1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 5.1, 5.20-5.26, 27.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40, 81| 5.1. "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי־תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם־לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ׃", 5.1. "וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר־חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ׃", 5.21. "נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיהוָה וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן אוֹ־בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ בְגָזֵל אוֹ עָשַׁק אֶת־עֲמִיתוֹ׃", 5.22. "אוֹ־מָצָא אֲבֵדָה וְכִחֶשׁ בָּהּ וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל־שָׁקֶר עַל־אַחַת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם לַחֲטֹא בָהֵנָּה׃", 5.23. "וְהָיָה כִּי־יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל אוֹ אֶת־הָעֹשֶׁק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק אוֹ אֶת־הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָפְקַד אִתּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־הָאֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר מָצָא׃", 5.24. "אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ׃", 5.25. "וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא לַיהוָה אַיִל תָּמִים מִן־הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן׃", 5.26. "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְנִסְלַח לוֹ עַל־אַחַת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לְאַשְׁמָה בָהּ׃", 27.3. "וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ הַזָּכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְעַד בֶּן־שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ׃", 27.3. "וְכָל־מַעְשַׂר הָאָרֶץ מִזֶּרַע הָאָרֶץ מִפְּרִי הָעֵץ לַיהוָה הוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַיהוָה׃", | 5.1. "And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;", 5.20. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 5.21. "If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbour;", 5.22. "or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely therein, and swear to a lie; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein;", 5.23. "then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found,", 5.24. "or any thing about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty.", 5.25. "And he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest.", 5.26. "And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven, concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.", 27.3. "then thy valuation shall be for the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 23.5, 23.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 146; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 81| 23.5. "כִּי־תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ מֵעֲזֹב לוֹ עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ׃", 23.7. "מִדְּבַר־שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק וְנָקִי וְצַדִּיק אַל־תַּהֲרֹג כִּי לֹא־אַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע׃", | 23.5. "If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forbear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him.", 23.7. "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 22.4, 28.15-28.69 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 146; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 142| 22.4. "לֹא־תִרְאֶה אֶת־חֲמוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ נֹפְלִים בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם הָקֵם תָּקִים עִמּוֹ׃", 28.15. "וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל־הַקְּלָלוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגוּךָ׃", 28.16. "אָרוּר אַתָּה בָּעִיר וְאָרוּר אַתָּה בַּשָּׂדֶה׃", 28.17. "אָרוּר טַנְאֲךָ וּמִשְׁאַרְתֶּךָ׃", 28.18. "אָרוּר פְּרִי־בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתֶךָ שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרוֹת צֹאנֶךָ׃", 28.19. "אָרוּר אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וְאָרוּר אַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ׃", 28.21. "יַדְבֵּק יְהוָה בְּךָ אֶת־הַדָּבֶר עַד כַּלֹּתוֹ אֹתְךָ מֵעַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה בָא־שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃", 28.22. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בַּשַּׁחֶפֶת וּבַקַּדַּחַת וּבַדַּלֶּקֶת וּבַחַרְחֻר וּבַחֶרֶב וּבַשִּׁדָּפוֹן וּבַיֵּרָקוֹן וּרְדָפוּךָ עַד אָבְדֶךָ׃", 28.23. "וְהָיוּ שָׁמֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר עַל־רֹאשְׁךָ נְחֹשֶׁת וְהָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־תַּחְתֶּיךָ בַּרְזֶל׃", 28.24. "יִתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת־מְטַר אַרְצְךָ אָבָק וְעָפָר מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם יֵרֵד עָלֶיךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ׃", 28.25. "יִתֶּנְךָ יְהוָה נִגָּף לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֶיךָ בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד תֵּצֵא אֵלָיו וּבְשִׁבְעָה דְרָכִים תָּנוּס לְפָנָיו וְהָיִיתָ לְזַעֲוָה לְכֹל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ׃", 28.26. "וְהָיְתָה נִבְלָתְךָ לְמַאֲכָל לְכָל־עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְבֶהֱמַת הָאָרֶץ וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד׃", 28.27. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בִּשְׁחִין מִצְרַיִם ובעפלים [וּבַטְּחֹרִים] וּבַגָּרָב וּבֶחָרֶס אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא׃", 28.28. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בְּשִׁגָּעוֹן וּבְעִוָּרוֹן וּבְתִמְהוֹן לֵבָב׃", 28.29. "וְהָיִיתָ מְמַשֵּׁשׁ בַּצָּהֳרַיִם כַּאֲשֶׁר יְמַשֵּׁשׁ הָעִוֵּר בָּאֲפֵלָה וְלֹא תַצְלִיחַ אֶת־דְּרָכֶיךָ וְהָיִיתָ אַךְ עָשׁוּק וְגָזוּל כָּל־הַיָּמִים וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ׃", 28.31. "שׁוֹרְךָ טָבוּחַ לְעֵינֶיךָ וְלֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ חֲמֹרְךָ גָּזוּל מִלְּפָנֶיךָ וְלֹא יָשׁוּב לָךְ צֹאנְךָ נְתֻנוֹת לְאֹיְבֶיךָ וְאֵין לְךָ מוֹשִׁיעַ׃", 28.32. "בָּנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ נְתֻנִים לְעַם אַחֵר וְעֵינֶיךָ רֹאוֹת וְכָלוֹת אֲלֵיהֶם כָּל־הַיּוֹם וְאֵין לְאֵל יָדֶךָ׃", 28.33. "פְּרִי אַדְמָתְךָ וְכָל־יְגִיעֲךָ יֹאכַל עַם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדָעְתָּ וְהָיִיתָ רַק עָשׁוּק וְרָצוּץ כָּל־הַיָּמִים׃", 28.34. "וְהָיִיתָ מְשֻׁגָּע מִמַּרְאֵה עֵינֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה׃", 28.35. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בִּשְׁחִין רָע עַל־הַבִּרְכַּיִם וְעַל־הַשֹּׁקַיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא מִכַּף רַגְלְךָ וְעַד קָדְקֳדֶךָ׃", 28.36. "יוֹלֵךְ יְהוָה אֹתְךָ וְאֶת־מַלְכְּךָ אֲשֶׁר תָּקִים עָלֶיךָ אֶל־גּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עֵץ וָאָבֶן׃", 28.37. "וְהָיִיתָ לְשַׁמָּה לְמָשָׁל וְלִשְׁנִינָה בְּכֹל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר־יְנַהֶגְךָ יְהוָה שָׁמָּה׃", 28.38. "זֶרַע רַב תּוֹצִיא הַשָּׂדֶה וּמְעַט תֶּאֱסֹף כִּי יַחְסְלֶנּוּ הָאַרְבֶּה׃", 28.39. "כְּרָמִים תִּטַּע וְעָבָדְתָּ וְיַיִן לֹא־תִשְׁתֶּה וְלֹא תֶאֱגֹר כִּי תֹאכְלֶנּוּ הַתֹּלָעַת׃", 28.41. "בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת תּוֹלִיד וְלֹא־יִהְיוּ לָךְ כִּי יֵלְכוּ בַּשֶּׁבִי׃", 28.42. "כָּל־עֵצְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתֶךָ יְיָרֵשׁ הַצְּלָצַל׃", 28.43. "הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה׃", 28.44. "הוּא יַלְוְךָ וְאַתָּה לֹא תַלְוֶנּוּ הוּא יִהְיֶה לְרֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תִּהְיֶה לְזָנָב׃", 28.45. "וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל־הַקְּלָלוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וּרְדָפוּךָ וְהִשִּׂיגוּךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ כִּי־לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר צִוָּךְ׃", 28.46. "וְהָיוּ בְךָ לְאוֹת וּלְמוֹפֵת וּבְזַרְעֲךָ עַד־עוֹלָם׃", 28.47. "תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָבַדְתָּ אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְטוּב לֵבָב מֵרֹב כֹּל׃", 28.48. "וְעָבַדְתָּ אֶת־אֹיְבֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ יְהוָה בָּךְ בְּרָעָב וּבְצָמָא וּבְעֵירֹם וּבְחֹסֶר כֹּל וְנָתַן עֹל בַּרְזֶל עַל־צַוָּארֶךָ עַד הִשְׁמִידוֹ אֹתָךְ׃", 28.49. "יִשָּׂא יְהוָה עָלֶיךָ גּוֹי מֵרָחוֹק מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִדְאֶה הַנָּשֶׁר גּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תִשְׁמַע לְשֹׁנוֹ׃", 28.51. "וְאָכַל פְּרִי בְהֶמְתְּךָ וּפְרִי־אַדְמָתְךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַשְׁאִיר לְךָ דָּגָן תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ עַד הַאֲבִידוֹ אֹתָךְ׃", 28.52. "וְהֵצַר לְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ עַד רֶדֶת חֹמֹתֶיךָ הַגְּבֹהוֹת וְהַבְּצֻרוֹת אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בֹּטֵחַ בָּהֵן בְּכָל־אַרְצֶךָ וְהֵצַר לְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ בְּכָל־אַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָךְ׃", 28.53. "וְאָכַלְתָּ פְרִי־בִטְנְךָ בְּשַׂר בָּנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן־לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּמָצוֹר וּבְמָצוֹק אֲשֶׁר־יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיְבֶךָ׃", 28.54. "הָאִישׁ הָרַךְ בְּךָ וְהֶעָנֹג מְאֹד תֵּרַע עֵינוֹ בְאָחִיו וּבְאֵשֶׁת חֵיקוֹ וּבְיֶתֶר בָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יוֹתִיר׃", 28.55. "מִתֵּת לְאַחַד מֵהֶם מִבְּשַׂר בָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יֹאכֵל מִבְּלִי הִשְׁאִיר־לוֹ כֹּל בְּמָצוֹר וּבְמָצוֹק אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ׃", 28.56. "הָרַכָּה בְךָ וְהָעֲנֻגָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־נִסְּתָה כַף־רַגְלָהּ הַצֵּג עַל־הָאָרֶץ מֵהִתְעַנֵּג וּמֵרֹךְ תֵּרַע עֵינָהּ בְּאִישׁ חֵיקָהּ וּבִבְנָהּ וּבְבִתָּהּ׃", 28.57. "וּבְשִׁלְיָתָהּ הַיּוֹצֵת מִבֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ וּבְבָנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד כִּי־תֹאכְלֵם בְּחֹסֶר־כֹּל בַּסָּתֶר בְּמָצוֹר וּבְמָצוֹק אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ׃", 28.58. "אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת הַכְּתוּבִים בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת־הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא הַזֶּה אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", 28.59. "וְהִפְלָא יְהוָה אֶת־מַכֹּתְךָ וְאֵת מַכּוֹת זַרְעֶךָ מַכּוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת וְנֶאֱמָנוֹת וָחֳלָיִם רָעִים וְנֶאֱמָנִים׃", 28.61. "גַּם כָּל־חֳלִי וְכָל־מַכָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא כָתוּב בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת יַעְלֵם יְהוָה עָלֶיךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ׃", 28.62. "וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֱיִיתֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם לָרֹב כִּי־לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", 28.63. "וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׂשׂ יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם לְהֵיטִיב אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַרְבּוֹת אֶתְכֶם כֵּן יָשִׂישׂ יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם וְנִסַּחְתֶּם מֵעַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה בָא־שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃", 28.64. "וֶהֱפִיצְךָ יְהוָה בְּכָל־הָעַמִּים מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ עֵץ וָאָבֶן׃", 28.65. "וּבַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם לֹא תַרְגִּיעַ וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה מָנוֹחַ לְכַף־רַגְלֶךָ וְנָתַן יְהוָה לְךָ שָׁם לֵב רַגָּז וְכִלְיוֹן עֵינַיִם וְדַאֲבוֹן נָפֶשׁ׃", 28.66. "וְהָיוּ חַיֶּיךָ תְּלֻאִים לְךָ מִנֶּגֶד וּפָחַדְתָּ לַיְלָה וְיוֹמָם וְלֹא תַאֲמִין בְּחַיֶּיךָ׃", 28.67. "בַּבֹּקֶר תֹּאמַר מִי־יִתֵּן עֶרֶב וּבָעֶרֶב תֹּאמַר מִי־יִתֵּן בֹּקֶר מִפַּחַד לְבָבְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּפְחָד וּמִמַּרְאֵה עֵינֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה׃", 28.68. "וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ יְהוָה מִצְרַיִם בָּאֳנִיּוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה׃", 28.69. "אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה לִכְרֹת אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב מִלְּבַד הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר־כָּרַת אִתָּם בְּחֹרֵב׃", | 22.4. "Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.", 28.15. "But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.", 28.16. "Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.", 28.17. "Cursed shall be thy basket and thy kneading-trough.", 28.18. "Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the young of thy flock.", 28.19. "Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.", 28.20. "The LORD will send upon thee cursing, discomfiture, and rebuke, in all that thou puttest thy hand unto to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the evil of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken Me.", 28.21. "The LORD will make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until He have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest in to possess it.", 28.22. "The LORD will smite thee with consumption, and with fever, and with inflammation, and with fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.", 28.23. "And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.", 28.24. "The LORD will make the rain of thy land powder and dust; from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.", 28.25. "The LORD will cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies; thou shalt go out one way against them, and shalt flee seven ways before them; and thou shalt be a horror unto all the kingdoms of the earth.", 28.26. "And thy carcasses shall be food unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and there shall be none to frighten them away.", 28.27. "The LORD will smite thee with the boil of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.", 28.28. "The LORD will smite thee with madness, and with blindness, and with astonishment of heart.", 28.29. "And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not make thy ways prosperous; and thou shalt be only oppressed and robbed alway, and there shall be none to save thee.", 28.30. "Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her; thou shalt build a house, and thou shalt not dwell therein; thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not use the fruit thereof.", 28.31. "Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof; thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee; thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies; and thou shalt have none to save thee.", 28.32. "Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day; and there shall be nought in the power of thy hand.", 28.33. "The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed away:", 28.34. "so that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.", 28.35. "The LORD will smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore boil, whereof thou canst not be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the crown of thy head.", 28.36. "The LORD will bring thee, and thy king whom thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.", 28.37. "And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all the peoples whither the LORD shall lead thee away.", 28.38. "Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather little in; for the locust shall consume it.", 28.39. "Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but thou shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worm shall eat them.", 28.40. "Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout all thy borders, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olives shall drop off.", 28.41. "Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be thine; for they shall go into captivity.", 28.42. "All thy trees and the fruit of thy land shall the locust possess.", 28.43. "The stranger that is in the midst of thee shall mount up above thee higher and higher; and thou shalt come down lower and lower.", 28.44. "He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.", 28.45. "And all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded thee.", 28.46. "And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever;", 28.47. "because thou didst not serve the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things;", 28.48. "therefore shalt thou serve thine enemy whom the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things; and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.", 28.49. "The LORD will bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the vulture swoopeth down; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;", 28.50. "a nation of fierce countece, that shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young.", 28.51. "And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy ground, until thou be destroyed; that also shall not leave thee corn, wine, or oil, the increase of thy kine, or the young of thy flock, until he have caused thee to perish.", 28.52. "And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fortified walls come down, wherein thou didst trust, throughout all thy land; and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.", 28.53. "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters whom the LORD thy God hath given thee; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall straiten thee.", 28.54. "The man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil against his brother, and against the wife of his bosom, and against the remt of his children whom he hath remaining;", 28.55. "so that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat, because he hath nothing left him; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall straiten thee in all thy gates.", 28.56. "The tender and delicate woman among you, who would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil against the husband of her bosom, and against her son, and against her daughter;", 28.57. "and against her afterbirth that cometh out from between her feet, and against her children whom she shall bear; for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall straiten thee in thy gates.", 28.58. "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;", 28.59. "then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.", 28.60. "And He will bring back upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast in dread of; and they shall cleave unto thee.", 28.61. "Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.", 28.62. "And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.", 28.63. "And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest in to possess it.", 28.64. "And the LORD shall scatter thee among all peoples, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers, even wood and stone.", 28.65. "And among these nations shalt thou have no repose, and there shall be no rest for the sole of thy foot; but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul.", 28.66. "And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear night and day, and shalt have no assurance of thy life.", 28.67. "In the morning thou shalt say: ‘Would it were even! ’ and at even thou shalt say: ‘Would it were morning! ’ for the fear of thy heart which thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.", 28.68. "And the LORD shall bring thee back into Egypt in ships, by the way whereof I said unto thee: ‘Thou shalt see it no more again’; and there ye shall sell yourselves unto your enemies for bondmen and for bondwoman, and no man shall buy you.", 28.69. "These are the words of the covet which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covet which He made with them in Horeb.", |
|
| 4. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.11-9.16, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 81, 138, 142 |
5. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 9.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 142| 9.2. "בִּשְׁנַת אַחַת לְמָלְכוֹ אֲנִי דָּנִיֵּאל בִּינֹתִי בַּסְּפָרִים מִסְפַּר הַשָּׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיָה דְבַר־יְהוָה אֶל־יִרְמִיָה הַנָּבִיא לְמַלֹּאות לְחָרְבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה׃", 9.2. "וְעוֹד אֲנִי מְדַבֵּר וּמִתְפַּלֵּל וּמִתְוַדֶּה חַטָּאתִי וְחַטַּאת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַפִּיל תְּחִנָּתִי לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהַי עַל הַר־קֹדֶשׁ אֱלֹהָי׃", | 9.2. "in the first year of his reign I Daniel meditated in the books, over the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years.", |
|
| 6. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 57.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40 |
| 7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 9.11-9.16, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 81, 138, 142 |
| 8. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 6.27-7.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 142 |
9. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40| 3.1. "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן: \n", | 3.1. "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.", |
|
10. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 146| 2.10. "מְצָאָהּ בָּרֶפֶת, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בָּהּ. בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, חַיָּב בָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה בֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, לֹא יִטַּמָּא לָהּ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ אָבִיו, הִטַּמֵּא, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ, אַל תַּחֲזִיר, לֹא יִשְׁמַע לוֹ. פָּרַק וְטָעַן, פָּרַק וְטָעַן, אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב. הָלַךְ וְיָשַׁב לוֹ וְאָמַר, הוֹאִיל וְעָלֶיךָ מִצְוָה, אִם רְצוֹנְךָ לִפְרֹק פְּרֹק, פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, עִמּוֹ. אִם הָיָה זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה, חַיָּב. מִצְוָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לִפְרֹק, אֲבָל לֹא לִטְעֹן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף לִטְעֹן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה עָלָיו יָתֵר עַל מַשָּׂאוֹ, אֵין זָקוּק לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ, מַשְּׂאוֹי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲמֹד בּוֹ:", | 2.10. "If he found an [animal] in a stable, he is not responsible for it [even though the stable door was loose and unguarded. But if he found it in the public domain he is responsible for it. If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it. If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he may not listen to him. If he unloaded [the ass fallen under its load] and reloaded it and again unloaded it and reloaded it, even four or five times he is still obligated, for it is written, “You must surely raise it with him”. If the owner went and sat down and said, “Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obligated, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obligated. It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obligated [to help unload it], for it is written, “under its load”, [which is to say] a load which it is able to endure.", |
|
| 11. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 92 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40 |
| 12. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40 |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40 |
14. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 172| 14a. בטלו דיני קנסות מישראל שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזירה על ישראל שכל הסומך יהרג וכל הנסמך יהרג ועיר שסומכין בה תיחרב ותחומין שסומכין בהן יעקרו,מה עשה יהודה בן בבא הלך וישב לו בין שני הרים גדולים ובין שתי עיירות גדולות ובין שני תחומי שבת בין אושא לשפרעם וסמך שם חמשה זקנים ואלו הן ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' שמעון ור' יוסי ור' אלעזר בן שמוע רב אויא מוסיף אף ר' נחמיה,כיון שהכירו אויביהם בהן אמר להן בניי רוצו אמרו לו רבי מה תהא עליך אמר להן הריני מוטל לפניהם כאבן שאין לה הופכים אמרו לא זזו משם עד שנעצו בו שלש מאות לונביאות של ברזל ועשאוהו ככברה,רבי יהודה בן בבא אחריני הוו בהדיה והאי דלא חשיב להו משום כבודו דרבי יהודה בן בבא ור"מ ר' יהודה בן בבא סמכיה והא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל האומר ר"מ לא סמכו ר' עקיבא אינו אלא טועה סמכיה ר' עקיבא ולא קיבלו סמכיה ר' יהודה בן בבא וקיבלו,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אין סמיכה בחוצה לארץ מאי אין סמיכה אילימא דלא דייני דיני קנסות כלל בחוצה לארץ והא תנן סנהדרין נוהגת בין בארץ ובין בחוצה לארץ אלא דלא סמכינן בחוצה לארץ,פשיטא סומכין בחוצה לארץ ונסמכין בארץ הא אמרינן דלא אלא סומכין בארץ ונסמכין בחוצה לארץ מאי,ת"ש דרבי יוחנן הוה מצטער עליה דרב שמן בר אבא דלא הוה גבייהו דליסמכיה ר"ש בן זירוד וחד דעימיה ומנו ר' יונתן בן עכמאי ואמרי לה רבי יונתן בן עכמאי וחד דעימיה ומנו ר"ש בן זירוד חד דהוה גבייהו סמכוהו וחד דלא הוה גבייהו לא סמכוהו,ר' חנינא ורבי הושעיא הוה קא משתקיד רבי יוחנן למיסמכינהו לא הוה מסתייעא מילתא הוה קא מצטער טובא אמרו ליה לא נצטער מר דאנן מדבית עלי קאתינן,דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן מניין שאין נסמכין לבית עלי שנאמר (שמואל א ב, לב) לא יהיה זקן בביתך כל הימים מאי זקן אילימא זקן ממש והכתיב (שמואל א ב, לג) כל מרבית ביתך ימותו אנשים אלא סמיכה,רבי זירא הוה מיטמר למיסמכיה דאמר רבי אלעזר לעולם הוי קבל וקיים כיון דשמעה להא דא"ר אלעזר אין אדם עולה לגדולה אלא א"כ מוחלין לו על כל עונותיו אמצי ליה אנפשיה,כי סמכוה לר' זירא שרו ליה הכי לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן כי סמכוה לרבי אמי ולרבי אסי שרו להו הכי כל מן דין כל מן דין סמוכו לנא לא תסמכו לנא לא מסרמיטין ולא מסרמיסין ואמרי לה לא מחמיסין ולא מטורמיסין,ר' אבהו כי הוה אתי ממתיבתא לבי קיסר נפקי מטרוניתא דבי קיסר ומשריין ליה רבה דעמיה מדברנא דאומתיה בוצינא דנהורא בריך מתייך לשלם:,עריפת עגלה בשלשה: ת"ר (דברים כא, ב) ויצאו זקניך ושופטיך זקניך שנים שופטיך שנים ואין ב"ד שקול מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד הרי כאן חמשה דברי ר' יהודה רבי שמעון אומר זקניך שנים ואין ב"ד שקול מוסיפין עליהם עוד אחד הרי כאן שלשה,ור"ש האי שופטיך מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה למיוחדין שבשופטיך ור' יהודה מזקני זקניך נפקא,ור"ש אי מזקני הוה אמינא זקני השוק כתב רחמנא זקניך ואי כתיב זקניך הוה אמינא סנהדרי קטנה כתב רחמנא ושופטיך ממיוחדין שבשופטיך ורבי יהודה גמר זקני זקני מוסמכו זקני העדה את ידיהם מה להלן מיוחדין שבעדה אף כאן מיוחדין שבזקניך,אי יליף לילף כולה מהתם זקניך ושופטיך למה לי אלא וי"ו ושופטיך למניינא ורבי שמעון וי"ו לא דריש,אלא מעתה ויצאו שנים ומדדו שנים לרבי יהודה הרי תשעה לרבי שמעון שבעה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ויצאו הן ולא שלוחן ומדדו שאפילו נמצא | 14a. b the laws of fines would have ceased /b to be implemented b from /b among b the Jewish people, /b as they would not have been able to adjudicate cases involving these laws due to a lack of ordained judges. This is b because /b at b one time the wicked kingdom /b of Rome b issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people /b with the aim of abolishing the chain of ordination and the authority of the Sages. They said b that anyone who ordains /b judges b will be killed, and anyone who is ordained will be killed, and the city in which they ordain /b the judges b will be destroyed, and /b the signs identifying b the boundaries /b of the city b in which they ordain /b judges b will be uprooted. /b These measures were intended to discourage the Sages from performing or receiving ordination due to fear for the welfare of the local population., b What did /b Rabbi b Yehuda ben Bava do? He went and sat between two large mountains, between two large cities, and between two Shabbat boundaries: Between Usha and Shefaram, /b i.e., in a desolate place that was not associated with any particular city so that he not endanger anyone not directly involved, b and there he ordained five elders. And they were: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Rav Avya adds /b that b Rabbi Neḥemya /b was b also /b among those ordained. This incident indicates that ordination can be performed by a single Sage., b When their enemies discovered them, /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava b said to /b the newly ordained Sages: b My sons, run /b for your lives. b They said to him: My teacher, what will be with you? /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was elderly and unable to run. He b said to them: /b In any case, b I am cast before them like a stone that cannot be overturned; /b even if you attempt to assist me I will not be able to escape due to my frailty, but if you do not escape without me you will also be killed. People b say /b about this incident: The Roman soldiers b did not move from there until they had inserted three hundred iron spears /b [ b i lunkhiyot /i /b ] b into him, making him /b appear b like a sieve /b pierced with many holes.,This proof is refuted: There may b have been other /b Sages performing the ordination b with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, /b who were added in order to reach the quota of three Sages, b and this /b fact b that they were not mentioned is due to the honor of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, /b who was the greatest among them. The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b Rabbi Meir, /b did b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava /b actually b ordain him? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Anyone who says that Rabbi Akiva did not ordain Rabbi Meir is nothing other than mistaken. /b The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Akiva /b in fact b ordained /b Rabbi Meir, b but /b the people b did not accept /b the appointment, as Rabbi Meir was still very young. Therefore, some time later, b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava ordained him /b a second time, b and they accepted it. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There is no ordination outside of Eretz /b Yisrael. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b There is no ordination? If we say that they may not adjudicate /b cases involving b laws of fines at all outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, that is difficult: b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Makkot /i 7a): The b Sanhedrin /b and its authority b functions both in Eretz /b Yisrael b and outside of Eretz /b Yisrael? b Rather, /b the intention is b that we do not ordain /b judges b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael.,The Gemara comments: It is b obvious /b that if b those ordaining /b the new judges were b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b and those being ordained /b were b inside Eretz /b Yisrael, b we say that /b they may b not /b perform the ordination. b But /b if b those ordaining /b the new judges were b inside Eretz /b Yisrael, b and those being ordained /b were b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? May ordination be conferred from a distance in this situation?,The Gemara clarifies: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to the dilemma from the fact b that Rabbi Yoḥa was distressed concerning Rav Shemen bar Abba, as /b the latter b was not with /b the other Sages at the time they received the consent of the i Nasi /i b so that /b Rabbi Yoḥa b could ordain him. /b In addition, concerning b Rabbi Shimon ben Zeirud and one who was with him, /b the Gemara interjects: b And who is he? Rabbi Yoḥa ben Akhmai. And some say /b that it was b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Akhmai and one who was with him; /b the Gemara interjects: b And who is he? Rabbi Shimon ben Zeirud. /b The Gemara continues: Although these two Sages were equal in stature, the Sages b ordained /b only the b one who was with them /b in Eretz Yisrael, b and they did not ordain /b the other b one, who was not with them. /b This indicates that ordination can be granted only in Eretz Yisrael.,The Gemara relates several other incidents with regard to ordination. b Rabbi Yoḥa persistently tried to ordain Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Hoshaya, /b as they were scholars and righteous people. But b he was not successful /b with regard to b the matter, /b as various incidents repeatedly interfered with his plan, and b he was very distressed /b about this. b They said to him: Do not be distressed, /b our b Master, as we come from, /b i.e., are descendants of, b the house of /b the High Priest b Eli. /b , b As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says /b that b Rabbi Yonatan says: From where /b is it known b that there /b are b not /b to be b ordained /b Sages b from the house of Eli? As it is stated /b with regard to the house of Eli: b “And there shall not be an elder in your house forever” /b (I Samuel 2:32). The Gemara explains: b What /b is the meaning of b “elder” /b in this verse? b If we say /b it means b an actual elder, /b meaning an old person, b but isn’t it /b already b written: “And all those raised in your house shall die young men” /b (I Samuel 2:33)? b Rather, /b the term “elder” is an honorary term for a Sage, and it means that b ordination /b will not be granted to descendants of the House of Eli.