Talmud sobre Exodo 22:19

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily²⁸Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work²⁹Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned³⁰Ex. 22:19. This explains the punishment for idolatrous acts forbidden in the Second Commandment. This is the interpretation in all of talmudic literature (Babli Sanhedrin 60b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 310, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.) (Nowhere in rabbinic literature does one find the more obvious explanation of Ex. 22:19: “Anyone sacrificing to the Elohim (God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world) shall be banned, only to YHWH (God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace) alone.” In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.}.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaïtic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ויקהל.. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements³³Num. 35:29. The quote is correct in Šabbat..” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9th rule., and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

A slave may be a permanent sojourner⁴¹A slave may refuse to be circumcised and stay in the Jewish household as a “sojourner”, a Gentile who has accepted the seven Noahide commandments (prohibition of idolatry, murder, adultery and incest with direct descendents; eating flesh torn from living beings, blasphemy; prohibition of robbery, duty to live under the rule of a civil law). As such he is under the protection of the often repeated commandment to treat the sojourner well and he can be tolerated in a Jewish household since his touch does not make wine prohibited (Babli Avodah zarah 64b).
In the Babli, 48b, this is the position taken by R. Ismael; R. Aqiba (48b) and R. Eliezer (71a) prohibit keeping uncircumcised slaves.. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect⁴²This is not meant to be a generally valid statement; the idolator is not protected by the Covenant of the sojourner. What is meant is a rather technical detail. It is stated repeatedly in the Torah, e. g. Deut. 13:18, that statues and other idolatrous objects are prohibited for any use by a Jew. Therefore, valuables of an idolatrous character may only be used by Jews (for example, melted down for their precious metal content) if they come into the hand of a Jew already profaned, i. e., if a non-Jew has treated them contemptuously, preferably damaging them. The Yerushalmi holds that the sojourner still has the power of a Gentile to render profane objects of idolatry even though he is a monotheist, and make them available for a Jew to use. The Babli, Avodah zarah 64b/65a, explains away all the reasons quoted in this paragraph and decides that only an idolator can effectively render idols profane.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects⁴³This statement, that the status of sojourner is only temporary and should lead to full conversion is not found anywhere else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat⁴⁴In the Babli, Avodah zarah 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it⁴⁵Deut. 14:21: “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it, or sell it to a stranger.” This seems to imply that cadaver meat must be donated to the sojourner or sold to the Gentile. Whether it may be sold to the sojourner or donated to the Gentile is a matter of controversy in the Babli (Pesaḥim 21b, Avodah zarah 20a) and Sifry Deut # 104. R. Hila wants to decide following the majority that a sale to the sojourner is permitted..” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah⁴⁴In the Babli, Avodah zarah 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry⁴⁶In the Babli Avodah zarah 64b, this is the opinion of R. Meïr. The operative majority opinion there, that he has to accept all seven Noahide commandments, is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile⁴⁷This is the same statement as the preceding one, only it emphasizes that the sojourner has not lost his power to render idols profane which was his as an idolator.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden⁴⁸The Noahide precepts are supposed to be valid for all mankind. idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress⁴⁹Deut. 24:14: “Do not oppress the poor hireling, or the deprived, from your brothers or the stranger in your land, in your gates.” The stranger who has the right of permanent residence in your gates is the approved sojourner., do not cheat⁵⁰Deut. 23:17: “With you he shall dwell in your midst, at the place which he will chose, where he feels well within one of your gates; do not cheat him.”, and he is exiled like an Israel⁵¹The exile of the homicide to one of the cities of refuge, Num. 35:15: “For the children of Israel and the sojourner in their midst should these six cities be a refuge.”, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated⁵²More explicit in Babli Baba meṣi‘a 111b, Tosephta Baba meṣi‘a 10:4. In the latter source, it is explained that the prohibition of oppression includes the obligation to pay the day-laborer immediately.: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

He who passes by a pagan temple says (Prov. 15:25): “The Eternal will tear down the house of the haughty.” Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Abun, in the name of Rebbi Levi: “If he saw them sacrificing⁷⁵This is the reading of the Rome manuscript. The Venice print has מזבלין “bringing manure,” meaning the same, but using language of contempt. to an idol, he says (Ex. 22:19): He who sacrifices to gods shall be devoted to destruction.”

What is the fence that Moses made around his words? It says (Exodus 19:10), “The Eternal said to Moses: Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow.” But Moses the Righteous did not want to say this to them the way that the Holy Blessed One said it to him. So instead he said this to them (Exodus 19:15): “Prepare yourselves: for three days do not go near a woman.” Moses added an extra day for them on his own. (For this is what) Moses reasoned [to himself]: A man will go be with his wife [on the first day] and then his semen will come out of her on the third day, and then they will be [ritually] impure. And so Israel will receive words of Torah from Mount Sinai while in a state of impurity! Instead, I will add a third day for them (so that no man goes to be with his wife, and no semen will come out of her on the third day), and they will be [ritually] pure (and so they will receive Torah from Mount Sinai in a state of purity).
This is one of the things that Moses decided on his own (as a more strict ruling), and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He broke the tablets, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed apart from his wife, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. How so? He said to himself: If Israel need only remain in a state of holiness for a short period of time, and need only be ready to receive the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Exodus 19:10), “Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow”; then I, who am appointed [to receive the Divine Countenance] every day, at every moment, and do not know when He will speak with me, nor whether it will be during the day or at night – all the more so must I stay apart from my wife! And his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira said: He did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Numbers 12:8), “Mouth to mouth I speak to him”; that is, mouth to mouth I told him to stay apart from his wife, and so he did. Another opinion also held that Moses did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, [but derived it instead from these verses] (Deuteronomy 5:27–28): “Go and tell them to return to their tents,” and then after that it says, “But you stay here with Me.” So [Moses] returned [to God] and stayed apart [from his wife], and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting. How so? He said to himself: If my brother Aaron, who was anointed with the anointing oil, and wrapped in [the priestly] garments, and is able to use all these things in a state of holiness, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Leviticus 16:2), “Tell your brother Aaron he may not come any time he wishes into the Sanctuary”; then I, who am never allowed in – all the more so should I stay outside the Tent of Meeting! So he stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He broke the tablets. How so? They say that when Moses went up on High to receive the tablets, he found that they had already been written and set aside during the six days of Creation, as it says (Exodus 32:16), “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was God’s writing, engraved there upon the tablets.” (Do not read “engraved” [harut], but “freedom” [herut], for anyone who labors in Torah makes himself a free man.) At that moment, the angels who serve God pinned an accusation on Moses, saying: Master of the World, [it says] (Psalms 8:5–9), “What is the human that You should be mindful of him, the son of man that You should take note of him? You have made him a little less than God, and crowned him with glory and splendor. You have set him up to rule over Your handiwork. The world is beneath Your feet. Sheep and oxen, and all of them, and wild beasts as well. The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea.” So they spoke behind Moses’ back and asked: Why is this one, born of an earthly woman, worthy of ascending to the heights? as it says (Psalms 68:19), “You went up to the heights, having taken captives, having taken gifts.” He took them and went down, and was overjoyed. But when he saw that they were disgracing themselves with the Golden Calf, he said to himself: How can I give them these tablets? I will be binding them in serious commandments, and causing them to deserve death from Above! For it is written on these tablets, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). So he started to go back up. The seventy elders saw him and ran after him. He was holding on to one end of the tablets, and they grabbed on to the other end. But Moses’ strength was greater than all of theirs, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “And for all the awesome power that Moses displayed before all of Israel.” (He looked and saw that the writing was flying off them, and he said: How can I give these tablets to Israel? For there is nothing on them! So instead, I will take ahold of them and smash them, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I grabbed the two tablets, and I cast them out of my two hands, and I broke them.”) Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says: I will give you a parable. To what can this be compared? [It can be compared] to a human king who said to his messenger: Go out and betroth to me a beautiful, gracious maiden, whose deeds are lovely. The messenger went and betrothed such a woman. But after he betrothed her, he went and found her cheating with someone else. He made an instant (a fortiori) judgment with himself and said: If I give her the marriage contract now, she will immediately deserve death. [So let her instead] be released from my master forever. So, too, did Moses the Righteous make an (a fortiori) judgment with himself, and said: How can I give these tablets to Israel and bind them in serious commandments and cause them to deserve death? For it is written upon them (Exodus 22:19), “One who sacrifices to any gods other than the Eternal alone will be put to death.” So instead (I will take ahold of them and smash them, and thereby return the people to good standing, lest Israel say: Where are the first tablets that you brought down? These things are counterfeit! Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Numbers 12:8], “Mouth to mouth I speak to him” – that is, mouth to mouth I said to him: Break the tablets!) And there are others who say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 9:16), “I saw there that you had sinned against the Eternal your God.” It says only, “I saw there,” because he saw the writing flying off [the tablets]. Others say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 10:5), “[The tablets] were there, as the Eternal had commanded me.” It says only, “commanded me,” because [first] he was commanded to [break them], and then he broke them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “…that Moses performed before all of Israel.” Just as later on he was commanded and then did, so too here, he was commanded and then did. (Rabbi Akiva says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I took ahold of the two tablets.” A person can take ahold only of that which he has been permitted by his Creator. Rabbi Meir says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 10:2], “That [asher] which you broke”: Well done [yishar koach] that you broke them!)¹Rashi says the language of asher, “that,” is like the language of ishur, “permission.” I think it more likely that the text is making a play on words between asher and yishar [koah], “well done.” [trans.]

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily¹²⁹Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work¹³⁰Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned¹²⁴Ex. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything¹³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9^th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath¹³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaitic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Wayyaqhel.. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements¹³³Num. 35:29.. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity,¹³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9^th rule. and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs¹³⁵It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶²Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.