Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 5

TRACT SABBATH. 191 leprous. So said R. Aqiba. Said to him R. Jehudah b. Ba- thyra: " Aqiba! Whether your statement be true or false, you will have to answer for it at the divine judgment ; for if it be true, you disclosed a thing the Scriptures desired to conceal, and thus you brought infamy upon Aaron, and if it be false, you slandered a man who was upright." But the Scriptures say: " And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them.'' This signifies only that Aaron was included among those against whom the anger of the Lord was kindled. We have learned in a Boraitha according to the opinion of R, Aqiba:" Aaron also became leprous, as it is written: ' And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold she was leprous,' which implies that at the moment when he turned toward Miriam he was cured of his leprosy and perceived it in Miriam." Said Resh Lakish : He who suspects an innocent man is pun- ished in the flesh, as it is written [Ex. iv. i] : " But behold, they will not believe me," and it was known to the Holy One, blessed be He, that Israel will believe, and the Lord said unto Moses: " They are believers and they are children of believers, but thou, I know, wilt finally not believe." They are believers, as it is written [ibid. iv. 31]: "And the people believed." They are children of believers, as it is written [Gen. xv. 6] : " And he believed in the Lord." Thou wilt finally not believe, as it is written [Numb. xx. 12] : " Moses and Aaron, because ye have not confided in me; " and whence do we know that he was punished in the flesh, as it is written [Ex. iv. 6]: "And the Lord said furthermore unto him. Do put thy hand into thy bosom ; and he put his hand into his bosom ; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, white as snow." Rabha said, according to others, R. Jose b. Hanina: Reward for merit, destined for a man, comes to him more quickly and in a greater degree than retribution for wickedness, for in the case of Moses we see it written [Exod. iv. 6]: "And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, white as snow." But the reward was, as it is writ- ten [ibid. 7], " And when he pulled it out of his bosom, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh." The reason that the verse repeats " pulled it out of his bosom,'' is to show, that the hand had become cured w^hile in the bosom (and thus the reward was given more quickly and effectively). It is written [Ex. vii. 12]: "Aaron's staff swallowed up their staves." Said R. Elazar: " This was a miracle within a miracle, for Aaron's stafT 192 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. did not swallow up the staves (of the Egyptian magicians), which had become serpents, while it was itself a serpent, but after it was become a staff again." " From private ground into private ground,'' etc. Rabha propounded a question: " Shall we assume that the point of difference is in the opinion relating to whether the surrounding of a thing by the atmosphere of a certain place makes the thing equal to being deposited in that place or not ? " And if this is the point of difference, it must follow that the Mishna treats of a case where the object thrown was at no time above ten spans from the ground (because above ten spans no public ground exists). Those who deem it a culpable act, do so, because they hold that the object, being surrounded by the air of the public ground, through which it passed, makes it equal to being deposited therein, while those who do not deem it a culpable act are not of this opinion ; but if the object thrown was above ten spans from the ground, do both sides agree that the thrower is not culpable ? Or shall we assume that both sides do not differ as to the object thrown being equal to being deposited in the place, the atmosphere of which surrounded it, agreeing that such is the case; but their point of difference is as to whether throwing is equal to transfer or not ? He who holds that the thrower is culpable does so because he considers throwing equal to transfer by hand, and as transfer makes a man culpable, even if it was accomplished above ten spans from the ground. It also applies to throwing; but he who holds that the thrower is not culpable, does so because he does not consider throwing equal to transfer by hand. And the case treated of by the Mishna is one where the throwing was done above ten spans from the ground? Said R. Joseph: This question was also propounded by R. Hisda, and R. Hamnuna decided it from the following Boraitha: " From private into private ground, by way of public ground itself, R. Aqiba makes him culpable, but the sages declare him free." Now, if he says, " by way of public ground itself,'" it implies that it was below ten spans from the ground. Let us then see wherein was the difference of opinion. Shall we say that it was a case of transfer by hand and still the one who holds him culpable does so because it was below ten spans, but if it was above ten spans he would concede that he was not culpable ? How can this be ? Did not R. Elazar say: He who transfers a burden above ten spans from the ground is culpable, because thus were burdens transferred by the sons of TRACT SABBATH. 193 Kehath " ? Therefore we must assume that the Boraitha treats of a case of throwing and not of transfer by hand, and hence one holds, that an object surrounded by the atmosphere of a certain place below ten spans from the ground is equal to an object deposited in that place, while the other holds that such is not the case. Conclude then from this that the Mishna treats of a case where the throwing was done below ten spans from the ground. The above teaching, however, is not in accord with the opin- ion of R. Elazar, for he said : R. Aqiba makes the thrower cul- pable even when the throwing was done above ten spans from the ground; but for what purpose does the Boraitha state " pub- lic ground itself ? Merely to show the firmness of the rabbis in declaring one free, even when he transferred a thing by hand through public ground. All that was said above is contrary to the opinion of R. Helkiah b. Tubhi, because he said: " If the throwing was below three spans from the ground, all agree that the thrower is culpa- ble; if above ten spans, all agree that he is not culpable; but if the throwing was done between three and ten spans above the ground, then the difference of opinion between R. Aqiba and the sages arises." We have learned in a Boraitha in support of R. Helkiah: " Below three all agree that one is culpable; above ten all agree (that only a rabbinical prohibition exists) as a pre- cautionary measure (because no Erubh was made).'- If the two premises belonged to the thrower, he may throw to start with.