Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 70

Jupiter will be a righteous man, and R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said he will be very devout. One who is born under Mars will be a man who will shed blood. He will either be a surgeon or a robber, a butcher or a circumciser, said R. Ashi. Rabba said that he was born under Mars. Said Abayi to him: "Thou, Master, reprovest men, and whom thou reprovest, he dieth; hence thou, also, sheddest blood." It was taught: R. Hanina said: " One who is born under a lucky star may be either rich or wise, and the same thing applies to Israelites also." R. Johanan said: "An Israelite does not come under this fate"; and R. Johanan says this in accordance with his dictum elsewhere ; viz. : Whence do we know that the Israelites are not subject to fate ? Because it is written [Jeremiah x. 2]: "Thus hath said the Lord, Do not habituate yourselves in the way of the nations, and at the signs of the heavens be ye not dismayed, although the nations should be dismayed at them." So the nations may be dismayed at the signs of the heavens, but not the Israelites; and Rabh holds likewise, that the Israelites are not subject to fate. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh : Whence do we know that the Israelites are not subject to fate ? Because it is written [Gen- esis xv. 5]: "And he brought him forth abroad." Abraham said before the Holy One, blessed be He: " Creator of the Uni- verse, lo, one born in my house will be my heir " ; and the Lord answered: " He that shall come forth out of thy own bowels shall be thy heir" [Gen. xv, 4]. And Abraham said again : " Creator of the Universe! I have consulted my horoscope, and have found that I am not capable of having a son"; so the Lord said to him: " Away with thy horoscope ! An Israelite hath no fate! " Of Samuel it is also known, that he thought the Israelites had no destiny, for Samuel and Ablat were once sitting together, and some men went past a meadow, Ablat (who was an astrologer) said to Samuel, pointing to one of the men: " That man will not return. A snake will bite him and he will die." Said Sam- uel: "If he is an Israelite, he will come back." While they were talking, the man came back; so Ablat arose and»examined him, and he found a snake cut in two on the man's clothes. 374 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Said Samuel to the man : " What didst thou do to-day, that thou hast escaped death ?" The man answered: " It is our custom, when going out with a party of men, that we all contribute our share of victuals, and then have our meal in common. I knew that one of our party had no (bread) victuals, and not wishing to make him ashamed, I secured the basket to gather the food ; and when coming up to him I pretended to put in his share, but in reality put in mine, and thus he was not ashamed." " Then thou hast committed an act of charity," said Samuel; and when he went out he preached that charity maybe the cause of saving a man's life, and not only from a violent death, but also from death which otherwise would have overtaken a man naturally. Of R. Aqiba it is also known, that he did not believe the Is- raelites to be subject to fate, for R. Aqiba had a daughter, and the soothsayers predicted that on the day on which she should enter the garden a snake would bite her and she would die. He was very much troubled on that account. One day his daughter took ofT her headdress in the garden, and the needle protruding from it stuck on the side of the fence where a snake happened to be, and piercing the eye of the snake, the latter was killed. When R. Aqiba's daughter went back to the house the snake dragged after her. Asked R. Aqiba: " What didst thou do to- day, to escape death ?" and she answered: " At dawn a man came to the door begging bread. Everybody, however, was at the table, and no one heard him but myself. I took my own meal, that thou gavest me, and gave it to him." Said R. Aqiba: " Thou didst an act of charity, and this saved thee from death." He then went forth and preached, that charity may be the cause of saving a man's life, and not only from a violent death, but also from one that was to have come naturally. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak is also known to discountenance the theory of the Israelites being subject to fate; for the mother of R. Na'hman was told by astrologers that her son would turn out to be a thief, so she would not let him go out bare-headed, saying: " Always keep thy head covered, that thou mayest fear the Lord, and pray to Him for mercy"; and he did not know why she always told him this. One day he sat underneath a tree studying, when his head-wear fell off, and looking up, he saw the tree filled with delicious dates. He was very much tempted to take some of the fruit, although the tree did not belong to him, and accordingly climbed the tree, and bit off a branch with his teeth. TRACT SABBATH. 375 MISHNA: Pumpkins may be cut up for cattle, and carrion for dogs. R. Jehudah saith : " If the carrion was not yet carrion (if the beast had not yet died) before the Sabbath, it must not be cut up ; because, in that case, it is not part of what had been provided (for consumption on Sabbath)." GEMARA: It was taught: Ula said, the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah, and of Rabh it is also known that he agrees with R. Jehudah, as may be seen from his decree con- cerning covers of a vessel (on page 29). Levi also admits, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah; for when a car- cass was brought to him for decision as to its fitness for use, or unfitness, on a festival, he would not inspect it unless it had lain in the dirt ; because, should he hold it to be fit, it would forth- with become carrion and not even be fit for dogs, by reason of its turning into carrion on the festival (and thus not having been provided on the day before for consumption on the festival). Samuel, however, said, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon, as also does Zera, because a Mishna elsewhere, which teaches, that if an animal died (on Sabbath or on a festival) it must not be removed, was explained by Zera to refer only to such an animal as was designated for a sacrifice and which must not be made use of at all ; but any ordinary carcass may be re- moved. R. Johanan also said, that the Halakha according to R. Simeon prevails. Is it possible that R, Johanan said this ? Have we not learned that R. Johanan always holds Halakhas to be in accord- ance with the abstract decrees of the Mishna, and in another Mishna we have learned that the wood of a beam that had been broken on a festival must not be used on the festival ? R. Johanan claims, that the Mishna above was taught in the name of R. Jose bar Jehudah. Come and hear (another objection): "It is permitted to