Sefaria Bava Kamma 18a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:3 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015
Sefaria Bava Kamma 18a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:3 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015
Level four:
Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.
Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.
About This Text
Bava Kamma
Talmud
Bava Kamma (״The First Gate״) is the first of a series of three tractates in Seder Nezikin (“Order of Damages") that deal with civil matters. Bava Kamma focuses on the laws of torts: the first six chapters mostly address damages inflicted by one’s property, while the last four chapters discuss damages inflicted by people, such as theft and injury.
Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 – c.550 CE)נוצר/נערך: בבל התלמודית (450 – 550 לספירה בקירוב)
Current Version
Aramaic from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text Analysis.
Punctuation: Rabbi Shimon MarylesRead More
Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text Analysis.
Punctuation: Rabbi Shimon MarylesRead More
Current Translation
English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel SteinsaltzRead More
For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Bava Kamma 18a:1 with About (sefaria.org)
18a
בְּהִתִּיז צְרוֹרוֹת, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
The dispute concerns a case where the chicken propelled pebbles from underfoot as it was hopping, and it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis, cited earlier, that the tanna’im in the baraita disagree. One tanna holds that the owner pays the full cost of the damage for pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, and the other tanna holds that its owner pays half the cost of the damage.
תָּא שְׁמַע: תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְחַטְּטִין בְּחֶבֶל דְּלִי, וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנִשְׁבַּר הַדְּלִי – מְשַׁלְּמִין נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן! תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַחֶבֶל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional attempt to resolve the dilemma from a baraita: In a case where chickens were pecking at the rope tied to a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket fell and broke, the owner of the chickens pays the full cost of the damage. Conclude from the baraita that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage in determining liability for damage. The Gemara rejects this conclusion, and one cannot adduce proof from the baraita. Interpret instead that the reference in the baraita is to the damage caused to the rope, while the owner pays only half the cost of the damage for breaking the bucket.
וְהָא חֶבֶל מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא! דְּמָאוּס בְּלִישָׁה: וְהָא ״נִשְׁבַּר דְּלִי״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא, דְּאָמַר: צְרוֹרוֹת – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t eating a rope atypical behavior for a chicken, and therefore it should be classified within the primary category of Goring, not the primary category of Eating? Why then must the owner of the chicken pay the full cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The reference in the baraita is to a case where the rope was filthy [ma’us] with kneaded dough, and in those circumstances it is typical for a chicken to peck at it. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach in the baraita: And the bucket broke, indicating that the dispute is with regard to damage done to the bucket, not to the rope? The Gemara explains: Rather, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says: In the case of pebbles propelled by an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.
אִי סוֹמְכוֹס, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִיתַּז מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁבֶר, וְנָפַל עַל כְּלִי אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרָהּ – עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק. וְאִי סוֹמְכוֹס, מִי אִית לֵיהּ חֲצִי נֶזֶק?
The Gemara asks: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, say the latter clause of the baraita: If a shard was propelled from the bucket broken by a chicken and it fell upon another vessel and broke it, the owner of the chicken pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, and half the cost of the damage for the second one. And if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, is he of the opinion that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles?
וְכִי תֵּימָא שָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְסוֹמְכוֹס בֵּין נֶזֶק כֹּחוֹ לְכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ; וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ לְסוֹמְכוֹס, כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי אוֹ לָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי?
And if you would say that there is a difference, according to Sumakhos, between damage resulting from a force generated by the animal’s action, e.g., pebbles, and damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by its action, e.g., damage caused by the shard of the bucket, and in the latter case Sumakhos concedes that the owner pays half the cost of the damage, that would result in a difficulty. The Gemara asks: But what of this dilemma raised by Rav Ashi: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, what is the halakha with regard to damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by the animal’s action? Is the status of that secondary force like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action, in which case the owner is liable, or is its status not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action?
תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ דְּלָאו כְּכֹחוֹ דָּמֵי!
Why did Rav Ashi state his dilemma; why did he not resolve the dilemma and conclude that according to Sumakhos its status is not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action? Since Rav Ashi does not resolve the dilemma based on this baraita, apparently, Sumakhos does not distinguish between the two types of force.
אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן הִיא? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלִינַן!
