Parallel
יומא 10
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
although God has enlarged Japheth, the Divine Presence rests only in the tents of Shem. Whence do we know that the Persians are derived from Japheth? — Because It is written: The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshek, and Tiras. ‘ Gomer’, i.e. Germania: ‘Magog’, i.e. Kandia; ‘Madai’, i.e. Macedonia; ‘Javan’, in its literal sense; ‘Tubal’ , i.e. Beth-Unyaki; ‘Meshek’, i.e. Mysia; ‘Tiras’ — its identification is a matter of dispute between R. Simai and the Rabbis, or, according to another report, between R. Simon and the Rabbis, one holding that it is to be identified with Beth Tiryaka, and the other [authorities] declaring it is Persia. R. Joseph learnt: ‘Tiras’ is Persia, Sabtah and Raamah, and Sabteca. R. Joseph learnt: I.e. the inner Sakistan and the outer Sakistan. Between the two there is [a distance] of one hundred parasangs and its circumference one thousand parasangs . And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. ‘Babel’ in its usual sense; ‘Erech’ ‘ i.e. Urikath; ‘Accad’, i.e. Baskar; ‘Calneh’, i.e. Nupar — Ninpi. Out of that land went Ashur. R. Joseph learnt: ‘Ashur’, i.e. Silok. And builded Nineveh and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah. ‘Nineveh in its usual Sense; ‘Rehoboth-ir , i.e. Perath of Meshan. ‘Calah’ i.e., Perath de Borsif. And Resen between Nineveh and Calah — the same is the great city. ‘Resen’, i.e., Ctesiphon. ‘The same is the great city’. [From here] I do not know yet whether by ‘the great city’ Nineveh or Resen is meant. But, as Scripture says, Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city unto God, of three days’ journey, say that by ‘the great city’ Nineveh is meant. And Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai the children of Anak, were there. A Tanna taught: ‘Ahiman’, i.e., the most skilful of the brethren; ‘Sheshai’, ie, he made the ground [he stepped on] like pits; ‘Talmai’, i.e.,he made the ground full of ridges. Another comment: Ahiman built Anath, Sheshai built Alush; Talmai built Talbush. [They were called] ‘the children of Anak’, because they lorded it over the sun by reason of their height. R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of Rabbi said: Rome is designed to fall into the hand of Persia, as it was said: Therefore hear ye the counsel of the Lord, that He hath taken against Edom; and His purposes that He hath purposed against the inhabitants of Teman: surely the least of the flock shall drag them away, surely their habitation shall be appalled to them. Rabbah b. ‘Ullah demurred to this: What intimation is there that ‘the last of the flock’ refers to Persia? [Presumably] because Scripture reads: The ram which thou sawest having two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia. But say [perhaps] it is Greece, for it is written, And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece? — When R. Habiba b. Surmaki came up, he reported this interpretation before a certain scholar. The latter said: One who does not understand the meaning of the passage asks a question against Rabbi. What does, indeed, ‘the least of the flock’ mean? The youngest of his brethren, for R. Joseph learnt that Tiras is Persia. Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, on the authority of R. Judah b. Ila'i, said: Rome is designed to fall into the hands of Persia, that may be concluded by inference a minori ad majus: If in the case of the first Sanctuary, which the sons of Shem [Solomon] built and the Chaldeans destroyed, the Chaldeans fell into the hands of the Persians, then how much more should this be so with the second Sanctuary, which the Persians built and the Romans destroyed, that the Romans should fall into the hands of the Persians. Rab said: Persia will fall into the hands of Rome. Thereupon R. Kahana and R. Assi asked of Rab: [Shall] the builders fall into the hands of the destroyers? — He said to them: Yes, it is the decree of the King. Others say: He replied to them: They too are guilty for they destroyed the synagogues. It has also been taught in accord with the above, Persia will fall into the hands of Rome, first because they destroyed the synagogues, and then because it is the King's decree that the builders fall into the hands of the destroyers. Rab also said: The son of David will not come until the wicked kingdom of Rome will have spread [its sway] over the whole world for nine months, as it is said: Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. Our Rabbis taught: All the cells in the Sanctuary were without a mezuzah with the exception of the cell of the counsellors, for therein there was a residence for the high priest. R. Judah said: Were there not a number of cells in the Sanctuary which had a compartment for a dwelling, yet had no mezuzah? Rather, the [reason for the] mezuzah on the cell of the counsellors was due to a preventive measure, What was the reason for R. Judah's statement? — Rabbah said, R. Judah is of the opinion, any house which is not made to serve both as a summer-home and a winter-home, is not a house. Abaye raised an objection: But it is written: And I will smite the winter-house with the summer-house! — He answered: They are called summer-house or winter-house, but not by the general name house. Abaye raised the following objection: ‘The sukkah used at the Feast [of Tabernacles] according to R. Judah renders [the fruit brought during the Feast] liable to tithe, whereas the Sages exempt it [from such duty]’; and it has been learnt in connection with it: R. Judah considers [a sukkah] liable to ‘erub, a mezuzah to tithe. And if you should say he considers it liable to these duties only on rabbinic enactment, that could apply to ‘erub and mezuzah, but as regards tithe, can one say that it is but a rabbinic enactment, [should we not fear]
—
that he may come to set aside tithe from where it is obligatory for where it is exempt and from where it is exempt for where it is obligatory? -Rather, said Abaye, there is no dispute concerning the seven days [of the separation], all agreeing that [the cell] is liable [to have a mezuzah]; what the dispute is concerned with is the other days of the year; the Rabbis would institute it as a precautionary measure on account of the seven days, whilst R. Judah does not see the need for such a measure. Raba said to him: But the teaching [of the Mishnah] reads, ‘The sukkah of the Feast during the Feast’! Therefore says Raba: On all other days of the year they all agree that there is no obligation [for a mezuzah at the sukkah and cell], the dispute touches only the seven days, and there is a special ground in the case of the sukkah and there is a special reason in the case of the cell. There is a special reason in the case of the sukkah: R. Judah, holding in accordance with his own principle, that the sukkah must have the character of a permanent residence, hence considers [the sukkah] is liable to a mezuzah, whilst the Rabbis, following their own principle, hold that the sukkah must have the character of an incidental residence, and hence requires no mezuzah. There is also a special reason for the dispute in the case of the cell [of the counsellors]; the Rabbis hold that a dwelling not freely chosen is called a dwelling whilst R. Judah is of the opinion that such dwelling is not included in the term dwelling; only rabbinically it was arranged that a mezuzah be affixed at the cell lest the people say the high priest is being kept in prison. Who has taught the following which our Rabbis have taught:
—