Talmud su Geremia 17:78
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
HALAKHAH: 25For this and the following paragraphs there exists a reasonably complete Genizah text (G) edited by L. Ginzberg (שרידי ירושלמי New York 1909 p. 62). A slightly garbled parallel is in Ševuot 1:1, explained there in Notes 5–20. The Notes here are restricted to references and short explanations.“Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following26Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability27For R. Abba, there is a difference between the Mishnaiot in Šabbat and Ševuot in that in the case here at least one person involved always is not liable whereas in Ševuot only one person is mentioned and all cases are of liability. For R. Yose, the parallel is only that of Mishnaiot 1–2, not 3–4. Each Mishnah describes two cases of liability; these are two covering in all four cases of liability as in Ševuot 1:1.. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated28Mishnah Middot 4:1. The Mishnah is purely descriptive of the construction of Herod’s Temple; the notions of liability or no liability are inappropriate., “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability29There are four cases in the Mishnah where one party is liable and the other is not involved. Then there are four cases in which both parties are involved but nobody is criminally liable. One might construct another four cases where nobody is liable; e. g., if the poor man reaches into the house, picks something up, which the householder then takes from his hand and deposits outside.? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted30Since in Mishnaiot 1–2 only one person acts, it is inappropriate to apply the label “not liable” to the other person. Babli 2b/3a.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two31In G, Ševuot 1:1, editio princeps, and a quote in RITBA Ševuot 1:1: “Taking out or bringing in are two but the Sages counted them as one.” As noted later in this paragraph, taking out is called work by Jeremiah (which cannot be used as a legal text but is confirmation of the interpretation of the law) whereas bringing in is only forbidden by the argument that taking out from A to B is bringing in to B from A.. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable32Even an intrinsic liability can be prosecuted only if a minimal amount was transported, which for food is determined as the size of a dried fig (Chapters 7–8). Since taking out and bringing in small quantities are to be combined, taking out and bringing in are representatives of one and the same action, viz., transporting.. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan33In Ševuot 1:1 and the Babli (6b): R. Joḥanan; quoted without attribution by R. Ḥananel Šabbat 3b; in a number of Medieval sources R. Jonathan. understood it from the following34Ex. 36:6. Babli 96a.: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah35Missing in Ševuot. In G, R, Aḥa in the name or R. Ila; in Sefer Haˋittim (ed. Mekize Nirdamim p. 300) R. Aḥa in the name of R. Ḥiyya. In Sefer Miṣwot Gadol #65, (part 1, fol. 17a in Venice edition) R. Ḥiyya in the name of R. Aḥa. in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following36Jer. 17:22.: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. 5This paragraph is a slightly garbled copy of the first paragraph in Tractate Šabbat 1:1, of which there exists a Genizah parallel (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 62). The text in Šabbat is original since in both versions, “here” refers to Šabbat while “there” refers to Ševuot, and in addition, the statement of R. Ba logically has to precede that of R. Yose as in the Šabbat text. Probably the scribe of the Ševuot text available to the Leiden ms.’s scribe had omitted the statement of R. Ba and added it in the text when he noticed the omission. S. Liebermann, in his Commentary to the Yerushalmi Šabbat (Hayerushalmi Kipshuto, New York 1995, Jerusalem 1935) holds that the source is Ševuot. This is difficult to accept; the text is from Šabbat but the problem is the discrepancy in meaning of the same expression “two which are four” used in very different meanings in our Mishnah.
The problem starts with the rather complicated language of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1: “There are two cases which are four for exporting and two cases which are four for importing.” The Mishnah then goes on to explain that if a rich person, the owner, stands at the window of a house (which is a private domain) and a poor person stands in the street (the public domain), if then the rich person delivers an object to the poor outside, or the poor reaches inside and takes the object, the person acting is liable to prosecution but the other is not liable. (In fact, the passive participant never did do anything; the expression “not liable to prosecution” is inappropriate.) But if the rich person lifted the object, kept it moving all the time, and handed it to the poor who put it down, nobody is liable since nobody completed a forbidden act. The same naturally applies if the poor takes up a package and keeps it moving until the the owner of the house takes it and puts it down. In this case, the qualification as “not liable” is appropriate since both participants violated a Sabbath prohibition.
