חגיגה 16:1 — Soncino English Talmud

— By what Biblical exposition was he able to learn this? Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said that R. Johanan said: And He came from the myriads holy — He is the Sign among His myriad. And R. Abbahu said: He is preeminent above ten thousand — He is the Example among His myriad. And Resh Lakish said: The Lord of hosts is His names — He is the Lord among His host. — And R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: But the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was ‘not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And behold, the Lord passed by. Our Rabbis taught: Six things are said concerning demons: in regard to three, they are like the ministering angels; and in regard to three, like human beings. ‘In regard to three they are like the ministering angels’: they have wings like the ministering angels; and they fly from one end of the world to the other like the ministering angels; and they know what will happen like the ministering angels. [You say], ‘They know’ — you cannot mean that! — Rather, they hear from behind the Veil like the ministering angels. ‘And in regard to three, they are like human beings’: they eat and drink like human beings; they propagate like human beings; and they die like human beings. Six things are said of human beings: in regard to three, they are like the ministering angels, and in regard to three, they are like beasts. ‘In regard to three, they are like the ministering angels’: they have understanding like the ministering angels; and they walk erect like the ministering angels; and they can talk in the holy tongue like the ministering angels. ‘In regard to three, they are like beasts’: they eat and drink like beasts; and they propagate like beasts, and they relieve themselves like beasts. WHOSOEVER SPECULATES UPON FOUR THINGS, IT WERE A MERCY IF HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD etc. Granted as regards what is above, what is beneath, what [will be] after, that is well. But as regards what was before — what happened, happened! — Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish say: It is like a human king who said to his servants: Build for me a great palace upon the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It is not the king's wish [thenceforth] to have the name of the dunghill mentioned. WHOSOEVER TAKES NO THOUGHT FOR THE HONOUR OF HIS MAKER, IT WERE A MERCY IF HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD. What does this mean? R. Abba said: It refers to one who looks at the rainbow. R. Joseph said: It refers to one who commits transgression in secret. ‘One who looks at a rainbow’, for it is written: As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. R. Joseph said: ‘It refers to one who commits a transgression in secret’, in accordance with R. Isaac's teaching. For R. Isaac said: When anyone commits a transgression in secret, it is as though he thrust aside the feet of the Divine Presence, for it is said: Thus saith the Lord: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. But is this so? For behold R. Elai the elder said: If a man sees that his [evil] inclination is prevailing upon him, let him go to a place where he is not known, and put on black garments, and wrap himself up in black garments, and let him do what his heart desires; but let him not profane the Name of Heaven publicly! — There is no contradiction. The one case speaks of one who is able to overcome his [evil] inclination; the other case of one who is not able to overcome his [evil] inclination. R. Judah b. R. Nahmani, the speaker of Resh Lakish expounded: Anyone who looks at three things, his eyes become dim; at the rainbow, and at the Prince, and at the priests. At the rainbow, because it is written: As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain . . . This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. At the Prince, for it is written: And thou shalt put of thy honour upon him. One who looks at the priests — at the time when the Temple existed, when they stood upon their platform and blessed Israel with the Distinguished Name [of God]. R. Judah son of R. Nahmani, the speaker of Resh Lakish expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a familiar friend. If the evil inclination say to thee: Sin and the Holy One, blessed be He, will pardon, believe it not, for it is said: ‘Trust ye not in a friend’, and ‘friend’ [Rea’] means none other than one's evil inclination, for it is said: For the inclination of man's heart is evil [Ra’]. And ‘familiar friend’ means none other than the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said: Thou art the familiar friend of my youth. Perhaps thou wilt say: Who testifies against me? The stones of a man's home and the beams of his house testify against him, for it is said: For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it. But the Sages say: A man's soul testifies against him, for it is said: Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. What is it that lies in a man's bosom? You must say, it is the soul. R. Zerika said: Two ministering angels that accompany him testify against him, for it is said: For He will give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. But the Sages say: A man's limbs testify against him, for it is said: Therefore ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and I am God. MISHNAH. JOSE B. JO'EZER SAYS THAT [ON A FESTIVAL-DAY] THE LAYING ON OF HANDS [ON THE HEAD OF A SACRIFICE] MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; JOSEPH B. JOHANAN SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. JOSHUA B. PERAHIA SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT RE PERFORMED; NITTAI THE ARBELITE SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. JUDAH B. TARBAI SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; SIMEON A. SHETAH SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. SHEMAIAH SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED; ABTALION SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED. HILLEL AND MENAHEM DID NOT DIFFER. MENAHEM WENT FORTH, SHAMMAI ENTERED. SHAMMAI SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; HILLEL SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED.^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^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘what did he expound’? i.e., from which verse did R. Akiba learn to distinguish God's Presence so as to avoid Aher's error of dualism, or (according to another interpretation of Rashi) so as not to look in the direction of the Shechinah (Divine Presence)?
^ᵇnote:Deut. XXXIII, 2.
^ᶜnote:v,tu (‘and He came’) is explained as v,tu (‘and His sign’). Jast. translates: ‘He is the ensign among his myriad’. Goldschmidt: ‘He is distinguished among his myriads’.
^ᵈnote:Cant. V, 10.
^ᵉnote:Heb. tndus. There is a play here on the text vccrn kuds (‘pre-eminent among the thousand’) from which tndus is derived. The expositions of the different Rabbis have the common object of showing that God's Presence could be distinguished from his myriad attendants; fine shades of difference are not necessarily to be sought. But for the thought underlying this particular homiletical play, cf. Lev. XIX, 2. Jast. translates: ‘He is exemplified by His myriad (of angels)’, i.e., the Divine nature is recognized indirectly from the nature of His ministering angels, v. Cant. Rab. to V, 9. But this seems hardly in keeping with the line of thought demanded by the context. Goldschmidt: ‘He is marked out among his myriads’.
^ᶠnote:Isa. XLVIII, 2.
^ᵍnote:1 Kings XIX, 11, 12. Thus the Divine Presence could be distinguished from the rest of the theophany.
^ʰnote:.Ibid. v. 11; in the Bible this clause precedes the previous quotation.
^ⁱnote:V. J.E. vol. IV, pp. 514f, and Nachmanides on Lev. XVII, 7.
^ʲnote:Prescience is a divine attribute,
^ᵏnote:V. p. 95, n. 10.
^ˡnote:The power of learning to speak the Hebrew language is common to all men.
^ᵐnote:The wording here is slightly different from the Mishnah text (s.v.), but does not alter the meaning.
^ⁿnote:Cf. p. 59, n. 7 and Deut. XXXIII, 27.
^ᵒnote:I.e., in the hereafter.
^ᵖnote:I.e., it is no longer a secret.
^ᵠnote:The dunghill here represents the primordial chaos; the palace, ordered creation.
^ʳnote:Ezek. I, 28. Since the rainbow was symbolic of the Divine Glory, it was irreverent to gaze at it.
^ˢnote:Isa. LXVI, 1. But he that sins in secret denies this, for he implies that God has no access to his hiding-place.
^ᵗnote:In the hope that exile and mourning clothes (cf. Shab. 114a, Jannai's request) would cool his passion and cause him to abandon his wicked intention.
^ᵘnote:To produce a serious frame of mind; cf p. 88, n. 9.
^ᵛnote:I.e., should his passion remain unmastered, let him at least commit the sin in secret. But R. Hananel deprecates the thought that the Talmud permits sin even in such circumstances and interprets our passage thus: certainly the effect of exile and dark garments will be to conquer the man's evil inclination, so that he will then be able to do what his heart truly desires, i.e., serve God.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘bend’.
^ˣnote:Methurgeman. Lit., ‘interpreter’, used here in the sense of Amora, ‘speaker’; v. J.E. vol. VIII, p. 521.
^ʸnote:Heb. Nasi; v. infra p. 105, n. 6.
^ᶻnote:Ezek. I, 28.
^ᵃᵃnote:Num. XXVII, 20. Moses’ face could not be gazed at; v. Ex. XXXIV, 29-35. A part of Moses’ honour belonged not merely to Joshua but to every Jewish leader.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. J.E. vol. V, p. 9 (s.v. Dukan).
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., pronounced the Shem ha-meforash, the Tetragrammaton (vuvh), instead of the usual substitute hbst when uttering the sacerdotal blessing. Num. VI, 24-26. cf. Sot. VII, 6; and Sanh. 90a (Sonc. ed., p. 602). The exact meaning of the term Shem ha-meforash is obscure: v. Levy and Jast and J.E. vol. XI, pp. 262f. Tosaf, (a.l.) points out that outside the Temple too, e.g., in the provinces, it was forbidden to look at the priests during the pronouncement of the sacerdotal blessing, the reason according to the J.T. being to prevent the distraction of the people's attention.
^ᵃᵈnote:Mic. VII, 5.
^ᵃᵉnote:E.V. ‘imagination’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Gen. VIII, 21, Only the vowels differentiate gr(friend) from gr(evil).
^ᵃᵍnote:Jer. III, 4.
^ᵃʰnote:Hab. II, 11.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ps. XCI, 11.
^ᵃʲnote:In Ta'an. the reading is, ‘Some say’ = R. Nathan (v. Hor. 13b; cf. p. 14, n. 5).
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., ye yourselves (sc. your very bodies) testify to your own sins.
^ᵃˡnote:Isa. XLIII, 12.
^ᵃᵐnote:In Tem. 16a: Joseph b. Jo'ezer. For the successive generations of scholars mentioned here v. Aboth I, 4-12 (Sonc. ed., pp. 3-8 and nn. a.l.).
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. Lev, 1, 4.
^ᵃᵒnote:The same restrictions regarding work applied to Festival-days as to the Sabbath, except in respect of work essential to the preparation of food, which was permitted on the Festivals (v. Bez. V, 2). Now the ‘laying on of the hands’ had to be performed with all one's strength, so that the weight of the person was supported by the animal; and this was considered an infringement of the Sabbath rule not ‘to make use’ of an animal. The point of the controversy, therefore, is this: Had the laying on of the hands to be done immediately prior to the slaughter, and consequently could be regarded as essential to the preparation of food, i.e., the sacrificial meal; or could this be done on the preceding day, so that the profanation of the holyday by this act became unnecessary, although the slaughtering took place on the Festival day? V. Bez. II, 4 and Bertinoro a.l.
^ᵃᵖnote:In the J. Hag. II, 2 we are told: At first there was no controversy in Israel except over the laying on of the hands alone. But Shammai and Hillel arose and made them four (in Bab. Shab. 14b, only three points of dispute are mentioned; cf. Tosaf. to our passage). When the disciples of the School of Hillel increased, and they did not study sufficiently under their masters (lit., ‘did not sufficiently minister to their masters’), the controversies in Israel increased, and they became divided into two companies, the one declaring unclean, the other declaring clean. And (the Torah) will not again return to its (uncontroversial) place until the son of David (i.e., the Messiah) will come. For the meaning and importance of this controversy v. further Weiss, Dor I, 103f; Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam pp. 43-44; Jacob Levi, in Ozar Nehmod III, Vienna 1860. [The controversy has also been ingeniously interpreted as referring to the question of ‘acceptance of authority’ and not the laying on of hands. V. Zeitlin, JQR, (N.S.) VII, pp. 499ff; Sidon A, Gedenkbuck Kaufmann, pp. 355ff and Bornstein, A. Hatekufah IV, p. 396.]
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., of Arbel, on the borders of Lake Galilee. V. Ab. I, 6 (Sonc. ed., p. 5, n. 3.).
^ᵃʳnote:This pair is exceptional in so far as the first Sage permits and the second prohibits.
^ᵃˢnote:V. p. 108.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., in the former's place as Head of the Court.