Talmud su Salmi 11:78
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
28The following two paragraphs are also in Taˋaniot 1:6 (נ); in a slightly different order it is copied in Raviah §495 (vol. 2, p. 119). Everything they made dependent on usage. If women use not to work after the end of the Sabbath, it is no [{legitimate} usage]; until the end of the seder29The additional prayer at the end of the evening service at the end of the Sabbath. it is [{legitimate} usage]. On Monday and Thursday30Which were common fast-days of the pious in Palestine (cf. L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, vol. 1, p. 483, §6.), it is no [{legitimate} usage], to the end of the fast-day prayers it is [legitimate] usage. On the day of the willow twigs31The Seventh Day of Tabernacles. Since the following day is a holiday, it is appropriate that the preparations be finished by the time of the afternoon prayers. it is not {legitimate} usage, after afternoon prayers it is {legitimate} usage. On the day of the New Moon it is {legitimate} usage. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if women use not to weave32Between the first and the tenth of Av. from the start of Av it is {legitimate} usage, for the šetiah stone stopped to exist33The stone in the Holiest of Holies in the Temple.. What is the reason? For the woofs will be torn down34Ps. 11:3. If read as the foundations will be torn down it is appropriate for the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
23For an explanation of this paragraph, see the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 186–187. From where the Four Cups? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Corresponding to the four deliveries24Ex. 6:7–8.: Therefore, say to the Children of Israel, I am the Eternal, and I shall take you out, etc. And I shall take you as My people, etc. I shall take you, I shall save you, I shall free you, I shall take you. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, corresponding to the four cups of Pharao: The cup of Pharao was in my hand; I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharao ’s cup, and gave the cup in Pharao ’s hand. You will give the cup in the hand of Pharao25Gen. 40:11,13. The relation to Passover is explained in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.. Rebbi Levi said, corresponding to the four kingdoms. But our teachers say, corresponding to the four cups of doom that the Holy One, praise to Him, will make the Gentiles drink at the end of days. Truly, so said the Eternal, the God of Israel, to me: take this cup of the wine of wrath26Jer. 23:15.. The golden cup of Babylon is in the hand of the Eternal27Jer. 51:7.. Truly a cup is in the hand of the Eternal, intoxicating wine, fully to be mixed; He shall sprinkle from it but its dregs shall be drunk, squeezed to the last, by all the wicked of the earth28Ps. 75:9.. He shall let coals rain on the wicked; fire, sulphur, and burning wind is the portion of their cup29Ps. 11:6.. What does the portion of their cup mean? R. Abun said: a double cup30Greek διπλόν ποτήριον, τό. like the double cup taken after a thermal bath. And in accordance with this correspondingly the Holy One, praised be He, will let Israel drink four cups of consolation at the End of Days: The Eternal is the portion of my part and my cup31Ps. 16:5.. You anointed my head with oil; my cup is overflowing32Ps.23:5.. I shall lift up the cup of salvations33Ps.116:13. counts for two.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tractate Kallah Rabbati
BARAITHA.1Keth. 16b-17a (Sonc. ed., pp. 92ff.). How does one dance2The meaning here is to recite the praises of a bride. before the bride? Beth Shammai said: The bride as she is; and Beth Hillel said: Beautiful and graceful bride!3Whether she possessed the qualifications or not. Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel: Even if she is lame or blind? But it is written, Keep thee far from a false matter!4Ex. 23, 7; and there must be no departure from the truth even for a bride. Beth Hillel replied: If one has made a bad purchase, should one esteem it in his eyes or depreciate it? Surely one should esteem it in his eyes. Therefore Beth Hillel said: Always should the disposition of a man be pleasant towards his fellow-creatures.
