Talmud su Rut 2:27

How do we hold⁶⁰Here starts the discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah, how xan a child be a nine-months child or a seven-months child with equal probabilities.? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months⁶¹Since a widow should not be married in levirate earlier than 3 months after the husband’s death (Mishnah 4:11) in order to avoid situations like the one discussed in the Mishnah, it follows that there are pregnancies that are recognized only after three months., one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second⁶²If the child was born exactly nine months after the death of the husband, then this would be 7 months and 10 days after the levir had intercourse with her.. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations⁶³Certain regular pregnancies are terminated naturally during the seventh month; certain others only after 9 full months.. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly⁶⁴The Babli, Niddah 27 a, disagrees and holds that Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, children of Rebbi Ḥiyya, who were born 3 months apart, were twins; the one a seven-months child and the other a nine-months child.. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men⁶⁵Since the Mishnah excludes the possibility that, even if there were twins, they could come from both brothers as fathers. In that case, according to Rav there would be no reparation offering for a doubt.. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her⁶⁶Midrash Ruth 2(21), Midrash Samuel ed. Buber 20(4), Babli Soṭah 42b in the name of R. Joḥanan. These sermons identify (1) the Moabite Orpah, the daughter-in-law of Noemi who did not follow her to Bethlehem, with the Philistine Haraphah (2S. 21:22), and (2) Goliat mentioned in 2S. 21 with the warrior in 1S. 17:23. The latter is introduced in the written text as אִישׁ הַבֵּנַיִם מִמַּעַרְוֹת פְּלִשׁתִּים interpreted in a slightly pornographic way as “a man [created] in between the touchings (cf. Note 59) of the Philistines”, explaining that Orpah, once she had decided not to become Jewish, went to the enemies of the Jews, the Philistines of Gath, and slept with 100 of their warriors (מִמַּעַרְוֹת = מִמֵּאָה הֶעָרוֹת) in one night to create a super-warrior; in the words of R. Joḥanan, 100 fathers and one mother. One can construct such a sermon only if all gutturals had become silent and pataḥ, qāmeṣ assimilated to one another.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

One verse¹⁷⁵2S. 17:25. says, “his name was Yitra the Israelite;” another verse says, “Yeter the Ismaelite¹⁷⁶1Chr. 2:17. Both names refer to the same person, father of Amasa, nephew of David..” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he was an Ismaelite. And you say, he was an Israelite? But he entered the court of Isaiah¹⁷⁷It seems that the author of this piece identifies Isay with his descendant Isaiah 500 years later. and found him sitting and explaining: “turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth¹⁷⁸Is. 45:22.,” and converted. Then he gave him his daughter¹⁷⁹It is very doubtful whether David’s sisters ever agreed to live under the authority of a husband.. But the rabbis say, he was an Israelite, and you say, an Ismaelite? But he girded his loins like an Ismaelite and stuck his sword in the earth in court, to kill or be killed, to support the word of my teacher: I shall kill with this sword anybody who transgresses this practice: “Ammonite,” and not female Ammonite; “Moabite,” and not female Moabite. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, I have only what I did learn¹⁸⁰It is possible that instead of משנה one should read משׂדה, “I have only ‘from the field’”, referring to the preceding paragraph that שדה מוֹאב is a catchword for Ruth the Moabite.: “Naomi returned with Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the fields of Moab¹⁸¹Ruth 1:22..” She is the one who first returned from the fields of Moab. Afterwards, he¹⁸²Ruth 2:11, a speech of Boaz. The implication is that Boaz was instrumental in declaring Moabite women eligible for marriage before he became involved with Ruth since otherwise he would have had to recuse himself from decision making. In the parallel in the Babli, 77a, the decision is directly attributed to the prophet Samuel. told her: “You abandoned your father and your mother.” He said to her: If you had come to us yesterday or the day before, we would not have accepted you.

“Until the grain harvest”. It is written⁵⁸Ruth 2:23. It is clear from the narrative that there was one continuous harvest activity, the wheat harvest following the barley harvest immediately. Therefore, the Mishnah seems unjustified in denying that “harvest” cannot refer to barley harvest., “until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest”. That verse speaks of the South⁵⁹Bethlehem., the Mishnah of Galilee.

