Talmud su Salmi 72:78

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Neḥemiah and the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Neḥemiah said: “Who produced bread from the earth.” But the rabbis say, “Who produces bread from the earth.⁴³In the Babli (38a), the opinion ascribed here to the rabbis is that of Rebbi Neḥemiah and vice versa. This eliminates the question which the Yerushalmi raises about the current text of the benediction. In the opinion of the Babli, the preferred version (R. Neḥemiah here, the rabbis in the Babli) takes the present participle in an atemporal sense.” This disagreement is like that disagreement: לפת, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Isaac⁴⁴A preacher of the third generation of Galilean Amoraïm. The name of his teacher is unknown. and Rebbi Samuel bar Immi⁴⁵A Galilean Amora of the third generation who also appears as R. Samuel bar Ammi. His father and father-in-law also were rabbis.; one said “lefet, was it not bread?⁴⁵A Galilean Amora of the third generation who also appears as R. Samuel bar Ammi. His father and father-in-law also were rabbis.” and the other one said “lefet, will it not be bread”? (Ps. 72:16) “There will be a piece of flour on the land, on mountain tops.⁴⁷Since flour cannot form a loaf until it is baked, this means that bread will grow on mountain tops. This is a homily of R. Yoḥanan in Midrash Tehillim 92(6), which appears in the name of several other Amoraïm in Babli Šabbat 30b, Ketubot 111b.” Rebbi Jeremiah recited before Rebbi Zeïra “Who produced bread from the earth” and the latter praised him. Following Rebbi Neḥemiah⁴⁸One is not supposed to follow a minority of one, much less to be praised for it.? Not to amalgamate the letters⁴⁹So that הָעוֹלָם מוֹצִיא should not be pronounced ha‘ôlāmôẓî, but clearly be said in two distinct words.! If it is so, הַמִּין הָאָרֶץ⁵⁰Since לֶחֶם מִן also has two consecutive mem and could be read together. However, the change proposed here makes no sense; nobody wants to pronounce a meaningless benediction that would be close to blasphemy. The question does not merit an answer.? In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥemiah⁵¹One wonders why they disagree only about the language for bread and not for wine., “He Who created the fruit of the vine”; in the opinion of the rabbis “Who creates the fruit of the vine.”

⁴⁴For this Aggada and more aggadic parts in this Tractate there exists a Medieval copy in the Qonteros Aḥaron of Yalqut Shimˋony reproduced by L. Ginsberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, pp. 311–313, referred to by Q. A short parallel is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a; parallels are in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bešallaḥ, Masekhta de Wayassa 1; Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18. The entire paragraph is discussed by Rashi in his Commentary to Num. 26:13. It is written⁴⁵Deut. 10:6. According to Num., he did not die at Mosera and never was buried. In the text, the word [אל] has been added from the masoretic text and Q.: and the Children of Israel travelled from the wells of Bene Yaaqon to Mosera; there Aaron died. Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? This is what is written⁴⁶Num. 33:38., Aaron the Priest ascendedMount Hor by the order of the Eternal and died there. But when Aaron died, the clouds of glory⁴⁷Who had covered the Israelites’ camp from the moment of the Exodus. disappeared and the Canaanites wanted to attack them. This is what is written⁴⁸Num.21:1., the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the Negev, heard that Israel came in the way of Atarim, and made war against Israel. What means “in the way of Atarim”? That the great scout had died who had scouted the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and returned eight travel stations⁴⁹As enumerated in Num. 33.. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed from them eight families⁵⁰In Q: “16 families”.. Also they killed from them four families, ⁵¹A redundant verse in 1Chr. 26:23. (See Rashi, quoted in Note 44).for the Amramite, the Yisharite, the Ḥevronite, the Uzzielite. When did they recover? In the days of David. This is what is written⁵²Ps. 72:6., in his days the just may bloom, immense peace, without moon-periods. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not show compassion for this perfect person⁵³To organize due eulogies. In this context, גְּמִילוּת חֶסֶד means services to the living or the dead by a person himself, which cannot be bought by money.. They sat down, organized his eulogies, and showed compassion for this Just; then the Omnipresent credited them as if he had died there, was buried there, and they showed compassion for the perfect person.

BARAITHA.¹⁵K 17. R. Aḥai b. Josiah said: He who gazes¹⁶In K ‘he who diverts his mind with’. at women will eventually come within the power of sin, and he who diverts himself from sin and does not commit it, though he be an Israelite, is worthy to offer a burnt-offering on the altar as did the High Priest; as it is stated, And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt-offerings. And whoever makes himself indolent so as not to sin and does not commit it will be sustained by the lustre of the Divine Presence, as it is stated, And they beheld God and did eat and drink.
GEMARA. The question was asked: In the Baraitha is the word to be read ‘aẓel (‘indolent’) or ’eẓel (‘next to’)? We have learnt: Come and hear: [It is stated,] And upon the nobles [’aẓilë] of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.¹⁷Ex. 24, 11. Whence can you infer that this word ’aẓilë has a pure connotation? For it is written, And I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them.¹⁸Num. 11, 17. The Heb. for take is the root ’aẓal, so the conclusion arrived at is that the reading in the Baraitha must be ’eẓel, and they who are tempted by sin but desist earn as a reward the outpouring of the Divine Spirit upon them. The Midrash Agadah (ed. Buber, p. 101) defines the verb in Num. by another meaning ‘separate from’, so giving it here the sense of ‘keeping away from’.
It has been taught:¹⁹Ber. 17a (Sonc. ed., p. 102). In the World to Come there is neither eating, drinking nor procreation, but the righteous sit with crowns on their heads and are sustained by the lustre of the Divine Presence, as it is stated, And they beheld God and did eat and drink. An objection was raised: [It is stated,] May he be as a rich cornfield in the land upon the top of the mountains.²⁰Ps. 72, 16, which indicates that the righteous will enjoy prosperity in the World to Come. [The Sages] said:²¹Keth. 111b (Sonc. ed., p. 721). The World to Come is not like this world. In this world there is the trouble to tread and gather [the grapes] but in the World to Come the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring a wind from His treasury and cause it to blow upon [the trees] so that they will let [their fruit] fall to the ground; a man will go into the field and bring back from it an abundance of its fruits for his own sustenance and that of his household. But should you think that [the reality is] as was taught, of what use is sustenance to them?²²This Rabbinic quotation contradicts the preceding, which taught that there is no eating in the World to Come. It is further written, The woman with child and her that travaileth with child together:²³Jer. 31, 7; in A.J. verse 8. woman is destined to bear a child every day. This is a conclusion to be deduced by arguing from the less to the great from the instance of poultry.²⁴Shab. 30b (Sonc. ed., pp. 137f.) referring to the World to Come; one of Rabban Gamaliel’s hyperbolical statements. This contradicts the teaching that there is no procreation in the World to Come. There is no contradiction; one statement refers to the time before the Resurrection and the other to the Messianic era.²⁵On the meaning of ‘the World to Come’, cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 601, n. 3. Here ‘the world is contrasted with the future change whereas generally it is contrasted with the World to Come. Perhaps here the phrase means, the world under present conditions’ (Shab. p. 138, n. 3, in the Sonc. ed.). [On the subject, cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, II, pp. 317ff.]

Some Tannaïm formulate: “Between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey.”¹⁵²Meaning the earliest time for reading the Shema‘. In the Babli (9b), the first criterion is given by Rebbi Meïr, the second one by Rebbi Aqiba, and both are given independently of the Mishnah. In the Yerushalmi, no names are attached since both opinions are identified as alternatives “between dark blue and leek colored”, which is not the practice anyway.
“Others” (אחרים) usually denotes Rebbi Meïr. In the Babli, the problem remains that the statement attributed to “Others” cannot belong to Rebbi Meïr. However, in the Yerushalmi it may well be that “between wolf and dog” is Rebbi Meïr’s restatement of Rebbi Eliezer’s criterion in the Mishnah, and “to recognize at 4 ammot” the same authority’s restatement of the criterion of the First Tanna in the Mishnah. But some Tannaïm formulate: “That a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him”. That is what we have¹⁵³Pne Mosheh (R. Moshe Margalit) reads הוּא בָּעֵי מֵימַר “he (Rav Ḥisda, mentioned earlier) wants to say.” Then the entire statement is tentative, and רב חסדא אמר will simply mean “Rav Ḥisda said”, not as an authoritative statement. However, the commentary Pne Moshe (R. Moshe ben Ḥabib) reads הווּן בּעי מימר “they (or we) want to say.” to say that he who says between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey is parallel to him who says between dark blue and the color of leeks; he who says that a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him is parallel to him who says between dark blue and white. But they said that its preferred obligation is at sunrise so that one may join the mention of redemption to prayer and pray at daytime¹⁵⁴This is from the Tosephta (1:2) and is the end of the statement that in the morning one may say the Shema‘ as soon as one recognizes a person at a distance of 4 ammot. Hence, “they said” refers to those who adopt the criterion mentioned last. If one recites the Shema‘ slowly at sunrise and then says the benediction of Emet weyaẓiv, he will just say the Amidah prayer when the sun is clearly above the horizon and it is visibly day.. Rebbi Zeïra said: I found the reason (Ps. 72:5): “They will fear You with the sun.”¹⁵⁵The same explanation is given in his name in the Babli, hence he is really the author and not only the tradent. Since the first section of Shema‘ is “acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven”, this is in essence fear of God, and, hence, the verse refers to the reading of Shema‘ and not the prayer. It is clear that the prayer to be performed preferably at sunrise is the recitation of Shema‘. Mar Uqba¹⁵⁶Resh Galuta, the Davidic ruler of the Jews in Babylonia, in the first generation of Amoraïm. It is interesting to note that this statement of the Babylonian Mar Uqba is reported in the Babli (9b) in the name of the later Rebbi Yoḥanan. Maybe each Talmud wanted to ascribe the deeds of ותיקין to an external source, not to be held to their standards, as explained in the next section.
The explanation of ותיק has been given by A. Kohut in his ערוּך השלם, from the Arabic וַתִ֗ק “to have confidence, faith”. As explained by the Babylonian Talmud, they had faith in God that all the time spent in His service would not detract from their ability to earn a livelihood, and so they were rewarded with earning enough money for their needs in the time left over after religious services and deeds. said: The very religious were getting up early and reading the Shema‘ so that they could follow it directly at sunrise with the Amidah prayer.

It is written³⁸⁰2S. 1:17–18.: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he³⁸¹Instead of מי היה, the Rome ms. reads נהיה; probably a corruption. The problem is that (1) the mention of Jehudah in a dirge about the slain of Benjamin is somewhat out of place, and (2) that David, who had a magic bow (Ps. 18:35), long ago was a teacher of archery. “He” refers to David.? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers³⁸²In the Babli, Avodah Zarah 25a, R. Joḥanan identifies the book Yashar with Genesis, R. Eleazar with Deuteronomy. In the Babli, the book of Yashar is not a book of wars. “Fifth” is the standard rabbinic name for any one of the five books of the Pentateuch.. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable³⁸³Since it records the victory of Abraham over the kings of the East.. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? ³⁸⁴From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Yoma 1:1, fol. 38b.“The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died³⁸⁵Deut. 10:6..” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.³⁸⁶Num. 33:38.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.³⁸⁷Num. 33:40. The same interpretation is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a. Cf. also Num. rabba 19(11), Tanḥuma Buber Ḥuqqat 42, Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18; Threni rabbati 1(64); Tosephta 11:1; Sifry Num. 82.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them³⁸⁸Since Aaron was responsible for the Ark which was the pathfinder (Num. 10:33).. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them³⁸⁹In the catalog of families in Num. 26, 8 families are missing compared to the enumeration of grandsons of Jacob in Gen. 46: 5 from Benjamin and 1 each from Simeon, Gad, and Asher.. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.³⁹⁰1Chr. 26:23, an isolated verse seemingly without connection to what comes before and after. This is interpreted to mean that David took care to re-establish these families after they had been decimated. The only levitic family missing in the list of Num. 26 is Šim‘î.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom³⁹¹Ps. 72:2.”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

On Ḥanukkah [the psalm is] I will extol Thee, O Lord.²⁵Ps. 30. On Purim it is Shiggaion of David,²⁶Ps. 7. but others say it is O God, keep not Thou silence.²⁷Ps. 83. This is inserted by GRA but lacking in V, M and H. On the first day of Passover it is, Praise ye the name of the Lord,²⁸Ps. 135. V, M and H quote as an alternative Ps. 83. and the same [is said during] the intermediate days of the Festival; but on the first [two] days of Passover one must [also] say May the glory of the Lord,²⁹Ps. 104, 31. The reference is to the collection of verses beginning with these words (cf. P.B., p. 28). while all the people stand. Then³⁰From ‘Then’ to ‘for ever’ is the reading of GRA. The order of the words in V, M and H is confused. they sit and say all the prescribed psalms³¹P.B., pp. 20-33. up to And blessed be His glorious name for ever;³²Ps. 72, 19; but the reference is to the doxology (P.B., p. 33) which concludes the morning Psalms. but on the last day of Passover the Great Hallel is said. And what is the Great Hallel? [42b] O give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good … O give thanks unto the God of gods.³³Ps. 136. The people have adopted the custom of saying the Great Hallel, although this is not the proper thing to do.³⁴The proper time to say it is ‘when the appetite is satisfied and the stomach is full’ (Ta‘an. 26a, Sonc. ed., p. 135) and not in the morning service before food has been tasted.