Vayedaber

Simple Havroutah

Zva'him

Daf 116a

זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין דְּאָמַר מָר תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת

Traduction

That which was taught in the baraita: All animals were fit to be sacrificed: Males and females, unblemished and blemished animals, pertains to that which the Master said as a principle concerning the halakhot of sacrifices: The requirements that an offering must have unblemished status and that a burnt offering must have male status apply to animal offerings, but the requirements of unblemished status and male status do not apply to birds.

וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף

Traduction

And in the verses that recount Noah’s sacrifices upon exiting the ark, a domesticated animal is juxtaposed with a bird, in the verse: ''Of every pure animal, and of every pure fowl'' (Genesis 8:20), which teaches that kosher animals had a status identical to that of birds, and could be sacrificed whether male or female, unblemished or blemished.

תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְאַפּוֹקֵי מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר דְּלָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִנַּיִן לִמְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּמִכָּל הָחַי מִכָּל בָּשָׂר אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבֵא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרִין שֶׁלָּהּ

Traduction

The Gemara adds: That which was taught in the baraita: Unblemished and blemished animals, serves to exclude animals that are lacking a limb, which were not fit for sacrifice. As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived that an animal that is lacking a limb is forbidden to the descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, to be used as a sacrifice? The verse states with regard to Noah: ''And of every living being of all flesh, two of every sort shall you bring into the ark'' (Genesis 6:19). With regard to the phrase: ''And of every living being,'' which is superfluous, the Torah stated: Bring an animal whose limbs are all living, not one lacking a limb, as that animal is disqualified from sacrifice.

Rachi non traduit

ה''ג זכרים ונקבות תמימים ובעלי מומין לאפוקי מחוסר אבר דלא. ולא גרסי' תמות וזכרות בבהמות כו' דמאי איריא קודם מתן תורה לאחר הקמת המשכן נמי איתא להא ועוד מדקאמר אבל מחוסר אבר לא מכלל דבעלי מומין לא נפסלו לא בבהמה ולא בעוף:

שנאסר לבני נח. להקריב לגבוה:

שחיין ראשי איברים. ולמה לי לאזהורי עלייהו אי לאו משום הקרבה שהקריב מהן בצאתו מן התיבה:

וְדִילְמָא לְמַעוֹטֵי טְרֵיפָה הָהוּא מִלְּחַיּוֹת זֶרַע נָפְקָא

Traduction

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this phrase: ''And of every living being,'' serves to exclude an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] from being fit as a sacrifice. The Gemara explains: The disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the phrase: ''To keep seed alive'' (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot propagate.

Rachi non traduit

מלחיות זרע נפקא. דטריפה אינה יולדת:

Tossefoth non traduit

ודילמא למעוטי טריפה. תימה דבפ' שילוח הקן (חולין דף קמ. ושם) גבי שתי צפרים חיות דרשי' מינה תרתי שחיין ראשי איברים שלה ולמעוטי טריפה וי''ל דשאני ציפורי מצורע שהוא כעין קרבן ושניהן שוין לענין פסול אבל גבי נח דשאר מומין כשרין הו''ל לאוקמיה למעוטי טריפה דוקא:

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵיפָה יוֹלֶדֶת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָאָמַר קְרָא אִתָּךְ בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ

Traduction

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot give birth. In this case the disqualification of the tereifa is derived from the verse: ''To keep seed alive,'' while the disqualification of the animal lacking a limb is derived from the verse: ''And of every living being.'' But according to the one who says that a tereifa can give birth, what can be said? According to this opinion, a tereifa cannot be excluded by the phrase: ''To keep seed alive.'' The Gemara explains: Doesn’t the verse state with regard to the animals that were brought by Noah into the ark: ''You shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you'' (Genesis 6:19)? The term ''with you'' indicates that the verse is stated with regard to animals that are similar to you, not a tereifa.

