Talmud sobre Gênesis 1:27
וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃
Criou, pois, Deus o homem à sua imagem; à imagem de Deus o criou; homem e mulher os criou.
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot
They came back and asked him: What is that which is written (Gen. 1:26): “Let us make a human in our image, as in our pattern.” He answered them, it is not written: “ĕlōhīm created man in their image” but (Gen. 1:27): “God created man in His image.” His students told him: these you pushed away with a stick, what can you answer us29The verse presents a real difficulty, not for the plural, which is one of majesty, but for shape and form which cannot be attributes of God.? He said to them: Adam was created from dust, Eve was created from Adam. After Adam “in our image, like our pattern;” it is impossible for a man without a woman, or for a woman without a man, and for both of them without the Shekhinah30In the Babli (Niddah 31a) this is formulated as: There are three partners in the creation of a child: Father, mother, and the Holy One, praise to Him (who gives soul and intelligence.).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Avot D'Rabbi Natan
What was the fence that Job made around his words? It says (Job 1:5), “A pure and righteous man, who fears God and turns away from evil.” This teaches us that Job distanced himself from anything that would bring him to sin, from any ugliness, and from anything even resembling ugliness. If that is so, then why do we have to also learn that he was “a pure and righteous man”? But instead, this is here to teach us that Job emerged [from the womb] already circumcised. Adam also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 1:24), “And God created the person in His image.” Seth also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 5:2), “He had a child in his likeness and image.” Noah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 6:9), “A just and pure man in his generation.” Shem also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 14:18), “Malkitzedek, king of Shalem.”2Malkitzedek is understood in rabbinic tradition to be Shem. The Hebrew word shalem means “complete.” Jacob also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 25:27), “Jacob was a pure man, who sat in tents.” Joseph also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 37:2), “This is the progeny of Jacob: Joseph.” But shouldn’t it say [instead]: This is the progeny of Jacob: Reuben? What do we learn from [the fact that it says] Joseph? [We learn] that just as Jacob emerged already circumcised, (so, too,) Joseph emerged already circumcised. Moses also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Exodus 2:2), “She saw that he was good.” And what did his mother see in him that was lovelier and more praiseworthy than any other person? That he emerged circumcised. Bil’am the wicked also came out circumcised, as it says (Numbers 24:4), “The word of him who hears God’s speech.” (Samuel also emerged circumcised, as it says [I Samuel 2:26], “Young Samuel continued to grow and was good.”) David also emerged circumcised – as it says (Psalms 16:1), “A mikhtam3A ketem (which has the same Hebrew letters as mikhtam) can mean a type of spot or marking. of David. (Protect me, for I seek refuge in You).” Jeremiah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Jeremiah 1:5), “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came out of the womb I consecrated you.” Zerubbabel also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Haggai 2:23), “On that day (I will take,) [declares the Eternal of Hosts, I will take] Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, declares the Eternal.” And it says (Job 31:1), “I have made a covenant with my eyes, so how can I gaze at a maiden [i.e., an unmarried woman]?” This teaches that Job was strict with himself and would not even look at a maiden. And if with a maiden – whom he could marry if he wished (to his son, to his daughter, or to [another] family member) – he was strict with himself and would not look at her, then all the more so [would he never look at] a married woman! And why was he so strict with himself not to look even at a maiden? Because Job said to himself: Perhaps I will look today, and tomorrow another man will come along and marry her, and then I will have looked at a married woman.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
MISHNAH: A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply unless he has children. The House of Shammai say two males, but the House of Hillel say a male and a female, as it is said “male and female He created them110Gen. 1:27..” If he married a wife and she stayed with him for ten years and had no child he is not permitted to rest. If he divorced her111He also might take a second wife., she is permitted to marry another and the second [husband] is permitted to stay with her for ten years, and if she had a miscarriage she counts from the moment of the miscarriage. The man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply but not the woman. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, for both of them it says “God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply,112Gen. 1:28.” etc.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
HALAKHAH: “A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply,” etc. The House of Shammai say two males, since “Gershom and Eliezer”1131Chr. 23:15. The argument is in Babli 61b, Tosephta 8:4, Tanḥuma Buber Bereshit 26. Nobody has to be more strict than Moses. are mentioned for Moses. The House of Hillel say a male and a female the way the world was created, as it is said “male and female He created them110Gen. 1:27..” Rebbi Abun said, one has to understand “even a male and a female”. If it were not so, it should have been a Mishnah114In Tractate Idiut. It must be that the House of Hillel accept either two males or male and female. about the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel. Sons of sons are counted as sons115Tosephta 8:4, Babli 62b., sons of daughters are not counted as sons116In the Babli, 62b, this is the opinion of Abbai; it is rejected by the authoritative Rava (Rav Abba bar Rav Yosef bar Ḥama).. The son’s son and the daughter’s daughter count; the son’s daughter and the daughter’s son do not count. A she-ram, a castrate, and those who cannot have children are not counted.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Megillah
Thirteen things they changed for King Ptolemy. They wrote for him, “God created the beginning376Gen. 1:1; change not found in LXX..” “I shall make man in stature and form377Gen. 1:26; change not found in LXX..” “Male and his openings He created them378Gen. 1:27; change not found in LXX..” “He finished on the Sixth and rested on the Seventh379Gen. 2:2; change found in LXX.” “Now I shall descend380Gen. 11:7; change found in LXX..” “Sarah laughed in her surroundings, saying.381Gen. 18:12; LXX: “in herself”.” “For in their rage they slew a bull and in their will uprooted a trough382Gen. 49:6; change not found in LXX..” “Moses took his wife and his sons and let them ride on people-carriers383Ex. 4:20. LXX: “beast of burden”..” “The dwelling of the Children of Israel, which they dwelled in Egypt and other lands, was 430 years.384Ex. 12:40. LXX: “In the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.”” And the hare385Lev. 11:6 (in LXX 11:5). LXX: “rough-foot”, a designation of the hare., “and the young of foot.” King Ptolemy’s mother was called “hare386The dynasty of the Ptolemies was called the Lagides, after an ancestor Lagos “hare”.”. “Not one precious thing I took from them387Num. 16:15; change found in LXX.” “Which the Eternal, your God, distributed them to give light to all peoples under all the heavens.388Deut. 4:19; change not found in LXX.” “Which I did not command peoples to worship them.389Deut. 17:3; change not found in LXX.
The comparisons with the LXX text was done on the basis of Rahlfs’s edition; the history of the text between the time of the Jewish translation in Alexandria and its adaptation by Christian editors in the Roman Empire is unknown. The same list is in the Babli 9a.”
The comparisons with the LXX text was done on the basis of Rahlfs’s edition; the history of the text between the time of the Jewish translation in Alexandria and its adaptation by Christian editors in the Roman Empire is unknown. The same list is in the Babli 9a.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy