirely fulfilled: “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, b save only the matter of Uriah the Hittite” /b (I Kings 15:5). Had David not committed this sin, then all of the promises mentioned in the Torah would have been fulfilled in their entirety through him.,The Gemara returns to the i halakhot /i of ostracism and mentions that b Rabbi Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, of the village of Akko, said /b that b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said /b that b Rabbi Simlai said, and /b some b say /b that this tradition was transmitted in the following manner: b Rabbi Tanḥum said /b that b Rav Huna said, and /b others b say /b that b Rav Huna himself /b made this statement without the chain of transmission: |
|
62. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 108| 20b. נזדמן לו אדם אחד שהיה מכוער ביותר אמר לו שלום עליך רבי ולא החזיר לו אמר לו ריקה כמה מכוער אותו האיש שמא כל בני עירך מכוערין כמותך אמר לו איני יודע אלא לך ואמור לאומן שעשאני כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית כיון שידע בעצמו שחטא ירד מן החמור ונשתטח לפניו ואמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי אמר לו איני מוחל לך עד שתלך לאומן שעשאני ואמור לו כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית,היה מטייל אחריו עד שהגיע לעירו יצאו בני עירו לקראתו והיו אומרים לו שלום עליך רבי רבי מורי מורי אמר להם למי אתם קורין רבי רבי אמרו לו לזה שמטייל אחריך אמר להם אם זה רבי אל ירבו כמותו בישראל אמרו לו מפני מה אמר להם כך וכך עשה לי אמרו לו אעפ"כ מחול לו שאדם גדול בתורה הוא,אמר להם בשבילכם הריני מוחל לו ובלבד שלא יהא רגיל לעשות כן מיד נכנס רבי אלעזר בן רבי שמעון ודרש לעולם יהא אדם רך כקנה ואל יהא קשה כארז ולפיכך זכה קנה ליטול הימנה קולמוס לכתוב בו ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזות:,וכן עיר שיש בה דבר או מפולת כו': תנו רבנן מפולת שאמרו בריאות ולא רעועות שאינן ראויות ליפול ולא הראויות ליפול,הי ניהו בריאות הי ניהו שאינן ראויות ליפול הי ניהו רעועות הי ניהו ראויות ליפול לא צריכא דנפלו מחמת גובהייהו אי נמי דקיימן אגודא דנהרא,כי ההיא אשיתא רעועה דהואי בנהרדעא דלא הוה חליף רב ושמואל תותה אע"ג דקיימא באתרה תליסר שנין יומא חד איקלע רב אדא בר אהבה להתם אמר ליה שמואל לרב ניתי מר נקיף אמר ליה לא צריכנא האידנא דאיכא רב אדא בר אהבה בהדן דנפיש זכותיה ולא מסתפינא,רב הונא הוה ליה ההוא חמרא בההוא ביתא רעיעא ובעי לפנוייה עייליה לרב אדא בר אהבה להתם משכי' בשמעתא עד דפנייה בתר דנפק נפל ביתא ארגיש רב אדא בר אהבה איקפד,סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבי ינאי לעולם אל יעמוד אדם במקום סכנה ויאמר עושין לי נס שמא אין עושין לו נס ואם תימצי לומר עושין לו נס מנכין לו מזכיותיו אמר רב חנן מאי קרא דכתיב (בראשית לב, יא) קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת,מאי הוה עובדיה דרב אדא בר אהבה כי הא דאתמר שאלו תלמידיו (את רבי זירא ואמרי לה) לרב אדא בר אהבה במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא הקפדתי בתוך ביתי ולא צעדתי בפני מי שגדול ממני,ולא הרהרתי במבואות המטונפות ולא הלכתי ד' אמות בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא ששתי בתקלת חברי ולא קראתי לחבירי בהכינתו ואמרי לה בחניכתו,אמר ליה רבא לרפרם בר פפא לימא לן מר מהני מילי מעלייתא דהוה עביד רב הונא אמר ליה בינקותיה לא דכירנא בסיבותיה דכירנא דכל יומא דעיבא הוו מפקין ליה בגוהרקא דדהבא וסייר לה לכולה מתא וכל אשיתא דהוות רעיעתא הוה סתר לה אי אפשר למרה בני לה ואי לא אפשר בני לה איהו מדידיה,וכל פניא דמעלי שבתא הוה משדר שלוחא לשוקא וכל ירקא דהוה פייש להו לגינאי זבין ליה ושדי ליה לנהרא וליתביה לעניים זמנין דסמכא דעתייהו ולא אתו למיזבן ולשדייה לבהמה קסבר מאכל אדם אין מאכילין לבהמה,ולא ליזבניה כלל נמצאת מכשילן לעתיד לבא,כי הוה ליה מילתא דאסותא הוי מלי כוזא דמיא ותלי ליה בסיפא דביתא ואמר כל דבעי ליתי ולישקול ואיכא דאמרי מילתא דשיבתא הוה גמיר והוה מנח כוזא דמיא ודלי ליה ואמר כל דצריך ליתי וליעול דלא לסתכן,כי הוה כרך ריפתא הוה פתח לבביה ואמר כל מאן דצריך ליתי וליכול אמר רבא כולהו מצינא מקיימנא לבר מהא דלא מצינא למיעבד | 20b. b He happened /b upon b an exceedingly ugly person, /b who b said to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, but /b Rabbi Elazar b did not return /b his greeting. Instead, Rabbi Elazar b said to him: Worthless [ i reika /i ] /b person, b how ugly is that man. Are all the people of your city as ugly as you? /b The man b said to him: I do not know, but you /b should b go and say to the Craftsman Who made me: How ugly is the vessel you made. When /b Rabbi Elazar b realized that he /b had b sinned /b and insulted this man merely on account of his appearance, b he descended from his donkey and prostrated himself before him, and he said to /b the man: b I have sinned against you; forgive me. /b The man b said to him: I will not forgive you go until you go to the Craftsman Who made me and say: How ugly is the vessel you made. /b , b He walked behind /b the man, trying to appease him, b until they reached /b Rabbi Elazar’s b city. The people of his city came out to greet him, saying to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, my rabbi, my master, my master. /b The man b said to them: Who are you calling my rabbi, my rabbi? They said to him: To this man, who is walking behind you. He said to them: If this /b man b is a rabbi, may there not be many like him among the Jewish people. They asked him: For what /b reason do you say this? He b said to them: He did such and such to me. They said to him: Even so, /b forgive him, b as he is a great Torah scholar. /b , b He said to them: For your sakes I forgive him, provided that /b he accepts upon himself b not to become accustomed to behave like this. Immediately, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, entered the study hall and taught: A person should always be soft like a reed and he should not be stiff like a cedar, /b as one who is proud like a cedar is likely to sin. b And therefore, /b due to its gentle qualities, the b reed merited /b that b a quill is taken from it to write with it a Torah scroll, phylacteries, and i mezuzot /i . /b ,§ The mishna taught: b And likewise, /b if a b city is /b afflicted b by pestilence or collapsing buildings, /b that city fasts and sounds the alarm, and all of its surrounding areas fast but they do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: They sound the alarm but they do not fast. b The Sages taught: /b These collapsing buildings b to which /b the Sages b referred /b are those of b sturdy and not dilapidated /b walls; they have walls b that are not ready to fall, and not those that are ready to fall. /b ,The Gemara expresses puzzlement with regard to the wording of the i baraita /i : b What are sound /b walls; b what are /b walls b that are not ready to fall; what are dilapidated /b walls; b what are those that are ready to fall? /b The elements in each pair of walls are apparently the same, and the i baraita /i is repetitive. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to specify that in the case of walls b that fell due to their height, /b i.e., they are sound but also ready to fall, due to their excessive height. b Alternatively, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the walls b were positioned on a riverbank, /b as they are likely to fall despite the fact that they are not dilapidated, as the riverbank itself is unstable.,The Gemara relates: This is b like that /b dilapidated wall b that was in Neharde’a, under which Rav and Shmuel would not pass, although it stood in place thirteen years. One day Rav Adda bar Ahava happened /b to come b there /b and walked with them. As they passed the wall, b Shmuel said to Rav: Come, Master, let us circumvent /b this wall, so that we do not stand beneath it. Rav b said to him: /b It is b not necessary /b to do so b today, as Rav Adda bar Ahava is with us, whose merit is great, and /b therefore b I am not afraid /b of its collapse.,The Gemara relates another incident. b Rav Huna had a certain /b quantity of b wine in a certain dilapidated house and he wanted to move it, /b but he was afraid that the building would collapse upon his entry. b He brought Rav Adda bar Ahava to there, /b to the ramshackle house, and b he dragged /b out a discussion with b him /b concerning a matter of b i halakha /i until they had removed /b all the wine. b As soon as they exited, the building collapsed. Rav Adda bar Ahava realized /b what had happened b and became angry. /b ,The Gemara explains: Rav Adda bar Ahava b holds in accordance with this /b statement, b as Rabbi Yannai said: A person should never stand in a place of danger and say: A miracle will be performed for me, /b and I will escape unharmed, b lest a miracle is not performed for him. And if you say /b that b a miracle /b will be b performed for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rav Ḥa said: What is the verse /b that alludes to this idea? b As it is written: “I have become small from all the mercies and all the truth /b that You have showed Your servant” (Genesis 32:11). In other words, the more benevolence one receives from God, the more his merit is reduced.,After recounting stories that reflect Rav Adda bar Ahava’s great merit, the Gemara asks: b What were /b the exceptional deeds b of Rav Adda bar Ahava? /b The Gemara reports that they are b as it is stated: /b The students of Rabbi Zeira asked him, and some say that b the students of Rav Adda bar Ahava asked him: To what /b do you attribute b your longevity? He said to them: In all my days I did not become angry with my household, and I never walked before someone greater than myself; /b rather, I always gave him the honor of walking before me.,Rav Adda bar Ahava continued: b And I did not think /b about matters of Torah b in filthy alleyways; and I did not walk four cubits without /b engaging in b Torah and without /b donning b phylacteries; and I /b would b not fall asleep in the study hall, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap; and I /b would b not rejoice in the mishap of my colleague; and I /b would b not call my colleague by his nickname. And some say /b that he said: I would b not call my colleague by his /b derogatory b family name. /b ,§ The Gemara relates another story about the righteous deeds of the Sages involving a dilapidated wall. b Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master tell us some of those fine /b deeds b that Rav Huna performed. He said to him: I do not remember /b what he did b in his youth, but /b the deeds b of his old age I remember. As on every cloudy day they would take him out in a golden carriage [ i guharka /i ], and he would survey the entire city. And /b he would command b that every unstable wall /b be b torn down, /b lest it fall in the rain and hurt someone. b If its owner was able /b to build another, Rav Huna would instruct him b to rebuild it. And if he was unable /b to rebuild it, Rav Huna would b build it himself with his own money. /b ,Rafram bar Pappa further relates: b And every Shabbat eve, /b in the b afternoon, /b Rav Huna b would send a messenger to the marketplace, and he would purchase all the vegetables that were left with the gardeners /b who sold their crops, b and throw /b them b into the river. /b The Gemara asks: b But /b why did he throw out the vegetables? b Let him give them to the poor. /b The Gemara answers: If he did this, the poor would b sometimes rely /b on the fact that Rav Huna would hand out vegetables, b and they would not come to purchase /b any. This would ruin the gardeners’ livelihood. The Gemara further asks: b And let him throw them to the animals. /b The Gemara answers: b He holds /b that b human food /b may b not be fed to animals, /b as this is a display of contempt for the food.,The Gemara objects: b But /b if Rav Huna could not use them in any way, he should b not purchase /b the vegetables b at all. /b The Gemara answers: If nothing is done, b you /b would have been b found /b to have caused b a stumbling block for them in the future. /b If the vegetable sellers see that some of their produce is left unsold, the next week they will not bring enough for Shabbat. Therefore, Rav Huna made sure that the vegetables were all bought, so that the sellers would continue to bring them.,Another custom of Rav Huna was b that when he had /b a new b medicine, he would fill /b a water b jug /b with the medicine b and hang it from the doorpost of his house, saying: All who need, let him come and take /b from this new medicine. b And there are /b those b who say: He had a remedy /b against the demon b Shivta /b that he knew by b tradition, /b that one must wash his hands for protection against this evil spirit. b And /b to this end, b he would place a water jug and hang /b it by the door, b saying: Anyone who needs, let him come /b to the house and wash his hands, so b that he will not be in danger. /b ,The Gemara further relates: b When /b Rav Huna b would eat bread, he would open the doors /b to his house, b saying: Whoever needs, let him come in and eat. Rava said: I can fulfill all these /b customs of Rav Huna, b except for this one, which I cannot do, /b |
|
63. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 102 | 93b. The Gemara answers: He holds that b one derives /b the i halakhot /i of the offering of b an individual from /b the i halakhot /i of another offering of b an individual, /b such as the burnt offering of appearance, b and one does not derive /b the i halakhot /i of the offering of b an individual from /b the i halakhot /i of b a communal /b offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who said /b that the exclusion of a blind person is derived b from /b the placing of hands performed by the b Elders of /b the b congregation, what is the reason /b that b he does not derive /b this b from /b the b burnt offering of appearance? /b The Gemara answers: He holds that b one derives /b the i halakhot /i of b a matter /b concerning b which /b the requirement of b placing hands is /b explicitly b written with regard to /b that case b itself, /b as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, b from /b another b matter /b concerning b which placing hands is /b also explicitly b written with regard to /b that case b itself, /b as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves b to exclude /b the possibility of deriving the i halakhot /i from those of the b burnt offering of appearance, as /b the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather b it itself is derived from /b the requirement stated with regard to b a voluntary burnt offering. /b ,This is b as a i tanna /i taught /b in a i baraita /i b in the presence of Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: /b With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: b “And the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordice” /b (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: b In accordance with the ordice of a voluntary burnt offering. /b Accordingly, this verse b teaches about /b every b obligatory burnt offering, /b including the burnt offering of appearance, b that it requires placing hands, /b just as a voluntary burnt offering does.,§ The mishna states: A Canaanite b slave, the agent /b of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, b and a woman /b do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these i halakhot /i , b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The term “his hand” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. b “His hand” /b (Leviticus 3:2), b but not the hand of his /b Canaanite b slave; “his hand” /b (Leviticus 3:8), b but not the hand of his agent; “his hand” /b (Leviticus 3:13), b but not the hand of his wife. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need b all these /b three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions b are necessary, /b as b had the Merciful One written /b only b one /b exclusion, b I would say /b that it serves b to exclude /b only a Canaanite b slave, as /b since b he is not commanded in mitzvot /b it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. b But /b with regard to b an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and /b there is a principle that the halakhic status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself, /b one might b say /b that he b could place /b his b hands /b on the offering of the owner on the owner’s behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent., b And had /b the Merciful One b taught us /b only b these two /b i halakhot /i , one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, b as they are not considered like his own flesh. But /b with regard to b his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, /b one might b say /b that b she places /b her b hands /b on her husband’s offering. Therefore, the third mention is b necessary /b to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.,§ The mishna states: The requirement of b placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “And he shall place his hand /b upon the head of the burnt offering, b and it shall be accepted for him /b to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). The i baraita /i asks: b But does /b the rite of b placing hands effect atonement? Isn’t atonement /b effected b only through /b the presentation of the b blood? As it is stated /b with regard to blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, b for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” /b (Leviticus 17:11). b Rather, /b the verse serves b to say to you that if one treated placing hands /b as though it were b a non-essential mitzva /b and therefore neglected to perform it, then b the verse ascribes him /b blame b as though he did not effect atonement; but /b nevertheless, in actuality, the offering b atones /b for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering., b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i b with regard to waving in this way: /b “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering b to be waved to effect atonement /b for him” (Leviticus 14:21). The i baraita /i asks: b Does waving /b the offering b effect atonement? Isn’t atonement /b effected b only through /b the presentation of b the blood? As it is stated: “For it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” /b (Leviticus 17:11). b Rather, /b the verse serves b to say to you that if one treated waving /b as though it were b a non-essential mitzva /b and therefore neglected to perform it, then b the verse ascribes him /b blame b as though he did not effect atonement; but /b nevertheless, in actuality, the offering b effects atonement /b for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.,§ The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning b on the head /b of the offering. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The phrase “his hand upon the head” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal’s body. Placing hands is performed with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:2), b but not /b with b his hand on the neck /b of the animal; with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:8), b but not /b with b his hand on the back /b of the animal; with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:13), b but not /b with b his hand on the breast /b of the animal.,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need b all these /b three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions b are necessary, /b as b had the Merciful One written /b only b one /b exclusion, b I would say /b that it serves b to exclude /b only the animal’s b neck, as it is not level with the head of /b the animal. b But /b with regard to b its back, which is level with its head, /b one might b say /b that it is b not /b precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, it is b necessary /b to have an independent source to exclude the animal’s back., b And had /b the Torah b taught us /b only b these two /b i halakhot /i , one would have excluded only the neck and the back, b as /b those parts are b not included in /b the b waving /b of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. b But /b with regard to the animal’s b breast, which is included in the waving /b of the offering, one might say that it is b not /b precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, the third mention is b necessary /b to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal’s breast., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If one placed b his hand on the sides /b of the animal’s head, b what is /b the i halakha /i ; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Abba Bira’a, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, says /b that the verse: “And he shall place b his hand upon the head of /b the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand b on /b the top of b its head and not /b with b his hand on the sides /b of its head., b Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: /b If one’s hands were wrapped in b a cloth, what is /b the i halakha /i as b to /b whether the cloth is regarded as b an interposition /b between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution from a i baraita /i , which states: The rite is valid b provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering. /b ,§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed b with two hands. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Reish Lakish said: As the verse states /b with regard to the Yom Kippur service: b “And Aaron shall place both his hands [ i yadav /i ] /b upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word i yadav /i , meaning: His hands, is written without a second i yod /i , and so if read without vowels it reads as: b His hand. But it is /b also b written “both,” /b which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. b This established a paradigm /b that in b any place where it is stated /b in the Torah: b His hand, there are here two /b hands, b unless the verse /b explicitly b specifies /b that there is only b one. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Elazar went and stated this i halakha /i in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard /b about this b and became angry. /b He b said to /b Rabbi Elazar: b If it enters your mind /b that b wherever it is written: His hand, /b the meaning is that b there are /b actually b two /b hands, then b why do I /b ever need the Torah b to write: His hands, his hands, /b i.e., i yadav /i in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?,Reish Lakish b raised objections against him /b from b twenty-four /b occasions where the Torah writes: b His hands, /b for example: b “His own hands [ i yadav /i ] shall bring /b the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); b “his hands [ i yadav /i ] shall contend for him, /b and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); b “Guiding his hands [ i yadav /i ] wittingly, /b for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar b was silent, /b as he had no response., b After /b Reish Lakish had b calmed down, he said to /b Rabbi Elazar: b What is the reason /b that b you did not say to me /b the following: When I established that paradigm, b I was speaking /b only about the term: b His hands [ i yadav /i ], with regard to placing hands. /b But with regard to other i halakhot /i , when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.”,The Gemara asks: But b also with regard to placing hands it is written, /b concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: b “And he placed his hands [ i yadav /i ] upon him /b and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” [ i yadav /i ] instead of: His hand [ i yado /i ]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, b I was speaking /b only about the term: His hands [ i yadav /i ], b with regard to placing hands /b on b an animal /b offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.,§ The mishna teaches: b And in the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands, one slaughters /b the animal. b And immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed. The Gemara asks: b What is /b the mishna b saying? /b The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that b this /b is what the mishna b is saying: In the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands one slaughters /b the animal, b because immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first., strong MISHNA: /strong There is an aspect of greater b stringency with regard to placing hands than /b there is b with regard to waving, and /b there is an aspect of greater stringency b with regard to waving than /b there is b with regard to placing hands. /b The stringency with regard to placing hands is b that /b if several people are partners in bringing an offering, b one /b of them b waves /b the offering b on behalf of all the /b other b partners, but one cannot /b fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone b places hands on behalf of all the /b other b partners; /b rather, each member must place hands himself. b The stringency with regard to waving /b is b that waving is practiced in /b the cases of both b offerings of an individual, /b e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, b and in /b the cases of b communal offerings, /b e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on i Shavuot /i , which are waved together with the two loaves; |
|
64. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 102| 122b. ואמר ליה ר' יוחנן כל זמן שיונק,או דלמא עולא בן שנתו קאמר בין יונק ובין שאינו יונק ואמר ליה ר' יוחנן בן שנתו והוא שיונק,ת"ש ר' יוחנן אמר כל זמן שיונק ואם איתא והוא שיונק מיבעי ליה ש"מ,בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר' יוחנן עור הראש של עגל הרך מהו שיטמא אמר ליה אינו מטמא,אמר ליה לימדתנו רבינו אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן ועור הראש של עגל הרך א"ל אל תקניטני בלשון יחיד אני שונה אותה,דתניא השוחט את העולה להקטיר כזית מעור שתחת האליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת,אלעזר בן יהודה איש אבלום אומר משום ר' יעקב וכן היה ר' שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עיכום אומר משום רבי שמעון אחד עור פרסות ואחד עור הראש של עגל הרך ואחד עור של תחת האליה וכל שמנו חכמים גבי טומאה שעורותיהן כבשרן להביא עור של בית הבושת,חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת:,ועור בית הפרסות: מאי בית הפרסות רב אמר בית הפרסות ממש רבי חנינא אמר רכובה הנמכרת עם הראש:,ועור האנקה: תנו רבנן (ויקרא יא, לא) הטמאים לרבות עורותיהן כבשרן,יכול אפי' כולן ת"ל (ויקרא יא, לא) אלה,והא אלה אכולהו כתיבי אמר רב למינהו הפסיק הענין,וליחשוב נמי תנשמת אמר רב שמואל בר יצחק רב תנא הוא ותני תנשמת,והא תנא דידן לא תני תנשמת,אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי תנא דידן סבר לה כר' יהודה דאזיל בתר גישתא,ובגישתא דהלטאה קמיפלגי:,וכולן שעיבדן [וכו']: הילך אין לא הילך לא והא תני ר' חייא אוזן חמור שטלאה לקופתו טהורה טלאה אע"ג דלא הילך,לא טלאה הילך אין לא הילך לא,כמה כדי עבוד אמר רב הונא אמר רבי ינאי ארבעת מילין,(רבי אבהו משום דריש לקיש אמר) לגבל,ולתפלה ולנטילת ידים ארבעת מילין,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק | 122b. b and Rabbi Yoḥa /b disagreed with Ulla and b said to him: /b A calf is considered young b as long as it is suckling, /b even after its first year of age? According to this explanation, Ulla considers a calf to be young only when it is both in its first year and suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥa considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year., b Or perhaps, does Ulla say /b that a calf is considered young if it is in b its /b first b year of age, whether it is suckling or whether it is no /b longer b suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: /b The calf must be in b its /b first b year of age and it /b must also be b suckling /b in order to be considered young?, b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this dilemma: b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The calf is considered young b the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so /b that Rabbi Yoḥa requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yoḥa b should have /b said: b And /b provided the calf b is suckling, /b indicating an additional condition. b Conclude from it /b that Rabbi Yoḥa considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year, and that Ulla considers only a calf that is both in its first year and suckling to be young.,§The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. b Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoḥa: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to whether b the skin of the head of a young calf /b that is still fit to be eaten b imparts impurity? /b Is the status of the skin like that of flesh or not? Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: It does not impart impurity. /b ,Reish Lakish b said to him: /b But didn’t b you teach us, our teacher, /b that it says in the mishna: b These /b are the entities b whose skin /b has the same halakhic status b as their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young calf /b is included among them? Rabbi Yoḥa b said to /b Reish Lakish: b Do not provoke me /b by asking such a question. b I teach that /b mishna b in the singular, /b i.e., that mishna is in accordance with an individual opinion and is contrary to the majority opinion. Therefore, the i halakha /i is not in accordance with it., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who slaughters a burnt offering /b with the intention b to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its /b designated b area, /b i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering b unfit, but there is no /b liability for b i karet /i /b for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it b beyond its /b designated b time, /b i.e., not on that day, then it is rendered b i piggul /i , and one is liable /b to receive b i karet /i for /b partaking of b it. /b Since this particular area of the skin is soft, its status is therefore like that of flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis., b Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: /b This i halakha /i applies b both /b to b the hide of the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all /b of the entities b that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity /b that the halakhic status of b their skin is like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb. /b ,Therefore, one who sacrifices a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of any of these skins b outside its /b designated b area /b renders the offering b unfit, but there is no /b liability for b i karet /i /b for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it b beyond its /b designated b time, /b then it is rendered b i piggul /i , and one is liable /b to receive b i karet /i for /b eating b it. /b Therefore, the mishna is in accordance with the individual opinion of Elazar ben Yehuda, who holds that all of the skins listed in the mishna have the status of flesh, and not in accordance with the Rabbis’ opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.,§The mishna teaches: b And the hide of the hooves /b has the status of flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Gemara asks: To b what /b is b the /b term b hooves /b referring? b Rav says: /b It is b literally /b referring to b the hooves. Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b It is referring to the skin of the section of b the knee /b at the top of the lower bone, b which is sold with the head. /b This skin of the knee, and of the lower bone attached to it, has the status of flesh.,§The mishna teaches: b And /b the halakhic status of b the skin of the gecko, /b and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death, is like that of their flesh with regard to imparting impurity. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written: “And these are they which are impure for you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds. And the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon. These are b they which are impure /b for you among all that swarm; whosoever touches them, when they are dead, shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:29–32). The term “they which are” in the expression “they which are impure” seems superfluous, and serves b to include the skins of /b these animals as having the same halakhic status b as their flesh. /b ,One b might /b have thought that this i halakha /i applies b even /b to b all /b of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, b the verse states: “These,” /b indicating that this i halakha /i applies only to these animals mentioned in the mishna, i.e., the gecko, the desert monitor, the lizard, and the skink.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t /b the term b “these” written with regard to all /b eight of the creeping animals listed in the verse? b Rav says: /b After mentioning the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard the verse states: b “After its kinds.” /b Therefore, the verse b interrupted the /b previous b matter /b and taught that the status of the skin is like that of the flesh only with regard to the creeping animals mentioned in the latter part of the verse.,The Gemara objects: b But /b since the chameleon is listed in the latter part of the verse, b let /b the b chameleon also be counted /b among the animals whose skin has the status of flesh. b Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: Rav, /b who interprets the verse in this manner, has the status of b a i tanna /i , and /b unlike the mishna, b he teaches /b that the skin of the b chameleon /b has the status of flesh.,The Gemara asks: b But the i tanna /i of our /b mishna b does not teach /b this i halakha /i with regard to the b chameleon. /b According to his opinion, why doesn’t the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?, b Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The i tanna /i of our /b mishna b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda that /b the halakhic status of the skin of the lizard, even though it is mentioned in the latter part of the verse, is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the status of the skin is like that of flesh from the verse that states: “They which are impure.” Rather, he b follows the texture /b of the skin of each creeping animal when deciding whether the status of its skin is like that of its flesh.,The first i tanna /i of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the texture of the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, and the skink is soft and therefore the status of their skin is like that of their flesh; b and they disagree with regard to the texture /b of the skin b of the lizard. /b Rabbi Yehuda classifies its skin as tough, and the first i tanna /i of the mishna classifies its skin as soft.,§The mishna teaches: b And all of these /b skins, in a case b where one tanned them /b or spread them on the ground and trod upon them, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure. The Gemara objects: The mishna indicates that if one b trod /b upon them they b are /b no longer classified as flesh, but if one b did not tread /b upon them they do b not /b cease being classified as flesh. b But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pure /b and is no longer classified as flesh. Just as the ear is no longer classified as flesh once it is b sewed /b into a basket, so too skin that is spread on the ground, b even if /b one b did not tread /b upon it, should no longer be classified as flesh.,The Gemara explains: b No, /b this is not difficult. b Sewing /b the ear is an action that nullifies the ear’s classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin’s classification as flesh unless one trod upon the skin. Therefore, if one b trod /b upon the skin it b is /b no longer classified as flesh, but if one b did not tread /b upon it, it does b not /b cease being classified as flesh.,The mishna states that the skin must be trodden upon for the period required for tanning. The Gemara clarifies: b How long is the period /b required b for tanning? Rav Huna says /b that b Rabbi Yannai says: /b The time which it takes one to walk b four i mil /i . /b ,§Since the period of time it takes to walk four i mil /i was mentioned, the Gemara lists i halakhot /i that employ this period of time. b Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Reish Lakish: With regard to /b a professional b kneader /b who is careful to maintain the ritual purity of the dough that he kneads for others, he must walk up to four i mil /i in order to purify the vessel he is using by immersing it in a ritual bath. He is not required to walk farther than this unless the person hiring him pays for him to do so., b And /b similarly, b with regard to prayer, /b one who is traveling may not pray where he is if there is a synagogue within four i mil /i ahead of him, but rather must continue traveling in order to pray in the synagogue. b And /b similarly, b with regard to washing /b one’s b hands /b before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within b four i mil /i /b ahead of him.,With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b |
|
65. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98| 13b. רב פפא אמר אפילו שופתא מרא גייצי,ת"ר חמשה דברים משכחים את הלימוד האוכל ממה שאוכל עכבר וממה שאוכל חתול והאוכל לב של בהמה והרגיל בזיתים והשותה מים של שיורי רחיצה והרוחץ רגליו זו על גבי זו ויש אומרים אף המניח כליו תחת מראשותיו חמשה דברים משיבים את הלימוד פת פחמין וכל שכן פחמין עצמן והאוכל ביצה מגולגלת בלא מלח והרגיל בשמן זית והרגיל ביין ובשמים והשותה מים של שיורי עיסה ויש אומרים אף הטובל אצבעו במלח ואוכל,הרגיל בשמן זית מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן כשם שהזית משכח לימוד של שבעים שנה כך שמן זית משיב לימוד של שבעים שנה:,והרגיל ביין ובשמים: מסייע ליה לרבא דאמר רבא חמרא וריחני פקחין:,והטובל אצבעו במלח: אמר ר"ל ובאחת כתנאי ר' יהודה אומר אחת ולא שתים רבי יוסי אומר שתים ולא שלש וסימניך קמיצה,עשרה דברים קשים ללימוד העובר תחת האפסר [הגמל] וכל שכן תחת גמל [עצמו] והעובר בין שני גמלים והעובר בין שתי נשים והאשה העוברת בין שני אנשים והעובר מתחת ריח רע של נבילה והעובר תחת הגשר שלא עברו תחתיו מים מ' יום והאוכל פת שלא בשל כל צרכו והאוכל בשר מזוהמא ליסטרון והשותה מאמת המים העוברת בבית הקברות והמסתכל בפני המת ויש אומרים אף הקורא כתב שעל גבי הקבר,ת"ר כשהנשיא נכנס כל העם עומדים ואין יושבים עד שאומר להם שבו כשאב ב"ד נכנס עושים לו שורה אחת מכאן ושורה אחת מכאן עד שישב במקומו כשחכם נכנס אחד עומד ואחד יושב עד שישב במקומו בני חכמים ותלמידי חכמים בזמן שרבים צריכים להם מפסיעין על ראשי העם יצא לצורך יכנס וישב במקומו,בני ת"ח שממונים אביהם פרנס על הצבור בזמן שיש להם דעת לשמוע נכנסים ויושבים לפני אביהם ואחוריהם כלפי העם בזמן שאין להם דעת לשמוע נכנסים ויושבים לפני אביהם ופניהם כלפי העם רבי אלעזר בר ר' [צדוק] אומר אף בבית המשתה עושים אותם סניפין,[אמר מר] יצא לצורך נכנס ויושב במקומו אמר רב פפא לא אמרו אלא לקטנים אבל לגדולים לא הוה ליה למבדק נפשיה מעיקרא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ילמד אדם עצמו להשכים ולהעריב כדי שלא יתרחק (אמר רבא) האידנא דחלשא עלמא אפילו לגדולים נמי,רבי אלעזר ב"ר [צדוק] אומר אף בבית המשתה עושים אותם סניפים אמר רבא בחיי אביהם בפני אביהם,א"ר יוחנן בימי רשב"ג נישנית משנה זו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל נשיא רבי מאיר חכם רבי נתן אב"ד כי הוה רשב"ג התם הוו קיימי כולי עלמא מקמיה כי הוו עיילי רבי מאיר ורבי נתן הוו קיימי כולי עלמא מקמייהו אמר רשב"ג לא בעו למיהוי היכרא בין דילי לדידהו תקין הא מתניתא,ההוא יומא לא הוו רבי מאיר ורבי נתן התם למחר כי אתו חזו דלא קמו מקמייהו כדרגילא מילתא אמרי מאי האי אמרו להו הכי תקין רשב"ג,אמר ליה ר"מ לרבי נתן אנא חכם ואת אב"ד נתקין מילתא כי לדידן מאי נעביד ליה נימא ליה גלי עוקצים דלית ליה וכיון דלא גמר נימא ליה (תהלים קו, ב) מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו למי נאה למלל גבורות ה' מי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלותיו נעבריה והוי אנא אב"ד ואת נשיא,שמעינהו רבי יעקב בן קרשי אמר דלמא חס ושלום אתיא מלתא לידי כיסופא אזל יתיב אחורי עיליתיה דרשב"ג פשט גרס ותנא גרס ותנא,אמר מאי דקמא דלמא חס ושלום איכא בי מדרשא מידי יהב דעתיה וגרסה למחר אמרו ליה ניתי מר וניתני בעוקצין פתח ואמר בתר דאוקים אמר להו אי לא גמירנא כסיפיתנן,פקיד ואפקינהו מבי מדרשא הוו כתבי קושייתא [בפתקא] ושדו התם דהוה מיפריק מיפריק דלא הוו מיפריק כתבי פירוקי ושדו אמר להו רבי יוסי תורה מבחוץ ואנו מבפנים,אמר להן רבן [שמעון בן] גמליאל ניעיילינהו מיהו ניקנסינהו דלא נימרו שמעתא משמייהו אסיקו לרבי מאיר אחרים ולר' נתן יש אומרים אחוו להו בחלמייהו זילו פייסוהו [לרבן שמעון ב"ג] רבי נתן אזל רבי מאיר לא אזל אמר דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין כי אזל רבי נתן אמר ליה רשב"ג נהי דאהני לך קמרא דאבוך למהוי אב ב"ד שויניך נמי נשיא,מתני ליה רבי לרבן שמעון בריה אחרים אומרים אילו היה תמורה | 13b. b Rav Pappa said: They gnaw even on the handle of a hoe. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : There are b five factors /b that b cause /b one to b forget /b his Torah b study: One who eats from that which a mouse eats and from that which a cat eats, and one who eats the heart of an animal, and one who is accustomed to /b eating b olives, and one who drinks water that remains from washing, and one who washes his feet /b with b this /b foot b atop that /b foot. b And some say: Also one who places his garments under his head. /b Correspondingly, there are b five factors /b that b restore /b forgotten Torah b study: /b Eating b bread baked on coals and all the more so /b one who warms himself with the heat of the b coals themselves, and one who eats a hard-boiled egg [ i beitza megulgelet /i ] without salt, and one who is accustomed to /b eating b olive oil, and one who is accustomed to /b drinking b wine and /b smelling b spices, and one who drinks water that remains from /b kneading b dough. And some say: Also one who dips his finger in salt and eats /b it.,The Gemara elaborates on the i baraita /i : b One who is accustomed to /b eating b olive oil /b restores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This b supports /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa, as Rabbi Yoḥa said: Just as /b eating b an olive causes /b one b to forget seventy years’ worth of /b Torah b study, olive oil restores seventy years’ worth of /b Torah b study. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And one who is accustomed to /b drinking b wine and /b smelling b spices /b restores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This b supports /b the opinion of b Rava, as Rava said: Wine and spices rendered me wise. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b One who dips his finger in salt /b and eats it restores forgotten Torah study. b Reish Lakish says: And /b that is the case b with regard to one /b finger. The Gemara notes: This is b parallel to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i . Rabbi Yehuda says: One /b finger b but not two. Rabbi Yosei says: Two /b fingers b but not three. And your mnemonic /b for the fact that the dispute is between one and two fingers is b i kemitza /i , /b i.e., the ring finger. When one presses his ring finger to his palm, there remain two straight fingers on one side and one on the other., b Ten factors are detrimental for /b Torah b study: One who passes beneath the bit of the camel, and all the more so /b one who passes b beneath a camel itself; and one who passes between two camels; and one who passes between two women; and a woman who passes between two men; and one who passes beneath /b a place where there is the b foul odor of an animal carcass; and one who passes under a bridge beneath which water has not passed /b for b forty days; and one who eats bread that was not sufficiently baked; and one who eats meat from i zuhama listeron /i , /b a utensil consisting of a spoon and a fork, used to remove the film on the surface of soup; b and one who drinks from an aqueduct that passes through a cemetery; and one who gazes at the face of the dead. And some say: Also one who reads the writing that is on /b the stone of b a grave. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b When the i Nasi /i /b of the Sanhedrin b enters, all the people stand and they do not sit until he says to them: Sit. When the deputy i Nasi /i /b of the Sanhedrin b enters, /b the people b form for him one row from here, /b on this side of the path that he takes, b and one row from there, /b on the other side of it, in a display of deference, b until he sits in his place, /b and then they may be seated. b When the i Ḥakham /i , /b who is ranked third among the members of the Sanhedrin, b enters, one /b person b stands /b when he is within four cubits of the i Ḥakham /i , b and another sits, /b i.e., when one is no longer within four cubits of the i Ḥakham /i he may sit. And all those whom the Ḥakham passes do this, b until he sits in his place. When the multitudes require their /b services, i.e., they serve a public role, b sons of the Sages and Torah scholars may step over the heads of the people /b seated on the ground in order to reach their places in the Sanhedrin. If one of the Sages b left for /b the b purpose /b of relieving himself, when he is finished b he may enter and sit in his place /b in the Sanhedrin, and he need not be concerned that he is imposing upon those assembled., b When they have the wisdom to hear /b and to study, b the sons of Torah scholars, whose fathers are appointed as leaders of the congregation, enter and sit before their fathers, and their backs /b are directed b toward the people. When they do not have the wisdom to hear /b and to study b they enter and sit before their fathers, and their faces /b are directed b toward the people, /b so everyone sees that they are seated there in deference to their fathers but not as students. b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Even at /b a wedding b party one renders them attachments [ i senifin /i ] /b and seats them adjacent to their fathers., b The Master said: /b If one of the Sages b left for /b the b purpose /b of relieving himself, when he is finished b he may enter and sit in his place. Rav Pappa said: /b The Sages b said /b this b only /b with regard to one who leaves b for minor /b bodily functions, i.e., to urinate. b But /b with regard to one who leaves b for major /b bodily functions, i.e., to defecate, b no, /b he may not return to his place, because b he should have examined himself initially /b so that he would not need to leave. His failure to do so constitutes negligence and he may not impose upon others when he returns, b as Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: A person should always accustom himself to /b relieving himself b in the morning and in the evening so that he will not /b need to b distance himself /b during the daylight hours to find an appropriate place. b Rava said: Today, when the world is weak /b and people are not as healthy as they once were, one may b even /b return after he leaves b for major /b bodily functions., b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Even at /b a wedding b party one renders them attachments. Rava said: /b This applies b during the lifetime of their fathers and in the presence of their fathers. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna, /b i.e., the preceding i baraita /i , b was taught during the days of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel /b was the b i Nasi /i , Rabbi Meir /b was the b i Ḥakham /i , /b and b Rabbi Natan /b was the b deputy i Nasi /i . When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was there, everyone would arise before him. When Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would enter, everyone would arise before them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Shouldn’t there be a conspicuous distinction between me and them /b in terms of the manner in which deference is shown? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b instituted /b the provisions delineated in b this i baraita /i /b that distinguish between the i Nasi /i and his subordinates with regard to the deference shown them., b That day, /b when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted these provisions, b Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were not there. The following day when they came /b to the study hall, b they saw that /b the people b did not stand before them as the matter was typically /b done. b They said: What is this? /b The people b said to them: This /b is what b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted. /b , b Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Natan: I am /b the b i Ḥakham /i and you are /b the b deputy i Nasi /i . Let us devise a matter /b and do to him b as he did to us. What shall we do to him? Let us say to him: Reveal /b to us tractate b i Okatzim /i , which he does not /b know. b And once /b it is clear to all b that he did not learn, /b he will not have anything to say. Then b we will say to him: “Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord, shall make all His praises heard?” /b (Psalms 106:2), indicating: b For whom is it becoming to express the mighty acts of the Lord? /b It is becoming for b one who is capable of making all His praises heard, /b and not for one who does not know one of the tractates. b We will remove him /b from his position as i Nasi /i , b and I will be deputy i Nasi /i and you /b will be b i Nasi /i . /b , b Rabbi Ya’akov ben Korshei heard them /b talking, and b said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, /b this b matter /b will b come to /b a situation of b humiliation /b for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He did not wish to speak criticism or gossip about Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan, so b he went /b and b sat behind the upper story /b where b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel /b lived. b He explained /b tractate i Okatzin /i ; b he studied /b it aloud b and repeated /b it, and b studied /b it aloud b and repeated /b it.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b said /b to himself: b What /b is this b that /b is transpiring b before us? Perhaps, Heaven forfend, there is something /b transpiring in b the study hall. /b He suspected that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were planning something. b He concentrated and studied /b tractate i Okatzin /i . b The following /b day Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan b said to him: Let the Master come and teach /b a lesson b in /b tractate b i Okatzin /i . He began and stated /b the lesson he had prepared. b After he completed /b teaching the tractate, b he said to them: If I had not studied /b the tractate, b you /b would have b humiliated me. /b ,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b commanded /b those present b and they expelled /b Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan b from the study hall /b as punishment. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan b would write difficulties on a scrap of paper [ i pitka /i ] and would throw /b them b there /b into the study hall. Those difficulties b that were resolved were resolved; /b as for those b that were not resolved, /b Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan b wrote resolutions /b on a scrap of paper b and threw /b them into the study hall. b Rabbi Yosei said to /b the Sages: How is it that the b Torah, /b embodied in the preeminent Torah scholars, b is outside and we are inside? /b , b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Let us admit them /b into the study hall. b But we will penalize them /b in b that we will not cite i halakha /i in their names. They cited /b statements b of Rabbi Meir /b in the name of b i Aḥerim /i , /b meaning: Others, b and /b they cited statements b of Rabbi Natan /b in the name of b i yesh omerim /i , /b meaning: Some say. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan b were shown /b a message b in their dreams: Go, appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Natan went. Rabbi Meir did not go. He said /b in his heart: b Matters of dreams are insignificant. When Rabbi Natan went, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him: Although the /b ornate b belt, /b i.e., the importance, b of your father was effective /b in enabling you b to become deputy i Nasi /i , /b as Rabbi Natan’s father was the Babylonian Exilarch, b will it render you i Nasi /i as well? /b ,Years later, b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b taught Rabban Shimon his son /b that b i Aḥerim /i say: If it was /b considered b a substitute, /b |
|
66. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98| 16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין | 16b. b The first /b members of each pair b served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i . /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i ; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say /b the opposite: b Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i and Shimon ben Shataḥ /b was the b i Nasi /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who taught b that which the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if I did not kill a conspiring witness. /b This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order b to counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed. /b Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., b Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators; /b if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. b And they are not flogged /b if they are liable to such a penalty, b unless they are both found to be conspirators. And /b if they testified falsely that someone owed money, b they do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b ,Hearing this, b Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule /b on any matter of b law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ, /b as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The i baraita /i further relates: b All of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed /b individual, to request forgiveness, b and his voice was heard /b weeping. b The people thought that it was the voice of that executed /b person, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai b said to them: It is my voice, /b and b you /b shall b know /b that it is so, b for tomorrow, /b i.e., sometime in the future, b he will die, and his voice will no /b longer b be heard. /b Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as b perhaps /b ben Tabbai b appeased /b the executed individual in the World-to-Come. b Or, /b alternatively, the latter may have b prosecuted him by the law /b of Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: b Whose /b opinion does b this /b i baraita /i follow? b Granted, if you say /b it is in accordance b with /b that of b Rabbi Meir, /b who b said /b that b Shimon ben Shataḥ was deputy i Nasi /i /b while b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was i Nasi /i , that /b explains why b he /b had previously b issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ /b to execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. b But if you say /b that the i baraita /i is in accordance with b the Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i /b and b Shimon ben Shataḥ /b the b i Nasi /i , /b why did he need to make such a commitment? b May /b the b deputy i Nasi /i issue a halakhic ruling in the presence of /b the b i Nasi /i ? /b ,The Gemara refutes this: b No; what /b did he mean by b accepting upon himself /b not to rule on his own? b He spoke /b with regard b to joining /b the ruling of others: b Even /b with regard to b joining /b the ruling of others, b I will also not join /b until I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: b Menaḥem departed and Shammai entered. /b The Gemara asks: b To where did /b Menaḥem b depart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray. /b Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. b Rava said: He departed for the king’s service. /b He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Menaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with him /b to work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ b Rav Shemen bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ i shevut /i ] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing hands /b on the head of an offering on a Festival b is prohibited only as a rabbinic decree /b because it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet b the greatest /b scholars b of each generation disputed it. /b ,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This b is obvious. /b Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was b necessary for him /b to state it because it is b a rabbinic decree related to a mitzva. /b In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: b This too is obvious. /b In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes b to exclude /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that b they disagree with regard to the actual /b obligation of b placing hands, /b i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. b He /b therefore b teaches us /b that b it is a rabbinic decree /b that is the subject b of their dispute, /b not the requirement itself., b Rami bar Ḥama said: /b You can b learn from here, /b from this dispute, that the mitzva of b placing hands /b requires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but b we also require /b that one places his hands b with all his strength. For if it enters your mind /b that b we do not require all his strength, what /b prohibition b does one violate /b by placing his hands? b Let him place /b them on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., b The Gemara raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b “Speak to the children of [ i benei /i ] Israel” /b (Leviticus 1:2). The word i benei /i literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that b the sons of Israel place /b their hands, b but the daughters of Israel do not place /b them. b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place /b their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., b Rabbi Yosei said: /b The Sage b Abba Elazar related to me /b the following incident: b On one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placed /b their hands b on it. /b We did this b not because there /b is an obligation of b placing hands in /b the case of b women, but in order to please the women, /b by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, b if it enters your mind /b that b we require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b would b we perform work with consecrated /b offerings b in order to please /b the b women? /b Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. b Rather, isn’t it /b correct to b conclude from this /b that b we do not require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength? /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b Actually, I /b could b say to you /b that b we do require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b but here they allowed women to place their hands b by saying to them: Ease your hands /b and do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: b If so, /b then the reason formulated as: b Not because there /b is an obligation to b place hands in /b the case of b women, /b is irrelevant to this law. b Let him derive /b the permission for women to do so from the reason that b it is not /b considered b placing hands at all. /b If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., b Rabbi Ami said: He stated one /b reason b and another. One /b reason is b that it is not /b considered b placing hands at all, /b as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; b and another /b reason is that they allowed it b in order to please the women. /b , b Rav Pappa said: Learn from this /b that anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its b sides are /b likewise b prohibited, for if it enters your mind /b to say that the b sides are permitted, /b they could have told the women b to place /b their hands b on the sides, /b i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from this /b that the b sides are prohibited? /b |
|
67. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 49| 64a. אם כן ביטלת תורת עירוב מאותו מבוי,דמערבי יאמרו עירוב מועיל במקום נכרי דמכרזינן,אכרזתא לדרדקי,אלא אמר רבא ליזיל חד מינייהו ליקרב ליה ולשאול מיניה דוכתא ולינח ביה מידי דהוה ליה כשכירו ולקיטו ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו שכירו ואפילו לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו,אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף היו שם חמשה שכירו וה' לקיטו מהו אמר ליה אם אמרו שכירו ולקיטו להקל יאמרו שכירו ולקיטו להחמיר,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו שכירו ואפי' לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו אמר רב נחמן כמה מעליא הא שמעתא,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שתה רביעית יין אל יורה אמר רב נחמן לא מעליא הא שמעתא דהא אנא כל כמה דלא שתינא רביעתא דחמרא לא צילא דעתאי,אמר ליה רבא מאי טעמא אמר מר הכי האמר ר' אחא בר חנינא מאי דכתיב (משלי כט, ג) ורועה זונות יאבד הון כל האומר שמועה זו נאה וזו אינה נאה מאבד הונה של תורה אמר ליה הדרי בי,אמר רבה בר רב הונא שתוי אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפלתו תפלה שיכור אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפלתו תועבה,היכי דמי שתוי והיכי דמי שיכור כי הא דרבי אבא בר שומני ורב מנשיא בר ירמיה מגיפתי הוו קא מפטרי מהדדי אמעברא דנהר יופטי אמרו כל חד מינן לימא מילתא דלא שמיע לחבריה דאמר מרי בר רב הונא לא יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרו,פתח חד ואמר היכי דמי שתוי והיכי דמי שיכור שתוי כל שיכול לדבר לפני המלך שיכור כל שאינו יכול לדבר לפני המלך,פתח אידך ואמר המחזיק בנכסי הגר מה יעשה ויתקיימו בידו יקח בהן ספר תורה אמר רב ששת: אפילו | 64a. b If so, you have abolished /b the halakhic b category of i eiruv /i from that alleyway. /b Since from a halakhic perspective it is considered as though only one person lives in that alleyway, there is no need for an i eiruv /i . Consequently, when the residents carry in it without an i eiruv /i , observers will mistakenly think that it is permitted to carry in an alleyway even without an i eiruv /i .,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, replied: It is required b that they establish an i eiruv /i /b anyway, as a reminder of the laws of i eiruvin /i , even though it serves no halakhic purpose. Rava retorted that this in turn results in a different problem: Observers will then b say /b that b an i eiruv /i is effective /b even b in the place of a gentile, /b even if he does not rent out his domain, which is against the i halakha /i . He replied: b We make an announcement /b to the effect that they are not carrying because of the i eiruv /i , and that it only serves as a reminder.,Rava rejected this option as well: Can we make b an announcement for the children? /b Even if it is assured that all adults present will hear the announcement, how will the children, who do not hear or understand the announcement, know the i halakha /i later in life? Recalling that their fathers established an i eiruv /i in this alleyway, they will think that an i eiruv /i is effective even in the place of a gentile. Therefore, one cannot rely on Abaye’s solution., b Rather, Rava said /b that the gentile’s Jewish neighbors should proceed as follows: b Let one of them go and become friendly with /b the gentile, b and ask him /b for permission to make use of b a place /b in his domain, b and set something down there, thus becoming like /b the gentile’s b hired laborer or harvester. And Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: /b Not only can the gentile himself rent out his domain for the purpose of an i eiruv /i , but b even his hired laborer, and even his harvester, /b if he is a Jew, b may /b rent out the space and b contribute to the i eiruv /i /b on his behalf, b and this is enough. /b , b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If there were five hired laborers or five harvesters there, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Does the presence of more than one of these, if they are all Jews, entail a stringency, such that they are all required to join in the i eiruv /i or that they are all required to rent out his domain? Rav Yosef b said to him: If /b the Sages b said /b that the gentile’s b hired laborer or harvester /b stands in his place b as a leniency, would they say that his hired laborer or harvester /b stands in his place b as a stringency? /b This law was stated only as a leniency with regard to the laws of renting for the purpose of an i eiruv /i , not in order to introduce more stringencies.,The Gemara proceeds to examine the ruling cited in the course of the previous discussion. Returning to b the matter itself, Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: Even /b the gentile’s b hired laborer, and even his harvester, may contribute to the i eiruv /i /b in his stead, b and this is enough. Rav Naḥman said: How excellent is this i halakha /i . /b Even Rav Naḥman agreed with this statement, and viewed it as correct and substantiated.,However, Rav Naḥman did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda’s rulings, as b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter- /b i log /i b of wine, he may not issue a /b halakhic b ruling, /b as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, b Rav Naḥman said: This i halakha /i is not excellent, as /b concerning b myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter- /b i log /i b of wine, my mind is not clear. /b It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings., b Rava said to /b Rav Naḥman: b What is the reason /b that b the Master said this, /b making a statement that praises one i halakha /i and disparages another? b Didn’t Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “But he who keeps company with prostitutes /b [ b i zonot /i /b ] b wastes his fortune” /b (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: b Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant /b [ b i zo na’a /i /b ] b but this is not pleasant, loses the fortune of Torah. /b It is not in keeping with the honor of Torah to make such evaluations. Rav Naḥman b said to him: I retract, /b and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah.,On the topic of drinking wine, b Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who has drunk /b wine b must not pray, but if he /b nonetheless b prayed, his prayer is a prayer, /b i.e., he has fulfilled his obligation. On the other hand, b one who is intoxicated /b with wine b must not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination. /b ,The Gemara poses a question: b What are the circumstances /b in which a person is considered b one who has drunk /b wine; b and what are the circumstances /b in which a person is considered b one who is intoxicated /b with wine? The Gemara answers that one can learn this from b the following /b event: b As Rabbi Abba bar Shumni and Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya from Gifti were taking leave of each other at the ford of the Yofti River, they said: Let each one of us say something that his fellow /b scholar b has not /b yet b heard, for Mari bar Rav Huna said: A person must take leave of his fellow only in the midst of /b a discussion of b a matter of i halakha /i , as due to this he will remember him. /b , b One /b of them b opened /b the discussion b and said: What are the circumstances /b where a person is considered b one who has drunk /b wine, b and what are the circumstances /b where a person is considered b one who is intoxicated /b with wine? b One who has drunk /b wine refers to b anyone /b who has drunk wine but whose mind remains clear enough b that he is able to talk in the presence of a king. One who is intoxicated /b refers to b anyone /b who is so disoriented by the wine he has drunk b that he is not able to talk in the presence of a king. /b , b The other one /b then b opened /b a different discussion b and said: /b With regard to b one who took possession of a convert’s property, what should he do so that it remains in his hands? /b The property of a convert who died without children is regarded as ownerless, and is acquired by the first person to perform a valid act of acquisition upon it. Since in this case the one who took possession of the property did not acquire it through his own labor, his ownership is tenuous, and he is liable to lose it unless he uses it for the purpose of a mitzva. One in this situation b should buy a Torah scroll with /b part of the revenue, and by the merit of this act, he will retain the rest. b Rav Sheshet said: Even /b |
|
| 68. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 102 |
69. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 102| 31b. big strongגמ׳ /strong /big כל פסולי המוקדשין הנאתן להקדש אימת אילימא לאחר פדיונו הנאתן להקדש הנאתן דבעלים הוא,אלא לפני פדיונו נשחטין הא בעי העמדה והערכה,הניחא למאן דאמר קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה אלא למאן דאמר היו בכלל העמדה והערכה מאי איכא למימר,אלא לעולם לאחר פדיון ומאי הנאתן להקדש אדמעיקרא,דכיון דשרי להו מר נמכרין באיטליז ונשחטין באיטליז ונשקלין בליטרא טפי ופריק מעיקרא:,חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר שהנייתן לבעלים: בשלמא בכור באיטליז הוא דלא מיזדבן הא בביתיה מיזדבן אלא מעשר בביתיה מי מיזדבן,והתניא בבכור נאמר (במדבר יח, יז) לא תפדה ונמכר חי במעשר נאמר (ויקרא כז, כ) לא יגאל ואינו נמכר לא חי ולא שחוט לא תם ולא בעל מום,הא מילתא איקשיא ליה לרב ששת באורתא ושנייה בקדמותא מברייתא במעשר בהמה של יתומים עסקינן ומשום השבת אבידה נגעו בה,רבי אידי סרסיה דרב ששת הוה שמעה מיניה אזל אמרה בי מדרשא ולא אמרה משמיה שמע רב ששת איקפד אמר מאן דעקיץ ליעקציה עקרבא ורב ששת מאי נפקא ליה מינה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (תהלים סא, ה) אגורה באהלך עולמים וכי איפשר לאדם לגור בשני עולמים,אלא אמר דוד רבונו של עולם יאמרו דבר שמועה מפי בעולם הזה דאמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי כל תלמיד חכם שאומרים דבר שמועה מפיו בעולם הזה שפתותיו דובבות בקבר,ואמר רבי יצחק בר זעירי מאי קראה (שיר השירים ז י) וחכך כיין הטוב הולך לדודי למישרים דובב שפתי ישנים ככומר של ענבים מה כומר של ענבים כיון דאדם נוגע בו דובב אף תלמידי חכמים כיון שאדם אומר דבר שמועה מפיו דובבות שפתיו בקבר,מאי ברייתא דתניא מעשר בהמה של יתומים מוכרין אותו ומעשר בהמה ששחטו מבליעו בעורו בחלבו ובגידו ובקרניו,מאי קאמר אמר אביי הכי קאמר מעשר בהמה של יתומים מוכרין אותו בהבלעה,מכלל דגדול בהבלעה לא מאי שנא מהא דתניא הלוקח לולב מחבירו בשביעית נותן לו אתרוג במתנה לפי שאינו רשאי ללוקחו בשביעית,והוינן בה לא רצה ליתן לו במתנה מאי ואמר רב הונא מבליע לו דמי אתרוג בלולב,התם לא מוכחא מילתא הכא מוכחא מילתא,אמר רבא א"כ מעשר בהמה תרי זמני למה לי אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר מעשר בהמה של יתומים מוכרין אותו כדרכו ומעשר בהמה דגדול ששחטו מבליעו בעורו בחלבו בגידו ובקרניו,אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (ויקרא כז, לג) והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש לא יגאל,אימתי עושה תמורה מחיים אימתי אינו נגאל מחיים הא לאחר שחיטה נגאל ורבנן ההוא דגזרו לאחר שחיטה אטו לפני שחיטה,דבר הנישום מחיים גזור רבנן לאחר שחיטה אטו לפני שחיטה | 31b. strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that with regard to b all disqualified consecrated /b animals that were disqualified for sacrifice due to blemishes and were redeemed, all b benefit /b accrued from b their /b sale belongs b to the Temple /b treasury, and the animals may consequently be sold in the manner of non-sacred meat. The Gemara asks: b When /b does this apply? b If we say /b that it applies to an animal b after its redemption, /b i.e., after the owner redeemed it from the Temple treasury, does the b benefit /b accrued belong b to the Temple? /b Certainly not. Once a consecrated animal is redeemed from the Temple treasury, it is in the possession of its owner, which means that the b benefit /b accrued belongs b to the owner. /b , b Rather, /b it applies to an animal b before its redemption, /b in which case the money accrued from its sale, which renders it non-sacred, belongs to the Temple treasury. But if so, the mishna’s statement that the animals b may be slaughtered /b in the butchers’ market is problematic. The Gemara explains the difficulty: How can the animal be evaluated after having been slaughtered? Redeeming a sanctified animal b requires standing and valuation, /b i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to appraise its monetary value and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12).,The Gemara adds: b This works out well according to the one who says /b that items b consecrated /b to be sacrificed on the b altar /b that were then disqualified due to a blemish b were not included in /b the requirement of b standing and valuation. /b If so, the animal may be slaughtered and subsequently sold. b But according to the one who says /b that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the b altar were included in /b the requirement of b standing and valuation, what is there to say /b in explanation of the mishna?,The Gemara answers: b Rather, /b the ruling of the mishna b actually /b applies to a case where the animals are sold and slaughtered b after their redemption /b by the owner. b And what /b is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that all b benefit /b accrued from b their /b sale belongs b to the Temple /b treasury? This is not referring to the profit from the sale in the butchers’ market, as was previously assumed. Instead, it is referring b to /b their b initial /b redemption from the Temple treasury.,The Gemara explains: b Since the Sage /b in the mishna b deems /b it b permitted /b for the redeemed animals to be subsequently b sold in the butchers’ market and slaughtered in the butchers’ market, and weighed /b and sold b by the i litra /i , /b there is a higher probability that the owner will b redeem /b the animal for b more /b money b initially. /b The owner’s later ability to sell the redeemed animal for the highest market value is in effect a benefit that eventually accrues to the Temple treasury, as he will be willing to spend more money to redeem the animal.,§ The mishna teaches that the meat of blemished, consecrated animals may be sold in the same manner as non-sacred meat, b except for the firstborn /b animal b and /b animal b tithe /b offering, b as /b all b benefit /b accrued from b their /b sale belongs b to the owner. /b Accordingly, even if it is blemished, the meat may be sold only in the owner’s house. The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b in the case of b a firstborn /b offering, b it is in the butchers’ market that it may not be sold, /b whereas b it may be sold in its /b owner’s b house. But /b with regard to the animal b tithe /b offering, b may it be sold in its /b owner’s b house? /b , b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b With regard to a firstborn /b animal it b is stated: “You shall not redeem” /b (Numbers 18:17), indicating that its sanctity can never be removed from it and transferred to non-sacred objects. b But it can be sold /b after it comes into the possession of the priest, while it is b alive. /b By contrast, b with regard to /b the animal b tithe /b offering, it b is stated: “It shall not be redeemed” /b (Leviticus 27:33), which teaches that its sanctity can never be removed from it, b and it cannot be sold /b either, as the Gemara will explain (32a–b), b not /b when b alive and not /b when b slaughtered, not /b when b unblemished and not /b when b blemished. /b This i baraita /i clearly states that the animal tithe offering may not be sold no matter what its status, which seems to contradict the mishna.,The Gemara notes: b At night, Rav Sheshet found this matter difficult, and he resolved it in the morning from a i baraita /i . /b He explains that in the mishna b we are dealing with /b a case of b an animal tithe /b offering b belonging to /b young b orphans /b that was blemished and slaughtered. Since the orphans are unable to consume the entire animal and would therefore suffer a monetary loss if the meat were to spoil, the Sages permitted its sale, b and /b it is b due to /b the principle of b returning a lost item /b that b they touched upon it, /b i.e., allowed for this.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Idi, the attendant [ i saraseih /i ] of Rav Sheshet, heard /b this explanation b from /b Rav Sheshet. Rav Idi b went and stated /b the matter b in the study hall, but did not say it in his /b master’s b name. Rav Sheshet heard /b what he had done and b was annoyed. /b Rav Sheshet b said: The one who stung me, let him be stung by a scorpion. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b Rav Sheshet, what difference does it make to him /b whether or not his interpretation was cited in his name? The Gemara answers that this is b as Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “I will dwell in Your tent forever [ i olamim /i ]” /b (Psalms 61:5)? Rav asked: b But is it possible for a person to live in two worlds [ i olamim /i ], /b this world and the next, simultaneously?, b Rather, David, /b who recited this psalm, b said /b to God: b Master of the Universe, let /b people b say a matter of i halakha /i in my name in this world /b after I have passed on to another world. b As Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: /b With regard to b any Torah scholar in whose name a matter of i halakha /i is stated in this world, his lips mouth /b the words b in the grave, /b as though he were speaking., b And Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ze’eiri says: What is the verse /b from which this is derived? The verse states: b “And the roof of your mouth is like the best wine that glides down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those who are asleep” /b (Song of Songs 7:10). Here, words of Torah in the mouths of the Jewish people are likened b to a pile [ i kekhomer /i ] of grapes /b left to warm before they are pressed, which causes the wine to exude from them easily: b Just as /b with regard to b a pile of grapes, when a person /b places his finger on it and b touches it, it moves /b and issues a sound as the wine bursts forth, b so too /b with regard to b Torah scholars, when a matter of i halakha /i is stated in their name, their lips mouth /b the words b in the grave. /b ,The Gemara returns to Rav Sheshet’s explanation: b What /b is the b i baraita /i /b mentioned by Rav Sheshet, upon which he based his resolution? The Gemara explains: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b an animal tithe /b offering b of /b young b orphans, one may sell it. And /b with regard to b an animal tithe /b offering b that one has slaughtered, /b whose meat may not be sold, b one may include /b the cost of the meat b in /b the cost of its negligent parts, thereby inflating the cost of those parts, i.e., the animal’s b hide, its fat, its sinews, and its horns, /b which are permitted to be sold.