The question now arises whether the formulation “two which are four” always implies that the status of the two additional cases is different from the two original ones since in our Mishnah the same expression is used for oaths and Sabbath violations. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability6S. Liebermann (Note 5) proposes to delete “four which are not liable” as induced by the preceding statement about “two and two” even though the text is common to all three versions at our disposal and it is difficult to assume that the redundant text was taught in the Galilean Academy. For the rules of the Sabbath, the case is simple and there is no redundancy. In the formulation of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 there are four cases of liability, rich or poor taking out or rich or poor bringing in. There are also four cases where there is no liability, depending on who takes up the object first and who takes over, and what the direction of the move is. The question now is raised whether a similar case can be made for the first clause in Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc.7The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability8Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability8Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.. 7The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four9This baraita refers to Mishnah Middot 4:1 which explains that the entrance gate to the Temple hall was built in the manner of a city gate, a thick wall closed by an outer double door opening to the outside and an inner two-winged door opening to the inside. The expression “two doors which are four” is simply the description of the structure of the building.? Can you say, liability and no liability10This is inappropriate here.? Should we state twelve cases of no liability11Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 counts four actions for which one is liable (complete actions, export and import for the rich person, export and import for the poor.) Then it counts four cases for which one is not liable, but since for any incomplete action one is not liable one could consider the possibility that the poor man reaches into the house, lifts the object which the rich then takes up and deposits on the outside. A similar convoluted action is possible for import; two actions for two actors each result in four non-liabilities.? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability12Only those cases are counted where a direct action, resulting in liability if executed by one person, imply no liability if done by two. The convoluted cases of Note 11 are not noted since they do not correspond to a case that could involve only one actor.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada13In Šabbat: bar Abba. In the Babli, Šabbat 2b/3a, the argument is by Babylonian Amoraim. said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted14The expression “no liability” is used in Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 in two completely different senses. As noted earlier (Note 5) if the complete action is performed by one person, the other one is passive and does not infringe on any law; at all times everything he does is permitted. But if the action is completed by two persons, both sinned. While they are not liable for a sacrifice or punishment, they require repentance and Heaven’s forgiveness.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one15Since both the rich man and the poor are described as executing the same actions, there is no intrinsic reason why they should be considered separately. It only is to emphasize the importance of the rules of transporting on the Sabbath. But, as will be shown in the sequel, not to bring out is a direct biblical command while not bringing into a private domain from the public one is an inference; the rules of importing must be transferred from those of exporting.
In Šabbat, the Genizah text and the first hand of the Leiden ms. read “Exporting or importing are one but the Sages counted them as two” but as S. Liebermann (Note 5) has noted, the reading here is supported by early Medieval quotes.. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing16Since there are no verses spelling out the prohibition of carrying from the public domain to a private one.. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports17Importing into one domain is exporting from another. There seems to be no reason to make a distinction between domains (even though there is a big difference since in a private domain one may carry without restriction but in the public domain only for a distance of less than 4 cubits.)? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable18While any transport from one domain to another on the Sabbath is sinful, it creates a liability only if the object is of a minimal size (Šabbat Chapters 7–8). For solid food, the minimum is fixed at the volume of a dried fig. The two actions mentioned will combine if there was continuous awareness of the Sabbath prohibitions.. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,19Ex. 36:6. The verse speaks of donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. The Babli (Šabbat 96b) finds a tenuous connection with the Sabbath by a gezerah šawah, concurrent use of words.” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.20Jer. 17:22. While prophetic books are not sources of law, they are authentic evidence for the understanding of the Torah by the teachers of past generations. It is proved that in the understanding of Jeremiah (whose student Barukh ben Neriah is credited with bringing the study of Torah to Babylonia) moving objects from a private to the public domain is a violation of biblical law. This supports the interpretation of Ex. 36:6.”
The problem starts with the rather complicated language of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1: “There are two cases which are four for exporting and two cases which are four for importing.” The Mishnah then goes on to explain that if a rich person, the owner, stands at the window of a house (which is a private domain) and a poor person stands in the street (the public domain), if then the rich person delivers an object to the poor outside, or the poor reaches inside and takes the object, the person acting is liable to prosecution but the other is not liable. (In fact, the passive participant never did do anything; the expression “not liable to prosecution” is inappropriate.) But if the rich person lifted the object, kept it moving all the time, and handed it to the poor who put it down, nobody is liable since nobody completed a forbidden act. The same naturally applies if the poor takes up a package and keeps it moving until the the owner of the house takes it and puts it down. In this case, the qualification as “not liable” is appropriate since both participants violated a Sabbath prohibition.
The question now arises whether the formulation “two which are four” always implies that the status of the two additional cases is different from the two original ones since in our Mishnah the same expression is used for oaths and Sabbath violations. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability6S. Liebermann (Note 5) proposes to delete “four which are not liable” as induced by the preceding statement about “two and two” even though the text is common to all three versions at our disposal and it is difficult to assume that the redundant text was taught in the Galilean Academy. For the rules of the Sabbath, the case is simple and there is no redundancy. In the formulation of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 there are four cases of liability, rich or poor taking out or rich or poor bringing in. There are also four cases where there is no liability, depending on who takes up the object first and who takes over, and what the direction of the move is. The question now is raised whether a similar case can be made for the first clause in Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc.7The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability8Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability8Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.. 7The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four9This baraita refers to Mishnah Middot 4:1 which explains that the entrance gate to the Temple hall was built in the manner of a city gate, a thick wall closed by an outer double door opening to the outside and an inner two-winged door opening to the inside. The expression “two doors which are four” is simply the description of the structure of the building.? Can you say, liability and no liability10This is inappropriate here.? Should we state twelve cases of no liability11Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 counts four actions for which one is liable (complete actions, export and import for the rich person, export and import for the poor.) Then it counts four cases for which one is not liable, but since for any incomplete action one is not liable one could consider the possibility that the poor man reaches into the house, lifts the object which the rich then takes up and deposits on the outside. A similar convoluted action is possible for import; two actions for two actors each result in four non-liabilities.? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability12Only those cases are counted where a direct action, resulting in liability if executed by one person, imply no liability if done by two. The convoluted cases of Note 11 are not noted since they do not correspond to a case that could involve only one actor.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada13In Šabbat: bar Abba. In the Babli, Šabbat 2b/3a, the argument is by Babylonian Amoraim. said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted14The expression “no liability” is used in Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 in two completely different senses. As noted earlier (Note 5) if the complete action is performed by one person, the other one is passive and does not infringe on any law; at all times everything he does is permitted. But if the action is completed by two persons, both sinned. While they are not liable for a sacrifice or punishment, they require repentance and Heaven’s forgiveness.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one15Since both the rich man and the poor are described as executing the same actions, there is no intrinsic reason why they should be considered separately. It only is to emphasize the importance of the rules of transporting on the Sabbath. But, as will be shown in the sequel, not to bring out is a direct biblical command while not bringing into a private domain from the public one is an inference; the rules of importing must be transferred from those of exporting.
In Šabbat, the Genizah text and the first hand of the Leiden ms. read “Exporting or importing are one but the Sages counted them as two” but as S. Liebermann (Note 5) has noted, the reading here is supported by early Medieval quotes.. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing16Since there are no verses spelling out the prohibition of carrying from the public domain to a private one.. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports17Importing into one domain is exporting from another. There seems to be no reason to make a distinction between domains (even though there is a big difference since in a private domain one may carry without restriction but in the public domain only for a distance of less than 4 cubits.)? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable18While any transport from one domain to another on the Sabbath is sinful, it creates a liability only if the object is of a minimal size (Šabbat Chapters 7–8). For solid food, the minimum is fixed at the volume of a dried fig. The two actions mentioned will combine if there was continuous awareness of the Sabbath prohibitions.. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,19Ex. 36:6. The verse speaks of donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. The Babli (Šabbat 96b) finds a tenuous connection with the Sabbath by a gezerah šawah, concurrent use of words.” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.20Jer. 17:22. While prophetic books are not sources of law, they are authentic evidence for the understanding of the Torah by the teachers of past generations. It is proved that in the understanding of Jeremiah (whose student Barukh ben Neriah is credited with bringing the study of Torah to Babylonia) moving objects from a private to the public domain is a violation of biblical law. This supports the interpretation of Ex. 36:6.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tractate Derekh Eretz Rabbah
Concerning him who deceives his partner, who does not return a lost object to its owner, who lends money to his fellow with the object of foreclosing his house or his field, who indulges in perversion with his wife, and who lays wanton charges against his wife in order to divorce her, Scripture declares, I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins.25Jer. 17, 10. [Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement, p. 401, n. 4, remarks: ‘These are things done in private or planned in the secret of the heart, against which the teachers fought by moral pressure’.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yoma
MISHNAH: If somebody say, “I shall sin and repent, I shall sin and repent,190Repeatedly” one191Heaven does not let him achieve to repent. “I shall sin and the day of Atonement will atone,” the Day of Atonement does not atone. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor.
The following did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain: Of all your unintentional sins before the Eternal you shall be cleansed199Lev. 16:30. The sentence is not parsed as from all your iniquities, before the Eternal you will be cleansed, but as from all your iniquities before the Eternal, you will be cleansed. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 8:1.. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor.
Rebbi Aqiba said, blessed are you, Israel. Before whom do you cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you? Your Father Who is in Heaven, as it is said200Ez 36:25., I shall sprinkle on you pure water, so you shall be pure. And it is said201Jer. 17:13. Israel’s hope is the Eternal, since a miqweh purifies the impure people202Identifying מקוה “hope” or “ritual bath; pond”., so the Holy One, praise to Him, cleanses Israel.
The following did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain: Of all your unintentional sins before the Eternal you shall be cleansed199Lev. 16:30. The sentence is not parsed as from all your iniquities, before the Eternal you will be cleansed, but as from all your iniquities before the Eternal, you will be cleansed. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 8:1.. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor.
Rebbi Aqiba said, blessed are you, Israel. Before whom do you cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you? Your Father Who is in Heaven, as it is said200Ez 36:25., I shall sprinkle on you pure water, so you shall be pure. And it is said201Jer. 17:13. Israel’s hope is the Eternal, since a miqweh purifies the impure people202Identifying מקוה “hope” or “ritual bath; pond”., so the Holy One, praise to Him, cleanses Israel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tractate Soferim
The following are written with a he which is not pronounced: when I saw;25Josh. 7, 21, written wa’er’eh and read wa’erë’. and I brought;26ibid. XXIV, 8, written wa’abih and read wa’abi. the lion272 Sam. 23, 20, written ha’aryeh and read ha’ari. in the Book of Samuel;28This excludes the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 11, 22 where ha’ari is both written and read. was he found;29Jer. 48, 27, written nimẓa’ah but the reading is nimẓa’. and … saw;30ibid. III, 7, written wattir’eh and read watter’ë’. this [city];31ibid. XXVI, 6, written hazzothah and read hazzoth. evil;32Micah 3, 2, written ra‘ah and read ra‘. [the] evil;33Jer. 18, 10, written hara‘ah and read hara‘. gone down;34ibid. XV, 9, written ba’ah and read ba’. and he shall come;35ibid. XLIII, 11, written uba’ah and read uba’. and a line;361 Kings 7, 23, written weḳaweh and read weḳaw. and a line;37Zech. 1, 16, as in the preceding note. thoroughly;38V incorrectly gives the keyword as wera‘. Ps. 51, 4, written harbeh and read hereb. them that love me;39Prov. 8, 17, written ’ohabehah and read ’ohabai. and … friend;40ibid. XXVII, 10, written were‘eh and read were‘a. deal;41Ruth 1, 8, written ya‘aseh and read ya‘as. open;42Dan. 9, 18, written piḳḥah and read peḳaḥ. a lion;43Lam. 3, 10, written ’aryeh and read ’ari. V incorrectly connects this with the next word joining them together as one. these;44Ezra 5, 15, written ’elleh and read ’el. venison.45V incorrectly reads ẓur. Gen. 27, 3, written ẓedah and read ẓayid.
