1. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 5.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 174| 5.6. בְּצֹאנָם וּבִבְקָרָם יֵלְכוּ לְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־יְהוָה וְלֹא יִמְצָאוּ חָלַץ מֵהֶם׃ | 5.6. With their flocks and with their herds they shall go To seek the LORD, but they shall not find Him; He hath withdrawn Himself from them. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 83| 1.2. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל־הָאָרֶץ עַל־פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ 1.2. וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם׃ | 1.2. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 54.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 139| 54.1. רָנִּי עֲקָרָה לֹא יָלָדָה פִּצְחִי רִנָּה וְצַהֲלִי לֹא־חָלָה כִּי־רַבִּים בְּנֵי־שׁוֹמֵמָה מִבְּנֵי בְעוּלָה אָמַר יְהוָה׃ 54.1. כִּי הֶהָרִים יָמוּשׁוּ וְהַגְּבָעוֹת תְּמוּטֶנָה וְחַסְדִּי מֵאִתֵּךְ לֹא־יָמוּשׁ וּבְרִית שְׁלוֹמִי לֹא תָמוּט אָמַר מְרַחֲמֵךְ יְהוָה׃ | 54.1. Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail; For more are the children of the desolate Than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Amos, 4.13 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 80, 81, 86| 4.13. כִּי הִנֵּה יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ וּמַגִּיד לְאָדָם מַה־שֵּׂחוֹ עֹשֵׂה שַׁחַר עֵיפָה וְדֹרֵךְ עַל־בָּמֳתֵי אָרֶץ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי־צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ׃ | 4.13. For, lo, He that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, And declareth unto man what is his thought, That maketh the morning darkness, And treadeth upon the high places of the earth; The LORD, the God of hosts, is His name. |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 2.12 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 139| 2.12. כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַחַר כָּבוֹד שְׁלָחַנִי אֶל־הַגּוֹיִם הַשֹּׁלְלִים אֶתְכֶם כִּי הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּכֶם נֹגֵעַ בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ׃ | 2.12. For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.8 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tradition, transmission of Found in books: Hirshman, The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C (2009) 101| 7.8. טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ טוֹב אֶרֶךְ־רוּחַ מִגְּבַהּ־רוּחַ׃ | 7.8. Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof; And the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. |
|
| 7. Aristotle, Generation And Corruption, 1.5 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •commentary tradition, transmission of to arabic writers Found in books: Marmodoro and Prince, Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity (2015) 93 |
8. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission, of tradition from pairs Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 117| 7.1. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בראשונה לא היו חותמים על כתובת נשים כשרות אלא כהנים או לוים או ישראלים המשיאין לכהונה א\"ר יוסי בראשונה לא היה מחלוקת בישראל ב\"ד של שבעים וא' שהיו בלשכת הגזית ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה היו בעיירות של ישראל ושני בתי דינין של ג' היו בירושלים אחד בהר הבית ואחד בחיל נצרך אחד מהן הלכה הולך אצל ב\"ד שבעירו אין ב\"ד בעירו הולך לב\"ד הסמוך לעירו אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו הוא והמופלא שבהן באין לב\"ד שבהר הבית אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו הוא והמופלא שבהן באין לבית דין שבחיל אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין לבית דין הגדול שבלשכת הגזית אע\"פ שהוא שבעים ואחד אין פחות מעשרים ושלשה נצרך אחד מהן לצאת רואה אם יש שם עשרים ושלשה יוצא ואם לאו אינו יוצא עד שיהו שם עשרים ושלשה ושם היו יושבין מתמיד של שחר ועד תמיד של בין הערבים בשבתות וימים טובים לא היו נכנסין אלא לבית המדרש שבהר הבית נשאלה שאלה אם שמעו אמרו להם אם לאו עומדין למנין אם רבו מטמאין טימאו רבי מטהרין טיהרו ומשם הלכה רווחת בישראל משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שימשו כל צרכן הרבו מחלוקות בישראל ונעשו שתי תורות ומשם שולחין ובודקין כל מי שהוא חכם ועניו ושפל וירא חטא ופרקו טוב ורוח הבריות נוחה עליו עושין אותו דיין בעירו משנעשה דיין בעירו מעלין ומושיבין אותו בהר הבית משם מעלין ומושיבין אותו בחיל משם מעלין ומושיבין בלשכת הגזית ושם יושבין ובודקין את יחסי כהונה ואת יחסי לויה כהן שנמצא בו פסול לובש שחורין ומתעטף שחורין ושלא נמצא בו פסול לובש לבנים ומשמש עם אחיו הכהנים מביא עשירית האיפה משלו ועבודה בידו ואע\"פ שאין המשמר שלו אחד כהן גדול ואחד כהן הדיוט שעבדו עד שלא הביאו העשירית האיפה עבודתו כשרה. | |
|
9. New Testament, Acts, 13.1-13.3, 14.4-14.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission, of tradition/teaching Found in books: Falcetta, Early Christian Teachers: The 'Didaskaloi' From Their Origins to the Middle of the Second Century (2020) 23| 13.1. Ἦσαν δὲ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν προφῆται καὶ διδάσκαλοι ὅ τε Βαρνάβας καὶ Συμεὼν ὁ καλούμενος Νίγερ, καὶ Λούκιος ὁ Κυρηναῖος, Μαναήν τε Ἡρῴδου τοῦ τετραάρχου σύντροφος καὶ Σαῦλος. 13.2. Λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ νηστευόντων εἶπεν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον Ἀφορίσατε δή μοι τὸν Βαρνάβαν καὶ Σαῦλον εἰς τὸ ἔργον ὃ προσκέκλημαι αὐτούς. 13.3. τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς ἀπέλυσαν. 14.4. ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ πλῆθος τῆς πόλεως, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἦσαν σὺν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις οἱ δὲ σὺν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. 14.5. ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων σὺν τοῖς ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν ὑβρίσαι καὶ λιθοβολῆσαι αὐτούς, 14.6. συνιδόντες κατέφυγον εἰς τὰς πόλεις τῆς Λυκαονίας Λύστραν καὶ Δέρβην καὶ τὴν περίχωρον, 14.7. κἀκεῖ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι ἦσαν. 14.8. Καί τις ἀνὴρ ἀδύνατος ἐν Λύστροις τοῖς ποσὶν ἐκάθητο, χωλὸς ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, ὃς οὐδέποτε περιεπάτησεν. 14.9. οὗτος ἤκουεν τοῦ Παύλου λαλοῦντος· ὃς ἀτενίσας αὐτῷ καὶ ἰδὼν ὅτι ἔχει πίστιν τοῦ σωθῆναι εἶπεν μεγάλῃ φωνῇ 14.10. Ἀνάστηθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου ὀρθός· καὶ ἥλατο καὶ περιεπάτει. 14.11. οἵ τε ὄχλοι ἰδόντες ὃ ἐποίησεν Παῦλος ἐπῆραν τὴν φωνὴν αὐτῶν Λυκαονιστὶ λέγοντες Οἱ θεοὶ ὁμοιωθέντες ἀνθρώποις κατέβησαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, 14.12. ἐκάλουν τε τὸν Βαρνάβαν Δία, τὸν δὲ Παῦλον Ἑρμῆν ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ λόγου. 14.13. ὅ τε ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως ταύρους καὶ στέμματα ἐπὶ τοὺς πυλῶνας ἐνέγκας σὺν τοῖς ὄχλοις ἤθελεν θύειν. 14.14. ἀκούσαντες δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι Βαρνάβας καὶ Παῦλος, διαρρήξαντες τὰ ἱμάτια ἑαυτῶν ἐξεπήδησαν εἰς τὸν ὄχλον, κράζοντες | 13.1. Now in the assembly that was at Antioch there were some prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 13.2. As they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them." 13.3. Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 14.4. But the multitude of the city was divided. Part sided with the Jews, and part with the apostles. 14.5. When some of both the Gentiles and the Jews, with their rulers, made a violent attempt to insult them and to stone them, 14.6. they became aware of it, and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra, Derbe, and the surrounding region. 14.7. There they preached the gospel. 14.8. At Lystra a certain man sat, impotent in his feet, a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked. 14.9. He was listening to Paul speaking, who, fastening eyes on him, and seeing that he had faith to be made whole, 14.10. said with a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet!" He leaped up and walked. 14.11. When the multitude saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the language of Lycaonia, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" 14.12. They called Barnabas "Jupiter," and Paul "Mercury," because he was the chief speaker. 14.13. The priest of Jupiter, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and would have made a sacrifice with the multitudes. 14.14. But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their clothes, and sprang into the multitude, crying out, |
|
10. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 12.28 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission, of tradition/teaching Found in books: Falcetta, Early Christian Teachers: The 'Didaskaloi' From Their Origins to the Middle of the Second Century (2020) 21| 12.28. Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους, ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν. | 12.28. God has set some in the assembly: first apostles, secondprophets, third teachers, then miracle workers, then gifts of healings,helps, governments, and various kinds of languages. |
|
11. New Testament, Galatians, 4.21-4.31 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 139| 4.21. Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε; 4.22. γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας· 4.23. ἀλλʼ ὁ [μὲν] ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας διʼ ἐπαγγελίας. 4.24. ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινά, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἅγαρ, 4.25. τὸ δὲ Ἅγαρ Σινὰ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ, συνστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς· 4.26. ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, 4.27. ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν· γέγραπται γάρ 4.28. ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐσμέν· 4.29. ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκε τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν. 4.30. ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; Ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς, οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. 4.31. διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. | 4.21. Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don't you listen to thelaw? 4.22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by thehandmaid, and one by the free woman. 4.23. However, the son by thehandmaid was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free womanwas born through promise. 4.24. These things contain an allegory, forthese are two covets. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children tobondage, which is Hagar. 4.25. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai inArabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is inbondage with her children. 4.26. But the Jerusalem that is above isfree, which is the mother of us all. 4.27. For it is written,"Rejoice, you barren who don't bear. Break forth and shout, you that don't travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband." 4.28. Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 4.29. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecutedhim who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 4.30. However what does the Scripture say? "Throw out the handmaid and herson, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of thefree woman." 4.31. So then, brothers, we are not children of ahandmaid, but of the free woman. |
|
12. New Testament, Matthew, 23.13-23.15 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 139| 23.13. 23.14. Οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε, οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν. 23.15. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι περιάγετε τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηρὰν ποιῆσαι ἕνα προσήλυτον, καὶ ὅταν γένηται ποιεῖτε αὐτὸν υἱὸν γεέννης διπλότερον ὑμῶν. | 23.13. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and as a pretense you make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 23.14. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter. 23.15. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much of a son of Gehenna as yourselves. |
|
| 13. Anon., Sifra, tsav 11 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission, of tradition from pairs Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 111 |
| 14. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 7.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tradition, transmission of Found in books: Hirshman, The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C (2009) 101 |
15. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, 15b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission, of tradition from pairs Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 117| 15b. והתניא כיוצא בו א"ר יוסי (עזרא ח, לה) והבאים מהשבי בני הגולה הקריבו עולות פרים (בני בקר) שנים עשר אילים תשעים ותשעה כבשים שבעים ושבעה שעירי חטאת שנים עשר הכל עולה לה',וחטאת מי קרבה עולה אמר רבא כי עולה מה עולה אינה נאכלת אף חטאת אינה נאכלת שהיה רבי יוסי אומר על עבודה זרה הביאום ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל על עבודה זרה שעשו בימי צדקיהו,קא סלקא דעתין למאן דאית ליה חטאת צבור שנתכפרו בעליה מתה אית ליה נמי חטאת צבור שמתו בעליה מתה והא הכא דאיכא דמתו בעליה וקא קרבה,אמר רב פפא אפילו למאן דאמר חטאת צבור שכפרו בעליה מתה חטאת צבור שמתו בעליה אינה מתה לפי שאין הצבור מתים,מנא ליה לרב פפא הא אי נימא משום דכתיב (תהלים מה, יז) תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך אי הכי אפי' יחיד נמי,אלא היינו טעמא שאין הציבור מתים משעירי רגלים וראשי חדשים דאמר רחמנא אייתינהו מתרומת הלשכה ודלמא מתו מרייהו דהני זוזי אלא לאו ש"מ אין הצבור מתים,ואיבעית אימא כי אקרובינהו להני חטאות אחיי אקרבינהו דכתיב (עזרא ג, יב) ורבים מהכהנים הלוים וראשי האבות הזקנים אשר ראו את הבית הראשון ביסדו זה הבית בוכים בקול גדול ורבים בתרועה,ודילמא הנך מיעוטא לא מצית אמרת דכתיב (עזרא ג, יג) (ולא הכירו העם בתרועה ושמחה) לקול בכי העם,והיכי מקרבי להו והרי מזידין הוו אמר רבי יוחנן הוראת שעה היתה,הכי נמי מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי בשלמא פרים ושעירי' כנגד שנים עשר שבטים אלא כבשים כנגד מי אלא הוראת שעה היתה,תנן התם משמת יוסף בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסף בן יוחנן איש ירושלים בטלו האשכולות איש שהכל בו,ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל אשכולות שעמדו להן לישראל מימות משה עד שמת יוסף בן יועזר היו למדין תורה כמשה רבינו מכאן ואילך לא היו למדין תורה כמשה רבינו,והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שלשת אלפים הלכות נשתכחו בימי אבלו של משה דאישתכח להו אישתכח ודגמירן להו הוו גמירי כמשה רבינו,והא תניא משמת משה אם רבו מטמאין טמאו אם רבו טהורין טיהרו,ליבא דאימעיט מיגמר הוו גמירי להו כמשה רבינו,במתניתא תנא כל אשכולות שעמדו לישראל מימות משה עד שמת יוסף בן יועזר איש צרידה לא היה בהם שום דופי מכאן ואילך היה בהן שום דופי,והתניא מעשה בחסיד אחד שהיה גונח מלבו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שיינק חלב רותח שחרית והביאו עז וקשרו לו בכרעי מיטתו והיה יונק ממנה חלב,למחר נכנסו חביריו לבקרו כיון שראו העז אמרו ליסטים מזויין בתוך ביתו ואנו נכנסים לבקרו ישבו ובדקו ולא מצאו בו עון אלא של אותה העז בלבד,ואף הוא בשעת מיתתו אמר יודע אני בעצמי שאין בי עון אלא של אותה העז בלבד שעברתי על דברי חבירי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין מגדלין בהמה דקה בארץ ישראל,וקי"ל כל היכא דאמר מעשה בחסיד אחד או ר' יהודה בן בבא או ר' יהודה בר אילעאי ורבנן בתר יוסף בן יועזר איש צרידה דרי דרי הוו | 15b. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Similarly, Rabbi Yosei said: It is stated with regard to those who returned from Babylonia in the days of Ezra: “The children of the captivity that came out of exile sacrificed burnt offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, twelve goats for a sin offering; all this was a burnt offering unto the Lord” (Ezra 8:35).,The Gemara first analyzes this verse: But is it possible for a sin offering to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? Rava said: The verse means that it was all performed in the manner of a burnt offering: Just as a burnt offering may not be eaten, so too, that sin offering was not eaten. As Rabbi Yosei would say: They brought these twelve sin offerings for the sin of idol worship; and Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They were brought for the sin of idol worship they committed in the days of King Zedekiah.,The Gemara explains the difficulty concerning which it cited this verse: It might enter our mind to think that according to the one who holds that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is left to die, he also holds that a communal sin offering whose owners died is left to die. But here, with regard to the offerings brought by the returning exiles, this is a case of a communal sin offering whose owners died, as the sin was committed in the time of Zedekiah, in the First Temple period, whereas the offerings were brought several generations later by those returning to rebuild the Second Temple. And yet they were sacrificed. This proves that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is not left to die.,Rav Pappa said in response: Even according to the one who said that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is left to die, he agrees that a communal sin offering whose owners died is not left to die. This is because a community does not die.,The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Pappa derive this statement? If we say it is because it is written: “Your sons shall be instead of your fathers” (Psalms 45:17), i.e., it is considered as though the fathers are alive, if so, then this should apply even to an individual as well. In other words, sons should be able to sacrifice the sin offerings of their late fathers.,Rather, this is Rav Pappa’s reasoning for his statement that a community does not die. It is derived from the halakha of the goats sacrificed on pilgrimage Festivals and on New Moons, as the Merciful One states: Bring them from the funds of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, where they kept the half-shekels donated every year in the month of Adar, with which communal offerings were purchased. The Gemara explains: But perhaps the owners of these coins that were used to purchase these offerings have died in the meantime between the month of Adar and when the offerings are sacrificed throughout the year. If so, how can a sin offering be brought on behalf of some of its owners who have already died? Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this halakha that a community does not die?,And if you wish, say instead a different answer in response to the earlier difficulty: The sin offerings for idolatry brought by the returning exiles were not in fact sacrificed for people who had died. Rather, when they sacrificed these sin offerings for the idolatry committed in the time of Zedekiah, they sacrificed them for the living, i.e., for those survivors who had worshipped idols in the time of Zedekiah and were still alive many decades later and had returned to rebuild the Second Temple. As it is written: “But many of the priests, Levites, and heads of fathers’ houses, the old men that had seen the first house standing on its foundation, wept with a loud voice when this house was before their eyes; and many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:12).,The Gemara objects: But perhaps those who remained and remembered the First Temple were the minority, in which case they should have each brought individual sin offerings, rather than a communal sin offering. The fact that they brought communal sacrifices indicates that the sin offering was not brought only on behalf of those few who remained. The Gemara explains: You cannot say that they were the minority, as it is written in the following verse: “So that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off” (Ezra 3:13). This verse shows that the people who cried because they remembered the First Temple were not a small minority.,The Gemara asks: But how could they sacrifice sin offerings for the sin of idolatry? After all, they were intentional idol worshippers, and a sin offering is brought only by one who sins unwittingly. Rabbi Yoḥa says in response: It was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances, according to which they were permitted to bring sin offerings even for intentional sins.,The Gemara adds that this also stands to reason, as, if you do not say so, one can object as follows: Granted, they sacrificed twelve bulls and goats, since each tribe must bring a communal sin offering, as stated in the Torah (Numbers, chapter 15), and these offerings correspond to the twelve tribes. But to what do the ninety-six sheep correspond? Rather, it must be that it was a provisional edict.,§ Earlier the Gemara mentioned the halakha of a sin offering whose owner died, which was one of the halakhot forgotten during the mourning period for Moses (see 16a). On this topic the Gemara says that we learned in a mishna there (Sota 47a): From the time when Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosef ben Yoḥa of Jerusalem died, the clusters [eshkolot] ceased, i.e., they were the last of the clusters. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of eshkolot? It means a man who contains all [ish shehakol bo], i.e., both Torah and mitzvot.,And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All the clusters who stood at the head of the Jewish people, from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died, would study Torah in the manner of Moses, our teacher. From that point forward they would not study Torah in the manner of Moses, our teacher.,The Gemara objects: But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. This suggests that the Sages who came immediately after Moses did not study Torah in the same manner as Moses. The Gemara answers: Those halakhot that they forgot, were forgotten, but with regard to those halakhot that they studied, they would continue to study in the manner of Moses, our teacher.,The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the resolution of questions of halakha: From the time when Moses died, if the majority deem an item impure, they have established it as impure, and if the majority deem an item pure, they have established it as pure. If this is the case, then the manner of studying Torah after the death of Moses is based on a majority, whereas when Moses was alive there was no dispute in matters of halakha.,The Gemara explains that this baraita is referring specifically to those halakhot that were forgotten during the mourning period after the death of Moses. Since the understanding of the heart was limited [libba de’ime’it], the Sages were unable to reach a clear ruling on these matters. Consequently, they had to follow the majority. But with regard to all other halakhot they studied, they would study them in the manner of Moses, our teacher.,It was taught in a baraita: All the clusters who stood at the head of the Jewish people from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died had no flaw in them. From this point forward the clusters, i.e., the leadership of the Jewish people, had flaws in them.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who was groaning, i.e., suffering, due to a pain in his heart. And they asked the physicians what to do for him, and they said: There is no other remedy for him but that he should suckle warm milk every morning. And they brought him a goat and tied it to the leg of the bed for him, and he would suckle milk from it.,On the following day, his friends entered to visit him. When they saw the goat tied to the leg of the bed they said: There is an armed bandit in this man’s house, and we are entering to visit him? They referred to the goat in this manner because small animals habitually graze on the vegetation of neighbors, stealing their crops. The Sages sat and examined this pious man’s behavior, and they could not find any transgression attributable to him other than the sin of keeping that goat in his house alone.,And that man himself also said at the time of his death: I know for a fact with regard to myself that I have no transgression attributable to me but the sin of keeping that goat in my house alone, as I transgressed the statement of my colleagues, the Sages. As the Sages said in a mishna (Bava Kamma 79b): One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in inhabited areas of Eretz Yisrael, because they graze on people’s crops.,And we maintain that anywhere that it says: There was an incident involving a certain pious man, the man in question is either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. And these Sages lived many generations after Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida. If this is the case, then even in later generations there were Sages without a flaw. |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 70b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission, of tradition from pairs Found in books: Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 117| 70b. במרובה מנא ידעי,ואלא שבא בטומאה סוף סוף מנא ידעי,דמית נשיא דמית נשיא אימת אילימא דמית בשלשה עשר סכין למה לי דמטבליה ואלא דמית בארבעה עשר מאי שנא סכין דמטביל ומאי שנא קופיץ דלא מטביל לה,לא צריכא דנשיא גוסס בשלשה עשר סכין דחד ספיקא מטביל לה קופיץ דתרי ספיקי לא מטביל לה,תניא יהודה בן דורתאי פירש הוא ודורתאי בנו והלך וישב לו בדרום אמר אם יבוא אליהו ויאמר להם לישראל מפני מה לא חגגתם חגיגה בשבת מה הן אומרים לו תמהני על שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון שהן חכמים גדולים ודרשנין גדולים ולא אמרו להן לישראל חגיגה דוחה את השבת,אמר רב מ"ט דבן דורתאי דכתיב (דברים טז, ב) וזבחת פסח לה' אלהיך צאן ובקר והלא אין פסח אלא מן הכבשים ומן העזים אלא צאן זה פסח בקר זו חגיגה ואמר רחמנא וזבחת פסח,א"ר אשי ואנן טעמא דפרושים ניקו ונפרוש אלא קרא לכדרב נחמן הוא דאתא דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מניין למותר הפסח שקרב שלמים,שנא' וזבחת פסח לה' אלהיך צאן ובקר וכי פסח מן הבקר בא והלא אין פסח בא אלא מן הכבשים ומן העזים אלא מותר הפסח יהא לדבר הבא מן הצאן ומן הבקר,ורבנן מ"ט לא דחי שבת הא ודאי קרבן ציבור הוא,א"ר אילעא משום רבי יהודה בן ספרא אמר קרא (ויקרא כג, מא) וחגותם אותו חג לה' שבעת ימים בשנה שבעה שמונה הוו אלא מכאן לחגיגה שאינה דוחה את השבת,כי אתא רבין אמר אמרתי לפני רבותי פעמים שאי אתה מוצא אלא ששה כגון שחל י"ט הראשון של חג בשבת אמר אביי אבין תכלא לימא כי הא מילתא שמנה לא משכחת לה כלל שבעה איתא ברוב שנים,אמר עולא אמר רבי אלעזר שלמים ששחטן מערב י"ט אינו יוצא בהן לא משום שמחה ולא משום חגיגה משום שמחה דכתיב (דברים כז, ז) וזבחת ושמחת בעינן זביחה | 70b. with few people registered for it, so that each person receives a large portion of the offering. Therefore, there is no need for a Festival peace-offering or for a cleaver. The Gemara questions this answer: How do the owners know already on the thirteenth that only a small number of people will be registered for the Paschal lamb? Perhaps more people will register for the offering before it is slaughtered, in which case we should assume that the cleaver was immersed, as it might be necessary to bring a Festival peace-offering together with the Paschal lamb.,Rather, we must say that we are talking about a Paschal lamb that came in a state of ritual impurity, in which case a Festival peace-offering is not brought, and consequently there is no need for a cleaver. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, how do the owners know already on the thirteenth when they are immersing their knives that the Paschal lamb will be brought in ritual impurity, so that they need not immerse their chopping knives? Perhaps it will turn out that most of the community is ritually pure.,The Gemara answers that we are talking about a situation where the Nasi died, in which case all of Israel must defile themselves in order to participate in his burial. The Gemara asks: When did the Nasi die? If you say that he died on the thirteenth and everyone became ritually impure as a result, why do I need to immerse the slaughtering knife to begin with? It will become ritually impure again in any event. Rather, he died on the fourteenth and they did not know in advance that the Paschal lamb would be brought in a state of impurity. But if so, what is different about the slaughtering knife that he immerses it and what is different about the cleaver that he does not immerse it?,The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only in a case where the Nasi was in a dying state on the thirteenth. With regard to a slaughtering knife, about which there is only one doubt, that perhaps the Nasi will die before the Festival and the Paschal lamb will be brought in a state of ritual impurity, he immerses it, for if the Nasi does not die he will need a ritually pure knife to slaughter his Paschal lamb. With regard to a cleaver, about which there are two doubts, that perhaps the Nasi will die and a ritually pure knife will not be needed, and that even if he does not die, perhaps the meat of the Paschal lamb will be plentiful and the Festival peace-offering will not be brought, he does not immerse it.,It was taught in a baraita: Yehuda ben Dortai separated himself from the other Rabbis, he and Dortai his son, and went and settled in the south so that he would not be obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, seeing that he was at a great distance from Jerusalem. He did this because he disagreed with the Rabbis with regard to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, which in their view does not override Shabbat. He said: If Elijah will come and say to the Jewish people: For what reason did you not sacrifice the Festival peace-offering on Shabbat, what will they say to him? I am astounded at the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, who are great sages and great expositors of the Torah, and yet they did not tell the Jewish people that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth overrides Shabbat.,Rav said: What is ben Dortai’s reason? As it is written: “And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God from the flock and from the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to rest His name there” (Deuteronomy 16:2). A question must be asked: Does the Paschal offering come from the herd, i.e., from cattle? Doesn’t the Paschal offering come from only the sheep and from the goats, as commanded in the book of Exodus (12:5)? Rather, the verse should be understood as follows. “Flock”; this is referring to the Paschal offering. “Herd”; this is referring to the Festival peace-offering that is brought along with it. And the Merciful One says: “And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering,” thus teaching that the two offerings are sacrificed together. From here ben Dortai derived that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is like the Paschal offering in every way, and so it too overrides Shabbat.,Rav Ashi said: Need we arise and explain the reason of those who separated themselves from the other Rabbis? Ben Dortai and his son broke away from all the other sages of the Jewish people, and we need not occupy ourselves with the opinions of such people. Rather, the verse comes to explain the opinion of Rav Naḥman, for Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: From where is it derived that a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering? A leftover Paschal offering is an animal that had been consecrated as a Paschal offering but was subsequently lost and later found after a different animal had already been sacrificed in its place. Alternatively, if one set aside and consecrated money for the purchase of a Paschal lamb and then the price of livestock dropped so that there was money left over after the purchase was made, the extra money has the status of a leftover Paschal lamb.,As it is stated: “And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God from the flock and from the herd.” Does the Paschal offering come from the herd? Doesn’t it come from only the sheep and from the goats? Rather, the verse comes to teach that a leftover Paschal offering shall be brought as something that comes from the flock and from the herd, that is, as a peace-offering, which may be brought from all types of flock and cattle, including both males and females.,The Gemara asks about the crux of the matter: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the reason that the Festival peace-offering does not override Shabbat? It is certainly a communal offering, and all communal offerings override Shabbat.,Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Safra: The verse said with regard to the festival of Sukkot: “And you shall celebrate it as a Festival for the Lord, seven days in the year; it shall be a statute forever in your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month” (Leviticus 23:41). Now is the festival of Sukkot seven days? They are eight days, as the Eighth Day of Assembly is always celebrated at the conclusion of Sukkot. Rather, from here we derive that the Festival peace-offering [ḥagiga], about which the verse states: “And you shall celebrate [veḥagotem] it,” does not override Shabbat. Since every eight-day period contains a Shabbat, the Torah said that the Festival [ḥag] is celebrated, i.e., the Festival peace-offering [ḥagiga] can be brought the entire seven days of the Festival.,When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: I said before my teachers, pointing out the following difficulty with regard to this source: There are times when you find only six days on which the Festival peace-offering can be brought, for example, when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, in which case the Eighth Day of Assembly also falls on Shabbat, and so there are only six days on which the Festival peace-offering may be brought. Abaye said: Would the bereaved Avin, another name for Ravin, say such a thing and be so careless as to ask an unfounded question? There is a big difference: Eight you do not find at all; the eight days of the Festival cannot possibly pass without a Shabbat. But seven days on which the Festival peace-offering can be brought are in fact found in most years.,Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to peace-offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, one fulfills with them neither the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing nor the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering. The mitzva of bringing peace-offerings of rejoicing is not fulfilled, as it is written: “And you shall slaughter peace-offerings and eat there, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 27:7). Based on this verse, we require that the slaughter be |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 30b-33a, 10a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 139| 10a. כל פרשה שהיתה חביבה על דוד פתח בה באשרי וסיים בה באשרי פתח באשרי דכתיב (תהלים א, א) אשרי האיש וסיים באשרי דכתיב (תהלים ב, יב) אשרי כל חוסי בו:,הנהו בריוני דהוו בשבבותיה דר"מ והוו קא מצערו ליה טובא הוה קא בעי ר' מאיר רחמי עלויהו כי היכי דלימותו אמרה לי' ברוריא דביתהו מאי דעתך משום דכתיב (תהלים קד, לה) יתמו חטאים מי כתיב חוטאים חטאים כתיב,ועוד שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ורשעים עוד אינם כיון דיתמו חטאים ורשעים עוד אינם אלא בעי רחמי עלויהו דלהדרו בתשובה ורשעים עוד אינם,בעא רחמי עלויהו והדרו בתשובה:,אמר לה ההוא צדוקי לברוריא כתיב (ישעיהו נד, א) רני עקרה לא ילדה משום דלא ילדה רני,אמרה ליה שטיא שפיל לסיפיה דקרא דכתיב כי רבים בני שוממה מבני בעולה אמר ה',אלא מאי עקרה לא ילדה רני כנסת ישראל שדומה לאשה עקרה שלא ילדה בנים לגיהנם כותייכו:,א"ל ההוא צדוקי לר' אבהו כתיב (תהלים ג, א) מזמור לדוד בברחו מפני אבשלום בנו וכתיב (תהלים נז, א) לדוד מכתם בברחו מפני שאול במערה הי מעשה הוה ברישא מכדי מעשה שאול הוה ברישא לכתוב ברישא,אמר ליה אתון דלא דרשיתון סמוכין קשיא לכו אנן דדרשינן סמוכים לא קשיא לן,דא"ר יוחנן סמוכין מן התורה מנין שנא' (תהלים קיא, ח) סמוכים לעד לעולם עשוים באמת וישר,למה נסמכה פרשת אבשלום לפרשת גוג ומגוג שאם יאמר לך אדם כלום יש עבד שמורד ברבו אף אתה אמור לו כלום יש בן שמורד באביו אלא הוה הכא נמי הוה:,אמר ר' יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי מאי דכתיב (משלי לא, כו) פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה כנגד מי אמר שלמה מקרא זה לא אמרו אלא כנגד דוד אביו שדר בחמשה עולמים ואמר שירה,דר במעי אמו ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קג, א) ברכי נפשי את ה' וכל קרבי את שם קדשו,יצא לאויר העולם ונסתכל בכוכבים ומזלות ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קג, כ) ברכו ה' מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו ברכו ה' כל צבאיו וגו',ינק משדי אמו ונסתכל בדדיה ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קג, ב) ברכי נפשי את ה' ואל תשכחי כל גמוליו,מאי כל גמוליו אמר ר' אבהו שעשה לה דדים במקום בינה,טעמא מאי אמר (רבי) יהודה כדי שלא יסתכל במקום ערוה רב מתנא אמר כדי שלא יינק ממקום הטנופת,ראה במפלתן של רשעים ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קד, לה) יתמו חטאים מן הארץ ורשעים עוד אינם ברכי נפשי את ה' הללויה,נסתכל ביום המיתה ואמר שירה שנאמר (תהלים קד, א) ברכי נפשי את ה' ה' אלהי גדלת מאד הוד והדר לבשת,מאי משמע דעל יום המיתה נאמר אמר רבה בר רב שילא מסיפא דעניינא דכתיב (תהלים קד, כט) תסתיר פניך יבהלון תוסף רוחם יגועון וגו',רב שימי בר עוקבא ואמרי לה מר עוקבא הוה שכיח קמיה דר' שמעון בן פזי והוה מסדר אגדתא קמיה דר' יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה מאי דכתיב (תהלים קג, א) ברכי נפשי את ה' וכל קרבי את שם קדשו אמר ליה בא וראה שלא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם צר צורה על גבי הכותל ואינו יכול להטיל בה רוח ונשמה קרבים ובני מעים והקב"ה אינו כן צר צורה בתוך צורה ומטיל בה רוח ונשמה קרבים ובני מעים והיינו דאמרה חנה (שמואל א ב, ב) אין קדוש כה' כי אין בלתך ואין צור כאלהינו.,מאי אין צור כאלהינו אין צייר כאלהינו,מאי כי אין בלתך אמר ר' יהודה בר מנסיא אל תקרי כי אין בלתך אלא אין לבלותך שלא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם מעשה ידיו מבלין אותו והקב"ה מבלה מעשיו,א"ל אנא הכי קא אמינא לך הני חמשה ברכי נפשי כנגד מי אמרן דוד לא אמרן אלא כנגד הקב"ה וכנגד נשמה,מה הקב"ה מלא כל העולם אף נשמה מלאה את כל הגוף מה הקדוש ברוך הוא רואה ואינו נראה אף נשמה רואה ואינה נראית מה הקב"ה זן את כל העולם כלו אף נשמה זנה את כל הגוף מה הקב"ה טהור אף נשמה טהורה מה הקב"ה יושב בחדרי חדרים אף נשמה יושבת בחדרי חדרים יבא מי שיש בו חמשה דברים הללו וישבח למי שיש בו חמשה דברים הללו:,אמר רב המנונא מאי דכתיב (קהלת ח, א) מי כהחכם ומי יודע פשר דבר מי כהקדוש ברוך הוא שיודע לעשות פשרה בין שני צדיקים בין חזקיהו לישעיהו חזקיהו אמר ליתי ישעיהו גבאי דהכי אשכחן באליהו דאזל לגבי אחאב (שנאמר (מלכים א יח, ב) וילך אליהו להראות אל אחאב) ישעיהו אמר ליתי חזקיהו גבאי דהכי אשכחן ביהורם בן אחאב דאזל לגבי אלישע,מה עשה הקב"ה הביא יסורים על חזקיהו ואמר לו לישעיהו לך ובקר את החולה שנאמר (מלכים ב כ, א) בימים ההם חלה חזקיהו למות ויבא אליו ישעיהו בן אמוץ הנביא ויאמר אליו כה אמר ה' (צבאות) צו לביתך כי מת אתה ולא תחיה וגו' מאי כי מת אתה ולא תחיה מת אתה בעולם הזה ולא תחיה לעולם הבא,אמר ליה מאי כולי האי אמר ליה משום דלא עסקת בפריה ורביה א"ל משום דחזאי לי ברוח הקדש דנפקי מינאי בנין דלא מעלו,א"ל בהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך מאי דמפקדת איבעי לך למעבד ומה דניחא קמיה קודשא בריך הוא לעביד,אמר ליה השתא הב לי ברתך אפשר דגרמא זכותא דידי ודידך ונפקי מנאי בנין דמעלו א"ל כבר נגזרה עליך גזירה א"ל בן אמוץ כלה נבואתך וצא,כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא אפי' חרב חדה מונחת על צוארו של אדם אל ימנע עצמו מן הרחמים,אתמר נמי רבי יוחנן ורבי (אליעזר) דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו חרב חדה מונחת על צוארו של אדם אל ימנע עצמו מן הרחמים שנא' (איוב יג, טו) הן יקטלני לו איחל | 10a. Every chapter that was dear to David, he began with “happy is” and concluded with “happy is.” He opened with “happy is,” as it is written: “Happy is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked or stood in the way of sinners or sat in the dwelling place of the scornful” (Psalms 1:1). And he concluded with “happy,” as it is written at the end of the chapter: “Pay homage in purity, lest He be angry, and you perish on the way when His anger is kindled suddenly. Happy are those who take refuge in Him” (Psalms 2:12). We see that these two chapters actually constitute a single chapter.,With regard to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, that David did not say Halleluya until he saw the downfall of the wicked, the Gemara relates: There were these hooligans in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who caused him a great deal of anguish. Rabbi Meir prayed for God to have mercy on them, that they should die. Rabbi Meir’s wife, Berurya, said to him: What is your thinking? On what basis do you pray for the death of these hooligans? Do you base yourself on the verse, as it is written: “Let sins cease from the land” (Psalms 104:35), which you interpret to mean that the world would be better if the wicked were destroyed? But is it written, let sinners cease?” Let sins cease, is written. One should pray for an end to their transgressions, not for the demise of the transgressors themselves.,Moreover, go to the end of the verse, where it says: “And the wicked will be no more.” If, as you suggest, transgressions shall cease refers to the demise of the evildoers, how is it possible that the wicked will be no more, i.e., that they will no longer be evil? Rather, pray for God to have mercy on them, that they should repent, as if they repent, then the wicked will be no more, as they will have repented.,Rabbi Meir saw that Berurya was correct and he prayed for God to have mercy on them, and they repented.,The Gemara relates an additional example of Berurya’s incisive insight: A certain heretic said to Berurya: It is written: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth, open forth in song and cry, you did not travail, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, said the Lord” (Isaiah 54:1). Because she has not given birth, she should sing and rejoice?,Berurya responded to this heretic’s mockery and said: Fool! Go to the end of the verse, where it is written: “For the children of the desolate shall be more numerous than the children of the married wife, said the Lord.”,Rather, what is the meaning of: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth”? It means: Sing congregation of Israel, which is like a barren woman who did not give birth to children who are destined for Gehenna like you.,In explaining passages from Psalms, the Gemara relates another instance of a response to the question of a heretic: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu, it is written: “A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son, Absalom” (Psalms 3:1), and similarly it is said: “To the chief musician, al tashḥet, a mikhtam of David when fleeing from Saul into the cave” (Psalms 57:1). Which event was first? Since the event with Saul was first, it would have been appropriate to write it first.,Rabbi Abbahu said to him: For you, who do not employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, it is difficult. But for us, who employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, it is not difficult, as the Sages commonly homiletically infer laws and moral lessons from the juxtaposition of two verses.,Regarding the juxtaposition of verses, Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where in the Bible is it derived that one may draw homiletical inferences from the juxtaposition of verses? As it is said: “The works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. Adjoined forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness” (Psalms 111:7–8). Conclude from here that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God’s commandments. Accordingly, David’s fleeing from Absalom is situated where it is in order to juxtapose it to the next chapter, which mentions the war of Gog and Magog; the second chapter of Psalms opens: “Why are the nations in an uproar?”,Why was the chapter of Absalom juxtaposed with the chapter of Gog and Magog? They are juxtaposed so that if a person should say to you, expressing doubt with regard to the prophecy of the war of Gog and Magog “against the Lord and against His anointed”: Is there a slave who rebels against his master? Is there someone capable of rebelling against God? You too say to him: Is there a son who rebels against his father and severs the relationship with the one who brought him into the world and raised him? Yet, nevertheless, there was such a son, Absalom, and so too there can be a situation where people will seek to rebel against God.,Rabbi Yoḥa said explanations of other verses in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of loving-kindness is on her tongue” (Proverbs 31:26)? The Sages explain that this chapter discusses the wisdom of Torah and those who engage in its study, so with reference to whom did Solomon say this verse? He said this verse about none other than his father, David, who was the clearest example of one who opens his mouth in wisdom, and who resided in five worlds or stages of life and his soul said a song of praise corresponding to each of them. Five times David said: “Bless the Lord, O my soul,” each corresponding to a different stage of life.,He resided in his mother’s womb, his first world, and said a song of praise of the pregcy, as it is stated: “of David. Bless the Lord, O my soul and all that is within me bless His holy name” (Psalms 103:1), in which he thanks God for creating all that is within his mother, i.e., her womb.,He emerged into the atmosphere of the world, his second world, looked upon the stars and constellations and said a song of praise of God for the entirety of creation, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, His angels, mighty in strength, that fulfill His word, listening to the voice of His word. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants, that do His will. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all places of His kingship, bless my soul, Lord” (Psalms 103:20–23). David saw the grandeur of all creation and recognized that they are mere servants, carrying out the will of their Creator (Ma’ayan HaBerakhot).,He nursed from his mother’s breast, his third world, and he looked upon her bosom and said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and do not forget all His benefits [gemulav]” (Psalms 103:2). The etymological association is between gemulav and gemulei meḥalav, which means weaned from milk (Isaiah 28:9).,We still must understand, however, what is meant by all His benefits? What in particular is praiseworthy in what God provided, beyond merely providing for the infant? Rabbi Abbahu said: In contrast with most other animals, God placed her breasts near her heart, the place that is the source of understanding.,What is the reason that God did this? Rav Yehuda said: So that the nursing child would not look upon the place of his mother’s nakedness. Rav Mattana said: So that the child would not nurse from a place of uncleanliness.,He witnessed in both vision and reality the downfall of the wicked and he said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Let sinners cease from the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul, Halleluya” (Psalms 104:35).,The fifth world was when David looked upon the day of death and said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. Lord my God, You are very great; You are clothed in glory and majesty” (Psalms 104:1); for even death is a time of transcendence for the righteous.,The connection between this final praise and the day of death is unclear. The Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that this verse was stated with regard to the day of death? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: We can derive this from the verses at the end of the matter, where it is written: “You hide Your face, they vanish; You gather Your breath, they perish and return to the dust” (Psalms 104:29).,Other interpretations of this verse exist. The Gemara relates how Rav Shimi bar Ukva, and some say Mar Ukva, would regularly study before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, who was well versed in aggada and would arrange the aggada before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. rOnce, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said to him: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Bless the Lord, my soul, and all that is within me bless His Holy name”? rRav Shimi bar Ukva said to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood, as this verse praises the formation of man in his mother’s womb. The attribute of flesh and blood is such that he shapes a form on the wall for all to see, yet he cannot instill it with a spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. While the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not so, as God shapes one form within another form, a child in its mother’s womb, and instills it with spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. And this is the explanation of what