Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 2a
MISHNAH. ALL ARE BOUND To APPEAR [AT THE TEMPLE],1 EXCEPT A DEAF MAN [HERESH],2 AN IMBECILE AND A MINOR,3 A PERSON OF UNKNOWN SEX [TUMTUM],4 A HERMAPHRODITE,5 WOMEN, UNFREED SLAVES,6 THE LAME, THE BLIND, THE SICK, THE AGED, AND ONE WHO IS UNABLE TO GO UP ON FOOT.7 WHO IS [IN THIS RESPECT DEEMED] A MINOR?8 WHOEVER IS UNABLE9 TO RIDE ON HIS FATHER'S SHOULDERS AND GO UP FROM JERUSALEM TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT. [THIS IS] THE VIEW OF BETH SHAMMAI.
BUT BETH HILLEL SAY: WHOEVER IS UNABLE TO HOLD HIS FATHER'S HAND AND GO UP FROM JERUSALEM TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT, FOR IT IS SAID:10 THREE REGALIM.11
BETH SHAMMAI SAY: THE PILGRIMAGE-OFFERING12 MUST BE WORTH [AT LEAST] TWO PIECES OF SILVER13 AND THE FESTAL OFFERING14 ONE MA'AH OF SILVER.15 BUT BETH HILLEL SAY: THE PILGRIMAGE-OFFERING MUST BE WORTH [AT LEAST] ONE MA'AH OF SIlver AND THE FESTAL SACRIFICE TWO PIECES OF SILVER.
GEMARA. What does [the word] ALL come to include?16 — It comes to include one who is half a slave and half a freedman.17 But according to Rabina, who says: One who is half a slave and half a freedman is exempt from appearing [at the Temple], what does [the word] ALL come to include? — It comes to include one who was lame on the first day [of the festival] and became well18 on the second.
This will be right according to the one who says: All of them19 can make good [the sacrifices] for one another;20 but according to the one who says: All of them can make good [the sacrifices] of the first day [only],21 what does ALL, come to include? — It comes to include a man who is blind in one eye; and it is contrary to the opinion of the following Tanna. For it is taught: Johanan b. Dahabai22 said in the name of R. Judah: A man who is blind in one eye is exempt from appearing [at the Temple]23 as it is said:24 Yir'eh [He will see], Yera'eh [He will be seen].25
As He comes to see, so he comes to be seen: just as [He comes] to see with both eyes, so also to be seen with both eyes. Alternatively, I could answer: Actually, it is as I said at first;26 and as for your objection [arising] from the statement of Rabina, it is not a [valid] objection: the one [teaching]27 is according to the earlier Mishnah,28 and the other29 is according to the later Mishnah.30 For we have learnt: One who is half a slave and half a freedman serves his master one day and himself the other day: this is the view of Beth Hillel. Said Beth Shammai to them:
(1) I.e., at the Temple Court (עזרה), on the three Pilgrim Festivals of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles; cf. Ex. XXIII, 14, 17; Deut. XVI, 16. The word ראײה (rendered in our text, ‘to appear’) is understood by Rashi, Maimonides, Jastrow, Danby etc. in the sense of ראײת פנים, the personal appearance of the pilgrim in the Temple. But R. Tam (in Tosaf. a. l.) regards it as referring to the burnt-offering (v. Lev. I, 3f) brought by the pilgrim on his visit to the Temple i.e. it stands for עולת ראײה; cf. end of Mishnah, 4b, 6b et seq.
(2) Explained infra 2b as a ‘deaf-mute’.
(3) The deaf man, imbecile and minor are exempted from the observance of this and other positive precepts on account of lack of intelligence. The reason for the exemption of others is explained in the Gemara.
(4) טומטום from טמם ‘to fill up stop’: one whose genitals are concealed or undeveloped.
(5) אנדרוגינום Grk. **.
(6) Explained infra 4a as ‘half free’; v. p. 2, n. 6.
(7) I.e., from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount.
(8) Ordinarily, a boy up to the age of thirteen years and a day is considered a minor
(9) I.e., is too young; but as soon as he is old enough he must visit the Temple, because, although exempt by the Law of the Torah till he reaches his majority (v. n. 8), the Rabbis imposed on the father the duty of training him in the observance of the precepts.
(10) Ex. XXIII, 14.
(11) רגלים (pl. of רגל) rendered in E.V. by ‘times’, occurs in this sense again only in Num. XXII, 28, 32, 33. On the basis of Ex. XXIII, 14, the Mishnah often uses רגלים of the three Pilgrim Festivals. But the usual meaning of רגל is ‘foot’, hence the quotation is understood in our Mishnah as ‘three times on foot’ i.e., the precept to appear at the Temple applies only to those who can walk.
(12) ראײה, the word translated above ‘to appear’ (v. p. 1, n. 1). Here it stands for עולת ראײה, the burnt-offering, which, it was inferred from Ex. XXIII,15 (end), the pilgrim had to bring on visiting the Temple.
(13) I.e., two ma'ahs, v. n. 4.
(14) הגיגה, whence our tractate derives its name. It was a peace-offering (cf. Lev. III,15) and was inferred from Lev. XXIII, 41; v. infra 9a.
(15) A sixth of a denar, v. Glos.
(16) The word ‘ALL’ is emphatic’; it implies that persons who might be thought exempt are subject to the commandment; hence the question.
(17) E.g., he belonged to two masters, and was freed by one of them.
(18) Lit., ‘became straight’ (in limb).
(19) I.e.,the seven individual days of the festival.
(20) I.e., if a man was unfit to bring his sacrifices on the first day of the festival (e.g.,if he was exempt on account of lameness) and during the festival he became fit (i.e., regained the use of his leg), it is his duty to make good his sacrificial dues on the day of the festival that he becomes fit.
(21) I.e., if he was unfit on the first day, he is completely exempt, though he becomes fit in the course of the festival.
(22) Probably the name means, ‘Goldsmith’.
(23) Or, according to Tosaf. (v. p. 1, n. 1), ‘exempt from bringing the pilgrimage- offering’; and so wherever the translation has ‘appearing’.
(24) Ex. XXIII, 17.
(25) יראה may be vocalised יראה (Kal, ‘He will see’) or following the Massorah, יראה (Nif'al, ‘He will be seen, appear); cf. Gen. XXII, 14. By combining both readings, it is deduced that the ‘seeing’ and ‘being seen’ must be alike in regard to fulness of vision i.e., in regard to the use of both eyes: just as God comes to see the pilgrim with both eyes (an anthropomorphism for full vision necessitated by the desired parallel in respect to man), so when the pilgrim comes to appear before God, he must be able to see with both eyes. So Rashi: but R. Tam (in Tosaf. a.l.) prefers to make man the subject, and construes thus; יראהתיראה just as the pilgrim is seen by God, Who has two eyes (i.e., full vision), so he must see Him (i.e., appear in the Divine presence) with both eyes.
(26) I.e., that the word all comes to include a half-slave.
(27) I.e., the statement that unfreed slaves are exempt from visiting the Temple, which Rabina interprets as inferring such as are half free.
(28) I.e., the Mishnah as it was formulated before the School of Hillel (whose ruling was authoritative against that of the Shammaite School cf. Ber. 36b and Gratz, vol. IV, p. 424, n. 4; Heb. edn. vol. II, p. 172, n. 1) came over to the view of the School of Shammai. משנה ראשונה (rendered, ‘the earlier Mishnah’) may refer either (a) to a single previous ruling later revised, or (b) to an entire compilation of the Mishnah, in which case it may be rendered, ‘the first Mishnah’; cf. J.E. vol. VIII, P. 610f, and refs.
(29) V. note 4.
(30) I.e., representing the later opinion of the School of Hillel. Though this second opinion contradicts the first, the earlier ruling was not erased from the Mishnah, on the principle that a Mishnah (ruling) which had once been taught was not to be removed from its place; cf. Yeb. 30a et passim.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 2b
You have made it right for his master,1 but you have not made it right for himself2 He may not marry a bondwoman, nor may he marry a freewoman.3 Should he abstain [from marriage]? But then was not the world created only for propagation?4 as it is said:5 ‘He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited’. For the sake of the social order,6 therefore, his master must be compelled to set him free, and the latter must give him a bond for the half of his value. Thereupon Beth Hillel retracted and gave their ruling in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai.
EXCEPT A DEAF MAN [HERESH], AN IMBECILE AND A MINOR etc. [Our Mishnah] speaks of HERESH similarly as of the IMBECILE and MINOR: just as the IMBECILE and MINOR lack understanding, so HERESH [means] one that lacks understanding. This teaches us in accordance with that which we have learnt:7 ‘Wherever the Sages speak of HERESH,8 [it means] one who can neither hear nor speak.9 This [would imply] that he who can speak but not hear,10 hear but not speak is obligated.11 We have [thus] learnt that which our Rabbis taught.12 One who can speak but not hear is termed HERESH: one who can hear but not speak is termed Illem [dumb]; both of these are deemed sensible in all that relates to them. And whence [is it deduced] that one who can speak but not hear is termed Heresh, and one who can hear but not speak is termed ‘Illem? — For it is written: But I am as Heresh [a deaf man], I hear not,’ and I am as Illem [a dumb man] that openeth not his mouth.13 Alternatively, I could explain: As people say,14 His words have been taken away.15
‘One that can speak but not hear, hear but not speak is obligated’. But surely it is taught: One that can speak but not hear, hear but not speak is exempt!16 — Said Rabina, and according to others, Raba: [Our Mishnah] is defective and should read thus: All are bound to appear [at the Temple] and to rejoice,17 except a Heresh that can speak but not hear, [or] hear but not speak, who is exempt from appearing [at the Temple];18 but though he is exempt from appearing, he is bound to rejoice. One, however, that can neither hear nor speak,19 an imbecile and a minor are exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the precepts stated in the Torah,20 Likewise it is also taught: All are bound to appear [at the Temple] and to rejoice, except a Heresh that can speak but not hear, [or] hear but not speak, who is exempt from appearing; but though he is exempt from appearing
(1) I.e., he gets the full benefit of his half-ownership.
(2) R. Meshullam (in Tosaf.) prefers the opposite reading. ‘You have made it right for himself, but you have not made it right at all for his master’; because the latter loses any possible share of the offspring.
(3) Being partly a freedman he may not marry a slave; being partly a slave he may not marry a freewoman; v. Deut. XXIII, 18 and Targum Onkelos a.l.
(4) Lit., ‘for fruitfulness and multiplication’, cf. Gen. I, 28.
(5) Isa. XLV, 18.
(6) Lit., ‘for the sake of the establishment (or improvement) of the world’; cf Git. IV, 2, 3, where Danby renders; ‘as a precaution for the general good’.
(7) Ter. I, 2.
(8) I.e., together with the Imbecile and Minor.
(9) Tosaf. quotes and explains exceptions to this rule: cf. Meg. 19b and Hul. 2a.
(10) E.g., he was able to hear when born and learnt to speak, but later became deaf.
(11) I.e., to fulfil the precept of appearing at the Temple.
(12) I.e., our Mishnah supports and thus gives validity to the following Baraitha. (11) This statement agrees, by implication, with our Mishnah, which puts only a deaf-mute in the same category as an imbecile.
(13) Ps. XXXVIII, 14.
(14) I.e., a popular proverb; v. J.E vol X, p. 226f.
(15) I.e., אלם (‘dumb’) is an abbreviation of אשתקיל מלן ליה (‘his words have been taken away’).
(16) I.e., from visiting the Temple; thus the Baraitha contradicts our Mishnah.
(17) V. Deut. XVI, 14. Ritually the rejoicing took the form of a sacrificial meal of peace-offerings; cf. infra 8b and Pes. 109a.
(18) And from bringing the accompanying burnt-offering.
(19) I.e.,the Heresh of our Mishnah. Thus the fully worded Mishnah would refer to two kinds of Heresh: (a) the partial Heresh that can either speak or hear, who must ‘rejoice’, though he is exempt from visiting the Temple; (b) the complete Heresh, who is exempt from both.
(20) Torah primarily refers to the Pentateuch, but also has a wider meaning, which includes the whole Bible and even the entire range of Jewish teaching, both study and practice.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 3a
he is bound to rejoice. One, however, that can neither hear nor speak, an imbecile and a minor are exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the precepts stated in the Torah. Why is it that in regard to appearing they are exempt, and in regard to rejoicing they are obligated? With regard to appearing, it is deduced by forming an analogy between the expressions for appearing1 from [the section] ‘Assemble’,2 for it is written: Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones;3 and it is [further] written: When all Israel is come to appear.4 But whence is it deduced for the latter?5 — For it is written: That they may hear and that they may learn.3 And it is taught: ‘That they may hear’, [this] excludes one that can speak but not hear; ‘and that they may learn’, [this] excludes one that can hear but not speak. Does this then mean to say that one that cannot talk cannot learn? But behold there were two dumb men in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, sons of the daughter of R. Johanan b. Gudgada, and according to others, sons of the sister of R. Johanan, who, whenever Rabbi entered the College, went in and sat down [before him], and nodded their heads and moved their lips. And Rabbi prayed for them6 and they were cured,7 and it was found that they were versed in Halachah,8 Sifra,9 Sifre10 and the whole Talmud!11 Said Mar Zutra, Read, That they may teach.12 R. Ashi said: Assuredly it is [to be read]: That they may teach.13 For if you suppose [that it should be read]: That they may learn, and [argue that] if one cannot talk one cannot learn (and [obviously] if one cannot hear one cannot learn),14 that follows from [the expression]: That they may hear.15 Therefore, it must certainly be [read]: That they may teach.16
R. Tanhum said: One that is deaf in one ear is exempt from appearing [at the Temple], for it is said: In their ears.17 But [this expression], ‘in their ears’,is required [to teach that it18 must be] in the ears of all Israel!19 — That can be deduced from [the expression],20 ‘before all Israel’. But if [it were deduced] from [the expression] ‘before all Israel’, I might say: Even though they did not hear;21 therefore it is written in the Divine Law:22 in their ears,’ they must be able to hear!23 — That call be deduced from [the expression], in order that they may hear.24
R. Tanhum said: One that is lame in one foot is exempt from appearing [at the Temple], as it is said: Regalim [on foot].25 But this [word] Regalim is required to exclude people with wooden legs! — That follows from [the word] Pe'amim [steps].26 For it is taught: ‘Pe'amim’; ‘Pe'amim’ means only feet;27 and thus it is said: The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor, and the steps of [pa'ame]28 the needy.29 And it further says: How beautiful are thy steps [pe'amayik] in sandals, O prince's daughter.30
Raba expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: ‘How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O prince's daughter’. [It means:] How comely are the feet of Israel when they go up on the festival pilgrimage. ‘Prince's daughter’: [means] daughter of Abraham our father, who is called prince, as it is said: The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham.31 ‘The God of Abraham’, and not the God of Isaac and Jacob? [It must mean], therefore, the God of Abraham, who was the first of the Proselytes.32
R. Kahana said: R. Nathan b. Minyomi expounded in the name of R. Tanhum:33 What is the meaning of the verse: And the pit was empty, there was no water in it?34 Since it says that the pit was empty, would I not know that there was no water in it? [It must mean] therefore, there was no water in it, but there were in it snakes and scorpions.
Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Beroka and R. Eleazar Hisma35 went to pay their respects to R. Joshua at Peki'in.36 Said he to them: What new teaching was there at the College to-day? They replied: We are thy disciples and thy waters do we drink.37 Said he to them: Even so, it is impossible for a college session to pass without some novel teaching. Whose Sabbath38 was it? — It was the Sabbath of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah, [they replied].-And what was the theme of his Haggadic39 discourse to-day? They answered: The section ‘Assemble’.40 And what exposition did he give thereon? ‘Assemble the people the men and the women and the little ones’. If the men came to learn, the women came to hear,41 but wherefore have the little ones to come? In order to grant reward42 to those that bring them. Said he to them: There was a fair Jewel in your hand, and you sought to deprive me of it.
He further expounded: Thou hast avouched the Lord this day . . . and the Lord has avouched thee this day.43 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: You have made me a unique object of your love44 in the world, and I shall make you a unique object of My love in the world.45 You have made me a unique object of your love, as it is written: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.46 And I shall make you a unique object of My love, as it is said:
(1) I.e., יראה (‘shall appear’) in Ex. XXIII, 17 and לראות (‘to appear’) in Deut. XXXI, 11.
(2) Deut. XXXI, 10-13. The name is derived from the introductory word in the verse that follows.
(3) Deut. XXXI, v. 12.
(4) Ibid. v.11
(5) I.e., how do we know that a Heresh that can hear or speak is exempt from the precept referred to in Deut. XXXI, 10-13.
(6) Lit., ‘he besought (God's) mercy on this behalf’.
(7) On the efficacy of prayer, v. J.E. vol. X, pp. 168-169.
(8) הלכה from הלך ‘to go, follow’, means literally ‘going’, ‘walking’ then figuratively: ‘the teaching which one follows, the rule or state by which one is guided,the categorical religious law’, (H. L. Strack, Intro. to the Talmud, p. 6 ¤ 7: v. whole section and refs.). The last meaning applies here. Cf. also the refs. to Halachah in R. T. Herford's The Pharisees, esp. Ch. III. V. Glos.
(9) ‘The Book’, also called Torath Kohanim (‘Law of the Priests’) is a halachic Midrash on Leviticus.
(10) ספרי or more fully, ספרי דבי רב (‘the Books of the School of Rab’) is a halachic Midrash on Numbers (commencing with Ch. 5) and on Deut. V. Glos.
(11) ש״ם Lit., ‘six orders’ into which the Mishnah, and consequently the Talmud, which is the commentary on it, is divided. [MS.M. reads, ‘Talmud’].
(12) I.e., ילמדו (Pi'el) for ילמדו (Kal). Such textual changes are not to be regarded as serious Biblical emendations, but as part of the exegetical method of the Rabbis for the purpose of halachic and Haggadic deduction.
(13) I.e., quite apart from the instance of the two dumb scholars, it can be proved that teach is the right reading.
(14) [MS.M. omits bracketed words which, in fact, are superfluous].
(15) The underlying reason for excluding the deaf is their inability to learn. If now you suppose that the dumb cannot learn, their exclusion can be inferred from the expression, ‘that they may hear’, which excludes the deaf, and similarly the dumb, and the words ‘that they may learn’ are superfluous.
(16) And the inference that a dumb person cannot learn falls away.
(17) Deut. XXXI, 11. The plural indicates that those present must be able to hear with both ears; and by analogy (v. supra p. 5, n. 9) we apply this rule also to the law of Ex. XXIII, 17.
(18) The public reading referred to in the section ‘Assemble’ (v. p. 5, n. 10); cf. Sot. 41a.
(19) I.e., in their hearing.
(20) Deut. ibid.
(21) I.e., were too far away; not that they were deaf.
(22) Lit., ‘The Merciful One wrote’, i.e., God revealed through Scripture. V. Bacher, Exeg. Term. II, 207f.
(23) This expression, therefore, cannot be used for the inference that a person deaf in one ear is exempt.
(24) Ibid. v. 12. Thus ‘in their ears’ is available for R. Tanhum's teaching.
(25) Ex. XXIII, 14. V. supra p. 5, n. 10. The word is probably read here רגלים (dual): the pilgrim must have use of both feet.
(26) Ex. XXIII, 17. פעמים E.V. ‘times’ (cf. supra p. 1, n. 11) is here understood in its root meaning of ‘steps’, i.e., only those having their own legs must visit the Temple.
(27) I.e., natural as opposed to artificial feet.
(28) פעמי (steps) being parallel to רגלי (feet) must mean the same as the latter.
(29) Isa. XXVI, 6.
(30) Cant. VII, 2. The word sandals is additional evidence that פעמים refers to natural feet.
(31) Ps. XLVII, 10.
(32) ‘Prince’ (נדיב) means lit., ‘one who offers himself willingly’ i.e., for God's service. Abraham was the first to confess and worship the Lord, and the reference to the ‘princes, the peoples’ is to the proselytes who, like Abraham, offer themselves to the service of God.
(33) The name of R. Tanhum is the link between the preceding and the following exposition.
(34) Gen. XXXVII, 24.
(35) In Tr. Soferim the reading is Eleazar b. Hisma. For the cognomen which is not adjectival (i.e., ‘muzzled’) but locative (prob. a native of Hismeh’) v. J.E. Vol. V, p. 99.
(36) Also Beki'in, modern Fukin, in S. Palestine between Lydda and Jabneh (Jast.). It was customary for pupils to visit their teacher on holy days; cf. R.H. 16b.
(37) I.e., disciples may not speak before their teacher (Rashi); or we cannot possibly have anything to teach you.
(38) R. Gamaliel used to lecture on two (or three) Sabbaths and R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah on the third (or fourth) v. Ber. 28a.
(39) Haggadah (הגדה), a nomen actionis of הגיד (to tell), denotes all scriptural interpretation which is non-halachic (i.e., non-legal) in character (H. L. Strack). V. Glos.
(40) V. supra p. 5, n. 10.
(41) But not to study it fully; cf. J.T., Sot. III, 4. For the status of the woman in Judaism v. J.E. vol. XII, p. 556.
(42) For the Rabbinic conception of reward v. R. T. Herford, op. cit. pp. 123-24, 127-120.
(43) Deut. XXVI, 17-18.
(44) חטיבה אחת Jast. ‘the only object of your love’ (from root meaning ‘to fall in love, woo’); Levy, ‘Herrscher’ (ruler) comparing it, according to Bacher, with Pers. ‘Khedive’; Goldschmidt, ‘Verherrlichung’ (glorification); Rashi, ‘sole or unique object of praise’; Aruch, in the name of R. Hai Gaon, ‘Unique concept’ (ציור אחת); Maharsha (quoting Rashi to Deut. XXVI, 17) ‘separation. (from root meaning ‘to hew’).
(45) Aruch reads: ‘in this world . . . in the world to come’.
(46) Deut. VI, 4. For different renderings of this verse v. I. Abrahams, A companion to the Auth. Daily Prayer Book, p. LI.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 3b
And who is like unto Thy people Israel, a nation one in the earth.1 And he2 also took up the text and expounded: The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well planted are the words of masters of Assemblies, which are given from one Shepherd.3
Why are the words of the Torah4 likened to a goad? To teach you that just as the goad directs the heifer along its furrow in order to bring forth life to the world, so the words of the Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. But [should you think] that just as the goad is movable so the words of the Torah are movable;5 therefore the text says: ‘nails’.
But [should you think] that just as the nail diminishes6 and does not increase, so too the words of the Torah diminish and do not increase; therefore the text says: ‘well planted’; just as a plant grows and increases, so the words of the Torah grow and increase.
‘The masters of assemblies’: these are the disciples of the wise, who sit in manifold assemblies and occupy themselves with the Torah, some pronouncing unclean and others pronouncing clean, some prohibiting and others permitting, some disqualifying7 and others declaring fit.
Should a man say: How in these circumstances shall I learn Torah?8 Therefore the text says: ‘All of them are given from one Shepherd’. One God gave them;9 one leader10 uttered them from the mouth of the Lord of all creation, blessed be He; for it is written: ‘And God spoke all these words’.11 Also do thou make thine ear like the hopper12 and get thee a perceptive heart to understand the words of those who pronounce unclean and the words of those who pronounce clean, the words of those who prohibit and the words of those who permit, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who declare fit. He [then] spoke to them13 in the following words: It is not an orphan generation in which R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah lives. But they could have told him directly!14 — It was on account of a certain occurrence. For it is taught: Once R. Jose b. Durmaskith15 went to pay his respects to R. Eliezer at Lod.16 Said the latter to him: What new thing was taught in College today? He replied: They decided by vote that in Ammon and Moab17 the tithe of the poor should be given in the seventh year.18 Said [R. Eliezer] to him: Jose, stretch forth thine hands and lose thy sight.19 He stretched forth his hands and lost his sight. R. Eliezer [then] wept and said: The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him,’ and His covenant, to make them know it.20 He [then] said to him: Go, say to them: Be not concerned about your voting,21 thus have I received a tradition from Rabban22 Johanan b. Zakkai, who heard [it] from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, that it is a halachah of Moses from Sinai23 that in Ammon and Moab the tithe of the poor is to be given in the seventh year. What is the reason? — Many cities were conquered by those who came up from Egypt, which were not conquered by those who came up from Babylon; since the first consecration24 held [only] for the time,25 but did not hold for the future [permanently],26 therefore they were left27 in order that the poor might be sustained upon them in the seventh year. It is taught: When his mind was calmed, he said: May it be granted that Jose's sight be restored.28 And it was restored.
Our Rabbis taught: Who is [deemed] an imbecile? He that goes out alone at night29 and he that spends the night in a cemetery, and he that tears his garments. It was taught: R. Huna said: They must all be [done] together.30 R. Johanan said: Even if [he does only] one of them. What is the case? If he does them in an insane manner, even one is also [proof]. If he does not do them in an insane manner, even all of them [prove] nothing? — Actually [it is a case where] he does them in an insane manner. But if he spent the night in a cemetery, I might say: He did [it] in order that the spirit of impurity might rest upon him.31 If he went out alone at night, I might say: He was seized by lycanthropy.32 If he tore his garment, I might say: He was lost in thought. But as soon as he does them all,
(1) I Chron. XVII, 21; for thought, cf. Midrash quoted in Tosaf. a.l.
(2) I.e., according to Rashi, R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah; but according to Maharsha and Goldschmidt, R. Joshua.
(3) Eccl. XII, 11.
(4) The ‘words of the wise’ are identified with ‘the words of the Torah’.
(5) I.e., unstable and of impermanent authority.
(6) The nail driven into the wall makes a hole.
(7) To act as witness, or as priest.
(8) I.e., in view of the contradictory opinions held by the scholars.
(9) I.e., the various opinions do not emanate from different ‘Revelations’, but have their origin in the One Torah, given by the One God. Cf. Tanhuma to Num. XIX, 2, section 8; and ref. to Moses and Akiba Men. 29b.
(10) I.e., Moses. The term ‘Shepherd’ (רעה) is applied in the Bible both to God (e.g., Gen. XLVIII, 15; Ps. LXXX, 2) and to Moses (e.g., Isa. LXIII, 11). Maharsha.
(11) Ex. XX, 1.
(12) אפרכסת According to Jast. from root פרכם (to rub, grind), itself an extension of root פרך (to break). According to Levy, from the Greek. The hopper, being funnel-shaped, more enters it than issues from it, i.e., hear all views, and then sift them and accept the true.
(13) I.e., R. Joshua to his two disciples.
(14) I.e., why did they at first evade R. Joshua's request by saying: We are thy disciples etc.?
(15) I.e., woman of Damascus.
(16) Cf. I Chron. VIII, 12; afterwards Lydda and later Diospolis, near Joppa.
(17) According to Rashi, that part of Ammon and Moab which was subjugated by Sihon and Og, and later was captured from them by the Israelites (v. Num. XXI, 21-35. and Hul. 60b). But according to R. Tam (in Tosaf.), it refers to the rest of Ammon and Moab, not conquered by Sihon and Og.
(18) In Transjordania, which did not possess the sanctity of Palestine proper, the land did not have to be fallow in the seventh year (cf. Lev. XXV, 2f). Accordingly, the Rabbis ordained that the tithe of the poor, although given the preceding year, should again be given in the seventh year. V. Deut. XIV, 28-29 and Sifre a.l.; cf. also Lev. XXIII, 22 and Deut. XXIV, 19.
(19) Lit., ‘receive thine eyes’, a euphemism. He was vexed because R. Jose ascribed an old traditional law to the particular session in his college.
(20) Ps. XXV, 14.
(21) I.e., have no scruples concerning it.
(22) Lit., ‘our teacher’, the honorific title of several descendants of Hillel, and of R. Johanan b. Zakkai.
(23) A statute in immemorial usage. V. Strack, op. cit., p. 9 and nn. 17-21.
(24) I.e., under Joshua: the territory conquered by Israel became holy.
(25) I.e., till the first exile.
(26) But the territory occupied by those who returned from Babylon was consecrated for ever.
(27) I.e., Ammon and Moab were left unconsecrated after the Babylonian captivity.
(28) Lit., ‘that Jose's eyes may return to their place’.
(29) Cf. Aboth III, 4.
(30) I.e., a person is not considered legally an imbecile till he performs all the above mentioned acts together. [Var. lec. rightly omit together’].
(31) I.e., he did it with full understanding for the purpose of conjuring up evil spirits for magical purposes (Rash); or to receive communications from them, cf. LXX in Isa. LXV, 4 (A. W. Streane).
(32) גנדריפום corruption of the Grk. ** or ** sub **: German, Wolfsmuth.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 4a
he becomes like [an ox] who gored an ox, an ass and a camel, and becomes [thereby] a mu'ad [forewarned gorer]1 in regard to all [animals]. R. Papa said: If R. Huna had heard of that which is taught: Who is [deemed] an imbecile? ‘One that destroys all that is given to him’; he would have retracted.2 The question was raised: When he would have retracted, would he have retracted only with regard to the [case of the] man who tore his garment, because it resembles this [case];3 or would he have retracted with regard to all of them?4 — It remains [undecided].
A PERSON OF UNKNOWN SEX [TUMTUM], A HERMAPHRODITE etc.: Our Rabbis taught: [The word] ‘males’5 [by itself] comes to exclude women;6 [the expression]. ‘thy males’, comes to exclude the tumtum and hermaphrodite; ‘all thy males’ comes to include minors.
The Master said: [The word] ‘males’ comes to exclude women. But why do I need a verse for this? Consider: it is a positive precept dependent on a fixed time, and women are exempt from every positive precept dependent on a fixed time!7 — It is needed. You might say: We can make a deduction by forming an analogy between the expressions for appearing, from [the section] ‘Assemble’:8 just as there women are obligated. so here women are obligated; it therefore teaches us [that it is not so].
The Master said: [The expression]. ‘thy males’, comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Granted that with regard to the hermaphrodite it is necessary [for Scripture to exclude him]. You might say that since he has a male aspect, he is obligated; it therefore teaches us that he is sui generis.9 But the tumtum is a dubious case;10 is a Biblical text required to exclude a dubious case?11 — Said Abaye: [It is required for the case] where his testicles are outside.12
The Master said: [The expression], ‘all thy males’, comes to include minors. But we have learnt: EXCEPT AN IMBECILE AND A MINOR! — Said Abaye: There is no contradiction. The one case [speaks] of a minor who is old enough to be initiated,13 the other of a minor who is not old enough to be initiated. But a minor who is old enough to be initiated is obligated only by Rabbinic enactment!14 — Yes, it is so; and the Biblical text is merely a support.15 What then is the purpose of the Biblical text?16 — To intimate the teaching of ‘Others’.17 For it is taught: Others say: The scraper.18 the copper-smith19 and the tanner are exempt from appearing [at the Temple], for it is said: ‘All thy males’: he that is able to go up [on the pilgrimage] with all thy males. These, therefore, are excluded, because they are not fit20 to go up with all thy males.
WOMEN AND UNFREED SLAVES etc.: Granted as regards women, as we have said;21 but as regards slaves, whence do we deduce [their exemption]? — Said R. Huna: Scripture says: before the Lord, God:22 [this means] one that has one Lord; this one,23 therefore, is excluded because he has another lord.24 But why do I need a Biblical intimation for this? Consider: every precept which is obligatory on a woman is obligatory on a slave; every precept which is not obligatory on a woman is not obligatory on a slave; for this is deduced by analogy from [the case of] the woman, through the double occurrence of [the expression] unto her.25 Said Rabina: It26 is needed only for [the exemption of] one that is half a slave and half a freedman!27 This can also be proven; for [the Mishnah] speaks of WOMEN AND UNFREED SLAVES. What is meant by unfreed? Should I say that it means entirely unfreed, then it should simply say, ‘Slaves’! Surely, therefore [it must mean] slaves that have not been completely freed. And who are such? Those that are half slaves and half freedmen. Proven.
THE LAME, THE BLIND, THE SICK, THE AGED: Our Rabbis taught: ‘Regalim’ [on foot]:28 this excludes people with wooden legs. Another interpretation:29 Regalim: this excludes the lame, the sick, the blind, the aged, and one that cannot go up on foot. ‘And one that cannot go up on foot’: What does this come to include? — Said Raba: It comes to include
(1) Lit., ‘forewarned’; an animal whose owner stands forewarned and consequently liable to full indemnity on account of three successive injuries (V. Ex. XXI, 36).
(2) I.e., he would have considered this action by itself as proof of imbecility.
(3) I.e., the case of the man who destroys whatever is given to him.
(4) I.e., he would have agreed entirely with R. Johanan's view.
(5) In the phrase ‘all thy males’. Ex. XXIII, 17.
(6) I.e., from obligation to visit the Temple; v. Mishnah, p. 1.
(7) The exemption of women from the performance of these precepts is not due to any inferiority of status, but to delicate consideration for their physical nature; cf. also Kid. 29a and 34af.
(8) V. supra p. 5, n. 10. This law likewise is dependent on a fixed time.
(9) And to be excluded.
(10) Even more dubious than that of the hermaphrodite, because the sexual organs of the former are concealed. Thus the tumtum may be a female and quite exempt from appearing at the Temple.
(11) It would in any case be exempt because obligation could not be proven. For another explanation and reading v. Tosaf. a.l., and Maharsha.
(12) And only the membrum is hidden: being certain of the sex, we might think that he is bound to appear; Scripture therefore prevents this conclusion.
(13) V. Mishnah p. 1, n. 9.
(14) And not by Biblical injunction; therefore the verse cannot refer to this case.
(15) I.e., a confirmation; or perhaps a mnemotechnical aid.
(16) I.e., the word ‘all’; for there are no superfluous expressions in the Bible.
(17) I.e., R. Meir, who is quoted under this term subsequent to the unsuccessful conspiracy by R. Nathan and himself against Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel; v. Hor. 13b.
(18) V. Keth. 77a, where this word (מקמץ) is explained as (a) one that collects dog's excrements (used, according to Rashi ibid., for steeping clothes prior to laundering, and according to Rashi here, for preparing cordwain); (b) a tanner on a small scale, in contr. to בורסי a tanner on a large scale.
(19) Explained ibid. as (a) a kettle-smith; (b) one that digs copper in the shaft.
(20) On account of the malodour resulting from these occupations.
(21) V. supra p. 13.
(22) Ex. XXIII, 17.
(23) I.e., the slave.
(24) I.e.,a human master in addition to his Divine Master.
(25) V. Deut. XXIV, 3 (of the woman), and Lev. XIX, 20 (of the bondwoman).
(26) I.e., the Biblical intimation.
(27) This is in accordance with ‘the earlier Mishnah’ (v. supra p. 3, nn. 6, 8), but according to ‘the later Mishnah’, the master is compelled to free the half slave, who is then bound to appear at the Temple.
(28) V. p. 7, n. 11.
(29) The first interpretation is not quite satisfactory, because the exclusion of people with wooden legs can be deduced from פעמים in Ex. XXIII, 17; cf. p. 7. n. 12.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 4b
a delicate person.1 For it is written: When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample2 My courts?3
A Tanna taught: The uncircumcised4 and the unclean5 are exempt from [bringing] the pilgrimage-offering.6 Granted as regards the unclean, for it is written: And thither thou shalt come,’ and thither ye shall bring.7 To whomever ‘coming’ applies, ‘bringing’ applies; to whomever ‘coming’ does not apply, ‘bringing’ does not apply. But whence do we derive [the exemption of] the uncircumcised? — This will be according to R. Akiba, who includes the uncircumcised like the unclean. For it is taught: R. Akiba said: [the expression], what man soever,8 comes to include uncircumcised.9
Our Rabbis taught: An unclean person is exempt from [bringing] the pilgrimage-offering, for it is written: ‘And thither thou shalt come; and thither ye shall bring’. To whomever ‘coming’ applies ‘bringing’ applies; to whomever ‘coming’ does not apply ‘bringing’ does not apply. R. Johanan b. Dahabai said in the name of R. Judah: A person who is blind in one eye is exempt from appearing [at the Temple]. for it is said: Yir'eh10 [He shall see], Yera'eh [He shall be seen]; just as He comes to see, so He comes to be seen; as He comes to see with both eyes. so also to be seen with both eyes. R. Huna, when he came to this verse, Yir'eh, Yera'eh,11 wept. He said: The slave whom his Master longs to see should become estranged from him! For it is written: When ye come to appear12 before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts?13
R. Huna, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there.14 The slave at whose table his Master longs to eat should become estranged from him! For it is written: To what purpose is the abundance of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord.15
R. Eleazar, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: And his brethren could not answer him, for they were affrighted at his presence.16 Now if the rebuke of flesh and blood be such, how much more so the rebuke of the Holy One, blessed be He!
R. Eleazar, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: And Samuel said to Saul: Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring14 me up?17 Now if Samuel, the righteous, was afraid of the Judgment, how much more so should we be! How do we know this about Samuel?18 — For it is written: And the woman said unto Saul: I see godlike beings coming up out of the earth.19 ‘Coming up’20 implies two: one was Samuel, but [who was] the other? Samuel went and brought Moses with him, Saying to him: Perhaps, Heaven forfend,21 I am summoned to Judgment: arise with me,22 for there is nothing that thou hast written in the Torah, which I did not fulfil.
R. Ami, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: Let him put his mouth in the dust, perhaps there may be hope.23 He said: All this, and [only] perhaps!24
R. Ami, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: Seek righteousness, seek humility, perhaps ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord's anger.25 He said: All this, and [only] perhaps!
R. Assi, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate, perhaps the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious.26 All this, and [only] perhaps!
R. Joseph, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: But there is that is swept away without judgment.27 [He said]:28 Is there anyone who passes away before one's [allotted] time?29 — Yes, as in the story [heard] by R. Bibi b. Abaye,30 who was frequently visited by the Angel of death. [Once] the latter said to his messenger: Go, bring me Miriam, the women's hairdresser!31 He went and brought him Miriam, the children's nurse. Said he to him:32 I told thee Miriam, the women's hairdresser. He answered: If so, I will take her back. Said he to him: Since thou hast brought her, let her be added.33 But how were you able to get her?34 She was holding a shovel in her hand and was heating
(1) I.e., one that cannot walk barefoot; and it is forbidden to walk on the sacred Temple Mount with covered feet.
(2) I.e., with shod feet.
(3) Isa. I, 12.
(4) I.e., a Jew that was not circumcised because two of his brothers had died as a result of their circumcision; cf. Shab. 134a and Yeb. 64b.
(5) Cf. Num. XIX, 20.
(6) They are exempt even from sending the offering by a messenger; cf. also p. 1, n. 1.
(7) Deut. XII, 5,6. The verse continues: Your burnt-offerings etc.
(8) Lev. XXII, 4.
(9) I.e., if he is a priest, he is prohibited from eating Terumah (i.e., the priest's share of crop or dough) like a priest who has become unclean.
(10) Ex. XXIII, 17; v. p. 3, n. 3.
(11) Which implies (v. n. 1) that the Divine Master reciprocally comes to meet the human pilgrim.
(12) Lit., ‘to be seen’, as above.
(13) Isa. I, 12.
(14) Deut. XXVII, 7.
(15) Isa. I, 11.
(16) Gen. XLV, 3.
(17) I Sam. XXVIII, 15.
(18) I.e., that it was the Divine Judgment that he feared.
(19) Ibid. v. 13.
(20) Heb. עלים which is plural. The deduction cannot be made from אלהים (godlike beings) which is also plural in form, because its meaning is generally singular, viz. God.
(21) Lit., ‘forbearance and peace.’
(22) I.e., to testify on my behalf.
(23) Lam. III, 29.
(24) I.e., after so much suffering, hope of salvation is only problematical.
(25) Zeph. 11,3.
(26) Amos V, 15.
(27) Prov. XIII, 23.
(28) Rashi and Tosaf. delete the words: the question is then asked by the Gemara.
(29) I.e., although the person has committed no sin to merit shortening of life.
(30) An occultist; cf. Ber. 6a where he performed an experiment with the object of seeing demons.
(31) Supposed by Tosaf. to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in the earlier uncensored editions. [Her description megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with that of Mary, the mother of Jesus, v. Herford R.T. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 40f].
(32) I.e., the Angel of death to his messenger.
(33) I.e., to the dead.
(34) Since it was not yet her time to die.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 5a
and raking1 the oven. She took it and put it on her foot and burnt herself; thus her luck was impaired and I brought her. Said R. Bibi b. Abaye to him2 : Have ye3 permission to act thus? He answered him: Is it not written: ‘There is that is swept away without judgment’? He countered: But behold it is written: One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh!4 He replied: I have charge of them5 till they have completed the generation,6 and then I hand them over to Dumah!7 He [then] asked him: But after all, what do you do with her years?8 He replied: If there be a Rabbinic scholar who overlooks his hurt, I shall give them to him in her stead.9
R. Johanan, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: And thou didst incite Me against him, to destroy him without cause.10 A slave whose Master, when they incite him yields,11 is there any help for him?
R. Johanan, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: Behold, He putteth no trust in His holy ones.12 If He does not put His trust in His holy ones, in whom will He put his trust? One day he was going on a journey and saw a man gathering figs; he was leaving those that were ripe and was taking those that were unripe. So he said to him: Are not those13 better? He replied: I need those for a journey: these will keep, but the others will not keep. Said [R. Johanan] this is the meaning of the verse: Behold He putteth no trust in His holy ones.14 But is it so? For behold there was a disciple In the neighbourhood of R. Alexandri, who died in his youth, and [R. Alexandri] said: Had this scholar wished, he could have lived!15 If now it be [as R. Johanan said] perhaps he was one of those of whom it is said: ‘Behold He putteth no trust in His holy ones’! — That [scholar] was one who had rebelled against his teachers!16
R. Johanan, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: And I will come near to you to judgment and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages.17 A slave whose Master brings him near to judge him, and hastens to testify against him, is there any remedy for him? Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said: Woe unto us that Scripture weighs against us light like grave offences.18
Resh Lakish19 said: Whoever wrests the judgment of the proselyte is as if he wrests the judgment of the All-High, for it is said:20 And that turn aside the proselyte21 from his right: the consonants [can be read]: And that turn Me aside.22
R. Hanina b. Papa said: Whoever does something [wrong] and repents of it, is forgiven at once,23 for It is said: And [that] fear not Me.24 But if they do fear Me, they are forgiven at once. R. Johanan, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: For God shall bring every work into the judgment concerning every hidden25 thing.26 A slave to whom his Master accounts errors27 as wilful offences, is there any remedy for him? What is the meaning of, concerning every hidden thing? — Rab said: This refers to one who kills a louse in the presence of his neighbour, so that he feels disgust thereat. And Samuel said: This refers to one who spits in the presence of his neighbour so that he feels disgust thereat. What is the meaning of, whether it be- good or whether it be — evil?28 — The School of R. Jannai said: This refers to one who gives alms to a poor person publicly,29 like the story of R. Jannai. He [once] saw a man give a zuz30 to a poor person publicly, so he said to him: It had been better that you had not given him, than now that you have given him publicly and put him to shame. The School of R. Shila said: This refers to one who gives alms to a woman secretly. for he brings her into suspicion. Raba said: This refers to one who is in the habit of sending his wife on the eve of the Sabbath meat that has not been cut up.31 But Raba [himself] used to send! — The daughter of R. Hisda32 is different, for he was sure of her that she was an expert!33
R. Johanan, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them.34 A slave whose Master brings many evils and troubles upon him, is there any remedy for him? What is the meaning of ‘evils and troubles’?35 — Rab said: Evils which become antagonists36 to each other, as for instance the [bites of] a wasp and a scorpion.37 And Samuel said: This refers to one who furnishes money to the poor person [only] in the hour of his extreme distress.38 Raba said: This is the meaning of the proverb, For [purchasing] provision a zuz is not to be found, for hanging up [in the basket]39 it can be found.
Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them.40 R. Bardela b. Tabyumi said that Rab said: To whomever ‘hiding of the face’ does not apply is not one of them;41 to whomever [the words] and they shall be devoured42 does not apply
(1) I.e., raked the fire in (Jast.); Rashi: raked it out.
(2) I.e., the Angel of death.
(3) I.e., the Angel of death and his messenger.
(4) Eccl. I, 4; implying that every generation is complete.
(5) Lit., ‘shepherd them’.
(6) I.e., the years allotted to them.
(7) Lit., ‘Silence’, the Angel in charge of the dead.
(8) I.e., the remaining years which she should have continued to live.
(9) Cf. the ref. to Hezekiah in Yeb. 49a-50a.
(10) Job II, 3.
(11) Lit., ‘allows himself to be incited’.
(12) Job XV, 15.
(13) I.e., the ripe ones.
(14) I.e., God fears that the righteous, like the ripe figs, may later lose their excellence; hence they die young. Cf. Aboth II, 4.
(15) I.e., if he had lived uprightly.
(16) Hence he could not have been one of the ‘holy ones’, and it was his sin that shortened his life. Cf. Kid. 33b on Eccl. XIII, 13.
(17) Mal. III, 5.
(18) In the verse quoted, the grave crimes of sorcery and adultery, for which the penalty is death, are mentioned side by side with the lighter offences of perjury and financial oppression.
(19) Abbrev. for R. Simon b. Lakish.
(21) E.V. ‘stranger’.
(22) ומטי for ומטי
(23) Cf. Yoma 85b-86a; also Shebu. 12b.
(25) I.e., unwitting errors.
(26) Eccl. XII, 14.
(27) I.e., even the slightest offence.
(28) Ibid. I.e., one is punished for the good as well as for the bad one does.
(29) An apparently good deed which is really bad.
(30) A silver coin, one fourth of a shekel, and equal to a denar (denarius). V. Glos.
(31) I.e., unporged meat, the forbidden fat, blood vessels etc. not having been removed. The nearness of the Sabbath makes it a busy time for the housewife, who in her hurry may forget to porge the meat.
(32) I.e., Raba's wife, always referred to as R. Hisda's daughter.
(33) And would see that it was properly porged before the Sabbath.
(34) Deut. XXXI, 21.
(35) I.e., are they not synonymous?
(36) The Heb., צרות, is the same as for ‘troubles’ above, and is used of the rival wives of one husband; cf. I Sam. I, 6.
(37) In A.Z. 28b we are told that hot water must be used for a wasp's bite and cold for a scorpion's; the reverse is dangerous. When, therefore, both occur together there is no remedy.
(38) According to Rashi, this refers to Eccl. XII, 14 and is an example of an apparently good deed which is really bad; for at an earlier stage the help rendered would have been of far greater and more enduring benefit. But according to Tosaf. this is an explanation of Deut. XXXI, 21 and is an instance of added trouble, illustrated in the following proverb. V. n. 9.
(39) תליתא. Rashi renders: ‘food which one brings in a basket’, that is in time of distress; cf. Pes. III b. Tosaf. translates: ‘when one is about to be hanged’, and explains thus: A man is threatened with execution unless he offers a ransom; being poor, a small ransom would be accepted. But now the arrangement of a mortgage is offered him; this serves only to aggravate his misfortune, for the ransom price is raised. A third explanation is given by Maharsha a.l.
(40) Deut. XXXI, 17.
(41) I.e., the Children of Israel.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 5b
is not one of them. Said the Rabbis to Raba: To [our] master ‘the hiding of the face’ does not apply, and [the words] ‘And they shall be devoured’ do not apply! Said he to them: Do ye know then how much I send secretly to the Court of King Shapur?1 Even so the Rabbis directed their eyes upon him.2 Meanwhile the Court of King Shapur sent [men], who plundered him.3 He [then] said: This is it that is taught: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Wherever the Rabbis direct their eyes there is either death or poverty.
And I will hide My face in that day.4 Raba said: Although I hide My face from them, I shall speak to them5 in a dream.6 R. Joseph: said: His hand is stretched over us, as it is said: And I have covered thee in the shadow of My hand.7
R. Joshua b. Hanania was [once] at the court of Caesar.8 A certain unbeliever9 showed him [by gestures]: A people whose Lord has turned His face from them — He showed him [in reply]: His hand is stretched over us. Said Caesar to R. Joshua: What did he show thee?-A people whose Lord has turned His face from them. And I showed him: His hand is stretched over us.
They [then] said to the heretic:10 What didst thou show him?A people whose Lord has turned His face from them. And what did he show thee? — I do not know. Said they: A man who does not understand what he is being shown by gesture should hold converse in signs before the king! They led him forth and slew him.
When the soul of R. Joshua b. Hanania was about to go to its rest, the Rabbis said to him: What will become of us at the hands of the unbelievers? He answered them: Counsel is perished from the children,11 their wisdom is vanished.12 So soon as counsel is perished from the children,13 the wisdom of the peoples of the world is vanished.14 Or I may derive it from here: And he said: Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go over against thee.15
R. Ila was once walking up the stairs of the house of Rabbi b. Shila, when he heard a child reading the verse: For, lo, He that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what his conversation was.16 He said: A slave Master declares to him his conversation, is there any remedy for him? — What is the meaning of [the expression] ‘What his conversation was’? — Rab said: Even the superfluous conversation17 between a man and his wife is declared to a person in the hour of his death. But is it so? Now behold R. Kahana once lay down beneath the bed of Rab,18 and he heard him converse and jest and perform his needs. [Thereupon] he said: The mouth of Rab is like that of one who has not tasted any food.19 Said [Rab] to him: Kahana, get out, this is unseemly! — There is no contradiction: In the one case [it is] where he has to procure her favour, in the other, where he has no need to procure her favour.
But if ye will not hear it, My soul shall weep in secret for the pride.20 R. Samuel b. Inia said in the name of Rab: The Holy One, blessed be He, has a place and its name is ‘Secret’. What is the meaning of [the expression] ‘for the pride’?-R. Samuel b. Isaac said: For the glory21 that has been taken from them and given to the nations of the world. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: For the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven.22 But is there any weeping in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He? For behold R. Papa said: There is no grief in the Presence23 of the Holy One blessed be He; for it is said: Honour and majesty are before Him; strength and beauty are it20 His sanctuary!24 — There is no contradiction; the one case [refers to] the inner chambers,25 the other case [refers to] the outer chambers. But behold it is written: And in that day did the Lord, the God of Hosts, call to weeping and to lamentation, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth!26 — The destruction of the Temple is different, for even the angels of peace wept [over it]; for it is said: Behold for their altar27 they cried without; the angels of peace wept bitterly.28
And mine eye shall drop tears and tears, and run down with tears, because the Lord's flock is carried away captive.29 R. Eleazar said: Wherefore these three [expressions of] ‘tears’? One for the first Temple, and one for the second Temple, and one for Israel, who have become exiled from their place. But there are some who say: One for the neglect of [the study of] the Torah. This is all right according to the view that [one] is for Israel, who have become exiled from their place: this agrees with that which is written: ‘Because the Lord's flock is carried away captive’. But according to the view that it was for the neglect of [the study of] the Torah, how do you explain [the text], ‘Because the Lord's flock is carried away’? — Since Israel have become exiled from their place. you can have no greater neglect of [the study of] the Torah than this.
Our Rabbis taught: Over three the Holy One, blessed be He, weeps every day: over him who is able to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does not; and over him who is unable to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does; and over a leader who domineers over the community.
Rabbi was once holding the Book of Lamentations and reading therein: when he came to the verse, He hath cast down from heaven unto the earth,30 it fell from his hands. He said: From a roof so high to a pit as deep!31
Rabbi and R. Hiyya were once going on a journey. When they came to a certain town, they said: If there is a rabbinical scholar here, we shall go and pay him our respect. They were told: There is a rabbinical scholar here32 and he is blind.33 Said R. Hiyya to Rabbi: Stay [here]; thou must not lower thy princely dignity;34 I shall go and visit him. But [Rabbi] took hold of him and went with him. When they were taking leave from him,35 he said to them: Ye have visited one who is seen but does not see; may ye be granted to visit Him who sees but is not seen. Said [Rabbi to R. Hiyya]: If now [I had hearkened to you] you would have deprived me of this blessing. They [then] said to him: From whom didst thou hear this?36 -I heard it at a discourse of R. Jacob's. For R. Jacob of Kefar Hitya,37 used to visit his teacher every day. When he became old, the latter said to him: Let the master not trouble himself since he is unable. He replied: Is it a small thing that is written concerning the Rabbis? And he shall still live alway. he- shall not see the pit; when he seeth that wise man die.38 Now if he who sees wise men at their death shall live, how much more so [he who sees them] in their life.
R. Idi, the father of R. Jacob b. Idi, used to spend three months on his journey and one day at the school;39 and the Rabbis called him ‘One day scholar’. So he became dispirited, and applied to himself the verse: I am as one that is a laughing-stock to his neighbour etc.40 Said to him R. Johanan: I beg of you. do not bring down punishment upon the Rabbis. R. Johanan then went forth to the College and delivered the [following] exposition: Yet they seek Me day by day, and delight to know My ways.41 Do they then seek Him by day, and do not seek Him by might? It comes to tell you. therefore, that whoever studies the Torah even one day in the year, Scripture accounts it to him as though he had studied the whole year through. And similarly in the case of punishment, for it is written: After the number of the days in which you spied out the land.42 Did they then sin forty years? Was it not forty days that they sinned? It must come to teach you, therefore, that whoever commits transgression even one day in the year, Scripture accounts it to him as though he had transgressed the whole year through.
WHO IS [IN THIS RESPECT DEEMED] A MINOR? WHOEVER IS UNABLE TO RIDE ON HIS FATHER'S SHOULDERS etc. R. Zera demurred thereto:
(1) Also Sapor or Shapur II, son of Hormuzd, King of Persia C.E. 310-379. His accession preceded his birth; he warred against Rome. V. Gibbon, CC. 18, 24, 25; cf. also Ber. 56a, B.B. 115b and Pes. 54a.
(2) I.e., in suspicion; elsewhere in anger. cf. Ber. 38a, Shab. 34b.
(3) I.e., seized his property.
(4) Deut. XXXI, 18.
(5) Lit., ‘to him’ as in Num. XII, 6.
(6) According to Rashi, the inference is drawn from ‘in that day’; but at night, in dreams, God would speak to them; cf. ibid. Maharsha prefers this explanation: God would deny them His ‘face’, I.e., the direct communion of Moses which was ‘mouth to mouth’, but He would still speak to them in dreams; cf. ibid. 6-7.
(7) Isa. LI, 16.
(8) I.e., Hadrian, v.J.E. vol. VII, pp. 290-292.
(9) אפיקורום. Levy and others derive it from ** Epicurus, an Epicurean; Maimonides and Jast. connect with Heb. הפקר from rt. פקר. A term applied to unbelievers generally, Jew or Gentile. MS.M.: ‘Min’ (v. next note), a Jewish sectary, probably a Judeo-Christian. V. J.E. vol. I, pp. 665-666 and Vol. VIII, pp. 594-595.
(10) מין, probably from meaning ‘species’, hence sectarian. V. preceding note
(11) Or ‘prudent’ (E.V.).
(12) Jer. XLIX, 7’ where it is a question.
(13) I.e.’ Children of Israel.
(14) I.e., the polemics of the unbelievers will cease. [A somewhat roundabout way of saying that the Jewish religion would never want a defender so long as it was attacked’] Herford op. cit, p. 266.
(15) Gen. XXXIII, 12. I.e., Esau (Gentiles and unbelievers generally) will keep abreast of Jacob (Israelites), but not gain advantage over him.
(16) Amos IV, 13. E.V. ‘thought’.
(17) The ‘jesting’ referred to in the following story.
(18) Not to spy. but to learn from the Master's conduct; v. Ber. 62a.
(19) I.e., he was ravenous in his desires like a newly-wed.
(20) Jer. XIII, 17.
(21) Lit., ‘pride’.
(22) Which suffers through Israel's downfall. Cf. Meg. 29 on Isa. II, 27, and Mekilta to Ex. XV, 2.
(23) Lit., ‘before’, a euphemism for ‘on the part of’.
(24) Ps. XCVI, 6.
(25) I.e.,in the innermost recesses called ‘Secret’ there is weeping, though outwardly (‘before him’ v. n. 4) there is no sign of grief, only ‘Honour etc.’
(26) Isa. XXII, 12. ‘Call’ denotes publicly; grief, therefore, is to be found in ‘the outer chambers’!
(27) אראלם (E.V. ‘their valiant ones cried without’) is here connected with אריאל (Isa. XXIX, 1), ‘the altar hearth’, Cf. Rashi to verse.
(28) Isa. XXXIII, 7.
(29) Jer. XIII, 17. E. V. ‘And mine eye shall weep sore and run down down etc.’
(30) Lam. II, 1.
(31) I.e., how great was Israel's downfall, for what could be higher than heaven and lower than earth!
(32) From root meaning ‘to learn’: lit., ‘one that has caught fire by associating with Rabbis’; cf. Aboth, II, 10 (Jastrow). Or from root meaning ‘to gather, establish’ sc. halachoth (Levy).
(33) Lit., ‘Light of the eyes’, a ‘euphemism.
(34) Rabbi was the Nasi (‘Prince’) i.e., the president of the Sanhedrin.
(35) I.e., the blind scholar.
(36) I.e., that to visit a scholar is so meritorious.
(37) Perhaps Hattin (Robinson, Bibl. Researches, iii, 34.) N.W. of Tiberias. V. also Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, p. 207.
(38) Ps. XLIX, 10, 11.
(39) It took him six months to travel to the school and back; in order to be with his family for the festivals of Passover (essentially a home festival) and Tabernacles (cf. Deut. XVI, 14) he was able to remain at the school only one day.
(40) Job XII, 4.
(41) Isa. LVIII, 2.
(42) Num. XIV, 34. v. whole verse.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 6a
Who brought him thus far?1 — Said Abaye to him: Thus far his mother brought him,2 since she is bound to rejoice3 [on the festival]; from here onward, if he is able to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount holding his father's hand, he is obligated, and if not, he is exempt.
Rabbi objected on behalf of Beth Hillel to the view of Beth Shammai: But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband: Until the child be weaned, when I will bring him up.4 Now Samuel was [already] able to ride on his father's shoulders!5 - — Said his father6 to him: But according to thy own reasoning there is a difficulty: was not Hannah herself bound to rejoice [on the festival]?7 The explanation, therefore, must be that Hannah saw that Samuel was exceptionally delicate, and she feared that the journey might unduly fatigue Samuel.8 R. Simeon9 asked: What [is the law], according to the view of Beth Shammai, respecting a minor who is lame,10 and according to both views, respecting one who is blind?11 — What is the case? Shall one say that it is a case of a lame child who will never be able to walk,12 and of a blind child who will never be able to see? Now [in such cases] a major is exempt, can there be any question about a minor?13 — No, [the question] is necessary with respect to a lame child who may [eventually] be able to walk14 and with respect to a blind child who may [eventually] be able to see. What [is the law then]? — Abaye said: Wherever a major is obligated according to the law of the Torah, we also initiate a minor according to Rabbinic law; wherever a major is exempt according to the law of the Torah, a minor is also exempt according to Rabbinic law.
BETH SHAMMAI SAY: THE PILGRIMAGE-OFFERING MUST BE WORTH [AT LEAST] TWO PIECES OF SILVER etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say: The pilgrimage-offering [must be worth at least] two pieces of silver and the festal-offering one ma'ah of silver, because the pilgrimage-offering is offered up entirely to God,15 which is not the case with regard to the festal-offering;16 furthermore, we find that for the Festival of Weeks17 Scripture has enjoined more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings.18 But Beth Hillel say: The pilgrimage-offerings [must be at least] one ma'ah of silver and the festal-offering two pieces of silver, because the festal-offering obtained prior to the Revelation,19 which is not the case with regard to the pilgrimage-offering. Furthermore, we find that in the case of ‘the princes’,20 Scripture enjoined more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings.
Now why do not Beth Hillel agree with Beth Shammai? — As for your saying that the pilgrimage-offering is more important because it is entirely offered up to God, on the contrary, the festal-offering is more important, because in it there are two meals.21 And as for your saying that we should learn by analogy from the Feast of Weeks, [I contend that] we should form an analogy between the offering of an individual and the offering of an individual,22 but we should not form an analogy between the offering of an individual and an offering of the community.23 And why do not Beth Shammai agree with Beth Hillel? — As for your saying that the festal-offering is more important because it obtained prior to the Revelation, [I contend] that the pilgrimage-offering also obtained prior to the Revelation.24 And as for your saying that we should learn by analogy from ‘the princes’. [I contend that] we have to form an analogy between something that applies to [future] generations25 and something [else] that applies to [future] generations;26 but we should not form an analogy between something that applies to [future] generations and something that does not apply to [future] generations.27 Now according to Beth Hillel, why is the festal-offering singled out as obtaining prior to the Revelation? Because it is written: And they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings.28 Surely the pilgrimage-offerings must also [have been offered up then]; [for] behold, it is written: And they offered burnt-offerings!29 — Beth Hillel are of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the ‘continual burnt-offering’.30 And Beth Shammai? — They are of the opinion that the burnt-offering that the Israelites offered in the wilderness was a pilgrimage-offering.31
Abaye said: Beth Shammai and R. Eleazar and R. Ishmael are all of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was a pilgrimage-offering. And Beth Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilean are all of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the ‘continual burnt-offering’. ‘Beth Shammai’, as we have said [above]. ‘R. Ishmael’, for it is taught: R. Ishmael said: The general directions were given at Sinai,32
(1) I.e., from his house to Jerusalem. The fact that he could travel to Jerusalem shows that he is old enough to do without his mother; at that age he is also old enough to be able to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount by holding his father's hand. What point, therefore, is there in defining a minor as one that is unable even with the aid of his father to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, when the prior journey to Jerusalem shows that he is old enough to do this and therefore no longer a minor?
(2) Thus the assumption that he was old enough to do without his mother is wrong.
(3) I.e., in order to fulfil the commandment to rejoice she must go to Jerusalem (cf. Deut. XIV, 26); but she is not subject to the commandment to appear before the Lord on the Temple Mount.
(4) I Sam. I, 22. According to the Talmud a child is weaned at the end of 24 months.
(5) According to Rashi a child can do that at the end of a year. The Shammaite view, therefore, must be wrong.
(6) The other reading, Abaye, is an anachronism; [unless we read ‘Said Abaye’ omitting ‘to him’.]
(7) She ought therefore to have gone up to the Sanctuary (then at Shiloh) and taken Samuel with her even before he was weaned.
(8) Thus the case of Samuel cannot be regarded as a support for the Hillelite view.
(9) I.e., R. Simeon b. Lakish, v. Pes. 119a.
(10) Beth Shammai require a child to go up to the Temple (as part of his initiation or religious training) as soon as he can do so by riding on his father's shoulders. Since the lame child could go up to the Temple Mount in this manner, is he bound to do this? But the question is not applicable to Beth Hillel, because they require the child to be able to walk.
(11) This question is applicable to Beth Hillel, too, because the blind child could go up the Temple Mount by holding his father's hand.
(12) Lit., ‘become straight’.
(13) His initiation would serve no purpose, for even on becoming of age he will be exempt.
(14) I.e., before he becomes of age. The question is: must we train him now because when he grows up he will be fit and therefore bound to ‘appear’, or shall we exempt him on account of his present defects?
(15) Lit., ‘the Most-High’.
(16) Which is partly burnt, and partly eaten by pilgrims and priests.
(17) This is the Talmudic sense of עצרת; but in the Bible it means (a) a general assemblage (e.g. Jer. IX, 1) (b) a sacred assembly (e.g. Isa. I, 13), but especially the last day of Passover (Deut. XVI, 8) or of Tabernacles (Lev. XXIII, 36, Num. XXIX, 35).
(18) V. Lev. XXIII, 18, 19: the festal offering (חגיגה) belonged to the class of peace-offerings (שלמים); v. supra n. 2.
(19) V. Ex. XXIV, 5, which is taken to refer to a time prior to the Revelation though it occurs after the Decalogue; cf. Shab. 88a, where the building of the altar and the offering of sacrifices thereon by ‘the young men of the children of Israel’,
(taken by the Rabbis to be the firstborn) is said to have taken place on the fifth Sivan, a day before the Revelation.
(20) I.e., the heads of the tribes mentioned at the dedication of the altar in Tabernacles; v. Num. VII, 87,88.
(21) For the altar and for man.
(22) I.e., the pilgrimage and festal-offerings which were private offerings should be compared with the offerings of ‘the princes’, which were also private offerings.
(23) I.e., the offerings prescribed for the Feast of Weeks, which were provided from the Temple treasury.
(24) V. Ex. XXIV, 5.
(25) I.e., the pilgrimage and festal-offerings.
(26) I.e., the public offerings of the Feast of Weeks.
(27) I.e., the prince's offerings.
(29) Ibid. The pilgrimage-offering was a burnt-offering.
(30) V. Num. XXVIII, 2-6: this was a daily public offering from which no inference could be drawn regarding the pilgrimage-offerings.
(31) Because the expression ‘they saw God’ (Ex. XXIV, 11) which, being similar to the expression ‘shall appear’ (Ex. XXIII, 17). is taken to imply that it was offered as a pilgrimage celebration.
(32) I.e., many precepts were left vague at Sinai, which were explained in full detail after the erection of the Tabernacle; cf., for example, Ex. XX, 24 with the detailed instructions concerning the sacrifices in Lev. I-VII.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 6b
and the details in the Tent of Meeting.1 But R. Akiba said: The general directions and the details were given at Sinai2 and repeated in the Tent of Meeting and enjoined a third time in the Plains of Moab.3 Now if you suppose that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the [statutory] continual burnt-offering4 , is it possible for a sacrifice not to require flaying and dissection at first5 and later to require flaying and dissection?6
‘R. Eleazar’, for it was taught: It is it continual burnt-offering, which was offered in Mount Sinai.7 R. Eleazar said: The manner of its offering was enjoined at Sinai, but it was not actually offered up.8 R. Akiba said: It was offered up and was never discontinued. But how am I to explain [the verse]: Did you bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?9 — The tribe of Levi, who were not guilty of idol worship.10 offered them up.11
‘Beth Hillel’, as we have said [above]. ‘R. Akiba’, also, as we have said [above]. ‘R. Jose the Galilean’,for it is taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: Three precepts are enjoined upon Israel when they make their pilgrimage at a festival: the pilgrimage-offering and the festal-offering and the rejoicing.12 The pilgrimage-offering has something that the other two have not;13 and the festal-offering has something that the other two have not; and the rejoicing has something that the other two have not. The pilgrimage-offering has something that the other two have not, for the pilgrimage-offering is offered entirely to God, which is not the case with the other two. The festal-offering has something that the other two have not, for the festal-offering obtained prior to the Revelation,14 which was not the case with the other two. The rejoicing has something which the other two have not, for the rejoicing applies to both men and women,15 which is not the case with the other two.16
With reference to R. Ishmael, why do you represent him as agreeing with Beth Shammai?17 [Because you argue]: If it were supposed that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering, is it possible for a sacrifice not to require flaying and dissection at first and later to require flaying and dissection? But behold R. Jose the Galilean said [distinctly]18 that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering; [and yet he held that] at first it did not require flaying and dissection, and later it did require flaying and dissection. For it is taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: The burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness did not require flaying and dissection, because flaying and dissection came into force only from [the erection of] the Tent of Meeting onward!19 — Strike out R. Ishmael from here.20
R. Hisda asked: How is this verse to be understood: And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt-offerings [namely] lambs, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord?21 Or Perhaps both were oxen?22 What difference does it make? Mar Zutra said: In regard to the punctuation.23 R. Abba, the son of Raba, said: In regard to one who says: I vow [to offer] a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness. What [must he offer]? Were they oxen or lambs? — It remains [undecided].
We have learnt elsewhere:24 The following things
(1) Cf. Lev. I, 1.
(2) Though not mentioned in connection with the Revelation but in other parts of the Torah e.g.. Leviticus.
(3) Cf. Deut. I, 5f.
(4) Enjoined by God for all time, and not offered by individuals at their own discretion as pilgrimage-offerings.
(5) Since, according to R. Ishmael, the laws of flaying and dissection as details were laid down only at the Tent of Meeting.
(6) The burnt-offerings mentioned in Ex. XXIV, 5, before the Revelation at the Tent of Meeting, were offered up whole, whilst the continual burnt-offering. like all burnt-offerings, required flaying and dissection, v. Lev. I, 6; therefore it must be pilgrimage-offerings that are referred to in Ex. XXIV, which they offered on their own accord and which were consequently not subject to any of the detailed laws governing burnt-offerings (Rashi).
(7) Num. XXVIII, 6.
(8) Thus the burnt-offerings brought by the ‘young men’ (Ex. XXIV, 5) must have been pilgrimage-offerings.
(9) Amos V, 25. This implies, contrary to R. Akiba's view, that in the wilderness the regular public sacrifices were not offered, because Israel was under divine censure.
(10) Cf. Ex. XXXII, 26.
(11) I.e., they offered the continual burnt-offerings at their own expense (Rashi).
(12) The spirit of festive joy was expressed by a sacrificial feast; if the offerings brought in fulfillment of vows, as free-will gifts or as tithe, did not suffice for all, additional peace-offerings had to be brought as offerings of rejoicing.
(13) I.e., is superior in a certain respect to the other two.
(14) The peace-offerings which the ‘young men’ also offered at Sinai (Ex. XXIV,5 ) though not offered on a festival, are called festal-offerings (חגיגה) because they were the fulfilment of Ex. V, 1. As R. Jose holds that the pilgrimage-offerings were not prior to the Revelation, he is in agreement with Beth Hillel.
(15) V. Deut. XIV, 26. The Tosefta reading is: For the offerings of rejoicing can be offered during any of the seven days’ שהשמחה יש לה תשלומין כל שבעה
(16) Which, being precepts not expressly enjoined upon women, and being dependent on a fixed time (v. p. 13, n. 4) are incumbent on men only.
(17) The question is against Abaye's statement above (p. 28): since the Hillelite view is the more authoritative, Abaye should avoid representing R. Ishmael as agreeing with Beth Shammai.
(18) I.e., it is clearly inferred from the Baraitha just quoted.
(19) Thus the reasoning which sought to make R. Ishmael agree with Beth Shammai is wrong.
(20) I.e., from the list of those who hold the Shammaite view.
(21) Ex. XXIV, 5.
(22) I.e., the burnt-offerings as well as the peace-offering.
(23) פיסוק טעמים According to Rashi, the Neginoth or cantillation signs are referred to: the first interpretation would require the word עלות to have a disjunctive accent (e.g.. ethnahta, as in our texts), and the second would require a conjunctive accent (e.g.. Pashta or Rebia’). But actually the Neginoth are of Post-Talmudic origin; v. J.E. Vol. I p. 157, 6, prg. 7. For doubtful verse-division cf. also Yoma 5a-b. V. also Ned., Sonc. ed., p. 113, n. 5.
(24) Pe'ah. I, 1.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 7a
have no prescribed limit:1 the [crop of the] corner of a field [to be left for the poor],2 the first fruits,3 the visiting of the Temple [Re'ayon],4 deeds of loving-kindness,5 and the study of the Torah. R. Johanan said: We were of the opinion that the visiting of the Temple [with an offering] had no maximum limit, but that it had a minimum limit,6 till R. Oshaya Berabbi7 came and taught that the visiting of the Temple [with an offering] has no maximum nor minimum limit.8 But the Sages said: The pilgrimage-offering9 must be worth [at least] one ma'ah of silver and the festal-offering two pieces of silver.
What is meant by Re'ayon? — R. Johanan says: [It means] appearing10 in the Temple Court.11 Resh Lakish says: [It means] appearing with a sacrifice.12 Concerning the first day13 of the Festival, all are agreed that the visit must be accompanied by an offering; they differ only with regard to the other days of the festival. [Further] if a man brings [an offering] every time that he comes, all are agreed that we are to accept it from him; they differ only with regard to a man who comes and does not bring [an offering]. R. Johanan is of the opinion that [Re'ayon means] appearing at the Temple Court; he need not therefore bring [an offering] whenever he comes. Resh Lakish says: [Re'ayon means] appearing with an offering; thus he must bring [an offering] whenever he comes.
Resh Lakish put an objection to R. Johanan. [It is written]: None shall appear before Me empty!14 — He replied to him: [This refers] to the first day of the Festival.15
He [again] put an objection to him: ‘None shall appear before Me empty’: [this means one must bring] animal sacrifices.16 You say, animal sacrifices, but perhaps [it means] birds or meal-offerings? [Nay], you may deduce it by analogy. A festal-offering is prescribed for man17 and a pilgrimage-offering is prescribed for God:18 just as the festal-offering prescribed for man is an animal sacrifice,19 so the pilgrimage-offering prescribed for God is an animal sacrifice. And what is meant by animal sacrifices? Burnt-offerings. You say burnt-offerings, but perhaps [it means] peace-offerings? [Nay], you may deduce it by analogy: a festal-offering is prescribed for man and a pilgrimage-offering is prescribed for God: just as the festal-offering which is prescribed for man is one that is fitting20 for him, so the pilgrimage-offering which is prescribed for God must be one that is fitting21 for Him. And so it is right, that your table should not be full and the table of the Master empty!22 — He replied: [This refers] to the first day of the festival.
[Again] he Put an objection to him: R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Three times in the year were the Israelites commanded to go on pilgrimage: on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Feast of Weeks and on the Feast of Booths; and they must not appear in divisions,23 for it is said: All thy males;24 and they must not appear empty-handed for it is said: None shall appear before Me empty!25 — He replied: [This refers] to the first day of the festival.
R. Johanan put an objection to Resh Lakish: [It is written]: Yir'eh [He will see]. Yera'eh [He will be seen];26 just as I [come] free,27 so you [come] free! — All, therefore, must agree that if a person comes and does not bring [an offering] that he may enter [the Temple Court] and present himself and go out.28 They differ only with regard to a person who comes and brings [an offering]. R. Johanan, who says [Re'ayon means] appearing in the Temple Court, [holds] that there is no limit to ‘appearing’, but that there is a limit to the offerings. And Resh Lakish says: [Re'ayon means] appearing with an offering; thus there is no limit to the offerings either. R. Johanan put an objection to him: [It is written]: Let thy foot be seldom in thy Friend's house!29 — There it refers to sin-offerings.30 as R. Levi [taught]. For R. Levi pointed to a contradiction; it is written: ‘Let thy foot be seldom in thy Friend's house’, and it is written: I will come into Thy house with burnt-offerings!31 There is no contradiction: the one case refers to sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; the other case refers to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. It has also been taught thus: ‘Let thy foot be seldom in thy Friend's house’: the verse speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. You say of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, but perhaps it is of nought but burnt-offerings and peace-offerings? When it says: ‘I will come to Thy house with burnt-offerings, I will perform unto Thee my vows’, behold burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are mentioned; how now shall I explain [the verse]: ‘Let thy foot be seldom in thy Friend's house’? The verse speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.
‘And they must not appear in divisions etc.’ R. Joseph thought to explain it [thus]: If a man has ten sons, they should not make the pilgrimage five one day and five the next day.32
(1) I.e., fixed by Scripture.
(2) V. Lev. XIX, 9 and XXIII, 22; the Rabbis fixed the minimum at a sixtieth of the field.
(3) Deut. XXVI, 1-11.
(4) ראיון, ראיון or ראיון lit., appearing’ sc. at the Temple Court; secondarily, it means the sacrifice brought on the occasion of the Temple visit; cf. end of page, and p. 1, n. 1.
(5) It includes all deeds of kindness; but for almsgiving the Rabbis prescribed a limit, v. Keth. 50a.
(6) prescribed by Scripture i.e., the ma'ah or two ma'ahs mentioned in the Mishnah.
(7) ברבי: According to Rashi, ‘great in his generation, i.e., eminent; according to Levy and Jastrow, ‘belonging to a school of an eminent teacher’ (contra. of בי רבי); a title of scholars, most frequently applied to disciples of R. Judah ha-Nasi and his contemporaries, but also to some of his predecessors and sometimes to the first Amoraim; v. Naz., Sonc. ed., p. 64, n. 1.
(8) V. p. 31. n. 7.
(9) Heb. ראײה v. n. 5, and p. 31, n. 10.
(10) The different form of the word implies a different meaning from ראײה; the latter in this context would mean ‘the (cost of the) pilgrimage burnt-offering’; the former signifies ‘appearing’ in the Temple.
(11) I.e., there is no limit to the number of visits, but only one sacrifice need be brought.
(12) I.e., however many visits are made to the Temple Court a sacrifice must be brought every time.
(13) Lit., ‘the essential part’.
(14) Ex. XXIII, 15. Thus the visitor to the Temple must always bring an offering.
(15) But on all subsequent visits no offering need be brought.
(16) זבחים signifies sacrifices slaughtered with a knife, i.e., בהמות (‘beasts’) in contradistinction to עופות (‘birds’), for which מליקה (‘pinching the neck with finger nail’) is prescribed.
(17) הדיוט Grk. ** a private man (as opposed to a priest, officer etc.), a commoner; ignoble, ignorant (Jast.). Here it means the pilgrim (as opposed to God), for whom the festal-offering was intended to provide the festive meal.
(18) Lit., ‘the Most High’. The words ‘before Me’ (in Ex. XXIII, 15) imply that the pilgrimage-offering was prescribed primarily as a sacrifice to God in contradistinction to the festal-offering which was to provide food for the worshipper.
(19) Cf. Ex. XXIII, 18 where חלב חגי (‘the fat of any festal-offering’) implies that it was an animal, for birds have no חלב, fat to be burnt on the altar.
(20) I.e., it provides him with meat for his feast.
(21) I.e., a burnt-offering.
(22) Thus an offering should be brought on each visit to the Temple, which refutes R. Johanan.
(23) Lit., ‘by halves’. Explained infra p. 34.
(24) Ex. XXIII, 17.
(25) This apparently supports Resh Lakish.
(26) V. p. 3, n. 3.
(27) I.e., without sacrifices.
(28) This new view of the controversy shows that the previous arguments between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish were not actually advanced by the Rabbis named but by later scholars, v. Tosaf. Bek. 4b, s.v. אלא
(29) Prov. XXV, 17. I.e., one should not bring too many sacrifices to the House of God. There is possibly a play here on the word רגל which means ‘foot’ and also ‘pilgrimage-festival’. For the term ‘Friend’ understood of God, cf. the terms of endearment in Cant. which the Rabbis interpreted as expressing the loving relationship between Israel and God.
(30) I.e., the verse means: Avoid the necessity of bringing sin-offerings.
(31) Ps. LXVI, 13. Thus it is good to bring sacrifices.
(32) Taking לחצאין literally. i.e., ‘by halves’.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 7b
Said Abaye to him: This is obvious; which of them would you make transgressors and which of them would you make zealous?1 What then is the purpose of the verse?2 To intimate the teaching of ‘Others’.3 For it is taught: ‘Others’ Say: The scraper, the copper-smith and the tanner are exempt from appearing [at the Temple]; for it is said, ‘All thy males’: he who is able to go on the pilgrimage with ‘all thy males’; these [then] are excluded, because they are unable to go up with all thy males.4
MISHNAH. BURNT-OFFERINGS DURING THE MID-FESTIVAL5 ARE TO BE BROUGHT FROM [ANIMALS BOUGHT WITH] UNCONSECRATED MONEY,6 AND PEACE-OFFERINGS,7 [ALSO] FROM [ANIMALS BOUGHT WITH SECOND] TITHE MONEY.8 ON THE FIRST FESTIVAL DAY OF PASSOVER, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: [THEY MUST BE BROUGHT] FROM [ANIMALS BOUGHT WITH] UNCONSECRATED MONEY; AND BETH HILLEL SAY: [THEY CAN BE BROUGHT ALSO] FROM [ANIMALS BOUGHT WITH SECOND] TITHE MONEY. ISRAELITES9 MAY FULFIL THEIR OBLIGATION10 WITH VOW-OFFERINGS, FREEWILL-OFFERINGS11 AND TITHE OF CATTLE;12 AND THE PRIESTS WITH SIN-OFFERINGS AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS.13 FIRSTLINGS,14 THE BREAST AND THE SHOULDER,15 BUT NOT WITH BIRD-OFFERINGS,16 NOR MEAL-OFFERINGS.17
GEMARA. Accordingly, it is during the mid-festival only that burnt-offerings are brought from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money, but on the festival [they may be brought] also from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. [But] why? It is obligatory, and everything that is obligatory must be brought from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money! And if you say: It comes to teach us this, [to wit,] that burnt-offerings can be brought during the mid-festival but not on the festival;18 then this will be according to Beth Shammai!19 For we have learnt: Beth Shammai say. One may bring peace-offerings [on the festival]20 without laying the hands21 upon them; but not burnt-offerings.22 But Beth Hillel say, One may bring peace-offerings and burnt-offerings [on the festival] and lay the hands upon them!23 — [Our Mishnah] is defective, and it should read thus: Burnt-offerings, vow-offerings and freewill-offerings are brought during the mid-festival, but they may not be brought on the festival.24 But the pilgrimage burnt-offering is brought even on the festival;25 and when it is brought,26 it must be brought only from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money; but the peace-offerings of rejoicing can be brought also from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money.27 And regarding the festal-offering of the first festival day of Passover, Beth Shammai say: [It must be brought from animals bought with] unconsecrated money; and Beth Hillel say: [It can be brought] also from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money.28 It has also been taught thus: Burnt-offerings, vow-offerings and freewill-offerings are brought during the mid-festival but not on the festival. But the pilgrimage burnt-offering is brought even on the festival; and when it is brought, it is brought only from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money; but the peace-offerings of rejoicing can be brought also from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. And regarding the festal-offering of the first festival day of Passover,29 Beth Shammai say: [It must be brought] from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money; but Beth Hillel say: [It can be brought] also from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. Why is the festal-offering of the first festival day of Passover different?30 — It comes to teach us this: Only the festival-offering of the fifteenth [of Nisan must be brought from animals bought with unconsecrated money] but not the festal-offering of the fourteenth [of Nisan].31
(1) All the ten are bound to visit the Temple on the first day; if, now, five at a time went up, the first group would be doing their duty scrupulously and the second five would be remiss.
(2) ‘All thy males,’ teaching that they must not appear in divisions.
(3) V. p. 14, n. 5.
(4) ‘They must not appear in divisions’ means, therefore, that all the Israelites must form one group; if the scraper etc. were to go on the pilgrimage they would have to form, because of their malodour, a separate group, which is forbidden.
(5) מועד lit., ‘appointed time,’ i.e., the intermediate days of Passover and Sukkoth as opposed to יום טוב, festival days (called in the Bible מקרא קדש 'holy convocation’). In the Bible מועד includes both festival and intermediate days, cf. e.g. Lev. XXIII, 4.
(6) As opposed to animals bought with Second Tithe money (v. infra, n. 8). All obligatory offerings had to be brought from unconsecrated animals (cf. Men. 82a and infra p. 36).
(7) Brought to provide sufficient meat for the pilgrim and his family so that they might keep the festival with rejoicing
(cf. Deut. XIV, 26).
(8) Cf. Deut. XIV, 22f. The tithe was separated in the first, second, fourth and fifth year of the seven year cycle, after terumah (‘heave-offering’) had been given to the Priest and First Tithe to the Levite. It was to be consumed in Jerusalem or the money with which it was redeemed spent there (v. Danby, P. 73, n. 6).
(9) As opposed to priests.
(10) I.e., of ‘rejoicing’ on the festival by offering peace-offerings wherewith to provide themselves with meat for the feast. Thus it is unnecessary to bring special sacrifices for this purpose, if the vow-offerings etc. provide sufficient for the family's needs.
(11) Cf. Mishnah Meg. I, 6.
(12) V. Lev. VII, 31-39.
(13) Brought by pilgrims and of which only the priests may eat; v. Num. XVIII, 9f.
(14) V. ibid. 17-19.
(15) V. Lev. VII, 29f.
(16) They were sin-offerings.
(17) V. Lev. II, 1. The bird and meal-offerings would not provide a feast suited to the occasion of rejoicing.
(18) I.e., it is forbidden to offer the pilgrimage burnt-offerings on the festival (when all manner of work is prohibited), even though it is an obligatory offering of the festival, because there is time to bring the offering the next day.
(19) Whose opinion is invalid against that of Beth Hillel.
(20) Because they supply the pilgrim with his feast.
(21) Cf. Lev. III, 2 and infra 16a. The act of laying on of the hands, which causes the pilgrim to support himself on the animal, is forbidden by the Rabbis on Festival and Sabbath on account of shebuth (‘abstention, rest’, v. Glos.) i.e., it is an action out of keeping with the restful character of the holy day. though it is not actually included in one of the thirty-nine categories of labour (v. Mishnah Shab. VII, 2) and cf. Mishnah Bez. V, 2.
(22) Exceptions were the continual burnt-offerings and the additional offerings, which were permitted to be offered because they had an appointed time (cf. Num. XXVIII, 2 במועדו); otherwise, Beth Shammai explained ‘unto you’ in Ex. XII, 16 to mean: for yourselves offer sacrifices but not entirely for God.
(23) Since it is permitted to bring them, the laying on of the hands is also permitted. V. Bez. 19b.
(24) Even according to Beth Hillel.
(25) Though it could be brought during the mid-festival, Lev. XXIII, 4 (‘and ye shall keep it a feast’) is taken by Beth Hillel to imply that it should be offered on the first day of the festival.
(26) [Wilna Gaon emends ‘when they are brought’ referring to all the mentioned offerings].
(27) V. p. 36, n. 1, and infra p. 39.
(28) Explained infra.
(29) As distinct from the festal-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan; v. next note.
(30) I.e., why is it specifically mentioned?
(31) If the paschal lamb did not suffice for the company a festal-offering could be sacrificed in addition (cf. Sifre to Deut. XVI, 2 and Pes. 69b). This festival-offering was not obligatory, hence even Beth Shammai would agree that it could be brought from the Second Tithe.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 8a
Thus he holds that the festal-offering of the fourteenth [of Nisan] is not enjoined by the Torah.
The Master said [above]: ‘Beth Hillel say: [The festal-offering of the first day of the festival can be brought also] from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money’. Why? It is obligatory, and everything that is obligatory must be brought only from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money!1 — ‘Ulla said: When he supplements [the unconsecrated by that of the Second Tithe].2 Hezekiah said: One animal may be supplemented by another animal, but money may not be supplemented by money. And R. Johanan said: Money may be supplemented by money, but one animal may not be supplemented by another animal. There is a teaching agreeing with Hezekiah and there is a teaching agreeing with R. Johanan. There is a teaching agreeing with R. Johanan: [it is written]: After the tribute;3 this teaches that a man must bring his obligatory offering from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. And whence [do we know] that if he desires to mix he may mix?4 The text teaches: According as the Lord, thy God, shall bless thee.5 There is a teaching agreeing with Hezekiah: [The expression] ‘after the tribute’ teaches that a man may bring his obligatory offering from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. Beth Shammai say: The first [festival] day from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money.6 thenceforward7 [also] from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. Beth Hillel say: The first meal8 from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. thenceforward9 from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. And the remaining days of Passover, a man may fulfil his obligation10 [also] with the tithe of cattle.11 Why may he not [do so] on the festival?12 — R. Ashi said: Lest he come to separate tithe on the festival; and it is impossible to separate tithe on the festival on account of the [marking with] red paint.13 What evidence is there that the [word] ‘tribute’ indicates that which is unconsecrated? — Because it is written: And the King Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land.14
ISRAELITES MAY FULFIL THEIR OBLIGATION WITH VOW-OFFERINGS AND FREEWILL-OFFERINGS. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written], And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast.15 This includes all kinds of rejoicings as [festival] rejoicing.16 Hence the Sages said: Israelites may fulfil their obligation with vow-offerings, freewill-offerings and tithe of cattle; and the priests with sin-offering and guilt-offering, and with firstlings, and with the breast and the shoulder; one might [think] also with bird-offerings and meal-offerings, [therefore] Scripture teaches: ‘And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast’.
(1) Cf. p. 36.
(2) If he has a large company and the festival-offering from his unconsecrated means (חולין) will not suffice, he is permitted to add thereto from the Second Tithe: according to Hezekiah, it means that he may purchase other festival-offerings with Second Tithe money; according to R. Johanan, he may add Second Tithe money in order to purchase a larger animal. The former deems it better that one should satisfy one's obligation to bring the festival-offering from unconsecrated means by bringing therefrom a complete offering i.e., the first, though by itself inadequate for the company; the latter prefers that every morsel of the festival-offering should contain a percentage purchased with unconsecrated money (Rashi). Tosaf. explains that R. Johanan objects to ‘dividing one's obligation’ by spreading it over two animals.
(3) Deut. XVI, 10.
(4) The expression ‘mix’ supports R. Johanan, because it is applicable to money and not to animals.
(5) Ibid. I.e., with both unconsecrated and consecrated means.
(6) Because it is obligatory then.
(7) Though still termed festival-offerings, they are really peace-offerings of rejoicing.
(8) I.e., the first festal-offering.
(9) Even on the same day.
(10) ‘To rejoice’.
(11) And also of course with offerings bought with Second Tithe money.
(12) I.e., satisfy his obligation after the first meal with tithe cattle, just as he may buy an offering with Second Tithe money.
(13) Every tenth animal was designated as tithe by being marked with red paint (Bek. IX, 7); on a holy day painting, being regarded as work, is prohibited.
(14) Esth. X, 1. The word used here מס, and מסת in Deut. XVI, 10 are from the same root.
(15) Deut. XVI, 14, which refers to Sukkoth, but by analogy is applicable to each of the three pilgrim festivals.
(16) I.e., the precept to rejoice can be fulfilled only by having meat at the feast (cf. Pes. 119a), but the flesh of any kind of sacrifice will do.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 8b
only with those [offerings] from which the festal-offering can be brought;1 these, then, are excluded Since the festal-offering cannot be brought from them. R. Ashi said: It is to be deduced from [the expression]. ‘And thou shalt rejoice’; these, then, are excluded because there is no [festive] joy in them. But what does R. Ashi do with [the expression]. ‘in thy feast’.2 — To intimate what R. Daniel b. Kattina learnt. For R. Daniel b. Kattina said that Rab said: Whence [is it derived] that marriages3 may not take place during the mid-festival? Because it is said: ‘And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast’, but not in thy wife.4
MISHNAH. HE THAT HAS MANY TO EAT [WITH HIM] AND FEW POSSESSIONS,5 OFFERS MANY PEACE-OFFERINGS AND FEW BURNT-OFFERINGS,6 [HE THAT HAS] MANY POSSESSIONS AND FEW TO EAT [WITH HIM] BRINGS MANY BURNT-OFFERINGS7 AND FEW PEACE-OFFERINGS. [HE THAT HAS] FEW OF EITHER, FOR HIM IS PRESCRIBED:8 ONE MA'AH OF SILVER’, ‘TWO PIECES OF SILVER’.9 HE THAT HAS MANY OF BOTH, OF HIM IT IS SAID: EVERY MAN SHALL GIVE AS HE IS ABLE, ACCORDING TO THE BLESSING OF THE LORD THY GOD, WHICH HE HATH GIVEN THEE.10
GEMARA. Whence shall he bring many peace-offerings? Behold He has not! — Said R. Hisda: He may supplement [unconsecrated money with Second Tithe money] and bring a large bull.11 Said R. Shesheth to him: Behold they said: One may supplement beast with beast! What did he mean? Should one say he meant this: Behold they said: One may supplement beast with beast, but not money with money; then he should say to him: One may not supplement money with money!12 — He must, therefore, have meant this: Behold they said: One may also supplement beast with beast!13 According to whom will this be? It will be neither according to Hezekiah nor according to R. Johanan.14 And should you say: It is only the Amoraim15 who differ [about it],16 but the Baraithas17 do not differ;18 but behold it says: The first meal must come from unconsecrated money!19 — The first meal means that the amount of the value of a first meal20 must be from unconsecrated money.21
‘Ulla said that Resh Lakish said: If a man set aside ten beasts for his festal-offering [and] he offered up five on the first day of the festival, he may offer up the other five on the second day of the festival;22 R. Johanan said: Since he has interrupted [the offer- above) and not leave R. Hisda to infer what is prohibited from a statement of what is permitted. ings]. he cannot offer any more. R. Abba said: But they do not differ: the one speaks of an instance where he did not declare his intention, and the other speaks of an instance where he did declare his intention.23 What is the case of the one who had not declared his intention?24 — Should one say that there is no time left in the day to offer them, then the reason for his not offering them was because there is no time left in the day!25 [Should one say], therefore, that he had no [more] people to eat with him!25 - — No, it refers to a case where there was time left in the day [to offer] and he had people to eat with him; seeing that he did not offer them on the first day [of the festival] it proves that he left them over [intentionally].26 And so it stands to reason;27 for when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: If a man set aside ten beasts for his festal-offering, [and] he offered five the first day of the festival, he may offer the other five on the second day of the festival. [Now the two statements of R. Johanan] contradict one another! Surely, therefore, you must learn from this that in the one case he does not declare his intention and in the other he does declare his intention. Proven.
It is also reported:28 R. Shaman b. Abba said that R. Johanan said:
(1) V. p. 33, n. 3. Cf. also infra 10b.
(2) I.e., since Scripture has no redundant expressions, what teaching does he derive from it.
(3) Lit., ‘they may not take wives’.
(4) V. M.K. 8b.
(5) I.e., cattle (cf. Aramaic נכסין cattle, herd), which, in contradistinction to land (immovable property), originally constituted essential (movable) wealth. The root נכס means to slaughter; cf. Latin pecunia from pecus (Goldschmidt). Cf. also chattels from cattle. Jastrow offers a different explanation.
(6) Respectively for festal and pilgrimage sacrifices.
(7) In accordance with Deut. XVI, 17.
(8) By the Rabbis.
(9) V. p. 2, nn. 2, 4.
(10) Deut. XVI, 17.
(11) V. p. 38, the views of Hezekiah and R. Johanan.
(12) I.e., let R. Shesheth, who follows Hezekiah's view, say distinctly what is prohibited (exactly as Hezekiah does
(13) I.e., and not merely money with money.
(14) As neither of them permits the supplementing of both money with money and beast with beast.
(15) Lit., ‘speakers’: the Talmudic scholars who were active from the time of the conclusion of the Mishnah (C. 220 C.E.) to the end of the fifth century, and compiled almost the whole of the Gemara; v. Glos. s.v. Amora. Here Hezekiah and R. Johanan are referred to.
(16) I.e., regarding the permissibility of supplementing money with money and adding beast to beast.
(17) Lit., ‘extraneous (teachings)’: the generic term for Tannaitic teachings not included in the Mishnah, v. Glos.
(18) The Baraithas quoted above (pp. 38, 39) in support of Hezekiah and R. Johanan respectively do not contradict each other regarding the permissibility of adding money to money, only regarding the adding of beast to beast, which the first Baraitha prohibits and the second permits. Thus R. Shesheth will agree with the second Baraitha which permits the adding of beast to beast as well as money to money.
(19) This presumably means that the whole of the flesh of the first meal must come from unconsecrated money, which in turn shows that the Baraitha refers to the supplementing of beast with beast and not of money with money.
(20) [I.e..the amount required to constitute generally a first festal meal and not, as assumed, the whole of the first meal. The text is in slight disorder].
(21) Thus the Baraitha may refer both to animals and money.
(22) Rashi explains: One must not suppose that by offering the remaining beasts on the second day (i.e. , the first day of the mid-festival) he is transgressing the commandment to keep one day as a feast i.e., to offer his festal offerings on the first day (deduced infra p. 44 from Lev. XXIII, 41, ‘and ye shall keep it (only) a feast’), for the second day he is merely ‘compensating’ for the dues of the first. But according to R. Hananel (quoted in Tosaf’. ד״ה חוזר)
יום טוב שני (‘the second day’) means, or should read, יום טוב אחרון (‘the last day of the festival’); and he explains that one should not think that since vow-offerings and freewill-offerings cannot be brought on a festival day, therefore the remaining beasts may not be offered then; for these sacrifices are to be regarded as festal-offerings not as vow- or freewill-offerings, since in the first place they were set aside for that purpose. This interpretation is supported by the J.T.
(23) I.e., he said explicitly I set all of them aside for the first day; if then he offers some on the second day, they are merely ‘compensation’ for the first day.
(24) That you rule that he cannot offer them any more.
(25) But his intention was to offer them on the first day.
(26) In order to provide a feast for the second day.
(27) I.e.. that R. Johanan would grant that if he declared his intention to offer them all on the first day, he may offer the remaining beasts on the second.
(28) This is an Amoraic (v. p. 41, n. 3) corroboration to the effect that where it is evident that the pilgrim did not intend in the first instance to hold over some of the offerings for the second day, R. Johanan would agree with Resh Lakish.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 9a
They taught this1 only [of a case] when it had not ended, but if it had ended, he may offer the rest [on the second day]. What does ‘ended’ mean? Shall one say [it means]: he had ended2 his sacrifices? What [in that case] should he offer? It must mean, therefore, that the day had not ended,3 but if the day had ended,4 he may offer the rest [on the second day].
MISHNAH. HE WHO DID NOT BRING HIS FESTAL-OFFERING ON THE FIRST FESTIVAL, DAY OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES], MAY BRING IT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE FESTIVAL, EVEN ON THE LAST FESTIVAL DAY5 OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES]. IF THE FESTIVAL, PASSED AND HE DID NOT BRING THE FESTIVAL OFFERING, HE IS NOT BOUND TO MAKE IT GOOD. OF SUCH A PERSON IT IS SAID: HE THAT IS CROOKED CANNOT BE MADE STRAIGHT AND THAT WHICH IS WANTING CANNOT BE RECKONED.6 R. SIMEON B. MENASYA SAID: WHO IS IT ‘THAT IS CROOKED’ WHO ‘CANNOT BE MADE STRAIGHT’? HE THAT HAS CONNECTION WITH A FORBIDDEN RELATION7 AND BEGETS BY HER BASTARD ISSUE. SHOULD YOU SAY THAT IT APPLIES TO A THIEF OR ROBBER, BUT THEN HE IS ABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION AND BE MADE STRAIGHT. R. SIMEON B. YOHAI SAID: ONLY HE CAN BE CALLED ‘CROOKED’ WHO WAS STRAIGHT AT FIRST AND BECAME CROOKED. AND WHO IS THIS? — A DISCIPLE OF THE SAGES WHO FORSAKES THE TORAH.
GEMARA. Whence do we know this?8 — R. Johanan in the name of R. Ishmael said: [The expression] ‘Azereth [‘solemn assembly’] is used of the seventh day of Passover,9 and [the expression] ‘Azereth is used of the eighth day of the Feast [of Tabernacles].10 Just as there it11 intimates that one can make good [thereon the festal-offering due on the first day] so here12 it intimates that one can make good [thereon the festal-offering of the first day]. And it is free [for interpretation];13 for were it not free one might object: whereas [this14 applies] to the seventh day of Passover which is not differentiated from the preceding [days], can you say this of the eighth day of the Feast [of Tabernacles] which is differentiated from the preceding [days].15 But it is not so;16 it is quite free [for interpretation]. Consider, what does ‘Azereth mean? [Evidently it means], restrained [‘Azur]17 in respect of doing work. But behold it is written: Thou shalt do no work;18 wherefore, then, has the Divine Law written ‘Azereth?19 You must infer therefrom [that it is] in order to leave it free [for interpretation]. But the Tanna20 [of the following Baraitha] deduces it from here. For it is taught: And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days.21 One might think that he must go on bringing festal-offerings the whole of the seven days. Scripture, therefore, says, ‘it’: on it [only] are you to offer festal-offerings, but you are not to offer festal-offerings on all the seven days. If so, why does it say, ‘seven’? To intimate that one may make good [the festal-offering during the seven days of the festival]. And whence [do we learn] that if he did not bring the festal-offering on the first festival day of the Feast [of Tabernacles] that he can go on bringing it during the course of the whole Festival, even on the last festival day? Scripture says: Ye shall keep it in the seventh month.22 If, now, [it is to be kept] in the seventh month, one might think that one can go on bringing the festal-offering throughout the whole month, therefore Scripture says. ‘it’:23 on ‘it’ [only] are you to offer festal-offerings, but you are not to offer festal-offerings outside it.
And what is the nature of this ‘making good’? — R. Johanan says: They24 make up for the first day;25 and R. Oshaiah says: They make up for one another.26 What is the [practical] point at issue between them? — R. Zera said: [The case of] a man who was lame27 on the first day [of the festival] and became well on the second day is the point of issue between them. R. Johanan says: They make up for the first day; since on the first day he was not qualified [to bring the festal-offering], he is not qualified on the second. And R. Oshaiah says: They make up for one another; although he was not qualified on the first day he is qualified on the second. But could R. Johanan have said this? For behold Hezekiah said: If [a Nazirite] became defiled during the day [of the eighth] he has to bring [a sacrifice], but during the night [preceding the eighth] he does not have to bring [a sacrifice].28 But R. Johanan said: Also [if he was defiled] during the night, he must bring [a sacrifice]!29 — Said R. Jeremiah: The case of uncleanness is different,30 because it can be made good [as is the case with the sacrifice] on the Second Passover.31 R. Papa demurred to this: It is right according to the view that the Second Passover
(1) I.e., the Baraitha quoted infra pp. 44-45 which deduces from Lev. XXIII, 41 that the festal-offering is to be offered on the first day only.
(2) ג7#1502;ר (‘he ended’) is both transitive and intransitive.
(3) And he refrained from offering the remaining beasts.
(4) And he had no opportunity of offering all his sacrifices.
(5) Which is regarded as a separate festival, nevertheless one can make good thereon the festal-offering due on the first day of Tabernacles.
(6) Eccl. I, 15.
(7) V. Lev. XVIII, 6-18.
(8) I.e., that if the festal-offering was not brought earlier, it can still be offered up on the last day of Tabernacles.
(9) Deut. XVI, 8.
(10) Lev. XXIII, 36; Num. XXIX, 35.
(11) I.e., in the case of the seventh day of Passover which is essentially part of the Passover Festival.
(12) I.e., in the case of the eighth day of Tabernacles, even though it has the status of a separate festival; v. infra 17a.
(13) I.e., the word עצרת is redundant; this makes the inference by analogy irrefutable.
(14) That one can make good on the last day the festal-offering of the first.
(15) Cf. Yoma 3a.
(16) לאײ = לא הי = לאו ‘No’, ‘it is not so’.
(17) Cf. A.V. Marg. ‘restraint’ in Deut. XVI, 8; Lev. XXIII, 36.
(18) Deut. XVI, 8.
(19) V. p. 7, n. 8.
(20) An authority quoted in Mishnah and Baraitha in contradistinction to Amora such as R. Johanan above. V. Glos.
(21) Lev. XXIII, 41.
(22) Ibid. I.e., you can bring the festal-offering on every festival day in the month.
(23) The second ‘it’ of the verse.
(24) I.e., the days of the festival following the first.
(25) I.e.,the first day of the festival is the specific day for the festival-offering. If a man was liable to bring it on the first day but did not, he may make it good on a subsequent day of the festival; but if he was exempt on the first day, he is no longer bound to bring the offering.
(26) I.e.. each day makes up for the preceding in the sense that it puts a new liability on the pilgrim; thus on whichever day of the festival he becomes qualified, he is bound to bring his offerings.
(27) And therefore exempt; v. p. 1.
(28) If a Nazirite (v. Num. VI, 2f) becomes defiled, he must wait seven days, and bring a sacrifice on the eighth, before he again begins to observe the days of his Naziritehood. One sacrifice will suffice for several defilements if the lapse between any two is less than eight days. But if he became defiled on the eighth day, he must bring a sacrifice for the previous defilement, since it was already due, and also for the subsequent defilement, since it occurred in a new period of eight days. If, however, the second defilement occurred on the night preceding the eighth, a second sacrifice has not to be brought, since the first cannot be offered till the morning, (for sacrifices are offered only during the day), the obligation to bring a sacrifice cannot be said to have yet fallen due and consequently the question of making good does not in his view arise. Cf. Ker. II, 3.
(29) Because he has already been purified by ritual immersion (טבילה) on the seventh day, and the sun of that day has set (הערב שמש). Now this statement seems to show that R. Johanan holds that though one is not qualified to bring a sacrifice (e.g., the Nazirite on the night preceding the eighth day), one may make up for it later.
(30) I.e., a sacrifice which cannot be offered on account of uncleanness is exceptional.
(31) Which is offered to make good the nonobservance of the First Passover sacrifice owing to a disqualification of uncleanness. V. Num. 10f. Thus those who are unfit to bring the paschal lamb on the First Passover may bring it on the Second, and similarly in other cases of uncleanness; but in all other cases of disqualification, R. Johanan would hold that an offering which could not be brought on one day cannot be made good.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 9b
makes up for the First;1 but what is to be said according to the view that the Second [Passover] is a separate festival?2 — Therefore, said R. Papa, R. Johanan must be of the opinion that the night [before the day on which the sacrifice is due] is not regarded as belonging to the preceding period.3 But how could R. Johanan have said this?4 For behold R. Johanan said: If [a zab]5 had one emission in the night and two in the [following] day, he must bring [a second offering];6 but [if he had] two in the night and one in the day, he has not to bring [a second offering].7 Now if you imagine that R. Johanan is of the opinion that the night [before the day on which the sacrifice is due] is not regarded as belonging to the preceding period, then even [if he had] two [emissions] at night and one in the day he must bring [a second offering]! — R. Johanan said this only according to the view that the night [before] is regarded as belonging to the preceding period.8 But according to this view it is surely obvious!9 — It is required for the case where there are two [emissions] in the day and one the [preceding] night. You might have thought [the decision] to be according to the objection of R. Shisha son of R. Idi, it therefore teaches us that it is according to R. Joseph.10
IF THE FESTIVAL PASSED AND HE DID NOT BRING THE FESTIVAL OFFERING, HE IS NOT BOUND TO MAKE IT GOOD. OF SUCH A PERSON IT IS SAID: HE THAT IS CROOKED CANNOT BE MADE STRAIGHT AND THAT WHICH IS WANTING CANNOT BE RESTORED. Bar He-He11 said to Hillel: [Instead of] the [expression] ‘to be reckoned’ it ought to be ‘to be filled’!12 It must refer, therefore, to one whose fellows reckoned him13 for [the performance of] a religious act, but he would not be reckoned with them. It has also been taught thus: ‘He that is crooked cannot be made straight’: this refers to one who neglected to read the morning Shema’ or the evening Shema’,14 or he neglected the morning prayer15 or the evening prayer. And that which is wanting cannot be reckoned’; this refers to one whose fellows resolved16 on [the performance of] a religious act and he would not be reckoned with them.
Bar He-He said to Hillel: Then shall ye again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.17 ‘The righteous’ is the same as ‘he that serveth God’; ‘the wicked’ is the same as ‘he that serveth Him not’! — He answered him: He that serveth Him and he that serveth Him not both refer to such as are perfectly righteous; but he that repeated his chapter a hundred times is not to be compared with him who repeated it a hundred and one times.18 Said [Bar He-He] to him: And because of once he is called ‘he that serveth Him not’? — He answered: Yes, go and learn from the mule-drivers market; ten parasangs for one zuz,19 eleven parasangs for two zuz.
Elijah20 said to Bar He-He, and others say, to R. Eleazar: What is the meaning of the verse: Behold I have refined thee but not as silver; I have tried thee in the furnace of affliction?21 It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, went through all the good qualities in order to give [them] to Israel, and He found only poverty.22 Samuel said, and others say. R. Joseph: This accords with the popular saying: Poverty befits Israel like a red trapping a white horse.23 R. SIMEON B. MENASYA SAID: WHO IS IT ‘THAT IS CROOKED’ WHO ‘CANNOT BE MADE STRAIGHT’? HE THAT HAS CONNECTION WITH A FORBIDDEN RELATION AND BEGETS BY HER BASTARD ISSUE etc. Only if he begets, but not if he does not beget. But behold it is taught: R. Simeon b. Menasya said: If a man steal, he can return the theft and [so] become straight; but he that has connection with a married woman and makes her prohibited unto her husband is banished from the world and passes away.24
(R. Simeon b. Yohai said: One does not say: Examine the camel, examine the pig,25 Only examine the lamb.26 And who is this? A disciple of the wise who has forsaken the Torah. R. Judah b. Lakish said: Any disciple of the wise who has forsaken the Torah, of him Scripture says: As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place.27 And it further says : What unrighteousness have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?)28 — There is no contradiction: the one case refers to his unmarried sister,29 the other refers to a married woman.30 Or I might say: Both are cases of married women; but there is no contradiction: in the one case
(1) V. Pes. 93a.
(2) This excludes the explanation that a sacrifice, not offered in time owing to uncleanness, can be made good later.
(3) [Lit., ‘is not (deemed as) wanting time’. I.e., the fact that one cannot bring an offering on the night preceding the day on which it is due, is not regarded as a disqualifying factor, and consequently in the case of a Nazirite the night preceding the eighth day completes the eight days’ period, so that the sacrifice may be said to fall due thereon, though he is actually prevented from offering it because it is still night. For this reason the sacrifice which was not offered at night can be made good on the following morning, and should he in the meantime suffer a second defilement, he has to bring a second sacrifice, whereas in the case of the festival-offering where he was lame on the first day, there was no obligation whatsoever resting on him to bring a sacrifice and consequently this cannot be made good].
(4) I.e., that the night preceding the day on which a sacrifice is due is not regarded as belonging to the preceding period.
(5) זב, one who suffers from gonorrhoea (v. Lev. XV). After the first emission he is considered a בעל קרי and is unclean for the day; after the second, he is מטא, (unclean in the degree of zab), and has to count seven clean days, wash his garments, have ritual immersion and wait for sunset; after the third, he has, in addition, to bring sacrifices on the eighth day (cf. Ned. 43b). This zab had counted seven days and was to bring his offerings on the morrow, and in the meantime he saw further discharges.
(6) Because the first emission is counted with the two of the morning.
(7) Because the two nocturnal emissions make him unclean within the period of the first defilement, i.e., before the eighth day.
(8) But his own view is the reverse.
(9) As his own opinion the statement would have point in as much as it tells us his personal view; otherwise the teaching is an obvious corollary of the principle that the night before belongs to the preceding period.
(10) V. Ker. 8a, where R. Joseph seeks to prove R. Johanan's view that the first emission in the evening is counted with the two of the morning (cf. n. 1). and R. Shisha argues against the former's proof.
(11) V. Aboth, Sonc. ed, p. 77, n. 6. (Ch. V, 23).
(12) I.e., the expression ‘that which is wanting’ (חסרון) requires as its antonym ‘to be filled’ (להמלאות) not ‘to be reckoned’ להמנות lit., to be numbered’.
(13) I.e., asked him to join them.
(14) A biblical reading consisting of Deut. VI, 4-9 and an additional sentence; ibid. XI, 13-21; Num. XV, 37-41; the name is derived from its first word — שמע V. P.B. pp. 40-42.
(15) The prayer par excellence, called also ‘Amidah (‘standing prayer’) and the ‘eighteen (really nineteen) blessings’. V. P.B. pp. 44f.
(16) Lit., ‘reckoned themselves’.
(17) Mal. III, 18.
(18) Possibly a pun is intended here: the initial letters of עבד אלהים לאר (‘he that serveth God and he’) = 101; and of לא עבדו (‘serveth Him not’) = 100. V. Marginal Gloss. in cur. edd.
(19) A silver coin, quarter of a shekel, and equal to a denar, v. Glos.
(20) For Elijah in Rabbinic literature v. J.E. vol. V, pp. 122f, espec. p. 124f. Cf. also supra pp. 17f. regarding the Angel of death.
(21) Isa. XLVIII, 10.
(22) The word for ‘affliction’ (עני) also means poverty.
(23) V. Lev. Rab. ss. 13 and 35 for parallel readings.
(24) I.e., the wrong they have done is irreparable. This statement of R. Simeon b. Menasya, which declares that connection with a prohibited relation, even if there be no issue, is irreparable, contradicts his statement in the Mishnah. The other dicta are quoted merely because they form part of the Baraitha (Tosef.).
(25) I.e., to see if they are without blemish and so fit for sacrifice, for they are unfit to start with. Likewise ‘made crooked’ can only refer to one who was originally worthy and later degenerated. V. R. Simeon b. Yohai's statement in Mishnah.
(26) Which is fit for sacrifice unless it becomes blemished.
(27) Prov. XXVII, 8.
(28) Jer. II, 5.
(29) The wrong then becomes irreparable only when there is issue.
(30) A stranger's connection with her, even if no issue results, makes her prohibited to her husband.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 10a
it was against her will,1 in the other it was with her consent. Or you may say: in both cases it was against her will but there is no contradiction: the one case concerns a priest's wife2 and the other an Israelite's wife.
Neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in,3 Rab said: As soon as man goes forth from Halachic4 to Scripture study he no longer has peace.5 And Samuel said: It means one who leaves Talmud for Mishnah.6 And R. Johanan said: Even [if he goes] from Talmud to Talmud.7
MISHNAH. [THE LAWS CONCERNING] THE DISSOLUTION OF VOWS8 HOVER IN THE AIR AND HAVE NOUGHT TO REST ON.9 THE LAWS CONCERNING THE SABBATH, FESTAL-OFFERINGS, ACTS OF TRESPASS10 ARE AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR, FOR THEY HAVE SCANT SCRIPTURAL BASIS BUT MANY LAWS. [THE LAWS CONCERNING] CIVIL CASES AND [TEMPLE] SERVICES,11 LEVITICAL CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, AND THE FORBIDDEN RELATIONS12 HAVE WHAT TO REST ON,13 AND IT IS THEY THAT ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH.
GEMARA. It is taught: R. Eliezer said: They14 have something to rest on, for it is said: When one shall clearly utter15 [a vow], when one shall clearly utter [a vow]:15 one [intimates] an utterance to bind, and the other an utterance to dissolve. R. Joshua said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Wherefore I swore in My wrath.16 [It means,] I swore in My wrath,17 but I retracted.18 R. Isaac said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Whosoever is of a willing heart.19 Hanania, son of the brother of R. Joshua, said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances.20 Rab Judah said that Samuel said: Had I been there I should have said to them: My [Scriptural proof] is better than yours, for it is said: He shall not break his word.21 ‘He’ may not break it, but others may dissolve it for him. Raba said: To all these [proofs] objection can be made except to that of Samuel, against which no objection can be raised. For against R. Eliezer [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Judah , who said it in the name of R. Tarfon. For it is taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon: Indeed, neither of them becomes a Nazirite, because Naziriteship can be assumed only by clear utterance.22 Against R. Joshua [it may be objected]: Perhaps this is the meaning of the verse: I swore in My wrath and did not retract’. Against R. Isaac [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse comes to] exclude the view of Samuel. For Samuel said: Though he determined in his heart,23 he must still utter it with his lips.24 And [the verse]25 teaches us that even though he did not utter it with his lips [it is binding]. Against Hanania, the son of the brother of R. Joshua [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab. For R. Giddal said that Rab said: Whence [is it to be deduced] that one may take an oath to fulfil a precept?26 For it is said: ‘I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances’.27 But against Samuel's proof no objection can be raised. Raba, and some say, R. Nahman b. Isaac, said: This is the meaning of the popular saying: Better one grain of pungent pepper than a basketful of pumpkins.28
THE LAWS CONCERNING THE SABBATH. But they are written [in Scripture]!29 — No, it is necessary [to state this] for the teaching of R. Abba. For R. Abba said: He who digs a hole on the Sabbath and requires it only for the sake of its earth is not liable for it.30 According to which authority [will this be]? According to R. Simeon, who said: one is not liable for work [performed on the Sabbath] which is not required for itself.31 — You may even say that it is according to R. Judah:32 there33 one is improving.34 here35 one is spoiling.36 But why does it say: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR?37
(1) In this case she may continue to live with her husband.
(2) In this case even if it was against her will she may no longer live with her husband (cf. Keth. 51b).
(3) Zech. VIII, 10.
(4) V. Glos. s.v. Halachah.
(5) Because the Halachah provides the ultimate ruling for conduct; cf. Hershon, Talmudic Miscellany, Ch. XI, No. 33, and the lines in Longfellow's ‘Golden Legend’ beginning: The Kabbala and Talmud lore, etc. (quoted in Streane's Chagigah).
(6) Without the Talmudic explanation and discussion the Mishnah may be misleading.
(7) According to Rashi, from the Palestinian Talmud (or Jerusalmi) to the Babylonian Talmud which was more difficult; cf. Sanh. 24a and B.M. 85b. But according to Tosaf., from either to the other before the first is properly understood.
(8) By a Sage, to whom the person who makes the vow explains his original intention which did not include the special circumstances that now cause him to regret the vow; thus a פתח חרטה (‘a way of retraction’) is found whereby the vow can be annulled. V. Ned. 9a, 10b.
(9) I.e., in Biblical teaching, and depend only on oral tradition; but cf. Num. XXX, 8-9.
(10) The misappropriation of holy things to secular use. V. Lev. V, 14-16.
(11) I.e., the offering of sacrifices.
(12) V. Lev. XVIII, 6f.
(13) [MS.M.: ‘have on whom to rest’, i.e., have good authority. V. Zeitlin, JQR. (N.S.) VII, p. 500].
(14) I.e., the laws concerning the dissolution of vows.
(15) Twice: in Lev. XXVII, 2 and Num. VI, 2.
(16) Ps. XCV, R.
(17) I.e., hastily, but in calmer mood I regretted the oath and retracted. The verse refers to God, of course; but the inference is drawn from the anthropomorphism for ill-considered human vows.
(18) The ‘change of mind’ attributed here to God with regard to the generation of the wilderness must be explained by reference to Sanh. 110b where the view is expressed that they have a share in the world to come, i.e., they were not permitted to enter Canaan, their earthly possession, but it was granted them to enter their Heavenly heritage.
(19) Ex. XXXV, 5. But if the heart be no longer willing it is possible for the vow to be dissolved (cf. discussion in Shab. 26b).
(20) Ps. CXIX, 106. But where instead of confirmation there is retraction, the person may be released from his vow.
(21) Num. XXX, 3.
(22) If the assumption of the state of Nazir (v. Num. VI) was made the forfeit of a wager between two, R. Tarfon holds that neither loser nor winner is a Nazir, because Naziriteship must be explicitly vowed and cannot be assumed conditionally. This he deduces from one of the two verses cited by R. Eliezer (cf. Nazir 32b Mishnah and 34a top).
(23) To swear a certain oath.
(24) Otherwise it is no oath and he is not liable.
(25) Cited by R. Isaac.
(26) I.e., it is meritorious to do this that he may fulfil the precept with greater zeal.
(27) V. Ned. 7b.
(28) I.e., a sharp mind is better than mere learning.
(29) Why then does the Mishnah say that there is little Scriptural basis for them?
(30) But if he required the hole itself, he would be guilty of building on the Sabbath, v. Shab. 73b.
(31) E.g., a hole dug for the sake of its earth. R. Simeon stated this principle in connection with carrying out the dead on the Sabbath (v. Shab. 93a).
(32) Who holds that one may not carry a corpse out on the Sabbath for burial (v. ibid.).
(33) I.e. , in the case of the corpse.
(34) I.e., burying the corpse and achieving something desired.
(35) I.e., in the case of the digging of a hole.
(36) The hole does not improve the ground nor is it desired for itself.
(37) Implying that some kind of support is afforded by the Torah.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 10b
— Because the Torah prohibited [on the Sabbath] purposed work,1 yet purposed work is not mentioned in Scripture.2 [LAWS CONCERNING] FESTAL-OFFERINGS. But they are written [in Scripture]!3 — No, it is necessary in the light of what R. Papa said to Abaye: Whence [do we know] that [the verse]: And ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord4 signifies sacrifice? Perhaps the Divine Law means: Celebrate a Festival!5 — If so, when it is written, That they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness,6 would that also mean: Celebrate a festival! And should you say that it indeed means that, surely it is written: And Moses said: ‘Thou must also give into our hand beasts of killing and burnt-offerings’!7 — Perhaps the Divine Law means this: Eat ye and drink and celebrate a festival before Me!8 — Do not think of this; for it is written: Neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning.9 If now you suppose that it means a festival10 [only], has a festival fat? — But perhaps the Divine Law means this: the fat that is offered during the course of the festival should not remain overnight!11 — If so, then [it would imply] that only during the festival the fat may not remain overnight, but throughout the year12 it may remain overnight; [but behold] it is written: All night unto the morning!13 — [But] perhaps from this [verse alone] one would know it merely as a positive precept, therefore Scripture wrote the other [verse to enjoin it] as a prohibition!14 — [To enjoin it] as a prohibition there is another verse: Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning15 — [But] perhaps [this was required] in order to impose upon him two prohibitions and one positive precept! — Rather, it can be deduced from [the word] ‘wilderness’ which occurs in two passages. Here it is written: That they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness.16 And elsewhere it is written: Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?17 Just as in the latter verse [it means] sacrifices, so in the former [it means] sacrifices. Why then does it say: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR?18 — [Because] no inference may be drawn concerning statements of the Torah from statements of the Prophets.19
ACTS OF SACRILEGE. But they are written [in Scripture]! Rami b. Hama said: It is required only for that which we have learnt. If the agent did his errand [committing thereby an act of sacrilege],20 the householder21 is guilty of sacrilege;22 if he did not do his errand, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. But why should he23 be guilty if he did his errand? Shall one man sin and another become liable!24 That is why [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. Raba said: But what is the objection? Perhaps sacrilege is different, since we compare it with terumah25 through the analogous expressions for ‘sin’ [which occur in connection with both laws]:26 just as there27 the agent of a person is like himself28 , so here the agent of a person is like himself. Rather, said Raba, it must be required for the [following] teaching; If the householder remembered,29 but the agent did not remember, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. What has the poor agent done!30 That is why [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. R. Ashi said: What is the objection? Perhaps it is like [every other] case where one spent [in error] sacred money for secular purposes!31 Rather, said R. Ashi, it must be required for that which we have learnt. If a man took away a stone or a beam from Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege; but if he gave it to his fellow,32 he himself is guilty, but his fellow is not guilty.33 See now, he has taken it, what difference does it make whether he or his fellow [keeps it]! Therefore it says: LIKE MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. But what is the objection? Perhaps it is [to be explained] according to Samuel. For Samuel said: Here
(1) Lit., ‘work of thought’ (cf, Ex. XXXV, 35 where it is rendered in E.V. ‘skillful workmanship’) i.e., work that achieves the purpose primarily intended; v. supra n. 9. The various kinds of work prohibited on the Sabbath are deduced from the different kinds of work involved in the Tabernacle; cf. Shab. 73a (Mishnah) Rashi a.l.
(2) It is only deduced from the juxtaposition of the section concerning the Sabbath and the section concerning the construction of the Tabernacle in Ex. XXXV.
(3) Ex. XII, 14; Lev. XXIII, 41.
(5) I.e., without sacrifices. Tosaf. a.l. suggests: Celebrate it with dances, taking the rt. חוג to mean to dance’; cf. Ps. CVII, 27.
(6) Ex. V, 1.
(7) Ibid. X, 25.
(8) The ‘beasts for killing’ (Heb. זבחים, E.V. ‘sacrifices’) would thus not refer to sacrifices (i.e., ‘peace-offerings) but to animals killed for meat only.
(9) But should be burnt on the altar before dawn. Ibid. XXIII, 18.
(10) Heb. הג, which can mean both festival and festal-offering; cf. חגיגה, the Rabbinic word for festal-offering, which is derived from the same root.
(11) But it does not follow that there is an obligation to bring a festal-offering.
(12) I.e., in the case of other sacrifices offered at non-festival times.
(13) Lev. VI, 2, which refers to all occasions, not just to festivals: it teaches us that the limbs and fat of sacrifices slaughtered during the day may be burnt on the altar all night but not thereafter.
(14) The neglect of an ordinary positive precept is not indictable; but the transgression of a prohibition entails the bringing of a sin-offering, if the offence was committed unwittingly, or the punishment of stripes (maximum thirty-nine), if the transgression was wittingly committed, unless a severer penalty is ordained by Scripture. Exceptions not involving stripes are (a) ‘a prohibitive precept transformed into a mandatory law’ i.e., when the transgression must be repaired by a succeeding act; (b) a prohibition the transgression of which involves no action. Hence, the prohibition here referred to does not involve stripes.
(15) Deut. XVI, 4.
(16) Ex. V,1.
(17) Amos V, 25.
(18) For deduction by analogy is considered support for a law.
(19) Heb. קבלה Lit., ‘tradition’, a designation for post-Pentateuchal books of the Bible, which are deemed of lesser authority than the Pentateuch or Torah. V. Bacher, Exeg. Term. I, 166, II, 185.
(20) E.g., sacred money was mixed with secular money, and not knowing of this, he asked the agent to buy a garment for him with the money.
(21) I.e.,the one who instructed the agent.
(22) I.e., he has to refund the value of the sacred property plus a fifth and bring a trespass-offering.
(23) I.e., the householder.
(24) It is a Talmudic principle that no one is considered an agent or messenger for the committal of sin, i.e., the transgressor is liable whether he commits the sin on his own behalf or for another.
(25) A portion of the produce, between a fortieth and a sixtieth, given to the priest. V. Glos.
(26) Lev. V, 15 (trespass), and Num. XVIII, 32 (terumah).
(27) I.e., in the case of terumah.
(28) Deduced from the words, ‘Ye also’, in Num. XVIII, 28.
(29) Before the agent committed sacrilege by spending the money for secular use.
(30) He did not know that he was misappropriating sacred money; why then should he be held responsible?
(31) Though a person committed sacrilege in error he is held responsible; so too here in the case of the agent.
(32) By this act he takes it out of the possession of the Temple.
(33) Derived from Lev. V, 16.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 11a
it refers to the treasurer [of the Sanctuary] to whom the building stones had been entrusted, so that wherever it is, it is in his possession!1 Rather [it can be explained] from the latter part [of the Mishnah]. If he built it into his house, he is not guilty of sacrilege until he dwells under it to the value of a perutah.2 See now, he has effected a change therein,3 what difference does it make whether he dwells [under it] or does not dwell [under it]!4 Therefore it says: LIke MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. But what is the objection? Perhaps it is [to be explained] according to Rab. For Rab said: It refers to a case where he placed it over a roof-aperture,5 [in which case] if he dwells in [the house] he is [guilty of sacrilege]. If he does not dwell in [the house] he is not [guilty]! — Therefore, it must be after all as Raba said: and as for your objection that the same applies to any person who spent [in error] sacred money for secular purposes, [one may answer]: There6 he knew full well that he had sacred money, he should therefore have taken care; but here,7 how could he know? Therefore [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR8
SCANT SCRIPTURAL BASIS BUT MANY LAWS. A Tanna taught: [The laws concerning defilement through] leprosy-signs9 and tent-covering10 have scant Scriptural basis and many laws. [You say] leprosy-signs have scant Scriptural basis? [On the contrary] leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis! — R. Papa said: It means as follows: Leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis and few laws, [defilement through] tent-covering has scant Scriptural basis and many laws. But what practical difference does it make? — If you are in doubt about anything concerning leprosy-signs search the Bible, but if you are in doubt about anything concerning [defilement through] tent-covering search the Mishnah.11
CIVIL CASES. But they are written [in Scripture]!12 — It is necessary only for the teaching of Rabbi. For it is taught: Rabbi said: Life for life13 [means] monetary compensation. You say [it means] monetary compensation; but perhaps [it means] actual life? — ‘Giving’ is mentioned below,14 and ‘giving’ is mentioned above:15 just as in the latter case [it means] monetary compensation, so in the former case [it means] monetary compensation.
TEMPLE SERVICES. But they are written [in Scripture]! — It refers only to the carrying of the blood [to the altar]. For it is taught: And they shall present;16 this [means] the receiving of the blood.17 Now the Divine Law used for it an expression of ‘carrying’, as it is written: And the priest shall present18 the whole and make it smoke upon the altar,19 and the Master said: This [means] the carrying20 of the pieces [of the offering] to the altar ramp.21 This is to tell us that the ‘carrying’ [of the blood] is not to be excluded from the category of ‘receiving’ [the blood].22
[LAWS OF] LEVITICAL CLEANNESS. But they are written [in Scripture]! — It refers only to the measure of a ritual bath, which is not stated in Scripture. For it is taught: And he shall bathe in water,23 [this means] in water of a ritual bath;24 all his flesh: [this means in] water which covers all his body. And how much is this? A cubit25 by a cubit to the height of three cubits; and the Sages fixed the measure of the ritual bath water at forty se'ahs.26
[LAWS CONCERNING LEVITICAL] UNCLEANNESS. But they are written [in Scripture]! — It refers only to [defilement caused by touching a part of a dead] creeping creature, which is the size of a lentil; this is not stated in Scripture. For it is taught: In them:27 I might think [it means] all of them,28 therefore Scripture teaches: ‘Of them’.29 I might then think [it means] even a part of them;30 therefore Scripture says: ‘in them’. How is this to be explained? [It means that he is not defiled] till he touches a part of one which is as the whole of one. The Sages fixed the measure at the size of a lentil, for a snail31 is at first the size of a lentil. R. Jose b. R. Judah said: [It must be] the size of the tail of a lizard.32
FORBIDDEN RELATIONS. But they are written [in Scripture]!
(1) Thus he does not commit sacrilege till he gives it (i.e., the stone or beam) into the possession of his fellow.
(2) A small coin. V. Glos.
(3) E.g., by chiselling the beam or stone and fixing it into the house: through this alteration it becomes his own property.
(4) He has already misappropriated sacred property.
(5) ארובה (cf. Hos. XIII, 3; II Kings VII, 2), an aperture in the roof leading to the ground floor (answering to the Greek hypaithron, Roman compluvium), contrad. from חלון a garret-window in the wall projecting above the flat roof (Jast.); cf. also Levy s.v. By placing the beam over the aperture he in no way alters it and can always restore it, and is thus not guilty of sacrilege till he dwells in the house and enjoys the use of it.
(6) I.e., in the case quoted in the objection.
(7) I.e., in the case of the agent.
(8) For though the agent could hardly avoid the sacrilege, he is deemed to have committed sacrilege in error and is held responsible.
(9) V. Lev. XIII-XIV.
(10) V. Num. XIX, 14, from which it is inferred that men and utensils under the same ‘tent’ (i.e., overshadowed by the same covering) as a corpse suffer corpse-defilement.
(11) I.e., oral tradition.
(12) I.e., why then does the Mishnah say that they merely have something to rest on?
(13) Ex. XXI, 23.
(14) I.e., in our own case.
(15) Ex. XXI, 22 (the preceding verse).
(16) Lev. I, 5.
(17) It is inferred from the fact that this clause comes immediately after the injunction to slaughter the animal; therefore it is taken to refer to the ‘receiving’ of the blood, for the blood cannot be ‘carried’ till it is ‘received’.
(18) E.V. ‘offer’, though it is the same verb as in verse 5.
(19) Lev. I, 13.
(20) It cannot mean the burning of the pieces, for that is distinctly mentioned afterwards.
(21) I.e., the inclined plane leading to the altar. Cf. Mid. III, 3.
(22) I.e., though it is a part of the offering-service that can be omitted (e.g., if the animal is slaughtered close to the altar, so that the blood can be sprinkled forthwith), nevertheless if it is not omitted, it is an essential part of the service and is subject to all its conditions.
(23) Lev. XV, 16. This is evidently the verse intended. The words את בשרו (‘his flesh’), which really belong to Lev. Xlv, 9 must be deleted.
(24) Lit., ‘gathering’ of water, which must contain water directly from a river or a spring, or rain water led directly to it; but מים שאובין (lit., ‘drawn water i.e., water from a receptacle) if added to the ritual bath above a certain measure, invalidates it.
(25) A measure equal to the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger (cf. Kel. XVII, 9.10).
(26) Measure of capacity, equal to six kabs; v. Pes. 109a.
(27) Lev. XI, 31 בהם; E. V. ‘(whosoever doth touch) them’.
(28) I.e., he becomes unclean when he touches the whole of the unclean animal.
(29) Ibid. v. 32.
(30) I. e., however small.
(31) חמט (cf. ibid. 30). Rashi renders, ‘snail’; Jast., ‘lizard (chameleon)’; Levy, ‘Bindschleiche’ (slowworm, blindworm), or ‘Eidechse’ (lizard); Goldschmidt, ‘Schnecke’ (snail), ‘skink’ or ‘Blindschleiche’; B.D.B., a kind of lizard. From Hul. 122a it seems to be a vertebrate. Danby translates it there ‘land crocodile’.
(32) הלטאה (cf. ibid.) Jast. regards the first ה, as part of the word, except in Mishnah, Tosefta and Sifra, where it is the definite article attached to לטאה. The tail of the הלטאה writhes after being cut off, thus showing independent life; hence it meets the requirements of the verse by being a part of an unclean animal and yet an entire life by itself, and is suitable as a measure for defilement. It is bigger than a lentil.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 11b
— This refers only to his daughter by a woman whom he had forced; this case is not written [in Scripture]. For Raba said: R. Isaac b. Abdimi told me, It is to be deduced by analogy from [the words] ‘they’, ‘they’,1 and from [the words] ‘lewdness’, ‘lewdness’.2
IT IS THEY THAT ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH, These are and those are not!3 — Say, therefore, these and those are essentials of the Torah.
MISHNAH THE [SUBJECT OF] FORBIDDEN RELATIONS4 MAY NOT BE EXPOUNDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE,5 NOR THE WORK OF CREATION6 IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO, NOR [THE WORK OF] THE CHARIOT7 IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE, UNLESS HE IS A SAGE AND UNDERSTANDS OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE. WHOSOEVER SPECULATES UPON FOUR THINGS, A PITY8 FOR HIM! HE IS AS THOUGH HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD, [TO WIT], WHAT IS ABOVE,9 WHAT IS BENEATH,10 WHAT BEFORE, WHAT AFTER.11 AND WHOSOEVER TAKES NO THOUGHT FOR THE HONOUR OF HIS MAKER,12 IT WERE A MERCY13 IF HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD.
GEMARA. You say at first: NOR [THE WORK OF] THE CHARIOT IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE;14 and then you say: UNLESS HE IS A SAGE AND UNDERSTANDS OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE! — This is the meaning: the forbidden relations may not be expounded to three,15 nor the work of creation to two, nor [the work of] the chariot to one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge.16
THE FORBIDDEN RELATIONS MAY NOT BE EXPOUNDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE. What is the reason? Shall one say, because it is written: Whosoever to any that is near of kin to him?17 ‘Whosoever’18 [implies] two, ‘near of kin to him’ [implies] one; and the Divine Law said: Ye shall not approach to uncover their nakedness.19 But then since it is written: Whosoever curseth his God,20 Whosoever giveth of his seed unto Molech,21 are these [passages] also [to be interpreted] thus! — These, therefore, must be required to make Gentiles subject to the prohibition concerning blasphemy22 and idolatry like the Israelites; then this [verse]23 is also required to make Gentiles subject to the prohibition concerning the forbidden relations like the Israelites!24 It must be inferred, therefore, from the verse: Therefore shall ye keep My charge.25 ‘Ye shall keep’ [implies] two,26 ‘My charge’ [implies] one; and the Divine Law said: That ye do not any of these abominable customs.27 But then since it is written: Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore,28 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread,29 And ye shall keep the charge of the holy things,30 are these [passages] also [to be interpreted] thus! — Therefore, said R. Ashi, THE FORBIDDEN RELATIONS MAY NOT BE EXPOUNDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE must mean: the secrets31 of the forbidden relations may not be expounded to three.32 What is the reason? It is a logical conclusion:33 when two sit before their master, one engages in discussion with his master and the other inclines his ear to the instruction; but [when there are] three, one engages in discussion with his master, and the other two engage in discussion with one another and do not know what their master is saying, and may come to permit that which is prohibited in the matter of the forbidden relations. If so, [the rule should apply to] the whole Torah also!34 The [subject of] forbidden relations is different, for the master said:35 Robbery and the forbidden relations, a man's soul covets and lusts for them. If so, [the rule should apply to] robbery also! [In the case of] the forbidden relations, whether [the opportunity] be before him or not before him, a man's inclination is strong; [in the case of] robbery, if [the opportunity] is before him, his inclination is strong, but if it is not before him, his inclination is not strong.
NOR THE WORK OF CREATION IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO. Whence [do we infer] this? — For the Rabbis taught: For ask thou now of the days past;36 one may inquire,37 but two may not inquire. One might have thought that one may inquire concerning the pre-creation period, therefore Scripture teaches: Since the day that God created man upon the earth.38 One might have thought that one may [also] not inquire concerning the six days of creation,39 therefore Scripture teaches: The days past40 which were before thee.41 One might have thought one may [also] inquire concerning what is above and what is below, what before and what after, therefore the text teaches: And from one end of heaven unto the other.42 [Concerning the things that are] from one end of heaven unto the other thou mayest inquire, but thou mayest not inquire what is above, what is below, what before, what after.
(1) The word הנה (‘they’) occurs in Lev. XVIII, 17 in connection with a legitimate daughter, and ibid. v. 10 in connection with the grand-daughter of an illegitimate wife (v. Yeb. 97a). By analogy, we infer that an illegitimate daughter is also a forbidden relation.
(2) Having established an analogy between the legitimate and illegitimate daughter (v. n. 7), we go farther and say the word זמה (‘lewdness’). which implies the penalty of burning (v. ibid. XX, 14) for connection with one's legitimate daughter, applies also to connection with one's illegitimate daughter; v. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 4, nn. 8-12.
(3) I.e., the laws explicitly stated in Scripture are essentials of the Torah, and those not so explicitly stated are not!
(4) V. p. 50, n. 8.
(5) I.e., it is forbidden to expound this subject in the presence of more than two.
(6) V. Gen. I, 1-3; J.E. vol. IV, pp. 280f,s. ‘Cosmogony’, and vol. VIII, p. 235. The term מעשה בראשית (Work of Creation) does not include the whole Talmudic cosmogony, only its esoteric aspects. The cosmogonic details mentioned infra in the Gemara (pp. 63f), such as the ten elements, the ten agencies etc., do not form part of the secret doctrine of Ma'aseh Bere'shith, for the Mishnah expressly forbids the teaching of the creation mysteries in public. The views recorded in the Talmud regarding the work of creation seem to belong chiefly to the realm of Aggadah. As regards their origin, they cannot with certainty be connected with the theosophic and cosmogonic doctrines of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, nor with Gnosticism; nor on the other hand can the mysticism of the Geonic period (e.g., as preserved in Sefer Yezirah with reference to the heavenly halls, angelology etc.) be regarded as a direct continuation of the Talmudic doctrines.
(7) V. Ezek. I, 4f, X, and Isa. VI; cf. Meg. IV, 10; and v. J.E. vol. VIII, p. 498. The mysteries of Creation and the Chariot were favourite themes with the mystics; for further information v. J.E. vol. III, p. 456f, s. ‘Cabala’.
(8) Heb. רתוי or רתוי; but Mishnah ed., MS. M. and var. lec. in Aruch have ראוי (‘he is looked upon as though’). Jastrow, who takes רתוי to mean ‘relief, mercy, pity’, renders as in text; Rashi translates: ‘it were better for him’, taking the root meaning to be ‘mercy’; Levy translates: ‘it were more advantageous for him’; Goldschmidt and Danby: ‘it were better’.
(9) Sc., the sky stretching over the heads of the ‘living creatures of the Chariot (Rashi).
(10) Sc., the ‘living creatures’.
(11) I.e., beyond the sky eastward and westward (Rashi). This makes the reference spatial, and this explanation is supported by the use of the terms infra (p. 62); but from the Gemara 16a and the Tosef. it is clear that the terms have also a temporal significance. i.e., what happened before Creation and what will happen hereafter (Tosaf. a.l.).
(12) Explained infra 16a.
(13) V. p. 59, n. 5.
(14) This means, apparently, that a person is not permitted to study the mysteries of the Chariot even by himself, although the fact that he can study without the aid of a teacher shows that he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge.
(15) I.e.,the number refers to the pupils and does not include the teacher.
(16) I.e., is able to speculate by himself. Such a disciple will not require to ask his teacher questions, for these mysteries may not be explained explicitly. D.S. omits the ‘and’; cf. p. 77.
(17) Lev. XVIII, 6.
(18) Heb. איש איש lit., ‘man man’, i.e., two men, as a minimum.
(19) Ibid. I.e., to reveal the reasons underlying the laws of the forbidden relations.
(20) Ibid. XXIV, 15.
(21) Ibid. XX, 2.
(22) Lit., ‘blessing of God’, a euphemism.
(23) Ibid. XVIII, 6.
(24) For the seven ‘Noachian Precepts’ which all humanity, Gentiles as well as Jews, must observe v. Sanh. 56a-b, (Sonc. ed. pp. 381-2 and nn. a.l.)
(25) Lev. XXIV v. 30.
(26) The plural (‘Ye’) implies at least two.
(27) Ibid. V. p. 60, n. 8.
(28) Ex. XXXI, 14.
(29) Ibid. XII, 17.
(30) Num. XVIII, 5.
(31) I.e., according to Rashi, such forbidden relations as are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but are inferred, e.g., a man's daughter by a woman he violated, the mother of his father-in-law, or the mother of his mother-in-law (v. Sanh. 75a); according to Maharsha, the secrets of the reasons for the prohibitions; according to Goldschmidt, the details and subtleties of the subject.
(32) לשלשה: this marginal correction is indubitably correct as against בשלשה (‘in the presence of three’), of cur. edd.
(33) I.e., it is founded on reason and not deduced from Scripture.
(34) I.e., that not more than two pupils may study with the master.
(35) Mak. 23b.
(36) Heb. lit., ‘the first days’, i.e., the days of creation; Deut. IV, 32.
(37) I.e., one pupil may study with the master.
(39) I.e., up to the creation of man; for the verse quoted above permits inquiry only from the time of the creation of Adam, which occurred at the end of the sixth day.
(40) Heb. lit., ‘the first days’, i.e., even from the first day onward.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 12a
But now that this1 is inferred from [the expression] ‘ From one end of heaven unto the other’,2 wherefore do I need [the expression], ‘Since the day that God created man upon the earth’? — To intimate that which R. Eleazar taught. For R. Eleazar said: The first man [extended]3 from the earth to the firmament, as it is said: Since the day that God created man upon the earth;4 but as soon as he sinned,5 the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him,6 for it is said: Thou hast fashioned me7 after and before,8 and laid Thine hand upon me.9
Rab Judah said that Rab said: The first man [extended]10 from one end of the world to the other,11 for it is said: ‘Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other’; as soon as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, for it is said: ‘And laid Thine hand upon me’. If so, the verses12 contradict one another! — They both [have] the same dimensions.13
Rab Judah further said that Rab said: Ten14 things were created the first day, and they are as follows: heaven and earth, Tohu [chaos], Bohu [desolation],15 light and darkness, wind and water, the measure of day and the measure of night.16 Heaven and earth, for it is written: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.17 Tohu and Bohu, for it is written: And the earth was Tohu and Bohu.18 Light and darkness: darkness, for it is written: And darkness was upon the face of the deep;18 light, for it is written: And God said, Let there be light.19 Wind and water, for it is written: And the wind20 of God hovered over the face of the waters.21 The measure of day and the measure of night, for it is written: And there was evening and there was morning, one day.22 It is taught: Tohu is a green line that encompasses the whole world, out of which darkness proceeds, for it is said: He made darkness His hiding-place round about Him.23 Bohu, this means the slimy24 stones that are sunk in the deep, out of which the waters proceed, for it is said: And he shall stretch over it the line of confusion [Tohu] and the plummet of emptiness [Bohu].25
But was the light created on the first day? For, behold, it is written: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven,26 and it is [further] written: And there was evening and there was morning a fourth day27 — This is [to be explained] according to R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, one could see thereby from one end of the world to the other; but as soon as the Holy One, blessed be He, beheld the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion,28 and saw that their actions were corrupt, He arose and hid it from them, for it is said: But from the wicked their light is withholden.29 And for whom did he reserve it? For the righteous in the time to come,30 for it is said: And God saw the light, that it was good;31 and ‘good’ means only the righteous, for it is said: Say ye of the righteous that he is good.32 As soon as He saw the light that He had reserved for the righteous, He rejoiced, for it is said: He rejoiceth at the light of the righteous.33 Now Tannaim [differ on the point]: The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day one could see and look thereby from one end of the world to the other; this is the view of R. Jacob. But the Sages say: It34 is identical with the luminaries;35 for they were created on the first day, but they were not hung up [in the firmament] till the fourth day.36
R. Zulra b. Tobiah said that Rab said: by ten things37 was the world created: By wisdom38 and by understanding,39 and by reason,40 and by strength,41 and by rebuke,42 and by might,43 by righteousness and by judgment,44 by lovingkindness and by compassion.45 By wisdom and understanding, for it is written: The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; and by understanding established the heavens.46 By reason, for it is written: By His reason47 the depths were broken up.48 By strength and might, for it is written: Who by His strength setteth fast the mountains, Who is girded about with might.49 By rebuke, for it is written: The pillars of heaven were trembling, but they became astonished at His, rebuke.50 By righteousness and judgment, for it is written: Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of Thy throne.51 By lovingkindness and compassion, for it is written: Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy mercies; for they have been from of old.52 Rab Judah further said: At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went on expanding like two clues53 of warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, for it is said: ‘The pillars of heaven were trembling, but they became astonished at His rebuke’. And that, too, is what Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the verse, I am God Almighty?54 [It means], I am He that said to the world: Enough!55 Resh Lakish said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went on expanding, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and caused it to dry up, for it is said: He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers.56
Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say: Heaven was created first and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.57 Beth Hillel say: Earth was created first and afterwards heaven, for it is said: In the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.58 Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: According to your view, a man builds the upper storey [first] and afterwards builds the house! For it is said: It is he that buildeth His upper chambers in the heaven,59 and hath founded His vault upon the earth.60 Said Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel: According to your view, a man makes the footstool [first], and afterwards he makes the throne!61 For it is said: Thus saith the Lord, The Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.62 But the Sages say: Both were created at the same time.63 For it is said: Yea, Mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens: When I call unto them they stand up together.64 And the others?65 What is the meaning of ‘together’? — [It means] that they cannot be loosened from one another.66 However, the verses contradict one another! — Resh Lakish answered: When they were created, He created heaven [first], and afterwards He created the earth; but when He stretched them forth He stretched forth the earth [first], and afterwards He stretched forth heaven.
What does ‘heaven’ [Shamayim] mean? R. Jose b. Hanina said: It means, ‘There is water’.67 In a Baraitha it is taught: [It means], ‘fire and water68 ;’ this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them and mixed69 them one with the other and made from them the firmament.
R. Ishmael questioned R. Akiba when they were going on a journey together, saying to him: Thou who hast waited70 twenty-two years upon Nahum of Gimzo,71 who used to explain the [particle] Eth72 throughout the Torah, [tell me] what exposition did he give of [Eth] the heaven and [Eth] the earth?73 Said [R. Akiba] to him: If it had said, ‘heaven and earth’, I could have said that Heaven and Earth74 were names of the Holy One, blessed be He.75 But now that it says: ‘[Eth] the heaven and [Eth] the earth’, heaven [means] the actual heaven, and earth [means] the actual earth.
(1) I.e., that inquiry may not go beyond the first day of creation.
(2) I.e., since one may not inquire beyond the extent of heaven, it follows that one may not inquire beyond the time of its existence, i.e., concerning what happened prior to the creation.
(3) I.e., in height: this is the usual explanation. But Goldschmidt suggests that the meaning might also be: his vision extended from earth to heaven. Cf. R. Eleazar's statement infra p. 63 and n. 2 a. l.
(4) The verse continues, (lit.,) ‘and unto the end of heaven’.
(5) Lit., ‘became of bad odour’.
(6) The Yalkut Shim'oni (S. 827, Deut. IV, 32) adds ‘and brought him down to one hundred cubits’. This is probably derived from the word כפכה ‘Thine hand’ in the verse that follows, the numerical value of כף (‘hand’) being a hundred. Cf. also B.B. 75a (and Rashbam a.l.) and Sanh. 100a (and Rashi a.l.).
(7) Heb., צרתני lit., (as E.V.) ‘Thou hast hemmed me in’. Here, however, it is taken to mean the same as יצרתני ‘fashioned, created’.
(8) I.e., there were, so to speak, two creations of man: the first when he extended to heaven, the second when his stature was reduced.
(9) Ps. CXXXIX, 5.
(10) V. p. 62, n. 10.
(11) I.e., lying down, he stretched from east to west, which is calculated to be a journey of five hundred years; v, Tosaf.
(12) I.e., the parts of Deut. IV, 32 quoted by R. Eleazar and Rab Judah respectively.
(13) The distance from east to west is the same as from the earth to heaven, v. infra 13a. But in Tam. 31b-32a (the Scholars of the South, i.e., of Alexandria) are reported to have said, in reply to a question put to them by Alexander the Great, that the distance from east to west is greater than that from earth to heaven.
(14) The older schools refer to a lesser number of elements viz., eight, six, four, three, or even two. Cf. Gen. Rab. X, 1; Pirke R. Eliezer III; Ex. Rab. XIII; Jellinek, B.H. ii, 23-29, Intro. Xlii; also infra, where Tahu and Bohu are the two primal elements whence the other two, darkness and water, emanate. V. further, Slavonic Book of Enoch (24-30).
(15) A.V. ‘without form, and void’; R. V., ‘waste and void’; American Jewish Version, ‘unformed and void’ (Gen. I, 2).
(16) I.e., night and day comprising together twenty-four hours. (Rashi, Jast.). Goldschmidt trans. ‘the nature of day etc.’; cf. Ber. 11b.
(17) Gen. I, 1,
(18) Ibid., v. 2.
(19) Ibid:, v. 3.
(20) E.V. ‘spirit’.
(21) Ibid., v. 2.
(22) Ibid.,v. 5.
(23) Ps. XVIII, 12.
(24) Heb., מפולמות, which Jastrow renders, ‘smooth (chaotic) stones’. Levy: ‘stones sunken in the primal mire, chaos’; cf. also Targ. to Job XXVIII, 3; Zeb. 54a, Bez. 24a.
(25) Isa. XXXIV, 11.
(26) Gen. I, 17.
(27) Ibid., v. 19.
(28) I.e., the generation which built the Tower of Babel, and in consequence God confounded their language and scattered them over the earth. V. Gen. XI, 9.
(29) Job. XXXVIII, 15.
(30) I.e., the Messianic era; cf. Aboth II, 16.
(31) Gen. I, 4.
(32) Isa. III, 10. E.V. ‘that it shall be well with him.
(33) Prov. XIII, 9. E.V. ‘the light of the righteous rejoiceth.’
(34) I.e., the light created on the first day.
(35) V. Gen. I, 14f (E.V. ‘lights’).
(36) Cf. Gen. Rab. I, 14, and Rashi to Gen. I, 14.
(37) I.e., potencies or agencies. A lesser number is mentioned by the older school (cf. p. 63, n. 5). Cf. Ab. V, 1; also the ‘Ten Sefirot’ in J. E. vol. XI, p. 154f.
(38) I.e., the ability to understand what one learns.
(39) I.e., deductive power.
(40) I.e., deliberative contemplation.
(41) I.e., physical strength.
(42) I.e.,the application of restraint or limitation.
(43) I.e., moral power.
(44) I.e., the enforcement of justice.
(45) I.e., the feeling which prompts the action of lovingkindness.
(46) Prov. III, 19.
(47) E.V. ‘knowledge’.
(48) Ibid. v. 20.
(49) Ps. LXV, 7.
(50) Job XXVI, 11. I.e., at first the pillars of heaven were weak and shaky, till God rebuked them, when, like a person taken aback by astonishment, they stiffened and hardened (V. Rashi on verse). E.V. renders tremble and are astonished etc.’
(51) Ps. LXXXIX, 15.
(52) Ibid, XXV, 6.
(53) A clue of thread, of rope, etc. (Jast.).
(54) Gen. XVII, 1; XXXV, 11.
(55) שדי ‘Almighty’, is explained as a compound of ש ‘who (said)’, די ‘Enough’.
(56) Nah. I, 4.
(57) Gen. I, 1.
(58) Ibid. II, 4.
(59) Thus heaven was the upper storey.
(60) Amos IX, 6.
(61) The size of the footstool cannot be determined till the throne has been made.
(62) Isa, LXVI, 1.
(63) C. Taylor in ‘Sayings of the Jewish Fathers’, p. 107. n. 40, points out that ‘the three views’ (of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, and of the Sages) may be taken as texts for three philosophies, viz., idealism, evolutionism and dualism (quoted by Streane).
(64) Ibid. XLVIII, 13. From the word ‘together’ the inference is drawn that heaven and earth are coeval.
(65) I.e., what reply have the Schools of Shammai and Hillel to the argument of the Sages?
(66) Thus ‘together’ refers to their physical structure and not to their time of origin.
(67) I.e., שמים is explained as a compound of שם (‘there’) and מים (‘water’).
(68) I.e., שמים is explained as a compound of אש (‘fire’) and מים (‘water’), the א of אש being omitted.
(69) Lit., ‘mixed by beating’.
(70) I.e., hast been his disciple. Cf. Ber. 47b: ‘Even if one has studied the Bible, and the Mishnah, but has failed to wait upon scholars, he is considered an ‘Am ha-arez (ignoramus); The ministration (of the disciples to the doctors) of the Law is greater than the direct teaching thereof’.
(71) In Judea (v. G. A. Smith's ‘The historical Geography of the Holy Land’, p. 202, n. 1). Heb. גם זו, always in two words, and explained (Ta'an. 21a, J. Shek. V, 15) as a sobriquet given to the scholar on account of his motto גם זו לטובה (‘This, too, will be for the best’), with which he explained his trust in the goodness of Providence even in the most trying circumstances (v. Ta'an 21a). He interpreted the whole Torah according to the rule of רבוי ומיעוט (‘amplification and limitation’, v. Shebu. 26a).
(72) Heb. את, which is either (a) the sign of the defined object as in Gen. I, 1, or (b) the preposition meaning with. Nahum of Gimzo explained every instance of the accusative particle as indicating the inclusion in the object of something besides that which is explicitly mentioned. For the sole exception (Deut. X, 20), v. Pes. 22b, where ‘Nehemiah the Imsoni’ is an error for ‘Nahum the Gimsoni’ or man of Gimzo (v. Graetz in MGWJ., 1870, p. 527). The interpretation of את given here is grammatical rather than Midrashic or homiletical. For the רבוי explanation of את in this verse, which includes the sun and moon etc., v. Gen. Rab. I, 14.
(73) Gen. I, 1.
(74) This is the reading of Bah and Maharsha: cur. edd. omit the words, ‘and the earth’.
(75) And the subject of ברא (‘He created’).
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 12b
But why do we have ‘[Eth] the earth’?1 — To put heaven before earth.2
‘And the earth was unformed and void’.3 Consider: [Scripture] began at first with heaven, why then does it proceed to relate [first] the work of the earth?4 — The School of R. Ishmael taught: It is like a human king5 who said to his servants: Come early to my door. He rose early and found women and men. Whom does he praise? The ones who are not accustomed to rise early but yet did rise early.6
It is taught: R. Jose says: Alas for people that they see but know not what they see, they stand but know not on what they stand. What does the earth rest on? On the pillars, for it is said: Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.7 The pillars upon the waters, for it is said: To Him that spread forth the earth above the waters.8 The waters upon the mountains, for it is said: The waters stood above the mountains.9 The mountains on the wind, for it is said: For, lo, He that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind.10 The wind upon the storm, for it is said: The wind, the storm maketh its substance.11 Storm is suspended on the arm of the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said: And underneath12 are the everlasting arms.13 But the Sages say: [The world] rests on twelve pillars,14 for it is said: He set the borders to the peoples according to the number [of the tribes] of the children of Israel.15 And some say seven pillars, for it is said: She hath hewn out her seven piliars.16 R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ says: [It rests] on one pillar, and its name is ‘Righteous’, for it is said: But ‘Righteous’ is the foundation of the world.17
R. Judah said: There are two firmaments, for it is said: Behold, unto the Lord thy God belongeth heaven, and the heaven of heavens.18 Resh Lakish said: [There are] seven, namely, Wilon,19 Rakia’,20 Shehakim,21 Zebul,22 Ma'on,23 Makon,24 ‘Araboth.25 Wilon serves no purpose except that it enters in the morning and goes forth in the evening26 and renews every day the work of creation, for it is said: That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain,27 and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.28 Rakia’ is that in which sun and moon, stars and constellations are set, for it is said: And God set them29 in the firmament [Rakia’] of the heaven.30 Shehakim is that in which millstones stand and grind31 manna for the righteous for it is said: And He commanded the skies [Shehakim] above, and opened the doors of heaven; and He caused manna to rain upon them for food etc.32 Zebul is that in which [the heavenly] Jerusalem33 and the Temple and the Altar are built, and Michael, the great Prince,34 stands and offers up thereon an offering, for it is said: I have surely built Thee a house of habitation [Zebul], a place for Thee to dwell in for ever.35 And whence do we derive that it is called heaven? For it is written: Look down from heaven, and see, even from Thy holy and glorious habitation.36 Ma'on is that in which there are companies of Ministering Angels, who utter [divine] song by night, and are silent by day for the sake of Israel's glory,37 for it is said: By day the Lord doth command His lovingkindness,38 and in the night His song is with me.39
Resh Lakish said: Whoever occupies himself with [the study of] the Torah by night, the Holy One, blessed be He, draws over him a chord of lovingkindness40 by day, for it is said: ‘By day the Lord doth command His lovingkindness’? Because ‘by night His song41 is with me’. And there are some who say: Resh Lakish said: Whoever occupies himself with the study of the Torah in this world, which is like the night, the Holy One, blessed be He, draws over him a chord of lovingkindness in the world to come, which is like the day,42 for it is said: ‘By day the Lord doth command His lovingkindness, for by night His song is with me’.
