Talmud sobre Brachot 1:10

It was stated²⁸Babli 51b, Tosephta 4:6.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, anybody who did not see the double stoa²⁹Greek διπλη̅-στοά. of Alexandria did not ever see the glory of Israel. It was like a large basilica³⁰Greek βασιλική, ‘η; Latin basilica. with a stoa inside a stoa. Sometime there were there twice as many as left Egypt. Seventy golden chairs were there, inlaid with precious stones and pearls, corresponding to the Seventy Elders; each of them costing 250’000 gold denars. A wooden platform was at the center and the congregation’s beadle stood on it. If one of the congregation came to read in the Torah the official waved cloths and they answered after him “amen”. For every benediction which he said, the official waved cloths and they answered after him “amen”. Nevertheless they were not sitting mixed but those of each single profession were sitting separately, so that a stranger could associate with those of his profession, and from there he could find support.” And who destroyed it? Trajanus the evil one.

HALAKHAH: Moonlight comes up as a beam; sunlight spreads over the entire East²⁰The reason given in the Mishnah is difficult to accept. In the Babli 28b it is explained that it was a cloudy day where the moonlight also was diffuse.. So far if it was the end of the month; if it was the start²¹Even if one accepts the explanation of the Mishnah, the inquiry would only be necessary towards the end of the month when the moon rises towards morning.?

A similar case: When does a man acquire Sabbatical fruit? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, when he puts them in his vessels. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, even if he puts them into his vessels he did not acquire them; he thinks that they are his but they are not his⁴³If the fruits had a human owner, they would become property of the person who takes them. If somebody steals fruit from a farmer, once the fruit is in his vessel he is the owner but owes the farmer the value of the fruit he took. However, Sabbatical fruit are God’s property; even after they have been harvested they retain the holiness of the Sabbatical. They may be eaten but not used for industrial purposes. Hence, they cannnot be acquired as property.. Compare the following⁴⁴Different versions of the story are in Massekhet Kallah; BabliNedarim 62a.: Rebbi Tarphon went to eat single figs from somebody’s property without reciprocity, following the House of Shammai. The watchmen⁴⁵Jastrow takes the word as saf‘el of נטר “to guard”. (In Arabic, the word means “cymbal”.) saw him and started whipping him. When he saw himself in danger, he said to them, by your lives, tell in Tarphon’s house to have his burial shrouds ready. When they heard this, they prostrated themselves before him and said, Rebbi, forgive us. He said to them, so and so should come upon me if I did not forgive you beforehand every stick that was coming down on me. In these two instances did Rebbi Tarphon follow the House of Shammai and endangered himself, in the case here and in the recitation of Shema'⁴⁶Berakhot, Mishnah 1:7.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: All his life did Rebbi Tarphon repent about this happening and said, woe to me that I used the Crown of the Torah⁴⁷MishnahAvot 1:13: “He who uses the Crown disappears.”.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to some place where he found the schoolteacher weak⁵⁵R. Simson reads אטימוײס, Hagahot Maimuniot on Maimonides Śekhirut 13:6 reads אטימוס, ἄθυμος “feeble” (M. Sachs), in Cafṭor Waperaḥ Chap. 39, אטמיאס. The translation follows Hagahot Maimuniot.. He asked them, what has happened⁵⁶It seems that he suspected the school board of not paying a living wage.? They said to him, he is fasting. He said to him, that is forbidden to you. If one says that it is forbidden for the work one does for flesh and blood, so much more for the work of the Holy One⁵⁷The elementary school teacher, who turns illiterates into literates and uncivilized into civilized, finishes the work of creation and therefore does God’s work., praise to Him!

Ben Yehoṣadaq was priding himself for his vaulting. ⁷⁸Babli 53a. The corrector’s change [in brackets] follows the Babli and should be deleted. In the Babli the torches are lit. They said about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that he was dancing with eight golden torches and neither of them touched (the ground) [any other.] When he was bowing down to his shinbone he thrust his thumb into the ground, bowed down to his shinbone, and immediately stood up. ⁷⁹Parallels are in Berakhot1:8 (Note 249), Gen. rabba39(18). The text in Berakhot editio princeps is the corrector’s, quite different from the scribe’s which is consistent with the text here. What is bowing down to one’s shinbone and what is kneeling? The great Rebbi Ḥiyya showed bowing down to his shinbone before Rebbi, [became lame] and was healed. Levi ben Sisi showed kneeling before Rebbi, became lame and was not healed.

“A sly wicked man.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Huna: That is one who chooses leniencies for himself and teaches restrictions to others¹³⁸Babli 21b, as one possibility of many.. ¹³⁹The same text Berakhot Chapter 1, Notes 192–199; Yebamot Chapter 1, Notes 256–261. Cf. Babli Erubin 6b, 13b. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wants to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Only either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: “Both of them are the words of the Living God, but practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rav Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician³⁰²The scholar who can bring order into the vast amount of rabbinic traditions is on a higher level than the one who finds apparent contradictions between traditional statements and explains them by finding the underlying principles. In the Babli (14a) the question is between “Sinai” and “one who uproots mountains” (and grinds them down), i. e., between a living encyclopedia and a practitioner of dialectics, and it is reported that in Galilee Sinai was preferred. There is no mention there about an effort at systematizing and in fact it is in general impossible to derive a valid rule of practice by basing oneself on one talmudic discussion alone, but all Tractates of the Babli have simultaneously to be considered.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician³⁰³In B: “He is both a systematizer and a dialectician.” In both Talmudim, the teachings of R. Immi and his companion R. Yasa are too sporadic to allow a judgment between the two versions.. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture³⁰⁴Since the Mishnah is a first attempt at systematizing Jewish teaching, its study, while presupposing a prior study of Scripture, is on a higher level since it is less anecdotal or self-contradictory.. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah³⁰⁵They agree to the value of analysis and explanation of Scripture also independent of traditional interpretations.. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding³⁰⁶Prov. 4:5. “Wisdom” is identified here as the Mishnah, the encyclopedia of traditional knowledge. “Understanding” is the explanation of the formulaic statements of the Mishnah, the Talmud, whether formulated in one of the Talmudim or in a prior state of oral explanation. Wisdom precedes understanding., etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold³⁰⁷Prov. 16:16. The verse reads: Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold, acquisition of understanding more select than silver? Here also wisdom precedes understanding, but silver is everyday coin; gold is used only for major transactions and by the very rich.? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water³⁰⁸In both verses, the less valuable but more essential is mentioned in second place. This does not make the second less essential.. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt³⁰⁹He agrees that without interpretation and explanation (“the Talmud”) the Mishnah cannot be applied; the salt of the Talmud, the silver, is absolutely necessary. This does not diminish the value of the gold.
A different version of the preceding arguments is in Massekhet Sopherim 15:7, 8.. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it³¹⁰Here it is intimated that Rebbi’s edition of the Mishnah from the start was intended as providing the skeleton around which a systematic exposition of the Talmud, the oral tradition, could be organized. In this way, the Mishnah automatically is studied in a privileged way if the Talmud is studied. Cf. Lev. rabba 21(4) which declares the study of the Mishnah as prerequisite for everything else.. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

MISHNAH: Ḥallah and heave. ²³⁴Most of these rules have been spelled out for heave in Tractate Terumot; the sentence spells out that ḥallah is not only called “heave” (Num. 15:20–21) but actually follows all rules of heave. About them one is liable to death²³⁵Lev. 22:3. and a fifth²³⁶Terumot 6:1., they are forbidden to laymen²³⁷Lev. 22:10. Since this rule is mentioned after the penalties, it must mean that consumption by laymen of quantities too small to merit judicial attention is still forbidden., are Cohen’s property, can be lifted in 101²³⁸Terumot Chapter 5., need washing of the hands²³⁹An extension of the injunction Ex. 30:17–21. (and feet)²⁴⁰A scribal error in the ms. and some sources dependent on it; cf. The Mishnah with variant readings, Zera‘im II (Jerusalem 1975), p. 325, Note 74. and sundown²⁴¹Lev. 22:7., are not taken from pure for impure²⁴²Terumot 2:1. but only from what is earmarked²⁴³Terumot 1:1, Note 6. and completed²⁴⁴Completely processed; Ma‘serot 1.. He who says, all my threshing floor is heave or all my dough is ḥallah did not say anything unless he left out a small amount.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most]²⁸⁷Added from the Genizah text, necessary for syntactic reasons. calves there²⁸⁸This shows that the Mishnah underlying this Halakhah is not the one given in the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi but the one found in the Babli and Maimonides: R. Meïr declares Bithynian Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b. are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden²⁸⁹Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable²⁹⁰It never was part of the animal and did not become forbidden by its slaughter for idolatry.; excrement is part of its body.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family¹⁹⁵In the Tosephta, 15:7, this is combined with the verse Lev. 20:5, alluded to later. A court punishes only the criminal but God’s justice is against “that man (who sacrifices his children to the Moloch) and his family.” This proves that if the courts can no longer enforce biblical law, the Heavenly Court will enforce it in a much harsher way.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it¹⁹⁶The delivery from trouble was a festive occasion documented in Megillat Ta‘anit, the catalogue of days when fasting was forbidden. But now, in the words of the Tosephta (15:6): Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for every trouble that comes over the community, the court disestablishes another joyous occasion.. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, ¹⁹⁷Thr. 5:15.“our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for¹⁹⁸What is the connection between the disestablishment of Jewish criminal jurisdiction and the disappearance of the epithalamium from Jewish weddings? The rest of the paragraph has a close parallel in Tosephta 15:7.? But because it was said¹⁹⁹Lev. 20:4. It is implied that the real reason is the following v. 5. “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose²⁰⁰This gives the high court emergency powers to act as a secret, Vehmic, court in case the criminal is too powerful.. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks²⁰¹He might be the Roman lictor since the ruler mentioned is a Roman proconsul.. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln²⁰²Greek κάμινος, ἡ, “oven, furnace, kiln.”. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.