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Zeira would /b habitually b hide /b himself b so /b that b they would /b not b ordain him. /b He did this due to the fact b that Rabbi Elazar said: Always be obscure and /b remain b alive, /b meaning the more humble and unknown you make yourself, the longer you will live. b When he heard that /b which b Rabbi Elazar /b also b said: A person does not rise to greatness unless all his sins are forgiven, /b he understood that there are also benefits to greatness, and b he presented himself /b to the i Nasi /i in order that he would ordain him.,The Gemara relates: b When they ordained Rabbi Zeira /b the Sages who were present at the ceremony b sang to him this /b paean of praise traditionally sung to a bride at her wedding: She wears b no blue eye shadow and no rouge /b on her face b and no hair dye, and /b nevertheless b she radiates grace. /b The bride is described as so beautiful that she does not need any cosmetics or adornments, and metaphorically Rabbi Zeira is praised as exceptionally and recognizably qualified for his appointment. Similarly, b when they ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, they sang to them this /b paean of praise: b Anyone like these, anyone like these, ordain for us, /b as they epitomized the ideal candidate for ordination. But b do not ordain for us /b those counted b among the rags [ i misarmitin /i ] or among the distorters [ i misarmisin /i ]. And some say /b that they said: Do b not /b ordain for us those counted b among the robbers [ i meḥamisin /i ] or among the tramplers [ i miturmisin /i ]. /b ,Since the songs composed for various Sages were mentioned, the Gemara also recounts that b when Rabbi Abbahu would come from the yeshiva to the house of the emperor, the ladies from the emperor’s house would go out and sing before him: O great one of his people, leader of his nation, illuminating candle, may your arrival be blessed in peace. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b the breaking of the heifer’s neck /b is performed b in /b front of a panel of b three /b judges, and that Rabbi Yehuda says there must be five judges. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And your elders and your judges shall go out /b and they shall measure to the cities that are around the corpse” (Deuteronomy 21:2). b “Your elders” /b is in the plural, which indicates a minimum of b two, /b and b “your judges” /b is also plural, indicating another b two, and /b as b a court may not /b be composed of b an even /b number of judges, b they add an additional one to them, /b so b there are five /b judges b here; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: “Your elders,” /b indicate b two, and /b as b a court may not /b be composed of b an even /b number of judges, b they add an additional one to them, /b so b there are three /b judges b here. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b according to b Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with this /b extra expression: b “Your judges”? /b The Gemara answers: b He requires it to /b teach that these judges must be of b the unique ones among your judges, /b meaning that they must be members of the Sanhedrin. The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Yehuda /b derive the i halakha /i that the judges must be members of the Sanhedrin? He b derives /b it b from /b the fact that the verse did not merely state: b “Elders,” /b but rather: b “Your elders,” /b which indicates the elders that are unique to all of the Jewish people, meaning the Sages of the Sanhedrin., b And /b how does b Rabbi Shimon /b respond to this claim? He holds that b had /b the verse written only: b “Elders,” I would say /b that the verse is referring to any b elders /b in b the marketplace /b who are not members of the Sanhedrin. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “Your elders.” And if it was written: “Your elders,” I would say /b that it is referring to members of b a lesser Sanhedrin. /b Therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “And your judges,” /b to indicate that they must be of b the unique ones among your judges. And /b how would b Rabbi Yehuda /b respond to this claim? b He learns /b it by means of a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “elders” /b written in this verse and the word b “elders” /b written in the verse: b “And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands /b on the head of the bull” (Leviticus 4:15). b Just as there /b it is referring to b the unique ones of the congregation, so too here, /b it is referring to b the unique ones among your elders. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If he learns /b this verbal analogy, b he should learn all of it, /b i.e., the entire i halakha /i , including the number of judges as well as their rank, b from there, /b i.e., the verse in Leviticus, and if so b why do I /b need the extra expressions: b “Your elders” /b and: b “And your judges”? Rather, /b certainly he does not accept this verbal analogy. Rather, he holds that the additional letter b i vav /i , /b corresponding to the word “and” in the expression: b “And your judges,” /b is there b for the tally, /b meaning that the expression “your judges” teaches that they must be members of the Great Sanhedrin, and the additional i vav /i serves to add an additional two to the number of judges. b And /b how does b Rabbi Shimon /b respond to that? b He does not expound /b the additional letter b i vav /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b if the verbs in the plural form are each understood as adding an additional two judges, then the expression: b “And they shall go out,” /b in the continuation of the verse (Deuteronomy 21:2) indicates another b two, /b and the expression: b “And they shall measure,” /b adds another b two, /b meaning that according b to Rabbi Yehuda there /b should be b nine /b judges, and according b to Rabbi Shimon, seven. /b The Gemara answers: b He needs this /b exposition b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And they shall go out,” /b to emphasize that b they /b must go out, b and not their agents, /b and the verse states: b “And they shall measure,” /b to teach that this measurement is itself a mitzva, such b that even /b if the corpse b is found /b |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 53| 88a. תמרים ויעסקו בתורה עולא איקלע לפומבדיתא קריבו ליה טירינא דתמרי אמר להו כמה כי הני בזוזא אמרו ליה תלת בזוזא אמר מלא צנא דדובשא בזוזא ובבלאי לא עסקי באורייתא,בליליא צערוהו אמר מלא צנא סמא דמותא בזוזא בבבל ובבלאי עסקי באורייתא,ואמר ר' אלעזר מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו ב, ג) והלכו עמים רבים ואמרו לכו ונעלה אל הר ה' אל בית אלהי יעקב וגו' אלהי יעקב ולא אלהי אברהם ויצחק,אלא לא כאברהם שכתוב בו הר שנאמר (בראשית כב, יד) אשר יאמר היום בהר ה' יראה ולא כיצחק שכתוב בו שדה שנאמר (בראשית כד, סג) ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה אלא כיעקב שקראו בית שנאמר (בראשית כח, יט) ויקרא את שם המקום ההוא בית אל,א"ר יוחנן גדול קבוץ גליות כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ שנאמר (הושע ב, ב) ונקבצו בני יהודה ובני ישראל יחדו ושמו להם ראש אחד ועלו מן הארץ כי גדול יום יזרעאל וכתיב (בראשית א, ה) ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד:,יתום ששחטו עליו אפוטרופסין וכו': שמעת מינה יש ברירה א"ר זירא (שמות יב, ג) שה לבית מ"מ,ת"ר שה לבית מלמד שאדם מביא ושוחט על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים ועל ידי עבדו ושפחתו הכנענים בין מדעתן בין שלא מדעתן אבל אינו שוחט על ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים ועל ידי עבדו ושפחתו העברים ועל יד אשתו אלא מדעתן,תניא אידך לא ישחוט אדם לא על ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים ועל ידי עבדו ושפחתו העברים ועל יד אשתו אלא מדעתן אבל שוחט הוא על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים ועל ידי עבדו ושפחתו הכנענים בין מדעתן ובין שלא מדעתן וכולן ששחטו ושחט רבן עליהן יוצאין בשל רבן ואין יוצאין בשל עצמן,חוץ מן האשה שיכולה למחות,מאי שנא אשה אמר רבא אשה וכל דדמי לה,הא גופא קשיא אמרת חוץ מן האשה שיכולה למחות טעמא דמחי הא לא מחי נפקא בשל בעלה והא קתני רישא ולא על ידי אשתו אלא מדעתן הא סתמא לא נפקא,מאי אלא מדעתן לאו דאמרי אין אלא בסתמא לאפוקי היכא דאמור לא,והא כולם ששחטו ושחט רבן עליהן יוצאין בשל רבן דבסתמא וקתני חוץ מן האשה מפני שיכולה למחות,אמר רבא כיון ששחטו אין לך מיחוי גדול מזה:,עבד של שני שותפין וכו': רמי ליה רב עינא סבא לר"נ תנן עבד של שני שותפין לא יאכל משל שניהן והתניא רצה מזה אוכל רצה מזה אוכל,א"ל עינא סבא ואמרי לה פתיא אוכמא מיני ומינך תסתיים שמעתתא מתניתין בדקפדי אהדדי ברייתא דלא קפדי אהדדי:,מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין לא יאכל משל רבו וכו': משל רבו הוא דלא יאכל אבל משל עצמו יאכל והא תניא לא יאכל לא משלו ולא משל רבו,לא קשיא כאן כמשנה ראשונה כאן כמשנה אחרונה דתנן מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד דברי בית הלל בית שמאי אומרים | 88a. the b dates /b that grow there plentifully, which gave them strength b and /b allowed them to b engage in Torah /b study. The Gemara records a related incident: b Ulla visited Pumbedita, /b and his hosts b brought him a basket [ i tirina /i ] of dates. He said to them: How many /b baskets of dates b like these /b can one purchase b for a i zuz /i ? They said to him: /b One can purchase b three for a i zuz /i . He said: /b How can it be that it is possible to purchase b a basketful of /b date b honey for /b just a single b i zuz /i , and /b yet b the Babylonians do not engage in Torah /b study more extensively? Since the cost of food is so low and they do not need to work hard to support themselves, the Babylonians should be more extensively engaged in Torah study., b That night, /b the dates he ate b afflicted him /b and he suffered from indigestion. In light of this, Ulla retracted his original assessment of the Babylonians and instead praised them and b said: A basketful of lethal poison, /b i.e., the dates that cause indigestion, sells b for a i zuz /i in Babylonia, and /b despite the fact that they suffer its effects b the Babylonians /b still b engage in Torah /b study.,The Gemara returns to its discussion of prophecies of consolation that are related to those in the book of Hosea. b And Rabbi Elazar said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “And many peoples shall go and say: Go and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; /b and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths” (Isaiah 2:3)? The Gemara notes that Jacob is the only Patriarch mentioned and asks: Is b He the God of Jacob and not the God of Abraham and Isaac? /b , b Rather, /b the verse specifically mentions Jacob to allude to the fact that the Temple will ultimately be described in the same way that Jacob referred to it. It will b not /b be referred to b as /b it was referred to by b Abraham. It is written of him /b that when he prayed at the location of the Temple mountain, he called it b mount, as it is stated: “As it is said on this day: On the mount where the Lord is seen” /b (Genesis 22:14). b And /b it will b not /b be referred to b as /b it was referred to by b Isaac. It is written of him /b that he called the location of the Temple b field /b when he prayed there, b as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field” /b (Genesis 24:63). b Rather, /b it will be described b as /b it was referred to by b Jacob, who called it house, as it is stated: “And he called the name of that place Beth-El” /b (Genesis 28:19), which means house of God., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The day of the b ingathering of exiles is as great as the day on which heaven and earth were created. /b This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word day in these two contexts, b as it is stated /b concerning the ingathering of exiles: b “And the children of Judea and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall go up out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel” /b (Hosea 2:2), b and it is written /b in the narrative of Creation: b “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” /b (Genesis 1:5).,We learned in the mishna: In the case of b an orphan /b with multiple guardians, if each of his b guardians slaughtered /b a Paschal lamb b on his behalf, /b he may b eat in /b whichever b place he wishes. /b The Gemara suggests: b You can learn from it /b that b there is retroactive clarification, /b and one’s ultimate decision as to which group he wishes to be part of retroactively indicates that from the outset he was registered in that group. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification. The Gemara therefore rejects this suggestion: b Rabbi Zeira said: /b The i halakha /i in the mishna is not based on retroactive clarification, but rather on the following principle: The verse states: “They shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, b a lamb for a household” /b (Exodus 12:3), indicating that a minor’s membership in the household is sufficient for him to be registered in the household’s Paschal lamb b in any case, /b even without his agreement., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A lamb for a household teaches that a person brings and slaughters /b a Paschal lamb b on behalf of his minor son and daughter and on behalf of his Canaanite slave and maidservant, whether with their consent or without their consent. /b Since they do not have a legal identity independent of their household membership, their membership is sufficient to include them, even without their consent. b However, one may not slaughter /b the Paschal lamb b on behalf of his adult son or daughter, or on behalf of his Hebrew slave and maidservant, or on behalf of his wife unless /b he has b their consent. /b Since they have legal identities independent of their household membership, their inclusion can be achieved only through their consent., b It was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b A person may not slaughter /b a Paschal lamb b on behalf of his adult son or daughter, or on behalf of his Hebrew slave and maidservant, or on behalf of his wife unless /b he has b their consent. However, he may slaughter on behalf of his son or daughter who are minors, or on behalf of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, both with their consent or without their consent. And /b if b any of them who slaughtered /b a Paschal lamb for themselves, b and their master, /b i.e., the father or owner, also b slaughtered on their behalf, they /b can b fulfill /b their obligation only b with /b the Paschal lamb b of their master, and they do not fulfill /b their obligation b with their own. /b ,The i baraita /i concludes that this is the i halakha /i b except /b with regard to b the wife, who is able to protest /b to her husband and say: I choose not to be supported by you and will therefore not grant you the proceeds of my labor. She therefore retains the ability to slaughter her own Paschal lamb, despite the fact that her husband slaughtered one on her behalf.,The fact that the conclusion of the i baraita /i specifically mentions a wife implies she is the only exception, but adult children or Hebrew slaves would perforce be included in their father’s and master’s Paschal lamb, even if they slaughtered one for themselves. The Gemara challenges this: b What is different /b about b a wife; /b how is her status any different from that of adult children or Hebrew slaves? b Rava said: /b The conclusion of the i baraita /i is not limited to a wife, rather, it is referring to b a wife and all who are similar to her, /b including adult children and Hebrew slaves. Since they all enjoy legal identities independent of their master, they may slaughter a Paschal lamb for themselves despite the master’s intention to include them in his. However, minor children and Canaanite slaves lack any legally independent identity, and so their master’s intention for them to be included in his Paschal lamb precludes their ability to offer their own.,The Gemara notes that b this matter itself is difficult. You said /b in the conclusion of the i baraita /i : b Except for a wife, who is able to protest. /b She may therefore slaughter her own Paschal lamb, despite the fact that her husband slaughtered one on her behalf. The i baraita /i states that b the reason /b she can slaughter her own Paschal lamb b is that she protests, /b which implies that if b she does not protest, she /b must b fulfill /b her obligation b with her husband’s /b Paschal lamb. b But doesn’t the first clause /b of that same i baraita /i b teach /b that a man slaughters a Paschal lamb on behalf of his adult children, Hebrew slaves, and b his wife only with their consent, /b from which one can infer that in an b indeterminate /b case, where the woman did not explicitly give her consent, b she does not fulfill /b her obligation with her husband’s lamb?,The Gemara resolves this difficulty: b What /b does the first clause mean when it teaches that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb b only with their consent? It is not /b referring to a case b where they /b explicitly b said yes, /b thereby clarifying their intent; b rather, /b it is referring to b an indeterminate case /b where they did not explicitly agree, but their implicit consent is presumed. The ruling of the i baraita /i comes b to exclude /b only the case b where they /b explicitly b said no, /b clearly excluding themselves from their master’s Paschal lamb.,The Gemara challenges this reading of the first clause. b But wasn’t /b it taught in the i baraita /i : b Any of them, /b i.e., minor children and Canaanite slaves, b who slaughtered /b a Paschal lamb b and their master /b also b slaughtered /b a Paschal lamb b on their behalf, fulfills /b his obligation only b with /b the lamb b of their master, which is /b an b indeterminate /b case, b and /b the i baraita /i b teaches: /b This is the i halakha /i , b except for the wife, because she is able to protest, /b and except for adult children and Hebrew slaves, who share her independent status, as explained previously in the Gemara? Apparently, a person is included in his master’s sacrifice, unless he explicitly indicates intent to the contrary., b Rava /b resolved this difficulty and b said: Since they slaughtered /b their own Paschal lambs, b you do not have a protest greater than this. /b The act of slaughtering their own Paschal lambs clearly demonstrates they intend to partake of their own lambs and do not intend to be included in the master’s group.,We learned in the mishna: b A slave /b jointly owned b by two partners /b may not eat from the lamb of either of them unless it was stipulated beforehand from whose lamb he will partake. b Rav Eina the Elder raised a contradiction before Rav Naḥman. We learned /b in the mishna: b A slave /b jointly owned b by two partners /b may not eat from the lamb of either of them. b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b he wanted /b to, b he /b may b eat from this /b one, and if b he wanted /b to, b he /b may b eat from that /b one?,Rav Naḥman b said to him: Eina the Elder, and some say /b that he called him b black pot [ i patya /i ], /b a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: b From me and from you, /b clarification of this b i halakha /i will be concluded. The mishna /b is referring to a case where the partners b are exacting with each other. /b Therefore, presumably, neither partner will allow his half of the slave to partake from his partner’s Paschal lamb. b The i baraita /i /b is referring to a case where b they are not exacting with each other. /b In that case, the slave may eat from the Paschal lamb of whichever partner he chooses.,We learned in the mishna: b One who is half slave and half free man may not eat from his master’s /b Paschal lamb. It is specifically b from his master’s /b lamb that b he may not eat; however, from his own /b lamb b he may eat. But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : He b may eat neither from his own nor from his master’s /b Paschal lamb?,The Gemara answers that this is b not difficult: Here, /b the i baraita /i that rules that the half slave may partake neither of his own nor of his master’s lamb, b is in accordance with the original /b version of the b mishna, /b which cites Beit Hillel’s opinion that the master retains his rights to the half slave. b There, /b the mishna that allows the half slave to partake of his own lamb, b is in accordance with the ultimate /b version of the b mishna, /b which cites Beit Hillel’s revised opinion, according to which the status of the half slave is altered such that he is considered like a free man as pertains to his inclusion in a group for the Paschal lamb. b As we learned /b in a mishna: b One who is half slave and half free man serves his master one day and himself one day; /b this is b the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: /b |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 138| 14b. תניא הנודר בתורה לא אמר כלום במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין,קתני במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה צריך למימר,אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא הא דמחתא אורייתא אארעא הא דנקיט לה בידיה מחתא על ארעא דעתיה אגווילי נקט לה בידיה דעתיה על האזכרות שבה,ואיבעית אימא דמחתא על ארעא והא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמחתא על ארעא כיוון דאמר במה שכתוב בה מהני וזו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני,ואי בעית אימא כולה מציעתא נמי דנקיט ליה בידיה והא קא משמע לן כיוון דנקיט ליה בידיה אף על גב דלא אמר אלא בה כמאן דאמר במה שכתוב בה דמי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big קונם שאני ישן שאני מדבר שאני מהלך האומר לאשה קונם שאני משמשך הרי זה בלא יחל דברו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איתמר קונם עיני בשינה היום אם אישן למחר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אל יישן היום שמא יישן למחר ורב נחמן אמר יישן היום ולא חיישינן שמא יישן למחר ומודה רב יהודה באומר קונם עיני בשינה למחר אם אישן היום שישן היום | 14b. § b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who takes a vow /b by associating an item b with a Torah /b scroll b has not said anything, /b and the vow does not take effect. However, he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. /b Since the name of God is written in the Torah, he has invoked God’s name in his vow. If he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld. /b ,The Gemara asks: b It is taught /b that if he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. Need it be said /b that the i halakha /i is the same if he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it? /b That is obvious., b Rav Naḥman said: /b This is b not difficult. This /b case, in which the item is associated with it and with what is written in it, is referring to b where the Torah /b scroll b is placed on the ground, /b while b that /b case, in which the item is associated with what is written in it, is referring to b where he is holding it in his hands. /b If b it is placed on the ground, /b whether one mentions the Torah scroll or what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the parchment, /b i.e., the physical scroll, as he naturally assumes that since the scroll is placed on the ground, the parchment must be blank. Therefore, the vow takes effect only if he mentions both it and what is written in it, indicating that he is aware that it is a Torah scroll. However, where b he is holding it in his hands /b and associates the item with what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the mentions [ i azkarot /i ] /b of the name of God b that are in it, /b and the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the entire i baraita /i is referring to a case b where it is placed on the ground, and this /b middle clause of: With what is written in the Torah scroll, b teaches us that even though it is placed on the ground, since he said: With what is written in it, it is /b an b effective /b vow, as he was clearly referring to the names of God. b And /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b teaches /b employing the style: b This, and it is unnecessary to say that. /b The i baraita /i teaches the i halakha /i where he said: What is written in it, which has a novel element, and then states a more obvious ruling, i.e., it goes without saying that if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the entire middle clause, /b i.e., the latter clause, where he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, is referring to a case b where he is holding /b the Torah scroll b in his hands. And /b the i baraita /i b teaches us this: Since he is holding it in his hands, even though he said only: With /b the Torah scroll, and did not explicitly state: With what is written in it, he is b considered /b to be b like one who said: With what is written in it. /b Therefore, the item is prohibited., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to one who says: b Sleeping is /b forbidden b for me as if /b it were b an offering [ i konam /i ], /b thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: b Speaking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or: b Walking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or b one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is i konam /i for me, /b if he violates the vow b he is in /b violation of the prohibition b “He shall not profane his word” /b (Numbers 30:3)., strong GEMARA: /strong b It was stated /b that with regard to one who says: b Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes today if I will sleep tomorrow, Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: He may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow /b and thereby cause the vow to have been violated today, retroactively. b And Rav Naḥman said: He may sleep today, /b as there is currently no prohibition, b and we are not concerned that he will perhaps sleep tomorrow, /b as he will be careful not to sleep. b And Rav Yehuda concedes /b that b in /b a case where b he says: Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today, he may sleep today. /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 53| 14b. מורד במלכות הוא ולא צריך למידייניה אמרה לו עדיין שאול קיים ולא יצא טבעך בעולם אמר לה (שמואל א כה, לג) ברוך טעמך וברוכה את אשר כליתני [היום הזה] מבא בדמים,דמים תרתי משמע אלא מלמד שגילתה את שוקה והלך לאורה ג' פרסאות אמר לה השמיעי לי אמרה לו (שמואל א כה, לא) לא תהיה זאת לך לפוקה זאת מכלל דאיכא אחריתי ומאי ניהו מעשה דבת שבע ומסקנא הכי הואי,(שמואל א כה, כט) והיתה נפש אדוני צרורה בצרור החיים כי הוות מיפטרא מיניה אמרה ליה (שמואל א כה, לא) והטיב ה' לאדוני וזכרת את אמתך,אמר רב נחמן היינו דאמרי אינשי איתתא בהדי שותא פילכא איכא דאמרי שפיל ואזיל בר אווזא ועינוהי מיטייפי,חולדה דכתיב (מלכים ב כב, יד) וילך חלקיהו הכהן ואחיקם ועכבור וגו' ובמקום דקאי ירמיה היכי מתנביא איהי אמרי בי רב משמיה דרב חולדה קרובת ירמיה היתה ולא הוה מקפיד עליה,ויאשיה גופיה היכי שביק ירמיה ומשדר לגבה אמרי דבי רבי שילא מפני שהנשים רחמניות הן,ר' יוחנן אמר ירמיה לא הוה התם שהלך להחזיר עשרת השבטים ומנלן דאהדור דכתיב (יחזקאל ז, יג) כי המוכר אל הממכר לא ישוב אפשר יובל בטל ונביא מתנבא עליו שיבטל אלא מלמד שירמיה החזירן,ויאשיהו בן אמון מלך עליהן דכתיב (מלכים ב כג, יז) ויאמר מה הציון הלז אשר אני רואה ויאמרו אליו אנשי העיר הקבר איש האלהים אשר בא מיהודה ויקרא את הדברים האלה אשר עשית על המזבח בבית אל וכי מה טיבו של יאשיהו על המזבח בבית אל אלא מלמד שיאשיהו מלך עליהן רב נחמן אמר מהכא (הושע ו, יא) גם יהודה שת קציר לך בשובי שבות עמי,אסתר דכתיב (אסתר ה, א) ויהי ביום השלישי ותלבש אסתר מלכות בגדי מלכות מיבעי ליה אלא שלבשתה רוח הקדש כתיב הכא ותלבש וכתיב התם (דברי הימים א יב, יט) ורוח לבשה את עמשי וגו',אמר רב נחמן לא יאה יהירותא לנשי תרתי נשי יהירן הויין וסניין שמייהו חדא שמה זיבורתא וחדא שמה כרכושתא זיבורתא כתיב בה (שופטים ד, ו) ותשלח ותקרא לברק ואילו איהי לא אזלה לגביה כרכושתא כתיב בה (מלכים ב כב, טו) אמרו לאיש ולא אמרה אמרו למלך,אמר רב נחמן חולדה מבני בניו של יהושע היתה כתיב הכא (מלכים ב כב, יד) בן חרחס וכתיב התם (שופטים ב,ט) בתמנת חרס,איתיביה רב עינא סבא לרב נחמן שמונה נביאים והם כהנים יצאו מרחב הזונה ואלו הן נריה ברוך ושריה מחסיה ירמיה חלקיה חנמאל ושלום רבי יהודה אומר אף חולדה הנביאה מבני בניה של רחב הזונה היתה כתיב הכא בן תקוה (מלכים ב כב, יד) וכתיב התם (יהושע ב, יח) את תקות חוט השני,אמר ליה עינא סבא ואמרי לה פתיא אוכמא מיני ומינך תסתיים שמעתא דאיגיירא ונסבה יהושע ומי הוו ליה זרעא ליהושע והכתיב (דברי הימים א ז, כז) נון בנו יהושע בנו בני לא הוו ליה בנתן הוו ליה | 14b. Nabal, your husband, b is a rebel against the throne, /b as David had already been anointed as king by the prophet Samuel, and Nabal refused his orders. b And /b therefore b there is no need to try him, /b as a rebel is not accorded the ordinary prescriptions governing judicial proceedings. Abigail b said to him: /b You lack the authority to act in this manner, as b Saul is still alive. /b He is the king in actual practice, and b your seal [ i tivakha /i ] has not /b yet b spread across the world, /b i.e., your kingship is not yet known to all. Therefore, you are not authorized to try someone for rebelling against the monarchy. David accepted her words and b said to her: /b “And b blessed be your discretion and blessed be you who have kept me this day from coming to bloodguiltiness [ i damim /i ]” /b (I Samuel 25:33).,The Gemara asks: The plural term b i damim /i , /b literally, bloods, b indicates two. /b Why did David not use the singular term i dam /i ? b Rather, this teaches that /b Abigail b revealed her thigh, /b and he lusted after her, b and he went three parasangs by the fire /b of his desire for her, and b said to her: Listen to me, /b i.e., listen to me and allow me to be intimate with you. Abigail then b said to him: “Let this not be a stumbling block for you” /b (I Samuel 25:31). b By inference, /b from the word b “this,” /b it can be understood that b there is someone else /b who will in fact be a stumbling block for him, b and what is /b this referring to? b The incident involving Bathsheba. And in the end this is what was, /b as indeed he stumbled with Bathsheba. This demonstrates that Abigail was a prophetess, as she knew that this would occur. This also explains why David blessed Abigail for keeping him from being responsible for two incidents involving blood that day: Abigail’s menstrual blood and the shedding