GEMARA. But how can Beth Hillel [say of a bride] that she is beautiful when in fact she is not? [Beth Hillel can reply that in the circumstances people will understand it as] beautiful in her deeds and graceful in her person because we do not presume [to attribute to a person] what is unbecoming. And [what can] Beth Shammai [reply to this]? They can say: Is it written, ‘Keep far from a falsehood’? [It is written, From a false] matter,5lit. ‘word’. even if it be inexplicit.6It is therefore wrong to make a statement and expect people to take it in a different sense. And [what can] Beth Hillel [reply to this]? They can say: When the All-present declared, Keep thee far from a false matter, it is in connection with what follows, And the innocent and righteous slay thou not;7i.e. the context is giving false evidence which will lead to an innocent person being condemned to death. but where it is a case of preserving life8Creating a deeper love between husband and wife. it is in order [to depart from the strict truth]. Should the question be raised: Why do Beth Hillel in their refutation cite the example of ‘a bad purchase’, let them refute Beth Shammai from the Torah! For it has been taught:9Yeb. 65b (Sonc. ed., pp. 437f.); B.M. 87a (Sonc. ed., p. 502, n. 4). Great is peace, seeing that for its sake the Holy One, blessed be He, modified a statement. At first it is written, My lord being old,10Gen. 18, 12. and afterwards, I … who am old.11ibid. 13. When Sarah was told by the angel that she would have a son she laughed to herself and exclaimed, My lord being old; but when God repeated what she had said to Abraham, not to hurt his feelings He changed the word to I … who am old. [Beth Hillel] can reply: There is no question [that what we say] is correct according to the Torah, but it is also correct by the standard of human beings; reverse it.12The text should read kelappë ’alyah, lit. ‘towards the tail’, i.e. reverse it, and the word which follows is an explanatory gloss (Jastrow s.v. ’alyah). The meaning is, To meet the question raised, it would be best in the Baraitha first to cite the passage from Genesis and then the example of ‘a bad purchase’.
[It was quoted above:] And the innocent and righteous slay thou not. Since you mention the innocent [may not be slain], obviously the righteous [may not]!13The term innocent has a negative connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil; but the term righteous has both a negative and positive connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil and does good. [It denotes] ‘innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘righteous because of disciples’.14These are forensic terms. I. Where two witnesses testify against a man that he had committed an offence but disagree on the details, the accused is discharged. E.g., two witnesses testify that they saw him worshipping idols; one says that he worshipped the sun and the other that it was the moon. Because the witnesses are in disagreement on details, the man is acquitted. He is technically termed naḳi me‘edim, ‘innocent (or, freed) because of [the disagreement of] witnesses’. II. In the criminal court young scholars sat in rows in front of the judges. When the trial ended and before the verdict was delivered, any one of these scholars could, if he knew anything in favour of the accused, come forward and speak for him, and if the judges accepted his statement they discharged the accused. He was then termed ẓaddiḳ min hattalmidim, ‘righteous (i.e. acquitted) because of the disciples’. If the disciple wished to testify against the accused, he was not permitted to do so. That would be a case of rasha‘ min hattalmidim, ‘condemned because of the disciples’, which was not allowed. Cf. Sanh. 33b-34a (Sonc. ed., p. 212) and Rashi ad loc. From this we learn [the ruling]: Do not put to death ‘the innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘the condemned because of disciples’. [Do you think,] ‘Condemned because of disciples’? Say, because of one of the disciples.15This refusal to listen to disciples’ statements against the accused holds good only when one disciple came forward. This procedure is based on Num. 35, 30; cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
Raba expounded: What is the meaning of what is written, For the Lord is righteous, He loveth righteousness; the upright shall behold His face?16Ps. 11, 7. If so, [the verse should read,] ‘He loveth the righteous’!17Since He is described as righteous, that is the wording which might have been expected. But [it is to be understood] as Raba interpreted it:18Cf. ‘Erub 19a (Sonc. ed., pp. 129f.). Abraham19So the text must be emended. V reads ‘from forty’. comes and brings [redemption to the wicked who are under sentence to suffer in Gehinnom, in agreement with] Resh Laḳish [who said: The fire of Gehinnom has no power over the transgressors in Israel,] or it may be deduced by an argument from minor to major [from the golden altar], as it is stated, Every one that is written unto life in Jerusalem.20Isa. 4, 3. The text is obviously corrupt and is conjecturally reconstructed from the Talmud. Abraham, in freeing the sinners of Israel from Gehinnom, performs an act of righteousness which merits him the love of God, Who is righteous, especially as He has written unto [eternal] life every one in Jerusalem (i.e. the whole people of Israel).
