1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 7.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amgûšā (zoroastrian priest), association with magic, in hellenism and in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 125| 7.15. "לֵךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹה בַּבֹּקֶר הִנֵּה יֹצֵא הַמַּיְמָה וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִקְרָאתוֹ עַל־שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר וְהַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר־נֶהְפַּךְ לְנָחָשׁ תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ׃", | 7.15. "Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river’s brink to meet him; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt thou take in thy hand.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) •zoroastrianism, “magianism” (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74 | 15.30. "But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 18.9-18.14, 25.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) •zoroastrianism, “magianism” (amgushta) •amgûšā (zoroastrian priest), association with magic, in hellenism and in the babylonian talmud •zoroastrianism, magi Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176; Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 126, 128; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 44, 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 44, 74| 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׃", 25.3. "אַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ לֹא יֹסִיף פֶּן־יֹסִיף לְהַכֹּתוֹ עַל־אֵלֶּה מַכָּה רַבָּה וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ׃", | 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.", 25.3. "Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed; lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should be dishonoured before thine eyes.", |
|
| 4. Vitruvius Pollio, On Architecture, 3.333 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 72 |
5. Mishnah, Shabbat, 7.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amgûšā (zoroastrian priest), association with magic, in hellenism and in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 126| 7.2. "אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת. הַזּוֹרֵעַ. וְהַחוֹרֵשׁ. וְהַקּוֹצֵר. וְהַמְעַמֵּר. הַדָּשׁ. וְהַזּוֹרֶה. הַבּוֹרֵר. הַטּוֹחֵן. וְהַמְרַקֵּד. וְהַלָּשׁ. וְהָאוֹפֶה. הַגּוֹזֵז אֶת הַצֶּמֶר. הַמְלַבְּנוֹ. וְהַמְנַפְּצוֹ. וְהַצּוֹבְעוֹ. וְהַטּוֹוֶה. וְהַמֵּסֵךְ. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה שְׁנֵי בָתֵּי נִירִין. וְהָאוֹרֵג שְׁנֵי חוּטִין. וְהַפּוֹצֵעַ שְׁנֵי חוּטִין. הַקּוֹשֵׁר. וְהַמַּתִּיר. וְהַתּוֹפֵר שְׁתֵּי תְפִירוֹת. הַקּוֹרֵעַ עַל מְנָת לִתְפֹּר שְׁתֵּי תְפִירוֹת. הַצָּד צְבִי. הַשּׁוֹחֲטוֹ. וְהַמַּפְשִׁיטוֹ. הַמּוֹלְחוֹ, וְהַמְעַבֵּד אֶת עוֹרוֹ. וְהַמּוֹחֲקוֹ. וְהַמְחַתְּכוֹ. הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. וְהַמּוֹחֵק עַל מְנָת לִכְתֹּב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. הַבּוֹנֶה. וְהַסּוֹתֵר. הַמְכַבֶּה. וְהַמַּבְעִיר. הַמַּכֶּה בַפַּטִּישׁ. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת: \n", | 7.2. "The primary labors are forty less one:sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, weaving, the making of two loops, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying and untying, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it [of its hair], cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters [over the erasure], building, tearing down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, [and] carrying out from one domain to another, These are the forty primary labors less one.", |
|
6. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7.5, 7.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 128; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 47; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 47| 7.5. "הַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי יַכֶּה יוֹסֵי אֶת יוֹסֵי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִים כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ: \n", 7.11. "הַמְכַשֵּׁף הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, וְלֹא הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינָיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שְׁנַיִם לוֹקְטִין קִשּׁוּאִין, אֶחָד לוֹקֵט פָּטוּר וְאֶחָד לוֹקֵט חַיָּב, הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם פָּטוּר: \n", | 7.5. "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.”", 7.11. "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.”", |
|
| 7. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, “magianism” (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 47 |
| 8. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74 |
| 9. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74 |
| 10. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 112 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) •zoroastrianism, “magianism” (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74 |
| 11. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 44; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 44 |
| 12. Anon., Targum Onqelos, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74 |
| 13. Anon., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, None (2nd cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74 |
| 14. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 3.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) •zoroastrianism, “magianism” (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74 |
15. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74| 7b. הכי קאמר מגדף מביא קרבן הואיל ובא בו כרת במקום קרבן דברי ר"ע קסבר מיגו דבעי מכתב כרת בעלמא וכתיב כרת במקום קרבן שמע מינה מייתי קרבן,ואומר (במדבר ט, יג) חטאו ישא אתא לרבנן והכי קאמר ר"ע לרבנן אמריתו מגדף לית ביה מעשה מהו מגדף מברך את השם אלא כרת דכתיב למאי אתא,אמרי ליה ליתן כרת למקלל דכתיב במקלל ((במדבר ט, יג) חטאו ישא האיש ההוא) וכתיב בפסח שני (במדבר ט, יג) חטאו ישא מה להלן כרת אף כאן כרת,ת"ר (במדבר טו, ל) את ה' מגדף איסי בן יהודה אומר כאדם האומר לחבירו גירפתה הקערה וחיסרתה קסבר מגדף מברך את השם הוא,ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר כאדם האומר לחבירו גירפתה הקערה ולא חיסרתה קסבר מגדף היינו עובד ע"ז,תניא אידך את ה' רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר בעובד ע"ז הכתוב מדבר וחכמים אומרים לא בא הכתוב אלא ליתן כרת למברך השם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big יש מביאות קרבן ונאכל ויש מביאות קרבן ואינו נאכל ויש שאינם מביאות,מביאות קרבן ונאכל המפלת כמין בהמה חיה ועוף דר"מ וחכ"א עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם,המפלת סנדל או שיליא או שפיר מרוקם והיוצא מחותך וכן שפחה שהפילה מביאה קרבן ונאכל,ואלו מביאות ואינן נאכלות המפלת ואין יודע מה הפילה ושתי נשים שהפילו אחת ממין פטור ואחת ממין חובה א"ר יוסי אימתי בזמן שהלכו זה למזרח וזה למערב אבל אם היו שתיהן עומדות שתיהן מביאות קרבן ונאכל,אלו שאין מביאות המפלת שפיר מלא מים מלא דם מלא גנינים המפלת כמין דגים וחגבים ושקצים ורמשים המפלת יום ארבעים ויוצא דופן ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big שפחה מנלן דת"ר (ויקרא יב, ב) בני ישראל אין לי אלא בני ישראל גיורת ושפחה מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה,מאי וכן שפחה ס"ד אמינא כי אמרינן כל מצות שהאשה חייבת בה עבד חייב בה ה"מ בדבר ששוה בין איש ובין אשה אבל יולדת דבנשים איתא באנשים ליתא אימא לא תחייב שפחה אהכי תנא שפחה:,אלו מביאין קרבן כו': מאי עבדין מייתין תרוייהו חד קרבן ודאי וחטאת עוף ספק ומתני,ומי אית ליה לר' יוסי תנאה והתנן רבי שמעון אומר מביאות שניהן חטאת אחת רבי יוסי אומר אין שניהן מביאות חטאת אחת אלמא לר' יוסי לית ליה תנאה,אמר רבא מודה ר' יוסי במחוסר כפרה וכן כי אתא רבין אמר ר' יוחנן מודה רבי יוסי במחוסר כפרה,מ"ט התם בעי גברא ידיעה דכתיב (ויקרא ד, כג) או הודע אליו חטאתו הילכך לא מתיין ומתני אבל הכא כי מתיין נשים קרבן לאישתרויי באכילת קדשים,כדתני סיפא דההיא רבי יוסי אומר כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא אין שתים מביאות אותה:,אלו שאין מביאות כו' ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן: מ"ט דר"ש אמר ר"ל אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ה) ואם נקבה תלד לרבות לידה אחרת מאי היא יוצא דופן,ורבנן מ"ט א"ר מני בר פטיש (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה עד שתלד ממקום שמזרעת:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המפלת לאור שמונים ואחד ב"ש פוטרין מן הקרבן וב"ה מחייבין,אמרו ב"ה לב"ש מ"ש אור שמונים ואחד מיום שמונים ואחד אם שיוה לו לטומאה לא ישוה לו לקרבן,אמרו להם ב"ש לא אם אמרתם במפלת יום שמונים ואחד שכן יצאה לשעה שהיא ראויה להביא בה קרבן תאמר במפלת לאור שמונים ואחד שלא יצאה לשעה שהיא ראויה להביא בה קרבן,אמרו להן ב"ה והלא המפלת יום שמונים ואחד שחל להיות בשבת תוכיח שלא יצאה לשעה שהיא ראויה להביא בהו קרבן וחייבת קרבן,אמרו להן ב"ש לא אם אמרתם יום שמונים ואחד שחל להיות בשבת שאף על פי שאינן ראוי לקרבן יחיד ראוי לקרבן ציבור תאמר במפלת לאור שמונים (יום) ואחד שאין הלילה ראוי לא לקרבן יחיד ולא לקרבן ציבור,והדמים אינן מוכיחים שהמפלת בתוך מלאת דמיה טמאים ופטורה מן הקרבן: | 7b. The Gemara answers that b this /b is what Rabbi Akiva b is saying: /b One who unwittingly b blasphemes brings an offering, since its /b punishment of b i karet /i comes, /b i.e., is written, b in a place /b where the Torah discusses b an offering, /b i.e., i karet /i is mentioned in a passage that discusses a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27–31). This is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva, /b as b he maintains: Since /b the verse b should have written i karet /i in general, /b i.e., without connecting it to bringing an offering, b and /b yet this b i karet /i is written in a place /b where the Torah discusses b an offering, conclude from it /b that the unwitting blasphemer b brings an offering /b for his transgression.,The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the i baraita /i : b And /b the verse b states: /b “Whoever curses his God b shall bear his sin” /b (Leviticus 24:15). The Gemara explains: Here we b arrive at /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, and this /b is what b Rabbi Akiva is saying to the Rabbis: You say /b that the transgression of one who b blasphemes does not involve an action, /b as b what is /b the case of one who b blasphemes? /b It is one who b blesses, /b i.e., curses, b the Name, /b i.e., God. b But /b if so, then concerning the punishment of b i karet /i that is written: /b “That person blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off [ i venikhreta /i ] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30), b for what /b purpose b does it come, /b if not to render him liable to bring an offering?,The Rabbis b say to him: /b It comes b to give /b the punishment of b i karet /i to one who curses /b God, in order to teach that the phrase: “Shall bear his sin,” written in the verse: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), is referring to i karet /i , so that one can derive by verbal analogy that an individual who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the second i Pesaḥ /i and did not do so is likewise liable to receive i karet /i . b As it is written with regard to one who curses /b God: “Whoever curses his God b shall bear his sin,” and it is written with regard to /b one who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the b second i Pesaḥ /i /b and did not do so: “That man b shall bear his sin” /b (Numbers 9:13). b Just as there, /b with regard to one who curses God it is referring to the punishment of b i karet /i , so too here, /b with regard to the Paschal offering it is referring to the punishment of b i karet /i . /b ,With regard to one who blasphemes, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “That person b blasphemes [ i megaddef /i ] the Lord” /b (Numbers 15:30). b Isi ben Yehuda says: /b This is b like a person who says to another: You cleaned [ i geirafta /i ] the bowl and rendered it lacking, /b i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is so severe that it is compared to one who does actual damage to God. Isi ben Yehuda b maintains /b that the case of the b blasphemer is /b identical to that of one who b blesses, /b i.e., curses, b the Name, /b i.e., God, which is a particularly severe transgression., b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says /b that this is b like a person who says to another: You cleaned the bowl /b and removed its contents, b but did not render it lacking, /b i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is not compared to one who does actual damage to God. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya b maintains /b that the case of the b blasphemer is /b the same as that of b an idol worshipper, /b which is a less severe transgression.,This dispute as to the nature of the transgression of the blasphemer b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : “That person blasphemes b the Lord” /b (Numbers 15:30), and b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The verse is speaking of an idol worshipper. And the Rabbis say: The verse comes only to give /b the punishment of b i karet /i to one who blesses, /b i.e., curses, b the Name, /b i.e., God., strong MISHNA: /strong b There are /b some women who b bring /b a sin b offering /b of a woman after childbirth b and /b the offering b is eaten /b by the priests. b And there are /b some women who b bring /b a sin b offering but it is not eaten. And /b there are b some /b women who b do not bring /b a sin offering at all.,The mishna elaborates: The following women b bring /b a sin b offering and it is eaten /b by the priests: b One who miscarries /b a fetus with a form b similar to a domesticated animal, /b one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to b an undomesticated animal, or /b one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to b a bird; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b She does not bring a sin offering b unless /b the fetus b has the form of a person. /b ,With regard to a woman b who miscarries a sandal /b fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a flat fish; b or /b if she miscarries the b placenta; or an amniotic sac /b in which b tissue developed; or /b a fetus b that emerged cut, /b i.e., in pieces; b and likewise /b a Canaanite b maidservant, /b owned by a Jew, b who miscarried; /b in all these cases b she brings /b a sin b offering and it is eaten /b by the priests., b And these /b women b bring /b sin offerings b but /b their sin offerings b are not eaten: One who miscarries and does not know /b the nature of b what she miscarried; and two women who miscarried, /b in a case where b one /b miscarried a fetus b of a type /b for which a woman is b exempt /b from bringing an offering b and /b the other b one /b miscarried a fetus b of a type /b for which a woman is b liable /b to bring an offering, and they do not know which miscarried which type. b Rabbi Yosei said: When /b is their sin offering not eaten? It is b when /b both women b went /b to different places within the Temple to bring their offerings, e.g., b this /b woman went b to the east and that /b woman went b to the west. But if both of them were standing /b together, b both of them /b together b bring /b one sin b offering, and it is eaten. /b , b These /b women b do not bring /b a sin offering: A woman b who miscarries an amniotic sac full of water, /b or one b full of blood, /b or one b full of /b different b colors; /b and likewise a woman b who miscarries /b a fetus with a form b similar to fish, or grasshoppers, or repugt creatures, or creeping animals; /b and a woman b who miscarries /b on the b fortieth day /b of her pregcy; b and /b a woman who gives birth by b caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems /b a woman b liable /b to bring a sin offering b in /b the case where she gives birth by b caesarean section. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b From where do we /b derive that in the case of a Canaanite b maidservant, /b owned by a Jew, who miscarried, she brings a sin offering and it is eaten? b As the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The passage discussing the i halakhot /i of a woman following childbirth begins with the verse: “Speak to b the children of Israel, /b saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male” (Leviticus 12:2). From this verse b I have /b derived b only /b that the full-fledged b children of Israel /b are included in these i halakhot /i ; b from where /b do I derive that b a convert and /b a Canaanite b maidservant /b are also included in these i halakhot /i ? b The verse states “a woman,” /b which includes other women.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the special emphasis in the mishna: b And likewise /b a Canaanite b maidservant? /b Why does the mishna deem it necessary to write this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: It might b enter your mind to say /b that b when we say: /b With regard to b any mitzva in which a woman is obligated /b a Canaanite b slave is /b also b obligated in that /b mitzva, b this statement /b applies b with regard to a matter that is the same for a man and for a woman. But /b with regard to the offerings of b a woman after childbirth, which is /b a category that applies b to women /b but b does not /b apply b to men, /b one might b say /b a Canaanite b maidservant is not obligated /b to bring these offerings. It is b for this /b reason the mishna b taught /b the case of a Canaanite b maidservant. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b These /b women b bring /b a sin b offering /b but their sin offerings are not eaten. It then teaches that in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is obligated to bring an offering, Rabbi Yosei maintains that if both are standing together they bring one offering together. The Gemara asks: b What /b exactly b do they do? The two of them bring one definite /b burnt b offering, and a sin offering of a bird /b due to b uncertainty, and they /b each b stipulate /b that if she is obligated to bring the sin offering the animal is hers, and if not then it belongs to the other woman.,The Gemara asks: b And is Rabbi Yosei of /b the opinion that b a stipulation /b is effective in the case of a sin offering? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (23a): With regard to a situation where one of two women unwittingly ate a piece of forbidden fat and is obligated to bring a sin offering, but it is unknown which woman, b Rabbi Shimon says: They both bring one sin offering /b together, and b Rabbi Yosei says: They do not both bring one sin offering /b together. b Evidently, Rabbi Yosei is not of /b the opinion that b a stipulation /b is effective with regard to a sin offering., b Rava said: Rabbi Yosei concedes /b that a stipulation is effective b with regard to one who has not yet /b brought b an atonement /b offering to complete the purification process, as is the case concerning a woman after childbirth. b And likewise, when Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one who has not yet /b brought b an atonement /b offering that a stipulation is effective.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this difference between the sin offering of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and standard sin offerings? The Gemara answers: b There, /b with regard to a sin offering brought for a transgression, b the man requires /b definite b awareness /b of his transgression for him to be obligated to bring a sin offering, b as it is written: “If his sin, /b which he has sinned, b be known to him” /b (Leviticus 4:28). b Therefore, /b in the case where one of two women ate forbidden fat, b they do not bring /b a sin offering together b and stipulate /b that it should be for whichever of them ate the forbidden fat. b But here, /b with regard to a woman after a miscarriage, b when /b these b women bring /b their sin offering they do so only in order b to become permitted in the consumption of sacrificial /b food, and therefore the stipulation is effective.,The Gemara cites a proof that this distinction is in fact the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: b As it is taught in the latter clause of that /b mishna that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b With regard to b any sin offering that comes /b as atonement b for a sin, two /b people b do not bring it /b together. This indicates that if a sin offering does not atone for a sin, two people can bring it together.,§ The mishna teaches: And b these /b women b do not bring /b a sin offering, and among them are a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. b Rabbi Shimon deems /b a woman b liable /b to bring an offering b in /b a case where she gives birth by b caesarean section. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? Reish Lakish said /b that b the verse states: “But if she bears a girl” /b (Leviticus 12:5). The term “she bears” is superfluous in the context of the passage, and it serves b to include another /b type of b birth, /b and b what /b is b it? /b This is a birth by b caesarean section. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, what is /b their b reasoning? Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said /b that their ruling is derived from the verse: b “If a woman conceives [ i tazria /i ] and gives birth to a male” /b (Leviticus 12:2). The word i tazria /i literally means to receive seed, indicating that all the i halakhot /i mentioned in that passage do not apply b unless she gives birth through the place where she receives seed, /b not through any other place, such as in the case of a caesarean section., strong MISHNA: /strong A woman who gives birth to a daughter counts fourteen days during which she is ritually impure. That is followed by sixty-six days during which she remains ritually pure even if she experiences a flow of blood. The Torah obligates a woman to bring her offering on the eighty-first day (see Leviticus 12:1–6). If the woman miscarries another fetus before that day, she is not required to bring an additional offering. In the case of a woman b who miscarries /b a fetus b on the night of, /b i.e., preceding, b the eighty-first /b day, b Beit Shammai deem /b her b exempt from /b bringing a second b offering and Beit Hillel deem /b her b liable /b to bring a second offering., b Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different /b between the b night of the eighty-first and /b the b day of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b ritual impurity, /b i.e., the blood flow of this woman on the eighty-first night renders her ritually impure and all the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, b will /b the two time periods b not be equal with regard to /b liability to bring an additional b offering /b as well?, b Beit Shammai said to /b Beit Hillel: b No, /b there is a difference between that night and the following day. b If you said with regard to /b a woman b who miscarries /b on the b eighty-first day /b that she is obligated to bring an additional offering, this is logical, b as she emerged into a period that is fit /b for b her to bring /b her b offering. /b Would you b say /b the same b with regard to /b a woman b who miscarries on the night of /b the b eighty-first /b day, b where she did not emerge into a period that is fit /b for b her to bring /b her b offering, /b as offerings are not sacrificed at night?, b Beit Hillel said to /b Beit Shammai: b But let /b the case of a woman b who miscarries on /b the b eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat prove /b that this distinction is incorrect, b as she did not emerge into a period that is fit /b for b her to bring /b her b offering /b because individual offerings are not sacrificed on Shabbat, b and /b nevertheless b she is obligated to bring /b an additional b offering. /b , b Beit Shammai said to /b Beit Hillel: b No, /b there is a difference between these cases. b If you said /b this ruling with regard to a woman b who miscarries on /b the b eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat, /b the reason is b that although /b Shabbat b is unfit for /b the sacrifice of b an individual offering, /b it is b fit for /b the sacrifice of b a communal offering /b whose time is fixed, e.g., the daily offering. Would you b say /b the same b with regard to /b a woman b who miscarries on the night of /b the b eighty-first /b day, b as the night is completely unfit, /b since b neither an individual offering nor a communal offering /b is sacrificed at night?,Beit Shammai add: b And /b as for the ritual impurity status of b the blood, /b i.e., Beit Hillel’s opinion that the two time periods are equal with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity, this b does not prove /b what the i halakha /i should be with regard to offerings, b as /b with regard to a woman b who miscarries /b before the b completion /b of the term of eighty days, b her blood is impure /b like the blood of a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless b she is exempt from /b bringing b the offering. /b |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) •zoroastrianism, “magianism” (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 43, 44, 47, 71, 72, 74, 75; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 43, 44, 47, 71, 72, 74, 75| 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. b As, when a curtain had a worm /b which made a tear b in it, they would tear /b the curtain further to lengthen the tear, b and /b that enabled them to then b sew it /b in a manner that obscured the tear., b Rav Zutra bar Toviya said /b that b Rav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable to /b bring b a sin-offering. /b 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 i halakhot /i cited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav. b And one who learns /b even b one matter from a i magosh /i , /b a Persian priest, b is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b And one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and /b the movement of b constellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with him /b because his actions are improper.,The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional i halakhot /i cited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya. With regard to the b i magosh /i , Rav and Shmuel /b disagreed. b One said /b that they are b sorcerers, while the other said /b they are b heretics. /b The Gemara adds: b Conclude that Rav /b is the one b who said /b that they are b heretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya said /b that b Rav /b said: b One who learns one matter from the i magosh /i is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b As, if it should enter your mind /b that they are b sorcerers, wasn’t it written: /b “When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, b you shall not learn to do /b 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, b but you /b may b learn to understand and to teach /b 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 i magosh /i , must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers. The Gemara states: Indeed, b conclude /b that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics., b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and /b the movement of b 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” /b (Isaiah 5:12). And b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where /b is it derived b that /b there is b a mitzva /b incumbent b upon a person to calculate astronomical seasons and /b the movement of b constellations? As it was stated: “And you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations” /b (Deuteronomy 4:6). b What wisdom and understanding /b is there in the Torah b that is in the eyes of the nations, /b i.e., appreciated and recognized by all? b You must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons and /b the movement of b constellations, /b as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all.,We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: b One who traps a deer /b or any other living creature. b The Sages taught /b in a i Tosefta /i : b One who traps a i ḥilazon /i and breaks its /b shell to remove its blood for the dye b is liable to /b bring b only one /b sin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. b Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to /b bring b two, /b for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, b as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a i ḥilazon /i is included /b in the primary category of b threshing, /b as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis b said to him: Breaking /b the shell b is not included /b in the primary category of b threshing. Rava said: What is the rationale /b for the opinion b of the