סקר
איך הלימוד שלך בעקבת הקורונה?






 

Steinsaltz

Today he is sitting in the lap of Abraham our forefather, since he has just been circumcised. He added: Today Rav Yehuda was born in Babylonia.

The Gemara comments: As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli.

The Gemara stated above that Homanya is an Ammonite city. The verse states: “The Lord has commanded concerning Jacob, that they that are round about him should be his adversaries” (Lamentations 1:17), indicating that the Jewish people are surrounded by enemies even in its exile. Rav Yehuda says: Homanya is close to Pum Nahara, which had Jewish residents.

The verse states: “And it came to pass, when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died. Then fell I down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said: Ah Lord God!” (Ezekiel 11:13). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this verse. One said it should be interpreted for good, and one said it should be interpreted for evil. How so? The one who says that it should be interpreted for good claims it is like that story involving the governor [de’istandera] of the province of Meishan, who was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. He sent a message to his father-in-law: From all those captives you have brought for yourself from your wars you have not sent us anyone to stand before us.

Nebuchadnezzar wanted to send him captives from the Jews to serve his son-in-law. Pelatiah, son of Benaiah, said to Nebuchadnezzar: We, who are important, shall stand and serve before you here, and our slaves will go there, to your son-in-law. Nebuchadnezzar took his advice. And about him the prophet Ezekiel said: One who did this good for the Jewish people, i.e., Pelatiah ben Benaiah, who spared them this exile, should he die at half of his days?

The one who says that the verse should be interpreted for evil cites the following verse, as it is written: “Then a spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord’s House, which looked eastward; and behold, at the door of the gate five and twenty men; and I saw in the midst of them Jaazaniah the son of Azzur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people” (Ezekiel 11:1), and it is written: “And He brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s House, and, behold, at the door of the Temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16).

The second verse is analyzed in light of the first verse, which states that Pelatiah ben Benaiah was among the twenty-five people: From the fact that it is stated: “And their faces toward the east,” don’t I know that their backs were toward the west, where the Temple was? What is the meaning when the verse states: “Their backs toward the Temple of the Lord”? These words hint at another matter, as the verse teaches that they exposed themselves from behind and discharged excrement toward the One above, in the direction of the Temple. And the prophet is saying: Shall he who did this evil in Israel die peacefully on his bed?

The Gemara comments: It may be concluded that it was Shmuel who said this was for evil, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage. And even with regard to Mishon, they were not concerned due to slavery nor due to mamzer status. Rather, the priests who were there were not particular with regard to the prohibition against priests marrying divorced women. Consequently, Shmuel maintains that the only flaw of lineage in Mishon was that of ḥalalim, whereas the opinion that the verse was stated for good maintains that the some of the residents of Mishon were slaves.

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that Shmuel said it was for good, and there is no contradiction, since Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated and he does not even require a bill of manumission. Shmuel cited a proof from that which is stated: “But every slave man that is bought for money” (Exodus 12:44). Does this apply only to a slave who is a man, and not to a woman slave? Rather, it means: The slave of a man, i.e., a slave whose master has authority and control over him, is called a slave, since he is the slave of a particular man. A slave whose master does not have authority over him, such as one who has been declared ownerless, is not called a slave but a freeman. The slaves who went to Mishon no longer had the status of slaves because their masters remained behind.

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This mishna, which indicates that only the inhabitants of Babylonia have unflawed lineage, is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: All lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage.

The Gemara comments: Ameimar permitted Rav Huna bar Natan to marry a woman from Meḥoza, which is outside the borders of Babylonia as pertains to lineage. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is your reasoning in allowing him to do so? Is it because Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say all lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. The halakha follows the opinion of the Rabbis, but the school of Rav Kahana did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Pappa did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Zevid did not teach like this. The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, despite hearing of all these reports, Ameimar did not accept this halakha from him, because he had heard this halakha directly from Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, upon whom he relied.

The Sages taught (Tosefta 5:5): Mamzerim and Gibeonites will be pure in the future; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: They will not be pure. Rabbi Yosei said to him: But hasn’t it already been stated: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you” (Ezekiel 36:25)? Rabbi Meir said to him: When it says: “From all your uncleanness, and from all your idols,” this emphasizes that God will purify people from these types of impurity, but not from mamzer status. Rabbi Yosei said to him: When it says: “Will I cleanse you,” at the end of the verse, you must say this means even from mamzer status.

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, who maintains that mamzerim will not be purified, this is as it is written: “And a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod” (Zechariah 9:6), indicating that they will have their own isolated living area. But according to Rabbi Yosei, what is the meaning of the phrase “And a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod”? The Gemara answers: He understands that verse as Rav Yosef would translate it: The Jewish people shall dwell in tranquility in their land, where they were formerly like strangers, reading mamzer as me’am zar, from a strange people.

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that mamzerim and Gibeonites will be pure in the future. Rav Yosef says: If it were not for the fact that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Elijah would come and remove from us group after group of forbidden people [kolarin], since he would reveal how many mamzerim there are among the Jewish people.

The Sages taught (Tosefta 5:3): A convert may marry a mamzeret ab initio; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yehuda says: A convert may not marry a mamzeret. A convert, an emancipated slave, and a ḥalal are all permitted to marry the daughter of a priest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, who deems it permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret? The Gemara answers: Five congregations are written, meaning, the word congregation appears five times in the Torah with regard to various people of flawed lineage who are prohibited from entering the congregation of God.

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר