Talmud su Genesi 33:44

It was stated⁵⁴Tosephta 3:4, Babli 25b.: “If a Gentile is paired with a Jew, he puts him on his right hand side. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, with a sword, at his right; with a staff, at his left⁵⁵Since the sword is girded at his right side and the staff held in his left hand. The Gentile should not have space to swing his weapon.. If he climbs with him to an upper floor or descends to the exit, the Jew should be higher and the Gentile below. He should not lie down before him lest he smite his skull. And he should extend the way to him, that if he asks him where he goes he should indicate a farther distance, as our father Jacob did with Esau, until I shall come to my Lord at Seir⁵⁶Gen. 33:14.. But he went to Sukkot. Rebbi Huna said, we do not find that our father Jacob went to Seir. Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi [Aivo]⁵⁷Added from G, missing in L., he spoke to him of the future world, when saviors will climb on Mount Sion to judge Mount Esau.⁵⁸Ob. 21.”

BARAITHA. Subordinate your will to the will of Heaven; for so we find that Jacob did not kiss Joseph.
GEMARA. Why did he not kiss him? He thought that, since he was away from home, women may have led him astray because of his beauty; as it is written, And he presented himself unto him, and fell on his neck.¹²¹Gen. 46, 29, which does not mention Jacob kissing his son. [Joseph] wanted to kiss him but he would not let him do so, as it is written, And he wept on his neck a good while.¹²²ibid., a good while is explained that Joseph kept on weeping but Jacob still did not kiss him. That is to say, he [only] kissed him when he died, as it is written, And wept upon him, and kissed him.¹²³ibid. L, 1. Joseph said, ‘Thirty-nine years have [passed] before him¹²⁴i.e. it was thirty-nine years since Joseph left home. As Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years (ibid. XLVII, 28), Joseph must have been separated from his father twenty-two years. and I have not kissed my father’s mouth, and now shall I bury him without kissing him?’ That is the meaning of what is written, And Israel beheld Joseph’s sons and said: Who are these?¹²⁵ibid. XLVIII, 8. Did he not know until then who they were? But [Jacob] inquired of him whether they had been born in wedlock,¹²⁶lit. ‘with a kethubah’, i.e. according to the Hebrew marriage law. and when he showed him the kethubah his mind became at rest and he kissed them for the sake of Joseph.
Raba said: Infer from this that [Joseph] was aroused sexually by her;¹²⁷viz. Potiphar’s wife (ibid. XXXIX, 7ff), otherwise Jacob would not have doubted Joseph’s moral purity. for should you say that he was not aroused by her, it has been taught:¹²⁸B.M. 83b (Sonc. ed., pp. 478f.). The reference is to the story of R. Eleazar b. Simeon, who had a man arrested because of his insolence towards him and subsequently hanged. R. Eleazar regretted his action, but was assured by his disciples that the man must have been guilty of a capital crime. On hearing this, he felt relieved and reassured that his own body would not decompose after his death. He laid his hand upon his heart¹²⁹lit. ‘his inwards’, and similarly in the continuation. and exclaimed, ‘Rejoice my heart, rejoice my heart! If matters about which you are doubtful are so,¹³⁰i.e. seem to be just. He was doubtful whether the man deserved hanging. how much more those about which you are certain! I am confident that neither worms nor decay will have power over you’. He applied to himself the verse, My flesh also dwelleth in safety.¹³¹Ps. 16, 9. Now he¹³²viz. R. Eleazar; and yet he felt assured that the worms would have no power over his body. is not mentioned among those [over whom the worms have no dominion],¹³³Cf. B.B. 17a (Sonc. ed., p. 86): ‘There are seven over whom the worms had no dominion, viz. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and Benjamin, son of Jacob’. how much more so Jacob who is mentioned!¹³⁴How could Jacob then doubt the innocence of Joseph, seeing that the sin of suspecting the innocent would have lost him that privilege? Therefore [we must say] that Jacob held back from kissing Joseph because of what he saw by means of the Holy Spirit.¹³⁵He was inspired by God to do so in order that Joseph should not communicate her moral impurity to him. And where is this¹³⁶Joseph’s moral impurity. alluded to? As it is written, But his¹³⁷i.e. Joseph’s. bow abode firm;¹³⁸Gen. 49, 24. The word bow is found in both the passages cited. On the exegetical rule of Gezerah Shawah, inference from analogous phraseology, what applies to one applies also to the other. In Hab. the bow is described as being bare, ‘eryah, which is equated with ‘erwah, ‘forbidden intercourse’. Consequently the use of bow in connection with Joseph indicates that there was an occasion when he was aroused sinfully. and it is written there, Thy bow is made quite bare.¹³⁹Hab. 3, 9. The Heb. maṭṭeh can mean ‘rod’ or ‘tribe’. The Rabbinic interpretation is that God swore to Jacob that the tribes descended from him would be pure. What caused him to be saved? Sworn are the rods of the word. Selah. What is the meaning of Selah?¹⁴⁰The word. Selah is by a process of analogy equated with the words the God of Jacob … Selah; that is to say, the word sworn by the God of Jacob to him. It is to be taken in the sense of The God of Jacob … Selah.¹⁴¹Ps. 46, 12. It was quoted in refutation, And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him¹⁴²Gen. 29, 13.—is not this a case where an inference from minor to major is to be drawn? If of Laban who kissed idols and harlots it is so written,¹⁴³That he kissed Jacob. Joseph who did not kiss these [yet did not kiss Jacob]! Perhaps the verse should not have written this, but it points to Jacob’s merit. [It indicates,] And he [Laban] ran to meet him, i.e. he wanted to kiss him but [Jacob] would not permit him; he then embraced him again to kiss him, whereupon he struck [Laban] on his cheek. This may be proved from the fact that it is written wayyenashsheḳ¹⁴⁴There are two Heb. roots with the same letters, one meaning ‘to kiss’ and the other ‘to be equipped with weapons’, and the verb in the verse is given the second sense, i.e. he attacked him. and not wayyishshaḳ. Hence it is proved; here it is written, And he kissed them¹⁴⁵Gen. 48, 10, where the verb is wayyishshaḳ and denotes an expression of love. and [continues], And embraced them.
What is the difference between wayyishshaḳ and wayyenashsheḳ? The latter¹⁴⁶Which is an intensive form of the verb. indicates [kissing] with the whole body, the former [only] with the mouth. Whence do we know that this is so? For it is written, He kisses [yishshaḳ] the lips that giveth a right answer.¹⁴⁷Prov. 24, 26. Wherever wayyishshaḳ occurs it denotes a [light] impress to be added to the count.¹⁴⁸A single gesture which may form part of a further display of affection subsequently. Come and hear: [It is stated,] And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him.¹⁴⁹Gen. 33, 4, the verb being wayyishshaḳ. Is not this [act of kissing] similar to what Laban did? The reply is: Go and see how many teeth were dug into him.¹⁵⁰In the Heb. text the word has dots over the letters, which are taken by the Midrash to indicate that Esau’s real intention was to bite Jacob. [Cf. ARN, p. 165.] And why? Because he [really] wanted to bite him, but at the time his teeth became as [soft as] wax and he knocked his jaws against Jacob’s neck and became weak. To that episode David alluded when he said, Arise, O Lord; save me, O my God; for Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek, Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked.¹⁵¹Ps. 3, 8.