of Nabal’s blood.,Apropos Abigail, the Gemara explains additional details in the story. Abigail said to David: b “Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bond of life /b with the Lord your God” (I Samuel 25:29), and b when she parted from him she said to him: “And when the Lord shall have dealt well with my lord, and you shall remember your handmaid” /b (I Samuel 25:31)., b Rav Naḥman said /b that b this /b explains the folk saying b that people say: While a woman is engaged in conversation /b she also holds b the spindle, /b i.e., while a woman is engaged in one activity she is already taking steps with regard to another. Abigail came to David in order to save her husband Nabal, but at the same time she indicates that if her husband dies, David should remember her and marry her. And indeed, after Nabal’s death David took Abigail for his wife. b Some say /b that Rav Naḥman referred to a different saying: b The goose stoops /b its head b as it goes /b along, b but its eyes look on from afar /b to find what it is looking for. So too, Abigail acted in similar fashion., b Huldah /b was a prophetess, b as it is written: “So Hilkiah the priest and Ahikam and Achbor /b and Shaphan and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess” (II Kings 22:14) as emissaries of King Josiah. The Gemara asks: b But if Jeremiah was found there, how could she prophesy? /b Out of respect for Jeremiah, who was her superior, it would have been fitting that she not prophesy in his presence. The Sages of b the school of Rav say in the name of Rav: Huldah was a /b close b relative of Jeremiah, and he did not object to her /b prophesying in his presence.,The Gemara asks: b But how could Josiah himself ignore Jeremiah and send /b emissaries b to /b Huldah? The Sages of b the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Because women are /b more b compassionate, /b and he hoped that what she would tell them would not be overly harsh., b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b a different answer: b Jeremiah was not there /b at the time, because b he went to bring back the ten tribes /b from their exile. b And from where do we derive that he brought them back? As it is written: “For the seller shall not return to that which he has sold” /b (Ezekiel 7:13), i.e., Ezekiel prophesied that in the future the Jubilee Year would no longer be in effect. Now b is it possible that the Jubilee had /b already been b annulled? /b The i halakhot /i of the Jubilee Year apply only when all of the tribes of Israel are settled in their respective places, which could not have happened since the exile of the ten tribes more than a century earlier, b but the prophet is prophesying that it will cease /b only in the future. b Rather, this teaches that Jeremiah brought back /b the ten tribes from their exile., b And Josiah the son of Amon ruled over the /b ten tribes, b as it is written: “Then he said: What monument is that which I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel” /b (II Kings 23:17). b Now what connection did Josiah, /b king of Judea, b have with the altar at Bethel, /b a city in the kingdom of Israel? b Rather, this teaches that Josiah ruled over the /b ten tribes of Israel. b Rav Naḥman said: /b Proof that the tribes returned may be adduced b from /b the verse b here: “Also, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would return the captivity of My people” /b (Hosea 6:11), which indicates that they returned to their places., b Esther /b was also a prophetess, b as it is written: “And it came to pass on the third day that Esther clothed herself in royalty” /b (Esther 5:1). b It should have said: /b Esther clothed herself in b royal garments. Rather, /b this alludes to the fact b that she clothed herself with a divine /b spirit of b inspiration. It is written here: “And she clothed herself,” and it is written elsewhere: “And the spirit clothed Amasai” /b (I Chronicles 12:19). Just as there the reference is to being enclothed by a spirit, so too Esther was enclothed by a spirit of divine inspiration.,An additional point is mentioned with regard to the prophetesses. b Rav Naḥman said: Haughtiness is not befitting a woman. /b And a proof to this is that b there were two haughty women, whose names were /b identical to the names of b loathsome /b creatures. b One, /b Deborah, b was called a hornet, /b as her Hebrew name, Devorah, means hornet; b and one, /b Huldah, b was called a marten, /b as her name is the Hebrew term for that creature. From where is it known that they were haughty? b With regard to /b Deborah, b the hornet, it is written: “And she sent and called Barak” /b (Judges 4:6), b but she herself did not go to him. /b And b with regard to /b Huldah, b the marten, it is written: “Say to the man /b that sent you to me” (II Kings 22:15), b but she did not say: Say to the king. /b ,Furthermore, b Rav Naḥman said: Huldah was a descendant of Joshua. /b An allusion to this b is written here: /b “Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum, the son of Tikvah, b the son of Harhas [ i ḥarḥas /i ]” /b (II Kings 22:14), b and it says elsewhere /b with regard to Joshua: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance b in Timnath-heres [ i ḥeres /i ]” /b (Judges 2:9), therefore intimating that there is a certain connection between them., b Rav Eina the Elder raised an objection /b from a i baraita /i b to Rav Naḥman’s /b teaching. The i baraita /i indicates that Huldah was in fact a descendant of Rahab, and seemingly not of Joshua: b Eight prophets, who were /b also b priests, descended from Rahab the prostitute, and they are: Neriah; /b his son b Baruch; Seraiah; Mahseiah; Jeremiah; /b his father, b Hilkiah; /b Jeremiah’s cousin b Hanamel; and /b Hanamel’s father, b Shallum. Rabbi Yehuda said: So too, Huldah the prophetess was a descendant of Rahab the prostitute, /b as b it is written here /b with regard to Huldah: b “The son of Tikvah,” and it is written elsewhere /b in reference to Rahab’s escape from the destruction of Jericho: b “This cord of [ i tikvat /i ] scarlet thread” /b (Joshua 2:18).,Rav Naḥman responded to Eina the Elder and b said to him: Eina the Elder, and some say /b that he said to him: b Blackened pot, /b i.e., my colleague in Torah, who has toiled and blackened his face in Torah study, b from me and from you the matter may be concluded, /b i.e., the explanation lies in a combination of our two statements. b For /b Rahab b converted and married Joshua, /b and therefore Huldah descended from both Joshua and Rahab. The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But did Joshua have any descendants? But isn’t it written /b in the genealogical list of the tribe of Ephraim: b “Nun his son, Joshua his son” /b (I Chronicles 7:27)? The listing does not continue any further, implying that Joshua had no sons. The Gemara answers: Indeed, b he did not have sons, /b but b he did have daughters. /b |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 201| 35b. כאן לאחר ברכה,א"ר חנינא בר פפא כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו גוזל להקב"ה וכנסת ישראל שנא' (משלי כח, כד) גוזל אביו ואמו ואומר אין פשע חבר הוא לאיש משחית ואין אביו אלא הקב"ה שנא' (דברים לב, ו) הלא הוא אביך קנך ואין אמו אלא כנסת ישראל שנא' (משלי א, ח) שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך,מאי חבר הוא לאיש משחית א"ר חנינא בר פפא חבר הוא לירבעם בן נבט שהשחית את ישראל לאביהם שבשמים:,ר' חנינא בר פפא רמי כתיב (הושע ב, יא) ולקחתי דגני בעתו וגו' וכתיב (דברים יא, יד) ואספת דגנך וגו',ל"ק כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום,ת"ר ואספת דגנך מה ת"ל לפי שנא' (יהושע א, ח) לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך יכול דברים ככתבן ת"ל ואספת דגנך הנהג בהן מנהג דרך ארץ דברי ר' ישמעאל,ר"ש בן יוחי אומר אפשר אדם חורש בשעת חרישה וזורע בשעת זריעה וקוצר בשעת קצירה ודש בשעת דישה וזורה בשעת הרוח תורה מה תהא עליה אלא בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום מלאכתן נעשית ע"י אחרים שנא' (ישעיהו סא, ה) ועמדו זרים ורעו צאנכם וגו' ובזמן שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום מלאכתן נעשית ע"י עצמן שנא' (דברים יא, יד) ואספת דגנך ולא עוד אלא שמלאכת אחרים נעשית על ידן שנא' (דברים כח, מח) ועבדת את אויביך וגו',אמר אביי הרבה עשו כרבי ישמעאל ועלתה בידן כר' שמעון בן יוחי ולא עלתה בידן,א"ל רבא לרבנן במטותא מינייכו ביומי ניסן וביומי תשרי לא תתחזו קמאי כי היכי דלא תטרדו במזונייכו כולא שתא:,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן משום רבי יהודה בר' אלעאי בא וראה שלא כדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים דורות הראשונים עשו תורתן קבע ומלאכתן עראי זו וזו נתקיימה בידן דורות האחרונים שעשו מלאכתן קבע ותורתן עראי זו וזו לא נתקיימה בידן,ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אר"י משום ר"י בר' אלעאי בא וראה שלא כדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים דורות הראשונים היו מכניסין פירותיהן דרך טרקסמון כדי לחייבן במעשר דורות האחרונים מכניסין פירותיהן דרך גגות דרך חצרות דרך קרפיפות כדי לפטרן מן המעשר דא"ר ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר עד שיראה פני הבית שנא' (דברים כו, יג) בערתי הקדש מן הבית,ור' יוחנן אמר אפי' חצר קובעת שנא' (דברים כו, יב) ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו:,חוץ מן היין וכו': מאי שנא יין אילימא משום דאשתני לעלויא אשתני לברכה והרי שמן דאשתני לעלויא ולא אשתני לברכה דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן א"ר יצחק א"ר יוחנן שמן זית מברכין עליו בפה"ע,אמרי התם משום דלא אפשר היכי נבריך נבריך בורא פרי הזית פירא גופיה זית אקרי,ונבריך עליה בורא פרי עץ זית אלא אמר מר זוטרא חמרא זיין משחא לא זיין,ומשחא לא זיין והתנן הנודר מן המזון מותר במים ובמלח והוינן בה מים ומלח הוא דלא אקרי מזון הא כל מילי אקרי מזון,נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב ושמואל דאמרי אין מברכין בורא מיני מזונות אלא בה' המינין בלבד וא"ר הונא באומר כל הזן עלי,אלמא משחא זיין אלא חמרא סעיד ומשחא לא סעיד וחמרא מי סעיד והא רבא הוה שתי חמרי כל מעלי יומא דפסחא כי היכי דנגרריה ללביה וניכול מצה טפי טובא גריר פורתא סעיד,ומי סעיד כלל והכתיב (תהלים קד, טו) ויין ישמח לבב אנוש ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד וגו' נהמא הוא דסעיד חמרא לא סעיד אלא חמרא אית ביה תרתי סעיד ומשמח נהמא מסעד סעיד שמוחי לא משמח,אי הכי נבריך עליה שלש ברכות לא קבעי אינשי סעודתייהו עלויה,א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא אי קבע עלויה סעודתיה מאי א"ל לכשיבא אליהו ויאמר אי הויא קביעותא השתא מיהא בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם:,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן א"ר יצחק א"ר יוחנן שמן זית מברכין עליו בורא פרי העץ היכי דמי אילימא דקא שתי ליה (משתה) אוזוקי מזיק ליה דתניא השותה שמן של תרומה משלם את הקרן ואינו משלם את החומש הסך שמן של תרומה משלם את הקרן ומשלם את החומש,אלא דקא אכיל ליה על ידי פת אי הכי הויא ליה פת עיקר והוא טפל ותנן זה הכלל כל שהוא עיקר ועמו טפלה מברך על העיקר ופוטר את הטפלה אלא דקא שתי ליה ע"י אניגרון דאמר רבה בר שמואל אניגרון מיא דסלקא אנסיגרון מיא | 35b. and b here, /b where it says that He gave the earth to mankind refers to b after a blessing /b is recited., b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: Anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he stole from God and the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Whoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a destroyer” /b (Proverbs 28:24). The phrase, b his father, refers to none other than God, as it is stated: “Is He not your Father Who created you, /b Who made you and established you” (Deuteronomy 32:6). The phrase b his mother refers to none other than the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother” /b (Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mouth of the mother, apparently means that your mother is the community of Israel., b What /b is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: b He is the companion of a destroyer? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: /b He is b a companion of Jeroboam ben Nevat, who corrupted Israel before their Father in heaven /b by sinning and causing others to sin.,On a similar note, the Gemara cites that b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa raised a contradiction: It is written, “I will take back My grain at its time /b and wine in its season” (Hosea 2:11), b and it is written: “And you shall gather your grain, /b your wine and your oil” (Deuteronomy 11:14). To whom does the grain belong: To God, or to the people?,The Gemara responds: This is b not difficult. Here, /b where God promises Israel that they will gather their grain, the verse refers to b a time when they perform God’s will. Here, /b where the verse indicates that the grain belongs to God, it refers to b a time when they do not perform God’s will, /b as then He will take back the grain, demonstrating that it belongs to Him., b The Sages taught: What /b is the meaning of that which b the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain”? Because it is stated: “This Torah shall not depart from your mouths, /b and you shall contemplate in it day and night” (Joshua 1:8), b I might /b have thought b that these matters are /b to be understood b as they are written; /b one is to literally spend his days immersed exclusively in Torah study. Therefore, b the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain, /b your wine and your oil,” b assume in their /b regard, b the way of the world; /b set aside time not only for Torah, but also for work. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. /b , b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Is it possible that a person plows in the plowing season and sows in the sowing season and harvests in the harvest season and threshes in the threshing season and winnows in the windy season, /b as grain is separated from the chaff by means of the wind, and is constantly busy; b what will become of Torah? Rather, /b one must dedicate himself exclusively to Torah at the expense of other endeavors; as b when Israel performs God’s will, their work is performed by others, as it is stated: “And strangers will stand and feed your flocks, /b and foreigners will be your plowmen and your vinedressers” (Isaiah 61:5). b When Israel does not perform God’s will, their work is performed by them /b themselves, as it is stated: b “And you shall gather your grain.” Moreover, /b if Israel fails to perform God’s will, b others’ work will be performed by them, as it is stated: “You shall serve your enemy /b whom God shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness and in want of all things” (Deuteronomy 28:48).,Summing up this dispute, b Abaye said: /b Although there is room for both opinions, b many have acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, /b and combined working for a living and learning Torah, b and /b although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, b were successful /b in their Torah study. b Many have acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai and were not successful /b in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.,Similarly, b Rava said to the Sages /b who would attend his study hall: b I implore you; during /b the months of b Nisan and Tishrei, /b the crucial agricultural periods, b do not appear before me. /b Engage in your agricultural work then b so that you will not be preoccupied with your sustece all year. /b ,Summarizing these statements, b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of /b the i tanna /i b Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El’ai: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations; /b rather they are their inferiors. b The earlier generations made their Torah permanent and their work occasional, /b and b this, /b Torah study, b and that, /b their work, b were successful for them. /b However, b the latter generations who made their work permanent and their Torah occasional, neither this nor that was successful for them. /b ,Along these