Rachi non traduit

בדומין לך. למעוטי טריפה:

Tossefoth non traduit

אבל למ''ד טריפה יולדת מאי איכא למימר. פי' דלדידיה לא מייתר ליה מכל החי למחוסר אבר ואיצטריך למעוטי טריפה וא''ת כיון דטריפה חיה ויולדת היכי מימעטא מכל החי הא בפ' שילוח הקן (ג''ז שם) לא ממעט מחיות טריפות למ''ד טריפה חיה ויש לומר דשאני הכא דמכל החי מיותר ושפיר משתמע למעוטי טריפה אע''ג דחיה דמשתמע חיות גמורה ומסתבר למעוטי טריפה אע''ג דחיה ויולדת טפי ממחוסרת אבר דמ''מ אין טריפה בריאה נשארת ולא חזיא לקיום העולם כולי האי:

אתך בדומין לך. וא''ת א''כ האי מכל החי למה לי דתרוייהו מאתך נפקא וכי תימא דלמא נח גופיה מחוסר אבר הוה מי קאמר רחמנא דכוותך עייל שלמים לא תעייל וי''ל דמוקמא קרא בדדמי לטריפה ולא דמי למחוסרת אבר דלענין קיום העולם לא חיישינן:

וְדִילְמָא נֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה תָּמִים כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ וְדִילְמָא תָּמִים בִּדְרָכָיו צַדִּיק כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ

Traduction

The Gemara asks: But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa. If so, one cannot exclude a tereifa from the comparison of animals to Noah. The Gemara answers: It is written about Noah that he was ''complete'' (Genesis 6:9), which indicates that he was physically whole and unblemished. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that his ways were complete, and it is not referring to Noah’s physical attributes. The Gemara explains: It is already written about him that he was ''righteous'' (Genesis 6:9), which means that his actions were perfect. Consequently, when the verse says that he was also complete, it must be referring to his body.

Tossefoth non traduit

דילמא נח גופיה טריפה הוה. וא''ת והלא חי אחרי כן ג' מאות שנה וי''ל דשמא לא היה בכח ובריאות כראוי לו וסוגיין כמ''ד טריפה חיה ור''ת היה רגיל לחלק בין טריפות דאדם לטריפות דבהמה משום דאדם אית ליה מזלא וקשה דבריש אלו טריפות (חולין דף מג.) מייתי ראיה מאיוב אטריפות דבהמה:

וְדִילְמָא תָּמִים בִּדְרָכָיו צַדִּיק בְּמַעֲשָׂיו אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּנֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ לְנֹחַ דִּכְווֹתָךְ עַיֵּיל שְׁלָמִים לָא תְּעַיֵּיל

Traduction

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that Noah was complete in his manner, and he was righteous in his good deeds. Accordingly, the verse would not exclude the possibility that Noah himself was a tereifa. The Gemara responds: If it enters your mind to say that Noah himself was a tereifa, would the Merciful One have said to him: Bring in tereifot like you to the ark, but do not bring in whole and perfect animals? It is not reasonable to say that there would be a preference for him to bring tereifot. Rather, Noah was certainly not a tereifa, and the fact that a tereifa is disqualified for sacrifice is derived from ''with you.''

Rachi non traduit

תמים בדרכיו. עניו וסבלן:

וּמֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לַן מֵאִתָּךְ לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע לְמָה לִי מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אִתָּךְ לְצַוְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ זָקֵן אֲפִילּוּ סָרִיס קָמַשְׁמַע לַן

Traduction

The Gemara asks: And once we derive the disqualification of a tereifa from the term ''with you,'' why do I need the phrase ''to keep seed alive''? The Gemara answers: If one could derive only from ''with you,'' you would say that Noah brought the animals to the ark only for the purpose of companionship, and therefore even an animal that is old or even one who is castrated can come into the ark, provided that it is not a tereifa. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: ''To keep seed alive,'' which teaches us that only animals that can bear offspring were allowed to be brought into the ark.

Rachi non traduit

מהו דתימא אתך. לאו למידרש בדומין לך אלא שהודיע שאינו עושה אלא לכבודו להיות לו לצוותא:

קמ''ל לחיות זרע. לאו לצוותא בעי להו ומהשתא על כרחך אתך יתירא הוא למידרש ביה בדומין לך:

טְהוֹרִין אֲבָל לֹא טְמֵאִין וּמִי הֲווֹ טְמֵאִין וּטְהוֹרִין בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן מֵאוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה

Traduction

§ The baraita also teaches that before the Tabernacle was constructed, sacrifices were brought from animals and birds that were kosher, but not from non-kosher species. This is based on the verse that describes what Noah sacrificed when he exited the ark: ''And he took of every pure animal and of every pure fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar'' (Genesis 8:20). The Gemara asks: And were there pure and impure species at that time, during the period of Noah? The distinction between pure, i.e., kosher species, and impure, i.e., non-kosher species, was introduced only after the Torah was given (see Leviticus, chapter 11). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: The pure animals that Noah took were from those that had not been used in the performance of sin.

Rachi non traduit

מי הוו. הרי לא נתנה תורה:

מְנָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא הֶעֱבִירָן לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה כֹּל שֶׁהַתֵּיבָה קוֹלַטְתָּן בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר אֵין הַתֵּיבָה קוֹלַטְתָּן בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאִין

Traduction

The Gemara asks: From where did Noah and his sons know which animals had been used in the performance of a sin, in order to prevent them from entering the ark? The Gemara answers that it is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda. As Rav Ḥisda says: Noah caused all of the animals to pass before the ark. All animals that the ark accepted, i.e., drew in, was known to be pure; if the ark did not accept them, it was known that they were impure.

רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר אָמַר קְרָא וְהַבָּאִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה הַבָּאִין מֵאֲלֵיהֶן

Traduction

Rabbi Abbahu says there is a different explanation as to how Noah knew which animals were pure or impure. The verse states: ''And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh'' (Genesis 7:16), which means: Those that went in on their own. Consequently, Noah did not need to distinguish between pure and impure animals, as only the pure ones approached.

Rachi non traduit

הבאין מאיליהן. וכל אותן שבאו אל התיבה מאיליהן באו ובהן הכיר אותם שבאו שבעה שבעה ידע שהן טהורין ושבאו שנים שנים שהן טמאין:

אָמַר מָר וְהַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת עוֹלוֹת אִין שְׁלָמִים לָא וְהָא כְּתִיב וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַה' פָּרִים אֶלָּא אֵימָא הַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת [וּשְׁלָמִים

Traduction

§ In describing the sacrificial service before the Tabernacle was constructed, the Master said: And all offerings brought before the construction of the Tabernacle were sacrificed as burnt offerings. The Gemara infers: Burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed. The Gemara challenges: But with regard to the offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah, it is written: ''And they offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord'' (Exodus 24:5). This event occurred prior to the construction of the Tabernacle. Rather, say that the baraita means: All offerings sacrificed were either burnt offerings or peace offerings.

Rachi non traduit

ויזבחו זבחים שלמים. וסיני קודם הקמת המשכן הוה ואת אמרת דעד [שלא] הוקם המשכן לא קרבו שלמים כלל:

לכל. בין לישראל בין לבני נח קרבו עולות אבל שלמים לא קרבו לבני נח ומשעת מתן תורה שנבחרו ישראל קרבו להם שלמים:

וְהָתַנְיָא אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים לָא כִּי אִם עוֹלוֹת] עוֹלוֹת אִין שְׁלָמִים לָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ דְּאִיתְּמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא חַד אָמַר קֵרְבוּ [שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ] וְחַד אָמַר לֹא קֵרְבוּ

Traduction

The Gemara challenges: And isn’t it taught in another baraita: But peace offerings were not sacrificed before the construction of the Tabernacle; rather, only burnt offerings were sacrificed? Clearly, burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed. The Gemara answers that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that peace offerings were not sacrificed by the descendants of Noah. As it was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina with regard to this: One says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings, and one says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ דִּכְתִיב וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם הוּא מִבְּכוֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחֶלְבּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֵין כּוּלּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה שְׁלָמִים

Traduction

The Gemara explains the two opinions: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings? As it is written: ''And Abel, he also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat thereof'' (Genesis 4:4). Abel, like all gentiles, is categorized as a descendant of Noah. The verse emphasizes that the fat was sacrificed. The Gemara analyzes: What is an item, i.e., an offering, the fat of which is sacrificed upon the altar, but that is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar? You must say: This is the peace offering, the meat of which is consumed.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא קֵרְבוּ דִּכְתִיב עוּרִי צָפוֹן וּבוֹאִי תֵימָן תִּתְנַעֵר אוּמָּה שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּצָּפוֹן וְתָבוֹא אוּמָּה שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּצָּפוֹן וּבַדָּרוֹם

Traduction

What is the reasoning of the one who says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings? As it is written: ''Awake [uri], O north; and come, south…Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his precious fruits'' (Song of Songs 4:16). The Gemara interprets this homiletically: The nation, i.e., the nations of the world, who are the descendants of Noah, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are only in the north, i.e., they sacrifice only burnt offerings, which are slaughtered and their blood collected in the north of the Temple courtyard, shall be removed [titna’er], and in its place shall come the Jewish nation, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are in the north and in the south, as they sacrifice burnt offerings, whose rites are performed in the north, and peace offerings, whose rites may also be performed in the south, as the entire courtyard is fit for their rites.

Rachi non traduit

תתנער. לשון (שמות י''ד:כ''ז) וינער ה' את מצרים:

שמעשיה בצפון. היינו עולה שטעונה צפון:

ותבא. אל מלך המשיח:

אומה שמעשיה צפון ודרום. דהיינו ישראל שמקריבין עולות ושלמים:

וּמָר נָמֵי הָכְתִיב וּמֵחֶלְבֵיהֶן מִשַּׁמִּנֵיהוֹן [דִּידְהוּ]

Traduction

The Gemara asks: And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did not sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: ''And of the fat thereof,'' from which it may be derived that Abel sacrificed a peace offering? The Gemara answers: ''The fat thereof,'' does not mean that Abel sacrificed only the fats of his offerings; rather, it means that he sacrificed the fattest of them, i.e., the fattest and choicest of his animals.

Rachi non traduit

משמניהון דידהו. מן השמנין שבהן ומיהו עולות הוו:

וּמָר נָמֵי הָכְתִיב עוּרִי צָפוֹן [הָהוּא] בְּקִיבּוּץ גָּלִיּוֹת הוּא דִּכְתִיב

Traduction

The Gemara asks: And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: ''Awake, O north,'' from which it may be derived that the nations of the world do not sacrifice peace offerings? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, that verse is written with regard to the ingathering of the exiles, i.e., the Jewish exiles will come from the north and the south.

Rachi non traduit

בקיבוץ גליות. [וה''ק] עורי רוח צפונית ובואי רוח דרומית לקבץ גליות המפוזרות בכם:

וְהָא כְּתִיב וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה גַּם אַתָּה תִּתֵּן בְּיָדֵינוּ זְבָחִים וְעֹלֹת וְעָשִׂינוּ לַה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ זְבָחִים לַאֲכִילָה וְעוֹלוֹת לְהַקְרָבָה

Traduction

With regard to the opinion that the descendants of Noah did not sacrifice peace offerings, the Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: ''And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices [zevaḥim] and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God'' (Exodus 10:25)? This indicates that sacrifices [zevaḥim], i.e., peace offerings, were sacrificed before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: In this context, ''zevaḥim'' is referring to animals to be used for consumption, as the word zevaḥ can also be translated as an animal for slaughter, and ''burnt offerings'' is referring to animals to be used for sacrifice.

Rachi non traduit

זבחים ועולות. זבחים היינו שלמים וקודם מתן תורה כולהו בני נח. ומשני זבחים אינן שלמים אלא לשון שחיטה בעלמא ולאכילה:

וְהָא כְּתִיב וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ [חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה] עוֹלָה וּזְבָחִים הַהוּא לְאַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב

Traduction

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written before the giving of the Torah: ''And Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices [zevaḥim] for God'' (Exodus 18:12)? Since the word zevaḥim there is referring to sacrifices, as the verse clearly states that Yitro took them for God, evidently peace offerings were sacrificed before the giving of the Torah. The Gemara answers: That verse was written with regard to the period after the giving of the Torah, when the Jewish people were permitted to sacrifice peace offerings.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר [יִתְרוֹ] אַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר [יִתְרוֹ] קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּאִיתְּמַר בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי חַד אָמַר יִתְרוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה וְחַד אָמַר יִתְרוֹ אַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יִתְרוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה קָסָבַר שְׁלָמִים הִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ

Traduction

The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah. But according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, what can be said? As it was stated: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi engage in a dispute concerning this issue. One says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, and one says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah. The Gemara answers: The one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah maintains that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings.

Rachi non traduit

הניחא למ''ד כו'. פלוגתא לקמן:

כְּתַנָּאֵי וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן מָה שְׁמוּעָה שָׁמַע וּבָא וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר מִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק שָׁמַע שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּתִיב בְּצִדּוֹ וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת עַמּוֹ לְפִי חָרֶב

Traduction

§ The Gemara notes that the disagreement between amora’im with regard to when Yitro came to Mount Sinai is like a dispute between tanna’im: The Torah states with regard to Yitro, before he came to Mount Sinai: ''Now Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel His people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt'' (Exodus 18:1). What tiding did he hear that he came and converted? Rabbi Yehoshua says: He heard about the war with Amalek, as it is written adjacent to the verses that state that Yitro came: ''And Joshua weakened Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword'' (Exodus 17:13).

Rachi non traduit

כתנאי. אי קודם מתן תורה הוה [יתרו] אי לאחר:

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה שָׁמַע [וּבָא] שֶׁכְּשֶׁנִּיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה קוֹלוֹ הוֹלֵךְ מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ וְכָל [מַלְכֵי] אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֲחָזָתַן רְעָדָה בְּהֵיכְלֵיהֶן וְאָמְרוּ שִׁירָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבְהֵיכָלוֹ כּוּלּוֹ אוֹמֵר כָּבוֹד

Traduction

Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: He heard about the giving of the Torah and came. As when the Torah was given to the Jewish people, the voice of the Holy One, Blessed be He, went from one end of the world to the other end, and all of the kings of the nations of the world were overcome with trembling in their palaces and recited a song of praise, as it is stated: ''The voice of the Lord makes the hinds to calve…and in his palace all say: Glory'' (Psalms 29:9), i.e., each king in his own palace recited songs of praise to God.

Rachi non traduit

ובהיכלו כולו אומר כבוד כו'. רישא דקרא קול ה' יחולל אילות ובמתן תורה משתעי ובהיכלו של כל מלך ומלך כולו אומר כבוד להקב''ה:

נִתְקַבְּצוּ כּוּלָּם אֵצֶל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ מָה קוֹל הֶהָמוֹן אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁמָּא מַבּוּל בָּא לָעוֹלָם (אָמַר לָהֶם) ה' לַמַּבּוּל יָשָׁב [אָמַר לָהֶם] וַיֵּשֶׁב ה' מֶלֶךְ לְעוֹלָם כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּע הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם

Traduction

At that time, all of the kings gathered around Balaam the wicked, who was the greatest gentile prophet, and said to him: What is the tumultuous sound, i.e., the loud noise, that we have heard? Perhaps a flood is coming to destroy the world, as it is stated: ''The Lord sat enthroned at the flood'' (Psalms 29:10)? Balaam said to them: ''The Lord sits as King forever'' (Psalms 29:10), which means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, already took an oath after the flood never to bring a flood to the world, as it is stated: ''And the waters shall no more become a flood'' (Genesis 9:15).

אָמְרוּ לוֹ מַבּוּל שֶׁל מַיִם אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֲבָל מַבּוּל שֶׁל אֵשׁ מֵבִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי (הִנֵּה) בָּאֵשׁ ה' נִשְׁפָּט אָמַר לָהֶן כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּע שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר

Traduction

The kings said to him: He will not bring a flood of water, as he vowed, but perhaps He will bring a flood of fire, as in the future the Lord will punish the nations with fire, as it is stated: ''For by fire will the Lord contend, and by His sword with all flesh; and the slain of the Lord shall be many'' (Isaiah 66:16). Balaam said to them: He already took an oath that He will not destroy all flesh in any manner, as it is stated: ''To destroy all flesh'' (Genesis 9:15). Therefore, there will not be a flood of fire.

וּמֶה קוֹל הֶהָמוֹן הַזֶּה שֶׁשָּׁמַעְנוּ אָמַר לָהֶם חֶמְדָּה טוֹבָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּבֵית גְּנָזָיו שֶׁהָיְתָה גְּנוּזָה אֶצְלוֹ תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שִׁבְעִים וְאַרְבָּעָה דּוֹרוֹת קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם וּבִיקֵּשׁ לִיתְּנָהּ לְבָנָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ה' עוֹז לְעַמּוֹ יִתֵּן [מִיָּד] פָּתְחוּ כּוּלָּם וְאָמְרוּ ה' יְבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ בַשָּׁלוֹם

Traduction

They asked: And if so, what is this tumultuous sound that we have heard? Balaam said to them: He has a good and precious item in His treasury, that was hidden away with Him for 974 generations before the world was created, and He seeks to give it to his children, as it is stated: ''The Lord will give strength to His people'' (Psalms 29:11). ''Strength'' is a reference to the Torah, which is the strength of the Jewish people. Immediately, they all began to say: ''The Lord will bless His people with peace'' (Psalms 29:11).

Rachi non traduit

אמר להם וישב ה' מלך לעולם. כבר נשבע שיהא מלך לעולם על בריותיו ולא ישחיתם:

תשע מאות ושבעים וארבעה דורות קודם שנברא העולם. וכ''ו מאדם ועד משה רבינו הרי דבר צוה לאלף דור (תהילים ק''ה:ח'):

עוז. התורה שהיא מעוזן של ישראל:

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר קְרִיעַת יַם סוּף שָׁמַע וּבָא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ כָּל מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי וְאַף רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה אָמְרָה לִשְׁלוּחֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הוֹבִישׁ ה' אֶת מֵי יַם סוּף

Traduction

The Gemara offers another explanation of what Yitro heard: Rabbi Eliezer says: He heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and came, as it is stated in a similar context with regard to the splitting of the Jordan in the days of Joshua: ''And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, that were by the sea, heard how that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until they were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel'' (Joshua 5:1). And even Rahab the prostitute said to Joshua’s messengers: ''For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you'' (Joshua 2:10).

מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דַּאֲמַר (לֵיהּ) וְלֹא הָיָה בָם עוֹד רוּחַ וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּקָאָמַר וְלֹא קָמָה עוֹד רוּחַ בְּאִישׁ

Traduction

The Gemara asks: What is different there, i.e., with regard to the splitting of the Jordan, where the verse states: ''Neither was there spirit in them anymore,'' and what is different here, i.e., in the statement of Rahab, where the verse states: ''Neither did there remain [kama] any more spirit in any man'' (Joshua 2:11)?

Textes partiellement reproduits, avec autorisation, et modifications, depuis les sites de Torat Emet Online et de Sefaria.
Traduction du Tanakh du Rabbinat depuis le site Wiki source