חגיגה 14:2 — Soncino English Talmud

the one [verse] refers to religious matters, the other to business. In regard to religious matters, there were [honest men left]; in regard to business, there were no [honest men left]. Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He answered: Have I not taught you thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me. He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up, and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot’, and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? — Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah. An angel [then] answered from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot’. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’ — There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak hath come forth from thy loins. Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were going on a journey. They said: Let us also expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice; [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you; happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol was sent to us, [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples’ disciples are designated for the third class. But is this so? For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses: R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; — whereas R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak he does not count! — One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! — He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others]. Our Rabbis taught: Four men entered the ‘Garden’, namely, Ben ‘Azzai and Ben Zoma, Aher, and R. Akiba. R. Akiba said to them: When ye arrive at the stones of pure marble, say not, water, water! For it is said: He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes. Ben ‘Azzai cast a look and died. Of him Scripture says: Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. Ben Zoma looked and became demented. Of him Scripture says: Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it. Aher mutilated the shoots. R. Akiba departed unhurt. Ben Zoma was asked: Is it permitted to castrate a dog? He replied: Neither shall ye do this in your land, — [this means], to none that is in your land shall ye do thus. Ben Zoma was [further] asked: May a high priest marry a maiden who has become pregnant? Do we [in such a case] take into consideration Samuel's statement, for Samuel said,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘words of.the Torah’.
^ᵇnote:V. p. 59, n. 4.
^ᶜnote:Plural, i.e. R. Eleazar and his fellow-students.
^ᵈnote:The fact that R. Johanan b. Zakkai had in the past taught the ‘Chariot’ mysteries to R. Eleazar is difficult to reconcile with the former's present refusal to teach his disciple. It seems best to omit, with the J.T., the word rendered ‘which thou hast taught me’. For two suggested explanations, if this word is retained, v. Maharsha a.I.
^ᵉnote:I.e., put round him his tallith. The latter was a four-cornered garment (similar to the Roman pallium’) adorned with fringes (in accordance with Num. XV, 38f), which was worn in Talmudic times by scholars, distinguished persons, and those who led in prayers. Its use at prayers is still preserved, and has given rise to its popular designation of ‘prayer-shawl’. By wrapping himself in his tallith, R. Johanan b. Zakkai showed his sense of the holiness of the occasion. V. further J.E., vol. Xl, pp’ 67f and Elbogen, Der Jud, Gottesdienst pp. 499f.
^ᶠnote:Cf. p. 77, n. 9.
^ᵍnote:Var. lec.: covered; intertwined; hedged in,.
^ʰnote:Ps. CXLVIII, 7, 9, 14. This reference to trees is the clue which points to these verses as the trees’ psalm. The Jerusalem Talmud reads instead I Chron. XVI, 33.
^ⁱnote:Another reading has ‘angel of death’, which Tosaf. rejects.
^ʲnote:I.e., spoke with reference to R. Eleazar's exposition of the ‘Chariot’ mysteries.
^ᵏnote:For R. Johanan b. Zakkai's opinion of these two disciples and R. Eleazer v. Aboth, II, 8, 9.
^ˡnote:Being only two, they would not be infringing the Mishnah law concerning the study of the ‘chariot’ mysteries.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘the cycle of Tammuz’ (fourth month). On such a day the sky in Palestine should be cloudless.
^ⁿnote:Cf. Ezek. I, 28.
^ᵒnote:Heb. hyunzn. Levy deriving the word from the Greek ‘smiling’, especially ‘friendly smiling’, translates it, ‘Belustigungen’ (entertainments, merrymakings), which agrees with Rashi's explanation and the variant reading of the Jerusalem Talmud viz., ‘rejoicing’. Jast. gives the word a Hebrew origin (v.s.v.) and explains it to mean, music, sweet melodies’; he renders our passage — ‘the musical entertainments at a wedding.
^ᵖnote:I.e., your respective mothers; they were not brothers.
^ᵠnote:I.e. as at a banquet, when the guests used to recline on couches (cf. Ex. Rab 25).
^ʳnote:V. p. 73, n. 12.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘given upon us’.
^ᵗnote:Of the seven classes (v. Midr. Till. to Ps. XI, 7) admitted (after death) into God's presence.
^ᵘnote:I.e., that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak discoursed on the ‘Chariot’ mysteries before his master.
^ᵛnote:I.e., only in three instances did disciples discourse on the ‘Work of the Chariot’ before their teachers.
^ʷnote:Hanina b. Hakinai has to be mentioned on account of R. Akiba, to show that the latter not only discoursed himself but that also another discoursed before him; but R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak did not discourse before a teacher who in his turn discoursed before others, nor did any one discourse before him, hence he is not counted.
^ˣnote:Paradise, Heb. xsrp (cf. Cant. IV, 13, Eccl. II, 5, Neh. II, 8), ‘enclosure, preserve, garden, park’ (v. B. D. B. s.v.). L. Blau (Alitjudisches Zauberwesen, pp, 115f) seeks to prove that this account of the entry of the four Rabbis into Paradise is to be understood literally (v. also J.E. vol. V, p. 683). This view is shared, among others, by J. Levy and L. Ginzberg (v. J.E. vol. V, pp. 138f). On the other hand, M. Jast. (Dictionary) and Goldschmidt consider ‘Pardes’ a figurative expression for the mystical realm of theosophy. Rashi explains that the four scholars ascended to heaven, and Tosaf. adds that it only appeared to them that they did so. Similarly, R. Hai Gaon, who discusses the whole Baraitha in a responsum (quoted by Ha-Kotheb in ‘Ein Jacob), and R. Hananel explain that the entry of the Rabbis into the ‘Garden’ was only a vision. Both these authorities refer to the comment on the passage contained in the mystical works ‘Hekaloth Rabbathi’ and ‘Hekaloth Zutarthi’ (v. J.E. vol. VI, pp. 332-3). V. further J.E. vol. IX, pp. 515f.
^ʸnote:V. Ab. IV, 2, (Sonc. ed., p. 44, n. 1).
^ᶻnote:V. ibid. Mishnah I, (Sonc. ed., P 43, n. 1).
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit. ‘another’, by which tern, Elisha b. Abuyah is referred to after his apostasy. V. J.E. vol. V, pp. 138f, and Ab. IV, 20 (Sonc. ed., p. 55 n. 1, where instead of ‘disciple of R. Meir’, read ‘teacher of R. Meir’). Cf. also the term ‘Others’ supra p. 14.
^ᵃᵇnote:Giving the illusion of water.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., how can we proceed!
^ᵃᵈnote:Ps. CI, 7.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ibid. CXVI, 15.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘stricken’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Prov. XXV, 16,
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., apostatized. Scholars differ greatly regarding the nature of Aher's defection: he has been variously described as a Persian, Gnostic or Philonian dualist; as a Christian; as a Sadducee; and as a ‘victim of the inquisitor Akiba’, in J.E., V. 183 and bibliography.
^ᵃⁱnote:Castrated animals may not be offered as sacrifices (v. n. 12,); therefore castration is forbidden in the case of animals of the type that can be offered up. But a dog may not only not be offered itself, but even its price or equivalent may not be used for offerings (v. Tem. 30a-b). Hence the question whether the prohibition of castration applies even to a dog. Cf. also Shab. 111a.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. XXII, 24. The beginning of the verse reads: ‘That which hath its stones bruised . . . or cut, ye shalt not offer unto the Lord’.
^ᵃᵏnote:l.e., even an animal like the dog, which cannot be offered as a sacrifice, may not be mutilated.
^ᵃˡnote:The high priest may marry a virgin only (v. Lev. XXI, 13). The question here is: If the girl claims that despite her pregnant condition she is still a virgin, may the high priest marry her? Or if he married her without knowing of her pregnancy and actually found her to have the signs of virginity, but subsequently learnt that she was pregnant before marriage, may she remain his wife?