Commentary for Taanit 43:17

על החרב וכו' ת"ר חרב שאמרו אינו צריך לומר חרב שאינו של שלום אלא אפילו חרב של שלום שאין לך חרב של שלום יותר מפרעה נכה ואעפ"כ נכשל בה המלך יאשיהו שנאמר

FOR WILD BEASTS etc. Our Rabbis have taught: The Alarm is sounded for wild beasts only when they are a [divine] visitation but not otherwise. What constitutes a [divine] visitation and what does not? When they make their appearance in the city that is a [divine] visitation, in the field it is not; by day it is a [di visitation, by night it is not; if a beast sees two persons and pursues them it is a [divine] visitation, but if hides itself on seeing them it is not; if it killed two persons and devoured only one of them that is a [divine] visitation, but if it devoured both of them it is not;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal had already satisfied its hunger by devouring the first person whom it killed; when therefore it kills another person then it can only be a divine visitation.');">⁷</span> if it mounted the roof and carried off an infant out of th cradle that is a divine visitation. Is not this [Baraitha] self-contradictory? [First] you say, 'If it makes its appearance in the city it is a visitation' and no distinction is made whether this happens by day or by night, and then you add 'it is a visitation', but by night it is not! - There is no contradiction. This is what is mean If it makes its appearance in the city by day it is a visitation, but in the city by night it is not. Or, in the even by day it is not a visitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The text is doubtful and in disorder. MS.M. omits, or in the field... visitation'. The words 'in the fields by night it is not a visitation', which appear in the cur. ed. in brackets are best left out.]');">⁸</span> [First you say,] 'If the beast sees two persons and pursues them it is a visitation' which implies that if i remains still it is no visitation and then you add 'if it hides itself on seeing then it is not a visitation'; t would imply that if it remains still it is a visitation! - This is no contradiction. In the one case it speaks o beast] in a field near reedland,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the animal stands near reedland and it feels itself secure because it has a place of escape and it therefore is not likely to attack a person');">⁹</span> in the other in a field not near reedland. [You say,] 'If it kills two men and devours one of them, that is a visitation but if it devours both of them is not.' But did you not say that even if it only pursues [two people] that is a visitation? - R'Papa replied: That speaks of a case [where the beast is standing] in reedland. The [above] text [states] 'If it mounted the roof and carried off an infant out of the cradle it is a visita Is not this self-evident? R'Papa replied: This statement is meant to refer to [the case of a beast carrying off infant out of a cradle in] a hunter's cave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it is a low building and the animal need not climb up high for its prey, the attack is yet taken as a divine visitation.');">¹⁰</span> AND THE SWORD etc. Our Rabbis have taught: By 'SWORD' is meant not only a hostile attack by an invading army but also the passing en route of a friendly army.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is no need to speak of a sword that is not of peace but ever a sword of peace'.');">¹¹</span> For there could be no more friendly army than that of Pharaoh-Necho, and yet through it king Josiah met his fate, as it is said

Explore commentary for Taanit 43:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.