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b saying? /b Initially, the i baraita /i stated that one may sell the meat of an animal tithe offering belonging to young orphans, which indicates that this may be done in the normal fashion. The i baraita /i then proceeds to state that the sale of the meat must be performed in the indirect manner of inclusion. b Abaye said: /b The i baraita /i is actually referring to only one case, and b this /b is what it b is saying: /b With regard to the meat of b an animal tithe /b offering b of /b young b orphans, it may be sold, /b but only b by /b means of b inclusion. /b ,The Gemara states: One can conclude b by inference /b from this i baraita /i b that /b in the case of an animal tithe offering of b an adult, /b i.e., a non-orphan, its meat may b not /b be sold even b by /b means of b inclusion. What is different /b in this case b from that which is taught /b in a mishna ( i Sukka /i 3:11): In the case of b one who purchases a i lulav /i from another, /b who is an i am ha’aretz /i , b during the Sabbatical /b Year, the seller b gives him an i etrog /i /b together with the i lulav /i b as a gift, as it is not permitted for one to purchase /b the i etrog /i b during the Sabbatical /b Year, and one may not give the value of Sabbatical-Year produce to an i am ha’aretz /i , lest he engage in commerce with it, which is prohibited.,The Gemara continues: b And we discussed this /b mishna and asked: If the seller b did not want to give him /b the i etrog /i b as a gift, what /b is the i halakha /i ? How can the buyer receive the i etrog /i ? b And Rav Huna said: /b The seller b includes the value of the i etrog /i in /b the cost of b the i lulav /i . /b The buyer should purchase the i lulav /i at an elevated price to cover the cost of the i etrog /i as well. If inclusion is allowed in the case of the i etrog /i , why would it not be permitted in the case of the meat of an animal tithe offering belonging to an adult?,The Gemara answers: b There, /b in the case of the i etrog /i , b the matter is not evident, /b whereas b here, /b with regard to the meat of an animal tithe offering, b the matter is evident. /b The inclusion of the cost of the i etrog /i in the elevated cost of the i lulav /i is not evident, as it is reasonable that the price of a i lulav /i might fluctuate. By contrast, inflating the cost of the negligible parts of the animal tithe offering to include the cost of its expensive meat is obviously an artifice and is therefore not permitted., b Rava said /b to Abaye in response: b If so, /b that the i baraita /i is referring to only one case, b why do I /b need it to use the expression: b Animal tithe /b offering, b twice? Rather, Rava said /b that the i baraita /i is discussing two distinct cases, and b this /b is what the i tanna /i b is saying: /b With regard to the meat of b an animal tithe /b offering b of /b young b orphans, one may sell it in its /b usual b manner, but /b in the case of b an animal tithe /b offering b belonging to an adult that was slaughtered, /b one may sell its meat only by means of b including its /b cost b in /b the elevated price of the animal’s b hide, its fat, its sinews, and its horns. /b , b Rava said: From where do I say /b that the meat of an animal tithe offering belonging to an adult may be sold by inclusion? b As it is written /b with regard to the animal tithe offering: b “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed” /b (Leviticus 27:33). This indicates that a non-sacred animal designated as a substitute for an animal tithe offering assumes sacred status, while the animal tithe offering retains its sacred status as well. As stated earlier, the phrase “it shall not be redeemed” is interpreted as referring to the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering. The verse’s juxtaposition of substitution and the prohibition against selling an animal tithe offering indicates a similarity between the two.,Rava explains: b When /b does an animal tithe offering b render /b consecrated as b a substitute /b a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged? Only b when /b the animal tithe offering is b alive, /b as substitution is invalid after its death. Similarly, b when may /b the animal tithe offering b not be redeemed, /b i.e., sold? b When /b it is b alive. /b It may be inferred from here that b it may be redeemed, /b i.e., sold, b after /b its b slaughter. /b This teaches that by Torah law, the meat of an animal tithe offering may be sold once the animal has been slaughtered. b The Sages decreed /b that an animal tithe offering may not be sold b after /b its b slaughter, due to /b the concern that one might sell it b before /b its b slaughter. /b ,Rava continues: It was only with regard to b an item that is appraised when /b the animal is b alive, /b i.e., its meat, which gives the animal its primary value, that b the Sages decreed /b that it may not be sold even b after /b its b slaughter, due to /b the concern that one might sell the animal b before /b its b slaughter. /b |
|
70. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 102| 53a. חזייה דלא הוה ניחא ליה אמר ליה מאי דעתיך משום דאמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא לא תיהוי בעבורי אחסנתא אפילו מברא בישא לברא טבא דלא ידיעא מאי זרעא נפיק מיניה וכל שכן מברא לברתא,האי נמי תקנתא דרבנן היא דאמר רבי יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי אמר ליה ה"מ מדעתיה לעשוייה נמי א"ל אטו מי קאמינא לך דעול ועשייה עול ולא תעשייה קאמינא אמר ליה מעלאי דידי היינו עשייה,אכפייה ועול אישתיק ויתיב סבר ההוא מירתח רתח כתביה לכל מאי דהוה ליה לסוף אמר ליה השתא נמי לא מישתעי מר חיי דמר לא שביקי מידי לנפשאי,אמר ליה אי מינאי דידי אפי' האי נמי דכתבת לא ניחא לי א"ל השתא נמי אהדר בי א"ל שוייה נפשך הדרנא לא קאמינא,בעא מיניה רב יימר סבא מרב נחמן מכרה כתובתה לבעלה יש לה כתובת בנין דכרין או אין לה כתובת בנין דכרין א"ל רבא ותבעי לך מוחלת,אמר ליה השתא מוכרת קמיבעיא לי דאע"ג דאיכא למימר זוזי אנסוה דאמינא כמאן דקא מחו לה מאה עוכלי בעוכלא מוחלת מיבעיא,אמר רבא פשיטא לי מוכרת כתובתה לאחרים יש לה כתובת בנין דכרין מאי טעמא זוזי אנסוה מוחלת כתובתה לבעלה אין לה כתובת בנין דכרין מאי טעמא אחולי אחילתא,בעי רבא מוכרת כתובתה לבעלה כמוכרת לאחרים דמי או כמוחלת לבעלה דמי בתר דבעיא הדר פשטא מוכרת כתובה לבעלה כמוכרת לאחרים דמי,מתיב רב אידי בר אבין מתה אין יורשין של זה ואין יורשין של זה יורשין כתובתה והוינן בה כתובתה מאי עבידתה,ואמר רב פפא כתובת בנין דכרין ואמאי הכא נמי לימא יצר אנסה,התם קנסא הוא דקנסוה רבנן,יתיב רבין בר חנינא קמיה דרב חסדא ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דרבי אלעזר מוחלת כתובתה לבעלה אין לה מזונות אמר ליה אי לאו דקאמרת לי משמיה דגברא רבא הוה אמינא לך (משלי יז, יג) משיב רעה תחת טובה לא תמוש רעה מביתו,יתיב ר"נ ועולא ואבימי בר רב פפי ויתיב רב חייא בר אמי גבייהו אתא ההוא גברא דשכיבא ארוסתו אמרי ליה זיל קבר או הב לה כתובתה אמר להו רב חייא תנינא אשתו ארוסה לא אונן ולא מיטמא לה וכן היא לא אוננת ולא מיטמאה לו מתה אינו יורשה מת הוא גובה כתובתה,טעמא דמת הוא הא מתה היא אין לה כתובה מאי טעמא אמר רב הושעיא שאין אני קורא בה לכשתנשאי לאחר תטלי מה שכתוב ליכי,כי אתא רבין אמר ריש לקיש ארוסה שמתה אין לה כתובה אמר להו אביי זילו אמרי ליה | 53a. Rav Pappa b saw that /b Yehuda bar Mareimar b was not amenable /b to the idea of entering the house. b He said to him: What is /b on b your mind? /b Do you not wish to enter b due to that /b which b Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: i Shina /i , do not be /b a partner b in the transfer of an inheritance even from a bad son to a good son, as it is not known what seed will come from him? /b Perhaps the bad son will father worthy children. b And all the more so, /b one should not be a partner in the transfer of an inheritance b from a son to a daughter. /b ,Rav Pappa continued: Are you worried that your arrival will pressure Abba of Sura to give his daughter a more substantial dowry? But b this too is an ordice of the Sages, /b that a father must provide a dowry for his daughter. This is b as Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, /b as quoted above, that the Sages enacted this matter so that a man should take the initiative and write an agreement to give his daughter a dowry as large as the portion of his possessions that his son will receive as an inheritance. Yehuda bar Mareimar b said to him: This applies only /b if the man gives b of his own /b free b will, /b but should one b force him as well? /b Rav Pappa b said to him: Did I say to you that you should enter and force him? I /b merely b said /b that you should b enter, but do not force him. He said to him: My /b very b entrance is /b an act that will effectively b force him, /b as he will increase her dowry in my honor.,Eventually, Rav Pappa b forced /b Yehuda bar Mareimar b and he entered. He was silent, and sat /b without uttering a word. Abba of Sura b thought /b that Yehuda bar Mareimar b was angry /b with him for his failure to grant his daughter a suitable dowry. b He /b therefore b wrote /b down in the marriage contract b all that he had /b as her dowry, to appease him. b Ultimately, /b when he observed that Yehuda was still silent, Abba of Sura b said to him: Even now the Master will not talk? By the Master’s life, I have left nothing for myself. /b ,Yehuda bar Mareimar b said to him: If /b you are acting b for my /b sake, b that which you wrote is also not amenable to me. /b Finally understanding his wishes, Abba of Sura b said to /b Yehuda bar Mareimar: b Now too, I will retract, /b as I acted in error. Yehuda bar Mareimar b said to him: I did not speak /b so that you b should turn yourself into /b the kind of person b who retracts /b once he gives his word. You should uphold your agreement, but the agreement was not to my liking.,§ b Rav Yeimar the Elder raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: /b If a wife b sold her marriage contract to her husband, /b i.e., she sold him the right not to have to pay her the marriage contract if they divorce or if she is widowed, does b she have the marriage document concerning male children, or /b does b she not have the marriage document concerning male children? Rava said to him: And you can raise /b the same b dilemma /b with regard to a wife b who forgoes /b her right to her marriage contract. Does she retain the marriage document concerning male children in this case?,Rav Yeimar b said to him: Now, /b the i halakha /i of b one who sells /b her marriage contract b is a dilemma for me. As, although there is /b room b to say /b that b the money forced her, /b and b that I say /b that she b is like one who is struck /b with b a hundred strikes [ i ukelei /i ] of a hammer [ i ukela /i ], /b i.e., she needed liquid assets at the time and therefore she sold her marriage contract unwillingly, even so, I am still willing to entertain the possibility that she has sold the marriage document concerning male children. Then, with regard to b one who forgoes /b her marriage contract, b is /b it b necessary /b to raise the dilemma?, b Rava said: /b It b is obvious to me /b that if a wife b sells her marriage contract to others, /b not to her husband but to someone else who is willing to pay at the present time for the chance to collect the money stated in her marriage contract if she is later divorced or widowed, b she /b still b has the marriage document concerning male children. What is the reason? The money forced her /b to sell, and she did not mean to renounce all her rights. It is likewise clear to me that b one who forgoes /b the right to collect b her marriage contract /b from b her husband does not have the marriage document concerning male children. What is the reason? She has forgiven it /b all and has no intention of claiming anything from her husband.,However, b Rava raised a dilemma /b about the following case: With regard to b one who sells her marriage contract to her husband, /b is she b considered like one who sells to others, /b i.e., she has not relinquished the marriage document concerning male children, b or is she considered like one who forgoes /b her right to collect her marriage contract from b her husband, /b i.e., she has forfeited everything? b After he raised the dilemma he subsequently resolved it: One who sells her marriage contract to her husband is considered like one who sells to others, /b as she is assumed to have done so due to ficial constraints., b Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection: /b We learned in a mishna ( i Yevamot /i 87b) that if a woman’s husband went overseas, and after hearing the testimony of one witness that he was dead the woman married again, and then her first husband returned, both husbands must divorce her, and she does not receive payment of her marriage contract from either man. That mishna proceeds to state that if b she died, neither /b the b heirs of this /b one, the first husband, b nor /b the b heirs of that /b one, the second husband, b inherit /b the sum stipulated in b her marriage contract. And we discussed /b the following question: With regard to b a marriage contract, what is its purpose? /b In other words, the mishna just said that she is not entitled to a marriage contract, so how can it even be suggested that the heirs might inherit it?, b And Rav Pappa said: /b This is referring to b the marriage document concerning male children. /b Not only does she forfeit her marriage contract, but she also loses the right to the marriage document concerning male children, as her sons do not inherit from her at all. Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection. b But /b if, according to the above statement, a wife who sells her marriage contract has not relinquished the marriage document concerning male children, b why /b does the mishna in i Yevamot /i state that none of the woman’s heirs inherit the proceeds of her marriage contract? b Here too, /b in that mishna, b let us say /b that her b desire /b to marry another man b forced her /b to marry her second husband. Why should she forfeit the marriage document concerning male children?,The Gemara answers: b There it is a penalty /b with b which the Sages penalized her. /b In other words, the reason is not that she automatically forfeits the marriage document concerning male children, along with the marriage contract itself. Rather, her loss of the marriage document concerning male children is one of several penalties the Sages imposed upon her for remarrying on the basis of the testimony of a single witness without conducting her own thorough investigation into her husband’s fate. Therefore, one cannot learn from that i halakha /i with regard to the issue at hand., b Ravin bar Ḥanina sat before Rav Ḥisda, and he sat and said /b the following i halakha /i b in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One who forgoes her /b right to collect her b marriage contract /b from b her husband does not /b receive her b sustece /b from him. Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Had you not said /b this i halakha /i b to me in the name of a great man, I would have said to you /b that this is an injustice, in accordance with the verse b “who rewards evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house” /b (Proverbs 17:13). After she relinquishes to her husband her right to her marriage contract, which was a favor to her husband, she loses her sustece as well.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Naḥman was sitting, and Ulla and Avimei bar Rav Pappi /b were sitting as well, b and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami was sitting with them, /b when b a certain man came /b before them b whose betrothed /b wife b had died. They said to him: Go /b and b bury /b her, b or give her /b heirs the sum stipulated in b her marriage contract. Rav Ḥiyya said to them, /b in surprise at their response: But b we learned /b that with regard to b one’s betrothed wife /b he b neither /b assumes the status of b an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for her /b if he is a priest, b and similarly, she neither /b assumes the status of b an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for him. /b If b she died he does not inherit /b from b her, /b and if b he died she collects /b payment of b her marriage contract. /b ,Rav Ḥiyya infers the following from this statement: The b reason /b for this i halakha /i is that b he died, /b from which it may be inferred that if b she died she does not have a marriage contract, /b nor any of the stipulations of a marriage contract. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that her marriage contract is canceled upon her death? b Rav Hoshaya said: /b The reason is b that I do not read with regard to her /b the condition stated in the marriage contract: b When you marry another he may take what is written for you, /b as she cannot marry another.,The Gemara relates another incident: b When Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that b Reish Lakish said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a marriage contract. Abaye said to /b the scholars who recited this i halakha /i in Ravin’s name: b Go, /b and b say to /b Ravin: |
|
71. Babylonian Talmud, Meilah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 213| 12b. דאמר רב המקיז דם לבהמת קדשים אסור בהנאה ומועלין בו,גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רב המקיז דם לבהמת קדשים אסור בהנאה ומועלין בו מתיב רב המנונא חלב המוקדשין וביצי תורין לא נהנין ולא מועלין,אמר ליה כי קאמרינן לגבי דם דלא מתקיימת בלא דם אבל חלב דקא מקיימא בלא חלב לא,מתיב רב משרשיא הזבל והפרש שבחצר אין נהנין ואין מועלין ויפלו דמיה ללשכה,אמאי הכא נמי לא מקיים בלא פרש אמרי מאי איריא הדין פרש דמן עלמא קאתי לה אזיל האי אתי אחרינא לאפוקי דם מגופה,הא קתני לא נהנין ולא מועלין ודמיו ללשכה מסייעא ליה לרבי אלעזר דאמר ר"א כל מקום שאמרו חכמים קדוש ואינו קדוש דמיו יפלו ללשכה, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חלב המוקדשין וביצי תורין לא נהנין ולא מועלין,בד"א בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית הקדיש תרנגולת מועלין בה ובביצתה חמורה מועלין בה ובחלבה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אלא גבי מזבח כי אקדשה קדושת דמים לא אית בה מעילה,אמר רב פפא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בד"א כשהקדיש קדושת הגוף לגבי מזבח אבל הקדישו קדושת דמים לגבי מזבח נעשה כמי שהקדישו לבדק הבית הקדיש תרנגולת מועלין בה ובביצתה חמורה מועלין בה ובחלבה, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל הראוי למזבח | 12b. b As Rav said: /b In a case of b one who lets blood from /b a live b sacrificial animal, /b deriving b benefit /b from that blood b is prohibited and /b one is liable for b misusing it /b by Torah law. Since there is a stage when there is a prohibition of misuse by Torah law, one can understand the i halakha /i that one is liable by rabbinic law for misusing the blood ultimately, when it descended to the Kidron Valley. This is not comparable to doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived, as they are initially not subject to misuse by Torah law.,§ The Gemara analyzes b the /b matter b itself. Rav Huna says /b that b Rav says: /b In a case of b one who lets blood from a sacrificial animal, deriving benefit /b from that blood b is prohibited and /b one is liable for b misusing it. Rav Hamnuna raises an objection /b to the opinion of Rav from the mishna below: With regard to b the milk of /b animals b consecrated /b to be sacrificed b and the eggs of doves /b consecrated to be sacrificed, one b may not derive benefit /b from them i ab initio /i , b but /b if one derived benefit from them he is b not /b liable for their b misuse, /b despite the fact that one is liable for misuse of the animals and doves themselves. Apparently, the products of a consecrated item do not share its status with regard to the i halakha /i of misuse. Why doesn’t this principle apply to blood as well?,Rav b said to /b Rav Hamnuna in response: b When we said /b the products of a consecrated item are also subject to the i halakha /i of misuse that was only b with regard to blood, as /b the animal b cannot exist without blood /b and therefore the blood is considered like the animal itself. b But /b in the case of b milk, since /b the animal can b exist without milk, /b the milk is b not /b considered like the animal itself., b Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection /b to this suggestion from a i baraita /i : One b may not derive benefit /b from b the /b dried b manure and the /b fresh b dung /b of offerings of the most sacred order found b in the /b Temple b courtyard /b i ab initio /i , b but /b if one derived benefit from them he is b not /b liable for b misusing /b them; b and /b the b money /b received from b their /b sale b will /b be b allocated for the /b treasury b chamber /b of the Temple.,In light of the suggested distinction between blood and milk, the Gemara asks: b Why /b is the dung not subject to the i halakhot /i of misuse? b Here too, /b the animal b cannot exist without dung, /b and therefore the dung should be subject to the i halakhot /i of misuse like blood. The Sages b say /b in response: b How /b can you b compare /b the two cases? In the case of b this dung that comes to /b the animal b from an external /b source, i.e., the food that it ate, b this /b food b goes /b out of the body in the form of dung and b that other /b food b comes /b into the body and takes its place. This description serves b to exclude blood, which is /b part b of /b the animal’s b body /b and is not replaced from an external source.,The Gemara notes: The i baraita /i b teaches /b that one b may not derive benefit /b from the manure and dung i ab initio /i , b but /b if one derived benefit from them he is b not /b liable for b misuse, and /b the b money /b received from b their /b sale b will /b be b allocated for the /b treasury b chamber /b of the Temple. This b supports /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: Wherever the Sages said /b an item is b consecrated and not consecrated, /b as in this case where one may not derive benefit but he is not liable for misuse either, the b money /b received from b its /b sale is b allocated for the /b treasury b chamber /b of the Temple., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b the milk of sacrificial /b animals b and the eggs of /b sacrificial b doves, /b one b may not derive benefit /b from them i ab initio /i , b but /b if one derived benefit from them after the fact he is b not /b liable for their b misuse. /b , b In what /b case b is this statement, /b that if one derived benefit from the eggs or milk of sacrificial animals, he is not liable for their misuse, b said? /b It is stated b in /b the case of b sacrificial /b animals offered on the b altar, /b as their eggs and milk are not brought to the altar and therefore they are considered distinct from the offerings themselves. b But /b this is not the i halakha /i b in /b the case of animals that are not sacrificed and are b consecrated /b only b for Temple maintece. /b For example, if one b consecrated a hen /b he is liable for b misusing it and for /b misusing b its egg; /b if one consecrated b a donkey /b he is liable for b misusing it and for /b misusing b its milk, /b as the animal and its milk, and likewise the hen and its eggs, are both consecrated for Temple maintece and are deemed a single unit., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that if one derived benefit from the eggs or milk of consecrated animals sacrificed on the altar he is not liable for their misuse. The Gemara asks: b But /b does that mean that in a case of an item that is suitable to be sacrificed b on the altar, if he consecrated it /b with b a sanctity /b that inheres in its b value, /b i.e., to sell it and use the money to buy an offering rather than sacrifice the animal itself, then its eggs or milk are b not subject to /b the i halakhot /i of b misuse? /b Since he does not intend to sacrifice the animal itself, why shouldn’t the prohibition of misuse apply to its milk or its eggs?, b Rav Pappa said: /b The wording of the mishna b is incomplete and this /b is what b it is teaching: In what /b case b is this statement, /b that the milk and eggs of a consecrated animal sacrificed on the altar are not subject to misuse, b said? /b It is said b when he consecrated /b the animal with b inherent sanctity /b to be sacrificed b on the altar. But /b if b he consecrated it /b with b a sanctity /b that inheres in its b value, /b i.e., to sell it and use the money to buy an offering to be sacrificed b on the altar, /b then b it is /b considered b as though he consecrated it for /b the b Temple maintece /b and it is subject to misuse. Therefore, if b one consecrated a hen /b to sell it and use the money to buy an offering he is liable for b misusing it and for /b misusing b its egg; /b if one consecrated b a donkey /b he is liable for b misusing it and for /b misusing b its milk. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b any /b consecrated item b that is fit for /b sacrifice on b the altar /b |
|
| 72. Anon., Leges Publicae, 3.17 Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 95 |
| 73. Palestinian Talmud, Ta, 1.1, 4.5 Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 292, 294, 296, 298 |
| 74. Palestinian Talmud, Erub, 3.9 Tagged with subjects: •talmud of the land of israel Found in books: Neusner Green and Avery-Peck (2022), Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points, 298 |
