Midrash su Ezechiele 17:13

(Fol. 21) Raba said: "Whence is it intimated in the Torah concerning incest of secondary degrees? (forbidden by Rabbinical enactment). It is said (Lev. 18, 27) For all those gross abominations (ha-ail) have the men of the land done, who were before you; i.e., ha-ail (gross), hence there must also be minor ones. This refers then to incest of secondary degrees. Whence do we know that the word ail refers to something great? It is written (Ez. 17, 13) But the mighty (ai-lay) of the land did he take away." Shall we assume that this is in contradiction to the opinion of R. Levi? for R. Levi said: "The punishment for fraudulent measures is severer than that for incest, for the former, Scripture terms (Lev. 18, 24) Ail, while the latter it terms (Deut. 25, 16) aile." Of course, ail is strong; however, aile is still stronger. But concerning incest it is also written (Lev. 18, 29) aile? This is to exempt fraud measures from Kareth. If so, then in what respect are fraudulent measures severer than incest? In the following: For the crime of incest one is able to offer repentance, but for the crime of fraudulent measures one cannot repent, [because he does not know whom he has cheated] R. Huna said: "We infer [this prohibition concerning incest of secondary degree] from the following, (Ecc. 12, 9) Yea, he pondered and sought out, and set in order many proverbs." Ulla, in the name of R. Elazar, explained it: "Prior to the time of Solomon, the Torah was like a basket without handles, [that could not have been grasped,] but when Solomon came he attached the necessary handles." R. Oshia said: "We infer [the above] from the following (Pr. A, 15) Avoid it, pass not through by it, turn off from it and pass away." R. Ashi said: "Unto what could that of R. Oshia's explanation be likened? Unto a frail man watching a garden; if he watches it from the exterior, the interior is also protected; but if he watches it only from the interior, the exterior is left unprotected." Nevertheless R. Ashi's analogy is false, for there [if one watches from inside of the garden] protection at least is afforded for within, but here if one does not safeguard himself against the incest of secondary degrees he may reach the violation of even a real Ervah. R. Cahana said: "We infer the above from the following (Lev. 18, 30) Therefore shall ye guard My guard; i.e., make a guard which may protect, (enact measures to prevent a transgression of the Biblical law)" "If so," said Abayi to R. Joseph, "then this is Biblical." "Yea, it is Biblical, but it has been explained by the Rabbis." "But the entire law is thus explained by the Rabbis, and why call only this Rabbinical?" We must therefore say that it is catually a Rabbinical law, and the Bible text (quoted) is a mere intimation.

And the mighty of the land He took away (Ezek. 17:13). The mighty here alludes to the nobles of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, concerning whom it is said: Thus saith the Lord, God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I regard the captives of Judah whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for good (Jer. 24:5). And elsewhere it is written: And so the Lord hath hastened the evil and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous in all His works (Dan. 9:14). How can these verses be explained? After all, if the Holy One, blessed be He, is righteous, is it likely that He would hasten the evil and bring it upon us? This verse implies that the Holy One, blessed be He, performed a kindness for Israel by causing the exile of Jehoiachin to precede that of Zedekiah so that the Oral Law might not be forgotten by the Israelites. They resided in Babylon, with their Torah, from that day unto this, and neither Rome nor Greece has ruled them or forced them to convert. What is more, they will not be compelled to experience the trials that will befall mankind preceding the advent of the Messiah, as is said: O Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon (Zech. 2:11). That is, they escaped the decrees imposed by Rome and Greece.

(Fol. 65) We are taught in a Baraitha: whoever makes a vow prohibiting his neighbor to enjoy anything of him cannot get a nullification of that vow except in the presence of the man who was involved in that vow. Whence do we learn this? Said Rab Nachman, and according to others R. Jochanan: "It is written (Ex. 4,19) And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, etc.; i.e., the Lord said unto him: 'In Midian hast thou made a vow and in Midian go and nullify the vow,' as it is written (Ib. 2, 21) And Moses was content (Yoel) to dwell with the man, and the word, yoel [which is the origin of Alla] refers to nothing else but an oath, as it is written (Ez. 17, 13) And bound him with an oath (Alla); and again it is written (Chr. 36, 13) And he also rebelled against King Nebauchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God." What was Zedekiah's rebellion? Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live hare. [Abashed by his action] Nebuchadnezzar said to Zedekiah: "Swear unto me that thou wilt not reveal this against me, so that thou wilt not belittle me [in the eyes of the people."] The latter swore unto him. At the end Zedekiah felt sorry and asked that his oath be nullified. When he revealed the entire incident, Nebuchadnezzar was informed that the sages had disgraced him. Whereupon he sent and brought the Sanhedrin together with Zedekiah, and said to them: "Have you seen what Zedekiah has done? Did he not swear in the name of Heaven that he would not reveal the incident?" Whereupon the Rabbis replied: "He asked for annulment of his oath." Nebuchadnezzar then said to them: "Is it proper to ask for an annulment of an oath?" "Yea," they replied to him. "Is it not necessary that such an annulment should be asked in the presence of him who is involved in the vow?" Nebuchadnezzar asked. "Of course, in his presence," replied the Sanhedrin. "If so, then what have you done? Why have you not told Zedekiah [that he has to get an annulment in my presence]?" Immediately following this (Lam. 2, 10) The elders of the daughters of Zion sit upon the ground, they keep silence. Whereupon R. Isaac said: "From this it might be inferred that they removed the pillows from under their seats."