출애굽기 32:8의 탈무드

So what did Jeroboam do¹²⁹To commit a new kind of sin.? Because he made two golden calves. But did Israel not make many calves¹³⁰The sin is not new; for the Yerushalmi Jeroboam has part in the World to Come.? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Thirteen calves did Israel make¹³¹Not a single golden calf but 13.; of these one was common property¹³²Greek δημόσιος, -α, -ον, adj. “belonging to the people”. Also used as noun. to all of them. What is the reason? They said, these are your gods, Israel¹³³Ex. 32:4,8.; this refers to the twelve tribes. This is your god¹³⁴Neh. 9:18., i. e., one common property for all of them.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶²Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.

From where about him who says, “you are my god”²⁶⁷That it is a capital crime.? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.: They prostrated themselves before it, and sacrificed to it, and said, these are your gods, Israel. Then he should not be guilty unless he sacrifice, burn incense, and declare. Rebbi Yose said, the verse is written only for the disgrace of Israel. They prostrated themselves before it, not before Heaven. And sacrificed to it, not to Heaven. And said, not to Heaven. What about this²⁶⁹How does the verse imply that declaring one’s allegiance to another power constitutes a capital crime?? Saying is mentioned here and saying is said about one who leads astray^61,The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16.²⁷⁰An example of הֶקֵּשׁ “trapping”, or בִּנְיַן אָב מִכָּתוּב אֶחָד, the third hermeneutical rule. Since in one case it is established that by talking alone one may commit a capital crime, in all other cases where talking is equated to actions constituting capital crimes, it is a capital crime in itself.. Since for saying mentioned about one who leads astray, saying is equated with acting, also for the saying mentioned here, we have to equate saying with acting.

The Holy Blessed One tested our ancestors with ten trials, and they did not emerge whole from any of them. They are as follows: “In the wilderness, on the plain, facing Suf, [between Paran, and Tophel, and Lavan, and Hatzerot, and Di-zahav]” (Deuteronomy 1:1). “In the wilderness”: When they made the Golden Calf, as it says (Exodus 32:8), “They made themselves a molten calf.” “On the plain”: Because of water, as it says (Exodus 17:3), “There the people thirsted for water.” “Facing Suf”: When they rebelled at the Sea of Reeds (and some say: This was the idol that Micah made). Rabbi Yehudah said: They rebelled at the sea, meaning, they rebelled in the sea, as it says (Psalms 106:7), “They rebelled at the Sea of Reeds.” “Between Paran”: With regard to the spies (as it says in Numbers 13:3), “Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran.” “And Tophel”: These were the frivolous words (tiphlot) they said about the manna. “Lavan”: This was Korah’s mutiny. “Hatzerot”: Because of the quails. So far, that is seven. But in another place (Deuteronomy 9:22) it says, “At Tav’erah, and at Masah, and at Kivrot HaTa’avah.” “Di-zahav”: This is when (Aaron) said to them: Enough (dai) of this golden (zahav) sin which you have committed with the calf! But Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov would say: [Terrible] enough (dai) is this sin that Israel was punished for to last from now until the resurrection of the dead.