The reverse is the case with the following:46In the preceding a written he is not pronounced, but the following are spelt without a he which is to be pronounced. and multiplied;47Josh. 24, 3, written wa’ereb and read wa’arbeh. on the housetop;481 Sam. 9, 26, written haggag and read haggagah. and they;492 Sam. 21, 9, written wehem and read wehemmah. be he;501 Kings 1, 37, written yehi and read yihyeh. and … shal be;512 Kings 9, 37, written wehayath and read wehayethah. and behold;52Isa. 41, 23, written wenerë and read wenireh. behold;53ibid. LIV, 16, written hen and read hinneh. planted;54In Jer. 17, 8, referring to yireh (shall … see) which is spelt without the final hei. Gedaliah;55ibid. XL, 16, referring to ta‘aseh (do) which is without the final hei. and … she doted;56Ezek. 23, 16, written watta‘gob and read watta‘gebah. the measure;57ibid. XLV, 3, where ḥamesh (five) is written and ḥamishshah read. and I shall be glorified;58Hag. 1, 8, written we’ekkabed and read we’ekkabedah. three;59In Prov. 30, 18, we’arba‘ (yea, four) is written and we’arba‘ah read. she considereth;60ibid. XXXI, 16, naṭa‘ (planteth) is written and naṭ‘ah read. she perceiveth;61ibid. 18, ballayil (by night) is written and ballayelah read. arise;62In Lam. 2, 19, the same variant occurs as in the preceding. remember;63ibid. V, 1, habbeṭ (behold) is written and habbiṭah read. turn Thou us;64ibid. 21, wenashub (and we shall be turned) is written and wenashubah read. thou hast declared;651 Sam XXIV, 19, we’at is written and we’attah read. thou … hast cursed;66Eccles. 7, 22, where the same variant occurs as in the preceding. Thou hast set;67Ps. 90, 8, written shatta and read shattah. Thou hast made;68Neh. 9, 6, written ’at and read ’attah. is sore affrighted;69In Ps. 6, 4 the same variant occurs as in the preceding. the carved work thereof;70ibid. LXXIV, 6, written we‘at and read we‘attah. with her harlotries;71In Ezek. 23, 43, written ‘at and read ‘attah. turn back;72In Ruth 1, 12, lekna (go your way) omits the final hei. disclose;73ibid. IV, 4, where we’eda‘ (that I may know) is written and read we’ede‘ah. Thou [hast] made an hedge;74In Job 1, 10, ’at (Thou) is written and ’attah read. and [he] saw.75ibid. XLII, 16, written wayyar and read wayyireh.
The reverse is the case with the following:46In the preceding a written he is not pronounced, but the following are spelt without a he which is to be pronounced. and multiplied;47Josh. 24, 3, written wa’ereb and read wa’arbeh. on the housetop;481 Sam. 9, 26, written haggag and read haggagah. and they;492 Sam. 21, 9, written wehem and read wehemmah. be he;501 Kings 1, 37, written yehi and read yihyeh. and … shal be;512 Kings 9, 37, written wehayath and read wehayethah. and behold;52Isa. 41, 23, written wenerë and read wenireh. behold;53ibid. LIV, 16, written hen and read hinneh. planted;54In Jer. 17, 8, referring to yireh (shall … see) which is spelt without the final hei. Gedaliah;55ibid. XL, 16, referring to ta‘aseh (do) which is without the final hei. and … she doted;56Ezek. 23, 16, written watta‘gob and read watta‘gebah. the measure;57ibid. XLV, 3, where ḥamesh (five) is written and ḥamishshah read. and I shall be glorified;58Hag. 1, 8, written we’ekkabed and read we’ekkabedah. three;59In Prov. 30, 18, we’arba‘ (yea, four) is written and we’arba‘ah read. she considereth;60ibid. XXXI, 16, naṭa‘ (planteth) is written and naṭ‘ah read. she perceiveth;61ibid. 18, ballayil (by night) is written and ballayelah read. arise;62In Lam. 2, 19, the same variant occurs as in the preceding. remember;63ibid. V, 1, habbeṭ (behold) is written and habbiṭah read. turn Thou us;64ibid. 21, wenashub (and we shall be turned) is written and wenashubah read. thou hast declared;651 Sam XXIV, 19, we’at is written and we’attah read. thou … hast cursed;66Eccles. 7, 22, where the same variant occurs as in the preceding. Thou hast set;67Ps. 90, 8, written shatta and read shattah. Thou hast made;68Neh. 9, 6, written ’at and read ’attah. is sore affrighted;69In Ps. 6, 4 the same variant occurs as in the preceding. the carved work thereof;70ibid. LXXIV, 6, written we‘at and read we‘attah. with her harlotries;71In Ezek. 23, 43, written ‘at and read ‘attah. turn back;72In Ruth 1, 12, lekna (go your way) omits the final hei. disclose;73ibid. IV, 4, where we’eda‘ (that I may know) is written and read we’ede‘ah. Thou [hast] made an hedge;74In Job 1, 10, ’at (Thou) is written and ’attah read. and [he] saw.75ibid. XLII, 16, written wayyar and read wayyireh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
MISHNAH: He who has 50 zuz and uses them for trade should not take135Neither the agricultural gifts to the poor nor public assistance.. One who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures136I. e., people.. One who has need to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; for him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal, the Eternal will be his trust.” The same applies to a judge who delivers strictly true judgment137While compromise is usually preferred, he who negotiates a compromise does not have the same responsibility as one who has to deliver unassailable true judgment.. But one who is neither lame nor blind nor limping and presents himself as such will not die from old age until he will be one of them, as it is said (Deut. 16:20): “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” But every judge who takes bribes and bends the law will not die from old age until his eyes are dimmed, as it is said (Ex. 23:8): “Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the seeing.”138The blinding of the seeing can also be applied to welfare fraud, as it was stated in Halakhah 6 that certifying eligibility for welfare is a judicial task.