Hannah said with regard to the birth of Samuel: “There is none holy like the Lord, for there is none like You, and there is no Rock like our God” (I Samuel 2:2).,What is the meaning of there is no rock [tzur] like our God? There is no artist [tzayyar] like our God.,The Gemara continues to interpret the rest of that verse homiletically: What is the meaning of “there is none like You”? Rabbi Yehuda ben Menasya said: Do not read the verse to mean “there is none like You [biltekha]”; rather, read it to mean “none can outlast You [levalotkha],” as the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood: The attribute of flesh and blood is such that his creations outlast him, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, outlasts His actions.,This did not satisfy Rav Shimi bar Ukva, who said to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: I meant to say to you as follows: Corresponding to whom did David say these five instance of “Bless the Lord, O my soul”? He answered him: He said them about none other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, and corresponding to the soul, as the verse refers to the relationship between man’s soul and God. The five instances of “Bless the Lord, O my soul” correspond to the five parallels between the soul in man’s body and God’s power in His world.,Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, fills the entire world, so too the soul fills the entire body. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, sees but is not seen, so too does the soul see, but is not seen. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, sustains the entire world, so too the soul sustains the entire body. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, is pure, so too is the soul pure. rJust as the Holy One, Blessed be He, resides in a chamber within a chamber, in His inner sanctum, so too the soul resides in a chamber within a chamber, in the innermost recesses of the body. rTherefore, that which has these five characteristics, the soul, should come and praise He Who has these five characteristics.,With regard to redemption and prayer, the Gemara tells the story of Hezekiah’s illness, his prayer to God, and subsequent recuperation. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the meaning of that which is written praising the Holy One, Blessed be He: “Who is like the wise man, and who knows the interpretation [pesher] of the matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:1)? This verse means: Who is like the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who knows how to effect compromise [peshara] between two righteous individuals, between Hezekiah, the king of Judea, and Isaiah the prophet. They disagreed over which of them should visit the other. Hezekiah said: Let Isaiah come to me, as that is what we find with regard to Elijah the prophet, who went to Ahab, the king of Israel, as it is stated: “And Elijah went to appear to Ahab” (I Kings 18:2). This proves that it is the prophet who must seek out the king. And Isaiah said: Let Hezekiah come to me, as that is what we find with regard to Yehoram ben Ahab, king of Israel, who went to Elisha the prophet, as it is stated: “So the king of Israel, Jehosaphat and the king of Edom went down to him” (II Kings 3:12).,What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do to effect compromise between Hezekiah and Isaiah? He brought the suffering of illness upon Hezekiah and told Isaiah: Go and visit the sick. Isaiah did as God instructed, as it is stated: “In those days Hezekiah became deathly ill, and Isaiah ben Amoz the prophet came and said to him: Thus says the Lord of Hosts: Set your house in order, for you will die and you will not live” (Isaiah 38:1). This seems redundant; what is the meaning of you will die and you will not live? This repetition means: You will die in this world, and you will not live, you will have no share, in the World-to-Come.,Hezekiah said to him: What is all of this? For what transgression am I being punished? rIsaiah said to him: Because you did not marry and engage in procreation. rHezekiah apologized and said: I had no children because I envisaged through divine inspiration that the children that emerge from me will not be virtuous. Hezekiah meant that he had seen that his children were destined to be evil. In fact, his son Menashe sinned extensively, and he thought it preferable to have no children at all.,Isaiah said to him: Why do you involve yourself with the secrets of the Holy One, Blessed be He? That which you have been commanded, the mitzva of procreation, you are required to perform, and that which is acceptable in the eyes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, let Him perform, as He has so decided.,Hezekiah said to Isaiah: Now give me your daughter as my wife; perhaps my merit and your merit will cause virtuous children to emerge from me. rIsaiah said to him: The decree has already been decreed against you and this judgment cannot be changed. rHezekiah said to him: Son of Amoz, cease your prophecy and leave. As long as the prophet spoke as God’s emissary, Hezekiah was obligated to listen to him. He was not, however, obligated to accept Isaiah’s personal opinion that there was no possibility for mercy and healing.,Hezekiah continued: I have received a tradition from the house of my father’s father, from King David, the founding father of the dynasty of kings of Judea: Even if a sharp sword rests upon a person’s neck, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy. One may still hold out hope that his prayers will be answered, as was David himself when he saw the Angel of Destruction, but nonetheless prayed for mercy and his prayers were answered.,With regard to the fact that one should not despair of God’s mercy, the Gemara cites that it was also said that Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Eliezer both said: Even if a sharp sword is resting upon a person’s neck, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy, as it is stated in the words of Job: “Though He slay me, I will trust in Him” (Job 13:15). Even though God is about to take his life, he still prays for God’s mercy. |
|
| 18. Ambrose, Hexameron, 2.6 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 83 |
| 19. Ambrose, Letters, 11.3 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 84 |
| 20. Claudianus, Carmina Minora\Carminum Minorum Corpusculum, 1.126 (ed. hill) (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 174 |
| 21. Damaskios, De Principiis, 2.117-2.118 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commentary tradition, transmission of to arabic writers Found in books: Marmodoro and Prince, Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity (2015) 93 |
| 22. Asterius, Pg, 56b-57a Tagged with subjects: •transmission of christian traditions into Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal, Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud (2018) 139 |