The Gemara suggests: Rather, is it not so that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and conclude from the baraita that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage when determining one’s liability for the damage. Therefore, an owner is liable for any damage resulting from his animal’s typical behavior, and he pays the full cost of the damage done to the bucket even if the damage took place in another location.
אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: דְּקָאָזֵיל מִינֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: There is no proof from the baraita, as it could be explained that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the bucket is continually propelled from the impetus of the chicken, who caused the bucket to break. That is why the ruling in the baraita is that the owner of the chicken pays the full cost of the damage. The dilemma with regard to the case where an animal treads upon a vessel that rolls away and breaks elsewhere remains unresolved.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת – מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, אוֹ מֵעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם? מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם – דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן חֲצִי נֶזֶק דִּמְשַׁלֵּם מֵעֲלִיָּיה, אוֹ דִלְמָא מֵעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם – דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן כְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּמְשַׁלֵּם מִגּוּפֵיהּ?
§ Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to one’s liability to pay half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, does the owner of the animal pay restitution exclusively from the body of the animal, just as one pays half the cost of the damage caused by an innocuous ox with regard to damage categorized under the primary category of Goring? Or does he pay restitution from his superior-quality land, as he does for other forms of damage? The Gemara elaborates: Does he pay restitution exclusively from the body of the animal, as we do not find any case where one pays half the cost of the damage from his superior-quality land? Or perhaps he pays restitution from his superior-quality land, as we do not find any case where an animal causes damage in its typical manner where the owner pays restitution exclusively from the body of his animal?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הִידּוּס – אֵינוֹ מוּעָד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד. הִידּוּס סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא לָאו הִידּוּס וְהִתִּיז,
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: With regard to hopping, a chicken is not deemed forewarned. And some say that it is forewarned. The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Does it enter your mind to raise the possibility that a chicken is not forewarned with regard to hopping? Hopping is the typical manner of movement for chickens. Rather, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken was hopping and propelled pebbles that caused the damage?
וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ מוּעָד – קָסָבַר מִגּוּפוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּעָד – קָסָבַר מֵעֲלִיָּיה מְשַׁלֵּם?
And it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: The one who says that the chicken is not deemed forewarned holds that its owner pays restitution from the body of the animal, as is the halakha when an innocuous animal gores, while the one who says that the chicken is forewarned holds that he pays restitution from his superior-quality land, as is the halakha when a forewarned animal causes damage. According to this analysis, Rava’s dilemma is the subject of a tannaitic dispute.
לָא; בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
The Gemara rejects this: No, perhaps the dispute in the baraita is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis with regard to the legal status of damage caused by a force generated by the animal’s action. It is with regard to the similarity of damage caused by an action performed by an animal’s body to the case where the chicken was hopping and propelled pebbles that caused the damage that the tanna’im in the baraita disagree.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַכֶּלֶב שֶׁנָּטַל חֲרָרָה וְהָלַךְ לְגָדִישׁ, וְאָכַל הַחֲרָרָה וְהִדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ – עַל הַחֲרָרָה מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְעַל הַגָּדִישׁ מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from a mishna (21b): If the dog took a loaf [ḥarara] that was baking on hot coals and went to a stack of grain to eat the loaf, and the dog ate the loaf and ignited the stack of grain with one of the coals attached to the loaf, the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage for the damage to the loaf, as it is classified in the primary category of Eating, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the damage to the stack of grain. Rabbi Elazar says: He pays the full cost of the damage for the damage to the stack of grain as well.
מַאי טַעְמָא – לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא לְהוּ צְרוֹרוֹת? וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק – מִגּוּפוֹ!
What is the reason that the first tanna holds that the owner pays half the cost of the damage caused to the stack of grain? Is it not due to the fact that it is analogous to propelling pebbles, as the coal fell from the loaf held in its mouth and ignited the grain? And it is taught in a baraita in that regard that when the first tanna said that he pays half the cost of the damage, he pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his animal. Apparently, half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is paid from the body of the animal that caused the damage.
וְתִסְבְּרָא?! לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִגּוּפֵיהּ מִי אַשְׁכְּחַן?
The Gemara rejects this explanation: And can you understand the baraita in that way? According to that understanding, with regard to Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with the first tanna and holds that the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage caused to the grain, do we find anywhere that according to Rabbi Elazar one pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his animal?
אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהָא גַּחֶלֶת, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם.