In the most trustworthy Mishnah manuscripts, the text after the quote from Jeremiah is missing. In others, only the reference to honest and dishonest judges is added. It is clear from the disconnected text that the insertion about simulants is the last. Since these additions are not discussed in the Halakhah, it seems that they are late additions to emphasize the end of the tractate (probably being added by the compilers of the Yerushalmi.)
In the most trustworthy Mishnah manuscripts, the text after the quote from Jeremiah is missing. In others, only the reference to honest and dishonest judges is added. It is clear from the disconnected text that the insertion about simulants is the last. Since these additions are not discussed in the Halakhah, it seems that they are late additions to emphasize the end of the tractate (probably being added by the compilers of the Yerushalmi.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, so is the Mishnah: Everybody who needs to take and does not take commits suicide168If he cannot survive without the help of others, one should not give private charity to one who refuses public charity. But one who can survive and does not take any charity is characterized in the last sentence of the rewritten Mishnah. and one may not have mercy on him. If he does not care for himself, would he care for others? Everybody who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures. Everybody who needs to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; on him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal; the Eternal will be his trust.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Avot D'Rabbi Natan
Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa would say: Anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom will endure, as it says (Psalms 111:10), “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Eternal.” He would also say: Anyone whose actions are greater [than his wisdom, his wisdom will endure], as it says (Exodus 24:7), “We will do, and then we will understand.”
They asked Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: A wise person who fears sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman with his tool in hand. Then they asked: A wise person who does not fear sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman who does not have his tool in hand. Then they asked: A person who fears sin but is not wise – what is he like? He replied: Like someone who does not know the craft, but has a tool in his hand.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah would say: If there is no Torah, there is no common decency. [If there is no common decency, there is no Torah.] He would also say: A person who has done good deeds, and has learned a lot of Torah – what is he like? Like a tree that stands near the water, whose branches are small, but whose roots are so strong that even if the four winds of the world all came and blew at it, it could not be moved from its place, as it says (Psalms 1:3), “He is like a tree planted by (streams of) water.” But a person who has not done good deeds and studies Torah, what is he like? Like a tree that stands in the desert, with small branches and small roots, and when a wind comes and blows at it, it uproots it and flips it over on its top, as it says (Jeremiah 17:6), “You will be like a bush in the desert.”
Rabban Gamliel would say: Make for yourself a teacher. Acquire for yourself a friend. A teacher for wisdom and a friend to study with. Remove yourself from all doubts, and do not get used to tithing by estimation.
They asked Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: A wise person who fears sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman with his tool in hand. Then they asked: A wise person who does not fear sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman who does not have his tool in hand. Then they asked: A person who fears sin but is not wise – what is he like? He replied: Like someone who does not know the craft, but has a tool in his hand.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah would say: If there is no Torah, there is no common decency. [If there is no common decency, there is no Torah.] He would also say: A person who has done good deeds, and has learned a lot of Torah – what is he like? Like a tree that stands near the water, whose branches are small, but whose roots are so strong that even if the four winds of the world all came and blew at it, it could not be moved from its place, as it says (Psalms 1:3), “He is like a tree planted by (streams of) water.” But a person who has not done good deeds and studies Torah, what is he like? Like a tree that stands in the desert, with small branches and small roots, and when a wind comes and blows at it, it uproots it and flips it over on its top, as it says (Jeremiah 17:6), “You will be like a bush in the desert.”
Rabban Gamliel would say: Make for yourself a teacher. Acquire for yourself a friend. A teacher for wisdom and a friend to study with. Remove yourself from all doubts, and do not get used to tithing by estimation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Avot D'Rabbi Natan
Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa would say: Anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom will endure, as it says (Psalms 111:10), “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Eternal.” He would also say: Anyone whose actions are greater [than his wisdom, his wisdom will endure], as it says (Exodus 24:7), “We will do, and then we will understand.”
They asked Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: A wise person who fears sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman with his tool in hand. Then they asked: A wise person who does not fear sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman who does not have his tool in hand. Then they asked: A person who fears sin but is not wise – what is he like? He replied: Like someone who does not know the craft, but has a tool in his hand.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah would say: If there is no Torah, there is no common decency. [If there is no common decency, there is no Torah.] He would also say: A person who has done good deeds, and has learned a lot of Torah – what is he like? Like a tree that stands near the water, whose branches are small, but whose roots are so strong that even if the four winds of the world all came and blew at it, it could not be moved from its place, as it says (Psalms 1:3), “He is like a tree planted by (streams of) water.” But a person who has not done good deeds and studies Torah, what is he like? Like a tree that stands in the desert, with small branches and small roots, and when a wind comes and blows at it, it uproots it and flips it over on its top, as it says (Jeremiah 17:6), “You will be like a bush in the desert.”
Rabban Gamliel would say: Make for yourself a teacher. Acquire for yourself a friend. A teacher for wisdom and a friend to study with. Remove yourself from all doubts, and do not get used to tithing by estimation.
They asked Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: A wise person who fears sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman with his tool in hand. Then they asked: A wise person who does not fear sin – what is he like? He replied: Like a craftsman who does not have his tool in hand. Then they asked: A person who fears sin but is not wise – what is he like? He replied: Like someone who does not know the craft, but has a tool in his hand.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah would say: If there is no Torah, there is no common decency. [If there is no common decency, there is no Torah.] He would also say: A person who has done good deeds, and has learned a lot of Torah – what is he like? Like a tree that stands near the water, whose branches are small, but whose roots are so strong that even if the four winds of the world all came and blew at it, it could not be moved from its place, as it says (Psalms 1:3), “He is like a tree planted by (streams of) water.” But a person who has not done good deeds and studies Torah, what is he like? Like a tree that stands in the desert, with small branches and small roots, and when a wind comes and blows at it, it uproots it and flips it over on its top, as it says (Jeremiah 17:6), “You will be like a bush in the desert.”
Rabban Gamliel would say: Make for yourself a teacher. Acquire for yourself a friend. A teacher for wisdom and a friend to study with. Remove yourself from all doubts, and do not get used to tithing by estimation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Avot D'Rabbi Natan
He would also say: Do not hang around with cynics, for you may begin to learn from their ways. Do not break bread with an unlearned priest, for you may end up desecrating holy things. Do not break your vows, for you may come to break your oaths.1Oaths are more grave than vows, as he who swears a false oath in God’s name “will not be held guiltless” (Exodus 20:7). Do not accustom yourself to eating big meals, for you may end up having to eat scraps. Do not cause yourself to doubt, for you may then cause yourself to be overconfident. Do not leave the Land of Israel, for you may end up worshiping idols, just as David said (I Samuel 26:19), “For they have driven me out today, so that I cannot have a share in the Eternal’s inheritance, but am told to go and serve other gods.” Do you actually think King David would worship idols? Rather, David was saying that anyone who leaves the Land of Israel and goes to a foreign country, it is as if he were worshiping idols.
He would also say: Anyone who is buried in any foreign country, it is as if he were buried in Babylon. Anyone who is buried in Babylon, it is as if he were buried in the Land of Israel. Anyone who is buried in the Land of Israel, it is as if he were buried underneath the altar, for all of the Land of Israel is fit for the altar. Anyone who is buried underneath the altar, it is as if he were buried under the Throne of Glory, as it says (Jeremiah 17:12), “A Throne of Glory, exalted from the beginning, is the place of our Sanctuary.”
He would also say: Anyone who is buried in any foreign country, it is as if he were buried in Babylon. Anyone who is buried in Babylon, it is as if he were buried in the Land of Israel. Anyone who is buried in the Land of Israel, it is as if he were buried underneath the altar, for all of the Land of Israel is fit for the altar. Anyone who is buried underneath the altar, it is as if he were buried under the Throne of Glory, as it says (Jeremiah 17:12), “A Throne of Glory, exalted from the beginning, is the place of our Sanctuary.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy