Книга: Этюды

Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite may perform a circumcision on a heathen for the purpose of becoming a proselyte — thus excluding [the purpose of] removing a morana. (6) But a heathen should not [be allowed to] perform circumcision on an Israelite, because he is liable to take his life. This is the opinion of R. Meir. The Sages said: A heathen may circumcise an Israelite, so long as others are standing by him, but not while he is on his own. (7) R. Meir, however, said: Not even when others are standing by, for he may find occasion to let the knife slip and so sterilise him. Does then R. Meir hold the opinion that a heathen is not [to be allowed to circumcise]? But the opposite is proved by the following: In a town where there is no Jewish physician, but there is a physician who is a Cuthean as well as one who is an idolater, circumcision should be performed by the idolater but not by the Cuthean. (8) This is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Judah, however, said: It should be performed by the Cuthean but not by the idolater? (9) — Reverse [the names]: R. Meir holding that the Cuthean and not the idolater should circumcise, and R. Judah holding the idolater and not the Cuthean. Does then R. Judah hold that it is in order for an idolater to do so? Surely it has been taught: R. Judah said: Whence can it be deduced that circumcision performed by a heathen is invalid? From this verse, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant! (10) — Indeed, do not reverse, but say that we are here dealing

Original footnotes renumbered.

1.         Those who act as priests to idols whether they be Israelites or heathen (Rashi).

2.         Deut. XXII, 3.

3.         When he can get no other meat; but who would avoid eating forbidden food when other food is at hand.

4.         And does not require specification.

5.         Hor. 11a.

6.         A parasite worm (?) which may be lodged in the foreskin; which would mean healing without payment.

7.         Tosef. 'A.Z. Ch.III.

8.         An idolater does not usually practise circumcision. He would therefore perform it in accordance with the intention of the father of the infant. The Cutheans (Samaritans) however, observe circumcision in the name of some object of worship placed on Mount Gerizim where their Temple stood — for which an Israelite must not afford an opportunity.

9.         The heathen being suspected of taking the child's life. (Men. 42a.) Thus R. Meir is said to permit circumcision by a heathen!

10.      Gen. XVII, 9, spoken by God to Abraham when the rite of circumcision was first enacted, which implies that only one bound to keep the rite is qualified to perform it. R. Judah thus rules that a heathen is not qualified.

Abodah Zarah Folio 27a

with an expert physician. (1) For when R. Dimi came (2) he said in the name of R. Johanan that if [a heathen physician] is recognised as an expert by multitudes, it is permissible [for an Israelite child to be circumcised by him]. Does then R. Judah hold that it is in order for a Cuthean [to circumcise an Israelite]? Surely it has been taught: An Israelite may perform circumcision on a Cuthean, but a Cuthean should not [be allowed to] circumcise an Israelite, because he performs the circumcision in the name of Mount Gerizim, (3) this is the opinion of R. Judah. Said R. Jose to him: Where is it at all to be found in the Torah that circumcision must be performed specifically for its purpose? But he may go on performing it (4) even though he expires in the act! (5) — We must then indeed reverse names as we did before, (6) and as to the opinion cited in the name of R. Judah which contradicts the opinion held here by R. Judah — the former opinion should be ascribed to R. Judah the Prince. (7) For it has been taught: R. Judah the Prince says: Whence can it be deduced that circumcision performed by a heathen is invalid? From the words of Scripture, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant. (8) Said R. Hisda: What reason could R. Judah give? (9) — The scriptural words, Unto the Lord he shall circumcise. (10) And [what scriptural authority has] R. Jose? — [The words are,] must needs be circumcised. (11) But as to the other [R. Jose], is not the phrase unto the Lord he shall circumcise? — The words Unto the Lord refer to the Passover sacrifice. (12) And as to the other [R. Judah] is it not written, must needs be circumcised? — The Torah speaks in the language of men. (13)

It has been stated: Whence could it be deduced that circumcision performed by a heathen is invalid? — Daru b. Papa said in the name of Rab: [From the words,] And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant; (14) while R. Johanan [deduces it from the words] Himmol yimmol. (15) What practical difference is there between these two? — The case of a circumcised Arab or a circumcised Gibeonite: (16) According to the one who relies on 'He who is circumcised shall circumcise' [the qualification] is there, but according to the one who relies on Thou shalt keep my covenant, it is not there. (17) But is such a one qualified according to him who relies on He who is circumcised shall circumcise! Have we not learnt: [He who says], I vow not to enjoy anything belonging to uncircumcised persons, may enjoy anything of uncircumcised Israelites, but must not enjoy anything of circumcised heathen. (18) Which proves that heathens who undergo circumcision are still designated as uncircumcised'! (19) We must therefore say that they differ in the case of an Israelite whose brothers died in consequence of circumcision, so that he was not circumcised: according to the one who relies on Thou shalt keep my covenant the qualification is there: (20) while according to the one who relies on He who is circumcised shall circumcise, it is not there. And is such a one not qualified according to the one who relies on He who is circumcised shall circumcise? Have we not learnt: [He who says,] I vow not to enjoy anything belonging to circumcised persons, must not enjoy of uncircumcised Israelites, but may enjoy of circumcised heathens: (21) which proves that Israelites who are not circumcised are designated as 'circumcised'! — We must therefore say that the case wherein they differ is that of a woman. According to the one who relies on Thou shalt keep my covenant, the qualification is not there, since a woman is not subject to the observance, while according to the one who relies on He who is circumcised shall circumcise, the qualification is there, for a woman should be classed among the 'circumcised'. But does anyone hold that a woman is not [qualified to perform circumcision]. Does not scripture say, Then Zipporah took a flint? (22) — Read into it, she caused to be taken. (23) But it also says, And she cut off! — Read into it, and she caused it to be cut off, by asking another person, a man, to do it. Or you may say it means that she only began and Moses came and completed it.

MISHNAH. WE MAY ALLOW THEM TO HEAL US WHEN THE HEALING RELATES TO MONEY, BUT NOT PERSONAL HEALING; (24) NOR SHOULD WE HAVE OUR HAIR CUT BY THEM IN ANY PLACE. (25) THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES SAID, IN A PUBLIC PLACE IT IS PERMITTED, BUT NOT WHEN THE TWO PERSONS ARE ALONE.

GEMARA. What is HEALING RELATING TO MONEY and what is PERSONAL HEALING? Shall we say that HEALING RELATING TO MONEY means for payment and PERSONAL HEALING free? Then the Mishnah should have said: We may allow them to heal us for payment but not free! HEALING RELATING TO MONEY must therefore mean where no danger is involved (26) and PERSONAL HEALING where there is danger. But has not Rab Judah said: Even a scar over the puncture caused by bleeding should not be healed by them? — HEALING RELATING TO MONEY therefore relates to one's cattle, and PERSONAL HEALING to one's own body, about which Rab Judah said that even a scar over the puncture caused by bleeding should not be healed by them. Said R. Hisda in the name of Mar 'Ukba: But if [a heathen physician on being consulted] says to one that such and such medicine is good for him and such and such medicine is bad for him, it is permitted [to follow his advice]

Original footnotes renumbered.

1.         Who, though a heathen, would not risk his reputation by miscarrying the operation.

2.         From Palestine to Babylon.

3.         Cf. p. 132, n. 4.

4.         [Tosaf: 'in the name of Mount Gerizim'.]

5.         Tosef. 'A.Z. III.

6.         R. Judah holding that a Cuthean is not allowed.

7.         The Redactor of the Mishnah, a younger contemporary of his namesake R. Judah (b. Ila'i).

8.         V. p. 133, n. 2,

9.         R. Judah b. Ila'i, who disqualifies a Cuthean because circumcision must be performed specifically for its purpose.

10.      Ex. XII, 48: And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will make the Passover sacrifice unto the Lord, he shall circumcise etc. The claimed scriptural authority is thus obtained by the juxtaposition.

11.      Gen. XVII, 13. The emphatic wording (indicated in Hebrew by the infinitive before the finite verb) is taken to imply that the stricture of purpose is not to be applied.

12.      V. n. 3.

13.      An oft quoted dictum. The words are therefore not to be taken to imply anything beyond ordinary emphasis.

14.      V. 133, n. 2.

15.      Gen. XVII, 13. [H] 'He must needs be circumcised' may be rendered, by a slight alteration in the first word, to read [H], He who is circumcised shall circumcise, excluding a heathen.

16.      Instead of [H] in cur. edd. MS.M. and Yalk. Gen. 81, has [H] Gibeonite.

17.      As the covenant was only concluded with the Israelites, [or those who join without reservation the congregation of Israel.]

18.      V. Ned. 31b.

19.      Hence an Arab or Gibeonite should not be considered qualified to practise circumcision.

20.      As he is exempted from circumcision by law (V. Maim. Yad. Milah, II, 1. Tur. Y.D. 264, 1).

21.      Ned. ibid.

22.      Ex. IV, 25.

23.      Heb. [H] and [H].

24.      Explanation follows in the Gemara.

25.      For the heathen is liable to cut his throat with the razor.

26.      A case where a misdemeanour by the heathen physician may only result in prolonged illness or intensified pain.

Abodah Zarah 27b

for he will think that he is merely asking him, and just as he is asking him so he will also ask others, so that that man [by giving wrong advice] would have his reputation spoilt. Said Raba in the name of R. Johanan [some say R. Hisda in the name of R. Johanan]: In the case where it is doubtful whether [the patient] will live or die, we must not allow them to heal; but if he will certainly die, we may allow them to heal. 'Die [etc.]'! Surely there is still the life of the hour [to be considered]? (1) The life of the hour is not to be considered. What authority have you for saying that the life of the hour is not to be considered? — The scriptural words, If we say: we will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there. (2) Now there is the life of the hour [which they might forfeit]! This implies that the life of the hour is not to be considered. An objection was raised: 'No man should have any dealings (3) with Minim, nor is it allowed to be healed by them even [in risking] an hour's life. It once happened to Ben Dama the son of R. Ishmael's sister that he was bitten by a serpent and Jacob, a native of Kefar Sekaniah, (4) came to heal him but R. Ishmael did not let him; whereupon Ben Dama said, 'My brother R. Ishmael, let him, so that I may be healed by him: I will even cite a verse from the Torah that he is to be permitted'; but he did not manage to complete his saying, when his soul departed and he died. (5) Whereupon R. Ishmael exclaimed, Happy art thou Ben Dama for thou wert pure in body and thy soul likewise left thee in purity; nor hast thou transgressed the words of thy colleagues, who said, He who breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him'? (6) — It is different with the teaching of Minim, for it draws, and one [having dealings with them] may be drawn after them.

The Master said: 'Nor hast thou transgressed the words of thy colleagues who have said, He who breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him'? But a serpent did indeed sting him! — The bite of the serpent [which is inflicted upon those transgressing the words] of the Rabbis is such as can never be cured. (7) Now, what is it that he might have said? (8) — 'He shall live by them, (9) but not die by them.' And R. Ishmael? — This is only meant when in private, but not in public; for it has been taught: R. Ishmael used to say: Whence can we deduce that if they say to one, 'Worship the idol and thou wilt not be killed,' that he may worship it so as not to be killed? because Scripture says, He shall live by them, but not die by them; you might take this to mean even in public, therefore Scripture says, And ye shall not profane my holy name. (10)

Said Rabba b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: Any sore for which the Sabbath may be profaned should not be healed by a heathen. (11) Others report that Rabba b. Bar Hanah said: Any internal sore should not be healed by them.

Original footnotes renumbered.

1.         The heathen may bring about the end prematurely, and so shorten his life even though by some hours.

2.         II Kings VII, 4; where the four leprous men decide to hand themselves over to the besieging enemy saying, If they kill us, we shall but die.

3.         Conversational intercourse [v. Tosaf. a.l.).

4.         A disciple of Jesus, v. supra p. 85, n. 3.

5.         [Ms.M. omits 'he died'.]

6.         Eccl. X, 8, applied to those who break through 'legal fences' which serve to safeguard the Torah (V. Ab. I, 1). — Thus the above cited opinion of R. Johanan is contradicted by this incident which proves that in cases of extreme danger it is forbidden to be attended by a Min! [On this passage v. Herford, op cit. pp. 104 ff.]

7.         [The fate in the hereafter that meets him who transgresses the words of the wise is more grievous than the sting of a serpent on earth.]

8.         What scriptural verse might Ben Dama have cited in support of being healed by the Min?

9.         Lev, XVIII, 5, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and mine ordinances, which if a man do he shall live by them. 'The Rabbis take these words to mean that God's commandments are to be a means of life and not of destruction to His children. With the exception of three prohibitions — public idolatry, murder, or adultery — all commandments of the Law are therefore in abeyance whenever life is endangered'. Lev. edited by the Chief Rabbi (Dr. J. H. Hertz), p. 175.

10.      Lev. XXII, 32 (Sanh. 74a).

11.      It is to be regarded as serious enough to involve the risk of a misdemeanour by the heathen.

Автор выражает сердечную благодарность Р-ву В.Н., без чьей помощи эта работа не увидела бы свет.

ОБ ОТЦЕ И БОГЕ ЕВРЕЕВ

Предисловие

Эта книжица написана главным образом для тех, о ком в Евангелии от Иоанна фарисеи говорят: «этот народ невежда в законе, проклят он» (Иоанн,7:49).

То, что «этот народ» плохо знал свой Закон, это скорее факт, чем преувеличение. В те времена евреи «изучали» 3акон в синагогах, причем Закон читался на иврите и сопровождался переводом на понятный народу язык, с назидательным объяснением и практическим применением. Надо полагать, что и перевод и назидательные объяснения сильно зависели от переводчика- толкователя.

Насколько глубоко сами толкователи понимали истинный смысл Закона трудно сказать, но первосвященники и старейшины очень хорошо знали и знают искусно замаскированные тайны Закона. Поэтому они с полным основанием утверждали о невежестве народа и о его проклятии.

Слова «проклятый» и «заклятый» в Ветхом завете обозначают не что иное как «обреченный на гибель». И речь идет не столько о физической смерти, сколько о вечной погибели людей, поклоняющихся своему богу. В Ветхом завете другой вариант просто не рассматривается: конец для всех один, а именно, преисподняя (Пс.88:49). Отсюда вывод: живи сегодняшним днем, здесь на Земле с помощью своего бога делай «дела», а что будет потом – об этом лучше не думать. Недаром Адонай называет себя страшным богом: «страшен паче всех богов» (1 Пар. 16:25).

Однако как ни велик и ни страшен бог, создавший евреев, но он не так всемогущ и всесилен, как любит представляться своему народу.

Истинный Творец Земли и неба, тот кого христиане называют Троицей, дав людям свободу воли, дал так же и возможность спасения от вечной погибели.

И путь спасения есть Иисус Христос.

Как известно, многие древние народы были многобожны в том смысле, что богов у них было много, всем им поклонялись, строили храмы, устраивали празднества в их честь и славу. Везде сонмы богов и множества храмов. Среди богов всегда имелась определенная иерархия: один главный Бог и много других богов, но поменьше рангами.

По существу то же самое можно обнаружить и в Ветхом Завете. Во главе всех духовных сущностей стоит Бог, он же Бог Отец (по-русски), Теос (по-гречески), Готт (по-немецки), Эль или Элоах (по-еврейски), Год (по-английски). Рядом с ним, почти равные ему по могуществу, расположились другие боги - его сыновья. В Библии разных народов они названы терминами близкими по смыслу к русским словам господин, правитель, князь. Так, например, у немцев - Хэрр, у англичан - Лорд, у евреев - Адонай, у греков - Кириос.

В синодальном переводе для этого употреблено слово "Господь", и хотя формально с этим можно согласиться, но традиционно это понятие у нас прочно связано с именем Иисуса Христа. Поэтому применение этого термина к другим духовным сущностям вносит в русское сознание определенную двусмысленность.

Несколько ниже по рангу, чем сыны Божьи, стоят те, кто по-русски называются ангелами, у которых есть свои чины (серафимы, херувимы, престолы и т. д.). У каждого сына Божья или господина есть свои ангелы для выполнения тех или иных поручений.

Мы должны четко уяснить, что по человеческому разумению богами являются, кроме Бога Отца, также сыны Божьи (они же господа, лорды, адонаи), но друг для друга они не есть боги, а лишь такие же соратники Божьи, как каждый из них. Это как бы братья.

Обратимся к Ветхому Завету и посмотрим, что говорится в нем о многобожии.

В Книге Иова (1:6 и 2:1) читаем: "И был день, когда пришли сыны Божьи предстать пред Господа". Иными словами собрались меньшие боги у главного.

Заметим, что для автора Книги Иова, которая писалась позже, чем Пятикнижие Моисеево, понятие "Господь" и "Бог" тождественны (Иов. 1:21-22).

Сыны Божьи фигурируют также в книге Бытие (6:2, 6:4). Защитники единобожия, якобы имеющегося в Ветхом Завете, исписали кучу бумаги, чтобы как-то объяснить этих пресловутых сынов Божьих, но смогли убедить в том, что это не боги, только самих себя и тех, кто им и так не возражал.

Обратимся к книге Бытие. В первой главе Бытия везде, где в синодальном переводе стоит слово 'Бог", в еврейском тексте значится множественное число от слова Элоах, а именно Элохим, т.е. "Боги". Защитники единобожия видят здесь намек на христианскую Троицу, т.е. по их просвещенному мнению мудрый автор Бытия задолго до возникновения христианства, если не знал прямо, то догадывался, что Бог троичен, но един.

Все бы и ничего, может быть и так, да только несколько странно, что Бог в процессе творения нашего мира говорит сам с собой. Не отсюда ли появилось представление о Боге, как о некоем очень пожилом существе по аналогии с говорящими с самим собою старыми людьми? Итак, читаем: "И сказал Бог: сотворим человека по образу Нашему, по подобию Нашему" (Быт. 1:26).

Пусть читателя не смущают прописные буквы в словах "Нашему" и др. Прописные буквы в начале некоторых слов есть плод позднейших переводчиков и толкователей; когда писалась книга Бытие в греческом алфавите не было строчных букв, а в иврите и сегодня нет деления букв на строчные, прописные и пр.

Но вернемся к тексту. Если принять точку зрения "единобожников", то получится интересная ситуация: Бог не только говорит сам с собой, но еще и во множественном числе о самом себе. Наверное, так сильно себя уважает, что, оставаясь в одиночестве, говорит о себе: "Мы боги". Что ж, бывает...

Однако почему-то с главы 4 книги Бытие этот "Бог" словно "спохватывается" и уже до конца Ветхого Завета говорит о себе в единственном числе:

"Я - Бог Богов" и прочее.

Смотрим далее. Когда змей соблазняет Еву съесть плоды с дерева познания добра и зла, он ей говорит: "Когда вы, люди, вкусите эти плоды, откроются глаза ваши, и вы будете, как боги, знающие добро и зло". Оказывается, для змея существует много богов.

Ну да ладно, змей он и есть змей. Чего только не придумает, чтобы смутить человека.

Но вот читаем: "И сказал Господь Бог: вот Адам стал как один из нас, зная добро и зло" (Быт. 3:22).

Примеры можно множить (см. например. Псалмы 81,88), но и из выше изложенного видно, что богов в Ветхом Завете много. Возникает вопрос: "А где же единобожие?".

Единобожие евреев заключается не в том, что бог один и кроме него в нашем мире нет в наличии других богов, а в том, что они, евреи, стали одними из первых поклоняться только одному богу, в отличие от других древних народов, которые почитали одновременно многих богов: бога моря, бога солнца, богиню любви и т.д.

Но если оставаться в рамках Ветхого Завета, где, как выше было установлено, богов много, то какого же из богов евреи считают своим богом?

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16