R. Levi said: Whoever leaves off the study of the Torah and occupies himself with idle talk, he is made to eat coals of broom,43 for it is said: They pluck salt-wort through idle talk,44 and the roots of the broom are their food.45
And whence do we derive that it46 is called heaven? — For it is said: Look forth from Thy holy habitation [ma'on], from heaven.47 Makon48 is that in which there are the stores of snow49 and stores of hail, and the loft of harmful dews and the loft of raindrops,50 the chamber of the whirlwind and storm,51 and the cave of vapour, and their doors are of fire, for it is said: The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure,52 But are these to be found in the firmament? Surely, they are to be found on the earth, for it is written: Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps; fire and hail, snow and vapour, stormy wind, fulfilling his word!53 — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: David entreated concerning them, and caused them to come down to the earth. He said before Him: Lord of the universe, Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; let not evil sojourn with Thee;54 righteous art Thou, O Lord, let not evil sojourn in Thy abode.55 And whence do we derive that it56 is called heaven? For it is written: Then hear Thou in heaven, Thy dwelling place [Makon].57
‘Araboth is that in which there are Right and Judgment and Righteousness,58 the treasures of life and the treasures of peace and the treasures of blessing, the souls of the righteous and the spirits and the souls59 which are yet to be born, and dew wherewith the Holy One, blessed be He, will hereafter revive the dead. Right and Judgment, for it is written: Right60 and judgment are the foundations of Thy throne.61 Righteousness, for it is written: And He put on righteousness as a coat of mail.62 The treasures of life, for it is written: For with Thee is the fountain of life.63 And the treasures of peace, for it is written: And called it, ‘The Lord is peace’.64 And the treasures of blessing, for it is written: he shall receive a blessing from the Lord.65 The souls of the righteous, for it is written: Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the Lord thy God.66 The spirits and the souls which are yet to be born, for it is written: For the spirit that enwrappeth itself is from Me, and the souls which I have made.67 And the dew wherewith the Holy One, blessed be He, will hereafter revive the dead, for it is written: A bounteous rain didst Thou pour down, O God; when Thine inheritance was weary, Thou didst confirm it.68 There [too] are the Ofanim69 and the Seraphim,70 and the Holy Living Creatures,71 and the Ministering Angels,72 and the Throne of God; and the King, the Living God, high and exalted, dwells over them in ‘Araboth, for it is said: Extol Him that rideth upon Araboth73 whose name is the Lord.74 And whence do we derive that it75 is called heaven? From the word ‘riding’, which occurs in two Biblical passages. Here it is written: ‘Extol Him that rideth upon Araboth’. And elsewhere it is written: Who rideth upon the heaven as thy help.76 And darkness and cloud and thick darkness surround Him, for it is said: He made darkness His hiding-place, His pavilion round about Him, darkness of waters, thick clouds of skies.77 But is there any darkness before Heaven?78 For behold it is written: He revealeth the deep and secret things; He knoweth, what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him.79 — There is no contradiction: the one [verse]80
(1) I,e., the first Eth in the verse has been explained; but what is the purpose of the second?
(2) I.e., to show that the creation of the heaven preceded that of the earth. Had this second Eth been omitted, I might have thought that heaven and earth were created at the same time.
(3) Gen. I, 2.
(4) I.e., its development from a state of dark chaos to light and ordered life.
(5) Lit., ‘a king of flesh and blood’.
(6) Rashi explains the application of the parable thus: Since heaven was summoned to appear first, the earth was in the position of one not accustomed to rise early; furthermore, all the work of the earth is slow, whilst the work of heaven is swift. Nevertheless, the earth appeared equally early with heaven, for they were created at the same time
(according to the view of the Sages, v. p. 66), therefore Scripture begins to relate the work of the earth first. But Maharsha explains that the earth obeyed God's will first and came into being before heaven (according to the view of Beth Hillel, ibid.) just as the women in the parable actually came before the men.
(7) Job IX, 6.
(8) Ps. CXXXVI, 6.
(9) Ibid. CIV, 6.
(10) Amos IV, 13. The mention of the mountains and the wind in the same verse shows that the former were dependent or suspended upon the latter.
(11) So Rashi. E.V., ‘Stormy wind, fulfilling His word. Ps. CXLVIII, 8.
(12) Sc. all creation.
(13) Deut. XXXIII, 27.
(14) The pillars here refer to those mentioned by R. Jose (v. supra), who, however, did not give their number.
(15) Deut. XXXII, 8.
(16) Prov. IX, 1.
(17) Ibid. X, 25. E.V., ‘But the righteous is an everlasting foundation’. Maharsha compares this discussion of the number of the pillars with the discussion of the number of the precepts in Mak., Sonc. ed., pp. 169f.
(18) Deut. X, 14.
(19) I.e., ‘Curtain’, from Lat. Velum.
(20) I.e., ‘Expanse, firmament’.
(21) Lit., ‘Clouds’, from שחק, ‘dust’ (cf. Isa. XL, 15).
(22) B.D.B.: ‘Elevation, height, lofty abode’; N.H., ‘Temple’. Jastrow: ‘(place of offering or entertainment) residence, especially Temple’.
(23) I.e., ‘Dwelling, habitation’.
(24) I.e., ‘Fixed or established place, foundation, residence’.
(25) V. Ps, LXVIII, 5. Levy: Perhaps from ערב, ‘to be dark’ (cf. ערב evening) and syn. with ערפל: (thick darkness, heavy cloud, in which God dwells; cf. Ex. XX, 18).
(26) According to Rashi, Wilon (‘Curtain’) draws in every morning, and thus causes the light of day to become visible; in the evening it draws out and hides the daylight. This process constitutes the renewal of the work of creation. But Tosaf. explains that Wilon produces the light of day, and when it withdraws at night darkness prevails.
(27) Thus there is a curtain-like heaven.
(28) Isa. XL, 22.
(29) I.e., the heavenly luminaries.
(30) Gen. I, 17.
(31) There is probably a play here on the meaning of שחק (the root of shehakim), which means ‘to rub away, pulverize, grind’ (cf. Ex. XXX, 36 and Job, XIV, 19).
(32) Ps. LXXVIII, 23, 24.
(33) Cf. Ta'an. 5a: ‘The Holy One blessed be He, said: I shall not enter the Jerusalem which is above, until I enter the Jerusalem which is below’.
(34) Michael is Israel's Guardian Angel; cf. Dan. XII, 1 and Yoma 77a. Num. Rab. s. 2, Hul. 40a.
(35) I Kings VIII, 13; the earthly Temple corresponds to the heavenly Sanctuary.
(36) Isa. LXIII, 15.
(37) Because Israel utters God's praise by day.
(38) By silencing the angels by day. God shows lovingkindness to the children of Israel, who are thus permitted to win divine grace by their prayer. Cf. also A.Z. 3b on the same verse.
(39) Ps. XLII, 9. I.e., by night the song of the angels joins mine (says Israel), which I uttered by day (Rashi).
(40) I.e., of His protection.
(41) I.e., the Torah.
(42) Cf. Aboth IV, 16,17.
(43) This is the punishment for slander and a figurative expression for Gehinnom; cf. Yal. Shim. s. 120, Midr. Till. to Ps. CXX, and Gen. Rab. 98.
(44) Heb. שיח, which may represent two totally different words of identical spelling: one means ‘shrub’ (or, according to some, ‘wormwood’) which is the natural meaning here, the other means ‘complaint, musing, talk’, which is the sense in which it is homiletically understood by R. Levi.
(45) Job. XXX, 4.
(46) I.e., Ma'on: the explanation of the seven heavens is here resumed.
(47) Deut. XXVI, 15.
(48) According to Rashi, this heaven contains stores of punishments, the snow etc. being employed not for the world's benefit, but for retribution, Tosaf., however, holds that the contents of Ma'on are used for good as well as evil, and compares Ta'an. 3b and Isa. LV, 10.
(49) For these stores cf. Job XXXVIII, 22f also Isa. XXIX, 6.
(50) Rashi: to smite down the produce.
(51) Omitted by R. Elijah of Wilna,
(52) Deut, XXVIII, 12; implying also the existence of a bad store, i.e., of punishments; but the "Ein Jacob’ reads here Jer. L, 25.
(53) Ps. CXLVIII, 7, 8.
(54) Ibid. V, 5.
(55) Note how the Talmudic explanation of the verse transforms the negative description of God into a positive one, and changes (‘with Thee’ into ‘in thy abode’ to prevent any misconception about God's perfection.
(56) I.e., Makon.
(57) I Kings VIII, 39.
(58) Heb. צדקה, which implies righteous actions and is often used in the sense of charity.
(59) Rashi explains that either ‘spirits’ and ‘souls’ are synonymous, or else ‘spirit’ means the soul that has bodily form
(60) E.V. ‘Righteousness’.
(61) Ps. LXXXIX, 15.
(62) Isa LIX, 17.
(63) Ps.XXXVI, 10.
(64) Judg. VI, 24. Rashi renders: He (the Lord) called it (peace) unto Him.
(65) Ps. XXIV, 5.
(66) 1 Sam. XXV, 29.
(67) Isa. LVII, 1.
(68) Ps. LXVIII, 10. The verse refers to the Revelation at Sinai, when, according to the Midrash, the souls of the children of Israel momentarily left their bodies, but God with His bounteous rain or dew of resurrection revived them. Cf. Cant. Rab. to Cant. V, 6.
(69) Lit., ‘Wheels’, i.e., wheel-like angels; v. Ezek. I, 15f.
(70) V. Isa. VI, 2; in Rabbinic literature they are understood to be angels of fire, cf. Deut. Rab. s. 11. But v. B. D. B. s.v.
(71) V. Ezek. I, 5f.
(72) Apparently distinct from those dwelling in Ma'on (v. p. 70).
(73) A.V. ‘upon the heavens’; R.V. ‘through the deserts’.
(74) Ps. LXVIII, 5.
(75) I.e., Araboth.
(76) Deut. XXXIII, 26.
(77) Ps. XVIII, 12.
(78) I.e., God.
(79) Dan. II, 22.
(80) I.e., the latter.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 13a
refers to the inner chambers,1 the other to the outer chambers. And R. Aha b. Jacob said: There is still another Heaven above the heads of the living creatures, for it is written: And over the heads of the living creatures there was a likeness of a firmament, like the colour of the terrible ice, stretched forth over their heads above.2 Thus far you have permission to speak, thenceforward you have not permission to speak, for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira:3 Seek not things that are too hard for thee,4 and search not things that are hidden from thee. The things that have been permitted5 thee, think thereupon; thou hast no business with6 the things that are secret.7
It is taught: R. Johanan b. Zakkai said: What answer did the Bath Kol8 give to that wicked one,9 when he said: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High?10 A Bath Kol went forth and said to him: O wicked man, son of a wicked man, grandson11 of Nimrod, the wicked, who stirred the whole world to rebellion against Me12 by his rule. How many are the years of man? Seventy, for it is said: The days of our years are threescore years and ten, or even by reason of strength fourscore years.13 But the distance from the earth to the firmament is a journey of five hundred years, and the thickness of the firmament is a journey of five hundred years, and likewise [the distance] between one firmament and the other.14 Above them15 are the holy living creatures: the feet16 of the living creatures are equal to all of them [together];17 the ankles of the living creatures are equal to all of them; the legs of the living creatures are equal to all of them; the knees18 of the living creatures are equal to all of them; the thighs of the living creatures are equal to all of them; the bodies of the living creatures are equal to all of them; the necks of the living creatures are equal to all of them; the heads of the living creatures are equal to all of them; the horns of the living creatures are equal to all of them. Above them is the throne of glory; the feet of the throne of glory are equal to all of them; the throne of glory is equal to all of them. The King, the Living and Eternal God, High and Exalted, dwelleth above them. Yet thou didst say, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High! Nay19 , thou shalt be brought down to the nether-world, to the uttermost parts of the pit.20
NOR [THE WORK OF] THE CHARIOT IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE. R. Hiyya taught: But the headings of chapters21 may be transmitted to him. R. Zera said: The headings of chapters may be transmitted only to the head of a court22 and to one whose heart is anxious within him.23 Others say: Only if his heart is anxious within him.24 R. Amimi said: The mysteries of the Torah may be transmitted only to one who possesses five attributes, [namely], The captain of fifty, and the man of rank, and the counsellor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter.25 R. Ammi further said: The teachings of the Torah are not to be transmitted to an idolater,26 for it is said: He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for His ordinances, they have not known them.27
R. Johanan said to R. Eleazar: Come, I will instruct you in the ‘Work of the Chariot’.28 He replied: I am not old enough.29 When he was old enough, R. Johanan died.30 R. Assi [then] said to him: Come, I will instruct you in the "Work of the Chariot’. He replied: Had I been worthy, I should have been instructed by R. Johanan, your master.
R. Joseph was studying the ‘Work of the Chariot’; the elders of Pumbeditha31 were studying the ‘Work of Creation . The latter said to the former: Let the master teach us the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He replied: Teach me the ‘Work of Creation’. After they had taught him, they said to him: Let the master instruct us in the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He replied: We have learnt concerning it: Honey and milk are under thy tongue.32 The things that are sweeter than honey and milk should be under thy tongue.33 R. Abbahu said: [It34 is inferred] from this verse: The lambs [Ke-basim] will be for thy clothing.35 The things which are the mystery [Kibshono] of the world should be under thy clothing.36 They37 [then] said to him: We have already studied therein as far as, And He said unto me: ‘Son of man’.38 He replied: This is the very [portion of the] ‘Work of the Chariot’.39
An objection was raised: How far does [the portion of] the ‘Work of the Chariot’ extend? Rabbi said: As far as the second And I saw.40 R. Isaac said: As far as Hashmal41 — As far as ‘I saw’42 may be taught;43 thenceforward, [only] the heads of chapters44 may be transmitted. Some, however, say: As far as ‘I saw’, the heads of chapters may be transmitted; thenceforward, if he is a Sage able to speculate by himself, Yes; if not, No. But may one expound [the mysteries of] Hashmal? For behold there was once a child45 who expounded [the mysteries of] Hashmal, and a fire went forth and consumed him! — [The case of] the child is different, for he had not reached the [fitting] age. Rab Judah said: That man be remembered for blessing,46 namely, Hananiah b. Hezekiah: but for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been withdrawn,47 for its words contradict the words of the Torah.48 What did he do? Three hundred garab49 of oil were brought up to him, and he sat in an upper chamber and expounded it.
The Rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher's house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was,50 whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consumed him. So they51 sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezekiah said to them: If he was a Sage, all are Sages!52 What does [the word] Hashmal mean?-Rab Judah said:
(1) Cf. supra p. 23, n. 5.
(2) Ezek. I, 22.
(3) Cf. Ecclesiasticus III, 21, 22. The author, whose full name seems to have been Jesus b. Simeon b. Eleazar b. Sira, is the only writer of the Old Testament or Apocrypha who signed his work (v. ibid. L, 27). His date falls in the first third of the second century B.C.E. He wrote in Hebrew, the Greek translation being made by his grandson, of whom it is known that he went to Egypt in 132; the greater part of the Hebrew original has been recovered from the Cairo Genizah. According to Tosef. Yad. II, 13, the writings of Ben Sira do not defile the hands, i.e., are uncanonical, and so rank the works of ‘Minim’ or heretics. Eccl. Rab. XII, 11 forbids one to have Ben Sira's book in the house. R. Akiba (J. Sanh. 28a) includes the readers of uncanonical writings such as those of Ben Sira among those who have no share in the world to come; v. further the discussion in Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 680f and nn. a.l. on R. Akiba's prohibition. The exclusion of Ecclesiasticus from the canon and the prohibitions with which it was surrounded were probably due to its epicurean and Sadducean tendencies. Notwithstanding, the book remained popular with Jews, and is frequently quoted in early Jewish literature as well as in the Talmud and Midrash. V. J.E. vol. XI, pp. 388f.
(4) E.V. ‘that are above thy strength’.
(5) E.V. ‘commanded’.
(6) E.V. ‘no need of’.
(7) For a variant version of this quotation v. Gen. Rab. VIII, which contains two additional clauses.
(8) Lit., ‘daughter of a voice’. According to Lampronti, Levy, Kohut (Aruch Completum) and Jast., it means an echo’; but L. Blau holds (J.E. vol. II, pp. 588f) that it means ‘sound’, ‘resonance’. For its secular use, v. Ex. Rab. XXIX, end; bit in our passage and Rabbinic literature passim, it refers to a heavenly or divine voice.
(9) I.e., Nebuchadnezzar, who, in R. Johanan b. Zakkai's time, possibly suggested Titus.
(10) Isa. XIV, 14.
(11) As Tosaf. a.l. points out, this statement is not to be taken literally; Nebuchadnezzar is to be regarded as a spiritual descendant of Nimrod because of the similarity of their deeds (the latter persecuted Abraham — cf. Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. XIV, I; Gen. R. XLII, 5; Cant. R. VIII, 8 — and the former led into captivity Abraham's descendants) and of their place of origin (Babylon).
(12) Lit., ‘against himself’, an obvious emendation, dictated by a pious desire to avoid blasphemy, of ‘against Me’ i.e., God. In ‘Er. 53a the text has been ‘corrected’ as here; but in Pes. 94b, Gen. R. s. 26 etc., the original reading is preserved.
(13) Ps. XC, 10.
(14) V. p. 69.
(15) I.e., the seven heavens; v. n. 5.
(16) I.e., the thickness of the hooves.
(17) I.e., 15 (7 heavens and 8 interspaces) X 500 years. But in J. Ber. 13a the figure is given as 515, the numerical sum of ישרה, ‘upright’; cf. Ezek. I, 7 (Tosaf.).
(18) Properly, the knee and its surrounding parts; cf. Hul. 76a.
(19) E.V. ‘Yet’ etc.
(20) Isa. XIV, 14f.
(21) Probably, the leading words of each section or subject (cf. Rashi a.l. and Jast. s. פרק). Levy explains it as ‘the interpretations of single verses’. V. infra p. 77.
(22) Ab Beth din, lit., ‘Father of a Beth din’ (house of judgment). The Beth din consisted of three (according to another view, five) members for monetary cases, and of twenty-three for capital cases; whilst the Beth din ha-Gadol (‘High Court’), or Great Sanhedrin, was comprised of seventy elders and the Nasi, who acted as president. The Ab Beth din of the Sanhedrin was the vice-president and most important of the seventy members (cf. Sanh. I, 1-4, Sonc. ed. pp. 1-4; and J.E. vol. lii, pp. 114f).
(23) I.e., he is reverential and not given to levity.
(24) I.e., one must have both qualifications viz., be the head of a court and reverential.
(25) Isa. III, 3. For the explanation of these qualifications v. p. 85.
(26) This, and not Cuthean (substituted on account of the censorship), is undoubtedly the correct reading. Dicta of this kind were directed against heathens, and were inspired by the fear lest the knowledge of the Torah be unscrupulously used against Jews. Cf. the story of the Roman commissioners referred to in B.K., Sonc. ed., p. 215; also R. Johanan's statement in Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 400 and Num. Rab. s. 13.
(27) Ps. CXLVII, 20,
(28) The ‘Work of the Chariot’ and the ‘Work of Creation’ mentioned in the next passage, were Baraithas
(Rashi), which apparently, took the relevant passages of Genesis and Ezekiel as the basis of their expositions.
(29) Cf. p. 85, where the ‘captain of fifty’, mentioned supra as one of the qualifications of the man to whom the mysteries of the Torah may be transmitted, is explained as one who is fifty years of age.
(30) Lit., ‘R. Johanan's soul was at rest’ (cf. Isa. LVII, 2).
(31) Lit., ‘mouth of Beditha’ (a canal of the Euphrates). It was the seat of a great Jewish academy.
(32) Cant. IV, 11.
(33) I.e., the mysteries of the Chariot may not be taught, cf. our Mishnah (p. 59). The Rabbis considered the whole of Canticles as a figurative expression of the mystical relationship between God and Israel; thus the verse quoted, which the Bridegroom says to the Bride, is really the injunction of God to Israel.
(34) I.e.,the prohibition to teach the ‘Chariot’ mysteries.
(35) Prov. XXVII, 26.
(36) I.e., in thy bosom, a secret. The reading in MS.M. brings the Midrashic deduction out more clearly: Read not kebasim("lambs") but kebushim ("hidden things")things which are the mystery(kibshono) of the world must be kept under one's clothing’.
(37) I.e., the elders of Pumbeditha.
(38) Ezek. II, 1.
(39) I.e., if you have learnt thus far,you have learnt much , for this passage included the very verses(Ezek. I,27,28) the teaching of which the Rabbis prohibited.
(40) Ezek. I,27, excluding Hashmal;v. n. 12.
(41) Ibid.,including Hashmal(E.V. ‘electrum’). By Hashmal, the whole subject thereof, which is described in this verse, is meant, not merely the word itself, which already occurs in v. 4. The objection here raised is that the statements of Rabbi and R. Isaac apparently contradict the statement of R. Joseph above, which seemed to imply that the passage dealing with the ‘Work of the Chariot’ extended to Ezek. II, 1.
(42) I.e., ‘I saw’ according to Rabbi, or ‘Hashmal’ according to R. Isaac,
(43) I.e., Rabbi and R. Isaac indicated not how far the ‘Work of the Chariot extended, but how far therein it was permissible to teach.
(44) V. p. 75,n. 3.
(45) Aram. ינוקא, a term applicable to a boy from infancy to school age. Hot-tinger's view (De Incestu etc., p. 54, quoted by A. W. Streane) that not a child in years but in knowledge of Talmud is meant is unlikely. Cf. the frequent use of the term in the Zohar.
(46) Cf. Neh. V, 19.
(47) Heb. נגנז lit., ‘hidden, stored away’, i.e., declared un-canonical. The idea and name of the Greek ‘Apocrypha’ have often been traced to this technical significance of the verb גנז in the Talmud; but this is denied by G. F. Moore, v. J.E., vol. II, pp. 1-2 and 6.
(48) Cf. Ezek, XVIII, 4, 20 with Ex. XX, 5, XXIV, 7; Ezek. XLIV, 31 with Lev. XXII, 8; Ezek. XLIV, 22 with Lev. XXI, 14; also Ezek. XLV, 20, which mentions a sacrifice for the seventh day of the first month, entirely unknown from the Torah. V. Rashi to the above verses of Ezek., and Men. 45a, and Kid. 78a.
(49) ‘A bottle, keg’, as a ‘measure (Jast.); ‘an earthen jar’, (Levy). The oil was to provide light for study.
(50) Jast. translates: ‘speculated over the Hashmal’. Had the child drawn a picture of it? (V. J.E. vol. III, p. 148, s. 11).
(51) I.e., the Rabbis.
(52) I.e., the case of the child is exceptional: having a Sage's understanding of the mysteries of Hashmal, he endangered his life by his speculation; but ordinary readers of Ezekiel would not run any risk.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 13b
Living creatures speaking fire.1 In a Baraitha it is taught: [Hashmal means], At times they are silent, at times they speak.2 When the utterance goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and when the utterance goes not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak.
And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.3 What is the meaning of ‘ran and returned’? — Rab Judah said: Like the flame that goes forth from the mouth of a furnace.4 What is the meaning of ‘as the appearance of a flash of lightning’? — R. Jose b. Hanina said: Like the flame that goes forth from between the potsherds.5
And I looked, and, behold a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud with a fire flashing up, so that a brightness was round about it; and out of the midst thereof as the colour of electrum [Hashmal], out of the midst of the fire.6 Whither did it7 go? Rab Judah said that Rab said: It went to subdue the whole world under the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. And wherefore all this? — That the peoples of the world might not say: Into the hand of a low people the Holy One, blessed be he, delivered His children,8 The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Who caused Me to be a servant to idol-worshippers? The iniquities of Israel, they caused Me.
Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel at the bottom hard by the living creatures.9 R. Eleazar said: [It means] a certain angel, who stands on the earth and his head reaches unto the living creatures. In a Baraitha it is taught: His name is Sandalfon;10 he is higher than his fellows by a [distance of] five hundred years’ journey, and he stands behind the Chariot and wreathes crowns11 for his Maker. But is it so? Behold it is written: Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place,’12 accordingly, no one knows His place!13 — He14 pronounces the [Divine] Name over the crown, and it goes and rests on His head.15
Raba said: All that Ezekiel saw Isaiah saw.16 What does Ezekiel resemble? A villager who saw the king.17 And what does Isaiah resemble? A townsman who saw the king.18
Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the verse: I will sing unto the Lord, for He is highly exalted?19 [It means] a song to him who is exalted over the exalted ones.20 For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion; the king of the cattle is the ox; the king of the birds is the eagle; and man is exalted over them; and the Holy One, blessed be He, is exalted over all of then, and over the whole world.
One verse says: As for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man; and they four had the face of a lion on the right side,’ and they four had the face of an ox on the left side etc.21 And [elsewhere] it is written: And everyone had four, faces; the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle;22 but the ox is not mentioned! — Resh Lakish said: Ezekiel entreated concerning it and changed it into a cherub. He said before Him:23 Lord of the universe, shall an accuser24 become an advocate!25 What is the meaning of cherub? — R. Abbahu said: Like a child [Rabia];26 for so in Babylonia a child is called Rabia. R. Papa said to Abaye: But according to this, [what is the meaning of] the verse, ‘The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle’: are not the face of the cherub and the face of a man the same! — [The one is] a big face, and [the other is] a small face.27
One verse says: Each one had six wings;28 and another verse says: And every one had four faces, and every one of them had four wings!29 — There is no contradiction: the one30 refers to the time when the Temple was no longer standing,31 [when] as it were,32 the wings of the living creatures were diminished. Which of them were taken away? — R. Hananel said that Rab said: Those with which they utter song. [For] here33 it is written: And with twain he did fly. And one called unto another and said;34 and [elsewhere] it is written: Wilt thou set thine eyes upon it? It is gone.35 But our Rabbis said: Those with which they cover their feet, for it is said: And their feet were straight feet,36 and if [these wings] had not been taken away, whence could he have known!37 — Perhaps, [the feet] were exposed and he saw them. For if you do not say so, [then from the words], As for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of man,38 [one might infer] likewise that [the wings covering them] were taken away! They39 must therefore have been exposed, and he saw them; similarly here, they40 were exposed, and he saw them. But how can they be compared? Granted that it is customary to expose one's face before one's master, but it is not customary to expose one's feet before one's master!
One verse says: Thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him;41 and another verse says: Is there any number of His armies?42 — There is no contradiction: the one43 refers to a time when the Temple was standing, and the other refers to a time when the Temple was no longer standing; [when] as it were, the heavenly household44 was diminished.
It is taught: Rabbi said in the name of Abba Jose b. Dosai: ‘Thousand thousands ministered unto ‘Him’, — this is the number of one troop; but of His troops there is no number. But Jeremiah b. Aba said: ‘Thousand thousand ministered unto Him’ — at the fiery stream,45 for it is said: A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him; thousand thousands ministered unto Him and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.41 Whence does it come forth? — From the sweat of the ‘living creatures’, And whither does it pour forth? R. Zutra b. Tobiah said that Rab said: Upon the head of the wicked in Gehinnom,46 for it is said: Behold, a storm of the Lord is gone forth in fury,47 yea, a whirling storm; it shall whirl upon the head of the wicked.48 But R. Aha b. Jacob said: Upon those who pressed forward,49 for it is said: Who pressed forward50 before their time, whose foundation was poured out as a stream.51 It is taught: R. Simeon the Pious said: These are the nine hundred and seventy four generations who pressed themselves forward to be created52
(1) I.e. חשמל is explained as an abbreviation of חיות אש ממללות
(2) I.e., Hashmal is an abbreviation of חשות ממללות, ‘silent, speaking’.
(3) Ezek. 1,14.
(4) I.e., a brick-kiln.
(5) I.e., perforated earthen pieces used in smelting gold. בזק; (E.V. ‘flash of lightning’) is here explained in its Aramaic sense of ‘a fragment, piece of pottery’.
(6) Ibid. v. 4.
(7) I.e., the stormy wind coming out of the north.
(8) Cf. for the thought Git. 56b=Sanh. 104b, (Sonc. ed., p. 710), ‘Whoever distresses Israel becomes a chief’.
(9) Ezek. I, 15.
(10) Perhaps from Grk. ** == cobrother. Sandalfon is described as brother of Metatron; v. J.E. vol. XI, pp. 39-40; cf. also Longfellow's poem ‘Sandalphon’.
(11) I.e., offers up the prayers of the righteous.
(12) Ezek. III, 12.
(13) I.e., the vagueness of the expression ‘from His place’ indicates that God's place is unknown even to His angels.
(14) I.e., Sandalfon,
(15) [MS.M. ‘in its place : i.e., the prayer is effective.]
(16) V. Isa. VI, 1 ff: Despite the differences between the descriptions given by Isaiah and Ezekiel, they both saw identical visions of God's glory.
(17) According to Rashi, the point is that the rustic — to whom the sight of the king is a novelty — is naturally inclined to give his impressions at length. But Tosaf. explains that the villager has to give a detailed description of the royal splendour in order to convince his hearers that he actually saw the king. Likewise Ezekiel, to whom was granted the rare distinction, of prophecy outside Palestine, had to prove by a detailed account that he actually beheld the Divine Glory though he dwelt by the river Chebar.
(18) The townsman — to whom the king is a familiar sight is not inclined to indulge in any lengthy description (Rashi); nor does he have to go into details in order to convince his hearers of the truth of his statement (Tosaf.).
(19) Ex. XV, 1.
(20) This is an explanation of the words of the text, גאה גאה (E.V. ‘highly exalted’), which mean lit., ‘to be exalted he is exalted’.
(21) Ezek. I, 10.
(22) Ezek. X, 14.
(23) I.e., Ezekiel before God.
(24) The ox would be a reminder of Israel's sin in connection with the golden calf.
(25) Israel required the Divine Chariot to intercede for them. Cf. R.H. 26a.
(26) The word כרוב (‘Cherub’) is explained as composed of כ (‘like’) and רביא = רוב (‘a growing boy’). For modern suggestions regarding the root-meaning of the word v. B.D.B. s.v.
(27) I.e., the face of a man and the face of a boy.
(28) Isa. VI, 2.
(29) Ezek. I, 6. It is assumed that the ‘Seraphim’ of Isaiah and the ‘living creatures’ of Ezekiel had originally the same number of wings.
(30) I.e., Isa. VI, 2.
(31) I.e., the time for the destruction of the Temple had come. Ezekiel prophesied the event, and lived to learn of the fulfilment of his prophecy, as well as to foretell the rebuilding of the Sanctuary.
(32) Lit., ‘as though it were possible’, refers to an allegorical or anthropomorphous expression with reference to the Lord
(Jast.), or, as here, to the celestial creatures.
(33) Ibid. vv. 2, 3.
(34) The juxtaposition of the two verses shows that with the wings with which they flew they also uttered God's praise.
(35) Lit., ‘cause to fly’; cf. also rest of verse, Prov. XXIII, 5. The occurrence of the word fly in the two passages shows that it is the wings with which the heavenly beings fly (i.e., utter their song to God) that are gone. This verse in Proverbs is understood by the Rabbis to refer to the neglect of the study of the Torah
(cf. Rashi a. l., and Ber. 5a, Meg. 18a): the meaning would seem to be that when the Torah is neglected the divine song of the angels is silenced.
(36) Ezek. I, 7.
(37) l.e., that their feet were straight.
(38) Ibid. I, 10,
(39) I.e., their faces.
(40) I.e,, their feet.
(41) Dan. VII, 10.
(42) Job. XXV, 3.
(43) I.e., the verse in Job.
(44) Heb. פמליא from Lat. Familia.
(45) I.e, the verse gives the number only of those attending God at the fiery stream, but not of all His angels, which are innumerable.
(46) I.e., ‘place of punishment of the wicked in the hereafter, hell’ (Jast.). Cf. II Kings XXIII, 10; Jer. VII, 31, 32, etc.; II Chron. XXVIII, 3.
(47) Heb. חמה understood in the sense of חמה, ‘hot’, is taken as a reference to the fiery stream.
(48) Jer. XXIII, 19.
(49) So Jast. and Levy; v. infra n. 7. Goldschmidt trans., die verdrangt worden sind’ (who were suppressed or displaced); Rashi trans., ‘who were decreed (to be created)’, MS.M. adds here, ‘before their time’.
(50) E.V. ‘who were snatched away’.
(51) Job XXII, 16. The word ‘stream’ is the link between this verse and Dan. VII, 10.
(52) According to the Rabbinic interpretation of Ps. CV, 8, the Divine Plan originally envisaged the creation of a thousand generations prior to the giving of the Torah, but foreseeing their wickedness, God held back nine hundred and seventy-four generations, and gave the Torah at the end of twenty-six generations from Adam (cf. Gen. V, XI, Ex. VI, 16-20, and Seder ‘Olam Ch. 1). The translation here follows the text of MS. M. 2 (v. D.S. a.I. n. 20) viz. עצמן להיבראות (pi'el) שקימטו cur. edd.: להיבראות (pu'al) שקומטו
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 14a
before the world was created, but were not created: the Holy One, blessed be He, arose and planted them1 in every generation, and it is they who are the insolent2 of each generation. But R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The words, Asher Kummetu,3 indicate blessing: these are the scholars who wrinkle themselves4 over the words of the Torah in this world, [wherefore] the Holy One, blessed be He, shall reveal a secret to them in the world to come, for it is said: ‘To whom a secret5 is poured out as a stream’. Samuel said to R. Hiyya b. Rab: O son of a great man,6 come, I will tell thee something from those excellent things which thy father has said. Every day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and utter song, and cease to be,7 for it is said: They are new every morning: great is Thy faithfulness.8 Now he differs from R. Samuel b. Nahmani, for R. Samuel b. Nahmani said that R. Jonathan said: From every utterance that goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, an angel is created,9 for it is said: By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.10
One verse says: His raiment was as white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;11 and [elsewhere] it is written: His locks are curled and black as a raven!12 — There is no contradiction: one verse13 [refers to God] in session,14 and the other in war.15 For a Master said: In session none is more fitting than an old man, and in war none is more fitting than a young man.
One passage says: His throne was fiery flames;16 and another Passage says: Till thrones were places, and One that was ancient of days did sit!17 — There is no contradiction: one [throne] for Him, and one for David; this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: Akiba, how long wilt thou treat the Divine Presence as profane!18 Rather, [it must mean], one for justice and one for grace.19 Did he accept [this explanation from him, or did he not accept it? — Come and hear: One for justice and one for grace; this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah to him: Akiba, what hast thou to do with Aggadah?20 Cease thy talk, and turn21 to [the laws concerning defilement through] leprosy-signs and tent-covering!22 Rather, [it must mean] one for a throne and one for a stool; the throne to sit upon, the stool for a footrest, for it is said: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My foot-rest.23
When R. Dimi came,24 he said: Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, yet he was not pacified25 until he pronounced upon them this verse: The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honourable.26 Which are the eighteen curses? — It is written: For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff every stay of bread, and every stay of water,’ the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty; and the man of rank, and the counsellor, and the wise charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.27 ‘Stay’ — this means the masters of the Bible.28 ‘Staff’ — this means the masters of the Mishnah, like R. Judah b. Tema and his colleagues. R. Papa and our Rabbis dispute therein: one says that there were29 six hundred orders of the Mishnah, and the other that there were seven hundred orders of the Mishnah.30 ‘Every stay of bread’ — this means the masters of Talmud,31 for it is said: Come, eat of My bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.32 ‘And every stay of water’ — this means the masters of Aggadah, who draw the heart of man like water by means of the Aggadah. ‘The ‘mighty man’ — this means the masters of traditions.33 ‘And the man of war’ — this means one who knows how to dispute34 in the warfare of the Torah. ‘The judge — this means a judge who passes judgment in strictest accord with truth — ‘The prophet’ — according to the literal meaning of the word. ‘The diviner’ — this means the King, for it is said: A divine sentence is in the lips of the King.35 ‘The elder’ — this means one who is worthy to sit in session.36 ‘The captain of fifty’: do not read ‘the captain of fifty’ but ‘the captain of the Pentateuch’;37 it means one who knows how to argue in the five books of the Torah. Another explanation: ‘the captain of fifty’ — as R. Abbahu [taught]. For R. Abbahu said. From here [we learn] that a Methurgeman38 may not be appointed over a congregation, who is less than fifty years of age. ‘And a man of rank’ — this means one for whose sake favour is shown to his [entire] generation, like R. Hanina b. Dosa,39 for instance, on high;40 [or] below,41 like R. Abbahu at the court of Caesar.42 ‘The counsellor’ — [this means] one who knows how to determine the intercalation of years43 and the fixation of months.44 ‘And the wise [man]’45 -this means a disciple who makes his teachers wise. ‘Charmer’ — at the moment that he begins a Torah46 — discourse, all become dumb. ‘And the skillful [‘man]’47 — this means one who understands one thing from another.48 ‘Enchanter’ — this means one who is worthy to have imparted to him the words of the Torah, which was given in a whisper.49 ‘And I will give children to be their princes’: what is the meaning of [the words], ‘I will give children to be their princes’? R. Eleazar said: It means persons who are empty50 of good deeds.51 ‘And babes shall rule over them’. R. Aha52 b. Jacob said: [It means] foxes sons of foxes.53 ‘But he was not pacified54 until he said to them: The child shall behave insolently against the aged’: — those persons who are empty of good deeds shall behave insolently against such as are filled with good deeds55 as a pomegranate [with seeds]. ‘And the base against the honourable’: those to whom weighty [precepts] appear as light ones56 will come and behave insolently against those to whom light [precepts] appear as weighty ones.57
R. Kattina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem's downfall honest men did not cease from among them, for it is said: For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father: ‘Thou hast a mantle, be thou our ruler’!58 Matters on account of which men hide themselves as in a garment59 thou hast ‘under thy hand’.60 And this ruin:61 what is the meaning of [the expression] ‘and this ruin’? — Matters which people do not grasp unless they stumble over them62 are under thy hand’. In that day shall he take63 [an oath], saying: I am not64 a healer, for in my house is neither bread nor a mantle; ye shall not make me ruler of a people.65 — Shall he take, ‘Take’ expresses an oath, for it is said: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God [in vain].66 I am not a healer:’ I was67 not of those who are bound to the Schoolhouse.68 For in my house is neither bread not a mantle, — for I possess no knowledge of Bible or Mishnah or Gemara, But perhaps that case69 is different; for had he said to them, I have knowledge, they would have said to him, Tell us then! — He could have answered that he had learnt but had forgotten; why then does it say: ‘I am not a healer’? [It must mean], I am not a healer at all.70 But is it so? Behold Raba said: Jerusalem was not destroyed until honest men ceased therefrom, for it is said: Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly, that seeketh truth;71 and I will pardon him.72 — There is no contradiction:
(1) I.e., distributed them over the later generations; cf. Yoma 38b, ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the righteous were few, so He arose and planted them in every generation’. Another reading has ‘banished them’, but the meaning remains unchanged (v. Tosaf. a.I.).
(2) Cf. Aboth V, 20, (Sonc. ed., p. 73f).
(3) Rendered above, ‘who pressed forward’.
(4) So Jast.: from the root meaning ‘to compress, curl’; hence it can be under-stood in the sense of ‘to wrinkle (the brow)’ as well as ‘to press forward’ (as above). Levy and Goldschmidt render by ‘sich zusammendrangen’ (press themselves together, limit themselves).
(5) יסודם, ‘their foundation’ is here taken to mean the same as סודם, ‘their secret
(6) Lit., ‘son of a lion’.
(7) Cf. the lines in Longfellow's Sandalphon (quoted by Streane): ‘The Angels of Wind and of Fire Chant only one hymn, and expire With the song's irresistible stress’,
(8) Lam. III, 23. I.e,, great is Thy praise on account of them (Rashi).
(9) But not from the fiery stream, as Rab holds.
(10) Ps. XXXIII, 6.
(11) Dan, VII, 9.
(12) Cant. V, 11.
(13) I.e., Dan. VII, 9.
(14) I.e., sitting in judgment; cf. ibid. v. 10.
(15) Canticles is interpreted by the Rabbis as referring in greater part to the Exodus (note that the book is read in the synagogue during Passover) when God appeared as a warrior (cf. Ex. XV, 3).
(16) Dan. VII, 9.
(17) Ibid., beginning of the verse. The plural implies two thrones, whereas the first passage speaks of only one.
(18) By asserting that David occupies a place next to God.
(19) Lit., ‘righteousness’, but used here, apparently, in the sense of ‘lovingkindness, grace’.
(20) For Haggadah v. Glos. s. Aggadah. R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah regards even this explanation as dangerous, because it implies a duality of character on the part of God, and militates against the fundamental Jewish concept of God's perfect unity.
(21) The two verbs in the English are represented by one in the Hebrew viz. כלך which is really a combination of כלה ולך, ‘cease and go (elsewhere’).
(22) V. p. 56, nn. 5 and 6. R. Akiba's intellectual gifts were best suited to Halachah, not Haggadah. The laws relating to defilement by leprosy and tent-covering form two of the most difficult tractates of the Halachah.
(23) E. V. foot-stool’, Isa. LXVI, 1.
(24) I.e., from Palestine to Babylonia.
(25) Lit., ‘his mind was not cooled’.
(26) Ibid. III, 5.
(27) Ibid. vv. 1-4.
(28) The Bible being Israel's stay’. In this vein the Gemara explains the rest of the quotation.
(29) I.e., in the days of R Judah b. Tema and his colleagues.
(30) The Mishnah is now divided into six orders, V. J.E. vol, VIII, p, 615.
(31) This included the discussions ‘if the Amoraim added to the Mishnah. The decisions of the experts in Talmud could be relied upon, but those who gave decisions on the basis of the Mishnah only were called ‘destroyers of the world’ (Sot. 22a); cf. supra p. 50. Thus, the masters of the Talmud were, so to speak, as essential to Israel as bread itself.
(32) Prov. IX, 5.
(33) Lit., ‘things heard’ i.e., oral reports of a halachic character — legal decisions — which were carefully handed down by teacher to disciple. These tradents of legal traditions were veritable living ‘books of reference’.
(34) Lit., ‘to take up and give’. The expression is primarily a commercial term, denoting ‘buying and selling’ or any financial transaction. Here it is used in the transferred sense of being able to deal with the argumentation essential to the study of the Torah. A distinction is here drawn between the keen-minded debater (‘the man of war’) and the expert in traditions (‘the mighty man’): the latter is remarkable chiefly for his learning, the former is distinguished for his reasoning power and mental acumen.
(35) Ibid. XVI, 10.
(36) I.e., as counsellor.
(37) חמשים ‘fifty’, is explained as חומשים ‘fifths,, i.e.,the five books of the Pentateuch. V. Kid. 33a.
(38) Lit., ‘interpreter’, i.e.,the translator into Aramaic (or Greek) of the Biblical portion read at services, V. J.E. VIII, p. 521.
(39) Cf. Ta'an. 24b-25a: ‘Every day a Bath Kol goes forth and says: The whole world is fed for the sake of Hanina, my son; Yet is Hanina, my son, satisfied with a kab of carobs from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve’. Cf. also Ber. V, 5.
(40) I.e., in heaven.
(41) I.e., on earth.
(42) I.e., the proconsular government. V. Sanh. 14a and Keth. 17a.
(43) The Jewish year consists ordinarily of twelve lunar months (v. n. 5). In order to prevent the festivals from falling in the wrong seasons, it was necessary periodically to adjust the lunar calendar to the solar year: this was achieved by introducing an intercalary month (Adar II) between Adar and Nisan. V., further, Sanh. 2a (Sonc. ed., p. 1) and 10a (p. 42f); also J.E. vol. III, p. 498f.
(44) I.e., determination of the beginning of a month by the first appearance of the new moon. As the moon revolves round the earth in approx. twenty-nine and a half days, the Jewish months consists, alternately, of twenty-nine or thirty days.
(45) The expression ‘wise (E. V. cunning") charmer’ is clearly intended in the verse to refer to one person; but the Gemara interprets ‘wise’ and ‘charmer’ as a composite phrase referring to two distinct types.
(46) Used here not in its restricted meaning of the Pentateuch, but in its wider connotation of Jewish teaching based on Scripture; cf. Aboth I, 1 (Sonc. ed., p. 1, n., 1).
(47) Here, as above (v. n. 6), Isaiah's description of one type of person is made to refer to two types.
(48) I.e., is able himself to draw conclusions on the basis of the knowledge imparted to him.
(49) On account of Satan (Aruch). But Jast. prefers the reading of MS.M.(cf. Rashi l.c.) which he renders: ‘that is he to whom are handed over the secrets of the Law which are communicated in a low voice’. Cf. p. 75 and nn. 4 and 5.
(50) The word נערים (‘children’) in the verse is explained as meaning מנוערים (‘empty’); literally, the latter means, shaken out, emptied’.
(51) Lit., ‘commandments’, precepts (of the Torah)’, hence religious or meritorious deeds.
(52) Var. lec.: but Bah reads R. Papa b. J.
(53) The word תעלולים, (‘babes’) in the verse is explained as a derivative of תעלא, (‘fox’), with the meaning, ‘double foxes i.e,, second generation of foxes.
(54) V. p. 84, n. 6.
(55) This is an explanation of the word קזן (aged) in the verse, which must necessarily have the opposite meaning of נער (‘child’ i.e., one empty of good deeds). Note also that zaken is explained elsewhere as one who is both learned (v. Sifra Kedoshim Par. 3’ Ch. VII, and Kid. 32b) and practised in the Torah and its precepts (v. Ber. 39a). Cf. also p. 109 (The Elder).
(56) The word נקלה (‘base’) in the verse is here explained as a derivative of קל (‘light’).
(57) There is a play here on the word נכבד (‘honourable’), the root of which also means, ‘heavy, weighty’.
(58) Isa. III, 6.
(59) I.e., feel ashamed in their ignorance of them — namely the teachings of the Torah — should be detected.
(60) I.e., knowest well; the expression is quoted from the end of v. 6 (ibid.).
(61) Lit., ‘and this stumbling’; ibid,
(62) I.e., which they learn only through their mistakes.
(63) E.V. ‘swear’.
(64) E.V. will not be’.
(65) Ibid. 7.
(66) Ex, XX, 7. The bracketed words are omitted in cur. edd. but not in the "Ein Jacob’.
(67) The Heb. verb in the verse, which, being in the imperfect form should ordinarily denote the future or at least the present tense, is here understood as having a past meaning, viz,, ‘I used not to be’,
(68) Lit., ‘of those who bind (themselves) in the Schoolhouse’.
(69) I.e., the case referred to in Isaiah is no proof of real honesty, because (according to the argument which follows) falsehood could easily have been detected.
(70) I.e., I have never studied. This voluntary admission proves his honesty.
(71) Heb. אמונה which is only a slight variant of אמנה ‘honesty’.
(72) Jer. V, 1.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 14b
the one [verse] refers to religious matters,1 the other to business. In regard to religious matters, there were [honest men left]; in regard to business, there were no [honest men left].
Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot’.2 He answered: Have I not taught you3 thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me.4 He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up,5 and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot’, and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire6 came down from heaven and encompassed7 all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? — Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah.8 An angel9 [then] answered10 from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot’. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’ — There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak hath come forth from thy loins. Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest11 were going on a journey. They said: Let us also12 expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice;13 [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow14 appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments15 of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you;16 happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining17 on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol18 was sent to us,19 [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples’ disciples are designated for the third class.20 But is this so?21 For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses:22 R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; — whereas R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak he does not count! — One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! — He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others].23 Our Rabbis taught: Four men entered the ‘Garden’,24 namely, Ben ‘Azzai25 and Ben Zoma,26 Aher,27 and R. Akiba. R. Akiba said to them: When ye arrive at the stones of pure marble,28 say not, water, water!29 For it is said: He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes.30 Ben ‘Azzai cast a look and died. Of him Scripture says: Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.31 Ben Zoma looked and became demented.32 Of him Scripture says: Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.33 Aher mutilated the shoots.34 R. Akiba departed unhurt.
Ben Zoma was asked: Is it permitted to castrate a dog?35 He replied: Neither shall ye do this in your land,36 — [this means], to none that is in your land shall ye do thus.37 Ben Zoma was [further] asked: May a high priest marry a maiden who has become pregnant?38 Do we [in such a case] take into consideration Samuel's statement, for Samuel said,
(1) Lit., ‘words of.the Torah’.
(2) V. p. 59, n. 4.
(3) Plural, i.e. R. Eleazar and his fellow-students.
(4) The fact that R. Johanan b. Zakkai had in the past taught the ‘Chariot’ mysteries to R. Eleazar is difficult to reconcile with the former's present refusal to teach his disciple. It seems best to omit, with the J.T., the word rendered ‘which thou hast taught me’. For two suggested explanations, if this word is retained, v. Maharsha a.I.
(5) I.e., put round him his tallith. The latter was a four-cornered garment (similar to the Roman pallium’) adorned with fringes (in accordance with Num. XV, 38f), which was worn in Talmudic times by scholars, distinguished persons, and those who led in prayers. Its use at prayers is still preserved, and has given rise to its popular designation of ‘prayer-shawl’. By wrapping himself in his tallith, R. Johanan b. Zakkai showed his sense of the holiness of the occasion. V. further J.E., vol. Xl, pp’ 67f and Elbogen, Der Jud, Gottesdienst pp. 499f.
(6) Cf. p. 77, n. 9.
(7) Var. lec.: covered; intertwined; hedged in,.
(8) Ps. CXLVIII, 7, 9, 14. This reference to trees is the clue which points to these verses as the trees’ psalm. The Jerusalem Talmud reads instead I Chron. XVI, 33.
(9) Another reading has ‘angel of death’, which Tosaf. rejects.
(10) I.e., spoke with reference to R. Eleazar's exposition of the ‘Chariot’ mysteries.
(11) For R. Johanan b. Zakkai's opinion of these two disciples and R. Eleazer v. Aboth, II, 8, 9.
(12) Being only two, they would not be infringing the Mishnah law concerning the study of the ‘chariot’ mysteries.
(13) Lit., ‘the cycle of Tammuz’ (fourth month). On such a day the sky in Palestine should be cloudless.
(14) Cf. Ezek. I, 28.
(15) Heb. מזמוטי. Levy deriving the word from the Greek ‘smiling’, especially ‘friendly smiling’, translates it, ‘Belustigungen’ (entertainments, merrymakings), which agrees with Rashi's explanation and the variant reading of the Jerusalem Talmud viz., ‘rejoicing’. Jast. gives the word a Hebrew origin (v.s.v.) and explains it to mean, music, sweet melodies’; he renders our passage — ‘the musical entertainments at a wedding.
(16) I.e., your respective mothers; they were not brothers.
(17) I.e. as at a banquet, when the guests used to recline on couches (cf. Ex. Rab 25).
(18) V. p. 73, n. 12.
(19) Lit., ‘given upon us’.
(20) Of the seven classes (v. Midr. Till. to Ps. XI, 7) admitted (after death) into God's presence.
(21) I.e., that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak discoursed on the ‘Chariot’ mysteries before his master.
(22) I.e., only in three instances did disciples discourse on the ‘Work of the Chariot’ before their teachers.
(23) Hanina b. Hakinai has to be mentioned on account of R. Akiba, to show that the latter not only discoursed himself but that also another discoursed before him; but R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak did not discourse before a teacher who in his turn discoursed before others, nor did any one discourse before him, hence he is not counted.
(24) Paradise, Heb. פרדם (cf. Cant. IV, 13, Eccl. II, 5, Neh. II, 8), ‘enclosure, preserve, garden, park’ (v. B. D. B. s.v.). L. Blau (Alitjudisches Zauberwesen, pp, 115f) seeks to prove that this account of the entry of the four Rabbis into Paradise is to be understood literally (v. also J.E. vol. V, p. 683). This view is shared, among others, by J. Levy and L. Ginzberg (v. J.E. vol. V, pp. 138f). On the other hand, M. Jast. (Dictionary) and Goldschmidt consider ‘Pardes’ a figurative expression for the mystical realm of theosophy. Rashi explains that the four scholars ascended to heaven, and Tosaf. adds that it only appeared to them that they did so. Similarly, R. Hai Gaon, who discusses the whole Baraitha in a responsum (quoted by Ha-Kotheb in ‘Ein Jacob), and R. Hananel explain that the entry of the Rabbis into the ‘Garden’ was only a vision. Both these authorities refer to the comment on the passage contained in the mystical works ‘Hekaloth Rabbathi’ and ‘Hekaloth Zutarthi’ (v. J.E. vol. VI, pp. 332-3). V. further J.E. vol. IX, pp. 515f.
(25) V. Ab. IV, 2, (Sonc. ed., p. 44, n. 1).
(26) V. ibid. Mishnah I, (Sonc. ed., P 43, n. 1).
(27) Lit. ‘another’, by which tern, Elisha b. Abuyah is referred to after his apostasy. V. J.E. vol. V, pp. 138f, and Ab. IV, 20 (Sonc. ed., p. 55 n. 1, where instead of ‘disciple of R. Meir’, read ‘teacher of R. Meir’). Cf. also the term ‘Others’ supra p. 14.
(28) Giving the illusion of water.
(29) I.e., how can we proceed!
(30) Ps. CI, 7.
(31) Ibid. CXVI, 15.
(32) Lit., ‘stricken’.
(33) Prov. XXV, 16,
(34) I.e., apostatized. Scholars differ greatly regarding the nature of Aher's defection: he has been variously described as a Persian, Gnostic or Philonian dualist; as a Christian; as a Sadducee; and as a ‘victim of the inquisitor Akiba’, in J.E., V. 183 and bibliography.
(35) Castrated animals may not be offered as sacrifices (v. n. 12,); therefore castration is forbidden in the case of animals of the type that can be offered up. But a dog may not only not be offered itself, but even its price or equivalent may not be used for offerings (v. Tem. 30a-b). Hence the question whether the prohibition of castration applies even to a dog. Cf. also Shab. 111a.
(36) Lev. XXII, 24. The beginning of the verse reads: ‘That which hath its stones bruised . . . or cut, ye shalt not offer unto the Lord’.
(37) l.e., even an animal like the dog, which cannot be offered as a sacrifice, may not be mutilated.
(38) The high priest may marry a virgin only (v. Lev. XXI, 13). The question here is: If the girl claims that despite her pregnant condition she is still a virgin, may the high priest marry her? Or if he married her without knowing of her pregnancy and actually found her to have the signs of virginity, but subsequently learnt that she was pregnant before marriage, may she remain his wife?
Directory of Sedarim and Tractates