1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 2.9, 33.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •torah, study of, palestinian rabbis concept of divine origins Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 97| 2.9. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי אֶל־תָּצַר אֶת־מוֹאָב וְאַל־תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה כִּי לֹא־אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאַרְצוֹ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי־לוֹט נָתַתִּי אֶת־עָר יְרֻשָּׁה׃ 33.4. תּוֹרָה צִוָּה־לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב׃ | 2.9. And the LORD said unto me: ‘Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle; for I will not give thee of his land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.— 33.4. Moses commanded us a law, An inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 33.25 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 31| 33.25. כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אִם־לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא־שָׂמְתִּי׃ | 33.25. Thus saith the LORD: If My covet be not with day and night, if I have not appointed the ordices of heaven and earth; |
|
3. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah, study of, palestinian rabbis concept of divine origins Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 97| 10.1. כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו: | 10.1. All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.” |
|
4. Mishnah, Avot, 3.14 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171| 3.14. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, חָבִיב אָדָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא בְצֶלֶם. חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַעַת לוֹ שֶׁנִּבְרָא בְצֶלֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ט) כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בָנִים לַמָּקוֹם. חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַעַת לָהֶם שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בָנִים לַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד) בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּתַּן לָהֶם כְּלִי חֶמְדָּה. חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַעַת לָהֶם שֶׁנִּתַּן לָהֶם כְּלִי חֶמְדָּה שֶׁבּוֹ נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ד) כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם, תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ: | 3.14. He used to say:Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “your are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2). |
|
| 5. Palestinian Talmud, Sheviit, 9.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 |
| 6. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, 3.7 (40d) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah, study of, palestinian rabbis concept of divine origins Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 95 |
| 7. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 3.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 |
| 8. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 10.2 (28d), 10.2 (28b) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 95 |
| 9. Palestinian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 3.7 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 |
10. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 37, 48, 357 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 97 | 357. (Devarim 34:1) "And Moses went up from the plains of Moav": It was an ascent for him and not a descent.,"from the plains of Moav": We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He showed him the chain of kings that was destined to arise from Ruth the Moabitess — David and his seed. , "to Mount Nevo, the top of the height ( |
|
11. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 1.1, 3.5, 79.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171| 1.1. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה פָּתַח <>(משלי ח, ל)<>: וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו', אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, וְאִית דַּאֲמַר אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא. אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר <>(במדבר יא, יב)<>: כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָֹּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק. אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר <>(איכה ד, ה)<>: הָאֱמֻנִים עֲלֵי תוֹלָע וגו'. אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר <>(אסתר ב, ז)<>: וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה. אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא, כְּמָא דְתֵימָא <>(נחום ג, ח)<>: הֲתֵיטְבִי מִנֹּא אָמוֹן, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן הַאַתְּ טָבָא מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָא רַבָּתָא דְּיָתְבָא בֵּין נַהֲרוֹתָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. וְאֵין רֵאשִׁית אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר <>(משלי ח, כב)<>: ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ. 1.1. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה סָתוּם מִכָּל צְדָדָיו וּפָתוּחַ מִלְּפָנָיו, כָּךְ אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לוֹמַר, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּפָנִים, מַה לְּאָחוֹר, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם וּלְהַבָּא. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר <>(דברים ד, לב)<>: כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, לְמִן הַיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. <>(דברים ד, לב)<>: וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְחוֹקֵר, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹקֵר לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים, הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְלָמָּה בְּב' שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְלָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁלֹא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִין לוֹמַר הֵיאַךְ הָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד שֶׁהוּא נִבְרָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה, אֶלָּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֲרֵי אֲנִי בּוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְהַלְּוַאי יַעֲמֹד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה בְּב' אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עוֹקְצִין, אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, אוֹמְרִים לַב' מִי בְּרָאֲךָ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה בְּעוּקְצוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְאוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה בְּרָאָנִי. וּמַה שְּׁמוֹ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה לָהֶן בְּעוּקְצוֹ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו, וְאוֹמֵר ה' שְׁמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר חֲנִינָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֲחָא, עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת הָיְתָה הָאָלֶ"ף קוֹרֵא תִּגָּר לִפְנֵי כִסְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל אוֹתִיּוֹת וְלֹא בָּרָאתָ עוֹלָמְךָ בִּי, אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם וּמְלוֹאוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(משלי ג, יט)<>: ה' בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ וגו', לְמָחָר אֲנִי בָּא לִתֵּן תּוֹרָה בְּסִינַי וְאֵינִי פּוֹתֵחַ תְּחִלָה אֶלָּא בָּךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(שמות כ, ב)<>: אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אָלֶ"ף, שֶׁהוּא מַסְכִּים מֵאָלֶ"ף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(תהלים קה, ח)<>: דָּבָר צִוָּה לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. 1.1. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה פָּתַח (משלי ח, ל): וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו', אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, וְאִית דַּאֲמַר אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא. אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יא, יב): כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָֹּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק. אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (איכה ד, ה): הָאֱמֻנִים עֲלֵי תוֹלָע וגו'. אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (אסתר ב, ז): וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה. אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא, כְּמָא דְתֵימָא (נחום ג, ח): הֲתֵיטְבִי מִנֹּא אָמוֹן, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן הַאַתְּ טָבָא מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָא רַבָּתָא דְּיָתְבָא בֵּין נַהֲרוֹתָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. וְאֵין רֵאשִׁית אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (משלי ח, כב): ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ. 1.1. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה סָתוּם מִכָּל צְדָדָיו וּפָתוּחַ מִלְּפָנָיו, כָּךְ אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לוֹמַר, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּפָנִים, מַה לְּאָחוֹר, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם וּלְהַבָּא. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר (דברים ד, לב): כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, לְמִן הַיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְחוֹקֵר, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹקֵר לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים, הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְלָמָּה בְּב' שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְלָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁלֹא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִין לוֹמַר הֵיאַךְ הָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד שֶׁהוּא נִבְרָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה, אֶלָּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֲרֵי אֲנִי בּוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְהַלְּוַאי יַעֲמֹד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה בְּב' אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עוֹקְצִין, אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, אוֹמְרִים לַב' מִי בְּרָאֲךָ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה בְּעוּקְצוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְאוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה בְּרָאָנִי. וּמַה שְּׁמוֹ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה לָהֶן בְּעוּקְצוֹ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו, וְאוֹמֵר ה' שְׁמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר חֲנִינָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֲחָא, עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת הָיְתָה הָאָלֶ"ף קוֹרֵא תִּגָּר לִפְנֵי כִסְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל אוֹתִיּוֹת וְלֹא בָּרָאתָ עוֹלָמְךָ בִּי, אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם וּמְלוֹאוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג, יט): ה' בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ וגו', לְמָחָר אֲנִי בָּא לִתֵּן תּוֹרָה בְּסִינַי וְאֵינִי פּוֹתֵחַ תְּחִלָה אֶלָּא בָּךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ, ב): אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אָלֶ"ף, שֶׁהוּא מַסְכִּים מֵאָלֶ"ף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קה, ח): דָּבָר צִוָּה לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. 79.6. וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר <>(בראשית לג, יח)<>, חָנַן אֶת הַפָּנִים שֶׁבָּעִיר, הִתְחִיל מְשַׁלֵּחַ לָהֶם דּוֹרוֹנוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר, הִתְחִיל מַעֲמִיד הַטְּלִיסִין וּמוֹכֵר בְּזוֹל, הֲדָא אָמְרָת שֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִיק טוֹבָה לְמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲנָאָה מִמֶּנּוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרֵיהּ הֲווֹ טְמִירִין בִּמְעָרְתָא י"ג שָׁנָה בְּיוֹמֵי דִּשְׁמָדָא, וְהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין חֲרוּבִין שֶׁל גָּרוֹדָא עַד שֶׁהֶעֱלָה גּוּפָן חֲלוּדָה. לְסוֹף שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שְׁנִין נְפַק יְתֵיב עַל תְּרַע מְעָרְתָא, חֲמָא חַד צַיָּד קָאֵים וְצָיֵד צִיפֳּרִין, וְכַד הֲוָה שָׁמַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַת קָלָא אָמְרָה מִן שְׁמַיָא דִּימוֹס דִּימוֹס, פַּסְגָּא. וְכַד הֲוָה שָׁמַע בְּרַת קָלָא אֲמָרַת סְפֶקוּלָא, הֲוַת מִתָּצְדָה וְנִלְכָּדָה. אָמַר, צִפּוֹר מִבַּלְעֲדֵי שְׁמַיָא לָא מִתָּצְדָא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה נֶפֶשׁ דְּבַר נָשׁ, נְפַק וְאַשְׁכַּח מִלַּיָא מְשַׁדְּכָן, וְנִתְבַּטְּלָה הַגְּזֵרָה. אֲתוֹן וְאַסְחוֹן בַּהֲדָא בֵּי בָּנֵי דְּבֵית מוֹקֵד דִּטְבֶרְיָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּרֵיהּ כָּל הֲדָא טַבְתָא עֲבָדַת לָן טְבֶרְיָא וְלֵית אֲנַן מְדַכָּן יָתָהּ מִן קָטוֹלַיָא, אָמַר צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹבָה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָיוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ עוֹשִׂים, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂים אִיטְלוּסִין וּמוֹכְרִין בְּזוֹל, אָמַר צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לְדַכָּיָא טְבֶרְיָא, מָה עֲבַד, נְסַב תֻּרְמוּסָא וַהֲוָה מְקַצֵּץ תֻּרְמוּסָא וְשַׁדֵּי קְצוֹצוּתֵיהּ וּמְקַלֵּק בַּשּׁוּק, וְכָל אַתְרָא דַּהֲוָה קְטִילָא סָלֵיק וְאִינוּן מַפְקוּן וְנָפְקִין, וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹא הָיְתָה שָׁמָּה טֻמְאָה תֻּרְמְסָא עוֹמֶדֶת, וְהוּא מְצַיֵּן אֵיזֶה מְקוֹם טֻמְאָה וּמְקוֹם טָהֳרָה, עַד זְמַן דְּדַכֵּי יָתָהּ מִן קָטִילַיָא. חֲמְתֵיהּ חַד כּוּתִי עַם דְאַרַע, אֲמַר לֵית אֲנָא אָזֵיל וּמַדְחַךְ בַּהֲדֵין סָבָא דִּיהוּדָאֵי, אִית דְּאָמְרֵי מִן הָדֵין שׁוּקָא דְּגַרְגִּינָא וְאִית דְּאָמְרֵי מִן הָדֵין שׁוּקָא דְּסַקָּאֵי, נְסַב קְטִיל וּטְמָרֵיהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דַּהֲווֹ מְדַכֵּי, בְּצַפְרָא אֲזַל אֲמַר לְהוֹן אַמְרִיתוּן דְּדַכֵּי בֶּן יוֹחָאי טְבֶרְיָא אֲתוֹן חֲמוּן הָדֵין קְטִילָא [נסח אחר: אזל לגביה אמר ליה לא דכיתא שוק פלן, אמר ליה הין, אמר ליה ואין אפיקת לך מיתין מן בתרך, אמר ליה גוד חמי ליה], צָפָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא נְתָנוֹ שָׁם, אָמַר גּוֹזֵר אֲנִי עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁיֵּרֵד וְעַל הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה, וַהֲוָה כֵן. וּסְלֵיק וּשְׁבַת בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, וַעֲבַר בְּהָדֵין מִגְדְּלָא דְּצַבָּעַיָא שְׁמַע קָלָא דְּנַקָּאי סַפְרָא, אָמַר לָא אַמְרִיתוּן דְּדַכֵּי בַּר יוֹחָאי לִטְבֶרְיָה, אָמְרִין אַשְׁכְּחוּן חַד קְטִילָא, אָמַר יָבוֹא עָלַי אִם אֵין בְּיָדִי הֲלָכוֹת כִּשְׂעַר רֹאשִׁי עַל טְבֶרְיָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה חוּץ מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְאַתָּה לֹא הָיִיתָ בַּמִּנְיָן עִמָּנוּ שֶׁנִּטְהֲרָה, פָּרַצְתָּ גְּדֵרָן שֶׁל חֲכָמִים, וְעָלֶיךָ נֶאֱמַר <>(קהלת י, ח)<>: וּפֹרֵץ גָּדֵר יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ, מִיָּד נַעֲשָׂה גַּל שֶׁל עֲצָמוֹת. עָבַר בַּהֲדָא בִּקְעַת דְּבֵית נְטוֹפָא, חֲמָא חַד בַּר נָשׁ קָאֵים וּמְלַקֵּט סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית, אָמַר לוֹ וְלֹא סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית הֵן, אָמַר לוֹ וְלֹא אַתָּה הוּא שֶׁהִתַּרְתָּ, לֹא כָךְ תְּנֵינַן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל הַסְּפִיחִין מֻתָּרִין חוּץ מִסְּפִיחֵי כְּרוּב שֶׁאֵין כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם בְּיַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה, אָמַר לוֹ וַהֲלוֹא חֲבֵרַי חוֹלְקִים עָלַי, פָּרַצְתָּ גְּדֵרָן שֶׁל חֲכָמִים וּפֹרֵץ גָּדֵר יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ, וְכֵן הֲוַת לֵיהּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר, נִכְנַס בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם דִּמְדּוּמֵי חַמָּה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וְקָבַע תְּחוּמִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. הֲדָא אָמְרָת שֶׁשָּׁמַר יַעֲקֹב אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתַּן. 79.6. וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר (בראשית לג, יח), חָנַן אֶת הַפָּנִים שֶׁבָּעִיר, הִתְחִיל מְשַׁלֵּחַ לָהֶם דּוֹרוֹנוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר, הִתְחִיל מַעֲמִיד הַטְּלִיסִין וּמוֹכֵר בְּזוֹל, הֲדָא אָמְרָת שֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִיק טוֹבָה לְמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲנָאָה מִמֶּנּוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרֵיהּ הֲווֹ טְמִירִין בִּמְעָרְתָא י"ג שָׁנָה בְּיוֹמֵי דִּשְׁמָדָא, וְהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין חֲרוּבִין שֶׁל גָּרוֹדָא עַד שֶׁהֶעֱלָה גּוּפָן חֲלוּדָה. לְסוֹף שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שְׁנִין נְפַק יְתֵיב עַל תְּרַע מְעָרְתָא, חֲמָא חַד צַיָּד קָאֵים וְצָיֵד צִיפֳּרִין, וְכַד הֲוָה שָׁמַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַת קָלָא אָמְרָה מִן שְׁמַיָא דִּימוֹס דִּימוֹס, פַּסְגָּא. וְכַד הֲוָה שָׁמַע בְּרַת קָלָא אֲמָרַת סְפֶקוּלָא, הֲוַת מִתָּצְדָה וְנִלְכָּדָה. אָמַר, צִפּוֹר מִבַּלְעֲדֵי שְׁמַיָא לָא מִתָּצְדָא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה נֶפֶשׁ דְּבַר נָשׁ, נְפַק וְאַשְׁכַּח מִלַּיָא מְשַׁדְּכָן, וְנִתְבַּטְּלָה הַגְּזֵרָה. אֲתוֹן וְאַסְחוֹן בַּהֲדָא בֵּי בָּנֵי דְּבֵית מוֹקֵד דִּטְבֶרְיָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּרֵיהּ כָּל הֲדָא טַבְתָא עֲבָדַת לָן טְבֶרְיָא וְלֵית אֲנַן מְדַכָּן יָתָהּ מִן קָטוֹלַיָא, אָמַר צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹבָה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָיוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ עוֹשִׂים, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂים אִיטְלוּסִין וּמוֹכְרִין בְּזוֹל, אָמַר צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לְדַכָּיָא טְבֶרְיָא, מָה עֲבַד, נְסַב תֻּרְמוּסָא וַהֲוָה מְקַצֵּץ תֻּרְמוּסָא וְשַׁדֵּי קְצוֹצוּתֵיהּ וּמְקַלֵּק בַּשּׁוּק, וְכָל אַתְרָא דַּהֲוָה קְטִילָא סָלֵיק וְאִינוּן מַפְקוּן וְנָפְקִין, וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹא הָיְתָה שָׁמָּה טֻמְאָה תֻּרְמְסָא עוֹמֶדֶת, וְהוּא מְצַיֵּן אֵיזֶה מְקוֹם טֻמְאָה וּמְקוֹם טָהֳרָה, עַד זְמַן דְּדַכֵּי יָתָהּ מִן קָטִילַיָא. חֲמְתֵיהּ חַד כּוּתִי עַם דְאַרַע, אֲמַר לֵית אֲנָא אָזֵיל וּמַדְחַךְ בַּהֲדֵין סָבָא דִּיהוּדָאֵי, אִית דְּאָמְרֵי מִן הָדֵין שׁוּקָא דְּגַרְגִּינָא וְאִית דְּאָמְרֵי מִן הָדֵין שׁוּקָא דְּסַקָּאֵי, נְסַב קְטִיל וּטְמָרֵיהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דַּהֲווֹ מְדַכֵּי, בְּצַפְרָא אֲזַל אֲמַר לְהוֹן אַמְרִיתוּן דְּדַכֵּי בֶּן יוֹחָאי טְבֶרְיָא אֲתוֹן חֲמוּן הָדֵין קְטִילָא [נסח אחר: אזל לגביה אמר ליה לא דכיתא שוק פלן, אמר ליה הין, אמר ליה ואין אפיקת לך מיתין מן בתרך, אמר ליה גוד חמי ליה], צָפָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא נְתָנוֹ שָׁם, אָמַר גּוֹזֵר אֲנִי עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁיֵּרֵד וְעַל הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה, וַהֲוָה כֵן. וּסְלֵיק וּשְׁבַת בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, וַעֲבַר בְּהָדֵין מִגְדְּלָא דְּצַבָּעַיָא שְׁמַע קָלָא דְּנַקָּאי סַפְרָא, אָמַר לָא אַמְרִיתוּן דְּדַכֵּי בַּר יוֹחָאי לִטְבֶרְיָה, אָמְרִין אַשְׁכְּחוּן חַד קְטִילָא, אָמַר יָבוֹא עָלַי אִם אֵין בְּיָדִי הֲלָכוֹת כִּשְׂעַר רֹאשִׁי עַל טְבֶרְיָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה חוּץ מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְאַתָּה לֹא הָיִיתָ בַּמִּנְיָן עִמָּנוּ שֶׁנִּטְהֲרָה, פָּרַצְתָּ גְּדֵרָן שֶׁל חֲכָמִים, וְעָלֶיךָ נֶאֱמַר (קהלת י, ח): וּפֹרֵץ גָּדֵר יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ, מִיָּד נַעֲשָׂה גַּל שֶׁל עֲצָמוֹת. עָבַר בַּהֲדָא בִּקְעַת דְּבֵית נְטוֹפָא, חֲמָא חַד בַּר נָשׁ קָאֵים וּמְלַקֵּט סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית, אָמַר לוֹ וְלֹא סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית הֵן, אָמַר לוֹ וְלֹא אַתָּה הוּא שֶׁהִתַּרְתָּ, לֹא כָךְ תְּנֵינַן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל הַסְּפִיחִין מֻתָּרִין חוּץ מִסְּפִיחֵי כְּרוּב שֶׁאֵין כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם בְּיַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה, אָמַר לוֹ וַהֲלוֹא חֲבֵרַי חוֹלְקִים עָלַי, פָּרַצְתָּ גְּדֵרָן שֶׁל חֲכָמִים וּפֹרֵץ גָּדֵר יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ, וְכֵן הֲוַת לֵיהּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר, נִכְנַס בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם דִּמְדּוּמֵי חַמָּה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וְקָבַע תְּחוּמִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. הֲדָא אָמְרָת שֶׁשָּׁמַר יַעֲקֹב אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתַּן. | 1.1. "The great Rabbi Hoshaya opened [with the verse (Mishlei 8:30),] \"I [the Torah] was an amon to Him and I was a plaything to Him every day.\" Amon means \"pedagogue\" (i.e. ny). Amon means \"covered.\" Amon means \"hidden.\" And there is one who says amon means \"great.\" Amon means \"ny,\" as in (Bamidbar 11:12) “As a ny (omein) carries the suckling child.\" Amon means \"covered,\" as in (Eichah 4:5) \"Those who were covered (emunim) in scarlet have embraced refuse heaps.\" Amon means \"hidden,\" as in (Esther 2:7) \"He hid away (omein) Hadassah.\" Amon means \"great,\" as in (Nahum 3:8) \"Are you better than No-amon [which dwells in the rivers]?\" which the Targum renders as, \"Are you better than Alexandria the Great (amon), which dwells between the rivers?\" Alternatively, amon means \"artisan.\" The Torah is saying, \"I was the artisan's tool of Hashem.\" In the way of the world, a king of flesh and blood who builds a castle does not do so from his own knowledge, but rather from the knowledge of an architect, and the architect does not build it from his own knowledge, but rather he has scrolls and books in order to know how to make rooms and doorways. So too Hashem gazed into the Torah and created the world. Similarly the Torah says, \"Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth],\" and reishis means Torah, as in \"Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way\" (Mishlei 8:22).", |
|
| 12. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 10.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, 1.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 |
14. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 3a, 5a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171| 5a. לומר לך שאם חטא יחיד אומרים לו כלך אצל יחיד ואם חטאו צבור אומרים לו כלך אצל צבור,וצריכא דאי אשמועינן יחיד משום דלא מפרסם חטאיה אבל צבור דמפרסם חטאיהו אימא לא ואי אשמועינן צבור משום דנפישי רחמייהו אבל יחיד דלא אלימא זכותיה אימא לא צריכא,והיינו דרבי שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מאי דכתיב (שמואל ב כג, א) נאם דוד בן ישי ונאם הגבר הוקם על נאם דוד בן ישי שהקים עולה של תשובה,וא"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל העושה מצוה אחת בעולם הזה מקדמתו והולכת לפניו לעולם הבא שנאמר (ישעיהו נח, ח) והלך לפניך צדקך וכבוד ה' יאספך וכל העובר עבירה אחת מלפפתו ומוליכתו ליום הדין שנאמר (איוב ו, יח) ילפתו ארחות דרכם וגו',ר"א אומר קשורה בו ככלב שנאמר (בראשית לט, י) ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה להיות עמה לשכב אצלה בעוה"ז להיות עמה בעוה"ב,אמר ר"ל בואו ונחזיק טובה לאבותינו שאלמלא הן לא חטאו אנו לא באנו לעולם שנאמר (תהלים פב, ו) אני אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם חבלתם מעשיכם אכן כאדם תמותון וגו',למימרא דאי לא חטאו לא הוו מולדו והכתיב (בראשית ט, ז) ואתם פרו ורבו עד סיני בסיני נמי כתיב (דברים ה, כז) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם לשמחת עונה,והכתיב (דברים ה, כו) למען ייטב להם ולבניהם וגו' לאותן העומדים על הר סיני,והאמר ר"ל מאי דכתיב (בראשית ה, א) זה ספר תולדות אדם וגו' וכי ספר היה לו לאדם הראשון מלמד שהראה לו הקב"ה לאדם הראשון דור דור ודורשיו דור דור וחכמיו דור דור ופרנסיו כיון שהגיע לדורו של ר"ע שמח בתורתו ונתעצב במיתתו אמר (תהלים קלט, יז) ולי מה יקרו רעיך אל [וגו'],וא"ר יוסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו נשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) [כי לא לעולם אריב ולא לנצח אקצוף] כי רוח מלפני יעטוף ונשמות אני עשיתי,לא תימא אנו לא באנו לעולם אלא כמי שלא באנו לעולם למימרא דאי לא חטאו לא הוו מייתי והכתיב פרשת יבמות ופרשת נחלות,על תנאי ומי כתיבי קראי על תנאי אין דהכי אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב (בראשית א, לא) ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום הששי מלמד שהתנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית ואמר אם מקבלין ישראל את התורה מוטב ואם לאו אחזיר אתכם לתוהו ובוהו,מיתיבי (דברים ה, כו) מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם לבטל מהם מלאך המות א"א שכבר נגזרה גזרה,הא לא קיבלו ישראל את התורה אלא כדי שלא תהא אומה ולשון שולטת בהן שנאמר (דברים ה, כו) למען ייטב להם ולבניהם עד עולם,הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר לא קיבלו ישראל את התורה אלא כדי שלא יהא מלאך המות שולט בהן שנאמר (תהלים פב, ו) אני אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם חבלתם מעשיכם אכן כאדם תמותון,ורבי יוסי נמי הכתיב למען ייטב להם ולבניהם עד עולם טובה הוא דהויא הא מיתה איכא (רבי יוסי) אמר לך כיון דליכא מיתה אין לך טובה גדולה מזו,ות"ק נמי הכתיב אכן כאדם תמותון מאי מיתה עניות דאמר מר ארבעה חשובים כמתים אלו הן עני סומא ומצורע ומי שאין לו בנים,עני דכתיב (שמות ד, יט) כי מתו כל האנשים ומאן נינהו דתן ואבירם ומי מתו מיהוי הוו אלא שירדו מנכסיהם,סומא דכתיב (איכה ג, ו) במחשכים הושיבני כמתי עולם מצורע דכתיב (במדבר יב, יב) אל נא תהי כמת ומי שאין לו בנים דכתיב (בראשית ל, א) הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי,תנו רבנן (ויקרא כו, ג) אם בחקתי תלכו אין אם אלא לשון תחנונים וכן הוא אומר (תהלים פא, יד) לו עמי שומע לי [וגו'] כמעט אויביהם אכניע ואומר (ישעיהו מח, יח) לו הקשבת למצותי ויהי כנהר שלומך וגו' ויהי כחול זרעך וצאצאי מעיך וגו',תנו רבנן (דברים ה, כז) מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם אמר להן משה לישראל כפויי טובה בני כפויי טובה בשעה שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם היה להם לומר תן אתה,כפויי טובה דכתיב (במדבר כא, ה) ונפשנו קצה | 5a. This serves to say to you that if an individual has sinned, one says to him: Go to that famous individual who sinned, King David, and learn from him that one can repent. And if the community sinned, one says to them: Go to the community that sinned, i.e., the Jewish people at the time of the Golden Calf.,The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to learn about repentance both in the case of an individual and in the case of a community. The reason is that if we had learned this idea only with regard to an individual, one might have thought that he has the option to repent only because his sin is not publicized. But in the case of a community, whose sin is publicized, one might say that the community cannot repent. And likewise, if we had learned this idea only with regard to a community, one might have said that their repentance is accepted because their prayers are more numerous than those of an individual, and they are heard before God. But in the case of an individual, whose merit is not as strong, one might say that he is not able to repent. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.,And this is similar to that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The saying of David, son of Yishai, and the saying of the man raised on high [al]” (II Samuel 23:1)? This is the meaning of the verse: The saying of David, son of Yishai, who raised and lightened the yoke [ullah] of repentance, as he taught the power of repentance through his own example.,And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani further says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to anyone who performs one mitzva in this world, the mitzva will precede him and walk before him in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your reward” (Isaiah 58:8). And with regard to anyone who commits one transgression, that transgression will shroud him and lead him on the Day of Judgment, as it is stated: “The paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost” (Job 6:18).,Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is tied to him like a dog and does not leave him, as it is stated with regard to Joseph and Potiphar’s wife: “And he did not listen to her, to lie by her, or to be with her” (Genesis 39:10). This teaches that Joseph refused “to lie by her” in this world, which would have meant that he would have had “to be with her” in the World-to-Come.,§ The Gemara further discusses the sin of the Golden Calf. Reish Lakish says: Come and let us be grateful to our ancestors who sinned with the Golden Calf, as had they not sinned we would not have come into the world. Reish Lakish explains: As it is stated about the Jewish people after the revelation at Sinai: “I said: You are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6), which indicates that they had become like angels and would not have propagated offspring. Then, God states: After you ruined your deeds: “Yet you shall die like a man, and fall like one of the princes” (Psalms 82:7).,The Gemara asks: Is this to say that if they had not sinned with the Golden Calf they would not have sired children? But isn’t it written that Noah and his children were instructed: “And you, be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 9:7)? The Gemara answers: This instruction was issued only until the revelation at Sinai, but the Jewish people would have become like angels there, had they not sinned. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it also written about the Jewish people who were at the revelation at Sinai: “Go say to them: Return to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:27), which means that they were instructed to resume marital relations? The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the enjoyment of conjugal rights, not to procreation.,The Gemara further asks: But isn’t it written: “That it might be good for them, and with their children forever” (Deuteronomy 5:26), which indicates that they would continue to bear children? The Gemara answers: This verse is referring to those children who stood with them at Mount Sinai, not to future generations.,The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But doesn’t Reish Lakish say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day that God created man” (Genesis 5:1)? Did Adam the first man have a book? Rather, the verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Adam, the first man, every generation and its expositors, every generation and its Sages, and every generation and its leaders. When Adam arrived at the generation of Rabbi Akiva, he rejoiced in his Torah and was saddened by his death, as Rabbi Akiva was tortured and murdered. Adam said: “How weighty also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them” (Psalms 139:17). It is evident from here that the Jews were destined to bear future generations from the beginning of time.,And similarly, Rabbi Yosei says: The Messiah, son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so. As it is stated: “For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). According to Rabbi Yosei, in order for the Messiah to come in the end of days, it is necessary for the future generations to be born.,The Gemara answers: Do not say that if our ancestors had not sinned we would not have come into the world, as we still would have been born; rather, it would have been as though we had not come into the world. We would have been of no importance, due to the previous generations that would have still been alive. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that if the Jewish people had not sinned with the Golden Calf then they would not have died? But isn’t the chapter that addresses widows whose husbands die childless (Deuteronomy 25:5–10) written in the Torah, and the chapter that addresses the inheritance a deceased father bequeaths to his sons (Numbers 27:8–11) is also written?,The Gemara answers: These passages were written conditionally, i.e., if the Jewish people were to sin and not become like angels, those halakhot would take effect. The Gemara asks: And are verses written conditionally in this manner? The Gemara answers: Yes, as this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, established a condition with the acts of Creation, and He said: If the Jewish people accept the Torah at the revelation at Sinai, all is well and the world will continue to exist. But if they do not accept it, I will return you to the primordial state of chaos and disorder.,The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the new formulation of Reish Lakish’s statement, according to which the Jewish people would have become immortal had they not sinned with the Golden Calf. The verse states about the Jewish people after the revelation at Sinai: “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children forever” (Deuteronomy 5:26). The baraita states that although they had reached such an elevated state, it was not possible to nullify the power of the Angel of Death over them, as the decree of death was already issued from the time of creation.,Rather, the baraita explains that the Jewish people accepted the Torah only in order that no nation or tongue would rule over them, as it is stated in the same verse: “That it might be good for them, and with their children forever.” This indicates that had the Jewish people not sinned they would not have achieved immortality, which contradicts Reish Lakish’s statement.,The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish said his statement in accordance with the opinion of that tanna. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Jewish people accepted the Torah only in order that the Angel of Death would not rule over them, as it is stated: “I said: You are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6), i.e., they had become immortal like angels. Then, God states: After you ruined your deeds, “yet you shall die like a man, and fall like one of the princes” (Psalms 82:7).,The Gemara asks: And also, according to Rabbi Yosei, isn’t it written: “That it might be good for them, and with their children forever,” from which it may be inferred that although it will be good for them if they remain in this elevated state, there will still be death? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: Since there is no death, there is no greater good than this, i.e., the promise of the verse is immortality.,The Gemara inquires: And according to the first tanna as well, isn’t it written: “Yet you shall die like a man,” which indicates that their mortality was decreed only due to the sin of the Golden Calf? The Gemara answers: What is meant by death? It means poverty. As the Master said: Four are considered as though they were dead: These are a pauper, a blind person, a leper, and one who has no children.,A pauper is considered as though dead, as it is written that God said to Moses: “Go, return to Egypt; for all the men that sought your life are dead” (Exodus 4:19). And who were these men? They were Dathan and Abiram. But did they really die? They were still alive, as they participated in the rebellion of Korah, which took place years later. Rather, the verse does not mean that they had died, but that they had lost their property and become impoverished. This demonstrates that a pauper is considered as though he were dead.,A blind person is considered as though he were dead, as it is written: “He has made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead” (Lamentations 3:6). A leper is considered as though he were dead, as it is written that Aaron said to Moses when Miriam was struck with leprosy: “Let her not, I pray, be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12). And one who has no children is considered as though he were dead, as it is written that Rachel said to Jacob: “Give me children, or else I am dead” (Genesis 30:1).,The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If you walk in My statutes” (Leviticus 26:3): In this context, “if” is a term that means nothing other than supplication, i.e., God is hoping that the Jewish people will observe the Torah. And similarly, it is stated: “Oh that My people would hearken to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways, I would soon subdue their enemies” (Psalms 81:14–15). And it states: “Oh that you would hearken to My commandments! Then your peace would be as a river, and your righteousness as the waves of the sea. Your seed also would be as the sand, and the offspring of your body like its grains” (Isaiah 48:18–19).,§ The Gemara returns to a verse cited above. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children forever” (Deuteronomy 5:26). At a later stage, Moses said to the Jewish people: Ingrates, children of ingrates! When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always,” they should have said: You should give us a heart to fear You.,The Gemara explains that Moses calls the Jewish people ingrates, as it is written that the Jewish people spoke disparagingly of the manna: “And our soul loathes |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 24a, 24b, 27b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171| 27b. וחלקום והעמידום על עשרים וארבעה בללום ונתנום בקלפי בא ידעיה ונטל חלקו וחלק חבריו שש בא [חרים] ונטל חלקו וחלק חבריו שש וכן פשחור וכן אימר,וכן התנו נביאים שביניהם שאפי' (יהוידיב) ראש משמרת עולה לא ידחה ידעיה ממקומו אלא ידעיה עיקר (ויהוידיב) טפל לו:,וישראל שבאותו משמר מתכנסין בעריהן וקורין במעשה בראשית: מנהני מילי א"ר יעקב בר אחא אמר רב אסי אלמלא מעמדות לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר (בראשית טו, ב) ויאמר ה' אלהים במה אדע כי אירשנה,אמר אברהם רבש"ע שמא ישראל חוטאין לפניך אתה עושה להם כדור המבול וכדור הפלגה א"ל לאו אמר לפניו רבש"ע הודיעני במה אירשנה א"ל (בראשית טו, ט) קחה לי עגלה משולשת ועז משולשת וגו',אמר לפניו רבש"ע תינח בזמן שבית המקדש קיים בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מה תהא עליהם אמר לו כבר תקנתי להם סדר קרבנות בזמן שקוראין בהן לפני מעלה אני עליהם כאילו הקריבום לפני ואני מוחל להם על כל עונותיהם,ת"ר אנשי משמר היו מתפללין על קרבן אחיהם שיתקבל ברצון ואנשי מעמד מתכנסין לבית הכנסת ויושבין ד' תעניות בשני בשבת בשלישי ברביעי ובחמישי בשני על יורדי הים בשלישי על הולכי מדברות,ברביעי על אסכרא שלא תיפול על התינוקות בחמישי על עוברות ומיניקות עוברות שלא יפילו מיניקות שיניקו את בניהם ובערב שבת לא היו מתענין מפני כבוד השבת ק"ו בשבת עצמה,באחד בשבת מ"ט לא אמר ר' יוחנן מפני הנוצרים ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר מפני שהוא שלישי ליצירה,ריש לקיש אמר מפני נשמה יתירה דאמר ריש לקיש נשמה יתירה ניתנה בו באדם בע"ש במוצאי שבת נוטלין אותה ממנו שנאמר (שמות לא, יז) שבת וינפש כיון ששבת וי אבדה נפש:,ביום הראשון בראשית ויהי רקיע: תנא בראשית בשנים יהי רקיע באחד בשלמא יהי רקיע באחד תלתא פסוקי הוו אלא בראשית בשנים (מ"ט) ה' פסוקי הויין (ותנן) הקורא בתורה אל יפחות מג' פסוקים,רב אמר דולג ושמואל אמר פוסק ורב דאמר דולג מ"ט לא אמר פוסק קסבר כל פסוקא דלא פסקיה משה אנן לא פסקינן ליה,ושמואל אמר פוסק ומי פסקינן והאמר רבי חנינא קרא צער גדול היה לי אצל ר' חנינא הגדול ולא התיר לי לפסוק אלא לתינוקות של בית רבן הואיל ולהתלמד עשוין ושמואל התם טעמא מאי משום דלא אפשר הכא נמי לא אפשר,ושמואל אמר פוסק מ"ט לא אמר דולג גזירה משום הנכנסין וגזירה משום היוצאין,מיתיבי פרשה של ששה פסוקים קורין אותה בשנים ושל חמשה [ביחיד ואם] הראשון קורא ג' השני קורא שנים מפרשה זו ואחד מפרשה אחרת וי"א ג' לפי שאין מתחילין בפרשה פחות משלשה פסוקין,למ"ד דולג לידלוג ולמאן דאמר פוסק ליפסוק שאני התם | 27b. and divided them and established them as twenty-four watches. They achieved this by writing the names of these new twenty-four watches on pieces of paper, mixing them up, and putting them in a receptacle [kalfei] from which lots were drawn. A representative from the family of Jedaiah came and drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six. Harim came and also drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, a total of six. And likewise Pashhur, and likewise Immer.,And likewise the prophets among them stipulated that even if the descendants of Jehoiarib, who originally headed the priestly watches, ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Jedaiah would not be demoted from its place as the first of the watches. Rather, the watch of Jedaiah would retain precedence, and Jehoiarib would be subordinate to it.,§ The mishna taught: And the Israelites of that priestly watch assembled in their towns and read the act of Creation. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that they must read this specific portion, derived? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rav Asi said: Were it not for the non-priestly watches and the Temple service, heaven and earth would not continue to exist, as it is stated: “And he said: Lord God, by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8).,The Gemara explains this verse. Abraham said: Master of the Universe, perhaps the Jews will sin before You. Will You treat them as You did the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion, and destroy them? God said to him: No. Abraham said before God: Master of the Universe, tell me, with what shall I inherit it? How can my descendants ensure that You will maintain the world? God said to Abraham: “Take for Me a three-year-old heifer, and a three-year-old goat, and a three-year-old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon” (Genesis 15:9). God was alluding to the offerings, in whose merit the Jewish people, and through them the entire world, will be spared divine punishment.,Abraham said before God: Master of the Universe, this works out well when the Temple is standing, but when the Temple is not standing, what will become of them? God said to him: I have already enacted for them the order of offerings. When they read them before Me, I will ascribe them credit as though they had sacrificed them before Me and I will pardon them for all their transgressions. Since the offerings ensure the continued existence of the Jewish people and the rest of the world, the act of Creation is read in their honor.,§ The Sages taught: The members of the priestly watch would pray for the offerings of their brothers, the daily offering, that it should be accepted with favor. And meanwhile, the members of the non-priestly watch remained in their towns and would assemble in the synagogue and observe four fasts: On Monday of that week, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, and on Thursday. On Monday they would fast for seafarers, that they should be rescued from danger, as the sea was created on Monday. On Tuesday they would fast for those who walk in the desert, as the dry land was created on Tuesday.,On Wednesday they would fast over croup, that it should not befall the children, as on the fourth day the bodies of light [me’orot] were created, a textual allusion to curses [me’erot]. On Thursday they would fast for pregt women and nursing women, as living beings were first created on this day. For pregt women they would fast that they should not miscarry, while for nursing women they would fast that they should be able to nurse their children properly. And on Shabbat eve they would not fast, in deference to Shabbat, and a fortiori they would not fast on Shabbat itself.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they would not fast on Sunday? Rabbi Yoḥa said: Due to the Christians, as Sunday is their day of rest, and they would claim that even the Jews ascribe significance to their special day. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Because it is the third day after the creation of man, who was created on Friday, and the third day of recovery from a wound or sickness, in this case one’s very creation, is considered the most painful.,Reish Lakish said: They would not fast on Sunday due to the added soul, as Reish Lakish said: An added soul is given to man on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat it is removed it from him, as it is stated: “He ceased from work and rested [vayinafash]” (Exodus 31:17), which he expounds as follows: Since one has rested and Shabbat has passed, woe for the soul [vai nefesh] that is lost, the added soul that each individual relinquishes. Consequently, one is still weak from this loss on Sunday.,The mishna taught that on Sunday they would read the portions starting with: “In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1–5) and “Let there be a firmament” (Genesis 1:6–8). It is taught in a baraita: The section: “In the beginning” is read by two people, while “Let there be a firmament” is read by one. The Gemara asks: Granted, the passage “Let there be a firmament” is read by one individual, as it is three verses long, and one who is called to the Torah reads at least three verses. However, what is the reason that the section “In the beginning” is read by two individuals? It is five verses long, and it is taught in a mishna (Megilla 22a): One who reads from the Torah may not read fewer than three verses. How, then, are five verses read by two individuals?,The Gemara cites two answers. Rav said: The first reader reads the first three verses, and the second reader repeats the last verse read by the first, and continues with the final two verses. And Shmuel said: They split the middle verse into two, so that each of the pair reads half of it. The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rav, who said that one repeats, what is the reason that he did not say they should split a verse? The Gemara answers that Rav maintains that with regard to any verse that was not divided by Moses, we do not divide it.,And Shmuel said that one splits the middle verse into two. The Gemara asks: And may one split a single verse? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, who taught the Bible to schoolchildren, say: I had great trouble with Rabbi Ḥanina the Great when I asked him this question, and he permitted me to split long verses into two only for the benefit of schoolchildren, since it is performed to help them learn. And Shmuel can respond that what is the reason there, in the case of schoolchildren, that it is permitted to split verses? Because it is not possible to proceed in any other way. Here too, it is not possible for two people to read five verses other than by splitting one of them into two.,The Gemara questions this last conclusion. And Shmuel said that one splits the middle verse into two. What is the reason that he did not say that he repeats one of the verses, in accordance with the opinion of Rav? The Gemara explains: It is a rabbinic decree due to those who enter the synagogue in the middle of the reading, and a decree due to those who leave in the middle. If someone entered or exited in the middle of the reading and heard three full verses, he might think that one of the readers had read fewer than three full verses, which might lead him to conclude that it is permitted to read fewer than three verses.,The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A chapter consisting of six verses may be read by two individuals, and a chapter of five verses must be read by one. And if the first individual reads three verses from the five-verse chapter, the second one reads the last two verses of that chapter and one more from another chapter. And some say that three verses are read from the next chapter, as one may not begin to read a chapter for fewer than three verses.,The Gemara explains the objection: According to the one who said that they repeat the middle verse, let the second reader repeat a verse here as well. And according to the one who said that they split a verse, here too, let them split it. Apparently, the baraita contradicts the opinions of both Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: It is different there, |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, 35a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah, study of, palestinian rabbis concept of divine origins Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 97| 35a. וילכו ויבאו א"ר יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי מקיש הליכה לביאה מה ביאה בעצה רעה אף הליכה בעצה רעה,(במדבר יג, כז) ויספרו לו ויאמרו באנו וגו' וכתיב אפס כי עז העם אמר רבי יוחנן (סימן אמ"ת לבד"ו לוי"ה) משום ר"מ כל לשון הרע שאין בו דבר אמת בתחילתו אין מתקיים בסופו,(במדבר יג, ל) ויהס כלב את העם אל משה אמר רבה שהסיתן בדברים,פתח יהושע דקא משתעי אמרי ליה דין ראש קטיעה ימלל,אמר אי משתעינא אמרי בי מילתא וחסמין לי אמר להן וכי זו בלבד עשה לנו בן עמרם סברי בגנותיה קא משתעי אישתיקו,אמר להו הוציאנו ממצרים וקרע לנו את הים והאכילנו את המן אם יאמר עשו סולמות ועלו לרקיע לא נשמע לו (במדבר יג, ל) עלה נעלה וירשנו אותה וגו',והאנשים אשר עלו עמו אמרו לא נוכל וגו' אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דבר גדול דברו מרגלים באותה שעה כי חזק הוא ממנו אל תקרי ממנו אלא ממנו כביכול אפילו בעל הבית אינו יכול להוציא כליו משם,(במדבר יג, לב) ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא דרש רבא אמר הקב"ה אני חשבתיה לטובה והם חשבו לרעה אני חשבתיה לטובה דכל היכא דמטו מת חשיבא דידהו כי היכי דניטרדו ולא לשאלו אבתרייהו ואיכא דאמרי איוב נח נפשיה ואטרידו כולי עלמא בהספידא הם חשבו לרעה ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא,(במדבר יג, לג) ונהי בעינינו כחגבים וכן היינו וגו' אמר רב משרשיא מרגלים שקרי הוו בשלמא ונהי בעינינו כחגבים לחיי אלא וכן היינו בעיניהם מנא הוו ידעי,ולא היא כי הוו מברי אבילי תותי ארזי הוו מברי וכי חזינהו סלקו יתבי באילני שמעי דקאמרי קחזינן אינשי דדמו לקמצי באילני,(במדבר יד, א) ותשא כל העדה ויתנו את קולם ויבכו אמר רבה אמר רבי יוחנן אותו היום [ערב] תשעה באב היה אמר הקב"ה הן בכו בכיה של חנם ואני אקבע להם בכיה לדורות,ויאמרו כל העדה לרגום אותם באבנים וכתיב (במדבר יד, י) וכבוד ה' נראה באהל מועד אמר רבי חייא בר אבא מלמד שנטלו אבנים וזרקום כלפי מעלה,(במדבר יד, לז) וימותו האנשים מוציאי דבת הארץ רעה במגפה אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש שמתו מיתה משונה אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דרש ר' שילא איש כפר תמרתא מלמד שנשתרבב לשונם ונפל על טיבורם והיו תולעים יוצאות מלשונם ונכנסות בטיבורם ומטיבורם ונכנסות בלשונם ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר באסכרה מתו,וכיון שעלה האחרון שבישראל מן הירדן חזרו מים למקומן שנאמר (יהושע ד, יח) ויהי בעלות הכהנים נושאי ארון ברית ה' מתוך הירדן נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים אל החרבה וישובו מי הירדן למקומם וילכו כתמול שלשום על כל גדותיו,נמצא ארון ונושאיו וכהנים מצד אחד וישראל מצד אחד נשא ארון את נושאיו ועבר שנאמר (יהושע ד, יא) ויהי כאשר תם כל העם לעבור ויעבור ארון ה' והכהנים לפני העם,ועל דבר זה נענש עוזא שנאמר (דברי הימים א יג, ט) ויבאו עד גורן כידון וישלח עוזא את ידו לאחוז את הארון אמר לו הקב"ה עוזא נושאיו נשא עצמו לא כל שכן,(שמואל ב ו, ז) ויחר אף ה' בעוזא ויכהו שם על השל וגו' רבי יוחנן ור"א חד אמר על עסקי שלו וחד אמר שעשה צרכיו בפניו,(שמואל ב ו, ז) וימת שם עם ארון האלהים א"ר יוחנן עוזא בא לעוה"ב שנאמר עם ארון האלהים מה ארון לעולם קיים אף עוזא בא לעוה"ב,(שמואל ב ו, ח) ויחר לדוד על אשר פרץ ה' פרץ בעוזא א"ר אלעזר שנשתנו פניו כחררה,אלא מעתה כל היכא דכתיב ויחר ה"נ התם כתיב אף הכא לא כתיב אף,דרש רבא מפני מה נענש דוד מפני שקרא לדברי תורה זמירות שנאמר (תהלים קיט, נד) זמירות היו לי חוקיך בבית מגורי,אמר לו הקב"ה ד"ת שכתוב בהן (משלי כג, ה) התעיף עיניך בו ואיננו אתה קורא אותן זמירות הריני מכשילך בדבר שאפילו תינוקות של בית רבן יודעין אותו דכתיב (במדבר ז, ט) ולבני קהת לא נתן כי עבודת הקודש וגו' ואיהו אתייה בעגלתא,(שמואל א ו, יט) ויך באנשי בית שמש כי ראו בארון משום דראו ויך (אלהים) רבי אבהו ורבי אלעזר חד אמר קוצרין ומשתחוים היו וחד אמר מילי נמי אמור | 35a. And they went and they came” (Numbers 13:25–26). Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: This verse likens their going to their coming. Just as their coming back was with wicked counsel, so too, their going to Eretz Yisrael was with wicked counsel.,The Torah states: “And they told him, and said: We came to the land to which you sent us, and it also flows with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27), and then it is written: “However the people that dwell in the land are fierce” (Numbers 13:28). Why did the spies praise the land and then slander it? Rabbi Yoḥa says three statements in the name of Rabbi Meir, represented by the mnemonic device: Truth, alone, borrowing. The first statement answers this question: Any slander that does not begin with a truthful statement ultimately does not stand, i.e., it is not accepted by others.,The verse states: “And Caleb stilled [vayyahas] the people toward Moses” (Numbers 13:30). Rabba says: This means that he persuaded them [hesitan] with his words. Vayyahas and hesitan share the same root in Hebrew.,How did he do so? Joshua began to address the people, and as he was speaking they said to him: Should this person, who has a severed head, as he has no children, speak to the people about entering Eretz Yisrael?,Caleb said to himself: If I speak they will also say something about me and stop me from speaking. He began to speak and said to them: And is this the only thing that the son of Amram, Moses, has done to us? They thought that he wanted to relate something to the discredit of Moses, and they were silent.,He then said to them: He took us out of Egypt, and split the sea for us, and fed us the manna. If he says to us: Build ladders and climb to the heavens, should we not listen to him? “We should go up at once,” even to the heavens, “and possess it” (Numbers 13:30).,The verses continue: “But the men that went up with him said: We are not able to go up against the people; as they are stronger than us” (Numbers 13:31). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: The spies said a serious statement at that moment. When they said: “They are stronger,” do not read the phrase as: Stronger than us [mimmennu], but rather read it as: Stronger than Him [mimmennu], meaning that even the Homeowner, God, is unable to remove His belongings from there, as it were. The spies were speaking heresy and claiming that the Canaanites were stronger than God Himself.,The spies said: “It is a land that consumes its inhabitants” (Numbers 13:32). Rava taught: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I intended the land to appear to consume its inhabitants for their own good, but they considered this proof that the land was bad. I intended it for their good by causing many people to die there so that anywhere that the spies arrived, the most important of them died, so that the Canaanites would be preoccupied with mourning and would not inquire about them. And there are those who say that God caused Job to die at that time, and everyone in Canaan was preoccupied with his eulogy, and did not pay attention to the spies. However, the spies considered this proof that the land was bad and said: “It is a land that consumes its inhabitants.”,The spies said: “And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and so were we in their eyes” (Numbers 13:33). Rav Mesharshiyya says: The spies were liars. Granted, to say: “We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,” is well, but to say: “And so were we in their eyes,” from where could they have known this?,The Gemara responds: But that is not so, as when the Canaanites were having the mourners’ meal, they had the meal beneath cedar trees, and when the spies saw them they climbed up the trees and sat in them. From there they heard the Canaanites saying: We see people who look like grasshoppers in the trees.,The verse states: “And all the congregation lifted up their voice and cried” (Numbers 14:1). Rabba says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: That day was the eve of the Ninth of Av, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: On that day they wept a gratuitous weeping, so I will establish that day for them as a day of weeping for the future generations.,The verse states: “But all the congregation bade stone them with stones” (Numbers 14:10), and it is written immediately afterward: “When the glory of the Lord appeared in the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 14:10). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: This teaches that they took stones and threw them upward as if to throw them at God.,The verse states: “And those men who brought out an evil report of the land, died by the plague before the Lord” (Numbers 14:37). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This means that they died an unusual death. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says that Rabbi Sheila Ish Kefar Temarta taught: This teaches that their tongues were stretched out from their mouths and fell upon their navels, and worms were crawling out of their tongues and entering their navels, and worms were likewise coming out of their navels and entering their tongues. This is the painful death that they suffered. And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They died of diphtheria, which causes one to choke to death.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss the entry of the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. And once the last one of the Jewish people ascended out of the Jordan, the water returned to its place, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, as the priests that bore the Ark of the Covet of the Lord came up out of the midst of the Jordan, as soon as the soles of the priests’ feet were drawn up unto the dry ground, that the waters of the Jordan returned to their place, and went over all its banks, as it had before” (Joshua 4:18). The Gemara understands that the priests who carried the Ark stood in the water until all of the Jewish people passed through the Jordan. Once all the Jewish people had reached the other side of the Jordan, the priests stepped back from the water and the Jordan returned to its natural state.,It follows that the Ark and its bearers and the priests were on one side of the Jordan, the east side, and the rest of the Jewish people were on the other side, the west side. Subsequently, the Ark carried its bearers in the air and crossed the Jordan, as it is stated: “When all the people were completely passed over, the Ark of the Lord passed on, and the priests, before the people” (Joshua 4:11).,And over this matter Uzzah was punished for not taking proper care of the Ark, as it is stated: “And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put forth his hand to hold the Ark; for the oxen stumbled” (I Chronicles 13:9). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Uzzah, the Ark carried its bearers when it crossed the Jordan; all the more so is it not clear that it can carry itself?,§ The verse states: “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error [hashal]” (II Samuel 6:7). Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar disagreed over the interpretation of this verse. One says: God smote him for his forgetfulness [shalo], because he did not remember that the Ark can carry itself. And one says: God smote him because he lifted the edges [shulayyim] of his garment in front of the Ark and relieved himself in its presence.,The verse states: “And he died there with the Ark of God” (II Samuel 6:7). Rabbi Yoḥa says: Uzzah entered the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “With the Ark of God.” Just as the Ark exists forever, so too, Uzzah entered the World-to-Come.,The verse states: “And David was displeased [vayyiḥar] because the Lord had broken forth upon Uzzah” (II Samuel 6:8). Rabbi Elazar says: Vayyiḥar means that his face changed colors and darkened like baked bread [ḥarara] from displeasure.,The Gemara questions this statement: If that is so, anywhere that the word vayyiḥar is written, including when it is referring to God, should it be interpreted this way as well? The Gemara answers: There, it is written: “And the anger of the Lord was kindled [vayyiḥar af ]” (II Samuel 6:7), whereas here, the anger [af ] is not written, but only vayyiḥar. Therefore it is interpreted differently.,Rava taught: For what reason was David punished with Uzzah’s death? He was punished because he called matters of Torah: Songs, as it is stated: “Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage” (Psalms 119:54).,The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Matters of Torah are so difficult and demanding that it is written: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone” (Proverbs 23:5), i.e., one whose eyes stray from the Torah even for a moment will forget it, and you call them songs? For this reason I will cause you to stumble in a matter that even schoolchildren know, as it is written with regard to the wagons brought to the Tabernacle: “And to the descendants of Kohath he did not give, because the service of the holy things belongs to them; they carry them upon their shoulders” (Numbers 7:9). And although the Ark clearly must be carried on people’s shoulders, David erred and brought it in a wagon.,§ When the Philistines returned the Ark during the period of Samuel, it is stated: “And He smote of the men of Beit Shemesh because they had gazed upon the Ark of the Lord” (I Samuel 6:19). The Gemara asks: Because they gazed upon it, God smote them? Why did their action warrant this punishment? Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Elazar disagreed with regard to the interpretation of the verse. One says that they were punished because they were reaping their crops and prostrating themselves at the same time; they did not stop working in reverence for the Ark. And one says that they also spoke denigrating words: |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 112b, 116b, 88a, 116a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 95| 116a. שאין זה מקומה ר' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה' וא"ר חמא בר' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) [ו] אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה [הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.],אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה | 116a. that this is not its place, as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is not for that reason that signs were inserted. Rather, the signs are there because this portion is considered a book unto itself.,The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said that Rabbi Yonatan said, that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, she carved its seven pillars” (Proverbs 9:1), these are the seven books of the Torah? According to whose opinion? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy.,Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here, where it appears, and will be written in its proper place. And why was it written here, even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is in order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishment that appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: “And the people complained wickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is the first punishment? It is the verse: “And they traveled from the mountain of God [mehar Hashem] for three days” (Numbers 10:33), and Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God [me’aḥarei Hashem] and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: And if so, where is the proper place for this paragraph? Rav Ashi said: In the portion of the flags, where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the blank folios of parchment of a Torah scroll, does one rescue them from the fire on Shabbat, or does one not rescue them from the fire? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to a Torah scroll that is worn, if there is enough in it to compile eighty-five complete letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues it from the fire, and if not one does not rescue it. If even the blank folios are rescued, why would one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to its blank folios. The Gemara answers: A Torah scroll that is worn is different, because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters.,Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in another baraita: With regard to a Torah scroll that was erased, if there is enough in it to compile eighty-five complete letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues it from the fire, and if not, one does not rescue it. And why is that so? Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to its blank folios, as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where the place of the writing is erased it is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due to the writing. If the writing is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me is with regard to the blank portions that are above and below, that are between one section and another section, that are between one page and another page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, and that are at the end of the scroll. The Gemara asks again: Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to that area that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case where the blank area was cut and thrown out, and all that remains is the place of the writing.,Come and hear a different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that the blank folios that are above and below, that are between one section and another section, that are between one page and another page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, and that are at the end of the scroll render the hands that touch them ritually impure. Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as perhaps when it is part of the Torah scroll, it is different, and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in another baraita: With regard to the blank folios and the Torah scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names of God contained therein. What, is this not referring to the blank folios of a Torah scroll? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the blank folios of the scrolls of heretics. The Gemara is surprised at this: Now, with regard to the scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescue them; is it necessary to say that one does not rescue their blank folios? Rather, this is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios.,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. With regard to the blank folios and the Torah scrolls of the heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the names of God contained therein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon said in the form of an oath: I will bury my sons if I fail to do the following, that if these books come into my possession I will burn them and the names contained therein. As even if a person is pursuing him with the intent to kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of these heretics. The reason is that these heretics are aware of the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, and nevertheless, they deny the existence of God; whereas these idolators are not aware, and that is the reason that they deny the existence of God. And with regard to the heretics, the verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory” (Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door.,Rabbi Yishmael said: The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as to make peace between a husband and his wife, the Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the water in the framework of the ordeal of the sota; these, the heretics, who impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more so it is proper to erase God’s names because of them. And with regard to heretics, David said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me” (Psalms 139:21–22). And just as they, the scrolls of heretics, are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from any other matter that destroys them.,Yosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu: With regard to these books of the house of Abidan, does one rescue them from the fire or does one not rescue them? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said yes and no, and the matter was uncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidan for conversation, and all the more so he would not go to the house of Nitzrefei, the Persian fire-temple. Shmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go, but to the house of Abidan he did go. The gentile scholars said to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan? He evaded their question with an excuse and said to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, and that makes the path difficult for me. They said to him: We will uproot it. He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in its place will be difficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I am one of them, we are friends, and I do not fear them. Still, one time he went and argued with them and they sought to endanger his life. Rabbi Meir would call the Christian writing, the Evangelion, the wicked folio [aven gilyon]; Rabbi Yoḥa called it the sinful folio [avon gilyon].,The Gemara relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was a Christian philosopher [pilosofa] in their neighborhood |
|
| 18. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 106a, 91a, 99a, 99b, 8a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 97 |
19. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 68b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171| 68b. והקטר חלביו וכו': תניא אמר רבי שמעון בא וראה כמה חביבה מצוה בשעתה שהרי הקטר חלבים ואברים ופדרים כשרים כל הלילה ואין ממתינים להם עד שתחשך:,הרכבתו והבאתו וכו': ורמינהו חותכין יבלת במקדש אבל לא במדינה ואם בכלי כאן וכאן אסור,ר' אלעזר ור' יוסי בר חנינא חד אמר אידי ואידי ביד הא בלחה הא ביבשה וחד אמר אידי ואידי בלחה ולא קשיא הא ביד הא בכלי,ולמאן דאמר הא ביד הא בכלי מאי טעמא לא אמר אידי ואידי ביד ולא קשיא הא בלחה הא ביבשה אמר לך יבשה מפרך פריכא,ולמאן דאמר אידי ואידי ביד ולא קשיא הא בלחה הא ביבשה מאי טעמא לא אמר אידי ואידי בלחה ולא קשיא הא ביד הא בכלי אמר לך כלי הא קתני התם אם בכלי כאן וכאן אסור,ואידך הא דקתני כלי הכא פלוגתא דרבי אליעזר ור' יהושע אתא לאשמועינן:,א"ר אליעזר ומה אם שחיטה וכו': ר' יהושע לטעמיה דאמר שמחת י"ט נמי מצוה היא,דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר אין לו לאדם בי"ט אלא או אוכל ושותה או יושב ושונה ר' יהושע אומר חלקהו חציו לאכילה ושתיה וחציו לבית המדרש,וא"ר יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו כתוב אחד אומר (דברים טז, ח) עצרת לה' אלהיך וכתוב אחד אומר (במדבר כט, לה) עצרת תהיה לכם ר' אליעזר סבר או כולו לה' או כולו לכם ור' יהושע סבר חלקהו חציו לה' וחציו לכם:,(עב"ם סימן) א"ר אלעזר הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם מ"ט יום שניתנה בו תורה הוא אמר רבה הכל מודים בשבת דבעינן נמי לכם מ"ט (ישעיהו נח, יג) וקראת לשבת עונג אמר רב יוסף הכל מודים בפורים דבעינן נמי לכם מ"ט (אסתר ט, כב) ימי משתה ושמחה כתיב ביה,מר בריה דרבינא כולה שתא הוה יתיב בתעניתא לבר מעצרתא ופוריא ומעלי יומא דכיפורי עצרת יום שניתנה בו תורה פוריא ימי משתה ושמחה כתיב מעלי יומא דכיפורי דתני חייא בר רב מדפתי (ויקרא כג, לב) ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה לחדש וכי בתשעה (הם) מתענין והלא בעשירי מתענין אלא לומר לך כל האוכל ושותה בתשעה בו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו מתענה תשיעי ועשירי,רב יוסף ביומא דעצרתא אמר עבדי לי עגלא תלתא אמר אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא,רב ששת כל תלתין יומין מהדר ליה תלמודיה ותלי וקאי בעיברא דדשא ואמר חדאי נפשאי חדאי נפשאי לך קראי לך תנאי איני והא"ר אלעזר אילמלא תורה לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר (ירמיהו לג, כה) אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי מעיקרא כי עביד איניש אדעתא דנפשי' קא עביד,אמר רב אשי ולמאי דקאמר ר' אליעזר נמי י"ט רשות אית ליה פירכא ומה י"ט שהתיר בו מלאכה של רשות לא התיר שבות שעמה שבת שלא התיר בה אלא מלאכה של מצוה אינו דין שלא תתיר שבות שעמה | 68b. We learned in the mishna that when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat, burning the fats of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara notes that it was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. For burning the fats and limbs and inner fats is valid all night and it would have been possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nonetheless we do not wait with them until nightfall; rather, we burn them immediately, even on Shabbat.,The mishna also taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna in tractate Eiruvin, which teaches: One may cut off a wart by hand on Shabbat in the Temple but not in the rest of the country outside the Temple. And if the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. From here we see that in the Temple cutting off a wart, at least by hand, is permitted.,Two amora’im, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, disagreed about how to resolve this contradiction. One of them said: Both this mishna in Pesaḥim and that mishna in Eiruvin speak of cutting off the wart by hand. This mishna that forbids cutting it off refers to a moist wart, which is considered like the flesh of the animal. It is therefore prohibited by rabbinic decree to cut off the wart; and since it could have been removed before Shabbat, the decree applies even in the Temple, where rabbinic decrees are generally not applicable. That mishna that permits cutting it off refers to a dry wart, which breaks apart by itself, and so there is no prohibition even by rabbinic decree to cut it off. And the other one said: Both this mishna and that mishna speak of cutting off a moist wart, and it is not difficult. This mishna that says it is permitted talks about removing the wart by hand, which is prohibited only by a rabbinic decree that was not applied to the Temple; whereas that mishna that says it is prohibited talks about removing the wart with an instrument, which is prohibited by Torah law and forbidden everywhere.,The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that this mishna speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna speaks about cutting it off with an instrument, what is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that talk about cutting off the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this mishna speaks of a moist wart, while that mishna speaks of a dry wart? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: A dry wart breaks apart by itself, and so there would be no need to teach us that it may be removed. Both mishnayot must therefore refer to a moist wart, and the difference between them is whether the wart is being removed by hand or with an instrument.,The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the one who says that both this mishna and that mishna talk about removing the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this speaks of a moist wart while that speaks of a dry wart. What is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that are discussing a moist wart and it is not difficult; this mishna in Eiruvin speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna in Pesaḥim speaks about cutting it off with an instrument? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: The case of cutting off the wart with an instrument is taught there in Eiruvin in that very same mishna: If the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. Therefore, there would be no reason to repeat the same halakha here in this mishna, as it is stated explicitly in the other mishna.,The Gemara asks: And the other amora, how does he account for the repetition according to his explanation? The mishna here teaches the law with regard to an instrument because it comes to teach us the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua; for according to our mishna, Rabbi Eliezer permits cutting off a moist wart even with an instrument in order to render the animal fit to be brought as a Paschal offering.,We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said that if slaughter, which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nevertheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then activities that are prohibited by rabbinic decree should certainly override Shabbat when performed for that purpose. Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed, arguing that the law governing a Festival proves otherwise. Rabbi Eliezer countered that the law governing an optional activity, such as preparing food on a Festival, cannot be brought as proof with regard to the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua follows his regular line of reasoning, for he said that rejoicing on a Festival is also a mitzva, and therefore whatever one does in order to enhance one’s enjoyment of the Festival is considered an act performed for the sake of a mitzva, just like the offering of a sacrifice.,For it was taught in a baraita that these two tanna’im disagreed about this matter: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has nothing but to choose on a Festival; he either eats and drinks or sits and learns the entire day, but there is no specific mitzva to eat on the Festival. Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, says: Divide the day, half of it for eating and drinking and half of it for the study hall, for he holds that eating and drinking are obligatory on the Festival.,And Rabbi Yoḥa said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same textual difficulty, resolving it in different ways. For one verse says: “It shall be an assembly for the Lord your God; you shall do no labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8), which indicates that the day is set aside for Divine service, and another verse says: “It shall be an assembly for you; you shall do no servile labor” (Numbers 29:35), which indicates a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God or entirely for you. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.,Ayin, beit, mem is a mnemonic consisting of the first letter of Atzeret, the middle letter of Shabbat and the final letter of Purim. Rabbi Elazar said: All agree with regard to Atzeret, the holiday of Shavuot, that we require that it be also “for you,” meaning that it is a mitzva to eat, drink, and rejoice on that day. What is the reason? It is the day on which the Torah was given, and one must celebrate the fact that the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Rabba said: All agree with regard to Shabbat that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because the verse states: “If you proclaim Shabbat a delight, the sacred day of God honored” (Isaiah 58:13). Rav Yosef said: All agree with regard to Purim that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because it is written: “To observe them as days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22).,The Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, would spend the entire year fasting during the day and eating only sparsely at night, except for Shavuot, Purim, and the eve of Yom Kippur. He made these exceptions for the following reasons: Shavuot because it is the day on which the Torah was given and there is a mitzva to demonstrate one’s joy on that day; Purim because “days of feasting and gladness” is written about it; the eve of Yom Kippur, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). But does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei.,The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef, on the day of Shavuot, would say: Prepare me a choice third-born calf. He said: If not for this day on which the Torah was given that caused the Jewish people to have the Torah, how many Yosefs would there be in the market? It is only due to the importance of Torah study that I have become a leader of the Jewish people, and I therefore have a special obligation to rejoice on this day.,A somewhat similar story is told about Rav Sheshet, that every thirty days he would review his studies that he had learned over the previous month, and he would stand and lean against the bolt of the door and say: Rejoice my soul, rejoice my soul, for you I have read Scripture, for you I have studied Mishna. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Torah study is beneficial only for the soul of the person who has studied? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: If not for the Torah and its study, heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If not for My covet by day and by night, I would not have set up the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). It is the Torah, the eternal covet that is studied day and night, that justifies the continued existence of the world. The Gemara answers: This is indeed correct, but at the outset when a person does this mitzva, he does it for himself, and only afterward does he have in mind the benefit that will be brought to the entire world.,Rav Ashi said: And even according to what Rabbi Eliezer said, that rejoicing on a Festival is optional, there is a refutation: If on a Festival, when a biblically prohibited labor, such as slaughtering, baking, or cooking, is permitted even when it is performed for an optional activity, nonetheless a rabbinic decree that is with it is not permitted, and we do not say that since they permitted an optional activity they permitted everything associated with it; how much more so on Shabbat, when a biblically prohibited labor is only permitted when it is performed for a mitzva, isn’t it right not to permit a rabbinic decree that is with it? Activities that are forbidden due to a rabbinic decree should thus be prohibited on Shabbat even for the purpose of a mitzva, against the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 32a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171| 32a. מפני שנתעסק במלון תחילה שנאמר ויהי בדרך במלון (שמות ד, כד),רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא למשה רבינו ביקש שטן להרוג אלא לאותו תינוק שנאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי (שמות ד כה) צא וראה מי קרוי חתן הוי אומר זה התינוק,דרש רבי יהודה בר ביזנא בשעה שנתרשל משה רבינו מן המילה באו אף וחימה ובלעוהו ולא שיירו ממנו אלא רגליו מיד ותקח צפורה צור ותכרת את ערלת בנה (שמות ד, כה) מיד וירף ממנו (שמות ד, כו),באותה שעה ביקש משה רבינו להורגן שנאמר הרף מאף ועזוב חמה (תהלים לז, ח) ויש אומרים לחימה הֲרָגוֹ שנאמר חמה אין לי (ישעיהו כז, ד) והכתיב כי יגרתי מפני האף והחמה (דברים ט, יט) תרי חימה הוו ואיבעית אימא גונדא דחימה,תניא רבי אומר גדולה מילה שאין לך מי שנתעסק במצוות כאברהם אבינו ולא נקרא תמים אלא על שם מילה שנאמר התהלך לפני והיה תמים (בראשית יז, א) וכתיב ואתנה בריתי ביני ובינך (בראשית יז, ב),דבר אחר גדולה מילה ששקולה כנגד כל המצוות שבתורה שנאמר כי על פי הדברים האלה וגו' (שמות לד, כז) דבר אחר גדולה מילה שאילמלא מילה לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה וגו' (ירמיהו לג, כה),ופליגא דרבי אליעזר דאמר רבי אליעזר גדולה תורה שאילמלא תורה לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי וגו',אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה לאברהם אבינו התהלך לפני והיה תמים (בראשית יז, א) אחזתו רעדה אמר שמא יש בי דבר מגונה כיוון שאמר לו ואתנה בריתי ביני ובינך (בראשית יז, ב) נתקררה דעתו,ויוצא אותו החוצה (בראשית טו, ה) אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם הסתכלתי במזל שלי ואין לי אלא בן אחד אמר לו צא מאיצטגנינות שלך אין מזל לישראל,אמר רבי יצחק כל המתמים עצמו הקב"ה מתמים עמו שנאמר עם חסיד תתחסד עם גבר תמים תתמם (תהלים יח, כו),אמר רבי הושעיא כל המתמים עצמו שעה עומדת לו שנאמר התהלך לפני והיה תמים (בראשית יז, א) וכתיב והיית לאב המון גוים (בראשית יז, ד),אמר רבי כל המנחש לו נחש שנאמר כי לא נחש ביעקב (במדבר כג, כג) והא בלמ"ד אל"ף כתיב אלא משום מידה כנגד מידה,תני אהבה בריה דרבי זירא כל אדם שאינו מנחש מכניסין אותו במחיצה שאפילו מלאכי השרת אין יכולין ליכנס בתוכה שנאמר כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל וגו' (במדבר כג, כג),אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר מפני מה נענש אברהם אבינו ונשתעבדו בניו למצרים מאתיים ועשר שנים מפני שעשה אנגרייא בתלמידי חכמים שנאמר וירק את חניכיו ילידי ביתו (בראשית יד, יד),ושמואל אמר מפני שהפריז על מדותיו של הקב"ה שנאמר במה אדע כי אירשנה (בראשית טו, ח) ורבי יוחנן אמר שהפריש בני אדם מלהכנס תחת כנפי השכינה שנאמר תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך (בראשית יד, כא),וירק את חניכיו ילידי ביתו (בראשית יד, יד) רב אמר שהוריקן בתורה ושמואל אמר שהוריקן בזהב,שמנה עשר ושלש מאות (בראשית יד, יד) אמר רבי אמי בר אבא אליעזר כנגד כולם איכא דאמרי אליעזר הוא דחושבניה הכי הוי,ואמר רבי אמי בר אבא בן שלוש שנים הכיר אברהם את בוראו שנאמר עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי (בראשית כו, ה) חושבניה מאה ושבעין ותרין,ואמר רמי בר אבא | 32a. Because he was occupied with lodging first and did not immediately perform the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place” (Exodus 4:24).,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It was not Moses our teacher that Satan wanted to kill, but rather, that infant who was not circumcised, as it is stated: “Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me” (Exodus 4:25). Go out and see: Who does it make sense would be the one that is called the bridegroom in this instance? You must say this is the infant, since he is the one who entered the covet of Abraham by means of the circumcision.,Rabbi Yehuda bar Bizna taught: At the time that Moses our teacher was negligent about the circumcision, the destructive angels named Af, meaning anger, and Ḥeima, meaning wrath, came and swallowed him, and only his legs were left outside. Immediately, “Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son” (Exodus 4:25), and immediately “He let him alone” (Exodus 4:26).,At that moment, Moses our teacher wanted to kill them, as it is stated: “Cease from anger [af ] and forsake wrath [ḥeima]” (Psalms 37:8), which indicates that he wanted to harm them. And there are those who say: He killed the angel named Ḥeima, as it is stated: “Wrath is not in me” (Isaiah 27:4). The Gemara asks: How is it possible to say that he killed Ḥeima? Isn’t it written that Moses himself said much later: “For I was in dread of the anger and wrath” (Deuteronomy 9:19)? The Gemara answers: There are two types of wrath. And if you wish, say that the army of Ḥeima remained but not the angel itself.,It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Great is the mitzva of circumcision, for there is no one who was engaged in mitzvot like Abraham our Patriarch, and yet he was called wholehearted only due to the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1), and it is written in the next verse: “And I will make My covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:2), and Abraham was then commanded with regard to circumcision. This indicates that he was not called wholehearted until he performed circumcision.,Alternatively, so great is the mitzva of circumcision that it is equal to all the mitzvot of the Torah, as it is stated at the giving of the Torah: “For according to these words I have made a covet with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), and “covet” refers to circumcision. Alternatively, so great is the mitzva of circumcision that if not for circumcision heaven and earth would not have been established, as it is stated: “If My covet be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordices of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25), and the covet that exists day and night is the covet of circumcision, as it is always found on the person’s body.,The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the words of Rabbi Eliezer, for Rabbi Eliezer said: Great is the Torah, for if not for Torah, heaven and earth would not have been established, as it is stated: “If My covet be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordices of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). According to Rabbi Eliezer, the covet that exists day and night is the Torah, as it says: “You should contemplate it day and night” (Joshua 1:8).,Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Abraham our Patriarch: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1), a sensation of trembling seized him and he said: Perhaps there is something disgraceful about me due to a transgression that I committed, and therefore I cannot be called complete. When God said to him: “And I will make My covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:2), his mind was set at ease, since he understood that the removal of the foreskin that he was now commanded to do was the reason he had not yet achieved completion.,The Gemara expounds the verse “and He brought him outside” (Genesis 15:5): Abraham said before Him: Master of the Universe, I looked at my constellation and according to it I will have only one son, and a son has already been born to me, i.e., Ishmael. He said to him: Emerge from your astrology because there is no constellation for the Jewish people, as they are not subject to the influence of astrology.,Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who conducts himself with wholeheartedness, the Holy One, Blessed be He, treats him with wholeheartedness, as it is stated: “With the devout You act devoutly, and with the one who is strong in his wholeheartedness You act wholeheartedly” (II Samuel 22:26).,Rabbi Hoshaya said: Anyone who acts wholeheartedly, time will stand for him, i.e., he will be successful, as it is stated: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1), and it is written: “And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:4).,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Anyone who divines, i.e., he guesses and looks for signs about the future, the sign will injure him, as it is stated: “For there is to him [lo] divination with Jacob” (Numbers 23:23). The Gemara asks: But it is written lo with the letters lamed alef, meaning “no divination,” as opposed to with the letters lamed vav, meaning “there is to him divination.” The straightforward meaning of the verse is that there is no divination with regard to Jacob. Rather, the reason that he will be injured is not based on the verse but rather due to the concept of measure for measure: Since he attempts to tell his fortune, it injures him.,Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, teaches: Any person who does not divine his future is brought inside a partition close to God to a place that even the ministering angels cannot enter inside, as it is stated: “For there is no divination with Jacob, neither is there any enchantment with Israel, now it is said to Jacob and Israel what has God wrought” (Numbers 23:23). In other words, matters are revealed to Israel that even the angels do not know, since Israel is closer to God than the angels.,Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: For what reason was Abraham our Patriarch punished and his children enslaved to Egypt for 210 years? Because he made a draft [angarya] of Torah scholars, as it is stated: “He led forth his trained men, born in his house” (Genesis 14:14). These trained men that he took to war were actually his disciples, who were Torah scholars.,And Shmuel said: Because he greatly examined [hifriz] the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8). And Rabbi Yoḥa said: He was punished because he distanced people from entering under the wings of the Divine Presence, as it is stated that the king of Sodom said to him: “Give me the people and take the goods to yourself” (Genesis 14:21), but Abraham refused to take any goods either. If he had not listened to the king of Sodom and had allowed the people to remain with him, he would have brought the prisoners under the wings of the Divine Presence.,The Gemara returns to discuss one of the verses cited previously: “He led forth [vayyarek] his trained men, born in his house” (Genesis 14:14). Rav said: He showered them [horikan] with Torah like someone who pours from one vessel into another, and Shmuel said: He showered them [horikan] with gold and gave them an abundance of money so that they would go to war with him.,The Torah states that he took “eighteen and three hundred” (Genesis 14:14) men to war. Rabbi Ami bar Abba said: Eliezer was equivalent to all of them. There are those who say: Only Eliezer is referred to here, as the numerical value of the letters of his name is this amount, i.e., 318.,And Rabbi Ami bar Abba said: Abraham recognized his Creator at the age of three years, as it is stated: “Because [ekev] Abraham hearkened to My voice” (Genesis 26:5). The numerical value of the letters of the word ekev is 172, indicating that he observed the halakha for this many years. If Abraham lived until 175 then his first recognition of the Creator must have been at the age of three.,And Rami bar Abba said in a similar manner: |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 16b, 31b, 9a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 95| 9a. כאן בגופן שלנו כאן בגופן שלהן,אמר ליה אביי במאי אוקימתא לההיא בגופן שלהן מאי איריא מקרא שכתבו תרגום ותרגום שכתבו מקרא אפילו מקרא שכתבו מקרא ותרגום שכתבו תרגום נמי דהא קתני עד שיכתבנו אשורית על הספר בדיו,אלא לא קשיא הא רבנן הא רשב"ג,אי רשב"ג הא איכא יונית אלא לא קשיא כאן בספרים כאן בתפלין ומזוזות,תפלין ומזוזות מ"ט משום דכתיב בהו (דברים ו, ו) והיו בהוייתן יהו מאי תרגום שכתבו מקרא איכא בשלמא תורה איכא (בראשית לא, מז) יגר שהדותא אלא הכא מאי תרגום איכא,אלא לא קשיא כאן במגילה כאן בספרים מגילה מ"ט דכתיב בה ככתבם וכלשונם מאי תרגום שכתבו מקרא איכא,אמר רב פפא (אסתר א, כ) ונשמע פתגם המלך רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר (אסתר א, כ) וכל הנשים יתנו יקר לבעליהן,רב אשי אמר כי תניא ההיא בשאר ספרים ורבי יהודה היא דתניא תפלין ומזוזות אין נכתבין אלא אשורית ורבותינו התירו יונית,והכתיב והיו אלא אימא ספרים נכתבים בכל לשון ורבותינו התירו יונית התירו מכלל דתנא קמא אסר,אלא אימא רבותינו לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יונית ותניא א"ר יהודה אף כשהתירו רבותינו יונית לא התירו אלא בספר תורה,ומשום מעשה דתלמי המלך דתניא מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת,וכתבו לו אלהים ברא בראשית (בראשית א, א) אעשה אדם בצלם ובדמות (בראשית א, כו),ויכל ביום הששי וישבות ביום השביעי (בראשית ב, ב) זכר ונקבה בראו (בראשית ה, ב) ולא כתבו בראם,הבה ארדה ואבלה שם שפתם (בראשית יא, ז) ותצחק שרה בקרוביה (בראשית יח, יב),כי באפם הרגו שור וברצונם עקרו אבוס (בראשית מט, ו) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על נושא בני אדם (שמות ד, כ),ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים ובשאר ארצות ארבע מאות שנה (שמות יב, מ) וישלח את זאטוטי בני ישראל (שמות כד, ה) ואל זאטוטי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו (שמות כד, יא) | 9a. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in our script, i.e., in Hebrew letters. There, the baraita is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script, in the letters of another alphabet.,Abaye said to Rava: How did you establish that baraita, i.e., that it is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script? If it is so, why did the baraita specifically teach that the legal status of a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, is not that of sacred writings? The legal status of even a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible and a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in Aramaic translation are also not that of sacred writings, as it is taught at the end of the baraita: A Torah scroll renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink.,Rather, the matter must be explained differently. This is not difficult. This ruling in the mishna is according to the Rabbis, who permit writing Torah scrolls in any language, and that ruling in the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.,The Gemara asks: If the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in addition to Ashurit, isn’t there Greek in which the Torah may also be written? Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language; there, the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, which may be written only in Hebrew, using Hebrew script.,The Gemara asks: With regard to phylacteries and mezuzot, what is the reason that they must be written in Hebrew? The Gemara explains: It is because it is written with regard to them: “And these words shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that as they are so shall they be, without change. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? Granted, in the Torah there is a verse written in Aramaic translation: “Yegar sahaduta” (Genesis 31:47); however, here, in phylacteries and mezuzot, what verses in Aramaic translation are there that could be written in Hebrew?,Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, which must be written in Hebrew; there, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Megilla must be written in Hebrew? It is due to the fact that it is written with regard to the Megilla: “According to their writing, and according to their language” (Esther 8:9), without change. The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is referring to the Megilla, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? The entire Megilla is written in Hebrew.,Rav Pappa said that it is written: “And when the king’s decree [pitgam] shall be publicized” (Esther 1:20), and that pitgam is essentially an Aramaic word. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that it is written: “And all the wives will give honor [yekar] to their husbands” (Esther 1:20), and yekar is Aramaic for honor.,Rav Ashi suggested a different explanation and said: When that baraita is taught it is taught with regard to the rest of the books of the Bible, other than the Torah. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well.,The Gemara asks: How did our Rabbis permit this? Isn’t it written with regard to phylacteries and mezuzot: “And these words shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that their language may not be changed. Rather, say that this is what the baraita is saying: Torah scrolls are written in any language; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well. Once again the Gemara asks: Our Rabbis permitted? By inference, apparently the first tanna prohibits writing a Torah scroll in Greek. However, he explicitly permits writing a Torah scroll in any language.,Rather, say in explanation of the baraita: And our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek. And it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when our Rabbis permitted Greek, they permitted it only in a Torah scroll, and not for other books of the Bible, which must be written only in Hebrew.,The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding. Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the same changes into the translated text.,And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit], reversing the order of the words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as: “Bereshit created God” (Genesis 1:1). They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the second, God. And they wrote: I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: “Let us make man in our image and in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26), as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers and that God has human form.,Instead of: “And on the seventh day God concluded His work” (Genesis 2:2), which could have been understood as though some of His work was completed on Shabbat itself, they wrote: And on the sixth day He concluded His work, and He rested on the seventh day. They also wrote: Male and female He created him, and they did not write as it is written in the Torah: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2), to avoid the impression that there is a contradiction between this verse and the verse: “And God created man” (Genesis 1:27), which indicates that God created one person.,Instead of: “Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7), which indicates multiple authorities, they wrote in the singular: Come, let me go down, and there confound their language. In addition, they replaced the verse: “And Sarah laughed within herself [bekirba]” (Genesis 18:12), with: And Sarah laughed among her relatives [bikroveha]. They made this change to distinguish between Sarah’s laughter, which God criticized, and Abraham’s laughter, to which no reaction is recorded. Based on the change, Sarah’s laughter was offensive because she voiced it to others.,They also altered the verse: “For in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will they slaughtered an ox” (Genesis 49:6), to read: For in their anger they slew an ox and in their self-will they uprooted a trough, to avoid the charge that Jacob’s sons were murderers. Instead of: “And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a donkey” (Exodus 4:20), they wrote: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a carrier of people, which could be understood as referring to a horse or a camel rather than the lowly donkey.,Instead of: “And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years” (Exodus 12:40), which when read literally is imprecise, for they did not dwell in Egypt that long, they wrote: And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt and in other lands, was four hundred years. Instead of: “And he sent the youth of the children of Israel, who brought burnt-offerings” (Exodus 24:5), which evokes the question of why young men were sent to perform that service, they wrote: And he sent the elect [za’atutei] of the children of Israel. The same term was substituted again several verses later, rendering the verse: “And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand” (Exodus 24:11), as: And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand. |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 10a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 31, 171| 10a. דכתיב (הושע ו, ח) גלעד קרית פועלי און עקובה מדם מאי עקובה מדם א"ר אלעזר שהיו עוקבין להרוג נפשות,ומאי שנא מהאי גיסא ומהאי גיסא דמרחקי ומאי שנא מציעאי דמקרבי,אמר אביי בשכם נמי שכיחי רוצחים דכתיב (הושע ו, ט) וכחכי איש גדודים חבר כהנים דרך ירצחו שכמה וגו' מאי חבר כהנים א"ר אלעזר שהיו מתחברין להרוג נפשות ככהנים הללו שמתחברין לחלוק תרומות בבית הגרנות,ותו ליכא והא כתיב (במדבר לה, ו) ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר אמר אביי הללו קולטות בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת הללו לדעת קולטות שלא לדעת אינן קולטות,וחברון עיר מקלט הוא והכתיב (שופטים א, כ) ויתנו לכלב את חברון כאשר דבר משה אמר אביי פרוודהא דכתיב (יהושע כא, יב) ואת שדה העיר ואת חצריה נתנו לכלב בן יפנה,וקדש עיר מקלט הואי והכתיב (יהושע יט, לה) וערי מבצר הצדים צר וחמת רקת וכנרת [וגו'] וקדש ואדרעי ועין חצור ותניא ערים הללו אין עושין אותן לא טירין קטנים ולא כרכים גדולים אלא עיירות בינוניות אמר רב יוסף תרתי קדש הואי אמר רב אשי כגון סליקום ואקרא דסליקום,גופא ערים הללו אין עושין אותן לא טירין קטנים ולא כרכין גדולים אלא עיירות בינוניות ואין מושיבין אותן אלא במקום מים ואם אין שם מים מביאין להם מים ואין מושיבין אותן אלא במקום שווקים ואין מושיבין אותן אלא במקום אוכלוסין נתמעטו אוכלוסיהן מוסיפין עליהן נתמעטו דיוריהן מביאין להם כהנים לוים וישראלים,ואין מוכרין בהן לא כלי זיין ולא כלי מצודה דברי רבי נחמיה וחכמים מתירין ושוין שאין פורסין בתוכן מצודות ואין מפשילין לתוכן חבלים כדי שלא תהא רגל גואל הדם מצויה שם,א"ר יצחק מאי קרא (דברים ד, מב) ונס אל אחת מן הערים האל וחי עביד ליה מידי דתהוי ליה חיותא,תנא תלמיד שגלה מגלין רבו עמו שנאמר וחי עביד ליה מידי דתהוי ליה חיותא אמר ר' זעירא מכאן שלא ישנה אדם לתלמיד שאינו הגון,א"ר יוחנן הרב שגלה מגלין ישיבתו עמו איני והא א"ר יוחנן מנין לדברי תורה שהן קולטין שנאמר (דברים ד, מג) את בצר במדבר וגו' [וכתיב בתריה] (דברים ד, מד) וזאת התורה,לא קשיא הא בעידנא דעסיק בה הא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה,ואי בעית אימא מאי קולטין ממלאך המות כי הא דרב חסדא הוה יתיב וגריס בבי רב ולא הוה קא יכול שליחא [דמלאכא דמותא] למיקרב לגביה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק ויתיב אארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתיק ויכיל ליה,א"ר תנחום בר חנילאי מפני מה זכה ראובן לימנות בהצלה תחלה מפני שהוא פתח בהצלה תחלה שנאמר (בראשית לז, כא) וישמע ראובן ויצילהו מידם,דרש רבי שמלאי מאי דכתיב (דברים ד, מא) אז יבדיל משה שלש ערים בעבר הירדן מזרחה [שמש] אמר לו הקב"ה למשה הזרח שמש לרוצחים איכא דאמרי א"ל הזרחת שמש לרוצחים,דרש רבי סימאי מאי דכתיב (קהלת ה, ט) אוהב כסף לא ישבע כסף ומי אוהב בהמון לא תבואה אוהב כסף לא ישבע כסף זה משה רבינו שהיה יודע שאין שלש ערים שבעבר הירדן קולטות עד שלא נבחרו שלש בארץ כנען ואמר מצוה שבאה לידי אקיימנה,ומי אוהב בהמון לא תבואה למי נאה ללמד בהמון מי שכל תבואה שלו והיינו דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (תהלים קו, ב) מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו למי נאה (ללמד) [למלל] גבורות ה' מי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלתו,ורבנן ואיתימא רבה בר מרי אמר מי אוהב בהמון לו תבואה כל האוהב (למלמד) בהמון לו תבואה יהבו ביה רבנן עינייהו ברבא בריה דרבה,(סימן אשי ללמוד רבינא ללמד),רב אשי אמר כל האוהב ללמוד בהמון לו תבואה והיינו דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו נ, לו) חרב אל הבדים ונואלו חרב על צוארי שונאיהם של ת"ח שיושבין ועוסקין בתורה בד בבד ולא עוד אלא שמטפשין כתיב הכא ונואלו וכתיב התם (במדבר יב, יא) אשר נואלנו ולא עוד אלא שחוטאין שנאמר ואשר חטאנו ואיבעית אימא מהכא (ישעיהו יט, יג) נואלו שרי צוען,רבינא אמר כל האוהב ללמד בהמון לו תבואה והיינו דאמר רבי הרבה תורה למדתי מרבותי ומחבירי יותר מהם ומתלמידי יותר מכולן,א"ר יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (תהלים קכב, ב) עומדות היו רגלינו בשעריך ירושלם מי גרם לרגלינו שיעמדו במלחמה שערי ירושלם שהיו עוסקים בתורה,וא"ר יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (תהלים קכב, א) שיר המעלות לדוד שמחתי באומרים לי בית ה' נלך אמר דוד לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבש"ע שמעתי בני אדם שהיו אומרים מתי ימות זקן זה ויבא שלמה בנו ויבנה בית הבחירה ונעלה לרגל ושמחתי אמר לו הקב"ה (תהלים פד, יא) כי טוב יום בחצריך מאלף טוב לי יום אחד שאתה עוסק בתורה לפני מאלף עולות שעתיד שלמה בנך להקריב לפני על גבי המזבח:,ומכוונות להם דרכים וכו': תניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר | 10a. Therefore, a greater number of cities of refuge per capita were required there, as it is written: “Gilead is a city of those who work iniquity; it is covered [akuba] with blood” (Hosea 6:8). What is the meaning of: Covered [akuba] with blood? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that they would set an ambush [okevin] to kill people.,The Gemara asks: And what is different about the cities of refuge closest to the border on this southern side of the country and from the border on that northern side of the country, that are distanced one-quarter of the length of Eretz Yisrael from the border, and what is different about the city of refuge in the middle of the country, which is relatively close to any potential murderers? The maximum distance that one would need to travel to reach the middle city is one-half the distance from the northern and southern borders to their respective cities of refuge.,Abaye said: Murderers are also common in Shechem, as it is written: “And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so does the band of priests; they murder in the way toward Shechem, yes, they commit enormity” (Hosea 6:9). What is the meaning of “the band of priests”? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that the people would band together to kill people, like those priests who band together to distribute teruma among themselves in the granaries.,The Gemara asks: And are there no more cities of refuge beyond these six? But isn’t it written: “And the cities that you shall give to the Levites: The six cities of refuge you shall give for the murderer to flee there, and beyond them you shall give forty-two cities” (Numbers 35:6), indicating that the status of all the Levite cities is that of cities of refuge? Abaye said: With regard to these six cities designated specifically for this purpose, unintentional murderers in need of refuge are admitted there whether they entered the cities deliberately, aware that they are cities of refuge, or whether they entered inadvertently. By contrast, with regard to those forty-two Levite cities, unintentional murderers are admitted only if they entered the cities deliberately, but if they entered the cities inadvertently, they are not admitted to the cities.,The Gemara asks: And is Hebron a city of refuge? But isn’t it written: “And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken” (Judges 1:20)? This indicates that Hebron belonged to Caleb from the tribe of Judah, and it was not a Levite city. Abaye said: Its suburbs [parvadaha] were given to Caleb; the city itself was a city of priests, as it is written in the context of the distribution of the Levite cities: “And they gave them Kiryat Arba…which is Hebron…and the field of the city and its courtyards they gave to Caleb, son of Jephunneh” (Joshua 21:11–12).,The Gemara further asks: And is Kadesh a city of refuge? But isn’t it written: “And the fortified cities were Ziddim Zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth…and Kedesh and Edrei and En Hazor” (Joshua 19:35–37), and it is taught in a baraita: With regard to these cities of refuge, one does not establish them in small settlements [tirin] or in large cities; rather, one establishes them in intermediate-sized towns? Apparently, Kadesh was a large, fortified city. Rav Yosef said: There were two cities named Kedesh, and the one listed among the fortified cities in the book of Joshua is not the one that was a city of refuge. Rav Ashi said: The listing of Kadesh among the fortified cities is not difficult, as it is similar to the two adjacent yet separate cities of Selikum and the fortification [ve’akra] of Selikum. Likewise, there was the fortified city of Kadesh, mentioned in Joshua, and the city itself, which was an intermediate city that served as city of refuge.,§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, and it cites the complete baraita: With regard to these cities of refuge, one does not establish them in small settlements or in large cities; rather, one establishes them in intermediate-sized towns. And one establishes them only in a place where water is available, and if there is no water available there, as there is no spring accessible from the city, one brings them water by digging a canal. And one establishes them only in a place where there are markets, and one establishes them only in a populated place, where there are many people who regularly frequent the town. If the population of the surrounding areas diminishes, one adds to it. If the number of residents in the city of refuge itself diminishes, one brings new residents to the city, among them priests, Levites, and Israelites.,The baraita continues: And one may not sell weapons or hunting tools in the cities of refuge, to prevent the blood redeemer from gaining access to means that he could exploit to kill the unintentional murderer who fled to the city of refuge; this is the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya. And the Rabbis permit selling weapons and hunting tools. And Rabbi Neḥemya and the Rabbis agree that one may not spread nets in the cities of refuge, nor may they braid [mafshilin] ropes in those cities, so that the foot of the blood redeemer will not be found there. If the blood redeemer were to enter the city of refuge to purchase nets or ropes, he is apt to encounter the murderer and kill him.,Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the verse from which these matters are derived? It is written: “And he shall flee to one of these cities and live” (Deuteronomy 4:42), meaning: Perform some actions for the unintentional murderer so that life in the city of refuge will be conducive to living for him. All these steps are taken to facilitate that objective.,The Sages taught: In the case of a student who was exiled, his teacher is exiled to the city of refuge with him, so that the student can continue studying Torah with him there, as it is stated: “And he shall flee to one of these cities and live,” from which it is derived: Perform some actions for the unintentional murderer so that life in the city will be conducive to living for him. Since Torah study is an integral component of his life, arrangements must be made to ensure continuity in that facet of his existence. Rabbi Zeira says: From here one learns that a person should not teach a student who is not fit, as that may result in the teacher following the student into exile.,Rabbi Yoḥa says: In the case of a teacher of Torah who was exiled, his school is exiled with him. The Gemara asks: Is that so that a teacher of Torah is exiled? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa himself say: From where is it derived that matters of Torah provide refuge, i.e., that the blood redeemer may not harm one who is engaged in Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Bezer in the wilderness, in the flatlands, for the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites” (Deuteronomy 4:43), in the list of cities of refuge designated by Moses, and it is written thereafter: “And this is the Torah” (Deuteronomy 4:44). Based on that juxtaposition it is derived that the status of Torah is like that of a city of refuge.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rabbi Yoḥa, that the status of Torah is like that of a city of refuge, is referring to Torah at the time that one is engaged in its study, and that statement of Rabbi Yoḥa, that the teacher of Torah must take his school to the city of refuge, is referring to the teacher of Torah at the time that he is not engaged in its study. His mere presence in a city of refuge provides him with continuous protection.,And if you wish, say: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement that matters of Torah provide refuge? It means protection, but not for an unintentional murderer from the blood redeemer; rather, it means protection from the Angel of Death. This is as it was in this incident where Rav Ḥisda was sitting and studying in the study hall of Rav and the agent of the Angel of Death was unable to approach him and take his life because his mouth was not silent from his study for even a moment. The agent ascended and sat on the cedar tree of the study hall of Rav. The cedar tree broke and Rav Ḥisda was momentarily silent, startled by the sudden noise, and the agent of the Angel of Death overcame him. Apparently, matters of Torah provide protection from the Angel of Death only when one is actively engaged in their study.,§ Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai says: For what reason was Reuben privileged to be enumerated first in the rescue, as the first city of refuge listed is Bezer (see Deuteronomy 4:43), which is located in the tribal portion of Reuben? It is due to the fact that he began the rescue of Joseph first, as it is stated: “And Reuben heard and delivered him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21).,Rabbi Simlai taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then Moses separated three cities beyond the Jordan, to the east of the sun [mizreḥa shamesh]” (Deuteronomy 4:41)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Shine the sun [hazraḥ shemesh] for murderers, i.e., provide them with the hope of rescue. Some say that God said to Moses: In designating these cities of refuge you have shined the sun for murderers.,On a related note, Rabbi Simai taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who loves silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he who loves abundance with increase” (Ecclesiastes 5:9)? “He who loves silver shall not be satisfied with silver”; this is a reference to Moses our teacher, whose love of mitzvot was so great that although he knew that an unintentional murderer would not be admitted to the three cities of refuge that were in the east bank of the Jordan until the three cities of refuge that were in the land of Canaan were selected, and that his designation of cities of refuge would have no practical ramifications in his lifetime, he nevertheless said: When there is a mitzva that has come my way, I will fulfill it.,The next phrase in that verse: “Nor he who loves abundance with increase,” is also interpreted as referring to Torah: For whom is it fitting to teach an abundance of people? One for whom all its increase belongs to him, i.e., one who knows all the content of the Torah is worthy of teaching it in public. And that is identical to that which Rabbi Elazar says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who can express the mighty acts of God, or make all His praise heard” (Psalms 106:2)? For whom is it fitting to express the mighty acts of God? It is one who can make all His praise heard. One who knows only part of it is unfit to teach the multitudes.,And the Rabbis say, and some say Rabba bar Mari says, that the passage “nor he who loves abundance with increase” means whoever loves a Torah scholar who teaches in the presence of an abundance of people, to him shall be increase, i.e., sons who are Torah scholars. The Gemara relates: When they heard that interpretation, the Sages cast their eyes upon Rava, son of Rabba, who loved Torah scholars who disseminate Torah, and he was blessed with sons who were Torah scholars.,The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing interpretations of the second part of the verse cited earlier (Ecclesiastes 5:9): Ashi to study, Ravina to teach.,Rav Ashi says: Anyone who loves to study in abundance, i.e., with many colleagues, to him shall be increase, i.e., he will succeed in his studies. And that is parallel to that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A sword is upon the baddim, veno’alu” (Jeremiah 50:36)? It is fitting that a sword be placed on the necks of the enemies of Torah scholars, a euphemism for Torah scholars, who sit and engage in the study of the Torah individually [bad bevad]. Moreover, they grow foolish through individual study, as it is written here: Veno’alu, and it is written there: “For we have been foolish [no’alnu]” (Numbers 12:11). Moreover, they thereby sin, as it is stated immediately thereafter: “And for we have sinned.” And if you wish, say that from here it is derived that no’alu means sinned: “The ministers of Zoan have sinned [no’alu]” (Isaiah 19:13).,Ravina says that there is a different interpretation of the verse cited earlier (Ecclesiastes 5:9): Anyone who loves to teach in abundance, before the multitudes, to him shall be increase, as his Torah knowledge is enhanced through those lectures. And that is the parallel to that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Much Torah have I studied from my teachers, and I have learned more from my colleagues than from them, and I have learned more from my students than from all of them.,Apropos the virtue of Torah study, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Our feet were standing in your gates, Jerusalem” (Psalms 122:2)? What caused our feet to withstand the enemies in war? It is the gates of Jerusalem, where they were engaged in Torah study. He interprets the term “in your gates” to mean: Because of your gates, the place of justice and Torah.,And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A song of the ascents to David: I rejoiced when they said to me, let us go to the house of God” (Psalms 122:1)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I heard people who were saying in reference to me: When will this old man die, and Solomon his son will come and succeed him and build the Temple and we will ascend there for the pilgrimage Festival? It was common knowledge that the Temple would be constructed by David’s successor. David continued: And despite my pain that I am not privileged to build the Temple, I rejoiced. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “For better is one day in your courtyard than one thousand” (Psalms 84:11), meaning, I prefer one day during which you engage in the study of Torah before Me than the one thousand burnt-offerings that your son Solomon is destined to sacrifice before Me upon the altar (see I Kings 3:4).,§ The mishna teaches: And roads were aligned for them from this city to that city. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 53a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 53a. וגשרים ונפשות שיש בהן בית דירה מוציאין את המדה כנגדן ועושין אותה כמין טבלא מרובעת כדי שיהא נשכר את הזויות:,| 53a. and bridges and monuments over graves in which there is a residence, one extends the measure of that side of the city as though there were other structures opposite them in the adjacent corner of the city. And prior to measuring the Shabbat limit, one renders the city like a square tablet so that it gains the corners, although there are actually no houses in those corners.,Rav and Shmuel disagreed: One taught that the term in the mishna is me’abberin, with the letter ayin, and one taught that the term in the mishna is me’abberin, with the letter alef.,The Gemara explains: The one who taught me’abberin with an alef explained the term in the sense of limb [ever] by limb. Determination of the city’s borders involves the addition of limbs to the core section of the city. And the one who taught me’abberin with an ayin explained the term in the sense of a pregt woman [ubbera] whose belly protrudes. In similar fashion, all the city’s protrusions are incorporated in its Shabbat limit.,Apropos this dispute, the Gemara cites similar disputes between Rav and Shmuel. With regard to the Machpelah Cave, in which the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said: The cave consists of two rooms, one farther in than the other. And one said: It consists of a room and a second story above it.,The Gemara asks: Granted, this is understandable according to the one who said the cave consists of one room above the other, as that is the meaning of Machpelah, double. However, according to the one who said it consists of two rooms, one farther in than the other, in what sense is it Machpelah? Even ordinary houses contain two rooms.,Rather, it is called Machpelah in the sense that it is doubled with the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, who are buried there in pairs. This is similar to the homiletic interpretation of the alternative name for Hebron mentioned in the Torah: “Mamre of Kiryat Ha’Arba, which is Hebron” (Genesis 35:27). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The city is called Kiryat Ha’Arba, the city of four, because it is the city of the four couples buried there: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah.,They disagreed about this verse as well: “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel” (Genesis 14:1). Rav and Shmuel both identified Amraphel with Nimrod. However, one said: Nimrod was his name. And why was his name called Amraphel? It is a contraction of two Hebrew words: As he said [amar] the command and cast [hippil] our father Abraham into the fiery furnace, when Abraham rebelled against and challenged his proclaimed divinity. And one said: Amraphel was his name. And why was his name called Nimrod? Because he caused the entire world to rebel [himrid] against God during his reign.,They also disagreed about this verse: “There arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said: He was actually a new king, and one said: He was in fact the old king, but his decrees were new.,The Gemara explains. The one who said he was actually a new king based his opinion on the fact that it is written in the verse that he was new. And the one who said that his decrees were new derived his opinion from the fact that it is not written: And the king died, and his successor reigned, as it is written, for example, with regard to the kings of Edom (Genesis 36).,The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that his decrees were new, isn’t it written: “Who knew not Joseph”? If it were the same king, how could he not know Joseph? The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Who knew not Joseph”? It means that he conducted himself like one who did not know Joseph at all.,The Gemara cites a mnemonic of key words from a series of traditions cited below: Eighteen and twelve we studied, with regard to David, and he will understand.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: I spent eighteen days with Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished [Beribbi], and I learned from him only one matter in our Mishna. In the phrase: How does one extend cities, the word me’abberin is spelled with an alef.,The Gemara asks: Is this so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished had twelve students, and I spent eighteen days among them, and I learned the heart of each and every one, i.e., the nature and character of each student, and the extent of the wisdom of each and every one? How could Rabbi Yoḥa say that he learned only one matter?,The Gemara answers: It is possible that he learned the heart of each and every one and the wisdom of each and every one, but he did not learn substantive tradition. And if you wish, say instead: From the students themselves he learned many things; from Rabbi Oshaya himself he did not learn anything beyond that one matter. And if you wish, say instead: Rabbi Yoḥa meant to say that he learned only one matter in our Mishna from Rabbi Oshaya, but he learned other matters from him based on baraitot and other sources.,And Rabbi Yoḥa said about that period: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Oshaya, it was so crowded with students that we would sit four in each square cubit. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, we would sit six in each square cubit.,Rabbi Yoḥa said about his teacher: Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished was as great in his generation as Rabbi Meir was in his generation: Just as with regard to Rabbi Meir, in his generation his colleagues were unable to fully grasp the profundity of his thinking due to the subtlety of his great mind, so it was with Rabbi Oshaya; his colleagues were unable to fully grasp the profundity of his thinking.,Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥa said: The hearts, i.e., the wisdom, of the early Sages were like the doorway to the Entrance Hall of the Temple, which was twenty by forty cubits, and the hearts of the later Sages were like the doorway to the Sanctuary, which was ten by twenty cubits. And we, i.e., our hearts, are like the eye of a fine needle.,He explains: The term early Sages is referring to Rabbi Akiva, and the term later Sages is referring to his student, Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. Some say that the term early Sages refers to Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua and that the term the later Sages refers to Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished. And we are like the eye of a fine needle.,On the topic of the steady decline of the generations, Abaye said: And we, as far as our capabilities are concerned, are like a peg in the wall with regard to Torah study. Just as a peg enters a wall with difficulty, our studies penetrate our minds only with difficulty. Rava said: And we are like a finger in wax [kira] with regard to logical reasoning. A finger is not easily pushed into wax, and it extracts nothing from the wax. Rav Ashi said: We are like a finger in a pit with regard to forgetfulness. Just as a finger easily enters a large pit, similarly, we quickly forget our studies.,The Gemara continues the discussion relating to study and comprehension, and cites that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to the people of Judea, who were particular in their speech and always made certain that it was both precise and refined, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not particular in their speech, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them.,The Gemara asks: Is this matter at all dependent on being particular with one’s language? Rather, with regard to the people of Judea, who were precise in their language and who would formulate mnemonics for their studies, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not precise in their language and who would not formulate mnemonics, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them.,Furthermore, with regard to the people of Judea, who studied from one teacher, their Torah knowledge endured for them, as their teacher provided them with a consistent approach; however, with regard to the people of the Galilee, who did not study from one teacher, but rather from several teachers, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them, as it was a combination of the approaches and opinions of a variety of Sages.,Ravina said: With regard to the people of Judea, who would publicly disclose the tractate to be studied in the coming term so that everyone could prepare and study it in advance (ge’onim), their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who would not disclose the tractate to be studied in the coming term, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them.,The Gemara relates that King David would disclose the tractate to be studied in advance, whereas Saul would not disclose the tractate to be studied. With regard to David, who would disclose the tractate, it is written: “Those who fear You will see me and be glad” (Psalms 119:74), since all were prepared and could enjoy his Torah. With regard to Saul, who would not disclose the tractate to be studied, it is written: “And wherever he turned himself | |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, 15b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 33 15b. מתני׳ | 15b. a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one may not cook on the Festival with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. However, he may cook on that day for the Festival itself, and if he left over any food, he left it over for Shabbat. The early Sages also instituted an ordice: The joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which the mishna explains. One may prepare a cooked dish designated for Shabbat on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook on the Festival for Shabbat.,The tanna’im disagreed with regard to the details of this ordice: Beit Shammai say: For the purpose of the joining of cooked foods one must prepare two cooked dishes, and Beit Hillel say: One dish is sufficient. And they both agree with regard to a fish and the egg that is fried on it that these are considered two dishes for this purpose.,If one ate the food prepared before the Festival as an eiruv and none of it remained for Shabbat, or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. If he left any part of the eiruv, he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat.,From where are these matters derived? What is the source of the halakha of the joining of cooked foods and of the halakha that one who failed to prepare such an eiruv may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat? Shmuel said that the source is as the verse states: “Remember the Shabbat day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8); from which he infers: Remember it and safeguard it from another day that comes to make it forgotten. When a Festival occurs on Friday, preoccupation with the Festival and the preparation and enjoyment of its meals could lead one to overlook Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordice to ensure that Shabbat will be remembered even then.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this ordice in particular to ensure that Shabbat would not be overlooked? Rava said: The Sages did so in deference to Shabbat, and they instituted an eiruv so that one will select a choice portion for Shabbat and a choice portion for the Festival. If one fails to prepare a dish specifically for Shabbat before the Festival, it could lead to failure to show the appropriate deference to Shabbat.,Rav Ashi stated a different reason: The Sages did so in deference to the Festival, so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat unless he began to bake the day before; all the more so, one may not bake on a Festival for a weekday.,We learned in the mishna: One may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook for Shabbat. Granted, according to Rav Ashi, who said that the reason for an eiruv is so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat; that is why on a Festival eve, yes, one may prepare the eiruv, but on the Festival itself, no, one may not do so, as it is a reminder that in principle one may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat. However, according to Rava, who stated that the reason for the eiruv is to ensure that one selects choice portions for both the Festival and Shabbat, why does the mishna discuss specifically preparation on a Festival eve? Even were one to prepare a dish for Shabbat on the Festival as well, it would guarantee that he accord the appropriate deference to Shabbat.,The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; that objective could have been achieved even on the Festival. However, the Sages issued a decree that the eiruv must be prepared on the Festival eve lest one be negligent and fail to prepare one entirely.,The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites the proof for eiruv tavshilin from here, the following verse: “Tomorrow is a day of rest, a holy Shabbat to the Lord. Bake that which you will bake and cook that which you will cook, and all that remains put aside to be kept for you until the morning” (Exodus 16:23). From here Rabbi Eliezer said: One may bake on a Festival for Shabbat only by relying on that which was already baked for Shabbat the day before, and adding to it; and one may cook only by relying on that which was already cooked. From this verse the Sages established an allusion to the joining of cooked foods from the Torah.,§ The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who was sitting and lecturing about the halakhot of the Festival throughout the entire Festival day. When the first group left in the middle of his lecture, he said: These must be owners of extremely large jugs [pittasin], who apparently have huge containers of wine awaiting them as well as a comparable amount of food, and they have left the house of study out of a craving for their food. After a while a second group departed. He said: These are owners of barrels, which are smaller than pittasin. Later a third group took its leave, and he said: These are owners of jugs, even smaller than barrels.,A fourth group left, and he said: These are owners of jars [laginin], which are smaller than jugs. Upon the departure of a fifth group, he said: These are owners of cups, which are smaller still. When a sixth group began to leave, he became upset that the house of study was being left almost completely empty and said: These are owners of a curse; i.e., they obviously do not have anything at home, so why are they leaving?,He cast his eyes upon the students remaining in the house of study. Immediately, their faces began to change color out of shame, as they feared he was referring to them and that perhaps they should have departed along with the others instead of staying. He said to them: My sons, I did not say that about you but about those who left, because they abandon the eternal life of Torah and engage in the temporary life of eating.,At the time of the remaining students’ departure at the conclusion of Rabbi Eliezer’s lecture, he said to them the verse: “Go your way, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength” (Nehemiah 8:10).,The Gemara clarifies this baraita. The Master said above: Because they abandon eternal life and engage in temporary life. The Gemara wonders at this: But isn’t the joy of the Festival itself a mitzva and therefore part of eternal life? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: Physical joy on a Festival is merely optional.,As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has no way of fulfilling the mitzva of a Festival correctly apart from either eating and drinking, thereby fulfilling the mitzva of joy in a completely physical manner, or sitting and studying Torah, thereby emphasizing only the spiritual; and those who did not engage in Torah study to the fullest extent acted inappropriately. Rabbi Yehoshua says: There is no need for such a dichotomy; rather, simply divide it: Half to God, Torah study, and half to yourselves, engaging in eating, drinking, and other pleasurable activities.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same apparent contradiction between two verses, resolving it in different ways. One verse states: “It shall be a solemn assembly for the Lord, your God” (Deuteronomy 16:8), indicating a Festival dedicated to the service of God, and one verse states: “It shall be a solemn assembly for you” (Numbers 29:35), indicating a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. How is this to be reconciled? Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God, in accordance with the one verse, or entirely for you, as per the other verse; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.,§ Since the baraita mentions the verse from Nehemiah, the Gemara poses the following question: What is the meaning of: “Send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared” (Nehemiah 8:10)? Rav Ḥisda said: Send to one who does not have food of his own prepared for Shabbat that follows the Festival because he did not prepare a joining of cooked foods and must therefore rely on others. Some say that he said the following: It is necessary to provide food for one who did not have an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival; but one who had an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods and did not prepare one is negligent, and there is no obligation to care for him.,The Gemara poses another question with regard to the same verse: What is the meaning of: “For the joy of the Lord is your strength”? Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: My children, borrow on My account, and sanctify the sanctity of the day of Shabbat and the Festivals with wine, and trust in Me, and I will repay this debt.,Apropos the statement attributed to Rabbi Yoḥa in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara cites another statement that Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: One who wants his properties to be preserved and protected from ruin should plant an eder tree among them, as it is stated: “The Lord on high is mighty [adir]” (Psalms 93:4). Due to the similarity of the words eder and adir, this is understood to mean that the eder tree bestows permanence.,Alternatively: The eder tree will preserve one’s property, as implied by its name, as people say: What is alluded to in the name of the eder? Its name hints that it endures for many generations [darei]. This is also taught in a baraita: A field that contains an eder tree will be neither stolen nor forcibly removed from one’s possession, as the eder serves as a clear indication of its owner, and its fruit is preserved, as the unique odor of the eder sap wards off insects.,§ The Gemara returns to the previous issue: Rav Taḥlifa, brother of Ravnai Ḥoza’a, taught: | |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, 38b, 38a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 97| 38a. דאם כן נכתוב קרא להאי רעהו גבי מועד:,שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור: אמרי ממה נפשך אי רעהו דוקא דכנעני כי נגח דישראל נמי ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני נחייב,א"ר אבהו אמר קרא (חבקוק ג, ו) עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח כיון שלא קיימו עמד והתיר ממונן לישראל,רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא (דברים לג, ב) הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונם לישראל,תניא נמי הכי שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור שור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם שנאמר עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ואומר הופיע מהר פארן,מאי ואומר,וכי תימא האי עמד וימודד ארץ מבעי' ליה לכדרב מתנה וכדרב יוסף ת"ש הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונן לישראל מאי דרב מתנה דא"ר מתנה עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שנצטוו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והגלה אותם מעל אדמתם,ומאי משמע דהאי ויתר לישנא דאגלויי הוא כתיב הכא ויתר גוים וכתיב התם (ויקרא יא, כא) לנתר בהן על הארץ ומתרגם לקפצא בהון על ארעא,מאי דרב יוסף דא"ר יוסף עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והתירן להם,איתגורי אתגר א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר אמר מר בריה דרבנא לומר שאפילו מקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהן שכר,ולא והתניא ר"מ אומר מנין שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים ולוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא אדם הא למדת שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול,אמרי אין מקבלים עליהן שכר כמצווה ועושה אלא כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה דא"ר חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה:,ת"ר וכבר שלחה מלכות רומי שני סרדיוטות אצל חכמי ישראל למדונו תורתכם קראו ושנו ושלשו בשעת פטירתן אמרו להם דקדקנו בכל תורתכם ואמת הוא חוץ מדבר זה שאתם אומרים שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם,ממ"נ אי רעהו דוקא אפילו דכנעני כי נגח דישראל ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני לחייב ודבר זה אין אנו מודיעים אותו למלכות,רב שמואל בר יהודה שכיבא ליה ברתא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא קום ניזל נינחמיה אמר להו מאי אית לי גבי נחמתא דבבלאי דגידופא הוא דאמרי מאי אפשר למיעבד הא אפשר למיעבד עבדי,אזל הוא לחודאי גביה א"ל (דברים ב, ב) ויאמר ה' (אל משה) אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה וכי מה עלה על דעתו של משה לעשות מלחמה שלא ברשות אלא נשא משה ק"ו בעצמו אמר ומה מדינים שלא באו אלא לעזור את מואב אמרה תורה (במדבר כה, יז) צרור את המדינים והכיתם אותם | 38a. Because if so, if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, let the verse write this phrase: “of another,” with regard to the case of a forewarned ox. One could then infer that the owner is exempt from liability in the case of an innocuous ox as well, as the liability with regard to an innocuous ox is less severe than with regard to a forewarned ox. The stating of this exemption specifically in the context of an innocuous ox indicates that the exemption is only concerning the leniency stated in the verse, that if the gored ox belongs to another person, the owner of the belligerent ox is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability; whereas if a gentile’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. The Sages said: This statement is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, when a gentile’s ox gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, then even when a Jew’s ox gores that of a gentile the owner of the belligerent ox should be liable.,Rabbi Abbahu said that the reason for this ruling is that the verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [vayyatter]” (Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves to fulfill, and since they did not fulfill them, He arose and permitted [vehittir] their money to the Jewish people, so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to gentiles.,Rabbi Yoḥa said that the source for this halakha is from here: It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: “The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; He appeared from Mount Paran” (Deuteronomy 33:2), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: From the time God came from Mount Paran, when giving the Torah, the money of the gentile nations appeared, i.e., it was revealed and granted to the Jewish people.,This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability. By contrast, with regard to an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner of the belligerent ox pays the full cost of the damage, as it is stated: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.” And another verse states: “He appeared from Mount Paran.”,The Gemara asks: What is the reason the baraita adds: And another verse states, indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?,The Gemara explains that this is how the baraita is to be understood: And if you would say that this verse: “He stood and shook the earth” is necessary to express that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef derived from the verse, come and hear another source: “He appeared from Mount Paran,” meaning: From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana’s exposition? It is as Rav Mattana says: “He stood and shook the earth.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah were commanded but did not fulfill, and He arose and exiled them from their land on account of their transgressions.,And from where may it be inferred that this term vayyatter is a term of exile? It is written here: “And made the nations tremble [vayyatter]” (Habakkuk 3:6), and it is written there: “Lenatter upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:21), which is translated into Aramaic as: “To leap upon the earth.” Apparently, the root nun, tav, reish, common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another.,What is Rav Yosef’s exposition? It is as Rav Yosef says: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves and did not fulfill, so He arose and permitted their prohibitions to them.,The Gemara asks: Did they thereby profit, in that their prohibitions became permitted to them? If so, we have found a transgressor who is rewarded. Mar, son of Rabbana, says: This is not to say that for them to transgress their mitzvot is no longer a sin; rather, it is to say that even if they fulfill them, they do not receive reward for fulfilling them.,The Gemara asks: But do they not receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah is considered like a High Priest? The verse states with regard to the mitzvot: “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Which if priests and Levites and Israelites do, they shall live by them, but rather: A person, indicating that all people are included. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.,The Sages said in response: Rav Yosef meant that they do not receive the reward as does one who is commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it, but as does one who is not commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it anyway. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who is commanded and performs a mitzva is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it.,The Sages taught the following story in the context of the aforementioned halakha: And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [sardeyotot] to the Sages of Israel, and ordered them in the name of the king: Teach us your Torah. The officials read the Torah, and repeated it, and repeated it again, reading it for the third time. At the time of their departure, they said to the Sages: We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this one matter that you state, i.e., that with regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt from liability, whereas with regard to the ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.,The officials’ reasoning was that this halakha is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, that the owners of both oxen must both be Jewish, then even when the ox of a gentile gores the ox of a Jew the owner of the ox should be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, and the oxen of all are included, then even when the ox of a Jew gores the ox of a gentile the owner should be liable. They added: But we will not inform this matter to the kingdom; having acknowledged that the entire Torah is true, we will not reveal this ruling, as it will displease the kingdom.,§ Incidentally, it is related that the daughter of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda died. The Sages said to Ulla: Arise; let us go console him. Ulla said to them: What business do I have with the consolation of Babylonians, which is actually heresy? As, they say while consoling mourners: What can be done? This seems to suggest that if it were possible to do something, acting against the Almighty’s decree, they would do so, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.,Ulla therefore went to console Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda by himself, and said to him: The verse states: “And the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” (Deuteronomy 2:9). What entered Moses’s mind, that God had to warn him not to undertake a particular action? Did it enter his mind to wage war with the Moabites without permission? Rather, Moses reasoned an a fortiori inference by himself, saying: And if with regard to the Midianites, who came only to help the Moabites harm the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 22), the Torah said: “Harass the Midianites and smite them” (Numbers 25:17), |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 15a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah, study of, palestinian rabbis concept of divine origins Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 97| 15a. ועל ידי שלשה בני קרח,ירמיה כתב ספרו וספר מלכים וקינות חזקיה וסיעתו כתבו (ימש"ק סימן) ישעיה משלי שיר השירים וקהלת אנשי כנסת הגדולה כתבו (קנד"ג סימן) יחזקאל ושנים עשר דניאל ומגילת אסתר עזרא כתב ספרו ויחס של דברי הימים עד לו,מסייעא ליה לרב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא עלה עזרא מבבל עד שיחס עצמו ועלה ומאן אסקיה נחמיה בן חכליה,אמר מר יהושע כתב ספרו ושמונה פסוקים שבתורה תניא כמאן דאמר שמונה פסוקים שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתניא (דברים לד, ה) וימת שם משה עבד ה' אפשר משה (מת) וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר"י ואמרי לה ר' נחמיה,אמר לו ר"ש אפשר ס"ת חסר אות אחת וכתיב (דברים לא, כו) לקוח את ספר התורה הזה אלא עד כאן הקב"ה אומר ומשה אומר וכותב מכאן ואילך הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב בדמע כמו שנאמר להלן (ירמיהו לו, יח) ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל הדברים האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר יהושע בר אבא אמר רב גידל אמר רב שמונה פסוקים שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן לימא (ר"י היא) ודלא כר"ש אפילו תימא ר"ש הואיל ואשתנו אשתנו:,יהושע כתב ספרו והכתיב (יהושע כד, כט) וימת יהושע בן נון עבד ה' דאסקיה אלעזר והכתיב (יהושע כד, לג) ואלעזר בן אהרן מת דאסקיה פנחס,שמואל כתב ספרו והכתיב (שמואל א כח, ג) ושמואל מת דאסקיה גד החוזה ונתן הנביא,דוד כתב ספר תהלים על ידי עשרה זקנים וליחשוב נמי איתן האזרחי אמר רב איתן האזרחי זה הוא אברהם כתיב הכא (תהלים פט, א) איתן האזרחי וכתיב התם (ישעיהו מא, ב) מי העיר ממזרח צדק [וגו'],קא חשיב משה וקא חשיב הימן והאמר רב הימן זה משה כתיב הכא הימן וכתיב התם (במדבר יב, ז) בכל ביתי נאמן הוא תרי הימן הוו,משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם ואיוב מסייעא ליה לר' לוי בר לחמא דא"ר לוי בר לחמא איוב בימי משה היה כתיב הכא (איוב יט, כג) מי יתן אפוא ויכתבון מלי וכתיב התם (שמות לג, טז) ובמה יודע אפוא,ואימא בימי יצחק דכתיב (בראשית כז, לג) מי אפוא הוא הצד ציד ואימא בימי יעקב דכתיב (בראשית מג, יא) אם כן אפוא זאת עשו ואימא בימי יוסף דכתיב (בראשית לז, טז) איפה הם רועים,לא ס"ד דכתיב (איוב יט, כג) מי יתן בספר ויוחקו ומשה הוא דאיקרי מחוקק דכתיב (דברים לג, כא) וירא ראשית לו כי שם חלקת מחוקק ספון,רבא אמר איוב בימי מרגלים היה כתיב הכא (איוב א, א) איש היה בארץ עוץ איוב שמו וכתיב התם (במדבר יג, כ) היש בה עץ מי דמי הכא עוץ התם עץ הכי קאמר להו משה לישראל ישנו לאותו אדם ששנותיו ארוכות כעץ ומגין על דורו כעץ,יתיב ההוא מרבנן קמיה דר' שמואל בר נחמני ויתיב וקאמר איוב לא היה ולא נברא אלא משל היה אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא איש היה בארץ עוץ איוב שמו,אלא מעתה (שמואל ב יב, ג) ולרש אין כל כי אם כבשה אחת קטנה אשר קנה ויחיה וגו' מי הוה אלא משל בעלמא הכא נמי משל בעלמא א"כ שמו ושם עירו למה,רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר דאמרי תרוייהו איוב מעולי גולה היה ובית מדרשו בטבריא היה מיתיבי ימי שנותיו של איוב משעה שנכנסו ישראל למצרים ועד שיצאו | 15a. and by the three sons of Korah.,Jeremiah wrote his own book, and the book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote the following, and a mnemonic to remember which books they wrote is yod, mem, shin, kuf: Isaiah [Yeshaya], Proverbs [Mishlei], Song of Songs [Shir HaShirim], and Ecclesiastes [Kohelet]. The members of the Great Assembly wrote the following, and a mnemonic to remember these books is kuf, nun, dalet, gimmel: Ezekiel [Yeḥezkel ], and the Twelve Prophets [Sheneim Asar], Daniel [Daniel ], and the Scroll of Esther [Megillat Ester]. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogy of the book of Chronicles until his period.,The Gemara comments: This supports Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael until he established his own genealogy, and after that he ascended. This genealogy is what is written in the book of Chronicles. And who completed the book of Chronicles for the generations following Ezra? Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah.,The Gemara elaborates on the particulars of this baraita: The Master said above that Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses of the Torah. The Gemara comments: This baraita is taught in accordance with the one who says that it was Joshua who wrote the last eight verses in the Torah. This point is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it is taught in another baraita: “And Moses the servant of the Lord died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5); is it possible that after Moses died, he himself wrote “And Moses died there”? Rather, Moses wrote the entire Torah until this point, and Joshua wrote from this point forward; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And some say that Rabbi Neḥemya stated this opinion.,Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible that the Torah scroll was missing a single letter? But it is written: “Take this Torah scroll” (Deuteronomy 31:26), indicating that the Torah was complete as is and that nothing further would be added to it. Rather, until this point the Holy One, Blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated after Him and wrote the text. From this point forward, with respect to Moses’ death, the Holy One, Blessed be He, dictated and Moses wrote with tears. The fact that the Torah was written by way of dictation can be seen later, as it is stated concerning the writing of the Prophets: “And Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in the scroll” (Jeremiah 36:18).,The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: When the Torah is read publicly in the synagogue, one person reads the last eight verses in the Torah, and that section may not be divided between two readers? Shall we say that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as according to Rabbi Shimon these verses are an integral part of the Torah, written by Moses just like the rest? The Gemara answers: Even if you say that this was said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since they differ from the rest of the Torah in one way, as Moses wrote them with tears, they differ from the rest of the Torah in this way as well, i.e., they may not be divided between two readers.,It is stated in the baraita that Joshua wrote his own book. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written toward the end of the book: “And Joshua, son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died” (Joshua 24:29)? Is it possible that Joshua wrote this? The Gemara answers: Aaron’s son Eleazar completed it. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it also written: “And Eleazar, son of Aaron, died” (Joshua 24:33)? The Gemara answers: Pinehas completed it.,It is also stated in the baraita that Samuel wrote his own book. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And Samuel died” (I Samuel 28:3)? The Gemara answers: Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet finished it.,It is further stated that David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten elders, whom the baraita proceeds to list. The Gemara asks: But then let it also count Ethan the Ezrahite among the contributors to the book of Psalms, as it is he who is credited with Psalms, chapter 89. Rav says: Ethan the Ezrahite is the same person as Abraham. Proof for this is the fact that it is written here: “A Maskil of Ethan the Ezrahite” (Psalms 89:1), and it is written there: “Who raised up one from the east [mizraḥ], whom righteousness met wherever he set his foot” (Isaiah 41:2). The latter verse is understood as referring to Abraham, who came from the east, and for that reason he is called Ethan the Ezrahite in the former verse.,The Gemara asks: The baraita counts Moses among the ten elders whose works are included in the book of Psalms, and it also counts Heman. But doesn’t Rav say: The Heman mentioned in the Bible (I Kings 5:11) is the same person as Moses? This is proven by the fact that it is written here: “Heman” (Psalms 88:1), which is Aramaic for trusted, and it is written there about Moses: “For he is the trusted one in all My house” (Numbers 12:7). The Gemara answers: There were two Hemans, one of whom was Moses, and the other a Temple singer from among the descendants of Samuel.,The baraita further states that Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, the portion of Balaam, and the book of Job. This supports Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma, as Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma says: Job lived in the time of Moses. It is written here with regard to Job: “Oh, that my words were written now [eifo]” (Job 19:23), and it is written there in Moses’ words to God: “For in what shall it be known here [eifo]” (Exodus 33:16). The unusual use of the word eifo in these two places indicates that Job and Moses lived in the same generation.,The Gemara comments: But if that is the proof, say that Job lived in the time of Isaac, as it is written in connection with Isaac: “Who then [eifo] is he that has taken venison” (Genesis 27:33). Or say that he lived in the time of Jacob, as it is written with respect to Jacob: “If it must be so now [eifo], do this” (Genesis 43:11). Or say that he lived in the time of Joseph, as it is written with respect to Joseph: “Tell me, I pray you, where [eifo] are they feeding their flocks?” (Genesis 37:16).,The Gemara answers: It could not enter your mind to say this, as it is written in the continuation of the previously mentioned verse: “Oh, that my words were inscribed [veyuḥaku] in a book” (Job 19:23), and it is Moses who is called the inscriber, as it is written with regard to him: “And he provided the first part for himself, for there was the inscriber’s [meḥokek] portion reserved” (Deuteronomy 33:21).,Rava says: Job lived at the time of the spies whom Moses sent to scout the land of Canaan. This is proven by the fact that it is written here: “There was a man in the land of Utz, whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), and it is written there in the account of the spies: “Whether there are trees [eitz] in it” (Numbers 13:20). The Gemara asks: Is it comparable? Here the word that is used is Utz, whereas there the word is eitz. The Gemara answers: This is what Moses said to Israel, i.e., to the spies: Is that man named Job still alive, he whose years are as long as the years of a tree and who protects his generation like a tree? This is why the allusion to him here is through the word eitz, rather than Utz.,The Gemara relates that one of the Sages sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani and he sat and said: Job never existed and was never created; there was never such a person as Job. Rather, his story was a parable. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: In rebuttal to you, the verse states: “There was a man in the Land of Utz whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), which indicates that such a man did indeed exist.,The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that the words “there was” prove that Job existed, what shall we say about the parable that Natan the prophet presented to David: “There were two men in one city; the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing except one little lamb, which he had bought and reared” (II Samuel 12:3)? Was there really such a person? Rather, it was merely a parable; here too it is merely a parable. The Gemara answers: If so, that it is a parable, why state his name and the name of his city? Rather, Job was clearly a real person.,The Gemara cites another opinion with regard to the time when Job lived. Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar both say: Job was among those who ascended from the exile to Eretz Yisrael at the start of the Second Temple period, and his house of study was in Tiberias. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a baraita: The days of Job’s life extended from when Israel entered Egypt until they left, indicating that this is the period during which he lived and not, as suggested, in the early days of the Second Temple. |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 39b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah, study of, palestinian rabbis concept of divine origins •torah, study of, views of palestinian rabbis, babylonian rabbis, distinguished Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 94| 39b. אית דאמרי בביאה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דביאת קטן עדיפא כי פליגי בחליצת קטן,והכי איתמר חליצת קטן וחליצת גדול פליגי בה ר' יוחנן ור' יהושע בן לוי חד אמר חליצת גדול עדיפא וחד אמר כי הדדי נינהו,מאן דאמר חליצת גדול עדיפא דהא מצוה בגדול ואידך כי אמרינן מצוה בגדול לענין יבום אבל לענין חליצה כהדדי נינהו,תנן לא רצו חוזרין אצל גדול מאי לאו לא רצו לייבם אלא לחלוץ וקתני חוזרין אצל גדול וש"מ חליצת גדול עדיפא,לא לא רצו לא לחלוץ ולא לייבם דכוותיה גבי גדול לא רצה לא לחלוץ ולא לייבם אלא אמאי חוזרין אצל גדול למכפייה לכפייהו לדידהו כיון דמצוה עליה דידיה רמיא לדידיה כייפינן,ת"ש תלה בגדול עד שיבא ממדינת הים אין שומעין לו ואי ס"ד חליצת גדול עדיפא אמאי אין שומעין לו נינטר דלמא אתי וחליץ,ולטעמיך בקטן עד שיגדיל אין שומעין לו אמאי נינטר דלמא גדיל ומייבם (אי נמי אתי איהו ומייבמה) אלא כל שהויי מצוה לא שהינן,תנן התם מצות יבום קודמת למצות חליצה בראשונה שהיו מתכוונין לשם מצוה עכשיו שאין מתכוונין לשם מצוה אמרו מצות חליצה קודמת למצות יבום,אמר רב אין כופין כי אתו לקמיה דרב אמר להו אי בעית חלוץ אי בעית ייבם בדידך תלא רחמנא (דברים כה, ז) ואם לא יחפוץ האיש הא אם חפץ אי בעי חליץ אי בעי ייבם,ואף רב יהודה סבר אין כופין מדאתקין רב יהודה בגיטא דחליצה איך פלונית בת פלוני אקרבת ית פלוני יבמה קדמנא לבי דינא ואשתמודעינהו דאחוה דמיתנא מאבא ניהו ואמרי ליה אי צבית ליבם יבם ואי לא איטלע לה רגליך דימינא,ואיטלע לה רגלא דימינא ושרת סיניה מעל רגלוהי וירקת באנפוהי רוקא דמתחזיא לבי דינא על ארעא,ורבי חייא בר אויא מסיים בה משמיה דרב יהודה ואקרינהו מה דכתיב בספר אורייתא דמשה,אשתמודעינהו פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר בעדים וחד אמר אפילו קרוב אפילו אשה והלכתא גלויי מילתא בעלמא הוא ואפילו קרוב ואפילו אשה:,בראשונה שהיו מתכוונין לשם מצוה מצות יבום קודמת למצות חליצה ועכשיו שאין מתכוונין לשם מצוה אמרו מצות חליצה קודמת למצות יבום,אמר רמי בר חמא א"ר יצחק חזרו לומר מצות יבום קודמת למצות חליצה א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק אכשור דרי,מעיקרא סברי לה כאבא שאול ולבסוף סברי לה כרבנן,דתניא אבא שאול אומר הכונס את יבמתו לשם נוי ולשום אישות ולשום דבר אחר כאילו פוגע בערוה וקרוב אני בעיני להיות הולד ממזר וחכמים אומרים (דברים כה, ה) יבמה יבא עליה מכל מקום,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן יבמה יבא עליה מצוה שבתחלה היתה עליו בכלל היתר נאסרה וחזרה והותרה יכול תחזור להתירה הראשון ת"ל יבמה יבא עליה מצוה,מאן תנא אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אבא שאול היא וה"ק יבמה יבא עליה מצוה שבתחלה היתה עליו בכלל היתר רצה לשם נוי כונסה רצה לשום אישות כונסה,נאסרה חזרה והותרה יכול תחזור להתירה הראשון ת"ל יבמה יבא עליה למצוה,רבא אמר אפי' תימא רבנן והכי קאמר יבמה יבא עליה מצוה שבתחלה היתה בכלל היתר רצה כונסה רצה אינו כונסה,נאסרה חזרה והותרה יכול תחזור להתירה הראשון רצה כונסה רצה אינו כונסה רצה אינו כונסה,הא אגידה ביה בכדי תיפוק אלא אימא רצה כונסה רצה חולץ לה ת"ל יבמה יבא עליה מצוה,אימא רישא (ויקרא ו, ט) מצות תאכל במקום קדוש מצוה | 39b. There are those who say that the dispute is more limited: When there is the possibility of consummating the levirate marriage, everyone agrees that the consummation of the levirate marriage by a younger brother is preferable to the ḥalitza of the eldest brother. When they disagree it is with regard to the significance of the ḥalitza of a younger brother.,And this is how the dispute was stated: Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree with regard to a case in which there is choice between the ḥalitza of a younger brother or the ḥalitza of the eldest brother. One said: The ḥalitza of the eldest brother is preferable. And the other one said: The two options are equivalent.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the one who said that the ḥalitza of the eldest brother is preferable, this is due to the fact that the mitzva of levirate marriage and ḥalitza is incumbent upon the eldest brother. And the other Sage would respond to this claim by saying that when we say that the mitzva is incumbent upon the eldest brother, that is only with regard to the consummation of the levirate marriage; however, with regard to performing ḥalitza, all the brothers are equivalent.,The Gemara suggests a proof for the first opinion: We learned in the mishna: If the younger brothers do not want to consummate the levirate marriage, the court returns to the eldest brother and demands that he at least perform ḥalitza. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that the other brothers did not want to consummate the levirate marriage but are willing to perform ḥalitza? And yet the mishna teaches: The court returns to the eldest brother so that he can perform ḥalitza. If so, conclude from here that the ḥalitza of the eldest brother is preferable.,The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the mishna might concern a case where the other brothers did not want either to perform ḥalitza or to consummate the levirate marriage, and it is only because they are unwilling to do either that the court returns to the eldest brother. The Gemara asks: If this is so, then in the corresponding situation in which the mishna states: The eldest brother does not want to do so, the case must be that he does not want either to perform ḥalitza or to consummate the levirate marriage. But if so, when the younger brothers also refuse, why should the court invest the extra effort to return to the eldest brother to force him to fulfill his duty? Let the court force them, i.e., the younger brothers, to fulfill their duty. The Gemara responds: Since the mitzva is incumbent upon the eldest brother ab initio, it is he who is forced.,Come and hear another proof from the mishna: If a younger brother makes his decision dependent upon the eldest brother, who is currently unavailable, suggesting that the yevama wait until he comes from overseas, the court does not listen to him. And if it enters your mind to suggest that the ḥalitza of the eldest brother is preferable, why doesn’t the court listen to him? Let the court wait, as perhaps he will come and perform ḥalitza. Rather, it would appear that the mishna assumes that the with regard to performing ḥalitza, all the brothers are equivalent.,The Gemara challenges this: But even according to your reasoning, you certainly agree that the possibility of consummating the levirate marriage is always preferable. If so, what about the previous case in the mishna, where the eldest brother asks to wait until his brother who is a minor will mature? In that case as well the mishna rules: The court does not listen to him; but why shouldn’t the court listen to him? Let the court wait, as perhaps he will come and consummate the levirate marriage. Alternatively, in the case where the eldest brother is overseas, let the court wait, as perhaps he will come and consummate the levirate marriage with her. Rather, it is clear that the reason for the mishna’s ruling is that we do not delay the performance of a mitzva. Therefore, if one of the brothers is currently unable to perform the mitzva, he is not considered at all. Consequently, no proof can be derived from the mishna.,§ We learned in a mishna there (Bekhorot 13a): The mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza; this applied initially, when yevamin would have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva. Now, that they do not have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva, the Sages say: The mitzva of performing ḥalitza takes precedence over the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage.,Rav said: Nevertheless, the court does not force a yavam to perform ḥalitza, and if he wishes it is still permitted to consummate the levirate marriage. The Gemara relates: When a yavam and a yevama would come before Rav, he would say to them: If you want, perform ḥalitza, and if you want, consummate the levirate marriage, as the Merciful One makes the matter dependent upon your will, as it is stated: “And if the man does not wish to take his yevama” (Deuteronomy 25:7) then he should perform ḥalitza. This implies that the Torah requires him to perform ḥalitza only if he does not wish to consummate the levirate marriage, but if he wishes to do so, then the matter is dependent upon him, and if he wants, he performs ḥalitza, or if he wants, he consummates the levirate marriage.,The Gemara notes: And even Rav Yehuda holds that the court does not force a yavam to perform ḥalitza if he wishes to consummate the levirate marriage. This is apparent from the fact that Rav Yehuda enacted in his court that the following formulation should be used in the bill of ḥalitza: That so-and-so, daughter of so-and-so, brought so-and-so, her yavam, before the court; and we identified him, that he was indeed the paternal brother of the deceased, and we said to him: If you desire to consummate the levirate marriage, then consummate the levirate marriage, and if not, extend your right foot toward your yevama so that she may perform ḥalitza by removing your shoe.,The bill of ḥalitza would continue with the account of what transpired: And he extended [itla] his right foot toward her and she removed his shoe from upon his foot and she spat toward his face spittle, which was visible to the court, and which landed upon the ground.,And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avya in the name of Rav Yehuda would conclude the formulation of the bill of ḥalitza with an additional sentence: And we dictated to the yavam that which is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, i.e., those declarations that the yavam and the yevama are required to make.,The Gemara clarifies the intention of the phrase: And we identified him as the brother of the deceased. Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree concerning this phrase: One said that this identification must be made through legally valid witnesses, and the other one said that even the testimony of a relative and even the testimony a woman is accepted in this case. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the identification of the brother is considered to be merely revealing the facts of the matter, and therefore, even a relative and even a woman may tender this information.,The Gemara paraphrases the mishna from tractate Bekhorot: Initially, when yevamin would have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage, the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage took precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza. And now that they do not have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva, the Sages say: The mitzva of performing ḥalitza takes precedence over the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage.,Rami bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: In later generations they went back to once again saying that the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him in wonderment: Could it be that the later generations improved their spiritual level and now intend to consummate the levirate marriage solely for sake of fulfilling the mitzva?,The Gemara explains that this does not mean that the later generations improved themselves; rather, initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, and so the mitzva of performing ḥalitza took precedence, and in the end they held in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and so the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage took precedence.,As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says that one who consummates a levirate marriage with his yevama for the sake of her beauty, or for the sake of marital relations, or for the sake of another matter, e.g., he wishes to inherit her husband’s estate, it is considered as though he encountered a forbidden relation, and I am inclined to view the offspring born from such a union as a mamzer. Since the prohibition against engaging in relations with one’s brother’s wife is overridden only for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage, when one does not have the intention to fulfill that mitzva, the baseline prohibition applies, and so any offspring from the union will be mamzerim. The Rabbis say: The Torah states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that he should do so in any case, even if his intentions are not solely for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva.,The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught the following baraita that the Sages taught: The Torah states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5); this is to be considered a mitzva, as initially, before she was married to his brother, she was among all other women who are permitted to him, and then when she married his brother she became forbidden to him, and when his brother died without offspring she reverted from her forbidden status and became permitted to him. One might have thought that she would revert to her original permitted status; therefore, the verse states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” to teach that it is in fact a mitzva to do so.,Who is the tanna who taught this baraita? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: It is Abba Shaul, and this is what the baraita is saying: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” teaches that it is permitted to engage in intercourse with her only when his intention is to fulfill a mitzva, as initially, before she was married to his brother, she was among all other women who are permitted to him, and so, if he wished, then even for the sake of her beauty he was permitted to marry her, or similarly, if he wished, then even for the sake of marital relations he was permitted to marry her.,When she married his brother she became forbidden to him, and when his brother died without offspring she reverted from her forbidden status and became permitted to him. One might have thought that she would fully revert to her original permitted status; therefore, the verse states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” to teach that he is permitted to marry her only when his intention is for the mitzva.,Rava said: You can even say that the baraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, and this is what the baraita is saying: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” indicates that it is a mitzva to consummate the levirate marriage, as initially, before she was married to his brother, she was among all other women who are permitted to him, and so if he wished, he was permitted to marry her, or if he wished, he was permitted to choose not to marry her.,When she married his brother she became forbidden to him, and when his brother died without offspring she reverted from her forbidden status and became permitted to him. One might have thought that she would fully revert to her original permitted status, so that if he wishes, he may marry her, or if he wishes, he may choose not to marry her.,The Gemara interjects that the logic of this last statement seems implausible: Does he really have the option to do as he wishes? Isn’t she bound to him with a levirate bond? Could it be that she will be released from that bond without doing anything? Rather, emend the previous argument and instead say: One might think that if he wishes, he may marry her, or if he wishes not to do so, he performs ḥalitza with her. Therefore, the verse states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,” to teach that it is now a mitzva to consummate the marriage, and doing so is preferable to performing ḥalitza.,The baraita under discussion also presents another case that follows a similar model of initially being permitted, then prohibited, and then once again permitted. The Gemara analyzes the explanations of Rav Yitzḥak and Rava based on that clause of the baraita: Say the first clause and try to explain it in a way consistent with the various explanations of the latter clause: The Torah states concerning the meal-offerings eaten by the priests: “It shall be eaten unleavened in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:9); this indicates that doing so is a mitzva, |
|
| 28. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 71b, 9b, 36b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (1998) 94, 95 |
| 29. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 39 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 |
| 30. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 4.7 Tagged with subjects: •palestinian sources, on torah study •torah study, palestinian sources on Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 171 |