lines, b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El’ai: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations. /b In the b earlier generations, /b people b would bring their fruits into their courtyards through the main gate in order to obligate them in tithes. /b However, b the latter generations bring their fruits through roofs, through courtyards and through enclosed courtyards, /b avoiding the main gate b in order to exempt them from /b the mitzva of b tithing. As Rabbi Yannai said: Untithed produce is not obligated in /b the mitzva of b tithing until it sees the front of the house /b through which people enter and exit, and it is brought into the house that way b as it is stated /b in the formula of the confession of the tithes: b “I have removed the consecrated from the house” /b (Deuteronomy 26:13), as the obligation to tithe produce whose purpose has not yet been designated takes effect only when it is brought into the house., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even /b bringing it into the b courtyard determines /b its status as having completed the production process and obligates the produce to be tithed, b as it is written /b in the confession of the tithes: “And I have given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow, b and they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied” /b (Deuteronomy 26:12).,We learned in our mishna: Over fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, b with the exception of wine /b that even though it originates from fruit of the tree, a separate blessing was established for it: Who creates the fruit of the vine. The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about b wine, /b that a separate blessing was established for it? b If you say that because the fruit changed for the better /b into wine, therefore, b the blessing changed. /b Olive b oil changed for the better and /b nevertheless, b its blessing did not change. As Rabbi Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Over olive oil, one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, /b just as he does over the fruit itself.,The Sages b said: There, /b in the case of oil, b it is because it is impossible /b to find an appropriate blessing, as b how shall we recite the blessing? /b If b we recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive, the fruit itself is called olive /b and that is what was created. The oil is a man-made product of that fruit, rendering that formula inappropriate. Similarly, reciting a formula parallel to the blessing on wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, is inappropriate as the grapes themselves are the fruit that was created, as opposed to oil which was not.,The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, it is still possible to formulate a blessing, b as we may recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive tree, /b which would be parallel to the blessing recited over wine. b Rather, Mar Zutra offered /b a different rationale: The reason that no separate blessing was established over oil is because, as opposed to b wine /b that b nourishes, oil does not nourish. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And oil does not nourish? Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b One who vows that nourishment /b is forbidden to him b is permitted /b to eat b water and salt, /b as they are not considered nourishment. b And we discussed this /b i halakha /i : By inference, b water and salt are not considered nourishment, but all /b other edible b items are considered nourishment. /b , b Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav and Shmuel, who said: One only recites: Who creates various kinds of nourishment, over the five species /b of grain b alone, /b as they alone are considered nourishing. b And Rav Huna said /b as a solution that this mishna referred to a case b where /b he vows b and says: Anything that nourishes /b is prohibited b to me. /b That formula includes anything that is at all nourishing and therefore only water and salt are excluded. Olive oil is not excluded., b Apparently, oil nourishes. Rather, /b there is another distinction between wine and oil: b Wine satisfies, oil does not satisfy. /b Wine not only nourishes, but it is also filling. The Gemara asks: b And does wine satisfy? Wouldn’t Rava drink wine all /b day on b the eve of Passover in order to stimulate his heart, /b i.e., whet his appetite b so that he might eat more i matza /i /b at the seder? Wine does not satisfy, it whets the appetite. The Gemara answers: b A lot /b of wine b stimulates, a little satisfies. /b ,Again, the Gemara asks: b Does /b wine b satisfy at all? Isn’t it written: “Wine gladdens the heart of man, /b making the face brighter than oil, b and bread fills man’s heart” /b (Psalms 104:15); b bread is that which satisfies, wine does not satisfy. Rather, /b this verse is not a proof; b wine has two /b advantages, b it satisfies and gladdens. Bread, /b however, b satisfies but does not gladden. /b ,Since wine possesses all of these virtues, the Gemara asks: b If so, let us recite /b the b three blessings /b of Grace after Meals b over it /b after drinking, just as we do after eating bread. The Gemara answers: b People do not base their meals on /b wine., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: If one based his meal on it, what is the /b ruling? Must he recite the Grace after Meals as he does after bread? He replied: b When Elijah comes and says whether /b or not b it can serve as the basis /b for a meal, this will be resolved. b Nevertheless, now, /b until then, b his intention is /b rendered b irrelevant by /b the opinions of b all other men /b and he is not required to recite the complete Grace after Meals.,Previously, the Gemara cited the i halakha /i that one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil. The Gemara discusses b the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil /b just as he does over the fruit itself. b What are the circumstances? If you say that he drank it /b plain, b it causes damage to /b the drinker. b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who drinks oil of i teruma /i , /b while unaware that it was i teruma /i , b pays the principal and does not pay /b the additional b fifth /b which is the typical penalty for unintentional misuse of consecrated property, as in that case the individual is considered to have only damaged consecrated property without deriving benefit from it. b One who anoints /b his body b with the oil of i teruma /i pays the principal and pays the fifth, /b as he derived benefit from it. Apparently, one who drinks oil derives no benefit and it even causes him damage., b Rather, /b it is referring to a case where b he eats /b the oil b by /b dipping b bread /b into it. b If so, /b the b bread is primary and /b the oil b secondary, and we learned /b in a mishna: b This is the principle: Any /b food b that is primary, and /b is eaten b with /b food that is b secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary /b food, and that blessing b exempts the secondary /b from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it. A blessing need only be recited over the bread, not over the oil. b Rather, /b it is referring to a case b where he is drinking it by means of an i anigeron /i , as Rabba bar Shmuel said: i Anigeron /i /b is b water /b in which a b beet /b was boiled, b i ansigeron /i /b is b the water /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 30| 117a. אי דינא אי קנסא א"ל אי דינא גמרינן מיניה אי קנסא לא גמרינן מיניה,ומנא תימרא דמקנסא לא גמרינן דתניא בראשונה היו אומרים המטמא והמנסך חזרו לומר אף המדמע,חזרו אין לא חזרו לא מאי טעמא לאו משום דקנסא הוא וקנסא לא גמרינן מיניה,לא מעיקרא סברי להפסד מרובה חששו להפסד מועט לא חששו ולבסוף סברי להפסד מועט נמי חששו,איני והא תני אבוה דרבי אבין בראשונה היו אומרים המטמא והמדמע חזרו לומר אף המנסך חזרו אין לא חזרו לא,מאי טעמא לאו משום דלא גמרינן מקנסא,לא מעיקרא סברי כרבי אבין ולבסוף סברי כרבי ירמיה,מעיקרא סברי כרבי אבין דאמר רבי אבין זרק חץ מתחילת ארבע ולבסוף ארבע וקרע שיראין בהליכתו פטור שהרי עקירה צורך הנחה היא ומתחייב בנפשו,ולבסוף סברי כר' ירמיה דא"ר ירמיה משעת הגבהה קנייה איחייב ליה ממון מתחייב בנפשו לא הוי עד שעת ניסוך,רב הונא בר יהודה איקלע לבי אביוני אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל כלום מעשה בא לידך א"ל ישראל שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והראה ממון חבירו בא לידי וחייבתיו,א"ל אהדר עובדא למריה דתני ישראל שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והראה ממון חבירו פטור ואם נטל ונתן ביד חייב,אמר רבה אם הראה מעצמו כנשא ונתן ביד דמי,ההוא גברא דאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים ואחוי אחמרא דרב מרי בריה דרב פנחס בריה דרב חסדא א"ל דרי ואמטי בהדן דרא ואמטי בהדייהו אתא לקמיה דרב אשי פטריניה,א"ל רבנן לרב אשי והתניא אם נשא ונתן ביד חייב א"ל הני מילי היכא דלא אוקמיה עילויה מעיקרא אבל היכא דאוקמיה עילויה מעיקרא מיקלי קלייה,איתיביה רבי אבהו לרב אשי אמר לו אנס הושיט לי פקיע עמיר זה או אשכול ענבים זה והושיט לו חייב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דקאי בתרי עברי נהרא,דיקא נמי דקתני הושיט ולא תני תן ש"מ:,ההוא שותא דהוו מנצו עלה בי תרי האי אמר דידי הוא והאי אמר דידי הוא אזל חד מנייהו ומסרה לפרהגנא דמלכא אמר אביי יכול לומר אנא כי מסרי דידי מסרי א"ל רבא וכל כמיניה אלא אמר רבא משמתינן ליה עד דמייתי ליה וקאי בדינא,ההוא גברא דהוה בעי אחוויי אתיבנא דחבריה אתא לקמיה דרב א"ל לא תחוי ולא תחוי א"ל מחוינא ומחוינא יתיב רב כהנא קמיה דרב שמטיה לקועיה מיניה,קרי רב עילויה (ישעיהו נא, כ) בניך עולפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא מכמר מה תוא זה כיון שנפל במכמר אין מרחמין עליו אף ממון של ישראל כיון שנפל ביד עובדי כוכבים אין מרחמין עליו,א"ל רב כהנא עד האידנא הוו פרסאי דלא קפדי אשפיכות דמים והשתא איכא יוונאי דקפדו אשפיכות דמים ואמרי מרדין מרדין קום סק לארעא דישראל וקביל עלך דלא תקשי לרבי יוחנן שבע שנין,אזיל אשכחיה לריש לקיש דיתיב וקא מסיים מתיבתא דיומא לרבנן אמר להו ריש לקיש היכא אמרו ליה אמאי אמר להו האי קושיא והאי קושיא והאי פירוקא והאי פירוקא אמרו ליה לריש לקיש אזל ריש לקיש א"ל לרבי יוחנן ארי עלה מבבל לעיין מר במתיבתא דלמחר,למחר אותבוה בדרא קמא קמיה דר' יוחנן אמר שמעתתא ולא אקשי שמעתתא ולא אקשי אנחתיה אחורי שבע דרי עד דאותביה בדרא בתרא א"ל רבי יוחנן לר"ש בן לקיש ארי שאמרת נעשה שועל,אמר יהא רעוא דהני שבע דרי להוו חילוף שבע שנין דאמר לי רב קם אכרעיה א"ל נהדר מר ברישא אמר שמעתתא ואקשי אוקמיה בדרא קמא אמר שמעתתא ואקשי,ר' יוחנן הוה יתיב אשבע בסתרקי שלפי ליה חדא בסתרקא מתותיה אמר שמעתתא ואקשי ליה עד דשלפי ליה כולהו בסתרקי מתותיה עד דיתיב על ארעא רבי יוחנן גברא סבא הוה ומסרחי גביניה אמר להו דלו לי עיני ואחזייה דלו ליה במכחלתא דכספא,חזא דפרטיה שפוותיה סבר אחוך קמחייך ביה חלש דעתיה ונח נפשיה למחר אמר להו רבי יוחנן לרבנן חזיתו לבבלאה היכי עביד אמרו ליה דרכיה הכי על לגבי מערתא חזא דהוה | 117a. b if /b it is b the i halakha /i /b or b if /b it is b a fine? /b Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya b said to him: If /b it is b the i halakha /i , we learn from it /b and apply this ruling to other cases, but b if /b it is b a fine, we do not learn from it, /b as it is possible that Rav Naḥman had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.,The Gemara asks: b And from where do you say that we do not learn from /b the imposition of b a fine /b in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Initially, /b the Sages b would say /b that b one who renders /b another’s food b ritually impure, /b thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, b and one who pours /b another’s wine as b a libation /b for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the ficial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. b Subsequently, /b they added to this list, b to say /b that b even one who intermingles /b i teruma /i , the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another’s non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.,The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the i baraita /i that it is only because the Sages b subsequently /b added to the list that b yes, /b one who intermingles i teruma /i with another’s non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if b they had not subsequently /b added to the list, he would b not /b be liable. b What is the reason /b that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? b Is it not due to /b the fact that his payment b is a fine, and /b with regard to b a fine, we do not learn from /b one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?,The Gemara answers: b No, /b this is not the reason. Rather, b initially /b the Sages b maintained /b that they b were concerned /b with regard b to a large /b ficial b loss, /b e.g., the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard b to a small /b ficial b loss, /b e.g., one who intermingles i teruma /i with another’s non-sacred produce, b they were not concerned. And ultimately /b the Sages b maintained /b that they b were concerned /b with regard b to a small loss as well /b and imposed liability.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But didn’t the father of Rabbi Avin teach /b the i baraita /i as follows: b Initially they would say /b that b one who renders /b another’s produce b impure and one who intermingles /b i teruma /i with another’s non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the ficial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. b Subsequently, /b they added to this list, b to say /b that b even one who pours /b another’s wine as b a libation /b for idol worship is b also /b liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages b subsequently /b added to the list, that b yes, /b one who pours the libation is liable. But if b they had not subsequently /b added to the list, he would b not /b be liable.,The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large ficial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the i baraita /i . Accordingly, b what is the reason /b that the liability for pouring another’s wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another’s food impure or intermingling it with i teruma /i ? Is it b not due to /b the fact that b we do not learn from /b the imposition of b a fine /b in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?,The Gemara answers: b No, /b this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that b initially /b the Sages b held in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yirmeya. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b Initially they held in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says: /b If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and b shot an arrow from the beginning of /b an area measuring b four /b cubits b to the end of /b an area measuring b four /b cubits, b and /b the arrow b tore /b another’s b silks [ i shira’in /i ] in /b the course of b its travel /b through the air, the one who threw it is b exempt /b from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is b that lifting /b an item b is a necessity for placing /b it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is b liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine., b And ultimately they held /b that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting, /b the thief b acquires /b the wine and is therefore immediately b liable /b to pay b money to /b the owner. But b he is not liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty b until the time /b that he pours the b libation. /b Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.,§ The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another’s field to thugs. b Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened /b to come b to /b the town of b Bei Abiyonei /b and b came before Rava, /b who b said to him: Did any /b legal b incident come to you /b for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda b said to him: /b There was a case of b a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, /b as a result b he showed /b them b property /b belonging to b another, /b which the gentiles later seized. He b came to me /b for judgment, b and I deemed /b him b liable /b to compensate the owner for the loss.,Rava b said to /b Rav Huna bar Yehuda: b Reverse /b your decision in this b case /b and return the money b to its owner, /b i.e., the thug, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, /b as a result b he showed /b them b property /b belonging to b another /b that the gentiles later seized, he is b exempt /b from reimbursing the owner of the property. b But if he /b actively b took /b the property b and gave /b it to the gentiles b by /b his own b hand, /b he is b liable /b to compensate the owner.,The Gemara adds that b Rabba says: If he showed /b the gentiles the property b of his own /b volition, it is b as though he /b actively b took /b the property b and gave /b it to the gentiles b by /b his own b hand, /b and he is liable to compensate the owner.,The Gemara recounts another incident: There was b a certain man that gentiles /b had b coerced and /b so b he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and /b the gentiles b said to him: Carry /b the wine b and bring it with us. /b Complying with the gentiles, b he carried and brought /b it b with them. /b The case b came before Rav Ashi, /b and he b exempted /b the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine., b The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b he b took /b the property b and manually transferred /b it to the gentiles, he is b liable /b to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi b said to them: That statement applies /b only in a case b where /b the Jew b did not bring /b the gentiles b to /b the property b at the outset; but if he brought /b the gentiles b to /b the property b at the outset, /b it is as though b he /b already b burned /b it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands., b Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to /b the opinion of b Rav Ashi /b from a i baraita /i : In a case where b a ruffian said to /b a Jew: b Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and /b the Jew b passed it to him, /b the Jew is b liable /b to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this i baraita /i that one who hands over another’s property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with a case b where /b the Jew and the ruffian were b standing on two /b different b sides of a river, /b so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.,The Gemara points out that the language of the i baraita /i b is also precise /b according to this explanation, b as it teaches /b its ruling using the term: b Pass, /b which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, b and /b it b did not teach /b using the term: b Give, /b which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: b Learn from /b the language of the i baraita /i that Rav Ashi’s interpretation is correct.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain /b fishing b net over which two /b people b were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [ i lefarhagna /i ] of the king. Abaye said: /b He is exempt from payment because b he can say /b to the court: b When I gave /b it to the official, b I gave /b what is b mine. Rava said to /b Abaye: b And is it in his /b power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? b Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings /b the net back b and stands in court /b for adjudication.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain man who desired to show another /b individual’s b straw /b to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. b He came before Rav, /b who b said to him: Do not show /b it b and do not show /b it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man b said to him: I will show /b it b and I will show /b it, i.e., I will certainly show it. b Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, /b and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response, b he dislodged /b the man’s b neck from him, /b i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.,Seeing Rav Kahana’s action, b Rav read /b the following verse b about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” /b (Isaiah 51:20). b Just as /b with regard to b this antelope, once it falls into the net, /b the hunter b does not have mercy upon it, so too /b with regard to b the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, /b i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew’s money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant’s neck, as he protected the Jew’s property and, by extension, the Jew himself., b Rav /b then b said to /b Rav Kahana: b Kahana, until now there were Persian /b rulers b who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they /b will b say: Murder [ i meradin /i ], murder, /b and they will press charges against you. Therefore, b get up /b and b ascend to Eretz Yisrael /b to study there under Rabbi Yoḥa, b and accept upon yourself that you will not raise /b any b difficulties to /b the statements of b Rabbi Yoḥa /b for b seven years. /b ,Rav Kahana b went /b to Eretz Yisrael and b found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing /b Rabbi Yoḥa’s b daily /b lecture in the b academy for the Rabbis, /b i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana b said to /b the students: b Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why /b do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana b said to them: /b I have b this difficulty and that difficulty /b with his review of Rabbi Yoḥa’s lecture, b and this resolution and that resolution /b to the questions he raised. b They told /b this to b Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish /b then b went and said to Rabbi Yoḥa: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, /b and b the Master /b ought b to examine /b the discourse he will deliver b in the academy tomorrow, /b as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material., b The next day, they seated /b Rav Kahana b in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Rabbi Yoḥa b stated a i halakha /i and /b Rav Kahana b did not raise a difficulty, /b in accordance with Rav’s instruction. Rabbi Yoḥa stated another b i halakha /i and /b again, Rav Kahana b did not raise a difficulty. /b As a result, b they placed /b Rav Kahana further b back /b by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back b seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yoḥa said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, /b i.e., he is not knowledgeable.,Rav Kahana b said /b to himself: b May it be /b God’s b will that these seven rows /b I have been moved b should replace the seven years that Rav told me /b to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥa. b He stood up on his feet and said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: Let the b Master go back to the beginning /b of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yoḥa b stated a i halakha /i and /b Rav Kahana b raised a difficulty. /b Therefore, b they placed him in the first row, /b and again, Rav Yoḥa b stated a i halakha /i , and he raised a difficulty. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa was sitting upon seven cushions [ i bistarkei /i ] /b so that he could be seen by all the students, b and /b since he could not answer Rav Kahana’s questions, b he removed one cushion from under himself /b to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then b stated /b another b i halakha /i and /b Rav Kahana b raised /b another b difficulty. /b This happened repeatedly b until /b Rabbi Yoḥa b removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yoḥa was an old man and his eyebrows drooped /b over his eyes. b He said to /b his students: b Uncover my eyes for me and I will see /b Rav Kahana, so b they uncovered /b his eyes b for him with a silver eye brush. /b ,Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yoḥa b saw that /b Rav Kahana’s b lips were split /b and b thought /b that Rav Kahana b was smirking at him. /b As a result, Rabbi Yoḥa b was offended, and /b Rav Kahana b died /b as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yoḥa. b The next day, Rabbi Yoḥa said to the Rabbis, /b his students: b Did you see how that Babylonian, /b Rav Kahana, b behaved /b in such a disrespectful manner? b They said to him: His /b usual b manner /b of appearance b is such, /b and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥa b went up to /b Rav Kahana’s burial b cave /b and b saw /b that b it was /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 146| 32a. תרי מגו תלתא ואי נמי תרי סהדי דפלגת באפי בי תלתא,א"ל מנא לך הא א"ל דתנן אם יש שם ב"ד מתנה בפניהם אין שם ב"ד בפני מי יתנה שלו קודם,א"ל מי דמי התם דמפיק ממונא מהאי ומותיב להאי בעינן ב"ד אבל הכא דידיה שקלי גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא בתרי סגי ליה תדע דתנן אלמנה מוכרת שלא בפני ב"ד,אמר ליה אביי ולאו מי אתמר עלה אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר ר"נ אלמנה אינה צריכה ב"ד של מומחין אבל צריכה בית דין של הדיוטות:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מצאה ברפת אין חייב בה ברה"ר חייב בה ואם היתה בבית הקברות לא יטמא לה אם אמר לו אביו היטמא או שאמר לו אל תחזיר לא ישמע לו,פרק וטען פרק וטען אפילו ארבעה וחמשה פעמים חייב שנאמר (שמות כג, ה) עזב תעזב,הלך וישב לו ואמר הואיל ועליך מצוה אם רצונך לפרוק פרוק פטור שנאמר עמו אם היה זקן או חולה חייב,מצוה מן התורה לפרוק אבל לא לטעון ר"ש אומר אף לטעון,רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר אם היה עליו יתר על משאו אין זקוק לו שנאמר תחת משאו משאוי שיכול לעמוד בו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבא רפת שאמרו אינה מתעה ואינה משמרת אינה מתעה מדקתני אינו חייב בה ואינה משמרת מדאיצטריך למיתני אינו חייב בה,דאי סלקא דעתך משמרת השתא משכח לה אבראי מעייל לה לגואי משכח לה מגואי מבעיא אלא שמע מינה אינה משמרת שמע מינה:,מצאה ברפת אינו חייב: א"ר יצחק והוא שעומדת תוך לתחום מכלל דברשות הרבים ואפילו בתוך התחום נמי חייב,איכא דמתני לה אסיפא ברה"ר חייב בה אמר רבי יצחק והוא שעומדת חוץ לתחום מכלל דברפת אפילו עומדת חוץ לתחום נמי אינו חייב בה:,בבית הקברות לא יטמא לה: ת"ר מנין שאם אמר לו אביו היטמא או שאמר לו אל תחזיר שלא ישמע לו שנאמר (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו אני ה' כולכם חייבין בכבודי,טעמא דכתב רחמנא את שבתותי תשמרו הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא צייתא ליה ואמאי האי עשה והאי לא תעשה ועשה ולא אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה ועשה,איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל והוקש כיבוד אב ואם לכבודו של מקום שנאמר כאן (שמות כ, יא) כבד את אביך ואת אמך ונאמר להלן (משלי ג, ט) כבד את ה' מהונך הלכך לציית ליה קמ"ל דלא לשמע ליה:,מצוה מן התורה לפרוק אבל לא לטעון: מאי אבל לא לטעון אילימא אבל לא לטעון כלל מאי שנא פריקה דכתיב עזב תעזב עמו טעינה נמי הכתיב (דברים כב, ד) הקם תקים עמו,אלא מצוה מן התורה לפרוק בחנם ולא לטעון בחנם אלא בשכר ר"ש אומר אף לטעון בחנם תנינא להא דת"ר פריקה בחנם טעינה בשכר ר"ש אומר זו וזו בחנם,מאי טעמייהו דרבנן דאי ס"ד כר"ש לכתוב רחמנא טעינה ולא בעי פריקה ואנא אמינא ומה טעינה דלית בה צער בעלי חיים וליכא חסרון כיס חייב פריקה דאית בה צער בעלי חיים וחסרון כיס לא כל שכן אלא למאי הלכתא כתביה רחמנא לומר לך פריקה בחנם טעינה בשכר,ורבי שמעון מאי טעמא משום דלא מסיימי קראי,ורבנן אמאי לא מסיימי קראי הכא כתיב רובץ תחת משאו התם כתיב נופלין בדרך דרמו אינהו וטעונייהו באורחא משמע ורבי שמעון נופלין בדרך אינהו וטעונייהו עלוייהו משמע,אמר רבא | 32a. b two of /b the b three /b of them to testify that you dissolved the partnership before them. b Or alternatively, /b bring b two witnesses /b to testify b that you dissolved /b the partnership b before /b a court b of three. /b ,Rav Safra b said to /b Rabba bar Rav Huna: b From where do you /b know b this /b i halakha /i , that dissolution of the partnership may be accomplished only before a court? Rabba bar Rav Huna b said to him: /b It is b as we learned /b in the mishna: b If there are /b three men b there /b who can convene as b a court, /b he b may stipulate before /b the court that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. But b if there is no court there, before whom can he stipulate /b his condition? Rather, in that case, b his /b ficial interests b take precedence, /b and he need not return the lost item. Apparently, one stipulates binding conditions with regard to another’s property only before a court.,Rav Safra b said to /b Rabba bar Rav Huna: b Is /b that case in the mishna b comparable /b to this case? b There, where he is removing property from /b the possession of b this /b person b and giving /b it b to that /b person, b we require a court. But here, /b referring to himself in the third person, b he is /b merely b taking his own /b property, and not the property of any other person. There is no transaction effected here. It is b mere disclosure /b of b the matter /b that he divided the joint property equitably, and b two /b witnesses b are sufficient for him /b to disclose that fact. Rav Safra cites proof. b Know /b that this is so, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ketubot /i 97a) that b a widow /b owed sustece from her husband’s estate b sells /b the property of the estate when b not before a court. /b Apparently, one need not involve the court when reclaiming property that belongs to him., b Abaye said to him: But wasn’t it stated with regard to /b that mishna that b Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says /b that b Rav Naḥman says: /b The court before which b a widow /b sells the property of the estate b need not /b be b a court of experts, but is required /b to be at least b a court of laymen. /b Therefore, as in the parallel case of the widow, even when disclosing that one took property belonging to him, two witnesses are not sufficient and a court is required., strong MISHNA: /strong If b one found /b an animal b in a stable /b belonging to its owner, he is b not obligated /b to return b it /b to its owner. If he found it b in a public area, /b he is b obligated /b to return b it. And if /b the animal b was /b lost b in a graveyard /b and a priest found it, b he may not become impure to /b return b it. If his father said to him: Become impure; or /b in a case b where /b one was obligated to return the animal and his father b said to him: Do not return /b it, b he may not listen to /b his father, as one may not violate Torah law to honor his father.,If b one unloaded /b a burden from an animal collapsing under its weight b and /b then later b loaded /b it onto the animal, and later b unloaded and loaded /b it again, b even /b if this scenario repeats itself b four or five times, /b he is b obligated /b to continue unloading and loading, b as it is stated: /b “If you see the donkey of him that hates you collapsed under its burden, you shall forgo passing him by; b you shall release it [ i azov ta’azov /i ] /b with him” (Exodus 23:5). It is derived from the verse that one is obligated to perform the action as needed, even several times.,If the owner b went, and sat, and said /b to a passerby: b Since /b there is b a mitzva /b incumbent b upon you /b to unload the burden, b if it is your wish to unload /b the burden, b unload /b it, in such a case the passerby is b exempt, as it is stated: /b “You shall release it b with him,” /b with the owner of the animal. b If /b the failure of the owner to participate in unloading the burden was due to the fact b he was old or infirm, /b the passerby is b obligated /b to unload the burden alone.,There is b a mitzva by Torah law to unload /b a burden, b but /b there is b no /b mitzva b to load /b it. b Rabbi Shimon says: /b There is b even /b a mitzva b to load /b the burden., b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: If there was /b a burden b upon /b the animal b greater than /b its typical b burden, one need not attend to it, as it is stated: “Under its burden,” /b i.e., the obligation is with regard to b a burden that /b the animal b can bear. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that if one found an animal in a stable, he need not return it to its owner. b Rava said: /b The b stable that /b the Sages b mentioned /b in the mishna is one that b neither encourages /b the animal b to stray nor secures /b the animal so it will not flee. The Gemara explains Rava’s statement. That it b does not encourage /b the animal b to stray /b is learned b from /b the fact b that /b the i tanna /i b teaches: He is not obligated in its /b return. The fact that b it does not secure /b the animal is learned b from /b the fact that it b was necessary /b for the i tanna /i b to teach: He is not obligated in its /b return.,The Gemara continues its explanation of Rava’s statement: b As, if it enters your mind /b to say that it is a stable that b secures /b the animal, that ruling would be extraneous. b Now /b that in a case where one b found /b the animal b outside /b a stable b he brings it inside /b a stable of that type and thereby returns the animal to its owner, in a case where he b found /b the animal b inside /b the stable is it b necessary /b to teach that he is not obligated to return it to its owner? b Rather, learn from it /b that the stable mentioned in the mishna does b not secure /b the animal and therefore there is a possibility that one must return it. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, b learn from it /b that it is a stable that neither encourages the animal to stray nor secures the animal.,§ The mishna teaches: If b one found /b an animal b in a stable /b belonging to its owner, b he is not obligated /b to return it. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: And that /b is the i halakha /i only in a case b where /b the animal b is standing within the /b city b limits. /b The Gemara concludes b by inference that /b if the animal was b found in a public area /b he is obligated to return it, b and even /b if it was b within the /b city b limits, /b he is b also obligated /b to return it., b There are those who teach /b this statement b with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna: If he found it b in a public area, /b he is b obligated /b to return b it. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: And that /b is the i halakha /i only in a case b where /b the animal b is standing beyond the /b city b limits. /b The Gemara concludes b by inference that /b in a case where the animal was b found in the stable, even /b if the animal b is standing beyond the /b city b limits, he is also not obligated in its /b return.,§ The mishna teaches: b And if /b the animal b was /b lost b in a graveyard /b and was found by a priest, b he may not become impure to /b return b it. /b In a case where a priest’s father said to him: Become impure, or in a case where one was obligated to return the animal and his father said to him: Do not return it, he may not listen to his father. The Gemara cites a i baraita /i in which b the Sages taught: From where /b is it derived b that if /b a priest’s b father said to him: Become impure, or that /b if one’s father b said to him: Do not return /b a lost item that you found; b he should not listen to him? /b It is derived from the verse, b as it is stated: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My i Shabbatot /i ; I am the Lord” /b (Leviticus 19:3). From the fact that the verse concludes: “I am the Lord,” it is derived that: b You are all, /b parent and child alike, b obligated in My honor. /b Therefore, if a parent commands his child to refrain from observing a mitzva, he must not obey the command.,The Gemara infers: b The reason /b that a priest must not obey his father’s command to become impure is b because the Merciful One writes: “You shall observe My i Shabbatot /i ; /b I am the Lord”; b but /b if b it were not so, I would say /b that the child b must obey him. /b The Gemara asks: b But why? This /b obligation to obey a parent is b a positive mitzva, /b as it is written: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12), b and that /b obligation of a priest to refrain from becoming impure is both b a prohibition: /b “To the dead among his people he shall not defile himself” (Leviticus 21:1), b and a positive mitzva: /b “You shall be holy” (Leviticus 19:2); b and /b the principle is that b a positive mitzva does not come and override a prohibition and a positive mitzva. /b ,The Gemara answers that the derivation from “You shall observe My i Shabbatot /i ; I am the Lord” b was necessary, /b as it might b enter your mind to say: Since honoring one’s father and mother is equated to the honor of the Omnipresent, as it is stated here: “Honor your father and your mother” /b (Exodus 20:12), b and it is stated elsewhere: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” /b (Proverbs 3:9), b therefore, /b one might have thought that the priest must b obey his /b father’s command to become impure. Therefore the Torah b teaches us that /b the priest is commanded b not to listen to him. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: There is b a mitzva by Torah law to unload /b a burden, b but /b there is b no /b mitzva b to load /b it. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the phrase: b But /b there is b no /b mitzva b to load /b it? b If we say /b that it means: b But /b there is b no /b mitzva b to load /b it b at all; what is different /b about b unloading, with regard to which it is written: “You shall release it with him” /b (Exodus 23:5)? With regard to b loading as well, isn’t it written: “You shall lift them with him” /b (Deuteronomy 22:4)?,The Gemara answers: b Rather, /b there is b a mitzva by Torah law to unload /b the burden b for free, but /b there is b no /b mitzva b to load /b it b for free; rather, /b the mitzva is performed b with remuneration. Rabbi Shimon says: /b There is b also /b a mitzva b to load /b it b for free. /b The Gemara states: b We learn /b by inference from the mishna b that which the Sages taught /b explicitly in a i baraita /i : b Unloading /b is performed b for free, /b and b loading /b is performed b with remuneration. Rabbi Shimon said: /b Both b this and that /b are performed b for free. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the Rabbis /b that there is a distinction between unloading and loading with regard to remuneration? The reason is b that if it enters your mind /b that the i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, let the Merciful One write /b only the mitzva of b loading, and /b then He would b need not /b write the mitzva of b unloading, and I would say: Just as /b with regard to b loading, where there is no /b potential b suffering of animals and there is no /b potential b monetary loss /b for the owner, one is b obligated /b to load the burden, with regard to b unloading, where there is /b potential b suffering of animals and there is /b potential b monetary loss /b for the owner, is it b not all the more so /b clear that one is required to unload the burden? b Rather, with regard to what i halakha /i /b did b the Merciful One write /b the mitzva of unloading? It is b to tell you: /b The mitzva of b unloading /b the burden is performed b for free, but /b the mitzva of b loading /b is performed b with remuneration. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that even loading is performed for free, b what is the reason /b that the Torah writes the mitzva of unloading? The Gemara answers: It is b because the verses are not /b clearly b defined, /b and it is unclear which of the verses refers to loading and which refers to unloading. Had the Torah written one verse, it would have been interpreted with regard to unloading, and there would be no source that one needs to load an animal., b And the Rabbis /b could ask: b Why /b does Rabbi Shimon say that b the verses are not /b clearly b defined? Here it is written: “Collapsed under its burden” /b (Exodus 23:5), clearly referring to the case of a burden that needs unloading, and b there it is written: “Fallen down by the way” /b (Deuteronomy 22:4), b indicating /b that both the animals b and their burdens are /b lying b on the way /b and are in need of loading. b And Rabbi Shimon /b explains that the verses are not defined because the phrase b “fallen down by the way” /b could be understood as b indicating /b that the animals are fallen b with their burdens upon them, /b and referring to unloading., b Rava says: /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 4, 175| 22a. אריסותא לר"ש בן אלעזר לית ליה אלא עובד כוכבים מ"ט מותר דאמרינן ליה וציית כותי נמי אמרינן ליה וציית כותי לא ציית דאמר אנא גמירנא טפי מינך,א"ה מאי איריא מפני שנקראת על שמו תיפוק ליה משום (ויקרא יט, יד) לפני עור לא תתן מכשול חדא ועוד קאמר חדא משום לפני עור ועוד מפני שנקראת על שמו,הנהו מוריקאי דעובד כוכבים נקיט בשבתא וישראל בחד בשבתא אתו לקמיה דרבא שרא להו,איתיביה רבינא לרבא ישראל ועובד כוכבים שקיבלו שדה בשותפות לא יאמר ישראל לעובד כוכבים טול חלקך בשבת ואני בחול ואם התנו מתחלה מותר,ואם באו לחשבון אסור איכסיף לסוף איגלאי מלתא דהתנו מעיקרא הוו,רב גביהה מבי כתיל אמר הנהו שתילי דערלה הוה עובד כוכבים אכיל שני דערלה וישראל שני דהתירא אתו לקמיה דרבא שרא להו,והא אותביה רבינא לרבא לסיועי סייעיה והא אכסיף לא היו דברים מעולם,איבעיא להו סתמא מאי ת"ש אם התנו מתחילה מותר הא סתמא אסור,אימא סיפא אם באו לחשבון אסור הא סתמא מותר אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך לפני אידיהן /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongאין /strong /big מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עובדי כוכבים מפני שחשודין על הרביעה ולא תתייחד אשה עמהן מפני שחשודין על העריות ולא יתייחד אדם עמהן מפני שחשודין על שפיכות דמים: big strongגמ׳ /strong /big | 22a. The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not accept /b the principle that a sharecropper works for his b tecy, /b rather than as the Jew’s employee. The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, with regard to b a gentile, what is the reason /b that it is b permitted /b to rent to him? The Gemara answers b that we say to him /b that he may not perform labor on certain days, b and he complies. /b The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of b a Samaritan as well, we can say to him /b that he may not perform labor on certain days, b and he /b will b comply. /b The Gemara answers: b A Samaritan /b will b not comply, as he says: I am more learned than you, /b and I know that it is permitted to work on these days.,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, why /b does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar state b specifically /b that the reason for the prohibition is b because /b the field b is called by the name of /b the owner? b Let him derive /b this i halakha /i b due to /b the fact that the Samaritan, like a Jew, is commanded to refrain from labor during the intermediate days of the Festival, and since he will work on these days, renting him a field is included in the prohibition: b “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” /b (Leviticus 19:14). The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar b states one /b reason b and /b adds b another: One /b reason is b that /b of the prohibition: You shall not put a stumbling block b before the blind; and, furthermore, /b it is prohibited b because /b the field b is called by the name of /b the owner.,§ The Gemara relates that there were b certain saffron growers /b who jointly owned a field in an arrangement according to b which a gentile took possession /b of the field and worked in it b on Shabbat, and a Jew /b took possession of it b on Sunday. They came before Rava, /b to find out if they could divide their profits equally, and Rava b permitted them /b to do so., b Ravina raised an objection to /b the ruling of b Rava /b from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a Jew and a gentile who received /b tecy of b a field in partnership, /b with the understanding that they were to work the field and receive part of its produce in exchange, b the Jew may not say to the gentile: Take your portion /b of the profit for your work b on Shabbat, and I /b will take my portion for my work b on /b one of the days of the rest of b the week. /b The reason one may not do so is that it turns out that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was laboring partly on behalf of his Jewish partner. b But if they initially stipulated /b when they entered into their partnership that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, and the Jew would receive a share for the work that he performs during one of the days of the week, it is b permitted. /b , b And if /b they did not make this stipulation and later b came to calculate /b the number of weekdays for which the Jew should receive the profit, corresponding to the number of i Shabbatot /i that the gentile worked, it is b prohibited, /b as this would mean that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was working on behalf of the Jew. Rava was b embarrassed /b that he had ruled incorrectly. b Ultimately, the matter was revealed that /b the saffron growers b had stipulated from the outset /b that this was the arrangement, and therefore even according to the i baraita /i Rava had ruled correctly., b Rav Geviha from Bei Ketil said /b that the incident was actually as follows: The Jew and the gentile formed a partnership with regard to b those i orla /i saplings, /b to tend to them and sell them. b The gentile would /b work and b profit /b from them during b the i orla /i years, /b the first three years after the tree is planted when it is prohibited for a Jew to eat its fruit, b and the Jew /b would work and profit from them during b the years where /b the fruit is b permitted. They came before Rava, /b who b permitted them /b to do so.,The Gemara asks: b But didn’t Ravina object to /b the ruling issued by b Rava? /b The Gemara answers: No, Ravina’s intention was b to provide a support for /b the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: b But /b wasn’t Rava b embarrassed /b by Ravina’s statement? The Gemara answers: b That never happened. /b , b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If the partners did b not specify /b that the gentile would work on Shabbat and the Jew during the week, but they also did not calculate their profits so that they would split the earnings equally, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara attempts to provide an answer from the i baraita /i : b Come /b and b hear: If they initially stipulated /b that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, while the Jew would receive a share for the work on one of the other days of the week, it is b permitted. /b This indicates that b without specification, /b it is b prohibited. /b ,The Gemara rejects this proof: b Say the last clause: If /b they b came to calculate /b their profits, it is b prohibited; /b this indicates that b without specification, /b doing so is b permitted. /b The Gemara concludes: b Rather, no /b inference is b to be learned from this /b i baraita /i , as the inferences contradict each other.,, strong MISHNA: /strong b One may not keep an animal in the inns [ i befundekaot /i ] of gentiles because they are suspected of bestiality. /b Since even gentiles are prohibited from engaging in bestiality, a Jew who places his animal there is guilty of violating the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). b And a woman may not seclude herself with /b gentiles b because they are suspected of /b engaging in b forbidden sexual relations. And /b any b person may not seclude himself with /b gentiles b because they are suspected of bloodshed. /b |
|
| 22. Anon., Midrash Tannaim To Deut, 17.15 Tagged with subjects: •talmudic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40 |