GEMARA. But how can Beth Hillel [say of a bride] that she is beautiful when in fact she is not? [Beth Hillel can reply that in the circumstances people will understand it as] beautiful in her deeds and graceful in her person because we do not presume [to attribute to a person] what is unbecoming. And [what can] Beth Shammai [reply to this]? They can say: Is it written, ‘Keep far from a falsehood’? [It is written, From a false] matter,5lit. ‘word’. even if it be inexplicit.6It is therefore wrong to make a statement and expect people to take it in a different sense. And [what can] Beth Hillel [reply to this]? They can say: When the All-present declared, Keep thee far from a false matter, it is in connection with what follows, And the innocent and righteous slay thou not;7i.e. the context is giving false evidence which will lead to an innocent person being condemned to death. but where it is a case of preserving life8Creating a deeper love between husband and wife. it is in order [to depart from the strict truth]. Should the question be raised: Why do Beth Hillel in their refutation cite the example of ‘a bad purchase’, let them refute Beth Shammai from the Torah! For it has been taught:9Yeb. 65b (Sonc. ed., pp. 437f.); B.M. 87a (Sonc. ed., p. 502, n. 4). Great is peace, seeing that for its sake the Holy One, blessed be He, modified a statement. At first it is written, My lord being old,10Gen. 18, 12. and afterwards, I … who am old.11ibid. 13. When Sarah was told by the angel that she would have a son she laughed to herself and exclaimed, My lord being old; but when God repeated what she had said to Abraham, not to hurt his feelings He changed the word to I … who am old. [Beth Hillel] can reply: There is no question [that what we say] is correct according to the Torah, but it is also correct by the standard of human beings; reverse it.12The text should read kelappë ’alyah, lit. ‘towards the tail’, i.e. reverse it, and the word which follows is an explanatory gloss (Jastrow s.v. ’alyah). The meaning is, To meet the question raised, it would be best in the Baraitha first to cite the passage from Genesis and then the example of ‘a bad purchase’.
[It was quoted above:] And the innocent and righteous slay thou not. Since you mention the innocent [may not be slain], obviously the righteous [may not]!13The term innocent has a negative connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil; but the term righteous has both a negative and positive connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil and does good. [It denotes] ‘innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘righteous because of disciples’.14These are forensic terms. I. Where two witnesses testify against a man that he had committed an offence but disagree on the details, the accused is discharged. E.g., two witnesses testify that they saw him worshipping idols; one says that he worshipped the sun and the other that it was the moon. Because the witnesses are in disagreement on details, the man is acquitted. He is technically termed naḳi me‘edim, ‘innocent (or, freed) because of [the disagreement of] witnesses’. II. In the criminal court young scholars sat in rows in front of the judges. When the trial ended and before the verdict was delivered, any one of these scholars could, if he knew anything in favour of the accused, come forward and speak for him, and if the judges accepted his statement they discharged the accused. He was then termed ẓaddiḳ min hattalmidim, ‘righteous (i.e. acquitted) because of the disciples’. If the disciple wished to testify against the accused, he was not permitted to do so. That would be a case of rasha‘ min hattalmidim, ‘condemned because of the disciples’, which was not allowed. Cf. Sanh. 33b-34a (Sonc. ed., p. 212) and Rashi ad loc. From this we learn [the ruling]: Do not put to death ‘the innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘the condemned because of disciples’. [Do you think,] ‘Condemned because of disciples’? Say, because of one of the disciples.15This refusal to listen to disciples’ statements against the accused holds good only when one disciple came forward. This procedure is based on Num. 35, 30; cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
Raba expounded: What is the meaning of what is written, For the Lord is righteous, He loveth righteousness; the upright shall behold His face?16Ps. 11, 7. If so, [the verse should read,] ‘He loveth the righteous’!17Since He is described as righteous, that is the wording which might have been expected. But [it is to be understood] as Raba interpreted it:18Cf. ‘Erub 19a (Sonc. ed., pp. 129f.). Abraham19So the text must be emended. V reads ‘from forty’. comes and brings [redemption to the wicked who are under sentence to suffer in Gehinnom, in agreement with] Resh Laḳish [who said: The fire of Gehinnom has no power over the transgressors in Israel,] or it may be deduced by an argument from minor to major [from the golden altar], as it is stated, Every one that is written unto life in Jerusalem.20Isa. 4, 3. The text is obviously corrupt and is conjecturally reconstructed from the Talmud. Abraham, in freeing the sinners of Israel from Gehinnom, performs an act of righteousness which merits him the love of God, Who is righteous, especially as He has written unto [eternal] life every one in Jerusalem (i.e. the whole people of Israel).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy