פרשת בראשית - 'בצלם אלהים ברא אותם'

And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’ And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them: ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.’

He used to say:Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “your are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2).

The graves of gentiles do not render items impure though a tent, as it is stated: “And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men [adam]” (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called men [adam] but gentiles are not called men [adam]. Since the Torah introduces the halakha of ritual impurity of a tent with the words: “When a man [adam] dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), this halakha applies only to corpses of Jews but not those of gentiles. The Gemara raises an objection based upon the verse with regard to captives taken during the war against Midian: “And the persons [nefesh adam] were sixteen thousand” (Numbers 31:40), which indicates that gentiles are also referred to as adam. The Gemara answers: They are given this title due to the need to distinguish the people taken captive from the animals that were taken as spoils of war. The Gemara raises another difficulty based upon a verse with regard to the city of Nineveh: “Wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand men [adam] that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle” (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: There, too, the gentiles are given this title due to the need to distinguish them from the animals mentioned in the verse. The Gemara continues to question Rabbi Shimon’s ruling based upon a verse pertaining to the war against Midian: “Whoever has killed anyone, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves” (Numbers 31:19). This indicates that gentile corpses convey ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Perhaps a Jew was killed, and the concern was for impurity caused by his corpse. And the Rabbis reply that the verse attests: “Not one man of us is missing” (Numbers 31:49). No Jewish soldiers fell in battle, and therefore the concern for impurity must have been due to the corpses of gentiles. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai responds: The intent of that verse is that not one man of us is missing due to transgression, i.e., none of them sinned. Ravina said that the explanation above is unnecessary: Granted, the verse excluded gentiles from rendering items impure through a tent, as it is written: “When a man [adam] dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14); but did the verse exclude them from rendering items impure via touching and carrying? Since gentile corpses convey impurity in these ways, they could have rendered impure the Jews involved in the war with Midian, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her. Conversely, in the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who happened before a common priest, i.e., the priest was her yavam, and he was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, then even if he had already performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, because she is a widow. GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, that he may marry her? The verse states: “Shall he take for a wife” (Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: If so, a widow waiting for her yavam should also be permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word “wife” indicates that this does not include a yevama, who was not initially his wife but his brother’s. The mishna related an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest. MISHNA: A High Priest whose brother died without children performs ḥalitza and he does not perform levirate marriage, as he may not marry a widow. GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna teaches this halakha categorically, indicating that it is no different if she is his brother’s widow from betrothal, and it is no different if she is his widow from marriage. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, she is forbidden to him if she was widowed from marriage, as, if he were to marry her, it would be a violation of both the positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and the prohibition for him to marry a widow. And a positive mitzva, i.e., levirate marriage, does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together. However, if she was a widow from betrothal and is therefore still a virgin, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting their first act of intercourse due to their second act of intercourse. After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva. MISHNA: A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying. GEMARA: The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reason for the halakha that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is because he is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Is it only priests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded? Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna said to him: This halakha does in fact apply even to Israelites, and the tanna mentions priests because he wants to teach it in a way that would parallel the latter clause of the mishna, which states that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife