Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

   Search:  
validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       



Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.





25 results for "zoroastrian"
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 18.9-18.14, 25.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 176; Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 44; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 44
18.9. כִּי אַתָּה בָּא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ לֹא־תִלְמַד לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּתוֹעֲבֹת הַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם׃ 18.11. וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִים׃ 18.12. כִּי־תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה וּבִגְלַל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ׃ 18.13. תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃ 18.14. כִּי הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָם אֶל־מְעֹנְנִים וְאֶל־קֹסְמִים יִשְׁמָעוּ וְאַתָּה לֹא כֵן נָתַן לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃ 18.9. When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 18.10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, 18.11. or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer. 18.12. For whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD; and because of these abominations the LORD thy God is driving them out from before thee. 18.13. Thou shalt be whole-hearted with the LORD thy God. 18.14. For these nations, that thou art to dispossess, hearken unto soothsayers, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
2. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 12.12 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 177, 178
12.12. וְיֹתֵר מֵהֵמָּה בְּנִי הִזָּהֵר עֲשׂוֹת סְפָרִים הַרְבֵּה אֵין קֵץ וְלַהַג הַרְבֵּה יְגִעַת בָּשָׂר׃ 12.12. And furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
3. Vitruvius Pollio, On Architecture, 3.150, 3.197-3.198, 3.227, 3.288, 3.333, 4.15-4.21 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 187
4. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 72; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 72
7. He who has sexual relations with a betrothed young woman is not punished until she is a young woman, a virgin, betrothed, and in her father's house. If two men had sexual relations with her, the first is stoned, but the second is strangled.,A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua's name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”,Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead.,The manner in which burning is executed is as follows: They would lower him into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two loose ends pulled in opposite directions, forcing him to open his mouth. A wick was then lit, and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels. R. Judah says: “Should he have died at their hands [being strangled by the bandage before the wick was thrown into his mouth], they would not have fulfilled the requirements of execution by fire. Rather his mouth was forced open with pincers against his wish, the wick lit and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels. Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok said: “It once happened that a priest's daughter committed adultery, whereupon bundles of sticks were placed around her and she was burnt. The Sages said to him: “That was because the court at that time was not well learned in law.,Four deaths have been entrusted to the court: stoning, burning, slaying [by the sword] and strangulation. R. Simeon says: “burning, stoning, strangulation and slaying.” That (the previous chapter) is the manner of stoning.,One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already said), the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”.,He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], providing that it is an offence punished by “kareth” if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. One who curses His father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by a nickname, Rabbi Meir held him liable, but the Sages ruled that he is exempt.,The following are stoned:He who has sexual relations with his mother, with his father's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a male; with a beast; a woman who commits bestiality with a beast; a blasphemer; an idolater; one who gives of his seed to molech; a necromancer or a wizard; one who desecrates the Sabbath; he who curses his father or mother; he who commits adultery with a betrothed woman; one who incites [individuals to idolatry]; one who seduces [a whole town to idolatry]; a sorcerer; and a wayward and rebellious son. He who has sexual relations with his mother incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his mother and as his father's wife. R. Judah says: “He is liable in respect of her as his mother only.” He who has sexual relations with his father's wife incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his father's wife, and as a married woman, both during his father's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his daughter-in-law and as a married woman, both during his son's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality: if the man has sinned, how has the animal sinned? But because the human was enticed to sin by the animal, therefore scripture ordered that it should be stoned. Another reason is that the animal should not pass through the market, and people say, this is the animal on account of which so and so was stoned.,He who gives of his seed to Molech is not liable unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or he caused it to pass through fire but did not give it to Molech, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both. A Ba'al Ob is the pithom who speaks from his armpit. The Yidde'oni is one who speaks from his mouth. These two are stoned; while he who inquires of them transgresses a formal prohibition.,He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one whoserves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.” But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed]. He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment. He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped. He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.,The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] name. Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name:, ‘may Yose smite Yose.” When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn. The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: “I too heard thus.”
5. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 79; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 79
1.1. משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה: 1.1. שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֱהֹב אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה, וּשְׂנָא אֶת הָרַבָּנוּת, וְאַל תִּתְוַדַּע לָרָשׁוּת: 1.1. Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.
6. New Testament, Apocalypse, 3.229, 3.288, 4.15-4.21 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 79, 187
7. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 170.9 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 44; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 44
8. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 18.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrian, tradition Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 316
18.6. וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים <>(בראשית ב, כה)<>, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שְׁלשָׁה הֵן שֶׁלֹא הִמְתִּינוּ בְּשַׁלְוָתָן שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, אָדָם, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְסִיסְרָא. אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(בראשית ב, כה)<>: וְלֹא יִתְבּוֹשָׁשׁוּ, לֹא בָאוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְהוּא בְּשַׁלְוָתוֹ. וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(שמות לב, א)<>: וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בשֵׁשׁ משֶׁה, כִּי בָאוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְלֹא בָא משֶׁה. סִיסְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר <>(שופטים ה, כח)<>: מַדּוּעַ בּשֵׁשׁ רִכְבּוֹ לָבוֹא, בְּכָל יוֹם הָיָה לָמוּד לָבוֹא בְּשָׁלשׁ שָׁעוֹת בְּאַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת, וְעַכְשָׁיו בָּאוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְלֹא בָא, הֱוֵי וְלֹא יִתְבּוֹשָׁשׁוּ. וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם <>(בראשית ג, א)<>, לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ קְרָא לוֹמַר אֶלָּא <>(בראשית ג, כא)<>: וַיַּעַשׂ ה' אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ מֵאֵי זוֹ חַטָּיָה קָפַץ עֲלֵיהֶם אוֹתוֹ הָרָשָׁע, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁרָאָה אוֹתָן מִתְעַסְּקִין בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ וְנִתְאַוָּה לָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב דִּכְפַר חָנִין שֶׁלֹא לְהַפְסִיק בְּפָרָשָׁתוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ. 18.6. וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים (בראשית ב, כה), אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שְׁלשָׁה הֵן שֶׁלֹא הִמְתִּינוּ בְּשַׁלְוָתָן שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, אָדָם, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְסִיסְרָא. אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ב, כה): וְלֹא יִתְבּוֹשָׁשׁוּ, לֹא בָאוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְהוּא בְּשַׁלְוָתוֹ. וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לב, א): וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בשֵׁשׁ משֶׁה, כִּי בָאוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְלֹא בָא משֶׁה. סִיסְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שופטים ה, כח): מַדּוּעַ בּשֵׁשׁ רִכְבּוֹ לָבוֹא, בְּכָל יוֹם הָיָה לָמוּד לָבוֹא בְּשָׁלשׁ שָׁעוֹת בְּאַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת, וְעַכְשָׁיו בָּאוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וְלֹא בָא, הֱוֵי וְלֹא יִתְבּוֹשָׁשׁוּ. וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם (בראשית ג, א), לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ קְרָא לוֹמַר אֶלָּא (בראשית ג, כא): וַיַּעַשׂ ה' אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ מֵאֵי זוֹ חַטָּיָה קָפַץ עֲלֵיהֶם אוֹתוֹ הָרָשָׁע, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁרָאָה אוֹתָן מִתְעַסְּקִין בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ וְנִתְאַוָּה לָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב דִּכְפַר חָנִין שֶׁלֹא לְהַפְסִיק בְּפָרָשָׁתוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ. 18.6. "\"And they were both naked.\" Rabbi Eleazar said: there were three who did not wait for their contentment even six hours, and these are they: Adam, and Israel, and Sisra. Adam, as it says: \"and they were not embarrassed\" (Genesis 2:25) - six hours had not passed, and he was content. Israel, as it says: \"And the nation saw that Moses delayed\" (Exodus 32:1), when six hours had passed and Moses had not appeared. Sisra, as it says: \"Why does his chariot delay in coming?\" (Judges 5:28) - every day he would come in three or four hours, and today six hours have past and he is not here - these are all cases related to \"and they were not embarrassed.\" \"And the snake was crafty\" (Genesis 3:1) - the text only needed to continue with \"And Hashem God made for Adam and his wife...\" (Genesis 3:21). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karchah said: to teach you which temptation the snake sprung on them - he saw them engaged in the way of the world, and desired here. Rabbi Yaakov of the village of Hannin said: to not pause the story of the snake.",
9. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 24b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 62
24b. בנזיקין הוה ואנן קא מתנינן בשיתא סדרין וכי הוה מטי רב יהודה בעוקצין האשה שכובשת ירק בקדירה ואמרי לה זיתים שכבשן בטרפיהן טהורין אמר הויי' דרב ושמואל קא חזינא הכא,ואנן קא מתנינן בעוקצין תליסר מתיבתא ואילו רב יהודה כי הוה שליף חד מסאנא אתי מיטרא ואנן קא צווחינן כולי יומא וליכא דאשגח בן אי משום עובדא אי איכא דחזא מידי לימא אבל מה יעשו גדולי הדור שאין דורן דומה יפה,רב יהודה חזא הנהו בי תרי דהוו קא פרצי בריפתא אמר שמע מינה איכא שבעא בעלמא יהיב עיניה הוה כפנא אמרו ליה רבנן לרב כהנא בריה דרב נחוניא שמעיה מר דשכיח קמיה ניעשייה דליפוק בפתחא דסמוך לשוקא עשייה ונפק לשוקא חזא כנופיא,אמר להו מאי האי אמרו ליה אכוספא דתמרי קיימי דקא מזדבן אמר שמע מינה כפנא בעלמא אמר ליה לשמעיה שלוף לי מסאניי שלף ליה חד מסאנא ואתא מיטרא כי מטא למישלף אחרינא אתא אליהו ואמר ליה אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אי שלפת אחרינא מחריבנא לעלמא,אמר רב מרי ברה דבת שמואל אנא הוה קאימנא אגודא דנהר פפא חזאי למלאכי דאידמו למלחי דקא מייתי חלא ומלונהו לארבי והוה קמחא דסמידא אתו כולי עלמא למיזבן אמר להו מהא לא תיזבנון דמעשה נסים הוא למחר אתיין ארבי דחיטי דפרזינא,רבא איקלע להגרוניא גזר תעניתא ולא אתא מיטרא אמר להו ביתו כולי עלמא בתעניתייכו למחר אמר להו מי איכא דחזא חילמא לימא אמר להו ר' אלעזר מהגרוניא לדידי אקריון בחלמי שלם טב לרב טב מריבון טב דמטוביה מטיב לעמיה אמר שמע מינה עת רצון היא מבעי רחמי בעי רחמי ואתי מיטרא,ההוא גברא דאיחייב נגדא בבי דינא דרבא משום דבעל כותית נגדיה רבא ומית אשתמע מילתא בי שבור מלכא בעא לצעורי לרבא אמרה ליה איפרא הורמיז אימיה דשבור מלכא לברה לא ליהוי לך עסק דברים בהדי יהודאי דכל מאן דבעיין ממרייהו יהיב להו,אמר לה מאי היא בעין רחמי ואתי מיטרא אמר לה ההוא משום דזימנא דמיטרא הוא אלא לבעו רחמי האידנא בתקופת תמוז וליתי מיטרא שלחה ליה לרבא כוין דעתך ובעי רחמי דליתי מיטרא בעי רחמי ולא אתי מיטרא,אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם (תהלים מז, ב) אלהים באזנינו שמענו אבותינו ספרו לנו פועל פעלת בימיהם בימי קדם ואנו בעינינו לא ראינו אתא מיטרא עד דשפוך מרזבי דצפורי לדיגלת אתא אבוה איתחזי ליה בחלמיה ואמר ליה מי איכא דמיטרח קמי שמיא כולי האי אמר ליה שני דוכתיך שני דוכתיה למחר אשכחיה דמרשם פורייה בסכיני,רב פפא גזר תעניתא ולא אתא מיטרא חלש ליביה שרף פינכא דדייסא ובעי רחמי ולא אתא מיטרא אמר ליה רב נחמן בר אושפזתי אי שריף מר פינכא אחריתי דדייסא אתי מיטרא איכסיף וחלש דעתיה ואתא מיטרא,ר' חנינא בן דוסא הוה קא אזיל באורחא אתא מיטרא אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם כל העולם כולו בנחת וחנינא בצער פסק מיטרא כי מטא לביתיה אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם כל העולם כולו בצער וחנינא בנחת אתא מיטרא,אמר רב יוסף מאי אהניא ליה צלותא דכהן גדול לגבי רבי חנינא בן דוסא דתנן היה מתפלל תפלה קצרה בבית החיצון מאי מצלי רבין בר אדא ורבא בר אדא דאמרי תרוייהו משמיה דרב יהודה יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו שתהא השנה הזו גשומה ושחונה שחונה מעלייתא היא אדרבה גריעותא היא,אלא אם שחונה תהא גשומה וטלולה ואל יכנס לפניך תפלת עוברי דרכים רב אחא בריה דרבא מסיים משמיה דרב יהודה לא יעדי עביד שולטן מדבית יהודה ואל יהו עמך ישראל צריכין להתפרנס זה מזה ולא לעם אחר,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת ואומרת כל העולם כולו ניזון בשביל חנינא בני וחנינא בני דיו בקב חרובים מע"ש לע"ש הוה רגילא דביתהו למיחמא תנורא כל מעלי דשבתא ושדייא אקטרתא 24b. was connected to the order of Nezikin, while they were largely unfamiliar with the rest of the Mishna, and we learn all six orders of the Mishna. And when Rav Yehuda reached tractate Uktzin, which discusses the extent to which various fruits and vegetables are considered an integral part of the produce in terms of becoming ritually impure, which is the basis for the halakha that a woman who pickles a vegetable in a pot, etc. (Teharot 2:1), and some say that when he reached the halakha that olives that are pickled with their leaves are ritually pure, etc., as they are no longer considered part of the fruit (Uktzin 2:1), he would say: Those are the disputes between Rav and Shmuel that we see here. He felt it was an extremely challenging passage, as difficult as the most complex arguments between Rav and Shmuel.,And we, in contrast, learn tractate Uktzin in thirteen yeshivot, while, with regard to miracles, after declaring a fast to pray for a drought to end, when Rav Yehuda would remove one of his shoes as a sign of distress, the rain would immediately come, before he could remove his second shoe. And yet we cry out all day and no one notices us. Rabba continued: If the difference between the generations is due to inappropriate deeds, if there is anyone who has seen me do anything improper, let him say so. I am not at fault, but what can the great leaders of the generation do when their generation is not worthy, and rain is withheld on account of the people’s transgressions?,The Gemara explains the reference to Rav Yehuda’s shoe. Rav Yehuda saw two people wasting bread, throwing it back and forth. He said: I can learn from the fact that people are acting like this that there is plenty in the world. He cast his eyes angrily upon the world, and there was a famine. The Sages said to Rav Kahana, son of Rav Neḥunya, the attendant of Rav Yehuda: The Master, who is frequently present before Rav Yehuda, should persuade him to leave by way of the door nearest the market, so that he will see the terrible effects of the famine. Rav Kahana persuaded Rav Yehuda, and he went out to the market, where he saw a crowd.,He said to them: What is this gathering? They said to him: We are standing by a container [kuspa] of dates that is for sale. He said: If so many people are crowding around to purchase a single container of dates, I can learn from this that there is a famine in the world. He said to his attendant: I want to fast over this; remove my shoes as a sign of distress. He removed one of his shoes and rain came. When he began to take off the other shoe, Elijah came and said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: If you remove your other shoe, I will destroy the entire world so that you will not be further distressed.,Rav Mari, son of Shmuel’s daughter, said: At that moment, I was standing on the bank of the Pappa River. I saw angels who appeared as sailors bringing sand and filling ships with it, and it became fine flour. Everyone came to buy this flour, but I said to them: Do not purchase this flour, as it is the product of miracles. Tomorrow, boats filled with wheat will come from Parzina, and you may purchase that produce.,§ The Gemara relates another story. Rava happened to come to the city of Hagrunya. He decreed a fast, but rain did not come. He said to the local residents: Everyone, continue your fast and do not eat tonight. The next morning he said to them: Whoever had a dream last night, let him say it. Rabbi Elazar of Hagronya said to them: The following was recited to me in my dream. Good greetings to a good master from a good Lord, Who in His goodness does good for His people. Rava said: I can learn from this that it is a favorable time to pray for mercy. He prayed for mercy and rain came.,The Gemara relates another story that deals with prayer for rain. There was a certain man who was sentenced to be flogged by Rava’s court because he had relations with a gentile woman. Rava flogged the man and he died as a result. When this matter was heard in the house of the Persian King Shapur, he wanted to punish Rava for imposing the death penalty, as he thought, without the king’s permission. Ifra Hormiz, mother of King Shapur, said to her son: Do not interfere and quarrel with the Jews, as whatever they request from God, their Master, He gives them.,He said to her: What is this that He grants them? She replied: They pray for mercy and rain comes. He said to her: This does not prove that God hears their prayers, as that occurs merely because it is the time for rain, and it just so happens that rain falls after they pray. Rather, if you want to prove that God answers the prayers of the Jews, let them pray for mercy now, in the summer season of Tammuz, and let rain come. Ifra Hormiz sent a message to Rava: Direct your attention and pray for mercy that rain may come. He prayed for mercy, but rain did not come.,He said before God: Master of the Universe, it is written: “O God, we have heard with our ears, our fathers have told us, what work You did in their days, in days of old” (Psalms 44:2), but we have not seen it with our own eyes. As soon as he said this, rain came until the gutters of Meḥoza overflowed and poured into the Tigris River. Rava’s father came and appeared to him in a dream and said to him: Is there anyone who troubles Heaven so much to ask for rain out of its season? In his dream, his father further said to him: Change your place of rest at night. He changed his place, and the next day he found that his bed had been slashed by knives.,The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa decreed a fast, but rain did not come. His heart became weak from hunger, so he swallowed [seraf] a bowl [pinka] of porridge, and prayed for mercy, but rain still did not come. Rav Naḥman bar Ushpazti said to him: If the Master swallows another bowl of porridge, rain will come. He was mocking Rav Pappa for eating while everyone else was fasting. Rav Pappa was embarrassed and grew upset, and rain came.,The Gemara tells another story about prayer for rain. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa was traveling along a road when it began to rain. He said before God: Master of the Universe, the entire world is comfortable, because they needed rain, but Ḥanina is suffering, as he is getting wet. The rain ceased. When he arrived at his home, he said before God: Master of the Universe, the entire world is suffering that the rain stopped, and Ḥanina is comfortable? The rain began to come again.,Rav Yosef said, in reaction to this story: What effect does the prayer of the High Priest have against that of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa? As we learned in a mishna: After leaving the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, the High Priest would recite a brief prayer in the outer chamber. The Gemara asks: What would he pray? Ravin bar Adda and Rava bar Adda both say in the name of Rav Yehuda that this was his prayer: May it be Your will, Lord our God, that this year shall be rainy and hot. The Gemara expresses surprise at this request: Is heat a good matter? On the contrary, it is unfavorable. Why should he request that the year be hot?,Rather, say that he recited the following: If the upcoming year is hot, may it also be rainy and moist with dew, lest the heat harm the crops. The High Priest would also pray: And let not the prayer of travelers enter Your presence. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, in the name of Rav Yehuda, concluded the wording of this prayer: May the rule of power not depart from the house of Judea. And may Your nation Israel not depend upon each other for sustece, nor upon another nation. Instead, they should be sustained from the produce of their own land. Evidently, the High Priest’s prayer that God should not listen to the prayer of individual travelers was disregarded in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa.,§ The Gemara continues to discuss the righteous Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and the wonders he performed. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Each and every day a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Horeb and says: The entire world is sustained by the merit of My son Ḥanina ben Dosa, and yet for Ḥanina, My son, a kav of carobs, a very small amount of inferior food, is sufficient to sustain him for an entire week, from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat eve. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s wife would heat the oven every Shabbat eve and create a great amount of smoke,
10. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 116a, 75a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 43, 44, 72; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 43, 44, 72
75a. שכן יריעה שנפל בה דרנא קורעין בה ותופרין אותה,אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב המותח חוט של תפירה בשבת חייב חטאת והלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה והיודע לחשב תקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב אסור לספר הימנו,מגושתא רב ושמואל חד אמר חרשי וחד אמר גדופי תסתיים דרב דאמר גדופי דאמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב הלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה דאי ס"ד חרשי הכתיב (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות תסתיים,אר"ש בן פזי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא כל היודע לחשב בתקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו ה, יב) ואת פועל ה' לא יביטו ומעשה ידיו לא ראו א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן מנין שמצוה על האדם לחשב תקופות ומזלות שנאמר (דברים ד, ו) ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים איזו חכמה ובינה שהיא לעיני העמים הוי אומר זה חישוב תקופות ומזלות:,הצד צבי וכו': ת"ר הצד חלזון והפוצעו אינו חייב אלא אחת רבי יהודה אומר חייב שתים שהיה ר' יהודה אומר פציעה בכלל דישה אמרו לו אין פציעה בכלל דישה אמר רבא מ"ט דרבנן קסברי אין דישה אלא לגדולי קרקע וליחייב נמי משום נטילת נשמה אמר רבי יוחנן שפצעו מת,רבא אמר אפילו תימא שפצעו חי מתעסק הוא אצל נטילת נשמה והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישא ולא ימות שאני הכא דכמה דאית ביה נשמה טפי ניחא ליה כי היכי דליציל ציבעיה:,השוחטו: שוחט משום מאי חייב רב אמר משום צובע ושמואל אמר משום נטילת נשמה 75a. As, when a curtain had a worm which made a tear in it, they would tear the curtain further to lengthen the tear, and that enabled them to then sew it in a manner that obscured the tear.,Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. If two parts of a garment that were sewn together begin to separate, and one pulls the thread to reattach them, it is tantamount to having sewn them. The Gemara cites additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav. And one who learns even one matter from a magosh, a Persian priest, is liable to receive the death penalty. And one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with him because his actions are improper.,The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya. With regard to the magosh, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said that they are sorcerers, while the other said they are heretics. The Gemara adds: Conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who learns one matter from the magosh is liable to receive the death penalty. As, if it should enter your mind that they are sorcerers, wasn’t it written: “When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10)? And the Sages inferred: You shall not learn to do, but you may learn to understand and to teach the topic of sorcery. Apparently, merely learning about sorcery does not violate a prohibition. Only acting upon that learning is prohibited. Rav, who prohibited learning even a single matter from a magosh, must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics.,Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations and does not do so, the verse says about him: “They do not take notice of the work of God, and they do not see His handiwork” (Isaiah 5:12). And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where is it derived that there is a mitzva incumbent upon a person to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations? As it was stated: “And you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:6). What wisdom and understanding is there in the Torah that is in the eyes of the nations, i.e., appreciated and recognized by all? You must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all.,We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who traps a deer or any other living creature. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who traps a ḥilazon and breaks its shell to remove its blood for the dye is liable to bring only one sin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring two, for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a ḥilazon is included in the primary category of threshing, as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis said to him: Breaking the shell is not included in the primary category of threshing. Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold: Threshing applies only to produce that grows from the ground. One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, let him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yoḥa said: This is referring to a case where he broke its shell after it was dead.,Rava said: Even if you say that he broke it when it was alive, he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the ḥilazon, he is considered as one who is acting unawares with regard to taking a life. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon, who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, agrees that in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, one is liable? One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result. Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable. Since one who extracts blood from a ḥilazon inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the longer the ḥilazon lives, the better it is for the trapper, so that its dye will become clear. Dye extracted from a live ḥilazon is a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one. Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests. Since he prefers that the ḥilazon remain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences.,We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, one who slaughters an animal, due to what prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to dyeing, as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to taking a life.
11. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 38b, 46b, 99b, 37b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 176
37b. מה לנו ולצרה הזאת והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע אם לא יגיד וגו' ושמא תאמרו מה לנו לחוב בדמו של זה והלא כבר נאמר (משלי יא, י) באבוד רשעים רנה:, 37b. Why would we want this trouble? Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. But be aware, as is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?,The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the court describe testimony based on conjecture? The court says to the witnesses: Perhaps you saw this man about whom you are testifying pursuing another into a ruin, and you pursued him and found a sword in his hand, dripping with blood, and the one who was ultimately killed was convulsing. If you saw only this, it is as if you saw nothing, and you cannot testify to the murder.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ said as an oath: I will not see the consolation of Israel if I did not once see one person pursue another into a ruin, and I pursued him and saw a sword in his hand, dripping with blood, and the one who was ultimately killed was convulsing. And I said to him: Wicked person, who has killed this man? Either you or I. But what can I do, since your blood is not given over to me, as the Torah states: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6), and I did not witness you killing him. The One Who knows one’s thoughts shall punish this man who killed another. The Sages said: They did not move from there before a snake came and bit the murderer, and he died.,The Gemara questions this account: But was this murderer fit to die by being bitten by a snake? But doesn’t Rav Yosef say, and so the school of Ḥizkiyya also taught: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to be extant, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: Have they really not ceased? But they have ceased, as court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is that the halakha of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased to be applicable.,The Gemara explains: How so? For one who would be liable to be executed by stoning, either he falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to death by stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. For one who would be liable to be executed by burning, either he falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. For one who would be liable to be executed by slaying through decapitation by the sword, either he is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who would be liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [bisronekhi], which causes his breathing to become constricted. According to this, a murderer, whose verdict in court would be death by slaying, should not be bitten by a snake.,The Sages say in explanation: That murderer had another sin for which he deserved execution by burning, and as the Master says: One who is found liable by the court to receive two types of court-imposed capital punishment is sentenced to the harsher of the two, and burning is considered a harsher death than slaying (see 50a).,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of capital law the court warns the witnesses not to testify based on conjecture. The Gemara comments: One can infer that it is only in cases of capital law that we do not rule based on conjecture, but in cases of monetary law, we do rule based on conjecture. In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 3:6) that Rabbi Aḥa says: If there was a rutting male camel that was rampaging among other camels, and then a camel was found killed at its side, it is evident that this rampaging camel killed it, and the owner must pay for the damage caused. The baraita indicates that Rabbi Aḥa rules that cases of monetary law are decided based on conjecture.,The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning, with regard to that which the mishna teaches, that the court warns the witnesses not to provide testimony based on hearsay, should one infer that it is in cases of capital law that we do not say that testimony based on hearsay is allowed, but in cases of monetary law, we do say that testimony based on hearsay is allowed? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (29a): If the witness said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe the plaintiff, or if he says: So-and-so said to me that the defendant owes the plaintiff, the witness has said nothing, i.e., his testimony is disregarded. These two statements by witnesses are examples of testimony based on hearsay, yet they are not valid in cases of monetary law. A witness’s testimony is not valid testimony unless he says, for example: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him two hundred dinars, as by admitting the debt in the presence of witnesses he rendered himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned.,Evidently, although testimony based on hearsay is invalid in cases of monetary law, we tell the witnesses to be aware of this in capital law. Here, too, with regard to testimony based on conjecture, one can say that although testimony based on conjecture is invalid in cases of monetary law, we tell the witnesses to be aware of this in cases of capital law.,§ The mishna teaches that the court would say: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law, and would reference the murder of Abel by Cain. Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: By employing the plural term for blood, “The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10), the verse teaches that Cain caused multiple wounds and multiple injuries to his brother Abel. As Cain did not know from where the soul departs, he struck him multiple times. This continued until he came to his neck and struck him there, whereupon Abel died.,And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: From the day the earth opened its mouth and received the blood of Abel, its mouth has not opened again, as it is stated: “From the corner of the earth have we heard songs: Glory to the righteous” (Isaiah 24:16): One can infer that the songs are heard “from the corner of the earth,” but not from the mouth of the earth, as the earth never again opened its mouth. Ḥizkiyya, Rav Yehuda’s brother, raised an objection to Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya: The verse states concerning Korah and his assembly: “And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods” (Numbers 16:32). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said to him: It opened again for a deleterious purpose; it did not open again for a constructive purpose.,And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: Exile atones for half of a sin. As initially it is written in the verse concerning Cain that he said: “And I shall be a fugitive [na] and a wanderer [vanad ] in the earth” (Genesis 4:14), and ultimately it is written: “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod” (Genesis 4:16). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, equates “Nod” with “nad,” and understands that Cain was given only the punishment of being a wanderer. Exile atoned for half his sin, thereby negating the punishment of being a fugitive.,Rav Yehuda says: Exile atones for three matters, i.e., three types of death, as it is stated: “So says the Lord: Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. He that abides in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goes out, and falls away to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall survive, and his life shall be for him for a prey” (Jeremiah 21:8–9), indicating that exile from Jerusalem will save one from those three deaths.,Rabbi Yoḥa says: Exile atones for all transgressions and renders a sinner like a new person, as it is stated concerning the king Jeconiah, a descendant of King David: “So says the Lord: Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:30). And after Jeconiah was exiled it is written: “And the sons of Jeconiah, the same is Assir, Shealtiel his son” (I Chronicles 3:17). The verse employs the plural “sons of” although he had only one son, Shealtiel. “Assir,” literally, prisoner, teaches that his mother conceived him in prison. “Shealtiel,” literally, planted by God, teaches that God planted him in a way atypical of most plants [hanishtalin], i.e., people. It is learned as a tradition that a woman does not conceive when she is standing during sexual intercourse,
12. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, 20b, 66a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 176
66a. ותנשא לאחר,ניסת לאחר וראתה דם מחמת תשמיש משמשת פעם ראשונה ושניה ושלישית מכאן ואילך לא תשמש עד שתתגרש ותנשא לאחר ניסת לאחר וראתה דם מחמת תשמיש משמשת פעם ראשונה ושניה ושלישית מכאן ואילך לא תשמש עד שתבדוק עצמה,כיצד בודקת את עצמה מביאה שפופרת ובתוכה מכחול ומוך מונח על ראשו אם נמצא דם על ראש המוך בידוע שמן המקור הוא בא לא נמצא דם על ראשו בידוע שמן הצדדין הוא בא,ואם יש לה מכה באותו מקום תולה במכתה ואם יש לה וסת תולה בוסתה,ואם היה דם מכתה משונה מדם ראייתה אינה תולה ונאמנת אשה לומר מכה יש לי במקור שממנה דם יוצא דברי רבי,רשב"ג אומר דם מכה הבא מן המקור טמא ורבותינו העידו על דם המכה הבא מן המקור שהוא טהור,מאי בינייהו אמר עולא מקור מקומו טמא איכא בינייהו,שפופרת אפגורי מפגרא לה אמר שמואל בשפופרת של אבר ופיה רצוף לתוכה,אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן ותבדוק עצמה בביאה שלישית של בעל הראשון אמר ליה לפי שאין כל האצבעות שוות,אמר ליה ותבדוק עצמה בביאה ראשונה של בעל שלישי לפי שאין כל הכחות שוות,ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה לאבדן זיל בעתה אזל בעתה ונפל ממנה חררת דם אמר רבי נתרפאה זאת,ההיא אתתא דאתאי לקמיה דמר שמואל אמר ליה לרב דימי בר יוסף זיל בעתה אזל בעתה ולא נפל ממנה ולא מידי אמר שמואל זו ממלאה ונופצת היא וכל הממלאה ונופצת אין לה תקנה,ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרבי יוחנן דכל אימת דהות סלקא מטבילת מצוה הות קחזיא דמא א"ל שמא דימת עיריך עלתה ביך לכי והבעלי לו ע"ג הנהר,איכא דאמר אמר לה תגלי לחברותיך כי היכי דתהוו עליך להך גיסא נתהוו עלך להך גיסא ואיכא דאמר אמר לה גלי לחברותיך כי היכי דלבעו עליך רחמים דתניא (ויקרא יג, מה) וטמא טמא יקרא צריך להודיע צערו לרבים ורבים מבקשים עליו רחמים,אמר רב יוסף הוה עובדא בפומבדיתא ואתסי,אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר רב התקין רבי בשדות ראתה יום אחד תשב ששה והוא,שנים תשב ששה והן שלשה תשב שבעה נקיים,אמר ר' זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליה שבעה נקיים,אדבריה רבא לרב שמואל ודרש קשתה שני ימים ולשלישי הפילה תשב שבעה נקיים קסבר אין קשוי לנפלים ואי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם,א"ל רב פפא לרבא מאי אריא קשתה שני ימים אפילו משהו בעלמא דהא א"ר זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליה שבעה נקיים,א"ל אמינא לך איסורא ואת אמרת מנהגא היכא דאחמור אחמור היכא דלא אחמור לא אחמור,(תבעוה נתר בחמין לטבול קמטים ע"ג נמל סי') אמר רבא תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה שתשב שבעה נקיים,רבינא איעסק ליה לבריה בי רב חנינא א"ל סבר ליה מר למכתב כתובה לארבעה יום א"ל אין כי מטא לארבעה נטר עד ארבעה אחרינא איעכב שבעה יומי בתר ההוא יומא,א"ל מאי האי א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דרבא דאמר רבא תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב שבעה נקיים א"ל אימר דאמר רבא בגדולה דקחזיא דמא אבל בקטנה דלא חזיא דמא מי אמר,א"ל בפירוש אמר רבא ל"ש גדולה לא שנא קטנה גדולה טעמא מאי משום דמחמדא קטנה נמי מחמדא,אמר רבא אשה 66a. and is married to another man. She is permitted to engage in intercourse with her second husband because it is possible that the bleeding was caused by engaging in intercourse with her first husband, and the issue will not reoccur when she engages in intercourse with a different man.,If she married another man and again saw blood due to sexual intercourse, she may engage in intercourse before the first time this occurs, before the second time this occurs, and before the third time this occurs. From this point forward she may not engage in intercourse until she is divorced from her second husband and is married to yet another man. If she married another man and again saw blood due to sexual intercourse, she may engage in intercourse the first time this occurs, the second time this occurs, and the third time this occurs. From this point forward there is a presumption that she always bleeds due to engaging in intercourse, and therefore she may not engage in intercourse or marry someone else until she examines herself.,How does she examine herself? She brings a tube, inside of which she places a cosmetic brush so that it is long enough to reach deeply into her vagina, and an absorbent cloth is placed on the tip of the brush. She inserts the tube with the brush and cloth within herself and then removes it. If blood is found on the top of the absorbent cloth, it is known that the blood comes from the uterus and she is ritually impure. If blood is not found on the top of the cloth, it is known that the blood comes from the sides of the vaginal walls and she is ritually pure, and she may resume engaging in intercourse with her husband.,And if she has a wound in that place, i.e., her vagina, she attributes the blood to her wound, and she is ritually pure, as it is assumed to not be uterine blood. And if she has a fixed menstrual cycle, i.e., she does not bleed every time she engages in intercourse with her husband, but only at fixed times, she attributes the blood to her fixed menstrual cycle, and she is permitted to engage in intercourse at other times.,And if the blood of her wound differed from the blood that she sees due to sexual intercourse, she may not attribute the blood to her wound. And a woman is deemed credible to say: I have a wound in my uterus, from where the blood is emerging. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Blood of a wound that comes from the uterus is ritually impure as a primary category of impurity. Although this blood does not render it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband, it does render her impure with regard to eating ritually pure food. But our Sages testified that they had a tradition with regard to the blood of a wound that comes from the uterus, that it is ritually pure.,The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of those Sages and the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Ulla said: The difference between them is whether the place of a woman’s uterus is impure, which means that any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it is blood from a wound. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, even the blood of a wound becomes impure if it passes through the uterus, whereas those Sages hold that only blood that originates in the uterus is impure.,With regard to the baraita that states that the test for a woman who experiences bleeding due to sexual intercourse is to insert a tube, the Gemara asks: But won’t a tube scratch her and cause her to bleed regardless? Shmuel said: The baraita is referring to a tube of lead, and the mouth, i.e., the end that is inserted, is folded inward so that it will not scratch her.,The baraita says that if a woman experiences bleeding on three occasions due to intercourse with her husband he must divorce her. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But let her examine herself after the third act of intercourse with her first husband, so that he need not divorce her. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: It is preferable for her not to test herself and risk becoming forbidden to all men and instead to be divorced and remarry another, because not all fingers, i.e., penises, are equal. Since it is possible that sexual intercourse with her second husband might not cause her to bleed, she should not risk becoming forbidden to all men by performing the examination.,Reish Lakish further said to Rabbi Yoḥa: Why does she examine herself only after the third time she experiences bleeding due to sexual intercourse with her third husband? But let her examine herself after the first act of intercourse with her third husband. After the first occurrence this woman already has a presumptive status that all acts of intercourse cause her to bleed. Rabbi Yoḥa answered: She does not perform the examination then, because not all forces are equal. It is possible that the manner in which the couple has intercourse causes her to bleed, and therefore it is only after three times that she has a presumptive status of bleeding after every act of intercourse.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who experienced bleeding due to sexual intercourse who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked him what she should do. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the Sage Abdon, who was present at the time: Go and suddenly frighten this woman. Abdon went and frightened her, and a mass of congealed blood fell from her vagina. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This woman is now cured. She will no longer experience bleeding due to sexual intercourse, as this mass of blood was the source of the blood.,The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain woman who experienced bleeding due to sexual intercourse who came before Shmuel. Shmuel said to Rav Dimi bar Yosef: Go and frighten this woman. Rav Dimi went and frightened her, but nothing fell from her at all. Shmuel said: This woman is filled with blood, which falls out of her during intercourse. And any woman who is filled with blood that falls out during intercourse has no cure.