MISHNAH: One is required to recite a benediction for bad things the same way²²⁸The Babli (60b) points out that the Mishnah cannot mean that one has to use the same formula for bad news as for good since the opposite was declared in Mishnah 3. Here one talks only about the spirit in which the benedictions should be recited. it is said for good things, as it is written (Deut. 6:5): “You must love the Eternal, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your force.” “With all your heart,” with your two instincts, the goodinstinct and the bad instinct. “With all your soul,” even if He takes your soul. “With all your force,” with all your money. Another explanation: “With all your force,” for every measure²²⁹This sermon identifies the roots מאד “power, plenty”, מדד “measure,” ידה, מדה “thanking.” It supports the early grammarians who reduced Semitic roots to two letters. that He measures for you, for everything thank him very much.
A person should not behave improperly before the Eastern gate, which lies in a straight line with the Holiest of Holies²⁵⁶The Eastern gate in the wall of the Temple Mount (which at the same time was the city wall) was in a straight line with the Eastern gate of the Temple courtyard, the Temple gate, and the Holiest of Holies, because the priest who was burning the red heifer on the Mount of Olives had to see the Temple door through the gate of the wall and the gate of the Temple court. One must assume that in Mishnaic times, the Temple itself was totally obliterated (since, after the war of Bar Kochba, Hadrian had constructed a temple of Jupiter on its site) but that the original Eastern gate was still there and the place of the Temple could be determined on a line perpendicular to the wall at that gate.. And one should not enter the Temple Mount with his walking stick, sandals²⁵⁷All service by priests in the Temple had to be performed barefoot. Hence, also laymen entering the Temple precinct had to be barefoot. [To show the difference between the Temple and a synagogue, shoes may not be removed in a synagogue.], money belt²⁵⁸Latin funda., or dust on his feet²⁵⁹One may not enter with unwashed feet.. Also one should not use it as a short cut²⁶⁰Latin compendiaria (via), cf. Chapter 1, Note 36., and certainly not spit there. All endings of benedictions in the Temple were “from eternity²⁶¹Instead of “Amen”, the answer to a benediction was “Praised be the Eternal, the God of Israel, from eternity”. This is the answer asserted to be given during the existence of the first Temple. When the second Temple was inaugurated, the formula was (Neh. 9:5): “Praised be the Eternal, the God of Israel, from eternity to eternity,” to emphasize the two worlds, the existing one and the one to come. The heretics here cannot be Sadducees who started about three hundred years later; the Qumran documents show that it is totally false to impute a denial of the future world to Sadducees. [That “heretics” are called “Sadducees” in many editions of the Babli here is due to Christian censors who misunderstood the use of the word מין which in general, but not here, means “Christians.”].” When heretics did err and said that there was only one world, they ordained that one should say “from eternity to eternity.” They also instituted that one should greet his friend by the Name, as it was said (Ruth 2:4): “Lo, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters: The Eternal be with you!” And it says (Pr. 23:22): “Be not contemptuous because your mother got old.²⁶²Rashi in the Babli explains: Even though the action of Boaz looks wrong, since God’s name is used for wordly greeting, one should follow him since he is one of the elders of the people. In the verse, the harvesters answered: “May the Eternal bless you,” following Boas’s example.” (Ps. 119:126) “It is time to work for the Eternal; they violated Your Torah.” Rebbi Nathan says, they²⁶³The men of the Great Assembly, who instituted the response to the benedictions in the Temple and the way of greeting in the Name of God, violated the prescription of the Torah that God’s name may not be taken in vain (i. e., for secular purposes) in order to further God’s work and to instill religious feelings in the people. violated Your Torah, it is time to work for the Eternal.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner²⁸¹Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. said: Three things did the earthly court decree and the Heavenly Court agreed with them, and they are the following: The ban on Jericho, the Esther scroll, and greeting people using the Name. The ban on Jericho (Jos. 7:11): “Israel sinned²⁸²Joshua decreed a ban on all property of the city of Jericho as ḥērem for the Eternal. After Akhan had taken property for himself, Israel was defeated at the Ai and Joshua was informed that “Israel sinned,” i. e., a transgression of his command was equated with a transgression of a divine command. Hence, Heaven accepted his human decree in the Heavenly Court. [While everybody can declare his own possession ḥērem or qorbān whereby its use is forbidden by a divine command (Lev. 27), Joshua here forbade the use of things that did not belong to him and, under usual circumstances, his decree would be invalid in a court of law.].” But was not Joshua the one who decreed it? This certainly implies that the Heavenly Court agreed with them. The Esther scroll (Esth. 9:27): “They confirmed and accepted, etc.” Rav said, “accepted” is written in singular²⁸³It is written קבל and read קִבְּלוּ.; this implies that they²⁸⁴In fact, He (God) accepted it. accepted. Greeting people using the Name (Ruth 2:4): “Lo, Boaz came from Bethlehem.” And from where that the Heavenly court agreed with them? The verse says (Jud. 6:12): “The Eternal is with you, o hero!²⁸⁵This is the greeting of the angel to Gideon, telling him to fight the Midianites. This shows that heavenly beings adapted the human manner of greeting as exemplified by Boaz. The argument implies that Gideon, who was quite early in the time of Judges, came after Boaz. This is explicit in Midrash Seder Olam Chap. 12 (in the author’s edition and commentary, Northvale N.J. 1998, p. 121–123.) Boaz was the grandson of Naḥshon ben Aminadav, prince of Judah during the wanderings in the desert (Ruth 4:20–21.)” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Also tithes, as it is said (Mal. 3:10): “Bring all tithes²⁸⁶The problem alluded to here is discussed in Yerushalmi Shevi‘it 6:1, Qiddushin 1:9 and Babli Arakhin 32b, referring to the obligations of the farmer regarding the produce of the Holy Land. It is spelled out in the Torah many times that these obligations (the heave for the priests, tithes for the Levites and the poor, the Sabbatical Year, etc.) come into force “when you come to the Land and inherit it,” as duties on the land distributed as family heritage to the tribes by Moses and Joshua. These commandments became obsolete when the tribes were led into captivity, including the obligations of the remaining Israelite population of Galilee who, according to our sources, were never exiled and who reappear in history at the time of the Hasmonean revolt without any record of resettlement in Galilee. The continued obligation to observe the Laws that depend on the Land therefore is derived only from the voluntary covenant enacted by the people in the time of Ezra and Nehemia (Shevi‘it 6:1): “Rebbi Lezer says: they voluntarily accepted the duties of the tithes. Why do I say this? (Neh. 10:1) ‘With all this, we enact a written trust and covenant signed by our princes, Levites, and priests.’ How does R. Lezer explain the inclusion (Neh. 10:37) of ‘the firstborn of our cattle and flocks’ [an obligation that does not depend on the Land and therefore is universal]? Since they accepted the obligations (of heave and tithes) that they could have avoided, Scripture gives them credit for those obligations which they had to fulfill anyhow as if they had accepted these also voluntarily.” The same idea is also expressed by an opponent of rabbinic Judaism who is reported (Shevi‘it 9:9) to have said: “Ḥallah (the heave to be taken from bread dough) is a biblical obligation (Num. 15:20) but the Sabbatical year is now an obligation only by the authority of Rabban Gamliel and his colleagues.” [Cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 280–281, and Seder Olam p. 248–250.], etc.” What is: “²⁸⁷Mal. 3:10: “Bring the full tithe into the (Temple) storehouse, so that there may be food in My House, test Me in this,” said the Eternal of Hosts, “if I will not open for you the skylights of heaven, and I shall pour out for you blessing until ‘without enough.’ ” The obligation accepted by the people on Earth without Heavenly Command gives Divine Reward. Hence, the obligation was accepted as Divine Command of human origin. Until ‘without enough?’ ” Rebbi Yose bar²⁸⁸The Rome manuscript does not have the words “Yose bar”. A son of R. Simeon bar Abba is otherwise unknown but the attribution is possible. R. Shelomo Cirillo has the reading “R. Yose in the name of R. Simeon bar Abba.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The thing about which it is impossible to say “enough”, that is blessing. Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Chelbo and Rebbi Abba bar Ilaï in the name of Rav: Until your lips will wear out²⁹⁰This is explained in detail in Midrash Samuel 1:1 (which contains an enlarged version of the Yerushalmi here to the end of the tractate) that Elkanah went to Siloh four times a year, three times for the three holidays of pilgrimage and once for his private vow as explained in 1Sam. 1:2, and that every year he chose a different road to tell people to go to Shiloh for the holidays. A similar version is in Tanna dbe Eliahu I:8. saying, we have enough blessings, we have enough blessings.