Rather, the baraita can be explained in a case where the dog acted atypically with this coal with which he lit the stack of grain. Since the dog’s behavior was atypical, the damage is classified under the primary category of Goring, not under the category of Eating. And Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says in a mishna (24b): The halakha of Goring in the courtyard of the injured party is atypical, as there, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage, in contrast to half the cost of the damage that he pays when it transpires in the public domain. Nevertheless, since it was an innocuous animal that caused the damage, restitution is paid from its body.
וְלָא הִיא; מַאי טַעְמָא מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – מִשּׁוּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם?
The Gemara rejects that explanation: But that is not so. What is the reason that you interpreted that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? It is due to the difficulty presented by the halakha that he pays the full cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the animal, which would not be so according to Rabbi Elazar.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר כְּסוֹמְכוֹס, דְּאָמַר: צְרוֹרוֹת – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם; וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: צַד תַּמּוּת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת. וְכִי קָתָנֵי מִגּוּפוֹ – אַצַּד תַּמּוּת.
The Gemara suggests: There is an alternative explanation. Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says that one pays the full cost of the damage caused by pebbles, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says with regard to a forewarned ox: The aspect of innocuousness, which dictates that the owner pays half the cost of the damage from the body of the ox, remains intact. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the owner of a forewarned ox pays half the cost of the damage from the body of his ox and half the cost of the damage from his superior-quality land. And when the tanna of the baraita teaches that the owner pays restitution from the body of his animal, the reference is to the aspect of innocuousness, i.e., half the cost of the damage. He pays the other half from his superior-quality land as he would in the case of any forewarned animal.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבִינָא: אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בְּתָם וְנַעֲשָׂה מוּעָד; בְּמוּעָד מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ
Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda stated that the aspect of innocuousness remains intact with regard to damage categorized under the primary category of Goring, where the ox was initially innocuous and then became forewarned. In the case of propelled pebbles, which is a subcategory of Trampling, where the ox is forewarned from the outset,
18b
מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
did you hear him distinguish between the different parts of the payment? There is no aspect of innocuousness in the case of pebbles.
אֶלָּא כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם – כְּגוֹן דְּאִיַּיעַד; וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת.
Rather, when Rabbi Elazar says that the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage in a case that is similar to one of propelled pebbles, he was referring to a case where the owner of the animal was forewarned with regard to this matter. And they disagree about this point: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that there is forewarning with regard to propelling pebbles; therefore, if there was testimony given in court that a particular animal regularly propels pebbles in the course of its walking, the animal is deemed forewarned and its owner pays the full cost of the damage. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that there is no forewarning with regard to pebbles. Apparently, payment for damage caused by pebbles is paid from the body of the animal.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת, אוֹ אֵין הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת? אִי לְרַבָּנַן – אֵין הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת, אִי לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת!
The Gemara asks: But if this is the case, then the dilemma raised by Rava concerning whether there is forewarning for propelling pebbles or there is no forewarning for propelling pebbles, can be resolved from this dispute. If the dilemma is raised according to the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, there is no forewarning for propelling pebbles. If the dilemma is raised according to Rabbi Elazar, there is forewarning for propelling pebbles.
אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לִי לְדִידִי, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּסוֹמְכוֹס; אֲבָל הָכָא, בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן בֵּין לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – כְּסוֹמְכוֹס סְבִירָא לְהוּ, דְּאָמַר: צְרוֹרוֹת – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם.
The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: When I raise the dilemma, I do so specifically according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of pebbles; but here in this baraita, both the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, and Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says that in the case of pebbles, one pays the full cost of the damage.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן חֲצִי נֶזֶק – דְּשַׁנִּי וְלָא אִיַּיעַד; וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
And what is the reason that the Rabbis say that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of pebbles? It is that in the case of pebbles the animal acted atypically and was not forewarned. And in this baraita, concerning the dog that lit the stack of grain, the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis, i.e., the halakha in the case of damage caused by an innocuous ox on the property of the injured party.
אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם; מִגּוּפוֹ מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
The Gemara rejects the parallel between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. Say that you heard that according to Rabbi Tarfon the owner pays the full cost of the damage; but did you hear that according to Rabbi Tarfon restitution is paid only from the body of the animal that caused the damage?
אִין; מֵהֵיכָא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ – מִקֶּרֶן מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים;
The Gemara answers: Yes, Rabbi Tarfon holds that restitution is paid only from the body of the animal that caused the damage. From where does Rabbi Tarfon derive the halakha that when damage is caused by an innocuous ox on the property of the injured party its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage and not merely half? He derives it via an a fortiori inference from damage categorized as Goring that is caused in the public domain, as explained in the mishna (24b).
דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.
His ruling is based on the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, i.e., a halakha derived from an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the source of that derivation. Since restitution for damage categorized as Goring that is caused in the public domain is paid only from the body of the damaging animal, the same is true with regard to restitution for damage categorized as Goring that is caused on the property of the injured party.
וְהָא רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ ״דַּיּוֹ״!
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it clear from that mishna that Rabbi Tarfon does not accept the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, as, if he accepted that principle, not only would he hold that payment is only from the body of the animal, he would also require payment of half the cost of the damage.
כִּי לֵית לֵיהּ ״דַּיּוֹ״ – הֵיכָא דְּמִפְּרִיךְ קַל וָחוֹמֶר; הֵיכָא דְּלָא מִפְּרִיךְ קַל וָחוֹמֶר – אִית לֵיהּ ״דַּיּוֹ״.
The Gemara answers: He does not reject the principle. When he does not accept the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, it is in a case where the result of rejecting the principle is that the a fortiori inference is refuted. But in a case where the result of rejecting the principle is that the a fortiori inference is not refuted, but will be applied in a more limited fashion, he accepts the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. Therefore, in this case the payment of the full cost of the damage, which is derived by means of the a fortiori inference, is paid only from the body of the animal based on the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source.
גּוּפָא – בָּעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת, אוֹ אֵין הַעֲדָאָה לִצְרוֹרוֹת? לְקֶרֶן מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא תּוֹלָדָה דְרֶגֶל הוּא?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, cited earlier. Rava raises a dilemma: Is there forewarning for propelling pebbles, so that the owner would pay the full cost of the damage if he had been fore-warned three times, or is there no forewarning for propelling pebbles, and he will always pay half the cost of the damage? The Gemara elaborates: Do we liken the case of propelled pebbles to damage categorized as Goring? Accordingly, when an innocuous ox causes damage by propelling pebbles its owner pays half the cost of the damage, and when a forewarned ox does so the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Or perhaps, is it a subcategory of the primary category of Trampling, which is deemed forewarned from the outset? Accordingly, the owner would always pay half the cost of the damage, as there is no change in status after the third warning.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הִידּוּס – אֵינוֹ מוּעָד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּעָד. הִידּוּס סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא הִידּוּס וְהִתִּיז.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution of this dilemma from a baraita: With regard to hopping, a chicken is not deemed forewarned. And some say that it is forewarned. The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Does it enter your mind to raise the possibility that a chicken is not forewarned with regard to hopping? Hopping is the typical manner of movement for chickens. Rather, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken was hopping and propelled pebbles that caused damage?
מַאי, לָאו כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי – וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין הַעֲדָאָה? לָא, בְּחַד זִימְנָא; וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
What, is it not referring to a case where the chicken has done so three times? And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles. According to this analysis, Rava’s dilemma is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken hopped only one time. And the tanna’im disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis, concerning the compensation for damage caused by pebbles.
תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהֵטִילָה גְּלָלִים לְעִיסָּה, רַב יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: חֲצִי נֶזֶק. מַאי, לָאו כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי – וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר יֵשׁ הַעֲדָאָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין הַעֲדָאָה?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution to the dilemma from an amoraic dispute: If an animal dropped excrement onto dough and damaged it, Rav Yehuda says: The owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage, and Rabbi Elazar says: He pays half the cost of the damage. What, is it not referring to a case where the animal has done so three times? And it is with regard to this that they disagree, as one Sage holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles.
לָא; בְּחַד זִימְנָא, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי. וְהָא מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא! דִּדְחִיק לֵיהּ עָלְמָא.
The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the animal dropped excrement only one time. And the tanna’im disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis, concerning compensation for damage caused by pebbles. The Gemara asks: But isn’t this atypical behavior of the animal, and since all behavior that deviates from the norm is classified within the category of Goring, the owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The case is one where the animal was forced into a narrow place and had no alternative to relieving itself onto the dough; therefore, it does not constitute atypical behavior.
וְלֵימָא רַב יְהוּדָה: הֲלָכָה כְּסוֹמְכוֹס, וְלֵימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּנַן! גְּלָלִים אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּבָתַר גּוּפֵיהּ גְּרִירִין – כְּגוּפֵיהּ דָּמֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: But if the amoraic dispute parallels the tannaitic dispute, let Rav Yehuda say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, and let Rabbi Elazar say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, instead of stating their dispute in the context of the particular case of the animal and the dough. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for them to state their dispute in this case, as there is a novel element concerning excrement. It would enter your mind to say: Since the excrement is drawn after the body of the animal, its legal status is like that of damage caused by its body, not like pebbles propelled by the animal. Therefore, their stating the dispute with regard to excrement teaches us that its status is like that of propelling pebbles. Therefore, the dispute between Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar can be explained as parallel to the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis with regard to pebbles.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: תַּרְנְגוֹל שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט רֹאשׁוֹ לַאֲוִיר כְּלִי זְכוּכִית, וְתָקַע בּוֹ וּשְׁבָרוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב: סוּס שֶׁצָּנַף וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁנָּעַר, וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: In the case of a rooster that extended its head into the airspace of a glass vessel and crowed in the vessel and broke it with the sound waves, its owner pays the full cost of the damage. And Rav Yosef said that the Sages from the school of Rav say: If a horse neighed or a donkey brayed and the sound waves broke vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. These are cases similar to the case of pebbles, and there is a dispute between the Sages with regard to these cases.
מַאי, לָאו כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי –
What, is it not referring to a case where the rooster or animal has done so three times?
Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:3
Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015
About This Text
Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim
Talmud
Kilayim (“Mixtures”) is a tractate in Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) that discusses biblical prohibitions of mixed species, based in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. These include planting certain mixtures of seeds, grafting different species of trees, growing plants other than grapevines in a vineyard, crossbreeding animals, working certain animals together, and mixing wool and linen in clothing.
Composed: Talmudic Israel (c.375 – c.425 CE)נוצר/נערך: ישראל התלמודית (375 – 425 לספירה בקירוב)
Current Version
Current Translation
Source: nli.org.il
Digitization: Sefaria
License: CC-BY
Revision History
For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:3 with About (sefaria.org)
MISHNAH: It is permitted that a vertex of vegetables enter a field of other vegetables, since it is visibly the end of its field. If one’s field was sown with vegetables and he wants to plant in it a row of a different vegetable, Rebbi Ismael says, not unless he has an open furrow from one end of the field to the other. Rebbi Aqiba says, a length of six hand-breadths for a full width. Rebbi Jehudah says, the width must be the width of the sole of a foot.
HALAKHAH: “A vertex, etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.
What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows, not so much more? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width.
Samuel said, they taught only one row, hence two are forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say that there is no difference between one and two rows.
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six.
Rebbi Ḥuna said, what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? (Deut. 11:10) “That you irrigated with your feet as in a vegetable garden.” What is the measure of a foot sole? A hand-breadth.
We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.
Beit Yisrael International.
And…… to all Jews and Ephraimites:
For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 3:3 with About (sefaria.org)
3:3
משנה: הָיָה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר יֶרֶק וְנִכְנַס לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה יֶרֶק אַחֵר מוּתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ. הָֽיְתָה שָׂדֵהוּ זְרוּעָה יֶרֶק וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לִיטַּע בְּתוֹכָהּ שׁוּרָה שֶׁל יֶרֶק אַחֵר. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַתֶּלֶם מְפוּלָּשׁ מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׂדֶה וְעַד רֹאשׁוֹ. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אוֹרֶךְ שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים וְרוֹחַב מְלוֹאוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר רוֹחַב כִּמְלוֹא רוֹחַב הַפַּרְסָה.
MISHNAH: It is permitted that a vertex of vegetables enter a field of other vegetables, since it is visibly the end of its field. If one’s field was sown with vegetables and he wants to plant in it a row of a different vegetable, Rebbi Ismael says, not unless he has an open furrow from one end of the field to the other. Rebbi Aqiba says, a length of six hand-breadths for a full width. Rebbi Jehudah says, the width must be the width of the sole of a foot.
הלכה: הָיָה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר כו׳. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵעַ לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.
HALAKHAH: “A vertex, etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.
מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרוֹחַב. מַה אִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה חוֹבֵשׁ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת. אִית לֵיהּ רוֹחַב מְלוֹאוֹ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁהוּא חוֹבֵשׁ בִּשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּשׁוּרָה שֶׁיֶּרֶק בִּשְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה. מַה אִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּהוּא מֵיקִל הָכָא הוּא מַחְמִיר תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּהוּא מַחְמִיר הָכָא לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן דְּיַחְמִיר תַּמָּן. לֹא צוּרְכָא דְּלֹא מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תַּמָּן בְּרוֹחַב. כְּמַה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרוֹחַב.
What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows, not so much more? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שׁוּרָה אַחַת הָא שְׁתַּיִם אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן אָֽמְרֵי לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא אַחַת הִיא שְׁתַּיִם.
Samuel said, they taught only one row, hence two are forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say that there is no difference between one and two rows.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר מוּתָּר לְהַבְקִיעַ אַרְבַּע שׁוּרוֹת בְּבִקְעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת נִידּוֹנוֹת כַּעֲרוּגָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא וּבִלְבַד שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה.
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six.
אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וְהִשְׁקִיתָ בְרַגְלְךָ כְּגַן הַיָּרָק. וְכַמָּה הִיא שִׁיעוּרָהּ שֶׁל פַּרְסָה טְפַח.
Rebbi Ḥuna said, what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? (Deut. 11:10) “That you irrigated with your feet as in a vegetable garden.” What is the measure of a foot sole? A hand-breadth.
תַּנִּינָן הָכָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אִילּוּ תַנִּיתָהּ הָכָא וְלֹא תַנִּיתָהּ תַּמָּן הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין מַה אִין רִבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּהוּא מַחְמִר הָכָא מֵיקִל תַּמָּן. רַבָּנָן דְּאִילֵּין מֵקִילִין הָכָא לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן יָקִילוּן תַּמָּן. הֲוֵי צוּרְכָא מַתְנֵי תַּמָּן. אוֹ אִילּוּ תַנִּיתָהּ תַּמָּן וְלֹא תַנִּיתָהּ הָכָא. הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין מַה אִין רַבָּנִן דְּאִינּוּן מַחְמִרִין תַּמָּן אִינּוּן מֵקִילִין הָכָא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּהוּא מֵיקִל תַּמָּן לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן דְּיָקִיל הָכָא. הֲוֵי צוּרְכָא מַתְנֵי הָכָא וְצוּרְכָא מַתְנֵי תַּמָּן.
We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.
Beit Yisrael International.
Become a member.
Get the Membership from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic Noahite/Lost Tribes of Efrayim /‘Ger Toshav ‘) click: Beit yisrael international
Get the Membership from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic Noahite/Lost Tribes of Efrayim /‘Ger Toshav ‘) click: Beit yisrael international
Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak
A must read and guiding line: To go through every step, of the 42 steps in our diaspora until we reach Eretz Yisrael, the unification of Yehuda and Ephraim, when the Jews start to build The Temple and Restoring her Temple Service. It is for all Beit Yisrael International members the way to go.
click:
A must read and guiding line: To go through every step, of the 42 steps in our diaspora until we reach Eretz Yisrael, the unification of Yehuda and Ephraim, when the Jews start to build The Temple and Restoring her Temple Service. It is for all Beit Yisrael International members the way to go.
click:
42 Journeys of the Soul
The Messianic age will elevate the entire universe, including all the spiritual realms.
Don't make dogma's out of it. But elevate your souls by learning the Mitzvot surrounded by the Jewish Halakhot.
And the teachings of Chassidut by the Chassidim.
That we may hold on the 'right understanding' in our 'travel' through the 'dessert' our 'diaspora':
click:
And the teachings of Chassidut by the Chassidim.
What Is Kabbalah?
The Soul of Judaism
By Tzvi Freeman
Click:
What Is Chassidut?
Teachings from the core essence
Click:
Click:
What Is Chabad?
Do-It-Yourself Judaism
Click:
Click:
What Is a Tzaddik?
Being human all the way
The Tzaddik HaDor
And…… to all Jews and Ephraimites:
Pirkei Avot 6:10
Dr. Joshua Kulp
חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:
Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).
I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:
Zechariah 8:23
23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."
כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם:
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred.
עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו':
That may come in fulfillment in our days:
Our souls are bearing the ‘sparks’ (divine aspects) of Messiah.It is forbidden to pray to bow down to any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or before any image or to lift up a human being as a god…… or to put any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or any image before or instead or between HaShem and us. ('It suf')“The redemption will come about only through the study of the Torah. And the essential redemption depends upon the study of the Kabbalah” According to: R. ELIYAHU, THE VILNA GAON (Evven Shelemah (a ‘complete, without defect stone’) 11:3)When Yehuda and Ephraim come to unity (again) Messiah Ben Joseph 'died' and Messiah Ben David shall be revealed and anointed by the Israeli people as the Messiah-King of Israel. As YeshaYahu is teaching:Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.and He shall lead: the exiles within it.with shoes: on dry land.16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.
Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say: "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………
Read my story:
Dr. Joshua Kulp
חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:
Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).
I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:
Zechariah 8:23
23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." | | כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם: |
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred. | | עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו': |
That may come in fulfillment in our days:
Our souls are bearing the ‘sparks’ (divine aspects) of Messiah.
It is forbidden to pray to bow down to any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or before any image or to lift up a human being as a god…… or to put any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or any image before or instead or between HaShem and us. ('It suf')
“The redemption will come about only through the study of the Torah. And the essential redemption depends upon the study of the Kabbalah” According to: R. ELIYAHU, THE VILNA GAON (Evven Shelemah (a ‘complete, without defect stone’) 11:3)
When Yehuda and Ephraim come to unity (again) Messiah Ben Joseph 'died' and Messiah Ben David shall be revealed and anointed by the Israeli people as the Messiah-King of Israel. As YeshaYahu is teaching:
Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.
Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.
10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.
Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.
11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.
Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.
and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.
And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.
12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.
13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.
Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.
14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.
Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.
and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.
15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.
Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.
over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.
with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”
into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.
and He shall lead: the exiles within it.
with shoes: on dry land.
16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.
Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.
Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say: "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………
Read my story:
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
click: Welcome To Beit Yisrael
click: Welcome To Beit Yisrael
Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel), Meditate and Realization of Chassidut Torah Teachings – The Strong foundation is based on Chabad teachings ( i.e The purpose of creation is to Bringing Heavens Down to Earth and to make Most High a dwelling place here on earth) and its pillars is based on the true concept of the Breslov Teachings ( in the context of Seventh Pillar of Tzaddik ) by following the Jewish Halacha Principles of Shulchan Aruch Halacha.
Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel), Meditate and Realization of Chassidut Torah Teachings – The Strong foundation is based on Chabad teachings ( i.e The purpose of creation is to Bringing Heavens Down to Earth and to make Most High a dwelling place here on earth) and its pillars is based on the true concept of the Breslov Teachings ( in the context of Seventh Pillar of Tzaddik ) by following the Jewish Halacha Principles of Shulchan Aruch Halacha.
When you give to Sefaria, you’re powering a living library of more than 3,000 years of Jewish texts. Donate today and support the future of Jewish learning, innovation, and conversation.
CHABAD LUBAVITCHAbout Chabad-LubavitchThe RebbeThe OhelChabad-Lubavitch NewsChabad Locator
When you give to Sefaria, you’re powering a living library of more than 3,000 years of Jewish texts. Donate today and support the future of Jewish learning, innovation, and conversation.
CHABAD LUBAVITCH
About Chabad-LubavitchThe RebbeThe OhelChabad-Lubavitch NewsChabad Locator
Donate to ChaBaD
click:
click:
LEARN HOW TO READ THE BIBLE IN HEBREW ONCE AND FOR ALL
click:
click:
Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!
It should be most honest:'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims
Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!
It should be most honest:
'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims
**AMIT HALEVI'S PLAN WOULD GIVE MUSLIMS CONTROL OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT COMPLEX, WHICH CONTAINS THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE, WHILE JEWS WOULD RECEIVE THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN AREAS.
(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”
Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃
No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another; גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃
if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt— וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃
then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**
A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.
Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.
According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.
“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.
Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.
“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.
In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.
“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”
Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?
כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃
No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another;
גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃
if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt—
וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃
then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
Comments
Post a Comment