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who came before Rabbi Yoḥa and told him that every time she emerged from immersion in a ritual bath, after completing the mitzva of purifying herself for her husband, she would see blood before she engaged in intercourse with him. Rabbi Yoḥa said to her: Perhaps the gossip of the women in your city, who are jealous of the love between you and your husband, has reached you, and this evil eye causes you to bleed before you engage in intercourse. Go and immerse in the river and engage in intercourse with your husband on the bank of the river, so that the other women will not see you leaving the ritual bath and gossip about you.,Some say that Rabbi Yoḥa said to her: Reveal this fact to your friends, so that those women who were against you on this side, and gossiped about you, will be with you on that side, and be kind to you. And some say that Rabbi Yoḥa said to her: Reveal this fact to your friends, in order that they will pray for mercy for you, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse: “And the leper in whom the mark is, his clothes shall be ripped and the hair of his head shall grow long and he will put a covering upon his upper lip and will cry: Impure, impure” (Leviticus 13:45). The leper publicizes the fact that he is ritually impure, as he must announce his pain to the masses, and then the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf.,Rav Yosef said: There was a similar incident in Pumbedita of a woman who experienced bleeding immediately after immersing in a ritual bath, and she followed the advice given by Rabbi Yoḥa and she was cured.Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi decreed that in the fields, i.e., in those distant places where there were no Torah scholars and whose residents were not well versed in the halakhot of menstruating women and did not know how to distinguish between the days of menstruation and the days of ziva, if she saw blood on one day, she must sit and count six days and that first day. She must observe six clean days without a discharge despite the possibility that she might have experienced bleeding only in her period of ziva, in which case she would be impure for only one day.,If she experiences bleeding for two days, she must sit and count six days and both of those first two days, for a total of eight days, in case the first day on which she bled was the last day of ziva, while the next day was the first day of her menstruation period. If she experiences bleeding for three days she must sit and count seven clean days, as she might be a greater zava, who must count seven clean days.,The Gemara cites a related statement. Rabbi Zeira says: Jewish women were stringent with themselves to the extent that even if they see a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed, they sit seven clean days for it. By Torah law, a woman who experiences menstrual bleeding waits seven days in total before immersing, regardless of whether she experienced bleeding on those days. If she experiences bleeding during the eleven days when she is not expected to experience menstrual bleeding, she is a lesser zava and waits one day without bleeding and then immerses. The Jewish women accepted upon themselves the stringency that if they experience any bleeding whatsoever, they treat it as the blood of a greater zava, which obligates one to count seven clean days before immersing (see Leviticus 15:25).,Rava authorized Rav Shmuel, and he taught: If a pregt woman experienced labor pains for two days, and on the third day she miscarried, she must sit and count seven clean days. The Gemara explains that Rava holds that the principle that blood that emerges while the woman experiences labor pains is not ritually impure does not apply to miscarriages. And Rava further maintains that it is impossible for the womb to open without blood emerging. Therefore, when she miscarried she must have experienced a flow of blood, even if she did not notice it.,Rav Pappa said to Rava: For what reason did you teach this halakha specifically with regard to a woman who experiences labor pains for two days? Even if she merely discharges any amount of blood she should be impure, as Rabbi Zeira says: The Jewish women were stringent with themselves to the extent that even if they see a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed, that woman sits seven clean days for it. Since it is impossible for the womb to open without the emergence of blood, when this woman miscarried there must have been blood, and therefore she must count seven clean days.,Rava said to Rav Pappa: I speak to you of a prohibition, i.e., that by Torah law a woman who experiences difficulty in childbirth for two days and on the third miscarries must count seven clean days as a greater zava, and you speak to me of a custom, a mere stringency. The stringency you mention does not apply in this case. Where the Jewish women were stringent, they were stringent, i.e., if they saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. Where they were not stringent, i.e., in a case of blood due to labor, they were not stringent. By contrast, in the case I described the woman is obligated to count seven clean days by Torah law.,The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following discussions: One who proposed to her; natron; with hot water; to immerse; folds; on top of; a port. Rava says: With regard to one who proposed marriage to a woman and she accepted it, the emotional excitement might have caused her to have a flow of menstrual blood, which would render her ritually impure and prohibit her from engaging in intercourse. Even if she was unaware of any flow, she must consider the possibility that it occurred. Therefore, to purify herself she must wait seven consecutive days that are clean from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath. Only after that process may she marry.,The Gemara cites a related incident: Ravina arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rav Ḥanina, i.e., to marry Rav Ḥanina’s daughter. Rav Ḥanina said to Ravina: Does the Master hold that it is appropriate to write the marriage contract as stating that the wedding will take place in four days, i.e., on Wednesday? Ravina said: Yes. When the fourth day, i.e., Wednesday arrived, he waited until another fourth day before marrying her, until the following Wednesday, i.e., he delayed seven days after that day when he had planned to marry her.,Rav Ḥanina said to Ravina: What is this? Why did you delay the wedding by an extra week? Ravina said to Rav Ḥanina: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with this statement of Rava, as Rava said: With regard to one who proposed marriage to a woman and she accepted it, she must wait seven consecutive days that are clean from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath? Rav Ḥanina said to Ravina: One can say that Rava said this statement with regard to an adult woman, who has seen menstrual blood. But did Rava actually say this with regard to a minor girl, who has not yet seen menstrual blood?,Ravina said to Rav Ḥanina: Rava said explicitly that there is no difference whether she is an adult woman and no difference whether she is a minor girl. What is the reason that an adult woman must wait for seven days? She must wait because she desires to marry her husband, and this might cause her to have a flow of blood. A minor girl also desires to marry her husband, which could cause a flow of blood.,§ Rava says: A woman who is about to immerse herself in a ritual bath for purification
13. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, 110a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 165
110a. and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called the city of destruction” (Isaiah 19:18). They went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated in the following verse: “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at its border, to the Lord” (Isaiah 19:19).,The verse states: “One shall be called the city of destruction” (Isaiah 19:18). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the verse: “One shall be called the city of destruction”? The Gemara answers: As Rav Yosef translates into Aramaic: Concerning the City of the Sun, which will be destroyed in the future, it will be said that it is one of them. And from where is it derived that in the phrase: “The city of destruction [heres],” the term heres is referring to the sun? As it is written: “Who commands the sun [ḥeres], and it does not rise; and seals up the stars” (Job 9:7).,§ After mentioning the Jewish community in Egypt, the Gemara discusses Jewish communities in other locations. The verse states: “Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your seed from the east and gather you from the west; I will say to the north: Give up, and to the south: Keep not back, bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the end of the earth” (Isaiah 43:5–6). What is the meaning of “bring My sons from far”? Rav Huna says: These are the exiles of Babylonia, whose minds are calm, like sons, and who can therefore focus properly on Torah study and mitzvot. What is the meaning of “and My daughters from the end of the earth”? These are the exiles of other countries, whose minds are unsettled, like daughters.Rabbi Abba bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav Ḥisda says, and some say that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The gentiles living from Tyre to Carthage recognize the Jewish people, their religion, and their Father in Heaven. But those living to the west of Tyre and to the east of Carthage recognize neither the Jewish people nor their Father in Heaven.,Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to the statement of Rav from the verse: “From the rising of the sun until it sets, My name is great among the nations; and in every place offerings are presented to My name, and a pure meal offering; for My name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). This indicates that God’s name is known across the entire world, even to the west of Tyre and the east of Carthage. Rav said to him: Shimi, is it you who is raising such an objection? The verse does not mean that they recognize God and worship him. Rather, it means that although they worship idols, they call Him the God of gods.,§ The verse states: “And in every place offerings are presented to My name, and a pure meal offering; for My name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.” Does it enter your mind to say that it is permitted to sacrifice offerings in every place? Rather, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: These are Torah scholars, who engage in Torah study in every place. God says: I ascribe them credit as though they burn and present offerings to My name.,Furthermore, when the verse states: “And a pure meal offering,” this is referring to one who studies Torah in purity, i.e., one who first marries a woman and afterward studies Torah. Since he is married, he is not disturbed by sinful thoughts.,The Gemara cites another verse that praises Torah scholars. “A Song of Ascents, Behold, bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord, who stand in the House of the Lord at night” (Psalms 134:1). What is the meaning of “at night,” given that the Temple service is not performed at night and all the offerings must be sacrificed during the daytime? Rabbi Yoḥa says: These are Torah scholars, who engage in Torah study at night. The verse ascribes them credit as though they engage in the Temple service.,§ The Gemara cites another verse that is interpreted in a similar vein. King Solomon said to Hiram of Tyre: “Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to Him, and to burn before Him incense of sweet spices, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Shabbatot, and on the New Moons, and on the Festivals of the Lord our God. This is an ordice forever for Israel” (II Chronicles 2:3). Since the Temple was eventually destroyed, what did Solomon mean when he said that it is “an ordice forever”? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: This is referring to the altar that remains built in Heaven even after the earthly Temple was destroyed, and the angel Michael, the great minister, stands and sacrifices an offering upon it.,And Rabbi Yoḥa says that there is an alternative explanation of the verse: These are Torah scholars, who engage in studying the halakhot of the Temple service. The verse ascribes them credit as though the Temple was built in their days and they are serving in it.,§ The Gemara cites similar interpretations of verses: Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is the law [torah] of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37)? This teaches that anyone who engages in Torah study is considered as though he sacrificed a burnt offering, a meal offering, a sin offering, and a guilt offering.,Rava said an objection to this interpretation: This verse states: “of the burnt offering, of the meal offering.” If the interpretation of Reish Lakish is correct, the verse should have written: “Burnt offering and meal offering.” Rather, Rava says that the correct interpretation of this verse is: Anyone who engages in Torah study need not bring a burnt offering, nor a sin offering, nor a meal offering, nor a guilt offering.,Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), and: “This is the law of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1)? These verses teach that anyone who engages in studying the law of the sin offering is ascribed credit as though he sacrificed a sin offering, and anyone who engages in studying the law of a guilt offering is ascribed credit as though he sacrificed a guilt offering.,It is stated with regard to an animal burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), and with regard to a bird burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:17), and with regard to a meal offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2). The repetitive language employed concerning all of these different offerings is to say to you that one who brings a substantial offering and one who brings a meager offering have equal merit, provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven.,Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse from which this principle is derived? “Sweet is the sleep of a laboring man, whether he consumes little or much”(Ecclesiastes 5:11).The verse is interpreted as referring to one who brings an offering, and teaches that one who brings a substantial offering and one who brings a meager offering can be equally assured that their offering will be accepted.,Rav Adda bar Ahava said that the source is from here: “When goods increase, those who consume them increase; and what advantage is there to the owner, except seeing them with his eyes?” (Ecclesiastes 5:10). One who brings a substantial offering, who thereby increases the number of priests who partake of it, does not have more merit than one who brings a meager offering. Rather, the offering that God desires is one where He recognizes, i.e., “seeing them with His eyes,” that its owner has the proper intent.,The Gemara addresses the expression “an aroma pleasing to the Lord” stated in the verses mentioned in the mishna. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says: Come and see what is written in the portion of offerings: As in these verses, the divine names El and Elohim are not stated, but only “the Lord.” This is so as not to give a claim to a litigant to argue. Only one name of God is used in conjunction with all the various offerings, to prevent heretics from claiming that different offerings are brought to different gods.,And it is stated with regard to a large bull offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), and with regard to a small bird offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:17), and with regard to a meal offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9). The repetitive language employed concerning all of these different offerings is to say to you that one who brings a substantial offering and one who brings a meager offering have equal merit, provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven.,And lest you say that God needs these offerings for consumption, in which case a larger offering would be preferable to a smaller one, the verse states: “If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and everything within it” (Psalms 50:12). And it is stated: “For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the wild beasts of the field are Mine” (Psalms 50:10–11). Similarly, it is stated in the following verse: “Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” (Psalms 50:13).,I did not say to you: Sacrifice offerings to me, so that you will say: I will do His will, i.e., fulfill His needs, and He will do my will. You are not sacrificing to fulfill My will, i.e., My needs, but you are sacrificing to fulfill your will, i.e., your needs, in order to achieve atonement for your sins by observing My mitzvot, as it is stated: “And when you sacrifice an offering of peace offerings to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted” (Leviticus 19:5).,Alternatively, the verse: “And when you sacrifice an offering of peace offerings to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted [lirtzonkhem]” (Leviticus 19:5), can be interpreted differently: Sacrifice willingly [lirtzonkhem]; sacrifice intentionally.,This is as Shmuel asked Rav Huna: From where is it derived with regard to one who acts unawares in the case of consecrated items, i.e., if one slaughtered an offering without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, but rather appeared like one occupied with other matters, that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, i.e., with the knowledge that he is performing an act of slaughter.,Shmuel said to Rav Huna: We have this as an established halakha already, that it is a mitzva to slaughter the offering for the sake of a bull, but from where is it derived that this requirement is indispensable? Rav Huna said to him that the verse states: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., sacrifice intentionally, in the form of a purposeful action.,...Y
14. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 28b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 176
28b. ואין ניאותין בהם ואין מטיילין בהם ואין נכנסין בהן בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים ואין מספידין בהן הספד של יחיד אבל קורין בהן ושונין בהן ומספידין בהן הספד של רבים,א"ר יהודה אימתי בישובן אבל בחורבנן מניחין אותן ועולין בהן עשבים ולא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש,עשבים מאן דכר שמייהו חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ומכבדין אותן ומרביצין אותן כדי שלא יעלו בהן עשבים א"ר יהודה אימתי בישובן אבל בחורבנן מניחין אותן לעלות עלו בהם עשבים לא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש,א"ר אסי בתי כנסיות שבבבל על תנאי הן עשויין ואעפ"כ אין נוהגין בהן קלות ראש ומאי ניהו חשבונות,אמר רב אסי בהכ"נ שמחשבין בו חשבונות מלינין בו את המת מלינין סלקא דעתך לא סגי דלאו הכי אלא לסוף שילינו בו מת מצוה:,ואין ניאותין בהן: אמר רבא חכמים ותלמידיהם מותרין דאמר ריב"ל מאי בי רבנן ביתא דרבנן:,ואין נכנסין בהן בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים: כי הא דרבינא ורב אדא בר מתנה הוו קיימי ושאלי שאילתא מרבא אתא זילחא דמיטרא עיילי לבי כנישתא אמרי האי דעיילינן לבי כנישתא לאו משום מיטרא אלא משום דשמעתא בעא צילותא כיומא דאסתנא,א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אי אצטריך ליה לאיניש למיקרי גברא מבי כנישתא מאי א"ל אי צורבא מרבנן הוא לימא הלכתא ואי תנא הוא לימא מתני' ואי קרא הוא לימא פסוקא ואי לא לימא ליה לינוקא אימא לי פסוקיך א"נ נישהי פורתא וניקום:,ומספידין בהן הספד של רבים: ה"ד הספידא דרבים מחוי רב חסדא כגון הספידא דקאי ביה רב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון הספידא דקאי ביה רב חסדא,רפרם אספדה לכלתיה בבי כנישתא אמר משום יקרא דידי ודמיתא אתו כוליה עלמא ר' זירא ספדיה לההוא מרבנן בבי כנישתא אמר אי משום יקרא דידי אי משום יקרא דידיה דמיתא אתו כולי עלמא,ריש לקיש ספדיה לההוא צורבא מרבנן דשכיח בארעא דישראל דהוי תני הלכתא בכ"ד שורתא אמר ווי חסרא ארעא דישראל גברא רבה,ההוא דהוי תני הלכתא סיפרא וסיפרי ותוספתא ושכיב אתו ואמרו ליה לרב נחמן ליספדיה מר אמר היכי נספדיה הי צנא דמלי סיפרי דחסר,תא חזי מה בין תקיפי דארעא דישראל לחסידי דבבל,תנן התם ודאשתמש בתגא חלף תני ריש לקיש זה המשתמש במי ששונה הלכות כתרה של תורה,ואמר עולא לשתמש איניש במאן דתני ארבעה ולא לשתמש במאן דמתני ארבעה כי הא דריש לקיש הוה אזיל באורחא מטא עורקמא דמיא אתא ההוא גברא ארכביה אכתפיה וקא מעבר ליה א"ל קרית אמר ליה קרינא תנית תנינא ארבעה סידרי משנה א"ל פסלת לך ארבעה טורי וטענת בר לקיש אכתפך שדי בר לקישא במיא,אמר ליה ניחא לי דאשמעינן למר אי הכי גמור מיני הא מלתא דאמר ר' זירא בנות ישראל הן החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טיפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליו שבעה נקיים,תנא דבי אליהו כל השונה הלכות מובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא שנאמר (חבקוק ג, ו) הליכות עולם לו אל תקרי הליכות אלא הלכות,ת"ר 28b. and one may not adorn oneself inside them; nor may one wander about inside them; nor may one enter them in the sun for protection from the sun, or in the rain to find shelter from the rain; nor may one offer a eulogy inside them for an individual, which is a private event. However, one may read the Bible inside them, and one may study halakhot inside them, and one may offer a eulogy inside them for a Torah scholar, if the public attends the eulogy.,Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? When the synagogues are occupied by the people using them. But when they are in a state of ruin, they should be left alone so that grass will sprout up inside them. And that grass should not be picked and removed, due to the anguish that it will bring to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it.,The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yehuda discuss the halakha about grass? Who mentioned anything about it? The Gemara explains: The text of the baraita is incomplete and is teaching the following: And among the other things that may be done in synagogues, they should also be sure to sweep them and to sprinkle their floors with water, in order that grass not sprout up in them. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? When the synagogues are occupied by the people using them, but when they are in a state of ruin, they should be left alone so that grass will sprout up inside them. If grass did sprout up, it should not be removed, due to the anguish that this will bring to those who see it.,Rav Asi said: Synagogues in Babylonia are built from the outset with a stipulation that they not have the full sanctity of a synagogue, in order that it be permitted to use them for the community’s general needs. But nevertheless, one should not act inside them with frivolity. The Gemara explains: What is meant by this? One should not make business calculations in a synagogue.,Rav Asi said: With regard to a synagogue in which people make business calculations, they will eventually keep a corpse inside it overnight. The Gemara questions the wording of this dictum: Can it really enter your mind to say that they will ever actually keep a corpse inside it overnight? Could it really be that there will not be any other alternative? Rather, Rav Asi means that as a punishment for acting with frivolity people in the community will die, including those who have no family, and so ultimately they will have to keep a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] overnight in the synagogue.,§ The baraita taught: And one may not adorn oneself inside them. Rava said: The prohibition applies only to laypeople, but Torah scholars and their disciples are permitted to do so, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of the term: Bei of the Sages, which is used to describe a study hall? It is a shortened form of house [beita] of the Sages. In order to facilitate the constant presence of the Torah scholars in the study hall, it is permitted for them to use the hall as though it were their home.,The baraita continued: And nor may one enter them in the sun for protection from the sun, or in the rain to find shelter from the rain. The Gemara explains: This is similar to that case of Ravina and Rav Adda bar Mattana. They were standing and asking a question of Rava, when a shower [zilḥa] of rain began to fall upon them. They all entered the synagogue, saying: Our having entered the synagogue is not due to the rain, that we stay dry; rather, it is due to the fact that the halakha we were discussing requires clarity like the day the north wind [istena] blows and the sky is perfectly clear. Therefore, we are entering the synagogue for the sake of studying Torah, which is certainly permitted.,Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If a person needs to summon an individual from inside a synagogue, what should he do, since it is not permitted to enter a synagogue just for that purpose? Rav Ashi said to him: If he is a young Torah scholar, let him recite a halakha upon entering the synagogue; and if he is a tanna who memorizes large numbers of mishnayot, let him recite various mishnayot; and if he is an expert in the Bible, let him recite a verse; and if he is not able to do even this, let him say to a child: Recite for me a verse that you have learned today. Alternatively, he should remain in the synagogue for a short time and only afterward stand up and leave.,The baraita continues: And one may offer a eulogy inside them for a Torah scholar if the public attends the eulogy. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a eulogy for the public? Rav Ḥisda depicted a case: For example, a eulogy for a Torah scholar at which Rav Sheshet is present. Owing to his presence, many people will come. Rav Sheshet himself depicted another case: For example, a eulogy at which Rav Ḥisda is present.,The Gemara offers another example: Rafram once eulogized his daughter-in-law inside a synagogue. He said: Due to my honor and the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy. It will consequently be a public event, and it is therefore permitted to hold it in a synagogue. Similarly, Rabbi Zeira once eulogized a certain Sage inside a synagogue. He said: Whether due to my honor, or whether due to the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy.,Reish Lakish once eulogized a certain young Torah scholar who was frequently present in Eretz Yisrael and who used to study halakha in the twenty-fourth row of the study hall. He sat so far back because he was not one of the principal scholars. Nevertheless, when he died, Reish Lakish said: Alas, Eretz Yisrael has lost a great man.,In contrast, there was a certain man who used to study halakha, the Sifra, and the Sifrei, and the Tosefta, and he died. People came and said to Rav Naḥman: Let the Master eulogize him. He said to them: How can I eulogize him? Should I say: Alas, a basket filled with books is lost? This would not be true. Although the man studied many areas of Torah, he was not proficient in them.,The Gemara compares the conduct of Reish Lakish in Eretz Yisrael to that of Rav Naḥman in Babylonia. Come and see what the difference is between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael and the saintly ones of Babylonia. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was still more respectful than Rav Naḥman, who was known for his saintliness.,We learned in a mishna there (Avot 1:13): And one who makes use of the crown [taga] of Torah learning will perish from the world. Reish Lakish taught: This is referring to one who allows himself to be served by one who studies halakhot, which is the crown of the Torah.,And Ulla said: It is better that a person should be served by one who studies four orders of the Mishna, and he should not allow himself to be served by one who teaches to others four orders of the Mishna, as in that case of Reish Lakish. He was traveling along the road when he reached a deep puddle of water. A certain man came and placed him upon his shoulders and began transferring him to the other side. Reish Lakish said to him: Have you read the Bible? He said to him: I have read it. He then asked: Have you studied the Mishna? He answered him: I have studied four orders of the Mishna. Reish Lakish then said to him: You have hewn these four mountains and yet you bear the weight of the son of Lakish upon your shoulders? It is inappropriate for you to carry me; throw the son of Lakish into the water.,The man said to Reish Lakish: It is pleasing for me to serve the Master in this way. Reish Lakish said to him: If so, learn from me this matter that Rabbi Zeira said. In this way you will be considered my disciple, and it will then be appropriate for you to serve me. Jewish women were strict upon themselves in that even if they see a spot of menstrual blood that is only the size of a mustard seed they wait on its account seven clean days before immersing themselves in a ritual bath to purify themselves.,The school of Eliyahu taught: Anyone who studies halakhot every day, he is guaranteed that he is destined for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “His ways [halikhot] are eternal” (Habakkuk 3:6): Do not read the verse as halikhot [ways]; rather, read it as halakhot. Consequently, the verse indicates that the study of the halakhot brings one to eternal life.,The Sages taught in a baraita:
15. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 22b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 176, 179
22b. ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה ומשלקה אמדו שיכול הוא לקבל ארבעים פטור:, 22b. and then they assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged eighteen times they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving additional lashes.,What is the reason that the Rabbis said that he receives forty lashes less one? If it had been written: Forty by number, I would say that it means forty as a precise sum; now that it is written: “By number, forty,” the reference is to a sum that approaches forty. Likewise, Rava said: How foolish are the rest of the people who stand before a Torah scroll that passes before them, and yet they do not stand before a great man, when a Sage passes before them; as in a Torah scroll, forty is written and the Sages came and subtracted one, establishing the number of lashes as thirty-nine. Apparently, the authority of the Sages is so great that they are able to amend an explicit Torah verse.,The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes, with the additional lash administered between his shoulders. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is written: “And one shall say to him: What are these wounds between your arms? Then he shall answer: Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends” (Zechariah 13:6). Rabbi Yehuda understands that this verse is referring to one with wounds from lashes administered between his arms, indicating that there is one lash administered between the shoulders. And how do the Rabbis, who hold that one is flogged only thirty-nine lashes, explain this verse? They explain that this verse is written with regard to schoolchildren struck by their teacher for laxity in their studies, and is not referring to lashes administered by the court.,The mishna teaches: One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from any additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged with eighteen lashes they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving further lashes. The Gemara infers: If he was flogged in practice, yes, he is exempt; if he was not flogged, no, he is not exempt from the rest of the forty lashes.,And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and they then assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt. Apparently, even if he did not receive any lashes, if the assessment changes, it is as though he was flogged.,Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this case in the mishna is one where doctors assessed his fitness to receive lashes for that day, and there was no change in his condition; rather, it was discovered that the initial assessment was mistaken. He is exempt only if he was already flogged; if not, another assessment is performed. That case in the baraita is one where doctors assess his fitness to receive lashes for the next day or for a different day. In that case, the initial assessment was accurate; it is his condition that changed. Therefore, if it is determined that he is unable to receive lashes, he is exempt.,one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, and they assessed concerning him a single assessment of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, he is flogged in accordance with their assessment and is exempt from any additional lashes. And if not, if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, he is flogged and is allowed to heal, and then is flogged again for violating the second prohibition.,But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One does not perform one assessment for two prohibitions?,Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult; this ruling in the baraita that one does not perform a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-one lashes, two lashes beyond a full set. Since those two additional lashes are not divisible by three, which is a requirement based on the previous mishna, he receives only thirty-nine lashes. That constitutes just one set of lashes. He remains liable to receive another set of lashes after he recovers, requiring another assessment and another set of lashes. That ruling in the mishna that one performs a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-two lashes. In that case, it is possible to ascribe thirty-nine lashes to one prohibition and three additional lashes to the second prohibition. That is tantamount to two separate assessments, although in practice only one assessment was performed.,How do they flog him? He ties the two hands of the person being flogged on this side and that side of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments to remove them. If they were ripped in the process, they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, and he continues until he bares his chest. And the stone upon which the attendant stands when flogging is situated behind the person being flogged. The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. It is a strap of calf hide, and is doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey hide go up and down the doubled strap of calf hide. The length of its handle is one handbreadth, and the width of the straps is one handbreadth, and the strap must be long enough so that its end reaches the top of his abdomen, i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind.,And the attendant flogs him with one-third of the lashes from the front of him, on his chest, and two one-third portions from behind him, on his back. And he does not flog him when the one receiving lashes is standing, nor when he is sitting; rather, he flogs him when he is hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down.,And the attendant flogging the one receiving lashes flogs [makeh] him with one hand with all his strength, and the court crier recites the verses: “If you do not observe to perform all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. And the Lord will make your plagues [makkotekha] outstanding, and the plagues of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). And then he returns to the beginning of the verse. He also recites: “And you shall observe the matters of this covet, and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), and concludes with the verse: “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), and then returns to the beginning of the verse that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.”,If the one being flogged dies at the hand of the attendant, the latter is exempt, because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant added for him an additional lash with a strap and he died, the attendant is exiled to a city of refuge on his account, as an unwitting murderer. If the one being flogged involuntarily sullies himself, due to fear or pain, whether with excrement or with urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: The man is exempted if he sullies himself with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine.
16. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 13a, 84a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 179
84a. וליפרקינהו וליכסינהו בעינן העמדה והערכה,וכמאן אי כר"מ דאמר הכל היו בכלל העמדה והערכה האמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה,אי כר' שמעון דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה האמר לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה,אמר רב יוסף רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי בשחיטה שאינה ראויה סבר לה כר' שמעון בהעמדה והערכה סבר לה כר"מ,ואיבעית אימא כולה ר"ש היא ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה פדייה וכסוי,והשתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא קדשי מזבח מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה גרירה וכסוי,מר בר רב אשי אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) חיה או עוף מה חיה אינה קדש אף עוף אינו קדש,אי מה חיה שאין במינו קדש אף עוף שאין במינו קדש אוציא תורין ובני יונה שיש במינן קדש,לא כחיה מה חיה לא חלקת בה אף עוף לא תחלוק בו,אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרבא קי"ל חיה בכלל בהמה לסימנין אימא נמי בהמה בכלל חיה לכסוי,אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים לא בעי כסוי אף האי נמי לא בעי כסוי,אלא מעתה יטבילו בו אמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לו) אך מעין ובור מקוה מים יהיה טהור הני אין מידי אחרינא לא,ואימא ה"מ למעוטי שאר משקין דלא איקרו מים אבל דם דאיקרי מים ה"נ,תרי מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים,אימא אידי ואידי למעוטי שאר משקין חד למעוטי זוחלין וחד למעוטי מכונסין,תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים מקוה מים,ת"ר (ויקרא יז, יג) אשר יצוד אין לי אלא אשר יצוד נצודין ועומדין מאליהן מנין כגון אווזין ותרנגולים,ת"ל ציד מ"מ א"כ מה ת"ל אשר יצוד למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת,ת"ר (דברים יב, כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא לתאבון,יכול יקח אדם מן השוק ויאכל ת"ל (דברים יב, כא) וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך יכול יזבח כל בקרו ויאכל כל צאנו ויאכל ת"ל מבקרך ולא כל בקרך מצאנך ולא כל צאנך,מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מי שיש לו מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא ירק עשרה מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא דגים חמשים מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא בשר מאה מנה ישפתו לו קדרה בכל יום ואינך אימת מערב שבת לערב שבת,אמר רב צריכין אנו לחוש לדברי זקן א"ר יוחנן אבא ממשפחת בריאים הוה אבל כגון אנו מי שיש לו פרוטה בתוך כיסו יריצנה לחנווני א"ר נחמן כגון אנו לווין ואוכלין,(משלי כז, כו) כבשים ללבושך מגז כבשים יהא מלבושך (משלי כז, כו) ומחיר שדה עתודים לעולם ימכור אדם שדה ויקח עתודים ואל ימכור אדם עתודים ויקח שדה (משלי כז, כז) ודי חלב עזים דיו לאדם שיתפרנס מחלב גדיים וטלאים שבתוך ביתו,(משלי כז, כז) ללחמך ללחם ביתך לחמך קודם ללחם ביתך (משלי כז, כז) וחיים לנערותיך אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן תן חיים לנערותיך מיכן למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא ילמד אדם את בנו בשר ויין,אמר רבי יוחנן 84a. The Gemara challenges: But even if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, let one redeem them after they were slaughtered and then cover their blood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal we require setting and valuating, i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed.,The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Everything, i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintece, was included in the requirement of setting and valuating, and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say that slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is nevertheless considered a halakhic act of slaughter that requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.,The Gemara continues: And if one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is not considered a halakhic act of slaughter and therefore the bird would require redemption in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say that animals consecrated for Temple maintece were not included in the requirement of setting and valuating? If so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood.,Rav Yosef said in reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna in accordance with the opinions of different tanna’im: With regard to the status of an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while with regard to the requirement of setting and valuating he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was consecrated for Temple maintece once it has been slaughtered, there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit to render the meat permitted.,And if you wish, say instead that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that birds consecrated for Temple maintece may be redeemed even after their slaughter. And although it would seem that their slaughter is fit to render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obligated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is different here, as the verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it” (Leviticus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step. Excluded is this blood of birds consecrated for Temple maintece, which is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering.,The Gemara notes: And now that you have arrived at this explanation, you may even say that the mishna is referring to birds consecrated for the altar. As for the question asked earlier: Why not let one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step. Excluded is this blood of bird offerings, which is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering.,The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated animals from the requirement of covering their blood: Mar bar Rav Ashi said that the verse states with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: “An undomesticated animal or bird” (Leviticus 17:13). The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between them: Just as the undomesticated animal referred to in the verse is not consecrated, as undomesticated animals are never fit for sacrifice, so too, the bird referred to in the verse is not consecrated.,The Gemara asks: If it is so that the halakhot of slaughtering a bird are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say: Just as the verse is referring to an undomesticated animal, whose species cannot be consecrated as an offering, so too, the verse is referring only to a bird whose species cannot be consecrated as an offering. Therefore, I will exclude even non-sacred doves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated.,The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, the juxtaposition indicates that the halakha with regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely like that of an undomesticated animal. Therefore, just as in the case of an undomesticated animal, you did not differentiate between its various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva, so too, with regard to the bird mentioned in the verse, you should not differentiate between its various species.,§ Concerning the halakha that covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that Ya’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintain that an undomesticated animal, e.g., a deer, is included in the category of a domesticated animal with regard to the characteristics necessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, I will also say that a domesticated animal is included in the category of an undomesticated animal with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood.,Rava said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states in reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood…you shall pour it out on the ground, like water” (Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, just as water does not require covering, so too, this blood of a domesticated animal does not require covering.,The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the verse equates the blood of a domesticated animal with water, then let one immerse ritually impure items in it to purify them, just as he can immerse them in water. The Gemara responds: The verse states: “But a spring or a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure” (Leviticus 11:36). The exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning these bodies of water, yes, they render pure an impure item, while something else, e.g., blood, does not.,The Gemara challenges: But perhaps one can say that this matter, i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only to exclude other liquids that are not called water. But with regard to blood, which is called water, as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the ground, like water,” one may indeed immerse ritually impure items in it.,The Gemara responds: Two exclusions are written in the verse discussing ritually purifying waters: A spring of water, and: A cistern of water. The term “water” is understood as being attached to each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion serves to exclude blood.,The Gemara challenges: Say that both this phrase, a spring of water, and that phrase, a cistern of water, serve to exclude other liquids, and not blood, whereby one phrase is to exclude flowing liquids that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; and one phrase serves to exclude gathered liquids that are not water from having the status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the water in the ritual bath is gathered.,The Gemara responds: Three exclusions are written in the verse: A spring of water, to exclude flowing liquids; and: A cistern of water, to exclude gathered liquids; and: A gathering of water, to exclude blood.,§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who traps a trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). I have derived only that one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird that one traps. From where is it derived that undomesticated animals or birds that are already considered trapped on their own, such as geese and chickens that do not roam freely, are also included in the mitzva of covering the blood?,The verse states “a trapping” to indicate that in any case, one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Who traps,” if it is not to be understood literally? The baraita explains: The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation. That is, just as the meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not become accustomed to consuming meat.,In a similar vein, the Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary…according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat due only to appetite. That is, one should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.,The baraita continues: One might have thought that a person may purchase meat from the marketplace and consume it. Therefore, the next verse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,” indicating that one should consume the meat of animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace. One might have thought that a person may slaughter all of his cattle, i.e., his only cow, and consume the meat, or slaughter all of his flock, i.e., his only sheep, and consume the meat. Therefore, the verse states: “of your cattle,” indicating some, but not all of, your cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock.,From here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hundred dinars should purchase a litra of vegetables for his stewpot [lefaso]; one who has one thousand dinars should purchase a litra of fish for his stewpot; one who has five thousand dinars should purchase a litra of meat for his stewpot; and if one has ten thousand dinars, his servants should place a pot of meat on the stove for him every day. The Gemara asks: And with regard to these other individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, when, i.e., how often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: Every Shabbat eve.,Rav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder, i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on food items. Rabbi Yoḥa says: Abba, i.e., Rav, was from a family of particularly healthy individuals, and was able to subsist on the modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. But with regard to people such as us, who are not as healthy, one who has even one peruta in his pocket should hasten with it to the storekeeper and purchase food. Two generations later, Rav Naḥman said: With regard to people such as us, who are physically weaker than those in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of food items, we even borrow money to purchase food and eat.,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood: The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household; and sustece for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:26–27). “The lambs will be for your clothing” indicates that your clothing should be produced from the shearings of lambs, i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce clothing. “And goats the worth of a field” indicates that a person should always seek to sell a field and purchase goats in order to benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, and a person should not sell goats and purchase a field instead. “And there will be goats’ milk enough” indicates that it is sufficient for a person that he be sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house.,“For your food, for the food of your household” indicates that your food comes before the food of your household, i.e., one must first ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With regard to the phrase: “And sustece for your maidens,” Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: The verse indicates that you must give sustece to your youth, i.e., to your children. From here, the Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should not accustom his son to eat meat and drink wine; rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods.,Rabbi Yoḥa says:
17. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 31a, 60a, 59b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion (2007) 177
59b. תנו רבנן הרואה חמה בתקופתה לבנה בגבורתה וכוכבים במסילותם ומזלות כסדרן אומר ברוך עושה בראשית ואימת הוי אמר אביי כל כ"ח שנין והדר מחזור ונפלה תקופת ניסן בשבתאי באורתא דתלת נגהי ארבע:,ר' יהודה אומר הרואה הים וכו': לפרקים עד כמה אמר רמי בר אבא א"ר יצחק עד שלשים יום,ואמר רמי בר אבא א"ר יצחק הרואה פרת אגשרא דבבל אומר ברוך עושה בראשית והאידנא דשניוה פרסאי מבי שבור ולעיל רב יוסף אמר מאיהי דקירא ולעיל ואמר רמי בר אבא הרואה דגלת אגשרא דשביסתנא אומר ברוך עושה בראשית,מאי (בראשית ב, יד) חדקל א"ר אשי שמימיו חדין וקלין מאי פרת שמימיו פרין ורבין,ואמר רבא האי דחריפי בני מחוזא משום דשתו מיא דדגלת האי דגיחורי משום דמשמשי ביממא והאי דניידי עינייהו משום דדיירו בבית אפל:,על הגשמים כו': ועל הגשמים הטוב והמטיב מברך והא"ר אבהו ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא מאימתי מברכין על הגשמים משיצא חתן לקראת כלה,מאי מברכין אמר רב יהודה מודים אנחנו לך על כל טפה וטפה שהורדת לנו ורבי יוחנן מסיים בה הכי אילו פינו מלא שירה כים וכו' אין אנו מספיקין להודות לך ה' אלהינו עד תשתחוה בא"י רוב ההודאות,רוב ההודאות ולא כל ההודאות אמר רבא אימא האל ההודאות א"ר פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו רוב ההודאות והאל ההודאות,ואלא קשיא ל"ק הא דשמע משמע הא דחזא מחזי,דשמע משמע היינו בשורות טובות ותנן על בשורות טובות אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב,אלא אידי ואידי דחזי מחזי ולא קשיא הא דאתא פורתא הא דאתא טובא ואב"א הא והא דאתא טובא ולא קשיא הא דאית ליה ארעא הא דלית ליה ארעא,אית ליה ארעא הטוב והמטיב מברך והא (תנן) בנה בית חדש וקנה כלים חדשים אומר ברוך שהחיינו והגיענו לזמן הזה שלו ושל אחרים אומר הטוב והמטיב,לא קשיא הא דאית ליה שותפות הא דלית ליה שותפות והתניא קצרו של דבר על שלו הוא אומר ברוך שהחיינו וקיימנו על שלו ועל של חבירו אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב,וכל היכא דלית לאחרינא בהדיה לא מברך הטוב והמטיב והתניא אמרו ליה ילדה אשתו זכר אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב התם נמי דאיכא אשתו בהדיה דניחא לה בזכר,ת"ש מת אביו והוא יורשו בתחלה אומר ברוך דיין האמת ולבסוף הוא אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב התם נמי דאיכא אחי דקא ירתי בהדיה,ת"ש שינוי יין א"צ לברך שינוי מקום צריך לברך וא"ר יוסף בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אע"פ שאמרו שינוי יין א"צ לברך אבל אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב התם נמי דאיכא בני חבורה דשתו בהדיה:,בנה בית חדש וקנה כלים חדשים וכו': א"ר הונא לא שנו אלא שאין לו כיוצא בהן אבל יש לו כיוצא בהן א"צ לברך ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו יש לו כיוצא בהן צריך לברך 59b. The Sages taught: One who sees the sun in the beginning of its cycle, the moon in its might, the planets in their orbit, or the signs of the zodiac aligned in their order recites: Blessed…Author of creation. The Gemara asks: And when is it that the sun is at the beginning of its cycle? Abaye said: Every twenty-eight years when the cycle is complete and returns to its genesis, and the Nisan, vernal, equinox, when the spring days and nights are of equal length, falls within the constellation of Saturn on the night of the third and eve of the fourth day of the week, as then their arrangement returns to be as it was when the constellations were first placed in the heavens.,We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: One who sees the great sea intermittently recites: Blessed…Who has made the great sea. The Gemara asks: How much is intermittently? Rami bar Abba said that Rav Yitzḥak said: Thirty days.,And Rami bar Abba said that Rav Yitzḥak said: One who sees the Euphrates River near the bridge of Babylonia recites: Blessed…Author of creation. The Gemara adds: And now that the Persians have rerouted the course of the river, one only recites the blessing from Beit Shavor upriver. Downriver, it no longer flows as it did at creation, so there one does not recite the blessing: Author of creation. Rav Yosef said: One only recites the blessing from Ihi Dekira upriver. And Rami bar Abba said: One who sees the Tigris on the bridge of Shabistana recites: Blessed…Author of creation.,The Gemara proceeds to explain the names of these rivers. What is the source of the name Ḥidekel [Tigris]? Rav Ashi said: Its name is an acronym derived from the fact that its waters are sharp [ḥadin] and light [kalin] and therefore good for drinking. What is the source of the name Perat [Euphrates]? It is so named because its waters are fruitful [parin] and multiply [ravin]; there are many fish in it.,As for the Tigris River, Rava said: The inhabitants of the city Meḥoza are sharp because they drink the water of the Tigris; they are red because they engage in conjugal relations in the daytime; and their eyes move constantly because they live in dark houses.,We learned in our mishna that over rain one recites the blessing: Blessed…Who is good and does good. The Gemara asks: And over rain does one really recite the blessing: Who is good and does good? Didn’t Rabbi Abbahu say, and some say it was taught in a baraita: From when does one recite the blessing on rain? From when the groom went out to meet the bride. In other words, there are puddles of water on the ground. The groom, meaning the raindrops from above, cause the bride, meaning the water below, to splash.,The Gemara asks: What blessing does one recite? Rav Yehuda said: The formula of the blessing is: We thank You for each and every drop that You have made fall for us. And Rav Yoḥa concludes the blessing as follows: If our mouths were as full of song as the sea…we could not sufficiently praise You O Lord our God, and he continues with the formula of nishmat that is recited on Shabbat morning, until: Shall bow before You. Blessed are You, O Lord, to Whom abundant thanksgivings are offered.,The Gemara asks: Does the blessing say: Abundant thanksgivings, and not: All thanksgivings? Certainly all thanksgivings are due to God. Rava said: Emend the formula of the blessing and say: The God of thanksgivings. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, we will recite them both: Abundant thanksgivings, and: The God of thanksgivings.,However, it is still difficult, as apparently the blessing for rain is not: Who is good and does good, as it appears in our mishna. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This, which we learned in our mishna, that one recites: Who is good and does good, refers to a case where one heard that rain fell. This, where we learned that one recites: We thank You, etc., refers to a case where one saw the rain fall.,The Gemara asks: One heard that the rain fell; that is a case of good tidings. And we learned in the mishna that upon hearing good tidings one recites: Who is good and does good. Therefore, there is no reason for the mishna to mention rain separately.,Rather, the difficulty can be otherwise resolved: This, Rabbi Abbahu’s statement, and that, the mishna, both refer to a case where one saw the rain fall, and this is not difficult. This, Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that one recites We thank You, etc., refers to a case where a little rain fell, while that, the mishna which says that one recites: Who is good and does good, refers to a case where a lot of rain fell. And if you wish, say instead that this and that refer to cases where a lot of rain fell, and this is not difficult. This, the mishna, refers to a case where one owns land, while that, Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that one recites: We thank You, etc., refers to a case where one does not own land, so the rain does not benefit him directly.,The Gemara asks: One who owns land recites: Who is good and does good? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: One who built a new house or purchased new vessels recites: Blessed…Who has given us life…and brought us to this time. However, if the land belonged to him and others in partnership, he recites: Who is good and does good? For rain falling onto land that one owns exclusively, he recites: Who has given us life and not: Who is good and does good.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the mishna where we learned that one recites: Who is good and does good, refers to a case where one owns his land in partnership with another; that, Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that one recites: Who has given us life, refers to a case where one owns the land exclusively and does not have a partnership. And indeed, this halakha was taught in a baraita: The gist of the matter is, for that which is exclusively his, he recites: Blessed…Who has given us life and sustained us; for that which belongs to him and to another in partnership, he recites: Who is good and does good.,The Gemara challenges this principle: And in every case where others are not with him, one does not recite: Who is good and does good? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If they told him that his wife gave birth to a male, he recites: Who is good and does good? The Gemara responds: There too, his wife is with him, as she is also happy that a male child was born.,The Gemara challenges further: Come and hear a contradiction from what was taught in a baraita: One whose father died and he is his heir, initially recites: Blessed…the true Judge, upon hearing of his father’s death, and ultimately, upon receiving his inheritance, he recites: Blessed…Who is good and does good. Despite the fact that the son alone benefits, he nevertheless recites: Who is good and does good. The Gemara responds: There, too, it refers to a case where he has brothers who inherit along with him.,The Gemara cites an additional challenge: Come and hear a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita: In the case of a change in the type of wine during a meal, one need not recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the vine, a second time. However, in the case of a change in place, one must recite a second blessing over the wine. And Rabbi Yosef bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Although the Sages said that in the case of a change in the type of wine one need not recite a second blessing over the wine, he does recite: Blessed…Who is good and does good. The Gemara responds: There, too, it refers to a case where he is not alone, but where members of the group are drinking with him.,We learned in the mishna: One who built a new house or purchased new vessels recites: Blessed…Who has given us life, sustained us and brought us to this time. With regard to this blessing, Rav Huna said: They only taught that one recites: Who has given us life, upon purchasing a new vessel when he does not already have something similar, i.e., something he inherited. However, if he already has something similar he need not recite a blessing, as it is not new to him. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even if one already has something similar that he inherited, he must recite a blessing because he never before purchased a vessel of that kind.
18. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 108a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrian, tradition Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 157
108a. ואי לא לא מיסתגי להו,רבה בר רב נחמן הוה קא אזיל בארבא חזא ההוא אבא דקאי אגודא דנהרא אמר להו דמאן אמרו ליה דרבה בר רב הונא אמר (עזרא ט, ב) ויד השרים והסגנים היתה במעל הזה ראשונה אמר להו קוצו קוצו,אתא רבה בר רב הונא אשכחיה דקייץ אמר מאן קצייה תקוץ ענפיה אמרי כולהו שני דרבה בר רב הונא לא אקיים ליה זרעא לרבה בר רב נחמן,אמר רב יהודה הכל לאיגלי גפא ואפילו מיתמי אבל רבנן לא מ"ט רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא לכריא דפתיא ואפילו מרבנן,ולא אמרן אלא דלא נפקא באוכלוזא אבל לאוכלוזא לא דרבנן לאו בני מיפק באוכלוזא נינהו,אמר רב יהודה לכריא דנהרא תתאי מסייעי עילאי עילאי לא מסייעי תתאי וחילופא במיא דמיטרא,תניא נמי הכי חמש גנות המסתפקות מים ממעין אחד ונתקלקל המעיין כולם מתקנות עם העליונה נמצאת התחתונה מתקנת עם כולן ומתקנת לעצמה וכן חמש חצרות שהיו מקלחות מים לביב אחד ונתקלקל הביב כולן מתקנות עם התחתונה נמצאת העליונה מתקנת עם כולן ומתקנת לעצמה,אמר שמואל האי מאן דאחזיק ברקתא דנהרא חציפא הוי סלוקי לא מסלקינן ליה והאידנא דקא כתבי פרסאי קני לך עד מלי צוארי סוסיא מיא סלוקי נמי מסלקינן ליה,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב האי מאן דאחזיק ביני אחי וביני שותפי חציפא הוי סלוקי לא מסלקינן ליה ורב נחמן אמר נמי מסלקינן ואי משום דינא דבר מצרא לא מסלקינן ליה,נהרדעי אמרי אפילו משום דינא דבר מצרא מסלקינן ליה משום שנאמר (דברים ו, יח) ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה',אתא אימליך ביה אמר ליה איזיל איזבון ואמר ליה זיל זבון צריך למיקנא מיניה או לא רבינא אמר לא צריך למיקנא מיניה נהרדעי אמרי צריך למיקנא מיניה והלכתא צריך למיקנא מיניה,השתא דאמרת צריך למיקנא מיניה אי לא קנו מיניה אייקור וזול ברשותיה,זבן במאה ושוי מאתן חזינא אי לכולי עלמא קא מוזילא ומזבין יהיב ליה מאה ושקיל ליה ואי לא יהיב ליה מאתן ושקיל ליה,זבן במאתן ושויא מאה סבור מינה מצי אמר ליה לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי אמר ליה מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי הכי אמרי נהרדעי משום דרב נחמן אין אונאה לקרקעות,זבין ליה גריוא דארעא במיצעא נכסיה חזינן אי עידית היא אי זיבורית היא זביניה זביני 108a. and if not, they will be unable to walk, but will have to cross over to the other side of the river. Therefore, no advantage exists to cutting down the trees that block part of the river.,The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabba bar Rav Naḥman was going on a boat and saw a certain forest that was located right on the riverbank, as its trees had not been cut down to make room for the pullers. He said to those who were with him: To whom does this forest belong? They said to him: It belongs to Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said: This is reminiscent of the verse: “And the hand of the princes and the rulers has been first in this faithlessness” (Ezra 9:2), because a renowned scholar is acting improperly. Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said to them: Cut down, cut down to clear a path.,Rabba bar Rav Huna arrived and found that his forest had been cut down. Since he was within his rights not to cut down his trees, as explained above, he grew angry and pronounced a curse: He who cut down this forest should have his branches cut down. The Sages said: Although he was unaware of the identity of the perpetrator, the Sage’s curse was nevertheless fulfilled, and consequently all the remaining years that Rabba bar Rav Huna was alive, the seed of Rabba bar Rav Naḥman did not last, as his children, his branches, died in his lifetime.,Rav Yehuda says: All participate in the payment for the construction of the city wall, and this sum is collected even from orphans, but not from the Torah scholars. What is the reason for this? The Torah scholars do not require protection, as the merit of their Torah study protects them from harm. By contrast, money is collected for the digging of a river or a well for drinking water, even from the Torah scholars.,The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only if the town inhabitants do not go out in a crowd to perform the work themselves but pay workers to act on their behalf. But if they go out in a crowd, Torah scholars do not have to join them, as Torah scholars are not among those who go out in a crowd to perform work in public view.,Rav Yehuda says: With regard to the digging of a river, i.e., the periodic deepening of a riverbed to prevent it from blocking up, the lower ones, i.e., those who live by the bottom of the river, must assist the upper ones in digging it and fixing it, as those located at the bottom of the river stand to gain from any work performed down to their houses. But the upper ones do not need to assist the lower ones, as the reverse is not the case. And the opposite is true with regard to the digging of a ditch to remove rainwater. In that case, those who live higher up are interested in the operation and therefore must help the lower ones, but the latter need not aid the higher ones in doing so in the upper area.,The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If there were five gardens that draw their water requirements from one spring and the spring became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the upper garden, near whose garden the damage occurred. As a result of this ruling, the owner of the lower garden fixes it with all of them in the above case, and fixes it for himself if the damage occurred in the lower area. And similarly, if there were five courtyards that would run off water into a single sewer and the sewer became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the lower courtyard, near whose courtyard the damage occurred. The result is that the owner of the upper courtyard fixes the sewer with all of them and fixes it for himself if the damage affected his courtyard alone. This is in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s ruling.,Shmuel says: One who takes possession of an open space left along a riverbank for the purpose of loading and unloading in order to plow and plant there during the time that it is temporarily unused is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as this piece of land is considered ownerless. And nowadays, when the Persians write to one who acquires land alongside a river: Acquire for yourself the field up to the portion of the river itself where the water reaches a horse’s neck, we even go as far as to remove him from the plot of land, as it belongs to the owner of the field.,Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who takes possession of land that is located between the land of brothers or between the land of partners and causes them trouble is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as they have no real claim against him. And Rav Naḥman said: We even go as far as to remove him, as one should not do anything that harms another. And if the complaint against him is due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as they owned fields bordering on this one, we do not remove him.,The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even if his claim was due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, we still remove him, as it is stated: “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18). One should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.,With the above halakhot in mind, the Gemara asks: If the stranger came to consult with one of the owners of the fields, and said to him: Shall I go and acquire the field, and the latter said to him, go and acquire it, as I will raise no objection, is it necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him to solidify the agreement? Or perhaps his mere promise is sufficient and it is not necessary? Ravina said: It is not necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him, while the Sages of Neharde’a say: It is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him.,The Gemara adds: Now that you have said that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with the neighbor for the right to purchase the field, if he did not perform an act of acquisition with him and purchased the field, and the field increased or decreased in value, the price fluctuation occurs in the domain of the owner of the bordering field. The buyer’s purchase is considered a purchase on behalf of the neighbor, who then reimburses the buyer.,Accordingly, if this buyer bought it for one hundred dinars and the field was worth two hundred dinars, in order to determine how much money the neighbor must give him, we determine why the owner sold the field to the buyer at this price: If he sells to everyone at that cheap price, the neighbor gives the buyer one hundred dinars and takes it, as the neighbor could have bought it for this sum himself. But if the owner does not sell to everyone at this price and this buyer was given a discount, the neighbor gives the buyer two hundred dinars, the market value of the field, and takes it.,In the converse case, if he bought it for two hundred dinars and the field was worth one hundred dinars, the Sages understood that the neighbor can say to the buyer: I sent you to act for my benefit, but not to act to my detriment. Since the field will not remain in your possession, you are effectively my agent, and I am not prepared to pay more than its market value due to your mistake. Mar the Elder, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what the Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rav Naḥman: There is no exploitation with regard to real estate, as land has no fixed value, and therefore it cannot be said that the buyer overpaid, and he is given whatever sum he spent.,The Gemara discusses a related case: If one sold to another a beit se’a of land in the middle of his property so that the buyer is surrounded on all sides by the seller’s fields, we see what type of land it is: Whether the land is superior-quality land or whether it is inferior-quality land, his sale is a valid sale, as it is a distinctive piece of land. In that case, the seller’s neighbors cannot object, as their fields do not actually border on this plot.
19. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 65a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrian, tradition Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 115
20. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 26a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrian, tradition Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 115
26a. ואלו קרעין שאין מתאחין הקורע על אביו ועל אמו ועל רבו שלימדו תורה ועל נשיא ועל אב ב"ד ועל שמועות הרעות ועל ברכת השם ועל ספר תורה שנשרף ועל ערי יהודה ועל המקדש ועל ירושלים וקורע על מקדש ומוסיף על ירושלים,אביו ואמו ורבו שלימדו תורה מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יב) ואלישע ראה והוא מצעק אבי אבי רכב ישראל ופרשיו אבי אבי זה אביו ואמו רכב ישראל ופרשיו זה רבו שלימדו תורה,מאי משמע כדמתרגם רב יוסף רבי רבי דטב להון לישראל בצלותיה מרתיכין ופרשין,ולא מתאחין מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יב) ויחזק בבגדיו ויקרעם לשנים קרעים ממשמע שנאמר ויקרעם איני יודע שלשנים אלא מלמד שקרועים ועומדים לשנים לעולם,אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן אליהו חי הוא אמר ליה כיון דכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יב) ולא ראהו עוד לגבי דידיה כמת דמי,נשיא ואב בית דין ושמועות הרעות מנלן דכתיב (שמואל ב א, יא) ויחזק דוד בבגדיו ויקרעם וגם כל האנשים אשר אתו ויספדו ויבכו ויצומו עד הערב על שאול ועל יהונתן בנו ועל עם ה' ועל בית ישראל כי נפלו בחרב,שאול זה נשיא יהונתן זה אב ב"ד על עם ה' ועל בית ישראל אלו שמועות הרעות,א"ל רב בר שבא לרב כהנא ואימא עד דהוו כולהו א"ל על על הפסיק הענין,ומי קרעינן אשמועות הרעות והא אמרו ליה לשמואל קטל שבור מלכא תריסר אלפי יהודאי במזיגת קסרי ולא קרע לא אמרו אלא ברוב צבור וכמעשה שהיה,ומי קטל שבור מלכא יהודאי והא א"ל שבור מלכא לשמואל תיתי לי דלא קטלי יהודי מעולם התם אינהו גרמי לנפשייהו דא"ר אמי לקל יתירי דמזיגת קסרי פקע שורא דלודקיא,על ברכת השם מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב יח, לז) ויבא אליקים בן חלקיה אשר על הבית ושבנא הסופר ויואח בן אסף המזכיר אל חזקיהו קרועי בגדים,ת"ר אחד השומע ואחד השומע מפי השומע חייב לקרוע והעדים אינן חייבין לקרוע שכבר קרעו בשעה ששמעו,בשעה ששמעו מאי הוי הא קא שמעי השתא לא ס"ד דכתיב (מלכים ב יט, א) ויהי כשמוע המלך חזקיהו ויקרע את בגדיו המלך קרע והם לא קרעו,ולא מתאחין מנלן אתיא קריעה קריעה,ספר תורה שנשרף מנלן דכתיב (ירמיהו לו, כג) ויהי כקרא יהודי שלש דלתות וארבעה ויקרעה בתער הסופר והשלך אל האש אשר אל האח וגו' מאי שלש דלתות וארבעה,אמרו ליה ליהויקים כתב ירמיה ספר קינות אמר להו מה כתיב ביה (איכה א, א) איכה ישבה בדד אמר להו אנא מלכא א"ל (איכה א, ב) בכה תבכה בלילה אנא מלכא (איכה א, ג) גלתה יהודה מעוני אנא מלכא (איכה א, ד) דרכי ציון אבלות אנא מלכא,(איכה א, ה) היו צריה לראש אמר להו מאן אמרה (איכה א, ה) כי ה' הוגה על רוב פשעיה מיד קדר כל אזכרות שבה ושרפן באש והיינו דכתיב (ירמיהו לו, כד) ולא פחדו ולא קרעו את בגדיהם מכלל דבעו למיקרע,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אימר משום שמועות הרעות א"ל שמועות רעות בההיא שעתא מי הוו,א"ר חלבו אמר רב הונא הרואה ספר תורה שנקרע חייב לקרוע שתי קריעות אחד על הגויל ואחד על הכתב שנאמר (ירמיהו לו, כז) אחרי שרוף המלך את המגלה ואת הדברים,רבי אבא ורב הונא בר חייא הוו יתבי קמיה דרבי אבא בעא לאפנויי שקליה לטוטפתיה אחתיה אבי סדיא אתאי בת נעמיתא בעא למיבלעיה,אמר השתא איחייבין לי שתי קריעות א"ל מנא לך הא והא בדידי הוה עובדא ואתאי לקמיה דרב מתנה ולא הוה בידיה אתאי לקמיה דרב יהודה ואמר לי הכי אמר שמואל לא אמרו אלא בזרוע וכמעשה שהיה,ערי יהודה מנלן דכתיב (ירמיהו מא, ה) ויבאו אנשים משכם משילו ומשמרון שמונים איש מגולחי זקן וקרועי בגדים ומתגודדים ומנחה ולבונה בידם להביא בית ה' וגו',א"ר חלבו אמר עולא ביראה אמר ר' אלעזר הרואה ערי יהודה בחורבנן אומר (ישעיהו סד, ט) ערי קדשך היו מדבר וקורע ירושלים בחורבנה אומר (ישעיהו סד, ט) ציון מדבר היתה ירושלם שממה וקורע בית המקדש בחורבנו אומר (ישעיהו סד, י) בית קדשנו ותפארתנו אשר הללוך אבותינו היה לשריפת אש וכל מחמדינו היה לחרבה וקורע:,קורע על מקדש ומוסיף על ירושלים: ורמינהו אחד השומע ואחד הרואה כיון שהגיע לצופים קורע וקורע על מקדש בפני עצמו ועל ירושלים בפני עצמה,לא קשיא הא דפגע במקדש ברישא הא דפגע בירושלים ברישא,תנו רבנן וכולן רשאין לשוללן ולמוללן וללוקטן ולעשותן כמין סולמות אבל לא לאחותן,אמר רב חסדא 26a. And these are the rents of mourning that may never be properly mended: One who rends his garments for the death his father, or for his mother, or for his teacher who taught him Torah, or for the Nasi, or for the president of the court; or upon hearing evil tidings; or hearing God’s name being blessed, which is a euphemism for hearing God’s name being cursed; or when a Torah scroll has been burned; or upon seeing the cities of Judea that were destroyed or the destroyed Temple or Jerusalem in ruins. This is the way one conducts himself when approaching Jerusalem when it lies in ruin: He first rends his garments for the Temple and then extends the rent for Jerusalem.,The Gemara elaborates upon the halakhot mentioned in this baraita: From where do we derive that one must rend his clothing for his father, his mother, and his teacher who taught him Torah? As it is written with regard to the prophet Elijah, when he ascended to Heaven in a tempest: “And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and their horsemen” (II Kings 2:12). The Gemara interprets this verse as follows: “My father, my father”; this comes to teach that one must rend his garments for the death of his father or mother. “The chariots of Israel and their horsemen”; this comes to include also one’s teacher who taught him Torah.,The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this is referring to one’s teacher? The Gemara explains: As the verse was translated by Rav Yosef: My teacher, my teacher, who was better for the protection of the Jewish people with his prayers than an army with chariots and horsemen.,And from where do we derive that these rents are never to be properly mended? As it is written: “And he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces” (II Kings 2:12). From the fact that it is stated: “And he rent them,” do I not know that he rent them in two pieces? Rather, when the verse adds that they were torn into two pieces, it teaches that they must remain torn in two pieces forever. Accordingly, this rent must never be properly mended.,Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But isn’t Elijah still alive? Why, then, did Elisha rend his garments for him? He said to him: Since it is written: “And he saw him no more” (II Kings 2:12), Elijah was considered dead from Elisha’s perspective, and so Elisha rent his clothing for him.,§ From where do we derive that one must rend his clothing for the death of the Nasi or the president of the court and upon hearing evil tidings? As it is written, when David heard about the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul and his sons: “Then David took hold of his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until evening, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword” (II Samuel 1:11–12).,The Gemara explains how the aforementioned halakhot are derived from the verse: “Saul”; this is a reference to the Nasi, as Saul was king of Israel. “Jonathan”; this is a reference to the president of the court. “For the people of the Lord, and for the house of the Israel”; these are a reference to evil tidings.,Rav bar Shaba said to Rav Kahana: But perhaps you can say that one need not rend his clothing until all these calamities occur together, and that rending clothing is performed only over a tragedy of this magnitude. He said to him: The repetition of the word “for”: “For Saul,” “for Jonathan,” and “for the people of the Lord” divides the matter and teaches that each individual misfortune is sufficient cause to rend one’s garments.,The Gemara asks: But do we actually rend our clothing upon hearing evil tidings? But didn’t they say to Shmuel: King Shapur killed twelve thousand Jews in Mezigat Caesarea, and Shmuel did not rend his clothing?The Gemara answers: They said that one must rend his clothing upon hearing evil tidings only in a case where the calamity involved the majority of the community of Israel and resembles the incident that occurred when Saul was killed and the entire nation of Israel suffered defeat.,The Gemara tangentially asks: Did King Shapur really kill Jews? But didn’t King Shapur say to Shmuel: I have a blessing coming to me, for I have never killed a Jew? The Gemara answers: King Shapur never instigated the killing of Jews; there, however, they brought it upon themselves, as Rabbi Ami said in an exaggerated manner: Due to the noise of the harp strings of Mezigat Caesarea, the walls of Laodicea were breached, for the residents of the city celebrated when they rebelled against King Shapur. Because they rebelled against him and threatened his rule, he was forced to kill them.,§ The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: From where do we derive that one must rend his garments upon hearing God’s name being blessed, i.e., cursed? As it is written with regard to the blasphemous words said by Rab-shakeh: “Then came Eliakim, son of Hilkiya, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent” (II Kings 18:37).,The Sages taught a baraita with regard to this issue: Both one who actually hears the curse and one who hears from the mouth of the one who heard the curse are obligated to rend their garments. But the witnesses who testify against the person who uttered the blasphemy are not obligated to rend their clothing when they testify as to what they heard because they already rent their clothing when they heard the curse the first time.,The Gemara asks: What difference does it make that they rent their garments when they heard the curse the first time? Didn’t they hear it again now? The Gemara rejects this argument: This will not enter your mind, as it is written: “And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes” (II Kings 19:1). This indicates that the king rent his garments, but those who reported the blasphemy to him did not rend theirs, as they had already rent their garments the first time.,And from where do we derive that these rents may not be properly mended? This is derived by way of a verbal analogy between the verb rending used here with regard to Hezekiah and the verb rending used in the case of Elijah and Elisha.,§ From where do we derive that one must rend his garments when a Torah scroll has been burned? As it is written: “And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he would cut it with a penknife, and cast it into the fire that was in the brazier” (Jeremiah 36:23). With regard to the verse itself the Gemara asks: What is meant by “three or four leaves,” and why did he cut the book only at that point?,The Gemara explains: They said to Jehoiakim: Jeremiah has written a book of Lamentations over the future downfall and destruction of Jerusalem. He said to them: What is written in it? They read him the first verse: “How does the city sit solitary” (Lamentations 1:1). He said to them: I am king, and this does not apply to me. They read him the second verse: “She weeps sore in the night” (Lamentations 1:2). He said to them: I am king, and this does not apply to me. They read him the third verse: “Judah is gone into exile due to affliction” (Lamentations 1:3). He said to them: I am king. They read to him: “The ways of Zion do mourn” (Lamentations 1:4). He said to them: I am king. These are the four leaves, or verses, that he read first.,They read him an additional verse: “Her adversaries have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), i.e., the reigning king will be removed from power. Once he heard this, he said to them: Who said this? They said to him: This is the continuation of the verse: “For the Lord has afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions” (Lamentations 1:5). Immediately, he cut out all the names of God from the book and burned them in fire. This is as it is written: “Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words” (Jeremiah 36:24). By inference, this shows that they were required to rend their clothing when they saw this.,Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Perhaps you can say that they should have rent their garments due to the evil tidings contained in the scroll and not because of the destruction of the book? Abaye said to him: Were they evil tidings at that time? This was a prophecy and not an account of current events.,Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: One who sees a Torah scroll that was torn is obligated to make two rents, one for the parchment that was damaged and one for the writing, as it is stated: “Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after the king had burned the scroll and the words” (Jeremiah 36:27). This implies that a separate rent must be made for each of them, both the parchment and the writing.,It was related that Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya were sitting before Rabbi Abba. Rabbi Abba needed to relieve himself. He removed his phylacteries from his head and placed them on the cushion on which he was sitting. An ostrich came and wanted to swallow the phylacteries.,He said: Now, had it succeeded to swallow it, I would have been obligated to make two rents. He said to him: From where do you derive this? There was an incident in which I was involved and I came before Rav Mattana asking what to do, but he did not have an answer readily available. I then came before Rav Yehuda, and he said to me: Shmuel said as follows: They said that one is obligated to rend his clothing only when a Torah scroll or some other sacred book is torn by force, and it resembles the incident that occurred with Jehoiakim.,§ From where do we derive that one must rend his garments upon seeing the cities of Judea in ruin? As it is written: “There came certain men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, eighty people, their beards shaven, and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, with offerings and incense in their hand, to bring to the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 41:5). This indicates that they rent their garments upon seeing the destruction.,Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Ulla Bira’a said that Rabbi Elazar said: One who sees the cities of Judea in their desolation says: “Your sacred cities are become a wilderness” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees Jerusalem in its desolation says: “Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees the Temple in its desolation says: “Our sacred and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised You, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (Isaiah 64:10), and then rends his garments.,It was taught in the baraita: He first rends his garments for the Temple and then extends the rent for Jerusalem. And they raise a contradiction from another baraita that states: Both one who hears that Jerusalem is in ruin and one who sees the destruction, once he reaches Mount Scopus [Tzofim], rends his garments. And he rends his garments for the Temple separately and for Jerusalem separately.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that instead of making a separate rent for Jerusalem one may extend the first rent that he had made for the Temple, is referring to the case where one reached the Temple first, before seeing the rest of Jerusalem, and saw it in ruin. That baraita, which states that one must make separate rents for Jerusalem and for the Temple, is referring to the case where one reached Jerusalem first, and only afterward the Temple.,§ The Sages taught the following baraita: And all of these rents, one may tack them together with loose stitches, and hem them, and gather them, and fix them with imprecise ladder-like stitches. But one may not mend them with precise stitches.,Rav Ḥisda said:
21. Anon., Abot De Rabbi Nathan, a1 (7th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrian, tradition Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 316
22. Zoroastrian Literature, Hadōxt Nask, 2.9-2.14, 2.19  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 123; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 123
23. Zoroastrian Literature, Dādestān Ī Dēnīg, 24.5  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 123; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 123
24. Anon., Dnkard, 3.150, 3.197-3.198, 3.227, 8.39.14  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 157, 311; Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 76, 77, 78, 79
25. Bablyonian Talmud, Taanit, 24b  Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrians, textual tradition (dēn) Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 62