Talmud sobre Daniel 4:35

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, both substitute names and substitutes of substitutes are forbidden¹⁹Tosephta Nazir 1:1 (cf. also 1:2); Babli Nedarim 10b. The expression “forbidden” refers to “vows of prohibition” rather than to vows of nazir.. But the House of Hillel say, substitute names are forbidden, substitutes of substitutes are permitted.” What are substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, menazaqa,menaziqna,mefaḥazna²⁰Pi‘el forms of the accepted roots נזק, פזח.. Rebbi Yose said, these are not substitutes of substitutes, they are really substitute names, for is somebody who said menadarna not a nazir? But one who says menadarna²¹Since Galilean rabbinic Hebrew mostly replaces qal by pi‘el (such as מְהַלֵּךְ for הוֹלֵך), an unusual pi‘el form for נדר “to make a vow” (and equally, for נזר “to vow to be a nazir”) is valid speech.
The form מנזדנא used here makes no sense; most probably one has to read מְנַזַּרְנָא as in the preceding sentence. is like one who said mefaḥazna. Following Rebbi Yose, these are substitutes of substitutes, as we have stated: “I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir, but the Sages say, he is not a nazir. “Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: ²²Dan. 4:30. This establishes a proverbial connection between long hair and a mention of birds.“Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.”

“ ‘I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir, but the Sages say, he is not a nazir.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: “Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.²²Dan. 4:30. This establishes a proverbial connection between long hair and a mention of birds.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because an impure nazir brings birds²⁷Num. 6:10. But no pure person would entertain the idea of becoming a nazir if he expects to become impure since that could extend his period of nezirut indefinitely.. Does he bring birds²⁸Many people use צִפּוֹר only for wild birds.? He brings turtledoves or young pigeons. There are some Tannaïm who state that all pure birds are called צפור, and there are some Tannaïm who state that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור. He who says that all pure birds are called צפור, “you may eat any pure bird²⁹Deut. 14:11. In Scripture, צפור is feminine..” He who says that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור, “say to any winged bird³⁰Ez. 39:14.. “What is the rabbi’s reason? He is like somebody offering birds for the upkeep of the Temple³¹The expression הֲרֵי עָלַי “I have to bring” is a regular form of a vow, which in Temple times implied a gift to the Temple. A single bird can be offered as a voluntary sacrifice (Lev. 1:14–17) but a couple can be given only as an obligatory sacrifice, i. e., a reparation or a purification sacrifice. These can never be given voluntarily, as result of a vow. Since the vow was formulated for birds, not a bird, it is concluded that the birds have to be given to the Temple for its upkeep, to be sold to persons needing them for obligatory sacrifices, with the proceeds given to the Temple treasury.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He is like somebody offering a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple³²This is an impossibility; an obligatory sacrifice cannot be given voluntarily and it has to be offered on the altar, not sold for the Temple’s benefit. Therefore, the vow has to be interpreted as a wish to be in a situation in which one has to bring a reparation sacrifice to the Temple. The only reparation sacrifices which depend on the person’s initiative are either the possible sacrifice of the impure nazir or those required of the person guilty of larceny (Lev. 5:14–16, 21–26). Since it is impossible to think that a person should want to commit larceny for religious purposes, the state of nazir is the only alternative.. What is the difference between them? If somebody says, “I take upon myself to bring a reparation sacrifice.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is a nazir since one cannot bring a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple. In the opinion of the rabbis he is a nazir since an impure nazir brings a reparation sacrifice³³Since in this formulation there is no difference between the rabbis and R. Meïr, all commentaries read “he is not a nazir”; since no person would accept nezirut with the prospect of an indefinite duration unless he spells this out clearly at the start, the vow is invalid because it is unrealistic. If one keeps the original wording, the rabbis and R. Meїr agree not only on the result but also on the reasoning behind it..

“There is merit which suspends for one year, there is merit which suspends for two years, there is merit which suspends for three years.” There is merit which suspends for one year,” from Nabuchadneṣar: “At the end of twelve months.⁹⁰Dan. 4:26. It is written in v. 24: Therefore, o king, take my advice: atone for your sins by deeds of charity and for your misdeed by kindness to the poor, then your peace will be prolonged.
In the Babli, 20b, and in Sifry Num. 8, this is attributed to R. Ismael as maximum time lag for the water’s action.” “There is merit which suspends for two years,” from Amnon: “It was after two years.⁹¹2S. 13:23. Absalom managed to kill Amnon two years after the latter had raped Tamar.” “There is merit which suspends for three years,” from Ahab: “They sat for three years when there was no war between Aram and Israel.⁹²1K. 22:1. Everywhere in talmudic literature is the nameless “king of Israel” of Chap. 22:1–38 identified with Ahab mentioned in vv. 39–40. The three years are counted from the judicial murder of Nabot.” Rebbi Yose said, it was said that the entire twelve months he⁹³Probably referring to Nabuchadneṣar; but in the current text it refers to the first year of Ahab after Nabot’s murder. occupied himself with deeds of charity. And all these two⁹⁴In Tosaphot, 20b s. v. יש, the reading is “three years.” This reading is slightly suspect since the Babli (21a) accepts only the merit of Torah study as a saving device for Jews (works of charity really being the main vehicle of salvation for Gentiles). years he occupied himself with Torah. That is what it says: “They were in a Yeshiva⁹⁵A talmudic academy. for three years when there was no war between Aram and Israel.”

How is it with a woman of ‘goodly form’? [It is stated,] And thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails.³⁰Deut. 21, 11f; cf. Yeb. 48a (Sonc. ed., p. 316). [This means that] she shall shave her head and cut her nails, so the view of R. Eliezer;³¹The text is so corrected by GRA and H in accordance with Yeb. loc. cit. The Heb. verb, the meaning of which is disputed, is lit. ‘do’. R. ‘Aḳiba [takes the meaning to be,] she lets the hair of her head grow long and lets her nails grow. R. Eliezer said: An act is mentioned in respect of the head³²She shall shave her head. and an act is mentioned in respect of her nails;³³And ‘do’ her nails. as the former signifies removal of the hair so the latter signifies removal of the nails. R. ‘Aḳiba said: An act is mentioned in respect of the head and an act is mentioned in respect of the nails; as disfigurement is the purpose of the former so is disfigurement the purpose of the latter. There is a support for R. Eliezer [in the verse], And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king; and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard.³⁴2 Sam. 19, 25, where the word for trimmed is lit. ‘done’. There is a support for R. ‘Aḳiba [in the verse], Till his hair was grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.³⁵Dan. 4, 30. The ‘support’ is here not the usage of the verb but the idea that letting the nails grow is a disfigurement.
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her.³⁶Deut. 21, 13, i.e. waits before he may marry her. If she wore white garments and they were comely for her, black garments and they were comely for her,³⁷H reads: ‘If she wore beautiful garments she is clothed in black garments; if she had on … taken away from her to make her look ugly’. bracelets, nose-rings or rings, they are taken away from her so that she should sit and appear in her disfigurement. And she shall remain in thy house:³⁸Deut. ibid. so that while she remains in his house he enters and sees her in her disfigurement. And bewail her father and her mother:³⁹ibid. this means her actual father and mother, in the view of R. Eliezer; but R. ‘Aḳiba explains that her father and her mother refers to the idols [which she worshipped], as it is stated, Who say to a stock: ‘Thou art my father’, and to a stone: ‘Thou hast brought us forth’.⁴⁰Jer. 2, 27.
A month of days⁴¹Deut, ibid., E.V. a full month. The translation follows the emended text of GRA.—i.e. thirty days. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: [It means] three months, as it is stated, And bewail her father and her mother a month, i.e. one month, of days signifies [with the former] two months, and after that [is added in the text] to include the third month, [the purpose being] that the holy seed shall not be mingled with that of other peoples. When does this apply? Only if she does not wish to become a proselyte; but if she is willing to become a proselyte, he has her immersed [in the ritual bath] and emancipates her, and is permitted to marry her forthwith. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Even if she is not willing⁴²Added by GRA. at first, he has her immersed as a handmaid, emancipates her and may marry her forthwith. Why all this [procedure]? In order that the holy seed should not be mingled with that of other peoples.⁴³The question and answer are deleted by GRA. It is better for Israelites to eat the flesh of animals about to die, yet ritually slaughtered, than the flesh of dying animals which definitely perished.⁴⁴And were not ritually slaughtered. The intention is that the procedure is based on the principle of the lesser evil. It is better for the man to be married to the woman rather than just cohabit with her (cf. Ḳid. 21b, 22a, Sonc. ed., p. 104). The last word of the sentence should be read as בודאי (definitely) instead of לבדה (alone).

The men of Sodom will not be granted eternal life, and will not even be given a trial, as it says (Genesis 13:13), “And the men of Sodom were [very] wicked and sinful [against the Eternal].” “Wicked” – with one another; “and sinful” – through sexual transgression. “Against the Eternal” – by desecrating God’s name; “very” – for they were very intent on sinning. These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.
But Rabbi Yehoshua said: They will be given a trial! As it says (Psalms 1:5), “(Therefore the wicked will not survive judgment,) nor will sinners, in the assembly of the righteous.” That is, they will not stand in the assembly of the righteous, but they will stand in the assembly of the wicked. But Rabbi Nehemiah said: They will not make it to the assembly of the wicked. As it says (Psalms 104:35), “May sinners disappear from the earth, and the wicked be no more.”
The minor children of the wicked will not be granted eternal life, and will not even be given a trial, as it says (Malachi 3:19), “For behold, the day is coming that will burn like a furnace [and all the arrogant and the doers of evil will be like straw, and when that day comes, says the Eternal, Master of Legions, it will burn them to ashes and leave no root or branch].” These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.
But Rabbi Yehoshua said: They will be given a trial! It is about them that the verse says (Daniel 4:11), “He called loudly and said, Cut down the tree, chop off its branches, strip off its foliage, and scatter its fruit.” And then it says (Daniel 4:12), “But leave the stump with its roots in the ground in fetters of iron and bronze.” Both the verses in Malachi and in Daniel mention roots. Just as the roots in the later passage refer to their bodies, so too do the roots in the earlier passage refer to the human body. If so, how do I interpret the words (from Malachi 3:19), “It will…leave no root or branch”? That they will have no merit on which they can depend.
Others agree that they will be given a trial, but say that the verse which speaks of them is (Isaiah 44:5), “This one will say, I am for the Eternal! and that one will use the name Jacob; another one will write For the Eternal on his arm, and take on the name Israel. “This one will say, I am for the Eternal!” – those are the totally righteous. “That one will use the name Jacob” – those are the minor children of the wicked. “Another one will write For the Eternal on his arm” – these are the wicked who cease their evil ways and repent and return to the good. “And take on the name Israel” – these are the converts from all the nations of the world.

The men of Sodom will not be granted eternal life, and will not even be given a trial, as it says (Genesis 13:13), “And the men of Sodom were [very] wicked and sinful [against the Eternal].” “Wicked” – with one another; “and sinful” – through sexual transgression. “Against the Eternal” – by desecrating God’s name; “very” – for they were very intent on sinning. These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.
But Rabbi Yehoshua said: They will be given a trial! As it says (Psalms 1:5), “(Therefore the wicked will not survive judgment,) nor will sinners, in the assembly of the righteous.” That is, they will not stand in the assembly of the righteous, but they will stand in the assembly of the wicked. But Rabbi Nehemiah said: They will not make it to the assembly of the wicked. As it says (Psalms 104:35), “May sinners disappear from the earth, and the wicked be no more.”
The minor children of the wicked will not be granted eternal life, and will not even be given a trial, as it says (Malachi 3:19), “For behold, the day is coming that will burn like a furnace [and all the arrogant and the doers of evil will be like straw, and when that day comes, says the Eternal, Master of Legions, it will burn them to ashes and leave no root or branch].” These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.
But Rabbi Yehoshua said: They will be given a trial! It is about them that the verse says (Daniel 4:11), “He called loudly and said, Cut down the tree, chop off its branches, strip off its foliage, and scatter its fruit.” And then it says (Daniel 4:12), “But leave the stump with its roots in the ground in fetters of iron and bronze.” Both the verses in Malachi and in Daniel mention roots. Just as the roots in the later passage refer to their bodies, so too do the roots in the earlier passage refer to the human body. If so, how do I interpret the words (from Malachi 3:19), “It will…leave no root or branch”? That they will have no merit on which they can depend.
Others agree that they will be given a trial, but say that the verse which speaks of them is (Isaiah 44:5), “This one will say, I am for the Eternal! and that one will use the name Jacob; another one will write For the Eternal on his arm, and take on the name Israel. “This one will say, I am for the Eternal!” – those are the totally righteous. “That one will use the name Jacob” – those are the minor children of the wicked. “Another one will write For the Eternal on his arm” – these are the wicked who cease their evil ways and repent and return to the good. “And take on the name Israel” – these are the converts from all the nations of the world.