In Lord of lords,²¹Deut. 10, 17. the first is sacred and the second is secular; in the God of Abraham²²Gen. 31, 53. it is sacred; in the God of Nahor²³ibid.; Nahor did not worship the true God. it is secular; in the God of their father²⁴ibid.; Terah (their father) was an idolater. it is secular. In Thou shalt not revile God²⁵Ex. 22, 27. [the noun may bear] a sacred or secular meaning.²⁶It may denote God or judges. R. Simeon maintains that the noun is sacred.²⁷V inserts ‘as it says’ within brackets, the words being redundant. [H omits and reads ‘Ishmael’ instead of ‘Simeon’.] In Forasmuch as I have seen thy face, as one seeth the face of God²⁸Gen. 33, 10. the noun is secular;²⁹Because it refers to an angel or prince. in God’s camp³⁰ibid. XXXII, 3. the noun is sacred.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man¹⁹²Deut. 25:5. The verse reads לֹא־תִהְיָה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. In the masoretic text, הַחוּצָה is adverbial לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר and therefore is stressed on the penultimate syllable. The House of Shammai read an unlikely adjective לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. Following masoretic grammar, הַחוּצָה then should be stressed on the last syllable. As E. Y. Kutscher has shown in his study of the Isaiah scroll, one may assume that in the last century of the Jewish state the stress was penultimate irrespective of meaning. Therefore, in Mishnaic times there may not have been an audible difference between the two versions.
The House of Shammai would translate: “The deceased man’s wife who is outside [the family of the levir] shall not be to a strange man,” implying that only the widow who already belongs to the levir’s family is free from the obligations of the levirate. The argument is quoted in the Babli, 13b.,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one¹⁹³Having received qiddushin but not yet finally married, she is not yet part of the family. This interpretation avoids any appearance of conflict between Lev. 18:16, declaring relations with the brother’s wife incestuous, and Deut. 25:5, requiring marriage to the brother’s wife.
In rabbinic Hebrew, ארוסה “the betrothed one”, is a seldom used synonym of מקודשת “who had received qiddushin”..” How do the House of Shammai¹⁹⁴The commentators want to replace “House of Shammai” by “Samaritans”, but it was stated before that the House of Shammai accepts the reading of the Samaritans while giving it another interpretation. confirm “when he has no child¹⁹⁵Deut. 25:5. You do not expect a man to have a child before marriage.”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.¹⁹⁶In this interpretation, the “outside” wife is the woman betrothed, legally a wife, but not married to live in her husband’s family. For them, a woman widowed after marriage is never subject to levirate, only one becoming a widow from betrothal to a childless man. This eliminates any conflict between Deut. 25:5 and Lev. 18:16. The practice of the Samaritans is confirmed in the Babli, Qiddušin 75b–76a.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir¹⁹⁷Gen. 33:16. שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth¹⁹⁸Gen. 33:17. סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה¹⁹⁹Ps. 9:18; one of the two signs of direction is superfluous..” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space²⁰⁰Greek δίαιτα. in Sheol.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man¹⁹²Deut. 25:5. The verse reads לֹא־תִהְיָה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. In the masoretic text, הַחוּצָה is adverbial לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר and therefore is stressed on the penultimate syllable. The House of Shammai read an unlikely adjective לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. Following masoretic grammar, הַחוּצָה then should be stressed on the last syllable. As E. Y. Kutscher has shown in his study of the Isaiah scroll, one may assume that in the last century of the Jewish state the stress was penultimate irrespective of meaning. Therefore, in Mishnaic times there may not have been an audible difference between the two versions.
The House of Shammai would translate: “The deceased man’s wife who is outside [the family of the levir] shall not be to a strange man,” implying that only the widow who already belongs to the levir’s family is free from the obligations of the levirate. The argument is quoted in the Babli, 13b.,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one¹⁹³Having received qiddushin but not yet finally married, she is not yet part of the family. This interpretation avoids any appearance of conflict between Lev. 18:16, declaring relations with the brother’s wife incestuous, and Deut. 25:5, requiring marriage to the brother’s wife.
In rabbinic Hebrew, ארוסה “the betrothed one”, is a seldom used synonym of מקודשת “who had received qiddushin”..” How do the House of Shammai¹⁹⁴The commentators want to replace “House of Shammai” by “Samaritans”, but it was stated before that the House of Shammai accepts the reading of the Samaritans while giving it another interpretation. confirm “when he has no child¹⁹⁵Deut. 25:5. You do not expect a man to have a child before marriage.”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.¹⁹⁶In this interpretation, the “outside” wife is the woman betrothed, legally a wife, but not married to live in her husband’s family. For them, a woman widowed after marriage is never subject to levirate, only one becoming a widow from betrothal to a childless man. This eliminates any conflict between Deut. 25:5 and Lev. 18:16. The practice of the Samaritans is confirmed in the Babli, Qiddušin 75b–76a.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir¹⁹⁷Gen. 33:16. שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth¹⁹⁸Gen. 33:17. סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה¹⁹⁹Ps. 9:18; one of the two signs of direction is superfluous..” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space²⁰⁰Greek δίαιτα. in Sheol.

‘In which way should one honour his teacher’, etc.? It has been taught:¹⁹B.M. 86b-87a (Sonc. ed., p. 500). Michael came to bring good tidings to Sarah,²⁰That a son would be born to her. Gabriel to overthrow Sodom, and Raphael to heal Abraham.²¹Of the effects of his circumcision. Some say that Raphael came to bring good tidings to Sarah and to heal,²²Abimelech. as it is stated, And God healed Abimelech,²³Gen. 20, 17. Michael and Gabriel to overthrow Sodom. What is the reason for the first view? [Because it is stated,] And He overthrew those cities.²⁴ibid. XIX, 25, where the verb is singular. And what is the reason for the opinion of the others? [Because it is stated,] And the two angels came to Sodom.²⁵ibid. 1. Why is it that with Abraham [the angels said], So do, as thou hast said,²⁶ibid. XVIII, 5. but with Lot, Nay; but we will abide in the broad place all night?²⁷ibid. XIX, 2. R. Eleazar said: Infer from this that one may display reluctance²⁸By refusing his invitation. towards an inferior but not a superior. The Rabbis taught:²⁹Suk. 52b (Sonc. ed., p. 251), an explanation of the seven shepherds of whom Micah 5, 4. speaks. In the time to come the son of David will be in the middle, Adam, Seth and Methuselah on his right, and Abraham, Jacob and Moses on his left. Why is Isaac omitted? Raba said: Isaac is better than they because to him all Israel declare, For thou art our Father.³⁰Isa. 63, 16. For the allusion, cf. Shab. 89b (Sonc. ed., p. 426). If so, Esau ascended into Paradise.³¹Since he was Isaac’s son. That is why Scripture states, For thou art our Father: children are like their father—as the father did not repudiate the covenant so too the children. And whence do we know this? It is stated, I will prepare thee unto blood, and blood shall pursue thee; surely thou hast hated thine own blood, therefore blood shall pursue thee.³²Ezek. 35, 6. Ezekiel’s prophecy is directed against Mount Seir, the home of Esau (cf. Gen. 33, 16). Did Esau hate blood? Were not all his deeds connected with the shedding of blood, as it is stated, He is like a lion that is eager to tear in pieces, and like a young lion lurking in secret places?³³Ps. 17, 12. Like is dimyono in the Heb. and is spelt without the waw. Whence do you infer this? Perhaps he was only out to rob? No, since it states dimyeno and not dimyono;³⁴This form of the word is understood as being more closely connected with dam, ‘blood’. so draw this conclusion.

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).