Rabbis? They hold: Threshing /b applies b only to /b produce b that grows /b from b the ground. /b One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, b let him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b This is referring to a case b where he broke its /b shell after it was b dead. /b , b Rava said: Even /b if you b say that he broke it /b when it was b alive, /b he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the i ḥilazon /i , he is considered as one who b is acting unawares with regard to taking a life. /b The Gemara raises a difficulty: b Didn’t Abaye and Rava both say /b that b Rabbi Shimon, /b who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, b agrees /b that b in /b a case of: b Cut off its head and will it not die, /b 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 i ḥilazon /i inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: b Here it is different, as the longer /b the i ḥilazon /i b lives, the better /b it is b for /b the trapper, b so that its dye will become clear. /b Dye extracted from a live i ḥilazon /i 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 i ḥilazon /i 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: b And one who slaughters /b an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, b one who slaughters /b an animal, b due to what /b prohibited labor is he b liable? Rav said: /b He is liable b due to dyeing, /b as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood. b And Shmuel said: /b He is liable b due to taking a life. /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 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:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר כיצד מאומד אומר להן שמא כך ראיתם שרץ אחר חבירו לחורבה ורצתם אחריו ומצאתם סייף בידו ודמו מטפטף והרוג מפרפר אם כך ראיתם לא ראיתם כלום,תניא א"ר שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא ראיתי אחד שרץ אחר חבירו לחורבה ורצתי אחריו וראיתי סייף בידו ודמו מטפטף והרוג מפרפר ואמרתי לו רשע מי הרגו לזה או אני או אתה אבל מה אעשה שאין דמך מסור בידי שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים יומת המת היודע מחשבות יפרע מאותו האיש שהרג את חבירו אמרו לא זזו משם עד שבא נחש והכישו ומת,והאי בר נחש הוא והאמר רב יוסף וכן תני דבי חזקיה מיום שחרב בית המקדש אף על פי שבטלה סנהדרי ארבע מיתות לא בטלו לא בטלו והא בטלו אלא דין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו,מי שנתחייב סקילה או נופל מן הגג או חיה דורסתו מי שנתחייב שריפה או נופל בדליקה או נחש מכישו מי שנתחייב הריגה או נמסר למלכות או ליסטין באין עליו מי שנתחייב חנק או טובע בנהר או מת בסרונכי,אמרי ההוא חטא אחריתי הוה ביה דאמר מר מי שנתחייב שתי מיתות ב"ד נידון בחמורה:,מאומד וכו': בדיני נפשות הוא דלא אמדינן הא בדיני ממונות אמדינן כמאן כר' אחא דתניא ר' אחא אומר גמל האוחר בין הגמלים ונמצא גמל הרוג בצידו בידוע שזה הרגו,וליטעמיך עד מפי עד דקתני בדיני נפשות הוא דלא אמרינן הא בדיני ממונות אמרינן והתנן אם אמר הוא אמר לי שאני חייב לו איש פלוני אמר לי שהוא חייב לו לא אמר כלום עד שיאמר בפנינו הודה לו שהוא חייב לו מאתים זוז,אלמא אף על גב דפסילי בדיני ממונות אמרינן להו בדיני נפשות הכא נמי אף על גב דפסילי בדיני ממונות אמרינן להו בדיני נפשות:,הוו יודעים כו': אמר רב יהודה בריה דר' חייא מלמד שעשה קין בהבל אחיו חבורות חבורות פציעות פציעות שלא היה יודע מהיכן נשמה יוצאה עד שהגיע לצוארו,וא"ר יהודה בריה דר' חייא מיום שפתחה הארץ את פיה וקיבלתו לדמו של הבל שוב לא פתחה שנאמר (ישעיהו כד, טז) מכנף הארץ זמירות שמענו צבי לצדיק מכנף הארץ ולא מפי הארץ איתיביה חזקיה אחיו (במדבר טז, לב) ותפתח הארץ את פיה א"ל לרעה פתחה לטובה לא פתחה,וא"ר יהודה בריה דרבי חייא גלות מכפרת עון מחצה מעיקרא כתיב (בראשית ד, יד) והייתי נע ונד ולבסוף כתיב (בראשית ד, טז) וישב בארץ נוד,אמר רב יהודה גלות מכפרת שלשה דברים שנאמר (כה אמר ה' וגו') היושב בעיר הזאת ימות בחרב ברעב ובדבר והיוצא ונפל אל הכשדים הצרים עליכם יחיה והיתה לו נפשו לשלל,ר' יוחנן אמר גלות מכפרת על הכל שנאמר (ירמיהו כב, ל) (כה אמר ה') כתבו את האיש הזה ערירי גבר לא יצלח בימיו כי לא יצלח מזרעו איש יושב על כסא דוד ומושל עוד ביהודה ובתר דגלה כתיב (דברי הימים א ג, יז) ובני יכניה אסיר (בנו) שלתיאל בנו אסיר שעיברתו אמו בבית האסורין שלתיאל ששתלו אל שלא כדרך הנשתלין גמירי שאין האשה מתעברת מעומד | 37b. b Why would we /b want b this trouble? /b Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. b But /b be aware, as b is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, /b then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. b And perhaps you will say: Why would we /b want b to be responsible for the blood of this /b person? b But /b be aware, as b is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” /b (Proverbs 11:10)?, strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b How does /b the court describe testimony b based on conjecture? /b The court b says to /b the witnesses: b Perhaps you saw /b this man about whom you are testifying b pursuing another into a ruin, and you pursued him and found a sword in his hand, dripping /b with b blood, and the one /b who was ultimately b killed /b was b convulsing. If you saw /b only b this, /b it is as if b you saw nothing, /b and you cannot testify to the murder., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ said /b as an oath: b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if I did not /b once b see one /b person b pursue another into a ruin, and I pursued him and saw a sword in his hand, dripping /b with b blood, and the one /b who was ultimately b killed /b was b 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, /b or three witnesses, b shall he that is to die be put to death” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6), and I did not witness you killing him. b The One Who knows /b one’s b thoughts shall punish this man who killed another. /b The Sages b said: They did not move from there before a snake came and bit the /b murderer, b and he died. /b ,The Gemara questions this account: b But was this /b murderer b fit /b to die by being bitten b by a snake? But doesn’t Rav Yosef say, and so the school of Ḥizkiyya /b also b taught: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased /b to be extant, the b four /b types of court-imposed b capital punishment have not ceased. /b The Gemara asks: b Have they /b really b not ceased? But they have ceased, /b as court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. b Rather, /b the intention is that b the i halakha /i of /b the b four /b types of court-imposed b capital punishment has not ceased /b to be applicable.,The Gemara explains: How so? For b one who /b would b be liable /b to be executed by b stoning, either /b he b falls from a roof or an animal mauls him /b 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 b one who /b would b be liable /b to be executed by b burning, either /b he b falls into a fire /b and is burned b or a snake bites him, /b as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. For b one who /b would b be liable to /b be executed by b slaying /b through decapitation by the sword, b either /b he b is turned over to the authorities /b and they execute him with a sword, b or robbers come upon him /b and murder him. b One who /b would b be liable /b to be executed by b strangling either drowns in a river /b and is choked by the water b or dies of diphtheria [ i bisronekhi /i ], /b 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 b say /b in explanation: b That /b murderer b had another sin /b for which he deserved execution by burning, and b as the Master says: One who is found liable /b by the court b to /b receive b two /b types of b court-imposed capital punishment is sentenced to the harsher /b 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 b based on conjecture. /b The Gemara comments: One can infer that it is only b in /b cases of b capital law that we do not /b rule based on b conjecture, but in /b cases of b monetary law, we do /b rule based on b conjecture. In accordance with whose /b opinion is the mishna taught? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Aḥa. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Bava Kamma /i 3:6) that b Rabbi Aḥa says: /b If there was b a rutting /b male b camel /b that was rampaging b among /b other b camels, and /b then b a camel was found killed at its side, it is evident that this /b rampaging camel b killed it, /b and the owner must pay for the damage caused. The i baraita /i indicates that Rabbi Aḥa rules that cases of monetary law are decided based on conjecture.,The Gemara asks: b But according to your reasoning, /b with regard to b that /b which the mishna b teaches, /b that the court warns the witnesses not to provide b testimony /b based on b hearsay, /b should one infer that it is b in /b cases of b capital law that we do not say /b that testimony based on hearsay is allowed, b but in /b cases of b monetary law, we do say /b that testimony based on hearsay is allowed? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (29a): b If /b the witness b said: /b The defendant b said to me: /b It is true b that I owe /b the plaintiff, or if he says: b So-and-so said to me that /b the defendant b owes /b the plaintiff, the witness b has said nothing, /b 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 b unless he says, /b for example: The defendant b admitted in our presence to /b the plaintiff b that he owes him two hundred dinars, /b as by admitting the debt in the presence of witnesses he rendered himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned., b Evidently, although /b testimony based on hearsay b is invalid in /b cases of b monetary law, we tell /b the witnesses to be aware of this b in capital law. Here, too, /b with regard to testimony based on conjecture, one can say that b although /b testimony based on conjecture b is invalid in /b cases of b monetary law, we tell /b the witnesses to be aware of this b in /b cases of b capital law. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that the court would say: b You should know /b that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law, and would reference the murder of Abel by Cain. b Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: /b By employing the plural term for blood, “The voice of your brother’s blood [ i demei /i ] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10), the verse b teaches that Cain caused multiple wounds /b and b multiple injuries to his brother Abel. As /b Cain b did not know from where the soul departs, /b he struck him multiple times. This continued b until he came to his neck /b and struck him there, whereupon Abel died., b And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: From the day the earth opened its mouth and received the blood of Abel, /b its mouth b has not opened again, as it is stated: “From the corner of the earth have we heard songs: Glory to the righteous” /b (Isaiah 24:16): One can infer that the songs are heard b “from the corner of the earth,” but not from the mouth of the earth, /b as the earth never again opened its mouth. b Ḥizkiyya, /b Rav Yehuda’s b brother, raised an objection to /b Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya: The verse states concerning Korah and his assembly: b “And the earth opened her mouth /b 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, b said to him: /b It b opened /b again b for a deleterious /b purpose; it b did not open /b again b for a constructive /b purpose., b And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: Exile atones /b for b half /b of b a sin. /b As b initially /b it b is written /b in the verse concerning Cain that he said: b “And I shall be a fugitive [ i na /i ] and a wanderer [ i vanad /i ] /b in the earth” (Genesis 4:14), b and ultimately /b it b is written: /b “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, b and dwelt in the land of Nod” /b (Genesis 4:16). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, equates “Nod” with “ i nad /i ,” 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., b Rav Yehuda says: Exile atones /b for b three matters, /b i.e., three types of death, b as it is stated: “So says the Lord: /b Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. b 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” /b (Jeremiah 21:8–9), indicating that exile from Jerusalem will save one from those three deaths., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Exile atones for all /b transgressions and renders a sinner like a new person, b as it is stated /b concerning the king Jeconiah, a descendant of King David: b “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” /b (Jeremiah 22:30). b And after /b Jeconiah b was exiled it is written: “And the sons of Jeconiah, the same is Assir, Shealtiel his son” /b (I Chronicles 3:17). The verse employs the plural “sons of” although he had only one son, Shealtiel. b “Assir,” /b literally, prisoner, teaches b that his mother conceived him in prison. “Shealtiel,” /b literally, planted by God, teaches b that God planted him in a way atypical of /b most b plants [ i hanishtalin /i ], /b i.e., people. It b is learned /b as a tradition b that a woman does not conceive /b when she is b standing /b during sexual intercourse, |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) •zoroastrianism, “magianism” (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74| 93b. קסבר מגדף היינו מברך השם וכתיב במברך את השם (ויקרא כד, טו) ונשא חטאו,וגמר האי חטאו דהכא מחטאו דהתם מה להלן כרת אף כאן נמי כרת,ור' נתן סבר (במדבר ט, יג) וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה דהאי כי לשון דהא הוא וה"ק רחמנא דהא קרבן ה' לא הקריב במועדו בראשון,האי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה קסבר מגדף לאו היינו מברך את השם וגמר האי חטאו דהתם מהאי חטאו דהכא מה הכא כרת אף התם כרת,ור' חנניא בן עקביא סבר וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה אי קרבן ה' לא הקריב במועדו בשני,והאי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה כדאמרן,הלכך הזיד בזה ובזה דברי הכל חייב שגג בזה ובזה דברי הכל פטור,הזיד בראשון ושגג בשני לרבי ולר' נתן מחייבי לרבי חנניא בן עקביא פטור,שגג בראשון והזיד בשני לרבי חייב לר' נתן ולר' חנניא בן עקביא פטור:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big איזו היא דרך רחוקה מן המודיעים ולחוץ וכמדתה לכל רוח דברי רבי עקיבא ר"א אומר מאיסקופת העזרה ולחוץ אמר ליה רבי יוסי לפיכך נקוד על (במדבר ט, י) ה' לומר לא מפני שרחוק ודאי אלא מאיסקופת העזרה ולחוץ:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר עולא מן המודיעים לירושלים חמשה עשר מילין הויא סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כמה מהלך אדם ביום עשרה פרסאות מעלות השחר ועד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין משקיעת החמה ועד צאת הכוכבים חמשת מילין פשו לה תלתין חמיסר מצפרא לפלגא דיומא וחמיסר מפלגא דיומא לאורתא,עולא לטעמיה דאמר עולא אי זה הוא דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה,אמר מר מעלות השחר עד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין מנא לן דכתיב (בראשית יט, טו) וכמו השחר עלה ויאיצו המלאכים וגו' וכתיב (בראשית יט, כג) השמש יצא על הארץ ולוט בא צוערה ואמר רבי חנינא לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא והויא חמשה מילין,גופא אמר עולא איזה הוא דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה ורב יהודה אמר כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה,אמר ליה רבה לעולא לדידך קשיא ולרב יהודה קשיא לדידך קשיא דאמרת כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה והא טמא שרץ דאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה וקאמרת שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ,ולרב יהודה קשיא דאמר כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה והא טמא שרץ דיכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה וקאמר אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ,אמר ליה לא לדידי קשיא ולא לרב יהודה קשיא לדידי ל"ק דרך רחוקה לטהור ואין דרך רחוקה לטמא | 93b. b He holds /b that with regard to the case of the b blasphemer /b mentioned in the verse: “That person blasphemes the Lord and that soul shall be cut off [ i karet /i ] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30), b this is /b identical to the case of b one who blesses the name /b of God, a euphemism for cursing God’s name. b And it is written with regard to one who blesses the name /b of God: “Whoever curses his God b shall bear his sin” /b (Leviticus 24:15). Therefore, the punishment of i karet /i applies to a sin about which the Torah states: Shall bear his sin., b And /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b learned /b the meaning of b this /b phrase: “And he shall bear b his sin,” /b stated b here, /b with regard to one who did not sacrifice the Paschal lamb, by way of a verbal analogy b from /b the phrase: “Shall bear b his sin” /b stated b there, /b with regard to the blasphemer. b Just as later, /b with regard to the blasphemer, it is referring to the punishment of b i karet /i , so too here, /b with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is referring to the punishment of b i karet /i . /b This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi., b And Rabbi Natan holds /b that the verse should be understood differently. In the verse: b “And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, /b that soul b shall be cut off /b from his people; because [ i ki /i ] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season” (Numbers 9:13), b this /b word b i ki /i /b has the b meaning of: Because. And this is /b what b the Torah is saying: “Because he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” /b referring to participating in the Paschal lamb on b the first /b i Pesaḥ /i , he is liable to receive i karet /i .,The Gemara asks: If so, b that /b part of the verse which says: b He shall bear his sin, what does /b Rabbi Natan b do with it? /b The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan b holds /b that b the /b case of the b blasphemer is not /b identical with the case of one who b blesses the name /b of God; blasphemy refers instead to one who sings praises to false gods. Thus, the Torah does not specify the punishment of one who curses God. b He learned /b the meaning of b that /b phrase b “his sin,” there, /b with regard to one who curses God, by way of a verbal analogy b from this /b phrase b “his sin” here, /b in the case of one who did not offer the Paschal lamb. b Just as here, /b with regard to the Paschal lamb, the punishment is b i karet /i , so too there, /b with regard to one who curses God, the phrase: He shall bear his sin, is a reference to the punishment of b i karet /i . /b , b And Rabbi Ḥaya ben Akavya holds /b that the word i ki /i in the verse should be rendered: If, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted it, but the verse should be understood as follows: b “And refrained from participating /b in the offering of b the Paschal lamb, /b that soul b shall be cut off /b from his people b if he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” /b which is b on the second /b i Pesaḥ /i .,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b that /b phrase: b “He shall bear his sin,” what does /b Rabbi Ḥaya ben Akavya b do with it? /b The Gemara answers: He uses it in the same way as Rabbi Natan, b as we said /b above, to derive the punishment for one who curses God., b Therefore, /b if one b intentionally /b refrained from offering the Paschal lamb b on both /b the first and second i Pesaḥ /i , b all agree /b that he is b liable /b to receive i karet /i . If one b unwittingly /b forgot b on both /b the first and second i Pesaḥ /i , b all agree /b that he is b exempt /b from i karet /i .,If one b intentionally /b refrained from offering the Paschal lamb b on the first /b i Pesaḥ /i b and unwittingly /b forgot b on the second, /b according b to /b the opinions of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and Rabbi Natan he /b is b liable /b to receive i karet /i , because he intentionally refrained from offering the sacrifice on the first i Pesaḥ /i and did not rectify his mistake on the second i Pesaḥ /i ; however, according b to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Ḥaya ben Akavya /b he is b exempt, /b because he holds that one is liable only if he intentionally refrained both times from offering the Paschal lamb.,If one b unwittingly /b forgot b on the first /b i Pesaḥ /i b and intentionally /b refrained from bringing the offering b on the second /b i Pesaḥ /i , according b to /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b he is liable, /b because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the second i Pesaḥ /i an independent Festival that is mandatory for all those who did not offer the Paschal lamb on the first i Pesaḥ /i . According b to /b the opinions of b Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ḥaya ben Akavya, /b who hold that the second i Pesaḥ /i is a chance to redress the sin of the first i Pesaḥ /i , since he did not intentionally fail to offer the Paschal lamb on the first i Pesaḥ /i , he is b exempt /b from the punishment of i karet /i even if he intentionally failed to offer the Paschal lamb on the second i Pesaḥ /i ., strong MISHNA: /strong b What is the /b definition of b a distant journey /b that exempts one from observing the first i Pesaḥ /i ? Anywhere b from the /b city of b Modi’im and beyond, and /b from anywhere located an equal b distance /b from Jerusalem and beyond b in every direction; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the threshold of the /b Temple b courtyard and beyond /b is considered a distant journey; therefore, anyone located outside the courtyard at the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered is exempt from observing the first i Pesaḥ /i . b Rabbi Yosei said to him: Therefore, /b the word is b dotted over the /b letter b i heh /i /b in the word “distant [ i reḥoka /i ]” b to say /b that the meaning of the word should be qualified: It should be understood that b it is not because he is really distant; rather, /b it includes anyone located b from the threshold of the /b Temple b courtyard and beyond. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Ulla said: /b The distance b from the /b city of b Modi’im to Jerusalem is fifteen i mil /i . He held like this /b following opinion b that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: How /b far b can an /b average b person walk on an /b average b day? /b One can walk b ten parasangs [ i parsaot /i ], /b which are forty i mil /i . This is divided in the following way: b From dawn until sunrise /b one can walk a distance of b five i mil /i , /b and b from sunset until the emergence of the stars /b one can walk another b five i mil /i . /b There are b thirty /b i mil /i b remaining /b that one can walk in a day: b Fifteen from the morning until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening. /b ,The Gemara explains that b Ulla /b conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning /b below, b as Ulla said: What is /b the definition of b a distant journey? /b It is b any /b distance from which b one is unable to /b reach Jerusalem and b enter /b the Temple b by the /b earliest b time of the slaughter /b of the Paschal lamb. The obligation to slaughter the Paschal lamb begins at noon; therefore, if one is a distance of fifteen i mil /i from the Temple in the morning, he will not be able to arrive there before the time that the offering may be slaughtered.,The Gemara addresses the previously mentioned discussion: b The Master said /b that b from dawn until sunrise /b one can walk a distance of b five i mil /i . From where do we /b derive this? b As it is written: “And when the morning arose, the angels hastened Lot, /b saying: Arise, take your wife and your two daughters that are here, lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city” (Genesis 19:15), b and it is written: “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came to Zoar” /b (Genesis 19:23). Therefore, the distance between Sodom and Zoar is the distance one can walk between dawn and sunrise, b and Rabbi Ḥanina said: I myself saw that place, and it is /b a distance of b five i mil /i . /b This serves as a biblical proof that one can walk five i mil /i between dawn and sunrise.,The Gemara discusses b the matter /b of the above statement b itself. Ulla said: What is /b the definition of b a distant journey; any /b journey of a distance from which b one is unable to /b reach Jerusalem and b enter /b the Temple b by the /b earliest b time of the slaughter /b of the Paschal lamb. b And Rav Yehuda said: Any /b journey of a distance from which b one is unable to /b reach Jerusalem, where the Paschal lamb is eaten, and b enter during the time of the eating, /b the following night., b Rabba said to Ulla: /b According b to your /b opinion it is b difficult, and /b according b to Rav Yehuda’s /b opinion it is b difficult. /b According b to your /b opinion it is b difficult, as you said /b that b any /b journey of a distance from which b one is unable to /b reach Jerusalem and b enter /b the Temple courtyard b by the time of the slaughter /b of the Paschal lamb is considered a distant journey. b Yet /b with regard to b one who is ritually impure /b due to contact with a dead b creeping animal, who is unable to enter /b the Temple courtyard b at the time of the slaughter /b due to his impurity, b you said: One /b may b slaughter /b the Paschal lamb b and sprinkle /b its blood b on /b behalf of b one who is ritually impure /b due to contact with a dead b creeping animal, /b even though he will only become pure after nightfall, when the Paschal lamb is eaten., b And /b according b to Rav Yehuda’s /b opinion it is b difficult, as he said /b that b any /b journey of a distance from which b one is unable to enter /b Jerusalem b during the time of the eating /b is considered a distant journey; b yet /b with regard to b one who is ritually impure /b due to contact with a dead b creeping animal, who /b is able to b enter /b Jerusalem and participate in consuming the offering b at the time of the eating, he said /b the opposite: b One /b may b not slaughter /b the Paschal lamb b and sprinkle /b its blood b on /b behalf of b one who is ritually impure /b due to contact with a dead b creeping animal, /b even though he will be able to immerse and become ritually pure by nightfall, when the offering is to be eaten.,Ulla b said to him: According to my /b opinion it is b not difficult, and according to Rav Yehuda’s /b opinion it is b not difficult. According to my /b opinion it is b not difficult /b because I hold that the concept of b a distant journey /b applies only b to one who is ritually pure, and the /b principle of a b distant journey /b does b not /b apply b to one who is ritually impure. /b If one is ritually impure at the time of the slaughter, his obligation is immediately deferred to the second i Pesaḥ /i regardless of the fact that he will become ritually pure in time to eat the offering at nightfall. |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magi Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 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. b and is married to another /b 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 b she married another /b man b and /b again b saw blood due to sexual intercourse, she may engage in intercourse /b before the b first time /b this occurs, before the b second /b time this occurs, b and /b before the b third /b time this occurs. b From this /b point b forward she may not engage in intercourse until she is divorced /b from her second husband b and is married to /b yet b another /b man. If b she married another /b man b and /b again b saw blood due to sexual intercourse, she may engage in intercourse /b the b first time /b this occurs, the b second /b time this occurs, b and /b the b third /b time this occurs. b From this /b point b forward /b there is a presumption that she always bleeds due to engaging in intercourse, and therefore b she may not engage in intercourse /b or marry someone else b until she examines herself. /b , b How /b does b she examine herself? She brings a tube, inside of which /b she places a cosmetic b brush /b so that it is long enough to reach deeply into her vagina, b and /b an absorbent b cloth is placed on the tip /b of the brush. She inserts the tube with the brush and cloth within herself and then removes it. b If blood is found on the top of the /b absorbent b cloth, it is known that /b the blood b comes from the uterus /b and she is ritually impure. If b blood is not found on the top /b of the cloth, b it is known that /b the blood b comes from the sides /b of the vaginal walls and she is ritually pure, and she may resume engaging in intercourse with her husband., b And if she has a wound in that place, /b i.e., her vagina, b she attributes /b the blood b to her wound, /b and she is ritually pure, as it is assumed to not be uterine blood. b And if she has a /b fixed menstrual b cycle, /b i.e., she does not bleed every time she engages in intercourse with her husband, but only at fixed times, b she attributes /b the blood b to her /b fixed menstrual b cycle, /b and she is permitted to engage in intercourse at other times., b And if the blood of her wound differed from the blood that she sees /b due to sexual intercourse, b she may not attribute /b the blood to her wound. b And a woman is deemed credible to say: I have a wound in /b my b uterus, from where /b the b blood is emerging. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Blood of a wound that comes from the uterus is ritually impure /b 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. b But our Sages testified /b that they had a tradition b with regard to /b the b blood of a wound that comes from the uterus, that it is ritually pure. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the difference b between /b the opinion of those Sages and the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? b Ulla said: /b The difference b between them is /b whether the b place of /b a woman’s b uterus is impure, /b 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 i baraita /i that states that the test for a woman who experiences bleeding due to sexual intercourse is to insert b a tube, /b the Gemara asks: But won’t a tube b scratch her /b and cause her to bleed regardless? b Shmuel said: /b The i baraita /i is referring b to a tube of lead, and the mouth, /b i.e., the end that is inserted, b is folded inward /b so that it will not scratch her.,The i baraita /i says that if a woman experiences bleeding on three occasions due to intercourse with her husband he must divorce her. b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But let her examine herself after the third /b act of b intercourse with her first husband, /b so that he need not divorce her. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: /b It is preferable for her not to test herself and risk becoming forbidden to all men and instead to be divorced and remarry another, b because not all fingers, /b i.e., penises, b are equal. /b 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 b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: Why does she examine herself only after the third time she experiences bleeding due to sexual intercourse with her third husband? b But let her examine herself after the first /b act of b intercourse with her third husband. /b 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, b because not all forces are equal. /b 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 b a certain /b woman who experienced bleeding due to sexual intercourse b who came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi and asked him what she should do. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b the Sage b Abdon, /b who was present at the time: b Go /b and suddenly b frighten /b this woman. Abdon b went /b and b frightened her, and a mass /b of congealed b blood fell from her /b vagina. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: This /b woman is now b cured. /b 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 b a certain /b woman who experienced bleeding due to sexual intercourse b who came before Shmuel. /b Shmuel b said to Rav Dimi bar Yosef: Go /b and b frighten /b this woman. Rav Dimi b went /b and b frightened her, but nothing fell from her at all. Shmuel said: This /b woman b is filled /b with blood, b which falls /b out of her during intercourse. b And any /b woman who b is filled /b with blood b that falls /b out during intercourse b has no cure. /b ,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain /b woman b who came before Rabbi Yoḥa /b and told him b that every time she emerged from immersion /b in a ritual bath, after completing the b mitzva /b of purifying herself for her husband, b she would see blood /b before she engaged in intercourse with him. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: Perhaps the gossip /b of the women b in your city, /b who are jealous of the love between you and your husband, b has reached you, /b and this evil eye causes you to bleed before you engage in intercourse. b Go and /b immerse in the river and b engage in intercourse with /b your husband b on the bank of the river, /b so that the other women will not see you leaving the ritual bath and gossip about you., b Some say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: Reveal /b this fact b to your friends, so that /b those women b who were /b against b you on this side, /b and gossiped about you, b will be /b with b you on that side, /b and be kind to you. b And some say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: Reveal /b this fact b to your friends, in order that they will pray for mercy for you, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i 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 b and will cry: Impure, impure” /b (Leviticus 13:45). The leper publicizes the fact that he is ritually impure, as he b must announce his pain to the masses, and /b then b the masses will pray for mercy on his /b behalf., b Rav Yosef said: There was /b a similar b incident in Pumbedita /b of a woman who experienced bleeding immediately after immersing in a ritual bath, and she followed the advice given by Rabbi Yoḥa b and she was cured. /b ,§ b Rav Yosef says /b that b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b decreed /b that b in the fields, /b i.e., in those distant places where there were no Torah scholars and whose residents were not well versed in the i halakhot /i of menstruating women and did not know how to distinguish between the days of menstruation and the days of i ziva /i , if b she saw /b blood on b one day, she must sit /b and count b six /b days b and that /b 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 i ziva /i , in which case she would be impure for only one day.,If she experiences bleeding for b two /b days, b she must sit /b and count b six /b days b and /b both of b those /b first two days, for a total of eight days, in case the first day on which she bled was the last day of i ziva /i , while the next day was the first day of her menstruation period. If she experiences bleeding for b three /b days b she must sit /b and count b seven clean /b days, as she might be a greater i zava /i , who must count seven clean days.,The Gemara cites a related statement. b Rabbi Zeira says: Jewish women were stringent with themselves /b to the extent b that even if they see a drop of blood /b the size b of a mustard /b seed, they b sit seven clean /b days b for it. /b 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 i zava /i 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 i zava /i , which obligates one to count seven clean days before immersing (see Leviticus 15:25)., b Rava authorized Rav Shmuel, and he taught: /b If a pregt woman experienced b labor pains /b for b two days, and on the third /b day b she miscarried, she must sit /b and count b seven clean /b days. The Gemara explains that Rava b holds /b that the principle that blood that emerges while the woman experiences b labor pains /b is not ritually impure does b not /b apply b to miscarriages. And /b Rava further maintains that b it is impossible for the womb to open without blood /b emerging. Therefore, when she miscarried she must have experienced a flow of blood, even if she did not notice it., b Rav Pappa said to Rava: /b For b what /b reason did you teach this i halakha /i b specifically /b with regard to a woman who experiences b labor pains /b for b two days? Even /b if she b merely /b discharges b any amount /b of blood she should be impure, b as Rabbi Zeira says: The Jewish women were stringent with themselves /b to the extent b that even if they see a drop of blood of /b the size of b a mustard /b seed, that woman b sits seven clean /b days b for it. /b 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 b said to /b Rav Pappa: b I speak to you /b of b a prohibition, /b 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 i zava /i , b and you speak to me /b of b a custom, /b a mere stringency. The stringency you mention does not apply in this case. b Where /b the Jewish women b were stringent, they were stringent, /b i.e., if they saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. b Where they were not stringent, /b i.e., in a case of blood due to labor, b they were not stringent. /b By contrast, in the case I described the woman is obligated to count seven clean days by Torah law.,The Gemara provides b a mnemonic /b for the following discussions: b One who proposed to her; natron; with hot /b water; b to immerse; folds; on top of; a port. Rava says: /b With regard to b one who proposed marriage to /b a woman b and she accepted it, /b 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 b she must wait seven /b consecutive days that are b clean /b 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: b Ravina arranged for his son /b to marry into b the family of Rav Ḥanina, /b i.e., to marry Rav Ḥanina’s daughter. Rav Ḥanina b said to /b Ravina: b Does the Master hold /b that it is appropriate b to write the marriage contract /b as stating that the wedding will take place b in four days, /b i.e., on Wednesday? Ravina b said: Yes. When /b the b fourth /b day, i.e., Wednesday b arrived, he waited until another fourth /b day before marrying her, until the following Wednesday, i.e., b he delayed seven days after that day /b when he had planned to marry her.,Rav Ḥanina b said to /b Ravina: b What is this? /b Why did you delay the wedding by an extra week? Ravina b said to /b Rav Ḥanina: b Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with this /b statement b of Rava, as Rava said: /b With regard to b one who proposed marriage to /b a woman b and she accepted it, she must wait seven /b consecutive days that are b clean /b from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath? Rav Ḥanina b said to /b Ravina: One can b say that Rava said /b this statement b with regard to an adult woman, who has seen /b menstrual b blood. But did /b Rava actually b say /b this b with regard to a minor girl, who has not /b yet b seen /b menstrual b blood? /b ,Ravina b said to /b Rav Ḥanina: b Rava said explicitly /b that there is b no difference /b whether she is b an adult woman /b and b no difference /b whether she is b a minor girl. What is the reason /b that b an adult woman /b must wait for seven days? She must wait b because she desires /b to marry her husband, and this might cause her to have a flow of blood. b A minor girl also desires /b to marry her husband, which could cause a flow of blood.,§ b Rava says: A woman /b who is about to immerse herself in a ritual bath for purification |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amgûšā (zoroastrian priest), association with magic, in hellenism and in the babylonian talmud Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 125| 18a. הלכה כרבי יוסי במועד ובאבל דאמר שמואל הלכה כדברי המיקל באבל,פנחס אחוה דמר שמואל איתרע ביה מילתא על שמואל למישאל טעמא מיניה חזנהו לטופרי דהוו נפישן אמר ליה אמאי לא שקלת להו אמר ליה אי בדידיה הוה מי מזלזלת ביה כולי האי,הואי (קהלת י, ה) כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ואיתרע ביה מילתא בשמואל על פנחס אחוה למישאל טעמא מיניה שקלינהו לטופריה חבטינהו לאפיה אמר ליה לית לך ברית כרותה לשפתים,דאמר ר' יוחנן מנין שברית כרותה לשפתים שנאמר (בראשית כב, ה) ויאמר אברהם אל נעריו שבו לכם פה עם החמור ואני והנער נלכה עד כה ונשתחוה ונשובה אליכם ואיסתייעא מלתא דהדור תרוייהו,סבור מיניה דיד אין דרגל לא אמר רב ענן בר תחליפא לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דשמואל לא שנא דיד ולא שנא דרגל,אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב ובגנוסטרא אסור אמר רב שמן בר אבא הוה קאימנא קמיה דר' יוחנן בי מדרשא בחולו של מועד ושקלינהו לטופריה בשיניה וזרקינהו,שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה מותר ליטול צפרנים בחולו של מועד ושמע מינה אין בהן משום מיאוס ושמע מינה מותר לזורקן,איני והתניא שלשה דברים נאמרו בצפרנים הקוברן צדיק שורפן חסיד זורקן רשע טעמא מאי שמא תעבור עליהן אשה עוברה ותפיל,אשה בי מדרשא לא שכיחא וכי תימא זימנין דמיכנשי להו ושדי להו אבראי כיון דאשתני אשתני,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זוג בא מחמתן לפני רבי ומר זוטרא מתני זוג בא מחמתן לפני רבי ובקשו ממנו צפרנים והתיר להם ואם בקשו ממנו שפה התיר להם ושמואל אמר אף בקשו ממנו שפה והתיר להם,אמר אביטול ספרא משמיה דרב (פפא) שפה מזוית לזוית אמר רבי אמי ובשפה המעכבת א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לדידי כשפה המעכבת דמי לי,ואמר אביטול ספרא משמיה דרב (פפא) פרעה שהיה בימי משה הוא אמה וזקנו אמה ופרמשתקו אמה וזרת לקיים מה שנאמר (דניאל ד, יד) ושפל אנשים יקים עליה,ואמר אביטול ספרא משמיה דרב (פפא) פרעה שהיה בימי משה אמגושי היה שנאמר (שמות ז, טו) הנה יוצא המימה וגו':,ואלו מכבסין במועד הבא ממדינת הים: אמר רב אסי א"ר יוחנן מי שאין לו אלא חלוק אחד מותר לכבסו בחולו של מועד,מתיב ר' ירמיה אלו מכבסין במועד הבא ממדינת הים כו' הני אין מי שאין לו אלא חלוק אחד לא,אמר ליה ר' יעקב לר' ירמיה אסברה לך מתני' אע"ג דאית ליה תרי ומטנפי,שלח רב יצחק בר יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דר' יוחנן כלי פשתן מותר לכבסן בחולו של מועד מתיב רבא מטפחות הידים מטפחות | 18a. b The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei with regard to /b the intermediate days of b the Festival and with regard to mourning, as Shmuel said /b this general principle: b The i halakha /i is in accordance with the statement of the /b more b lenient /b authority b in /b matters relating to b mourning. /b ,It was related that b something /b unpleasant b happened to Pineḥas, brother of Mar Shmuel, /b that is to say, one of his close relatives died. b Shmuel entered to ask him the reason, /b i.e., to console him. b He saw that /b Pineḥas’s b nails were long, /b and b said to him: Why do you not cut them? /b Pineḥas b replied: If it were your /b relative who died, and you were in mourning, b would you treat /b the matter b so lightly /b and cut your nails?,Pineḥas’s words b were: “Like an error that proceeds from a ruler” /b (Ecclesiastes 10:5). As soon as he uttered them they come true, even though he did not intend them. Shortly after Pineḥas made his comment, b something /b unpleasant b happened to Shmuel, /b and one of his close relatives died. b Pineḥas, his brother, entered to ask him the reason, /b i.e., to offer words of comfort. Shmuel b took his nails and cast them in /b Pineḥas’s face. Shmuel then b said to him: /b Do b you not /b know the principle that b a covet is made with the lips? /b In other words, do you not know that what one says influences future events?,This is b as Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where /b is it derived b that a covet is made with the lips, /b and that one’s speech has the power to change events? b For it is stated: “And Abraham said to his young men: Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go onward; and we will worship, and we will come back to you” /b (Genesis 22:5). Abraham said this even though he thought that he was going to sacrifice his son as an offering and that Isaac would not be returning, b yet this had an influence and they both came back. /b ,With regard to this i halakha /i pertaining to a mourner cutting his nails: They initially b concluded from this: /b With regard to the nails on his b hand, yes, /b a mourner may cut them; but as for the nails on his b foot, no, /b he may not cut them, because long toenails are less repulsive. b Rav A bar Taḥlifa said: It was explained to me by Shmuel /b himself: b It is not different /b if it is the nails on the b hand and it is not different /b if it is the nails on the b foot, /b as in both cases cutting the nails is permitted., b Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said /b that b Rav said: But with scissors [ i genustera /i ] /b specifically for nail cutting b it is prohibited, /b i.e., the mourner should cut his nails in an alternate manner. b Rav Shemen bar Abba said: I /b once b stood before Rabbi Yoḥa in the study hall during the intermediate days of a Festival, and he cut his nails with his teeth and threw them /b down.,The Gemara comments: b Learn from this /b incident of Rabbi Yoḥa b three /b i halakhot /i : b Learn from this /b that b it is permitted to cut one’s nails on the intermediate days of a Festival. And learn from this /b that nails b have no /b prohibition b due to /b the fact that they are b repulsive, /b i.e., there is no prohibition against biting them on that basis. Inasmuch as one is prohibited from placing something repulsive in his mouth, this incident teaches that nails do not fall into this category. b And /b also b learn from this /b that b it is permitted /b to throw b nails /b away.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Three things were said about nails: One who buries them /b in the ground b is /b deemed b righteous. One who burns them /b is even better, as he b is /b considered b pious. One who /b merely b throws them /b away b is /b regarded as b wicked. /b The Gemara explains: b What is the reason /b that it is prohibited to throw away nail clippings? This is prohibited b lest a pregt women pass over them and miscarry, /b for the Sages had a tradition that it is dangerous for a pregt woman to walk over fingernails.,The Gemara answers: b A woman is not usually /b found b in the study hall, /b and therefore Rabbi Yoḥa was not concerned about throwing his nail clippings there. b If you say /b that b sometimes /b the nails b are gathered /b together when the floor is swept b and /b then b thrown outside /b where a pregt woman may walk over them, this is not a problem. b Once /b their place b has changed /b the nails themselves b change /b and are no longer harmful., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: A pair /b of Sages from b Ḥamatan came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. b And Mar Zutra taught /b it without the names of Rav Yehuda and Rav, simply as: b A pair /b of Sages from b Ḥamatan came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. b And they asked him /b whether or not a mourner is permitted to cut his b nails, and he permitted /b it b to them. And had they asked him /b whether or not a mourner may trim his b mustache, he would /b also b have permitted /b it b to them. And Shmuel said: They also asked him /b about trimming b a mustache, /b and b he permitted /b it b to them. /b , b Avitul the scribe said in the name of Rav Pappa: A mustache /b may be trimmed b from /b one b corner to /b the other b corner /b of the mouth. b Rabbi Ami said: /b One may trim only the portion of the b mustache that interferes /b with normal eating, but one may not trim the mustache for beautification. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: For me, /b my entire mustache b is /b considered b like a mustache that interferes /b with normal eating, as I am particularly sensitive, and so I may trim my entire mustache.,§ Having mentioned Avitul the scribe, the Gemara records other statements of his: b And Avitul the scribe said in the name of Rav Pappa: /b The b Pharaoh who lived in the days of Moses was a cubit /b tall, his b beard was a cubit /b long, b and his penis /b [ b i parmashtako /i /b ] was b a cubit and a span, /b i.e., a cubit and the distance between the thumb and the little finger, in length, b in order to fulfill what is stated: “And He sets up over it the lowest of men” /b (Daniel 4:14), which teaches that Pharaoh was extremely short and lowly., b Avitul the scribe /b also b said in the name of Rav Pappa: /b The b Pharaoh who lived in the days of Moses was a sorcerer /b [ b i amgushi /i /b ], b as it is stated: “Behold, he goes out to the water” /b (Exodus 7:15). Pharaoh would regularly go out to the water in order to engage in witchcraft.,§ The mishna taught: b And these /b people b may launder /b their clothes b on /b the intermediate days of b a Festival: One who comes from a country overseas. Rav Asi said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Anyone who has only one shirt is permitted to launder it on the intermediate days of a Festival. /b , b Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection /b from what was taught in the mishna: b And these /b people b may launder /b their clothes b on the /b intermediate days of b a Festival: One who comes from a country overseas, /b and one who is released from a house of captivity, and one who comes out of prison, and one who had been ostracized and the Rabbis released him from his decree of ostracism, b etc. /b It may be inferred: b Those /b who are mentioned in the mishna, b yes, /b they may launder their clothes during the intermediate days of the Festival, but b one who has only one shirt /b may b not /b launder it., b Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: I will explain it to you. The mishna /b is referring to those cases where one is permitted to launder his clothes even if b he has two /b changes of garments b and /b they are b dirty. /b Rabbi Yoḥa speaks about one who has only one garment, and he rules that he may launder it in all circumstances., b Rav Yitzḥak bar Ya’akov bar Giyorei sent /b a message b in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b With regard to b linen garments, it is permitted to launder them during the intermediate days of the Festival /b because they are easily soiled. b Rava raised an objection /b from what is taught in the mishna: b Hand towels, the towels /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magi Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 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. b and one may not adorn oneself inside them; nor may one wander about inside them; nor may one enter them in the sun /b for protection b from the sun, or in the rain /b to find shelter b from the rain; nor may one offer a eulogy inside them for an individual, /b which is a private event. b However, one may read /b the Bible b inside them, and one may study /b i halakhot /i b inside them, and one may offer a eulogy inside them for /b a Torah scholar, if b the public /b attends the eulogy., b Rabbi Yehuda said: When /b does this apply? b When /b the synagogues are b occupied /b by the people using them. b But when they are in /b a state of b ruin, they should be left alone /b so that b grass will sprout up inside them. And /b that grass b should not be picked /b and removed, b due to /b the b anguish /b 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 i halakha /i about b grass? Who mentioned /b anything b about it? /b The Gemara explains: The text of the i baraita /i b is incomplete and is teaching the following: And /b among the other things that may be done in synagogues, b they should /b also be sure to b sweep them and /b to b sprinkle /b their floors with water, b in order that grass not sprout up in them. Rabbi Yehuda said: When /b does this apply? b When /b the synagogues are b occupied /b by the people using them, b but when they are in /b a state of b ruin, they should be left alone /b so that grass b will sprout up inside them. /b If b grass did sprout up, it should not be removed, due to /b the b anguish /b that this will bring to those who see it., b Rav Asi said: Synagogues in Babylonia are built /b from the outset b with a stipulation /b 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. b But nevertheless, /b one b should not act inside them with frivolity. /b The Gemara explains: b What is /b meant by b this? /b One should not make business b calculations /b in a synagogue., b Rav Asi said: /b With regard to b a synagogue in which /b people b make /b business b calculations, they will /b eventually b keep a corpse inside it overnight. /b The Gemara questions the wording of this dictum: b Can it /b really b enter your mind /b to say that b they will /b ever actually b keep a corpse inside it overnight? /b Could it really be that b there will not be any other alternative? Rather, /b 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 b ultimately they will /b have to b keep a corpse with no one to bury it [ i met mitzva /i ] overnight /b in the synagogue.,§ The i baraita /i taught: b And one may not adorn oneself inside them. Rava said: /b The prohibition applies only to laypeople, but b Torah scholars and their disciples are permitted /b to do so, b as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What /b is the meaning of the term: b i Bei /i of the Sages, /b which is used to describe a study hall? It is a shortened form of b house [ i beita /i ] of the Sages. /b 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 i baraita /i continued: b And nor may one enter them in the sun /b for protection b from the sun, or in the rain /b to find shelter b from the rain. /b The Gemara explains: This b is similar to that /b case of b Ravina and Rav Adda bar Mattana. They were standing and asking a question of Rava, /b when b a shower [ i zilḥa /i ] of rain began /b to fall upon them. b They /b all b entered the synagogue, saying: Our having entered the synagogue is not due to the rain, /b that we stay dry; b rather, it is due to /b the fact that b the i halakha /i /b we were discussing b requires clarity like the day the north wind [ i istena /i ] /b blows and the sky is perfectly clear. Therefore, we are entering the synagogue for the sake of studying Torah, which is certainly permitted., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If a person needs to summon an individual from /b inside b a synagogue, what /b should he do, since it is not permitted to enter a synagogue just for that purpose? Rav Ashi b said to him: If he is a young Torah scholar, let him recite a i halakha /i /b upon entering the synagogue; b and if he is a i tanna /i /b who memorizes large numbers of i mishnayot /i , b let him recite /b various b i mishnayot /i ; and if he is an expert in /b the b Bible, let him recite a verse; and if /b he is b not /b able to do even this, b let him say to a child: Recite for me a verse /b that you have learned today. b Alternatively, he should remain /b in the synagogue b for a short /b time b and /b only afterward b stand up /b and leave.,The i baraita /i continues: b And one may offer a eulogy inside them for /b a Torah scholar if b the public /b attends the eulogy. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances of a eulogy for the public? Rav Ḥisda depicted /b a case: b For example, a eulogy /b for a Torah scholar b at which Rav Sheshet is present. /b Owing to his presence, many people will come. b Rav Sheshet /b himself b depicted /b another case: b For example, a eulogy at which Rav Ḥisda is present. /b ,The Gemara offers another example: b Rafram /b once b eulogized his daughter-in-law inside a synagogue. He said: Due to my honor and /b the honor b of the deceased, everyone will come /b to the eulogy. It will consequently be a public event, and it is therefore permitted to hold it in a synagogue. Similarly, b Rabbi Zeira /b once b 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 /b to the eulogy., b Reish Lakish /b once b eulogized a certain young Torah scholar who was frequently /b present b in Eretz Yisrael and who used to study i halakha /i in the twenty-fourth row /b of the study hall. He sat so far back because he was not one of the principal scholars. Nevertheless, when he died, Reish Lakish b said: Alas, Eretz Yisrael has lost a great man. /b ,In contrast, there was b a certain man who used to study i halakha /i , the i Sifra /i , and the i Sifrei /i , and the i Tosefta /i , and he died. /b People b came and said to Rav Naḥman: Let the Master eulogize him. He said /b to them: b How can I eulogize him? /b Should I say: b Alas, a basket filled with books is lost? /b 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. b Come /b and b see what /b the difference is b between the harsh /b scholars b of Eretz Yisrael and the saintly ones of Babylonia. /b Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was still more respectful than Rav Naḥman, who was known for his saintliness., b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Avot /i 1:13): b And one who makes use of the crown [ i taga /i ] /b of Torah learning b will perish /b from the world. b Reish Lakish taught: This /b is referring to b one who /b allows himself to be b served by one who studies i halakhot /i , /b which is b the crown of the Torah. /b , b And Ulla said: /b It is better that b a person should be served by one who studies four /b orders of the Mishna, b and he should not /b allow himself to b be served by one who teaches /b to others b four /b orders of the Mishna, b as in that /b case b of Reish Lakish. He was traveling along the road /b when b he reached /b a deep b puddle of water. A certain man came /b and b placed him upon his shoulders and /b began b transferring him /b to the other side. Reish Lakish b said to him: Have you read /b the Bible? b He said to him: I have read /b it. He then asked: b Have you studied /b the Mishna? He answered him: b I have studied four orders of the Mishna. /b Reish Lakish then b said to him: You have hewn /b these b four mountains and /b yet b you bear the weight of the son of Lakish upon your shoulders? /b It is inappropriate for you to carry me; b throw the son of Lakish into the water. /b ,The man b said to /b Reish Lakish: b It is pleasing for me to serve the Master /b in this way. Reish Lakish said to him: b If so, learn from me this matter that Rabbi Zeira said. /b In this way you will be considered my disciple, and it will then be appropriate for you to serve me. b Jewish women were strict upon themselves in that even if they see a spot of /b menstrual b blood /b that is only the size b of a mustard seed they wait on its account seven clean /b days before immersing themselves in a ritual bath to purify themselves., b The school of Eliyahu taught: Anyone who studies i halakhot /i /b every day, b he is guaranteed that he is destined for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “His ways [ i halikhot /i ] are eternal” /b (Habakkuk 3:6): b Do not read /b the verse as b i halikhot /i [ways]; rather, /b read it as b i halakhot /i . /b Consequently, the verse indicates that the study of the i halakhot /i brings one to eternal life., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176| 31a. אייתי כסא דמוקרא בת ארבע מאה זוזי ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו,רב אשי עבד הלולא לבריה חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קא בדחי טובא אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו,אמרו ליה רבנן לרב המנונא זוטי בהלולא דמר בריה דרבינא לישרי לן מר אמר להו ווי לן דמיתנן ווי לן דמיתנן אמרי ליה אנן מה נעני בתרך א"ל הי תורה והי מצוה דמגנו עלן,א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה שנאמר (תהלים קכו, ב) אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה אימתי בזמן שיאמרו בגוים הגדיל ה' לעשות עם אלה אמרו עליו על ר"ל שמימיו לא מלא שחוק פיו בעוה"ז מכי שמעה מר' יוחנן רביה:,ת"ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך דין ולא מתוך דבר הלכה אלא מתוך הלכה פסוקה,והיכי דמי הלכה פסוקה,אמר אביי כי הא דר' זירא דאמר ר' זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טיפת דם כחרדל יושבת עליה שבעה נקיים,רבא אמר כי הא דרב הושעיא דאמר רב הושעיא מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר,ואב"א כי הא דרב הונא דא"ר הונא א"ר זעירא המקיז דם בבהמת קדשים אסור בהנאה ומועלין בו,רבנן עבדי כמתניתין רב אשי עביד כברייתא.,ת"ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה,וכן לא יפטר אדם מחברו לא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שכן מצינו בנביאים הראשונים שסיימו דבריהם בדברי שבח ותנחומים,וכן תנא מרי בר בריה דרב הונא בריה דר' ירמיה בר אבא אל יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרהו,כי הא דרב כהנא אלוייה לרב שימי בר אשי מפום נהרא עד בי צניתא דבבל כי מטא להתם א"ל מר ודאי דאמרי אינשי הני צניתא דבבל איתנהו מאדם הראשון ועד השתא,א"ל אדכרתן מילתא דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ב, ו) בארץ אשר לא עבר בה איש ולא ישב אדם שם וכי מאחר דלא עבר היאך ישב אלא לומר לך כל ארץ שגזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב נתישבה וכל ארץ שלא גזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב לא נתישבה,רב מרדכי אלוייה לרב שימי בר אשי מהגרוניא ועד בי כיפי ואמרי לה עד בי דורא:,ת"ר המתפלל צריך שיכוין את לבו לשמים אבא שאול אומר סימן לדבר (תהלים י, יז) תכין לבם תקשיב אזנך,תניא א"ר יהודה כך היה מנהגו של ר"ע כשהיה מתפלל עם הצבור היה מקצר ועולה מפני טורח צבור וכשהיה מתפלל בינו לבין עצמו אדם מניחו בזוית זו ומוצאו בזוית אחרת וכל כך למה מפני כריעות והשתחויות:,א"ר חייא בר אבא לעולם יתפלל אדם בבית שיש בו חלונות שנאמר (דניאל ו, יא) וכוין פתיחן ליה וגו',יכול יתפלל אדם כל היום כלו כבר מפורש על ידי דניאל (דניאל ו, יא) וזמנין תלתא וגו',יכול משבא לגולה הוחלה כבר נאמר (דניאל ו, יא) די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא,יכול יתפלל אדם לכל רוח שירצה ת"ל (דניאל ו, יא) (לקבל) [נגד] ירושלם,יכול יהא כוללן בבת אחת כבר מפורש ע"י דוד דכתיב (תהלים נה, יח) ערב ובקר וצהרים וגו',יכול ישמיע קולו בתפלתו כבר מפורש על ידי חנה שנאמר (שמואל א א, יג) וקולה לא ישמע,יכול ישאל אדם צרכיו ואח"כ יתפלל כבר מפורש על ידי שלמה שנאמר (מלכים א ח, כח) לשמוע אל הרנה ואל התפלה רנה זו תפלה תפלה זו בקשה אין אומר דבר (בקשה) אחר אמת ויציב אבל אחר התפלה אפי' כסדר וידוי של יה"כ אומר איתמר,נמי אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב אע"פ שאמרו שואל אדם צרכיו בשומע תפלה אם בא לומר אחר תפלתו אפילו כסדר יום הכפורים אומר:, אמר רב המנונא כמה הלכתא גברוותא איכא למשמע מהני קראי דחנה (שמואל א א, יג) וחנה היא מדברת על לבה מכאן למתפלל צריך שיכוין לבו רק שפתיה נעות מכאן למתפלל שיחתוך בשפתיו וקולה לא ישמע מכאן שאסור להגביה קולו בתפלתו ויחשבה עלי לשכורה מכאן ששכור אסור להתפלל,ויאמר אליה עלי עד מתי תשתכרין וגו' א"ר אלעזר מכאן לרואה בחברו | 31a. b He brought a valuable cup worth four hundred i zuz /i and broke it before them and they became sad. /b ,The Gemara also relates: b Rav Ashi made a wedding /b feast b for his son /b and b he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a cup of /b extremely valuable b white glass and broke it before them, and they became sad. /b ,Similarly, the Gemara relates: b The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna Zuti at the wedding /b feast b of Mar, son of Ravina: Let the Master sing for us. /b Since he believed that the merriment had become excessive, b he said to them, /b singing: b Woe unto us, for we shall die, woe unto us, for we shall die. They said to him: What shall we respond after you? /b What is the chorus of the song? b He said to them, /b you should respond: b Where is Torah and where is mitzva that protect us? /b ,In a similar vein, b Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is forbidden to fill his mouth with mirth in this world, /b as long as we are in exile ( i ge’onim /i ), b as it is stated: /b “When the Lord returns the captivity of Zion we will be as dreamers” (Psalms 126:1). Only b “then will our mouths fill with laughter and our lips with song” /b (Psalms 126:2). b When /b will that joyous era arrive? When b “they will say among nations, the Lord has done great things with these” /b (Psalms 126:2). b They said about Reish Lakish that throughout his life he did not fill his mouth with laughter in this world once he heard this /b statement b from his teacher, Rabbi Yoḥa. /b ,We learned in the mishna that it is appropriate to stand and begin to pray from an atmosphere of gravity. Regarding this, b the Sages taught: One /b may b neither stand /b and begin to pray, directly b from /b involvement in b judgment nor /b directly b from /b deliberation over the ruling in a b matter of i halakha /i , /b as his preoccupation with the judgment or the halakhic ruling will distract him from prayer. b Rather /b it is appropriate to pray directly b from /b involvement in the study of b a /b universally accepted b conclusive i halakha /i /b that leaves no room for further deliberation and will not distract him during prayer., b And /b the Gemara asks: b What is an example /b of a b conclusive i halakha /i ? /b ,The Gemara offers several examples: b Abaye said: /b One b like this /b i halakha /i b of Rabbi Zeira, /b as b Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel were stringent with themselves; /b to the extent b that even if they see a drop of blood corresponding to /b the size of b a mustard /b seed b she sits seven clean /b days b for it. /b By Torah law, a woman who witnesses the emission of blood during the eleven days following her fixed menstrual period is not considered a menstruating woman; rather she immerses herself and is purified the next day. However, the women of Israel accepted the stringency upon themselves that if they see any blood whatsoever, they act as it if were the blood of a i zava /i , which obligates her to count seven more clean days before becoming ritually pure (see Leviticus 15:25).,Citing an additional example of a conclusive i halakha /i , b Rava said: /b One b like this /b i halakha /i b of Rav Hoshaya, as Rav Hoshaya said: A person may employ artifice /b to circumvent obligations incumbent b upon /b him in dealing with b his grain and bring it into /b the courtyard b in its chaff so that his animal will eat /b from it, b and /b the grain b is exempt /b from b tithes. /b i Halakha /i dictates that one is obligated to tithe grain that has been threshed and piled, regardless of the ultimate purpose for which the grain was intended. By Torah law, one is exempt from tithing grain that was not threshed and is therefore still in its chaff. By rabbinic law, one is prohibited from eating this grain in the framework of a meal. Feeding animals is permitted without first tithing that grain., b And if you wish, say /b instead yet another example of a conclusive i halakha /i , which is the recommended prelude to prayer. One b like this /b i halakha /i b of Rav Huna, /b as b Rav Huna said /b that b Rabbi Zeira said: One who lets blood from a consecrated animal /b that was consecrated as a sacrifice; deriving b benefit /b from that blood b is prohibited. /b Although blood of an offering that was sprinkled on the altar is not considered Temple property, nevertheless, deriving benefit from the blood of a living, consecrated animal is considered prohibited use of Temple property. In so doing, b one misuses /b property consecrated to the Temple, and as in any other case of misusing Temple property, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering.,It is related that b the Sages acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b our mishna /b and rose to pray from an atmosphere of gravity; b Rav Ashi acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b the i baraita /i /b and preceded his prayer with a conclusive i halakha /i .,On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, b the Sages taught: One may neither stand to pray from /b an atmosphere of b sorrow nor from /b an atmosphere of b laziness, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laughter, nor from /b an atmosphere of b conversation, nor from /b an atmosphere of b frivolity, nor from /b an atmosphere of b purposeless matters. Rather, /b one should approach prayer b from /b an atmosphere imbued with b the joy of a mitzva. /b , b Similarly, a person should neither take leave of another from /b an atmosphere of b conversation, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laughter, nor from /b an atmosphere of b frivolity, nor from /b an atmosphere of b purposeless matters. Rather, /b one should take leave of another b from /b involvement in a b matter of i halakha /i . As we found in /b the books of the Bible dealing with b the early prophets, that they would conclude their talks with words of praise and consolation. /b , b And so Mari, the grandson of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, taught in a i baraita /i : One should only take leave of another from /b involvement in a b matter of i halakha /i , so that, consequently, he will remember him; /b whenever he recalls the one from whom he took leave, he will think well of him because of the new i halakha /i that he taught him ( i Eliyahu Zuta /i )., b As /b in the incident related by the Gemara b that Rav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi from /b the town of b Pum Nahara to the palm grove /b in b Babylonia. When he arrived there, /b Rav Kahana b said to /b Rav Shimi bar Ashi: b Master, what is meant by that which people say: These palm trees /b of b Babylonia have been /b in this place from the time of b Adam the first /b man b until now? /b ,Rav Shimi bar Ashi b said to him: You reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, /b said, b as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is /b the meaning of b that which is written: “In a land through which no man has passed and where no person [ i adam /i ] has settled” /b (Jeremiah 2:6)? This verse is difficult; b since it is /b a land through which b no /b person b has passed, how /b could anyone b have settled /b there permanently? The statement that “no person has settled there” is redundant. b Rather, /b this verse comes b to teach /b that b every land /b through b which Adam the first /b man passed and b decreed that it would be settled was settled, and every land /b through b which /b Adam passed and b decreed that it would not be settled was not settled. /b Based on this, what people say is true, and the palm trees of Babylonia are from the time of Adam, meaning that from the time of Adam this land was decreed to be suitable for growing palm trees ( i Me’iri /i ). The Gemara cited an example of how one who parts from another with Torah learns something new.,Having mentioned the mitzva for a student to accompany his Rabbi, the Gemara relates that b Rav Mordekhai accompanied /b his mentor, b Rav Shimi bar Ashi, /b a great distance, b from /b the city of b Hagronya to Bei Keifei; and some say /b that he accompanied from Hagronya b to Bei Dura. /b ,Returning to the topic of preparation for prayer, b the Sages taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b One who prays must focus his heart toward Heaven. Abba Shaul says: An indication of /b the importance of this b matter /b is stated in the verse: “The desire of the humble You have heard, Lord; b direct their hearts, Your ear will listen” /b (Psalms 10:17). In other words, if one focuses his heart in prayer as a result of God directing his heart, his prayer will be accepted as God’s ear will listen.,With regard to one’s intent during prayer, b it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda said: This was the custom of Rabbi Akiva, when he would pray with the congregation he would shorten /b his prayer b and go up, due to /b his desire to avoid being an b encumbrance on the congregation /b by making them wait for him to finish his prayer. b But when he prayed by himself /b he would extend his prayers to an extent that b a person would leave /b Rabbi Akiva alone b in one corner /b of the study hall b and /b later b find him /b still praying b in another corner. And why /b would Rabbi Akiva move about b so much? Because of his bows and prostrations. /b Rabbi Akiva’s enthusiasm in prayer was so great, that as a result of his bows and prostrations, he would unwittingly move from one corner to the other (Rav Hai Gaon).,Many i halakhot /i are derived from evoking the prayers of biblical characters. b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: One should always pray in a house with windows, as it is stated /b regarding Daniel: “And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went to his house. In his attic b there were open windows /b facing Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he had done before” (Daniel 6:11).,In the i Tosefta /i , additional i halakhot /i were derived from Daniel’s prayer. I b might have /b thought b that one could pray /b as many times as he wishes b throughout the entire day; it has already been articulated by Daniel, /b with regard to whom it is stated: b “And three times /b a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed.” This teaches that there are fixed prayers., b I might have thought that this /b practice of fixed prayer b began /b only b when he came to /b the Babylonian b exile; it was stated: /b “Just b as he had done before.” /b ,Further, I b might have /b thought b that one may pray /b facing b any direction he wishes; the verse states: /b The appropriate direction for prayer is b “facing Jerusalem.” /b ,Daniel does not describe how these three prayers are distributed during the day. I b might have /b thought b that one may include all /b three prayers b at one time; it has already been articulated by David /b that one may not do so, b as it is written: “Evening and morning and noon, /b I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18).,Furthermore, b I might have /b thought b that one may make his voice heard in his /b i Amida /i b prayer; it has already been articulated by Hannah /b in her prayer, b as it is stated: /b “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved b and her voice could not be heard” /b (I Samuel 1:13)., i Halakhot /i regarding the order of the prayers were also learned from the prayers of biblical characters. I b might have /b thought b that one should request his own needs first, and afterwards recite prayers /b of thanksgiving and praise; b it has already been articulated by Solomon /b that this is not so, as in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Holy Temple b it is stated: “To hear the song and the prayer /b that Your servant prays before You today” (I Kings 8:28). In this verse, b song is prayer /b in the sense of thanks and praise, and b prayer is /b one’s b request /b of his personal needs. Therefore, one who is praying b does not speak matters of request after /b he began to recite b i emet veyatziv /i /b prior to the i Amida /i prayer, which is the essence of prayer. Rather, he begins with praise in the first three blessings of the i Amida /i prayer, and only thereafter does he include requests for his needs. b But after the /b i Amida /i b prayer /b there is no limit. If he desires to recite b even the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, /b he may b recite /b it.,This b was also stated /b by an i amora /i ; b Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said /b that b Rav said: Although /b the Sages b said /b that b one requests his /b personal b needs in /b the blessing: b Who listens to prayer, /b that is with regard to one who wishes to do so as part of the i Amida /i prayer. b If he comes /b to add b and recite /b additional requests b after /b completing b his /b i Amida /i b prayer, even /b if his personal requests are b the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, /b he may b recite /b them., b Rav Hamnuna said: How many significant /b i halakhot /i b can be derived from these verses /b of the prayer b of Hannah? /b As it says: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard, so Eli thought her to be drunk” (I Samuel 1:13). The Gemara elaborates: b From /b that which is stated b here: “And Hannah spoke in her heart,” /b the i halakha /i that b one who prays must focus his heart /b on his prayer is derived. And b from /b that which is stated b here: “Only her lips moved,” /b the i halakha /i that b one who prays must enunciate /b the words b with his lips, /b not only contemplate them in his heart, is derived. b From /b that which is written b here: “And her voice could not be heard,” /b the i halakha /i that b one is forbidden to raise his voice in his /b i Amida /i b prayer /b as it must be recited silently. b From /b the continuation of the verse b here: “So Eli thought her to be drunk,” /b the i halakha /i that b a drunk person is forbidden to pray. /b That is why he rebuked her.,On the subject of Eli’s rebuke of Hannah, as it is stated: b “And Eli said to her: How long will you remain drunk? /b Remove your wine from yourself” (I Samuel 1:14); b Rabbi Elazar said: From here /b the i halakha /i that b one who sees in another /b |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magi Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176| 22b. ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה ומשלקה אמדו שיכול הוא לקבל ארבעים פטור:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט אי כתיב ארבעים במספר הוה אמינא ארבעים במניינא השתא דכתיב במספר ארבעים מנין שהוא סוכם את הארבעים אמר רבא כמה טפשאי שאר אינשי דקיימי מקמי ספר תורה ולא קיימי מקמי גברא רבה דאילו בס"ת כתיב ארבעים ואתו רבנן בצרו חדא:,רבי יהודה אומר ארבעים שלימות וכו' [בין כתפיו]: אמר ר' יצחק מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה דכתיב (זכריה יג, ו) מה המכות האלה בין ידיך ואמר אשר הכתי בית מאהבי ורבנן ההוא בתינוקות של בית רבן הוא דכתיב:,אין אומדין אלא במכות הראויות וכו': לקה אין לא לקה לא,ורמינהו אמדוהו לקבל ארבעים וחזרו ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה וחזרו ואמדוהו שיכול לקבל ארבעים פטור,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא דאמדוהו ליומי הא דאמדוהו למחר וליומא אוחרא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big עבר עבירה שיש בה שני לאוין אמדוהו אומד אחד לוקה ופטור ואם לאו לוקה ומתרפא וחוזר ולוקה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big והתניא אין אומדין אומד אחד לשני לאוין,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא דאמדוהו לארבעים וחדא הא דאמדוהו לארבעים ותרתי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כיצד מלקין אותו כופה שתי ידיו על העמוד הילך והילך וחזן הכנסת אוחז בבגדיו אם נקרעו נקרעו ואם נפרמו נפרמו עד שהוא מגלה את לבו והאבן נתונה מאחריו חזן הכנסת עומד עליו ורצועה בידו של עגל כפולה אחד לשנים ושנים לארבעה ושתי רצועות של חמור עולות ויורדות בה ידה טפח ורחבה טפח וראשה מגעת על פי כריסו,ומכה אותו שליש מלפניו ושתי ידות מלאחריו ואינו מכה אותו לא עומד ולא יושב אלא מוטה שנאמר (דברים כה, ב) והפילו השופט,והמכה מכה בידו אחת בכל כחו והקורא קורא (דברים כח, נח) אם לא תשמור לעשות וגו' והפלא ה' את מכותך ואת מכות וגו' וחוזר לתחלת המקרא (דברים כט, ח) ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת וגו' וחותם (תהלים עח, לח) והוא רחום יכפר עון וגו' וחוזר לתחלת המקרא,ואם מת תחת ידו פטור הוסיף לו עוד רצועה אחת ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו נתקלקל בין בריעי בין במים פטור רבי יהודה אומר האיש בריעי והאשה במים: | 22b. b and /b then b they assessed /b him again and concluded b that he cannot receive forty /b lashes and survive, he is b exempt /b from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive /b only b eighteen /b lashes, b and once he was flogged /b eighteen times b they assessed that he is able to receive forty, /b he is b exempt /b from receiving additional lashes., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara begins with a discussion of the number of lashes. b What is the reason /b that the Rabbis said that he receives forty lashes less one? b If it had been written: Forty by number, I would say /b that it means b forty as /b a precise b sum; now that it is written: “By number, forty,” /b the reference is to b a sum that approaches forty. /b Likewise, b Rava said: How foolish /b are b the rest of the people who stand before a Torah scroll /b that passes before them, b and /b yet b they do not stand before a great man, /b when a Sage passes before them; b as in a Torah scroll, forty is written and the Sages came /b and b subtracted one, /b 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: b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b He is flogged with b a full forty /b lashes, with the additional lash administered between his shoulders. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda? /b It is b 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” /b (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. b And /b how do b the Rabbis, /b who hold that one is flogged only thirty-nine lashes, explain this verse? They explain that b this /b verse b is written with regard to schoolchildren /b struck by their teacher for laxity in their studies, and is not referring to lashes administered by the court.,The mishna teaches: b One assesses /b the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding b only with /b a number of b lashes fit /b 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 b he was flogged /b in practice, b yes, /b he is exempt; if b he was not flogged, no, /b he is not exempt from the rest of the forty lashes., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i : If doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive forty /b lashes and survive, b and they then assessed /b him again and concluded b that he cannot receive forty /b lashes and survive, he is b exempt. /b If the doctors initially b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive /b only b eighteen /b lashes, b and they then assessed that he is able to receive forty, /b he is b exempt. /b Apparently, even if he did not receive any lashes, if the assessment changes, it is as though he was flogged., b Rav Sheshet said: /b This is b not difficult, /b as b this /b case in the mishna is one b where /b doctors b assessed his /b fitness to receive lashes b for /b that b day, /b 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. b That /b case in the i baraita /i is one b where /b doctors b assess his /b fitness to receive lashes b for /b the b next day or for a different day. /b 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., strong MISHNA: /strong If b one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, /b and b they assessed /b concerning b him a single assessment /b of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, b he is flogged /b in accordance with their assessment b and /b is b exempt /b from any additional lashes. b And if not, /b if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, b he is flogged and /b is allowed to b heal, and then is flogged /b again for violating the second prohibition., strong GEMARA: /strong The case in the mishna is one where there is one assessment performed for two sets of lashes. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One does not perform one assessment for two prohibitions? /b , b Rav Sheshet said: /b This is b not difficult; this /b ruling in the i baraita /i that one does not perform a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case b where /b doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to /b receive b forty-one /b 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. b That /b ruling in the mishna that one performs a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case b where /b doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to /b receive b forty-two /b 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., strong MISHNA: /strong b How do they flog him? He ties /b the b two hands /b of the person being flogged b on this /b side b and that /b side b of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments /b to remove them. b If they were ripped /b in the process, b they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, /b and he continues b until he bares his chest. And the stone /b upon which the attendant stands when flogging b is situated behind /b the person being flogged. b The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. /b It is a strap b of calf /b hide, and is b doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey /b hide b go up and down /b the doubled strap of calf hide. The length of b its handle /b is b one handbreadth, /b and the b width /b of the straps is b one handbreadth, and /b the strap must be long enough so that b its end reaches the top of his abdomen, /b i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind., b And /b the attendant b flogs him /b with b one-third /b of the lashes b from the front of him, /b on his chest, b and two /b one-third b portions from behind him, /b on his back. b And he does not flog him /b when the one receiving lashes is b standing, nor /b when he is b sitting; rather, /b he flogs him when he is b hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, /b and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down., b And the /b attendant b flogging /b the one receiving lashes b flogs [ i makeh /i ] him with one hand with all his strength, and the /b court b crier recites /b the verses: b “If you do not observe to perform /b 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. b And the Lord will make your plagues [ i makkotekha /i ] outstanding, and the plagues /b of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). b And /b then b he returns to the beginning of the verse. /b He also recites: b “And you shall observe the matters of this covet, /b and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), b and concludes /b with the verse: b “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; /b and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), b and /b then b returns to the beginning of the verse /b that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.”, b If /b the one being flogged b dies at /b the b hand /b of the attendant, the latter is b exempt, /b because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant b added for him an additional /b lash with b a strap and he died, /b the attendant b is exiled /b to a city of refuge b on his account, /b as an unwitting murderer. b If /b the one being flogged involuntarily b sullies himself, /b due to fear or pain, b whether with excrement or with urine, /b he is b exempt /b from further lashes. b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: b The man /b is exempted if he sullies himself b with excrement, and the woman /b is exempted even b with urine. /b |
|
| 24. Yannai, Piyyutim, 19 Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 47 |
