창세기 40:15 관련 구절

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written¹²Num. 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,¹³Lev. 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir¹⁴Num. 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. ¹⁵Cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “¹²Num. 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁶The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow.
The Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names.. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”¹⁷This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah “equal cut”. If it was established in Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”¹⁸Again this is an application of gezerah šawah, but this time the reference quote is Num. 6:2, cf. Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁹This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case., “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

“Circumcising he shall circumcise⁶⁸Gen. 17:13..” A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering⁶⁹The follow-up to the act of circumcision in which the skin is cut and plied back to uncover the corona.. One for the uncovering, the other for the fibers⁷⁰Eventual fibers of the prepuce which have to be cleaned from the wound. The same argument in the Babli, 72a.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions⁷¹This interpretation of double expressions is also attributed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Shevuot 27b.. From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen⁷²Gen. 31:30, a speech of Laban; 40:15, Josef’s address to the cup-bearer. Both verses are without legal implications; this proves that the repetitions are a literary device to express emphasis. The same argument in Babli, Avodah zarah 27a.”? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, “then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions⁷³Ex. 4:26, the inference is from the plural form מולות. {Modern interpreters take the words of the Ismaelite Ṣippora to be Arabic, “poor circumcised one, may it be for opulence”.},” from here that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering; one for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. Rav said, “circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. “Circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise until he circumcises himself; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile⁷⁴In Gen. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Levi said, it is written: “But you have to keep my covenant.” You and yours⁷⁵In Gen. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of Rav Huna. In the Babli, Avodah zarah 27a, it is attributed to Rebbi..