The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database

Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

graph

All subjects (including unvalidated):

subject	book bibliographic info
administrating, the patrimony, widow	Huebner (2013), The Family in Roman Egypt: A Comparative Approach to Intergenerational Solidarity , 98, 130, 131
administration	Dignas (2002), Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 277, 293 Lampe (2003), Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, 26, 27, 33, 36, 43, 52, 117, 118, 148, 185, 331, 337, 339, 346, 369, 370, 371, 372
administration, activities	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372
administration, administrator,	Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 4, 5, 11, 40, 52, 58, 64, 70, 76, 82, 90, 93, 103, 104, 105, 133, 138, 147, 151, 161, 162, 187, 189, 202, 210, 212, 220, 226, 227, 228, 229, 238, 248, 258, 262, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 277, 287, 290, 296
administration, and the city, imperial	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 124, 127, 333, 336, 362
administration, and the imperial city, cult	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 84, 85, 116, 160
administration, and the imperial city, edicts	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 144, 197, 333, 339, 365, 391
administration, and the imperial city, elite	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 362
administration, and the imperial city, family	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 85
administration, and the imperial city, forces	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 143, 148
administration, and the imperial city, institutions in athens	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 67, 165
administration, and the imperial city, judges	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 285, 300
administration, and the imperial city, officials	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 116, 156, 362
administration, and the imperial city, support for athens	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 126, 338
administration, and the imperial city, support for christians	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 144, 148, 333, 334, 365
administration, and the imperial city, support for philosophical schools	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 78, 123, 124, 129
administration, and the imperial city, tax	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 334
administration, at easter of baptism	Hillier (1993), Arator on the Acts of the Apostles: A Baptismal Commentary, 18
administration, athenian, public	Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 70
administration, by, samaritans, prohibitions against service in imperial	Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 257, 365
administration, christians	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 64
administration, cities	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 427, 429
administration, commonalties	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 420
administration, empire, imperial	Tanaseanu-Döbler and von Alvensleben (2020), Athens II: Athens in Late Antiquity, 17, 151, 253
administration, governors	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 364, 365, 366, 367
administration, imperial	Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 7, 21, 110, 286, 380, 382, 383, 464, 470, 471, 482 van 't Westeinde (2021), Roman Nobilitas in Jerome's Letters: Roman Values and Christian Asceticism for Socialites, 198
administration, in hellenistic kingdoms	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 200, 211, 231, 244, 247
administration, in late antiquity, praefectus praetorio, title of a department head in the imperial	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 6, 393
administration, in palestine, caesarea, headquarters for roman	Feldman (2006), Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, 685, 686
administration, in provinces of the roman republic	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 260
administration, infrastructure	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 372, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385
administration, lykourgos, financial	Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 86, 93, 94, 95, 288, 289
administration, militia officialis, imperial	van 't Westeinde (2021), Roman Nobilitas in Jerome's Letters: Roman Values and Christian Asceticism for Socialites, 112
administration, mnemones, and land	Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 143, 144
administration, nasa, national aeronautics and space	Blum and Biggs (2019), The Epic Journey in Greek and Roman Literature, 278
administration, nemesis at rhamnus	Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 58, 59, 65
administration, of burial sites, burial/funeral	Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 326, 327, 328
administration, of craftsmen, courts, justice	Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 60, 62, 73
administration, of cults outside athens, cult, administration, of state	Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 58, 59, 61, 62
administration, of deme-state hybrids, cult	Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 59, 62
administration, of drugs	Jouanna (2012), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen, 265
administration, of drugs, mode of	van der EIjk (2005), Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease, 288
administration, of eanna temple at uruk	Ganzel and Holtz (2020), Contextualizing Jewish Temples, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
administration, of euboulos	Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 65, 93, 94, 239, 259
administration, of festivals	Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 35, 36, 86, 90, 277
administration, of judaea, judea, ptolemaic	Salvesen et al. (2020), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, 241
administration, of judea, jewish palestine, roman presence in	Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 148, 149
administration, of jurors, juries	Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 32, 34, 51, 57, 73, 81, 114, 142
administration, of justice	Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 41, 60, 92, 124, 127, 141, 161, 215, 218, 230, 272, 279, 286, 288, 291, 300, 303, 326, 440, 441, 478, 488, 491
administration, of library	Borg (2008), Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic: The World of the Second Sophistic, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301
administration, of pertinax, roman emperor, fiscus	Scott (2023), An Age of Iron and Rust: Cassius Dio and the History of His Time. 149
administration, of sacred funds	Dignas (2002), Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, 17
administration, of sacred matters, athens	Dignas (2002), Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, 15, 16, 17
administration, persian imperial authorities, and temple	Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 22, 23, 95, 96, 98, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 129
administration, personnel	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 367, 368
administration, plotheia cult	Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 62, 64, 73
administration, provincial	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 276, 281, 291, 293, 294 Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 8, 26, 32, 33, 41, 55, 60, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 110, 113, 141, 142, 157, 158, 164, 169, 174, 180, 181, 186, 190, 214, 217, 223, 225, 248, 258, 261, 291, 334, 350, 418
administration, ptolemies	Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 285, 324, 326, 329, 330, 342, 345, 347, 400, 433, 434, 435, 438, 469
administration, ptolemies, and temple	Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 227
administration, roman	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 274, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 308, 309, 310 Hahn Emmel and Gotter (2008), Usages of the Past in Roman Historiography, 163, 165, 174, 350, 353
administration, roman imperial	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 388, 389, 392, 393
administration, roman, adrianople, battle of	Hahn Emmel and Gotter (2008), Usages of the Past in Roman Historiography, 70, 71
administration, rural territories	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 449, 452
administration, seleucids	Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 283, 323, 324, 326, 327, 336, 337, 338, 343, 347, 348, 353, 354, 355, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
administration, seleucids, and temple	Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 137, 138
administration, taxes and customs	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 388, 389, 392
administration, taxes, under arab	Ruffini (2018), Life in an Egyptian Village in Late Antiquity: Aphrodito Before and After the Islamic Conquest, 206
administration, temple	Stavrianopoulou (2013), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices and Images, 107, 109
administration, under the persians	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 153, 154, 161
administration, “territorial specialists, ” in roman	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 291
administration/administrative	Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 2, 119, 188, 195, 197, 200, 205, 214, 236, 254, 259, 284, 340, 361, 403, 405, 407, 423
administration/councils, magistrates, cities	Eliav (2023), A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean, 32, 34, 46, 52, 53, 55, 58, 67, 74, 75, 117, 133, 182, 183, 191, 202, 222
administrative, district, phrygia province	Huttner (2013), Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley, 30, 243, 277, 288, 289, 290, 344
administrative, districts of judaea, joppe, on	Keddie (2019), Class and Power in Roman Palestine: The Socioeconomic Setting of Judaism and Christian Origins, 28
administrative, districts of judaea, josephus, on	Keddie (2019), Class and Power in Roman Palestine: The Socioeconomic Setting of Judaism and Christian Origins, 28
administrative, documents, legal and	Borg (2008), Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic: The World of the Second Sophistic, 293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308
administrative, files, commentarii	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 285, 309
administrative, geography	Woolf (2011). Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West. 34, 87
administrative, language, ptolemaic	Toloni (2022), The Story of Tobit: A Comparative Literary Analysis, 123, 174
administrative, law	Gagarin and Cohen (2005), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, 310, 311
administrative, machinery, persian	Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 127
administrative, matters and procedures, associations	Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 1, 10, 68, 150, 167, 180, 183, 185, 188, 233, 241
administrative, meaningful	Laemmle (2021), Lists and Catalogues in Ancient Literature and Beyond: Towards a Poetics of Enumeration, 59, 205, 378, 379
administrative, mobility	Tacoma (2016), Models from the Past in Roman Culture: A World of Exempla, 38, 64
administrative, post, a bibliothecis	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 4, 18
administrative, post, a cognitionibus	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 284
administrative, post, a libellis	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 284
administrative, post, a studiis	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 4, 18
administrative, post, ab epistulis	Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 4, 18, 284
administrative, post, citizenship, roman, as prerequisite for	Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 149
administrative, relief, roman empire	Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826
administrative, rituals	Ando (2013), Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, 337, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 408, 411
administrative, skills, diocletian, roman emperor, 284-305	Simmons(1995), Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian, 35
administrative, structure of courts	Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 36
administrative, structures	Ruiz and Puertas (2021), Emperors and Emperorship in Late Antiquity: Images and Narratives, 29, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230
administrative, style of septimius severus, l., roman emperor	Scott (2023), An Age of Iron and Rust: Cassius Dio and the History of His Time. 142, 143
administrative, tasks, proselytes in greco-roman inscriptions	Kraemer (2010), Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, 237, 238, 239, 240
administrative, units, administration	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 361, 362, 363
administrator, of a diocese, vicarius	Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 393
administrators, and scholar-priests, priests, zoroastrian, portrayals of in the babylonian talmud, as sorcerers and corrupt administrators, role of in sasanian society, as judges	Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 103, 120, 121
administrators, of temple, second	Schwartz (2008), 2 Maccabees, 189, 190
administrators, priests, zoroastrian, portrayals of in the babylonian talmud, as sorcerers and corrupt	Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 142, 150, 204
administrators, priests, zoroastrian, portrayals of in the babylonian talmud, as sorcerers and corrupt bribery, motif of	Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 122
administrators/administration, culture, sasanian	Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 4, 184 Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 4, 184
administrators/administration, law, sasanian	Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 50, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 108, 109 Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 50, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 107, 108, 109
administrators/administration, religions, sasanian	Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 36, 37 Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 35, 36, 37
administrators/administration, religious literatures, naḥman b. rav sasanian, ḥisda, rav	Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 70
administrators/administration, royals, sasanian	Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 5, 10, 39, 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 128, 166, 169, 185, 198, 199, 201, 202 Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 5, 10, 39, 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 128, 166, 169, 185, 198, 199, 201, 202
administrators/administration, sasanian	Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 4, 36, 58, 62, 81, 82, 90, 92, 93, 166 Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 4, 36, 58, 62, 81, 82, 90, 92, 93, 166
administrator”, sōkenet, heb. “the female chief	Zawanowska and Wilk (2022), The Character of David in Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Warrior, Poet, Prophet and King, 395

List of validated texts:

39 validated results for "administrator"

1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 23.40 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Persian imperial authorities, and temple administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals • Seleucids, Administration

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 343; Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 114; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 5; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 5

sup>
23.40 And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.' ' None

2. None, None, nan (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • priests, Zoroastrian, portrayals of, in the Babylonian Talmud, as sorcerers and corrupt administrators

Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 117, 118, 119; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 81; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 81

3. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 1.25, 13.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals • priests, Zoroastrian, portrayals of, in the Babylonian Talmud, as sorcerers and corrupt administrators

Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 117, 118, 119; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 81, 185; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 81, 185

sup>
1.25 וְאָשִׁיבָה יָדִי עָלַיִךְ וְאֶצְרֹף כַּבֹּר סִיגָיִךְ וְאָסִירָה כָּל־בְּדִילָיִךְ׃' ' None

sup>
1.25 And I will turn My hand upon thee, And purge away thy dross as with lye, And will take away all thine alloy;' ' None

4. Thucydides, The History of The Peloponnesian War, 2.13.3-2.13.5 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Athens, administration of sacred matters • mnemones, and land administration

Found in books: Dignas (2002), Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, 16; Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 143

sup>
2.13.3 θαρσεῖν τε ἐκέλευε προσιόντων μὲν ἑξακοσίων ταλάντων ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ φόρου κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ξυμμάχων τῇ πόλει ἄνευ τῆς ἄλλης προσόδου, ὑπαρχόντων δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει ἔτι τότε ἀργυρίου ἐπισήμου ἑξακισχιλίων ταλάντων ʽτὰ γὰρ πλεῖστα τριακοσίων ἀποδέοντα μύρια ἐγένετο, ἀφ’ ὧν ἔς τε τὰ προπύλαια τῆς ἀκροπόλεως καὶ τἆλλα οἰκοδομήματα καὶ ἐς Ποτείδαιαν ἀπανηλώθἠ, ^2.13.4 χωρὶς δὲ χρυσίου ἀσήμου καὶ ἀργυρίου ἔν τε ἀναθήμασιν ἰδίοις καὶ δημοσίοις καὶ ὅσα ἱερὰ σκεύη περί τε τὰς πομπὰς καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας καὶ σκῦλα Μηδικὰ καὶ εἴ τι τοιουτότροπον, οὐκ ἐλάσσονος ἦν ἢ πεντακοσίων ταλάντων. ^2.13.5 ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν προσετίθει χρήματα οὐκ ὀλίγα, οἷς χρήσεσθαι αὐτούς, καὶ ἢν πάνυ ἐξείργωνται πάντων, καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς θεοῦ τοῖς περικειμένοις χρυσίοις: ἀπέφαινε δ’ ἔχον τὸ ἄγαλμα τεσσαράκοντα τάλαντα σταθμὸν χρυσίου ἀπέφθου, καὶ περιαιρετὸν εἶναι ἅπαν. χρησαμένους τε ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ ἔφη χρῆναι μὴ ἐλάσσω ἀντικαταστῆσαι πάλιν.'' None

sup>
2.13.3 Here they had no reason to despond. Apart from other sources of income, an average revenue of six hundred talents of silver was drawn from the tribute of the allies; and there were still six thousand talents of coined silver in the Acropolis, out of nine thousand seven hundred that had once been there, from which the money had been taken for the porch of the Acropolis, the other public buildings, and for Potidaea . ^2.13.4 This did not include the uncoined gold and silver in public and private offerings, the sacred vessels for the processions and games, the Median spoils, and similar resources to the amount of five hundred talents. ^2.13.5 To this he added the treasures of the other temples. These were by no means inconsiderable, and might fairly be used. Nay, if they were ever absolutely driven to it, they might take even the gold ornaments of Athena herself; for the statue contained forty talents of pure gold and it was all removable. This might be used for self-preservation, and must every penny of it be restored. '' None

5. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 10.39 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Ptolemies, Administration • Ptolemies, and temple administration • Seleucids, Administration

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 433; Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 227

sup>
10.39 Ptolemais and the land adjoining it I have given as a gift to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, to meet the necessary expenses of the sanctuary.'' None

6. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 3.2-3.3, 5.22, 9.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Ptolemies, Administration • Seleucids, Administration • Seleucids, and temple administration • Temple (Second), Administrators of • administration/administrative

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 324, 345, 433; Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 137; Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 119; Schwartz (2008), 2 Maccabees, 189

sup>
3.2 it came about that the kings themselves honored the place and glorified the temple with the finest presents,'" "^3.3 o that even Seleucus, the king of Asia, defrayed from his own revenues all the expenses connected with the service of the sacrifices.'" "^5.22 And he left governors to afflict the people: at Jerusalem, Philip, by birth a Phrygian and in character more barbarous than the man who appointed him;'" "^9.16 and the holy sanctuary, which he had formerly plundered, he would adorn with the finest offerings; and the holy vessels he would give back, all of them, many times over; and the expenses incurred for the sacrifices he would provide from his own revenues;'"" None

7. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 13.50, 13.55, 13.66-13.71 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Persian imperial authorities, and temple administration • Ptolemies, Administration • Ptolemies, and temple administration • Seleucids, Administration • Seleucids, and temple administration • administration/administrative

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 329, 439; Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 95, 129, 138, 227; Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 254, 340

sup>
13.55 δίδωμι δ' ἐκ τῶν ἐμῶν καὶ εἰς τὴν δαπάνην τῶν θυσιῶν κατ' ἔτος μυριάδας πεντεκαίδεκα, τὰ δὲ περισσεύοντα τῶν χρημάτων ὑμέτερα εἶναι βούλομαι: τὰς δὲ μυρίας δραχμάς, ἃς ἐλάμβανον ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ οἱ βασιλεῖς, ὑμῖν ἀφίημι διὰ τὸ προσήκειν αὐτὰς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν τοῖς λειτουργοῦσιν τῷ ἱερῷ." ^13.66 καὶ πλείστους εὑρὼν παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον ἔχοντας ἱερὰ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δύσνους ἀλλήλοις, ὃ καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις συμβέβηκεν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰς θρησκείας οὐχ ὁμόδοξον, ἐπιτηδειότατον εὑρὼν τόπον ἐν τῷ προσαγορευομένῳ τῆς ἀγρίας Βουβάστεως ὀχυρώματι βρύοντα ποικίλης ὕλης καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν ζῴων μεστόν,' "^13.67 δέομαι συγχωρῆσαί μοι τὸ ἀδέσποτον ἀνακαθάραντι ἱερὸν καὶ συμπεπτωκὸς οἰκοδομῆσαι ναὸν τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ ἐν ̔Ιεροσολύμοις αὐτοῖς μέτροις ὑπὲρ σοῦ καὶ τῆς σῆς γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν τέκνων, ἵν' ἔχωσιν οἱ τὴν Αἴγυπτον κατοικοῦντες ̓Ιουδαῖοι εἰς αὐτὸ συνιόντες κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμόνοιαν ταῖς σαῖς ἐξυπηρετεῖν χρείαις:" '^13.68 καὶ γὰρ ̔Ησαί̈ας ὁ προφήτης τοῦτο προεῖπεν: ἔσται θυσιαστήριον ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ: καὶ πολλὰ δὲ προεφήτευσεν ἄλλα τοιαῦτα διὰ τὸν τόπον.”' "^13.69 Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὁ ̓Ονίας τῷ βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίῳ γράφει. κατανοήσειε δ' ἄν τις αὐτοῦ τὴν εὐσέβειαν καὶ Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀδελφῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ γυναικὸς ἐξ ἧς ἀντέγραψαν ἐπιστολῆς: τὴν γὰρ ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράβασιν εἰς τὴν ̓Ονίου κεφαλὴν ἀνέθεσαν:" "^13.71 ἐπεὶ δὲ σὺ φῂς ̔Ησαί̈αν τὸν προφήτην ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου τοῦτο προειρηκέναι, συγχωροῦμέν σοι, εἰ μέλλει τοῦτ' ἔσεσθαι κατὰ τὸν νόμον: ὥστε μηδὲν ἡμᾶς δοκεῖν εἰς τὸν θεὸν ἐξημαρτηκέναι.”" " None

sup>
13.55 I bequeath also, out of my own revenues, yearly, for the expenses about the sacrifices, one hundred and fifty thousand drachmae; and what money is to spare, I will that it shall be your own. I also release to you those ten thousand drachmae which the kings received from the temple, because they appertain to the priests that minister in that temple. ^13.66 where I found that the greatest part of your people had temples in an improper manner, and that on this account they bare ill-will one against another, which happens to the Egyptians by reason of the multitude of their temples, and the difference of opinions about divine worship. Now I found a very fit place in a castle that hath its name from the country Diana; this place is full of materials of several sorts, and replenished with sacred animals; ^13.67 I desire therefore that you will grant me leave to purge this holy place, which belongs to no master, and is fallen down, and to build there a temple to Almighty God, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions, that may be for the benefit of thyself, and thy wife and children, that those Jews which dwell in Egypt may have a place whither they may come and meet together in mutual harmony one with another, and he subservient to thy advantages; ^13.68 for the prophet Isaiah foretold that, ‘there should be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God;’” and many other such things did he prophesy relating to that place. ^13.69 2. And this was what Onias wrote to king Ptolemy. Now any one may observe his piety, and that of his sister and wife Cleopatra, by that epistle which they wrote in answer to it; for they laid the blame and the transgression of the law upon the head of Onias. And this was their reply: ^13.71 But since thou sayest that Isaiah the prophet foretold this long ago, we give thee leave to do it, if it may be done according to your law, and so that we may not appear to have at all offended God herein.”' ' None

8. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.365-2.368, 2.592, 7.430 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Cities, administration/councils, magistrates • Ptolemies, Administration • Ptolemies, and temple administration • Seleucids, Administration • administration, Roman Imperial • administration, infrastructure • administration, taxes and customs • administration/administrative • praefectus praetorio, title of a department head in the Imperial administration in late Antiquity • rituals, administrative • vicarius, administrator of a diocese

Found in books: Ando (2013), Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, 359; Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 347; Eliav (2023), A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean, 75; Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 227; Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 384, 392, 393; Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 200

sup>
2.365 πόσῳ μᾶλλον ̔́Ελλησιν, οἳ τῶν ὑφ' ἡλίῳ πάντων προύχοντες εὐγενείᾳ καὶ τοσαύτην νεμόμενοι χώραν ἓξ ̔Ρωμαίων ὑπείκουσιν ῥάβδοις, τοσαύταις δὲ καὶ Μακεδόνες οἱ δικαιότερον ὑμῶν ὀφείλοντες ἐλευθερίας ἀντιποιεῖσθαι." "^2.366 τί δ' αἱ πεντακόσιαι τῆς ̓Ασίας πόλεις; οὐ δίχα φρουρᾶς ἕνα προσκυνοῦσιν ἡγεμόνα καὶ τὰς ὑπατικὰς ῥάβδους; τί χρὴ λέγειν ̔Ηνιόχους τε καὶ Κόλχους καὶ τὸ τῶν Ταύρων φῦλον, Βοσπορανούς τε καὶ τὰ περίοικα τοῦ Πόντου καὶ τῆς Μαιώτιδος ἔθνη;" "^2.367 παρ' οἷς πρὶν μὲν οὐδ' οἰκεῖος ἐγιγνώσκετο δεσπότης, νῦν δὲ τρισχιλίοις ὁπλίταις ὑποτάσσεται, καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ναῦς μακραὶ τὴν πρὶν ἄπλωτον καὶ ἀγρίαν εἰρηνεύουσι θάλασσαν." '^2.368 πόσα Βιθυνία καὶ Καππαδοκία καὶ τὸ Παμφύλιον ἔθνος Λύκιοί τε καὶ Κίλικες ὑπὲρ ἐλευθερίας ἔχοντες εἰπεῖν χωρὶς ὅπλων φορολογοῦνται; τί δαί; Θρᾷκες οἱ πέντε μὲν εὖρος ἑπτὰ δὲ μῆκος ἡμερῶν χώραν διειληφότες, τραχυτέραν τε καὶ πολλῷ τῆς ὑμετέρας ὀχυρωτέραν καὶ βαθεῖ κρυμῷ τοὺς ἐπιστρατεύσοντας ἀνακόπτουσαν, οὐχὶ δισχιλίοις ̔Ρωμαίων ὑπακούουσιν φρουροῖς; ^2.592 συνωνούμενος δὲ τοῦ Τυρίου νομίσματος, ὃ τέσσαρας ̓Αττικὰς δύναται, τέσσαρας ἀμφορεῖς, τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπίπρασκεν τιμῆς ἡμιαμφόριον. οὔσης δὲ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐλαιοφόρου μάλιστα καὶ τότε εὐφορηκυίας, εἰς σπανίζοντας εἰσπέμπων πολὺ καὶ μόνος ἄπειρόν τι πλῆθος συνῆγεν χρημάτων, οἷς εὐθέως ἐχρῆτο κατὰ τοῦ τὴν ἐργασίαν παρασχόντος.' " None

sup>
2.365 Perhaps it will be said, It is hard to endure slavery. Yes; but how much harder is this to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under the sun! These, though they inhabit in a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty than you have. ^2.366 What is the case of five hundred cities of Asia? Do they not submit to a single governor, and to the consular bundle of rods? What need I speak of the Heniochi, and Colchi and the nation of Tauri, those that inhabit the Bosphorus, and the nations about Pontus, and Meotis, ^2.367 who formerly knew not so much as a lord of their own, but are now subject to three thousand armed men, and where forty long ships keep the sea in peace, which before was not navigable, and very tempestuous? ^2.368 How strong a plea may Bithynia, and Cappadocia, and the people of Pamphylia, the Lycians, and Cilicians, put in for liberty! But they are made tributary without an army. What are the circumstances of the Thracians, whose country extends in breadth five days’ journey, and in length seven, and is of a much more harsh constitution, and much more defensible, than yours, and by the rigor of its cold sufficient to keep off armies from attacking them? do not they submit to two thousand men of the Roman garrisons? ^2.592 o he bought four amphorae with such Tyrian money as was of the value of four Attic drachmae, and sold every half-amphora at the same price. And as Galilee was very fruitful in oil, and was peculiarly so at that time, by sending away great quantities, and having the sole privilege so to do, he gathered an immense sum of money together, which money he immediately used to the disadvantage of him who gave him that privilege;' ' None

9. Mishnah, Niddah, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 105; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 105

sup>
4.3 דַּם נָכְרִית וְדַם טָהֳרָה שֶׁל מְצֹרַעַת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּרֻקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ. דַּם יוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כְּרֻקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ:'' None

sup>
4.3 The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale disease): Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse in a mikveh: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry.'' None

10. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1.1-1.2, 1.6, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Administration, provincial • Cities, administration/councils, magistrates • Judicial administration, criticism of alternative models • Judicial administration, institutional justice • Judicial administration, responses to priestly justice

Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 93; Eliav (2023), A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean, 202; Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 151, 155, 158, 160, 161

sup>
1.1 דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. גְּזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת: ^1.2 מַכּוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַשָּׁנָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מַתְחִילִין, וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין, וְגוֹמְרִין בְּשִׁבְעָה. וְאִם גָּמְרוּ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה, מְעֻבֶּרֶת:' "^1.6 סַנְהֶדְרִי גְדוֹלָה הָיְתָה שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן לַגְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא) אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמֹשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, הֲרֵי שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעִים. וּמִנַּיִן לַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם לה) וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה וְגוֹ' וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה, עֵדָה שׁוֹפֶטֶת וְעֵדָה מַצֶּלֶת, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים. וּמִנַּיִן לָעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יד) עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, יָצְאוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב. וּמִנַּיִן לְהָבִיא עוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֶהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם לְטוֹבָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (שם) אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת, לֹא כְהַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה. הַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה עַל פִּי אֶחָד, הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בְעִיר וּתְהֵא רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, מָאתַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁים, כְּנֶגֶד שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת:" ^4.1 אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב:'' None

sup>
1.1 Cases concerning property are decided by three. Cases concerning robbery or personal injury, by three. Claims for full damages or half-damages, twofold restitution, or fourfold or fivefold restitution, by three. Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames a virgin are decided by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames a virgin is decided by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case. ^1.2 Cases concerning offenses punishable by beating are decided by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said twenty-three. The intercalation of the month and intercalation of the year are decided by three, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The matter is begun by three, discussed by five, and decided upon by seven. But if they decided upon it with three, the intercalation is valid.” ^1.6 The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) which refers to the twelve spies but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others to the twenty? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “To follow after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). It means that your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that the Sanhedrin of twenty three should correspond with them that are chiefs of at least groups of ten. ^4.1 Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry of the witnesses, as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases are decided by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either from conviction to acquittal or from acquittal to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict from conviction to acquittal but not from acquittal to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.'' None

11. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Administration, provincial • Persian imperial authorities, and temple administration

Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 90; Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 129

12. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 103; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 103

13. Pliny The Younger, Letters, 4.22, 6.19, 6.22, 6.31, 10.17, 10.23, 10.35, 10.52, 10.96.7 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Administration • Administration, provincial • Cities, administration/councils, magistrates • administration, Roman • administration, Roman Imperial • administration, activities • administration, administrator • administration, cities • administration, infrastructure • administrative mobility • provinces administration • rituals, administrative

Found in books: Ando (2013), Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, 359, 360, 361; Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 286; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 190; Eliav (2023), A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean, 53; Lampe (2003), Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, 118; Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 369, 371, 372, 429; Tacoma (2016), Models from the Past in Roman Culture: A World of Exempla, 38; Talbert (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, 403; Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 161, 162, 187, 189

sup>
4.22 To Sempronius Rufus. I have been called in by our excellent Emperor to take part and advise upon the following case. Under the will of a certain person, it has been the custom at Vienna * to hold a gymnastic contest. Trebonius Rufus, a man of high principle and a personal friend of mine, in his capacity of duumvir, discontinued and abolished the custom, and it was objected that he had no legal authority to do so. He pleaded his case not only with eloquence but to good effect, and what lent force to his pleading was that he spoke with discretion and dignity, as a Roman and a good citizen should, in a matter that concerned himself. When the opinion of the Council was taken, Junius Mauricus, who stands second to none for strength of will and devotion to truth, was against restoring the contest to the people of Vienna, and he added, "I wish the games could be abolished at Rome as well." That is a bold consistent line, you will say. So it is, but that is no new thing with Mauricus. He spoke just as frankly before the Emperor Nerva. Nerva was dining with a few friends; Veiento was sitting next to him and was leaning on his shoulder - I need say no more after mentioning the man\'s name. The conversation turned upon Catullus Messalinus, who was blind, and had that curse to bear in addition to his savage disposition. He was void of fear, shame, and pity, and on that account Domitian often used him as a tool for the destruction of the best men in the State, just as though he were a dart urging on its blind and sightless course. All at table were speaking of this man\'s villainy and bloody counsels, when the Emperor himself said ^6.19 To Nepos. You know that the price of land, especially in the suburbs of Rome, has gone up. The cause of this sudden increase in value has been the theme of general discussion. At the last elections the senate passed the following wholesome resolutions; "That no candidates should provide public entertainments, send presents, and deposit sums of money.\'\' The first two practices had gone on openly, and been carried beyond all reasonable lengths ; the last-named had been indulged in secretly, but still to every one\'s knowledge. So our friend Homullus clearly availed himself of the uimity of the senate, and, instead of making a speech, he asked that the consuls should acquaint the Emperor with the wishes of the whole body of senators, and beg him to take steps to devise means to put a stop to this evil, as he had already done to other scandals. He has done so, for by means of the Corrupt Practices Act he has restricted the shameful and scandalous expenses which candidates used to incur, and he has issued orders that all candidates shall have invested a third of their patrimony in land. He very justly took the view that it was disgraceful that candidates for public offices should regard Rome and Italy, not as their mother country, but as a mere inn or lodging-place, in which they were staying as travellers. So the candidates are busy running about buying up whatever they hear is on sale, and they are forcing a number of estates into the market. Consequently if you are tired of your Italian estates, now is the real good time to sell them and buy others in the provinces, for the candidates have to sell their provincial properties to enable them to purchase here. Farewell. ' "^6.22 To Tiro. A case has just been heard which is of great importance to all who are to govern provinces, and to all who entrust themselves too implicitly to their friends. Lustricius Bruttianus, after detecting Montanus Atticinus, his colleague, in a number of criminal offences, wrote a letter to Caesar. Atticinus thereupon added to his misdeeds by accusing the friend whom he had deceived. A judicial examination was granted, and I was one of the judges. Each party pleaded his own case, but in a summary fashion and without going into detail, a method of pleading by which the truth is easily got at. Bruttianus produced his will, which he declared was in the handwriting of Atticinus, for, by so doing, he proved the intimacy of their friendship, and the necessity he was under of complaining of one who had previously been so dear to him. He read a list of disgraceful offences, which were clearly proved, and when Atticinus found that he could not disprove them, he dealt with him in such a way as to appear a rascal when he was excusing himself, and a villain when he was accusing Bruttianus. For it transpired that he had bribed the slave of Bruttianus's secretary, intercepted the diaries and cut out passages therefrom, thus, by a piece of shameful wickedness, making capital out of his own offences against his friend. Caesar acted most nobly, for he at once put the question, not about Bruttianus, but Atticinus. The latter was found guilty and banished to an island, while Bruttianus received a well-earned tribute to his integrity, and he also won a reputation for the way he saw the matter through. For after he had cleared his good name as quickly as possible, he carried the war boldly into the enemy's camp and thus proved himself to be as resolute as he was honourable and upright. I have written you this letter to warn you, now that you have gone out to be a provincial governor, * to rely as far as possible on yourself, and to trust no one too implicitly. I also want you to know that if - which Heaven forbid - anyone should play you false, there is punishment ready waiting for the offender. However, be continually on your guard that the necessity may not arise, for though it is gratifying to get one's revenge, the gratification is no compensation for the annoyance of having been tricked. Farewell. " ^6.31 To Cornelianus. I was greatly delighted when our Emperor sent for me to Centum Cellae - for that is the name of the place - to act as a member of his Council. For what could be more gratifying than to be privileged to witness the justice, dignity, and charming manners of the Emperor in his country retreat, where he allows these qualities the freest play? There were a variety of cases to be heard, and they were of a kind to bring out the virtues of the judge in different ways and forms. Claudius Aristo, the leading citizen at Ephesus, a man of great generosity, and who had won popularity by innocent means, pleaded his own case. His popularity had made people envious of him, and some of his enemies, who were utterly unlike him in character, had suborned a man to lay information against him. So he was acquitted, and his reputation vindicated. On the following day was taken the case of Galitta, who was accused of adultery. She was the wife of a military tribune, who was about to stand for public office, and she had compromised her own reputation and her husband\'s by intriguing with a centurion. The husband had reported the matter to the consular legate, and the latter had reported it to Caesar. After carefully examining the proofs, the Emperor degraded the centurion, and even banished him. Still the punishment was not complete, for adultery is an offence in which two perils are necessarily concerned, but the husband\'s affection for his wife, whom he allowed to remain in his house even I after discovering her adultery - content as it were to have trot his rival out of the way - led him to delay the prosecution, in spite of the scandal to which his forbearance gave rise. He was summoned to carry the charge through, and did so against his will. However, it was necessary that she should be condemned, even though her accuser did not wish her to be, and she was declared guilty, and sentenced to the punishment inflicted by the Julian Law. * Caesar affixed to the sentence both the name of the centurion and a statement of the rules of military discipline on the point, lest people should think that he reserved the right to hear all such cases himself. On the third day began the inquiry into the will of Julius Tiro, a case which had been greatly talked about, and had given rise to conflicting reports, inasmuch as it was known that the will was genuine in part, and in part a forgery. The accused were Sempronius Senecio, a Roman knight, and Eurythmus, one of Caesar\'s freedmen and agents. When the Emperor was in Dacia, the heirs had written a joint letter, asking him to undertake an inquiry into the will, and he had consented. On his return he appointed a day, and when some of the heirs were in favour of letting the accusation drop, as though out of consideration for Eurythmus, he very finely said, "Eurythmus is not Polyclitus, and I am not Nero." ** Yet at their request he favoured them with a postponement, and when the day had at length arrived, he took his seat to hear the case. On the side of the heirs only two put in an appearance, and they demanded that as all had joined in the accusation, they should all be forced to go on with the action, or else that they too should be allowed to withdraw. Caesar spoke with great gravity and moderation, and when the advocate for Senecio and Eurythmus remarked that the accused would be left open to suspicion unless they were heard in their own behalf, he said, "I don\'t care whether they are left open to suspicion or not, I certainly am myself." Then turning to us, he said You see in what a strictly honourable and arduous manner we spent our days, though they were followed by the most agreeable relaxations. Every day we were summoned to dine with the Emperor, and modest dinners they were for one of his imperial position. Sometimes we listened to entertainers, sometimes we had delightful conversations lasting far into the night. On the last day, just as we were setting out, Caesar sent us parting presents, such is his thoughtfulness and courtesy. As for myself, I delighted in the importance of the cases heard, in the honour of being summoned to the Council, and in the charm and simplicity of his mode of life, while I was equally pleased with the place itself. The villa, which is exquisitely beautiful, is surrounded by meadows of the richest green; it abuts on the sea-shore, in the bight of which a harbour is being hastily formed, the left arm having been strengthened by masonry of great solidity, while the right is now in course of construction. In the mouth of the harbour an island rises out of the sea, which by its position breaks the force of the waves that are carried in by the wind, and affords a safe passage to ships on either side. The island has been artificially constructed, and is not a natural formation, for a broad barge brings up a number of immense stones, which are thrown into the water, one on top of the other, and these are kept in position by their own weight, and gradually become built up into a sort of breakwater. The ridge of stones already overtops the surface, and when the waves strike upon it, it breaks them into spray and throws them to a great height. That causes a loud-resounding roar, and the sea all round is white with foam. Subsequently concrete will be added to the stones, to give it the appearance of a natural island as time goes on. This harbour will be called - and indeed it already is called - after the name of its constructor, and it will prove a haven of the greatest value, inasmuch as there is a long stretch of shore which has no harbour, and the sailors will use this as a place of refuge. Farewell. 0 ^10.23 To Trajan. The people of Prusa, Sir, have a public bath which is in a neglected and dilapidated state. They wish, with your kind permission, to restore it; but I think a new one ought to be built, and I reckon that you can safely comply with their wishes. The money for its erection will be forthcoming, for first there are the sums I spoke of * which I have already begun to claim and demand from private individuals, and secondly there is the money usually collected for a free distribution of oil which they are now prepared to utilise for the construction of a new bath. Besides, the dignity of the city and the glory of your reign demand its erection. ^10.35 To Trajan. We have taken the usual vows, * Sir, for your safety, with which the public well-being is bound up, and at the same time paid our vows of last year, praying the gods that they may ever allow us to pay them and renew them again. ^10.52 To Trajan. We have celebrated. Sir, with the thankfulness appropriate to the occasion, the day on which you preserved the empire by undertaking the duties of Emperor, * and have prayed the gods to keep you in safety and prosperity, since on you ' ' None

14. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • administration, administrator • provinces administration

Found in books: Talbert (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, 394; Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 76

15. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, culture • Sasanian, administrators/administration, law • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 100, 105, 184; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 100, 105, 184

^8b ואפילו (במדבר לב) עטרות ודיבון שכל המשלים פרשיותיו עם הצבור מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,רב ביבי בר אביי סבר לאשלומינהו לפרשייתא דכולא שתא במעלי יומא דכפורי תנא ליה חייא בר רב מדפתי כתיב (ויקרא כג) ועניתם את נפשתיכם בתשעה לחדש בערב,וכי בתשעה מתענין והלא בעשרה מתענין אלא לומר לך כל האוכל ושותה בתשיעי מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו מתענה תשיעי ועשירי.,סבר לאקדומינהו אמר ליה ההוא סבא תנינא ובלבד שלא יקדים ושלא יאחר,כדאמר להו ר\' יהושע בן לוי לבניה אשלימו פרשיותייכו עם הצבור שנים מקרא ואחד תרגום,והזהרו בורידין כרבי יהודה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר עד שישחוט את הורידין,והזהרו בזקן ששכח תלמודו מחמת אונסו דאמרינן לוחות ושברי לוחות מונחות בארון,אמר להו רבא לבניה כשאתם חותכין בשר אל תחתכו על גב היד איכא דאמרי משום סכנה ואיכא דאמרי משום קלקול סעודה,ואל תשבו על מטת ארמית ואל תעברו אחורי בית הכנסת בשעה שהצבור מתפללין. ואל תשבו על מטת ארמית. איכא דאמרי לא תגנו בלא ק"ש ואיכא דאמרי דלא תנסבו גיורתא וא"ד ארמית ממש,ומשום מעשה דרב פפא דרב פפא אזל לגבי ארמית הוציאה לו מטה אמרה לו שב אמר לה איני יושב עד שתגביהי את המטה הגביהה את המטה ומצאו שם תינוק מת מכאן אמרו חכמים אסור לישב על מטת ארמית,ואל תעברו אחורי בית הכנסת בשעה שהצבור מתפללין מסייע ליה לרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר\' יהושע בן לוי אסור לו לאדם שיעבור אחורי בית הכנסת בשעה שהצבור מתפללין,אמר אביי ולא אמרן אלא דליכא פתחא אחרינא אבל איכא פתחא אחרינא לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דליכא בי כנישתא אחרינא אבל איכא בי כנישתא אחרינא לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דלא דרי טונא ולא רהיט ולא מנח תפילין אבל איכא חד מהנך לית לן בה:,תניא אמר ר"ע בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את המדיים כשחותכין את הבשר אין חותכין אלא על גבי השולחן כשנושקין אין נושקין אלא על גב היד וכשיועצין אין יועצין אלא בשדה,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מאי קראה (בראשית לא) וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל צאנו:,תניא אמר רבן גמליאל בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את הפרסיים הן צנועין באכילתן וצנועין בבית הכסא וצנועין בדבר אחר:,(ישעיהו יג) אני צויתי למקודשי תני רב יוסף אלו הפרסיים המקודשין ומזומנין לגיהנם:,רבן גמליאל אומר וכו\': אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ג,תניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר פעמים שאדם קורא ק"ש שתי פעמים בלילה אחת קודם שיעלה עמוד השחר ואחת לאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר ויוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה.,הא גופא קשיא אמרת פעמים שאדם קורא קרית שמע שתי פעמים בלילה אלמא לאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר ליליא הוא והדר תני יוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה אלמא יממא הוא,לא לעולם ליליא הוא והא דקרי ליה יום דאיכא אינשי דקיימי בההיא שעתא,אמר רב אחא בר חנינא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי הלכה כרבי שמעון בן יוחי,איכא דמתני להא דרב אחא בר חנינא אהא דתניא רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר משום ר\' עקיבא פעמים שאדם קורא ק"ש שתי פעמים ביום אחת קודם הנץ החמה ואחת לאחר הנץ החמה ויוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה,הא גופא קשיא אמרת פעמים שאדם קורא קרית שמע שתי פעמים ביום אלמא קודם הנץ החמה יממא הוא והדר תני יוצא בהן ידי חובתו אחת של יום ואחת של לילה אלמא ליליא הוא ^26a אקמטרא ככלי בתוך כלי דמי. אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי ס"ת צריך לעשות לו מחיצה עשרה מר זוטרא איקלע לבי רב אשי חזייה לדוכתיה דמר בר רב אשי דמנח ביה ספר תורה ועביד ליה מחיצה עשרה אמר ליה כמאן כרבי יהושע בן לוי אימר דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי דלית ליה ביתא אחרינא מר הא אית ליה ביתא אחרינא אמר ליה לאו אדעתאי:,כמה ירחיק מהן ומן הצואה ארבע אמות: אמר רבא אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא לאחוריו אבל לפניו מרחיק מלא עיניו וכן לתפלה,איני והא אמר רפרם בר פפא אמר רב חסדא עומד אדם כנגד בית הכסא ומתפלל הכא במאי עסקינן בבית הכסא שאין בו צואה,איני והאמר רב יוסף בר חנינא בית הכסא שאמרו אע"פ שאין בו צואה ובית המרחץ שאמרו אע"פ שאין בו אדם אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בחדתי,והא מיבעי ליה לרבינא הזמינו לבית הכסא מהו יש זימון או אין זימון כי קא מיבעי ליה לרבינא למיקם עליה לצלויי בגויה אבל כנגדו לא,אמר רבא הני בתי כסאי דפרסאי אע"ג דאית בהו צואה כסתומין דמו:,40b אבל היכא דכי שקלת ליה לפירי ליתיה לגווזא דהדר מפיק לא מברכינן עליה בורא פרי העץ אלא בפה"א:,ועל כולן אם אמר שהכל וכו\': אתמר רב הונא אמר חוץ מן הפת ומן היין ורבי יוחנן אמר אפי\' פת ויין,נימא כתנאי ראה פת ואמר כמה נאה פת זו ברוך המקום שבראה יצא ראה תאנה ואמר כמה נאה תאנה זו ברוך המקום שבראה יצא דברי ר\' מאיר ר\' יוסי אומר כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות לא יצא ידי חובתו נימא רב הונא דאמר כר\' יוסי ור\' יוחנן דאמר כר\' מאיר,אמר לך רב הונא אנא דאמרי אפי\' לר\' מאיר עד כאן לא קאמר ר\' מאיר התם אלא היכא דקא מדכר שמיה דפת אבל היכא דלא קא מדכר שמיה דפת אפילו ר\' מאיר מודה,ור\' יוחנן אמר לך אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבי יוסי עד כאן לא קאמר ר\' יוסי התם אלא משום דקאמר ברכה דלא תקינו רבנן אבל אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו דתקינו רבנן אפילו ר\' יוסי מודה,בנימין רעיא כרך ריפתא ואמר בריך מריה דהאי פיתא אמר רב יצא והאמר רב כל ברכה שאין בה הזכרת השם אינה ברכה דאמר בריך רחמנא מריה דהאי פיתא,והא בעינן שלש ברכות מאי יצא דקאמר רב נמי יצא ידי ברכה ראשונה,מאי קמשמע לן אע"ג דאמרה בלשון חול,תנינא ואלו נאמרים בכל לשון פרשת סוטה וידוי מעשר וקריאת שמע ותפלה וברכת המזון אצטריך סד"א הני מילי דאמרה בלשון חול כי היכי דתקינו רבנן בלשון קדש אבל לא אמרה בלשון חול כי היכי דתקינו רבנן בלשון קדש אימא לא קמ"ל:,גופא אמר רב כל ברכה שאין בה הזכרת השם אינה ברכה ורבי יוחנן אמר כל ברכה שאין בה מלכות אינה ברכה אמר אביי כוותיה דרב מסתברא דתניא (דברים כו, יג) לא עברתי ממצותיך ולא שכחתי לא עברתי מלברכך ולא שכחתי מלהזכיר שמך עליו ואילו מלכות לא קתני,ור\' יוחנן תני ולא שכחתי מלהזכיר שמך ומלכותך עליו:,56a אמר ליה קיסר לר\' יהושע בר\' (חנינא) אמריתו דחכמיתו טובא אימא לי מאי חזינא בחלמאי אמר ליה חזית דמשחרי לך פרסאי וגרבי בך ורעיי בך שקצי בחוטרא דדהבא הרהר כוליה יומא ולאורתא חזא אמר ליה שבור מלכא לשמואל אמריתו דחכמיתו טובא אימא לי מאי חזינא בחלמאי אמר ליה חזית דאתו רומאי ושבו לך וטחני בך קשייתא ברחייא דדהבא הרהר כוליה יומא ולאורתא חזא,בר הדיא מפשר חלמי הוה מאן דיהיב ליה אגרא מפשר ליה למעליותא ומאן דלא יהיב ליה אגרא מפשר ליה לגריעותא אביי ורבא חזו חלמא אביי יהיב ליה זוזא ורבא לא יהיב ליה אמרי ליה אקרינן בחלמין (דברים כח, לא) שורך טבוח לעיניך וגו\' לרבא אמר ליה פסיד עסקך ולא אהני לך למיכל מעוצבא דלבך לאביי א"ל מרווח עסקך ולא אהני לך למיכל מחדוא דלבך,אמרי ליה אקרינן (דברים כח, מא) בנים ובנות תוליד וגו\' לרבא אמר ליה כבישותיה לאביי א"ל בנך ובנתך נפישי ומינסבן בנתך לעלמא ומדמיין באפך כדקא אזלן בשביה,אקריין (דברים כח, לב) בניך ובנותיך נתונים לעם אחר לאביי א"ל בנך ובנתך נפישין את אמרת לקריבך והיא אמרה לקריבה ואכפה לך ויהבת להון לקריבה דהוי כעם אחר לרבא א"ל דביתהו שכיבא ואתו בניה ובנתיה לידי איתתא אחריתי דאמר רבא אמר ר\' ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מאי דכתיב בניך ובנותיך נתונים לעם אחר זו אשת האב,אקרינן בחלמין (קהלת ט, ז) לך אכול בשמחה לחמך לאביי אמר ליה מרווח עסקך ואכלת ושתית וקרית פסוקא מחדוא דלבך לרבא אמר ליה פסיד עסקך טבחת ולא אכלת ושתית וקרית לפכוחי פחדך,אקרינן (דברים כח, לח) זרע רב תוציא השדה לאביי א"ל מרישיה לרבא א"ל מסיפיה,אקרינן (דברים כח, מ) זיתים יהיו לך בכל גבולך וגו\' לאביי א"ל מרישיה לרבא א"ל מסיפיה,אקרינן (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ וגו\' לאביי א"ל נפק לך שמא דריש מתיבתא הוית אימתך נפלת בעלמא לרבא אמר ליה בדיינא דמלכא אתבר ומתפסת בגנבי ודייני כולי עלמא קל וחומר מינך למחר אתבר בדיינא דמלכא ואתו ותפשי ליה לרבא.,אמרי ליה חזן חסא על פום דני לאביי א"ל עיף עסקך כחסא לרבא א"ל מריר עסקך כי חסא,אמרי ליה חזן בשרא על פום דני לאביי אמר ליה בסים חמרך ואתו כולי עלמא למזבן בשרא וחמרא מינך לרבא אמר ליה תקיף חמרך ואתו כולי עלמא למזבן בשרא למיכל ביה,אמרי ליה חזן חביתא דתלי בדיקלא לאביי אמר ליה מדלי עסקך כדיקלא לרבא אמר ליה חלי עסקך כתמרי,אמרי ליה חזן רומנא דקדחי אפום דני לאביי אמר ליה עשיק עסקך כרומנא לרבא אמר ליה קאוי עסקך כרומנא,אמרי ליה חזן חביתא דנפל לבירא לאביי א"ל מתבעי עסקך כדאמר נפל פתא בבירא ולא אשתכח לרבא א"ל פסיד עסקך ושדי\' ליה לבירא,אמרי ליה חזינן בר חמרא דקאי אאיסדן ונוער לאביי אמר ליה מלכא הוית וקאי אמורא עלך לרבא א"ל פטר חמור גהיט מתפילך א"ל לדידי חזי לי ואיתיה אמר ליה וא"ו דפטר חמור ודאי גהיט מתפילך,לסוף אזל רבא לחודיה לגביה אמר ליה חזאי דשא ברייתא דנפל אמר ליה אשתך שכבא אמר ליה חזיא ככי ושני דנתור א"ל בנך ובנתך שכבן אמר ליה חזאי תרתי יוני דפרחן א"ל תרי נשי מגרשת אמר ליה חזאי תרי גרגלידי דלפתא אמר ליה תרין קולפי בלעת אזל רבא ההוא יומא ויתיב בי מדרשא כוליה יומא אשכח הנהו תרי סגי נהורי דהוו קמנצו בהדי הדדי אזל רבא לפרוקינהו ומחוהו לרבא תרי דלו למחוייה אחריתי אמר מסתיי תרין חזאי,לסוף אתא רבא ויהיב ליה אגרא א"ל חזאי אשיתא דנפל א"ל נכסים בלא מצרים קנית א"ל חזאי אפדנא דאביי דנפל וכסיין אבקיה א"ל אביי שכיב ומתיבתיה אתיא לגבך א"ל חזאי אפדנא דידי דנפיל ואתו כולי עלמא שקיל לבינתא לבינתא א"ל שמעתתך מבדרן בעלמא א"ל חזאי דאבקע רישי ונתר מוקרי א"ל אודרא מבי סדיא נפיק א"ל אקריון הללא מצראה בחלמא א"ל ניסא מתרחשי לך,הוה קא אזיל בהדיה בארבא אמר בהדי גברא דמתרחיש ליה ניסא למה לי בהדי דקא סליק נפל סיפרא מיניה אשכחיה רבא וחזא דהוה כתיב ביה כל החלומות הולכין אחר הפה רשע בדידך קיימא וצערתן כולי האי כולהו מחילנא לך בר מברתיה דרב חסדא יהא רעוא דלמסר ההוא גברא לידי דמלכותא דלא מרחמו עליה,אמר מאי אעביד גמירי דקללת חכם אפילו בחנם היא באה וכ"ש רבא דבדינא קא לייט אמר איקום ואגלי דאמר מר גלות מכפרת עון,קם גלי לבי רומאי אזל יתיב אפתחא דריש טורזינא דמלכא ריש טורזינא חזא חלמא א"ל חזאי חלמא דעייל מחטא באצבעתי א"ל הב לי זוזא ולא יהב ליה לא א"ל ולא מידי א"ל חזאי דנפל תכלא בתרתין אצבעתי א"ל הב לי זוזא ולא יהב ליה ולא א"ל א"ל חזאי דנפל תכלא בכולה ידא א"ל נפל תכלא בכולהו שיראי שמעי בי מלכא ואתיוה לריש טורזינא קא קטלי ליה א"ל אנא אמאי אייתו להאי דהוה ידע ולא אמר אייתוהו לבר הדיא אמרי ליה אמטו זוזא דידך חרבו ^60a מכלל דכי קנה וחזר וקנה דברי הכל אין צריך לברך,וא"ד אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שלא קנה וחזר וקנה אבל קנה וחזר וקנה אין צריך לברך ור\' יוחנן אמר אפילו קנה וחזר וקנה צריך לברך מכלל דכי יש לו וקנה דברי הכל צריך לברך,מיתיבי בנה בית חדש ואין לו כיוצא בו קנה כלים חדשים ואין לו כיוצא בהם צריך לברך יש לו כיוצא בהם אין צריך לברך דברי ר"מ ר\' יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך צריך לברך,בשלמא ללישנא קמא רב הונא כר"מ ורבי יוחנן כרבי יהודה אלא ללישנא בתרא בשלמא רב הונא כרבי יהודה אלא רבי יוחנן דאמר כמאן לא כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה,אמר לך רבי יוחנן הוא הדין דלרבי יהודה קנה וחזר וקנה נמי צריך לברך והא דקא מיפלגי ביש לו וקנה להודיעך כחו דר"מ דאפי\' קנה ויש לו אין צריך לברך וכל שכן קנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך,וליפלגו בקנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך להודיעך כחו דר\' יהודה כח דהתירא עדיף ליה:,מברך על הרעה כו\':,היכי דמי כגון דשקל בדקא בארעיה אף על גב דטבא היא לדידיה דמסקא ארעא שירטון ושבחא השתא מיהא רעה היא:,ועל הטובה כו\':,היכי דמי כגון דאשכח מציאה אף על גב דרעה היא לדידיה דאי שמע בה מלכא שקיל לה מיניה השתא מיהא טובה היא:,היתה אשתו מעוברת ואמר יהי רצון שתלד כו\' הרי זו תפלת שוא:,ולא מהני רחמי מתיב רב יוסף (בראשית ל, כא) ואחר ילדה בת ותקרא את שמה דינה מאי ואחר אמר רב לאחר שדנה לאה דין בעצמה ואמרה י"ב שבטים עתידין לצאת מיעקב ששה יצאו ממני וארבעה מן השפחות הרי עשרה אם זה זכר לא תהא אחותי רחל כאחת השפחות מיד נהפכה לבת שנא\' ותקרא את שמה דינה אין מזכירין מעשה נסים,ואיבעית אימא מעשה דלאה בתוך ארבעים יום הוה כדתניא שלשה ימים הראשונים יבקש אדם רחמים שלא יסריח משלשה ועד ארבעים יבקש רחמים שיהא זכר מארבעים יום ועד שלשה חדשים יבקש רחמים שלא יהא סנדל משלשה חדשים ועד ששה יבקש רחמים שלא יהא נפל מששה ועד תשעה יבקש רחמים שיצא בשלום,ומי מהני רחמי והא"ר יצחק בריה דרב אמי איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר שנאמר (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהזריעו שניהם בבת אחת:,היה בא בדרך:,ת"ר מעשה בהלל הזקן שהיה בא בדרך ושמע קול צוחה בעיר אמר מובטח אני שאין זה בתוך ביתי ועליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים קיב, ז) משמועה רעה לא יירא נכון לבו בטוח בה\' אמר רבא כל היכי דדרשת להאי קרא מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש משמועה רעה לא יירא מה טעם נכון לבו בטוח בה\' מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש נכון לבו בטוח בה\' משמועה רעה לא יירא,ההוא תלמידא דהוה קא אזיל בתריה דרבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי בשוקא דציון חזייה דקא מפחיד אמר ליה חטאה את דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, יד) פחדו בציון חטאים אמר ליה והכתיב (משלי כח, יד) אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד אמר ליה ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב,יהודה בר נתן הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דרב המנונא אתנח אמר ליה יסורים בעי ההוא גברא לאתויי אנפשיה דכתיב (איוב ג, כה) כי פחד פחדתי ויאתיני ואשר יגורתי יבא לי והא כתיב אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב:,הנכנס לכרך:,תנו רבנן בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה\' אלהי שתכניסני לכרך זה לשלום נכנס אומר מודה אני לפניך ה\' אלהי שהכנסתני לכרך זה לשלום בקש לצאת אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה\' אלהי ואלהי אבותי שתוציאני מכרך זה לשלום יצא אומר מודה אני לפניך ה\' אלהי שהוצאתני מכרך זה לשלום וכשם שהוצאתני לשלום כך תוליכני לשלום ותסמכני לשלום ותצעידני לשלום ותצילני מכף כל אויב ואורב בדרך,אמר רב מתנא ל"ש אלא בכרך שאין דנין והורגין בו אבל בכרך שדנין והורגין בו לית לן בה,א"ד אמר רב מתנא אפילו בכרך שדנין והורגין בו זימנין דלא מתרמי ליה אינש דיליף ליה זכותא,ת"ר הנכנס לבית המרחץ אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי\' אלהי שתצילני מזה ומכיוצא בו ואל יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון ואם יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון תהא מיתתי כפרה לכל עונותי,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דלא לפתח פומיה לשטן דאמר ר"ל וכן תנא משמיה דר\' יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן,אמר רב יוסף מאי קראה דכתיב (ישעיהו א, ט) כמעט כסדום היינו לעמורה דמינו מאי אהדר להו נביא שמעו דבר יי\' קציני סדום וגו\',כי נפיק מאי אומר א"ר אחא מודה אני לפניך יי\' אלהי שהצלתני מן האור,ר\' אבהו על לבי בני אפחית בי בני מתותיה אתרחיש ליה ניסא קם על עמודא שזיב מאה וחד גברי בחד אבריה אמר היינו דר\' אחא,דאמר רב אחא הנכנס להקיז דם אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי\' אלהי שיהא עסק זה לי לרפואה ותרפאני כי אל רופא נאמן אתה ורפואתך אמת לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם לרפאות אלא שנהגו,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל (שמות כא, יט) ורפא ירפא מכאן שניתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות,כי קאי מאי אומר אמר רב אחא ברוך רופא חנם ' None

^8b This applies to every verse, even a verse like: “Atarot and Divon and Yazer and Nimra and Ḥeshbon and Elaleh and Sevam and Nevo and Beon” (Numbers 32:3). While that verse is comprised entirely of names of places that are identical in Hebrew and Aramaic, one is nevertheless required to read the verse twice and its translation once, as one who completes his Torah portions with the congregation is rewarded that his days and years are extended.,Rav Beivai bar Abaye thought to finish all the Torah portions of the entire year, which he had been unable to complete at their appointed time, on the eve of Yom Kippur when he would have time to do so. But Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught him: It is written with regard to Yom Kippur: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32).,The Gemara wonders: And does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei, as the Torah says at the beginning of that portion: “However, on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement; there shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 23:27)? Rather, this verse comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth day of Tishrei in preparation for the fast the next day, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei. Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti cited this verse to Rav Beivai bar Abaye to teach him that Yom Kippur eve is dedicated to eating and drinking, not to completing the Torah portions one may have missed throughout the year.,When Rav Beivai heard this, he thought to read the Torah portions earlier, before they were to be read by the community. A certain unnamed elder told him, we learned: As long as one does not read the Torah portions earlier or later than the congregation. One must read them together with the congregation.,As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi told his sons: Complete your portions with the congregation, the Bible text twice and the translation once.,He also advised them: Be careful with the jugular veins, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna with regard to the laws of ritual slaughter: Rabbi Yehuda said: Cutting the trachea and esophagus in the ritual slaughter of a bird does not render the bird kosher until he slaughters the jugular veins as well. While this is not halakhically required, it is appropriate to do so to prevent significant amounts of blood from remaining in the bird.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi further advised: And be careful to continue to respect an elder who has forgotten his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control. Even though he is no longer a Torah scholar, he must still be respected for the Torah that he once possessed. As we say: Both the tablets of the Covet and the broken tablets are placed in the Ark of the Covet in the Temple. Even though the first tablets were broken, their sanctity obligates one not to treat them with contempt. An elder who forgot the Torah knowledge he once possessed is likened to these broken tablets.,Rava said to his sons three bits of advice: When you cut meat, do not cut it on your hand. The Gemara offers two explanations for this. Some say: Due to the danger that one might accidentally cut his hand, and some say: Due to the fact that it could ruin the meal, as even if one only cut himself slightly, that small amount of blood could still spoil the meat and render it repulsive to eat.,And Rava also advised: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman, and do not pass by a synagogue when the community is praying. The Gemara explains: Some say: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman means one should not go to sleep without reciting Shema, as by doing so, it is tantamount to sleeping in the bed of a non-Jew, as his conduct is unbecoming a Jew. Others say: This means that one should not marry a woman who converted, and it is better to marry a woman who was born Jewish. And some say: It literally means that one should not sit on the bed of an Aramean, i.e., a non-Jewish woman.,This bit of advice was due to an incident involving Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa went to visit an Aramean woman. She took out a bed and she said to him: Sit. He said to her: I will not sit until you lift the sheets covering the bed. She did so and they found a dead baby there. Had Rav Pappa sat upon the bed, he would have been blamed for killing the baby. From that incident, the Sages said: One is prohibited from sitting on the bed of an Aramean woman.,And Rava’s third bit of advice was, do not pass behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying. This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One is prohibited from passing behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying because they will suspect that he does not want to pray, and it is a show of contempt for the synagogue.,Abaye introduced several caveats to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement and said: rWe only said this prohibition if there is no other entrance to the synagogue, but if there is another entrance, since it is possible that he will simply use the second entrance, they will not suspect him, and the prohibition does not apply. rAnd we only said this prohibition if there is no other synagogue in the city, but if there is another synagogue, the prohibition does not apply. rAnd we only said this prohibition when he is not carrying a burden, and not running, and not wearing phylacteries. But if one of those factors applies, the prohibition does not apply. If he is carrying a burden or running, clearly he is occupied with his work. If he is wearing phylacteries, it is evident that he is a God-fearing individual and they will not suspect him.,The Gemara cites a statement from a baraita, along the lines of Rava’s advice to refrain from cutting meat on one’s hands: Rabbi Akiva said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Medes, and we should learn from their practices. When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table and not on their hands; when they kiss, either as a show of affection or honor, they kiss only the back of the hand and do not give the person being kissed an unpleasant feeling; and when they hold counsel, they only hold counsel in the field so others will not hear their secrets.,Rav Adda bar Ahava said: From what verse is this derived? From the verse, “And Jacob sent and he called Rachel and Leah to the field to his flock” (Genesis 31:4); it was only there in the field that he held counsel with them.,It was taught in a baraita, Rabban Gamliel said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Persians: They are a modest people; they are modest in their eating, they are modest in the lavatory, and they are modest in another matter, i.e., sexual relations.,While they have been praised here regarding certain specific aspects of their conduct, the Gemara proceeds to offer another perspective on the Persians based on a verse describing the destruction of Babylonia at the hands of the Persian and Medean armies: “I have commanded My consecrated ones; I have also called My mighty ones for My anger, even My proudly exulting ones” (Isaiah 13:3). Rav Yosef taught a baraita: These are the Persians who are consecrated and designated for Gehenna, for they have been sent by God to carry out his mission of anger, and they will be sent to Gehenna.,The Gemara returns to explain the mishna, in which we learned that Rabban Gamliel says: One may recite Shema until dawn. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.,It was taught in a baraita: Based on Rabban Gamliel’s ruling, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: At times, one recites Shema twice at night, once just before dawn and once just after dawn, and he thereby fulfills his obligation to recite Shema, one of the day and one of the night. According to Rabban Gamliel, the Shema that he recited before dawn fulfills his evening obligation and the Shema that he recited after dawn fulfills his morning obligation.,This Tosefta is self-contradictory. Initially, you said: At times one recites Shema twice at night. Apparently, the time just after dawn is still night. And then you taught: He thereby fulfills his obligation to recite Shema one of the day and one of the night. Apparently, the time in question is considered day, as otherwise, he would not have fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema during the day. There is an internal contradiction with regard to the status of the time just after dawn. Is it considered day or night?,The Gemara answers: No, there is no contradiction. Actually, the time just after dawn, when it is still dark, is considered night and the fact that it is referred to here as day is because there are people who rise from their sleep at that time and, if the need arises, it can be characterized as bekumekha, when you rise, despite the fact that it is still night.,Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai.,Some teach this statement of Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in which he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, with regard to this halakha, which is stylistically similar to the previous halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: At times, one recites Shema twice during the day, once just before sunrise and once just after sunrise, and he thereby fulfills his dual obligation to recite Shema: One, that he recites after sunrise, Shema of the day, and one, that he recites before sunrise, Shema of the night.,This baraita is self-contradictory. Initially, you said: “At times one recites Shema twice during the day.” Apparently, the time just before sunrise is considered day. And then you taught: “He thereby fulfills his dual obligation to recite Shema, one of the day and one of the night.” Apparently, the time in question is considered night, as otherwise, he could not thereby fulfill his obligation to recite Shema during the night. ^26a atop a chest is like a vessel within a vessel. On a similar note, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who wishes to engage in marital relations in a room in which there is a Torah scroll, must erect a partition ten handbreadths high. The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi and he saw that in the bed chamber of his son Mar bar Rav Ashi, there was a Torah scroll, and a partition of ten handbreadths had been erected for it. He said to him: In accordance with whose opinion did you do this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? Say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said this only as a makeshift solution in exigent situations, when he has no other room in which to place it, but don’t you, Master, have another room where you could place the Torah scroll? He said to him: Indeed, that did not enter my mind.,We learned in the mishna: And, how far must one distance himself from urine and from feces in order to recite Shema? Four cubits. Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: They only taught that it is sufficient to distance oneself four cubits when the feces are behind him, but if they are before him he must distance himself to the point that it is no longer within his range of vision; and the halakha is the same for prayer.,The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? Didn’t Rafram bar Pappa say that Rav Ḥisda said: One may stand opposite a bathroom and pray. The Gemara resolves this contradiction: With what are we dealing here? With a bathroom that has no feces, and therefore there is no need to distance himself to that extent.,The Gemara asks again: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yosef bar Ḥanina say: The bathroom to which the Sages referred in all of the halakhot of distancing oneself was even one in which there were no feces, and the bathhouse to which the Sages referred in all of the halakhot of uttering sacred matters, was even one in which there was no naked person. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a new structure, built as a bathroom but not yet used for that purpose.,The Gemara asks: Wasn’t this already raised as a dilemma by Ravina: One who designated the structure for use as a bathroom, what is its legal status? Is designation effective or is designation not effective? The Gemara replies: When Ravina raised the dilemma, it was whether or not one may stand and pray inside it, but he had no dilemma whether or not one may pray opposite it.,Rava said: These Persian bathrooms, even though they contain feces, they are considered as sealed, as they are constructed on an incline so the feces will roll out of the bathroom underground.,halakhot of immersion for Torah study and prayer for one who experienced a seminal emission, the mishna discusses a case where individuals who were already impure with a severe form of ritual impurity are exposed to the impurity of a seminal emission as well. They are required to immerse themselves and purify themselves of the impurity of the seminal emission even though they remain impure due to the more severe impurity. Consequently, even a zav, whose impurity lasts at least seven days, who experienced a seminal emission, for which, were he not a zav, he would be impure for only one day; a menstruating woman who discharged semen, despite the fact that she is already impure with a severe impurity unaffected by her immersion; and a woman who engaged in conjugal relations with her husband and later saw menstrual blood, all require immersion. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from immersion.,A dilemma was raised before the students of the yeshiva: One who experienced a seminal emission and was therefore required to immerse himself, who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav; according to Rabbi Yehuda, what is his legal status? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: When, in our mishna, Rabbi Yehuda exempted a zav who saw a seminal emission from immersion, that was because from the outset he was not fit for immersion, as the immersion would not be effective in purifying him from the impurity of a zav; however, one who experienced a seminal emission, who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav, who was fit for immersion and only later became impure with the severe impurity of a zav, would Rabbi Yehuda require immersion? Or perhaps there is no difference and he is exempt from immersion in both cases?,In order to resolve this dilemma, come and hear the last case of the mishna: A woman who engaged in conjugal relations with her husband and later saw menstrual blood requires immersion. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from immersion. Isn’t the woman who engaged in conjugal relations with her husband and later saw menstrual blood like one who experienced a seminal emission, who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav, as in both cases there is a less severe ritual impurity followed by a more severe impurity; and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda exempts. Conclude from this that Rabbi Yehuda does not distinguish between the cases. And indeed, Rabbi Ḥiyya explicitly taught: One who experienced a seminal emission who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav requires immersion, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts.,,the morning prayer may be recited until noon. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until four hours after sunrise. According to the Rabbis, the afternoon prayer may be recited until the evening. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon pelag haminḥa, i.e., the midpoint of the period that begins with the sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering and ends at nightfall, which is the end of the afternoon.,The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night and is not fixed to a specific hour. According to the Rabbis, the additional prayer may be recited all day. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until seven hours after sunrise.,raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita: The mitzva is to recite the morning Shema with sunrise so that he will juxtapose redemption, which is mentioned in the blessings following Shema, to the Amida prayer, which is recited immediately after sunrise, and find himself praying in the daytime. Clearly, the time to recite the morning prayer is immediately after sunrise.,The Gemara responds: This baraita does not establish a binding halakha. Rather, it taught that rule specifically with regard to those who are scrupulous in fulfillment of mitzvot vatikin. As Rabbi Yoḥa said: Vatikin would finish reciting the morning Shema with sunrise, but those who are not vatikin may recite their prayers later.,The Gemara asks: Does everyone hold that one may recite the morning prayer only until noon and no later? Didn’t Rav Mari, son of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One who erred and did not recite the evening prayer, prays in the morning prayer two Amida prayers; one who erred and did not recite the morning prayer, prays in the afternoon prayer two Amida prayers? Apparently, the morning prayer may be recited until the evening, at least in the event that he forgot to recite it in the morning.,The Gemara answers: Indeed, one may continue praying for the entire day. However, if he prayed until noon, they give him a reward for reciting the prayer at its appointed time. If he prayed from there on, they give him a reward for reciting the prayer. They do not give him a reward for reciting the prayer at its appointed time.,On the topic of one who forgot to pray and seeks to compensate for the prayer that he missed, a dilemma was raised before them in the study hall: One who erred and did not recite the afternoon prayer, what is the ruling? May he recite in the evening prayer two Amida prayers? The Gemara articulates the sides of the dilemma: If you say that one who erred and did not pray the evening prayer prays in the morning prayer two Amida prayers, perhaps that is because the evening and the morning are both part of one day, as it is written: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5); the evening and the following morning constitute a single unit. But here, in the case under discussion, perhaps prayer is in place of sacrifice. Since in the case of sacrifice we say, since its day passed, its sacrifice is invalid and there is no way to compensate for the missed opportunity, the same should be true for prayer. Or, perhaps, since prayer is supplication, any time that one wishes, he may continue to pray?,Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One who erred and did not recite the afternoon prayer, prays in the evening prayer two Amida prayers and there is no element of: Its day passed, its sacrifice is invalid.,With regard to the possibility to compensate for a prayer that he failed to recite at its appointed time, the Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita. The meaning of the verse: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15), is as follows: That which is crooked cannot be made straight refers to one who omitted the evening Shema and the morning Shema, or the evening prayer, or the morning prayer. And that which is wanting cannot be numbered lehimanot refers to one whose friends reached a consensus nimnu to perform a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus nimnu and, consequently, he missed his opportunity to join them in performance of the mitzva. This baraita clearly states that there is no way to compensate for a missed prayer.,To resolve this difficulty, Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? We are dealing with a case where one intentionally failed to recite the prayer. Only then he has no remedy. However, one who failed to pray due to error can compensate for the missed prayer by reciting the next prayer twice.,Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise as it teaches omitted and did not teach erred. This indicates that the halakha is different in the case of error. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this.' ^40b However, in a situation where, when you take the fruit, the branch does not remain and again produce fruit, we do not recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, but rather: Who creates fruit of the ground.,We learned in the mishna: And on all food items, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, he fulfilled his obligation. It was stated that the amora’im disputed the precise explanation of the mishna. Rav Huna said: This halakha applies to all foods except for bread and wine. Since they have special blessings, one does not fulfill his obligation by reciting the general blessing: By whose word all things came to be. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: One fulfills his obligation with the blessing: By whose word all things came to be, even over bread and wine.,The Gemara remarks: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a tannaitic dispute found elsewhere, as it was taught in a Tosefta: One who saw bread and said: How pleasant is this bread, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. One who saw a fig and said: How pleasant is this fig, blessed is the Omnipresent Who created it, fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages in blessings, did not fulfill his obligation. If so, let us say that Rav Huna, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine, did not fulfill his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; and Rabbi Yoḥa, who said that one who recites: By whose word all things came to be, over bread or wine fulfills his obligation, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.,The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing fulfills his obligation, there, where the individual explicitly mentions the term bread in his blessing, but where he does not mention the term bread, even Rabbi Meir agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation.,And Rabbi Yoḥa could have said to you: I said my statement, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion, that one who alters the formula of the blessing does not fulfill his obligation, there, because he recited a blessing that was not instituted by the Sages; however, if he recited: By whose word all things came to be, which was instituted by the Sages, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that, after the fact, he fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing.,Regarding blessings that do not conform to the formula instituted by the Sages, the Gemara relates that Binyamin the shepherd ate bread and afterward recited in Aramaic: Blessed is the Master of this bread. Rav said, he thereby fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rav himself say: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God’s name is not considered a blessing? The Gemara emends the formula of his blessing. He said: Blessed is the All-Merciful, Master of this bread.,The Gemara asks: But don’t we require three blessings in Grace after Meals? How did he fulfill his obligation with one sentence? The Gemara explains: What is: Fulfills his obligation, that Rav also said? He fulfills the obligation of the first of the three blessings, and must recite two more to fulfill his obligation completely.,The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The Gemara answers: Although he recited the blessing in a secular language, other than Hebrew, he fulfilled his obligation.,This remains difficult, as we already learned this in a mishna in Sota: And these are recited in any language that one understands: The portion of the swearing of the sota, the confession of the tithes when a homeowner declares that he has given all teruma and tithes appropriately, the recitation of Shema, and the Amida prayer and Grace after Meals. If Grace after Meals is clearly on the list of matters that may be recited in any language, what did Rav teach us? The Gemara answers: Rav’s ruling with regard to Binyamin the Shepherd is necessary, as it might have entered your mind to say: This, the permission to recite Grace after Meals in any language, applies only to a case where one recited it in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue. However, in a case where one did not recite the blessing in a secular language, just as it was instituted by the Sages in the holy tongue, say that no, he did not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rav teaches us that, after the fact, not only is the language not an impediment to fulfillment of his obligation to recite a blessing, the formula is not an impediment either.,The Gemara considers the matter of Rav’s opinion itself and cites the fundamental dispute in that regard. Rav said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God’s name is not considered a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God’s sovereignty is not considered a blessing. Abaye said: It stands to reason in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it was taught in a Tosefta: In the confession of the tithes, one recites, “I did not transgress your mitzvot and I did not forget” (Deuteronomy 26:13). The meaning of phrase, I did not transgress, is that I did not refrain from blessing You when separating tithes; and the meaning of the phrase, and I did not forget, is that I did not forget to mention Your name in the blessing recited over it. However, this baraita did not teach that one must mention God’s sovereignty in the blessing.,And Rabbi Yoḥa would say: Emend the baraita: And I did not forget to mention Your name and Your sovereignty in the blessing recited over it; indicating that one must mention both God’s name and God’s sovereignty.,And over a food item whose growth is not from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. And over vinegar, wine that fermented and spoiled, and over novelot, dates that spoiled, and over locusts, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. None of the items listed exist under normal conditions, and they come about as the result of a curse.,On a different note: If there were many types of food before him, over which food should he recite a blessing first? Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is one of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael was praised among them, he recites the first blessing over it. And the Rabbis say: He recites a blessing over whichever of them he wants.,The Sages taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the earth, for example, meat from domesticated animals, non-domesticated animals, and fowl and fish, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. So too, over milk, and over eggs, and over cheese, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. This is not only true with regard to items that come from animals, but over moldy bread, and over wine that fermented slightly, and over a cooked dish that spoiled, one recites: By whose word all things came to be, because the designated blessing is inappropriate for food that is partially spoiled. Similarly, over salt and over brine, and over truffles and mushrooms, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that truffles and mushrooms are not items that grow from the ground? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who vows not to eat from the fruit of the earth is forbidden to eat all fruit of the earth; however, he is permitted to eat truffles and mushrooms. And if he said: All items that grow from the ground are forbidden to me, he is forbidden to eat even truffles and mushrooms. Apparently, truffles and mushrooms are items that grow from the ground.,Abaye said: With regard to growth, they grow from the earth, but with regard to sustece, they do not draw sustece from the earth.,The Gemara asks: Why is that distinction significant? Wasn’t it taught: Over a food item whose growth is not from the ground one recites the blessing: By whose word all things came to be? Even according to Abaye, mushrooms grow from the ground. The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita to read: Over a food item that does not draw sustece from the ground, one recites: By whose word all things came to be. Consequently, even over mushrooms one recites: By whose word all things came to be.,We learned in the mishna that over novelot one recites: By whose word all things came to be. The Gemara asks: What are novelot? The Gemara responds that the amora’im Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Il’a disputed this. One said that the term refers to dates that, due to extreme conditions, were burned by the heat of the sun and ripened prematurely. And one said that they are dates that fell from the tree because of the wind.,We learned later in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Over any food item that is a type resulting from a curse, one does not recite a blessing over it at all. Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that he considers them a type of curse; however, according to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, what is the reason that it is considered a type of curse? Dates that fell from the tree are no worse than other dates.,The Gemara reconciles: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement was about the rest, the vinegar and locusts, not about the novelot.,Some say that the Gemara raised the question differently: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be, as they are of inferior quality. However, to the one who said that novelot are dates that fell because of the wind, should we recite over them: By whose word all things came to be? We should recite: Who creates fruit of the tree.,Rather, the conclusion is, with regard to novelot unmodified, everyone agrees that they are dates that were burned by the heat of the sun. When they argue, it is with regard to those dates known as novelot temara, as we learned in a mishna concerning the laws of doubtfully tithed produce demai: Although, under normal circumstances, fruits that come into one’s possession by means of an am ha’aretz must be tithed due to concern lest the am ha’aretz failed to do so, the following fruits of inferior quality are lenient with regard to demai and one need not tithe them: Shittin, rimin, uzradin, benot shuaḥ, benot shikma, gufnin, nitzpa, and novelot temara.,The Gemara identifies these plants. Shittin, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: They are a type of figs. Rimin are lote. Uzradin are crabapples. Benot shuaḥ, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: They are white figs. Benot shikma, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: They are the fruit of the sycamore tree. Gufnin are the last grapes which remain on the tree at the end of the season. Nitzpa are the fruit of the caper-bush. Novelot temara, Rabbi Il’a and Rabbi Zeira disagreed. One said that they are dates burned by the heat of the sun, and one said that they are dates that fell because of the wind.,Here too, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates burned by the heat of the sun, that is the reason that it was taught concerning them: Their halakhot are lenient with regard to demai, meaning that it is those with regard to which there is uncertainty whether or not they were tithed that are exempt from being tithed. Those with regard to which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated to tithe those dates. However, according to the one who said that novelot temara are dates felled because of the wind, this is difficult: Those regarding which there is certainty that they were not tithed, one is obligated? They are ownerless, and ownerless produce is exempt from the requirement to tithe.,The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? With a case where he gathered the dates that fell because of the wind and made them into a pile, like a pile of threshed grain, signifying that the produce is a finished product. As Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: Even gifts to the poor such as gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corners, which are normally exempt from tithes, if a poor person gathered them and made them into a pile of threshed grain, by rabbinic law they were rendered obligated in tithes. In that case, only demai would be exempt from tithes.,Some say that the discussion was as follows: ^56a On a similar note, the Gemara relates that the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Ḥaya: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You will see the Persians capture you, and enslave you, and force you to herd unclean animals with a golden staff. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Rabbi Yehoshua and that night he saw it in his dream. King Shapur of Persia said to Shmuel: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Shmuel said to him: You will see the Romans come and take you into captivity and force you to grind date pits in mills of gold. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Shmuel, and that night he saw it in his dream.,The Gemara relates: Bar Haddaya was an interpreter of dreams. For one who gave him a fee, he would interpret the dream favorably, and for one who did not give him a fee, he would interpret the dream unfavorably. The Gemara relates: There was an incident in which both Abaye and Rava saw an identical dream and they asked bar Haddaya to interpret it. Abaye gave him money and paid his fee, while Rava did not give him money. They said to him: The verse: “Your ox shall be slain before your eyes and you shall not eat thereof” (Deuteronomy 28:31) was read to us in our dream. He interpreted their dream and to Rava he said: Your business will be lost and you will derive no pleasure from eating because of the extreme sadness of your heart. To Abaye he said: Your business will profit and you will be unable to eat due to the joy in your heart.,They said to him: The verse, “You shall beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity” (Deuteronomy 28:41), was read to us in our dream. He interpreted their dreams, and to Rava he said its literal, adverse sense. To Abaye he said: Your sons and daughters will be numerous, and your daughters will be married to outsiders and it will seem to you as if they were taken in captivity.,They said to him: The verse: “Your sons and your daughters shall be given unto another people” (Deuteronomy 28:32), was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said: Your sons and daughters will be numerous. You say, that they should marry your relatives and your wife says that they should marry her relatives and she will impose her will upon you and they will be given in marriage to her relatives, which is like another nation as far as you are concerned. To Rava he said: Your wife will die and your sons and daughters will come into the hands of another woman. As Rava said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written in the verse: “Your sons and your daughters shall be given unto another people”? This refers to the father’s wife, the stepmother.,They said to him: The verse: “Go your way, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart” (Ecclesiastes 9:7) was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said: Your business will profit and you will eat and drink and read the verse out of the joy of your heart. To Rava he said: Your business will be lost, you will slaughter but not eat, you will drink wine and read passages from the Bible in order to allay your fears.,They said to him: The verse: “You shall carry much seed out into the field, and shall gather little in; for the locust shall consume it” (Deuteronomy 28:38), was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said from the beginning of the verse, that he will enjoy an abundant harvest. To Rava he said from the end of the verse, that his harvest will be destroyed.,They said to him: The verse: “You shall have olive-trees throughout all your borders, but you shall not anoint yourself with the oil; for your olives shall drop off” (Deuteronomy 28:40), was read to us in our dream. And again, to Abaye he said from the beginning of the verse. To Rava he said from the end of the verse.,They said to him: The verse: “All the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10), was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said: Your name will become well-known as head of the yeshiva, and you will be feared by all. To Rava he said: The king’s treasury was broken into and you will be apprehended as a thief, and everyone will draw an a fortiori inference from you: If Rava who is wealthy and of distinguished lineage can be arrested on charges of theft, what will become of the rest of us? Indeed, the next day, the king’s treasury was burglarized, and they came and apprehended Rava.,Abaye and Rava said to him: We saw lettuce on the mouth of the barrels. To Abaye he said: Your business will double like lettuce whose leaves are wide and wrinkled. To Rava he said: Your work will be bitter like a lettuce stalk.,They said to him: We saw meat on the mouth of barrels. To Abaye he said: Your wine will be sweet and everyone will come to buy meat and wine from you. To Rava he said: Your wine will spoil, and everyone will go to buy meat in order to eat with it, to dip the meat in your vinegar.,They said to him: We saw a barrel hanging from a palm tree. To Abaye he said: Your business will rise like a palm tree. To Rava he said: Your work will be sweet like dates which are very cheap in Babylonia, indicating that you will be compelled to sell your merchandise at a cheap price.,They said to him: We saw a pomegranate taking root on the mouth of barrels. To Abaye he said: Your business will increase in value like a pomegranate. To Rava he said: Your work will go sour like a pomegranate.,They said to him: We saw a barrel fall into a pit. To Abaye he said: Your merchandise will be in demand as the adage says: Bread falls in a pit and is not found. In other words, everyone will seek your wares and they will not find them due to increased demand. To Rava he said: Your merchandise will be ruined and you will throw it away into a pit.,They said to him: We saw a donkey-foal standing near our heads, braying. To Abaye he said: You will be a king, that is to say, head of the yeshiva, and an interpreter will stand near you to repeat your teachings to the masses out loud. To Rava he said: I see the words peter ḥamor, first-born donkey, erased from your phylacteries. Rava said to him: I myself saw it and it is there. Bar Haddaya said to him: The letter vav of the word peter ḥamor is certainly erased from your phylacteries.,Ultimately, Rava went to bar Haddaya alone. Rava said to him: I saw the outer door of my house fall. Bar Haddaya said to him: Your wife will die, as she is the one who protects the house. Rava said to him: I saw my front and back teeth fall out. He said to him: Your sons and daughters will die. Rava said to him: I saw two doves that were flying. He said to him: You will divorce two women. Rava said to him: I saw two turnip-heads gargelidei. He said to him: You will receive two blows with a club shaped like a turnip. That same day Rava went and sat in the study hall the entire day. He discovered these two blind people who were fighting with each other. Rava went to separate them and they struck Rava two blows. When they raised their staffs to strike him an additional blow, he said: That is enough for me, I only saw two.,Ultimately, Rava came and gave him, bar Haddaya, a fee. And then Rava, said to him: I saw my wall fall. Bar Haddaya said to him: You will acquire property without limits. Rava said to him: I saw Abaye’s house appadna fall and its dust covered me. Bar Haddaya said to him: Abaye will die and his yeshiva will come to you. Rava said to him: I saw my house fall, and everyone came and took the bricks. He said to him: Your teachings will be disseminated throughout the world. Rava said to him: I saw that my head split and my brain fell out. He said to him: A feather will fall out of the pillow near your head. Rava said to him: The Egyptian hallel, the hallel that celebrates the Exodus, was read to me in a dream. He said to him: Miracles will be performed for you.,Bar Haddaya was going with Rava on a ship; bar Haddaya said: Why am I going with a person for whom miracles will be performed, lest the miracle will be that the ship will sink and he alone will be saved. As bar Haddaya was climbing onto the ship a book fell from him. Rava found it and saw: All dreams follow the mouth, written therein. He said to bar Haddaya: Scoundrel. It was dependent on you, and you caused me so much suffering. I forgive you for everything except for the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, Rava’s wife, whom bar Haddaya predicted would die. May it be Your will that this man be delivered into the hands of a kingdom that has no compassion on him.,Bar Haddaya said to himself: What will I do? We learned through tradition that the curse of a Sage, even if baseless, comes true? And all the more so in the case of Rava, as he cursed me justifiably. He said to himself: I will get up and go into exile, as the Master said: Exile atones for transgression.,He arose and exiled himself to the seat of the Roman government. He went and sat by the entrance, where the keeper of the king’s wardrobe stood. The wardrobe guard dreamed a dream. He said to bar Haddaya: I saw in the dream that a needle pierced my finger. Bar Haddaya said to him: Give me a zuz. He did not give him the coin so bar Haddaya said nothing to him. Again, the guard said to him: I saw a worm that fell between my two fingers, eating them. Bar Haddaya said to him: Give me a zuz. He did not give him the coin, so bar Haddaya said nothing to him. Again, the guard said to him: I saw that a worm fell upon my entire hand, eating it. Bar Haddaya said to him: A worm fell upon and ate all the silk garments. They heard of this in the king’s palace and they brought the wardrobe keeper and were in the process of executing him. He said to them: Why me? Bring the one who knew and did not say the information that he knew. They brought bar Haddaya and said to him: Because of your zuz, ruin came upon ^60a The Gemara deduces: This proves by inference that if he purchases a new object and then purchases a similar object, everyone agrees that he is not required to recite a blessing, as he has already recited a blessing over the purchase of that type of item.,Some say a different version of this dispute: Rav Huna said: They only taught that one recites the blessing: Who has given us life, on a new vessel if he did not purchase that item in the past and purchased the item now, for the first time. However, if he purchased that item in the past and purchased the item again, he need not recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even if one purchased that item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. This proves by inference that if one already has a vessel and then purchased similar vessels, everyone agrees that he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: One who built a new house and does not already own a similar house, or purchased new vessels and does not already own similar vessels, must recite a blessing. However, if he already owns a similar one, he need not recite a blessing, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, says: In either case, he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the first version of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥa, one could say that Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and that Rabbi Yoḥa holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. However, according to the latter version of the dispute, granted, Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yoḥa state his opinion? His statement is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa could have said to you: The same is true according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; in a case where one has purchased an item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. The fact that they only disagreed with regard to a case where he already owned similar vessels and he purchased new ones does not indicate that this is their only disagreement. The dispute was presented in this way to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir’s opinion; even in a case where one purchased an item while owning a similar item, he need not recite a blessing; all the more so in a case where he purchased an item and then purchased a similar item again, he need not recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: And if that is the reason for presenting the dispute in this manner, let them disagree with regard to a case where one purchased an item in the past and then purchased a similar item again, where according to Rabbi Meir one need not recite a blessing, in order to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; as Rabbi Yehuda requires a blessing in that case. The Gemara responds: The Gemara preferred the version before us in order to demonstrate the extent to which Rabbi Meir was lenient in not requiring a blessing because the strength of leniency is preferable.,We learned in the mishna: One recites a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he does for the good. This is to say that one recites the blessing appropriate for the present situation even if it is bad, despite the fact that it may develop into a positive situation in the future.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where a dam was breached and water flowed onto one’s land, despite the fact that this will ultimately be beneficial for him, for his land will be covered with sediment from the flowing water which will enhance the quality of his soil, it is nonetheless bad at present.,One must recite a blessing for the good that befalls him just as for the bad.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where one found a lost object, despite the fact that it is ultimately bad for him because if the king heard about it, he would certainly take it from him. At that time, the law deemed all found objects the property of the king’s treasury and one who did not report such an object would be punished. Nevertheless, it is favorable at present.,We learned in the mishna: One whose wife was pregt and he said: May it be God’s will that my wife will give birth to a male child, it is a vain prayer.,Is a prayer in that case ineffective? Rav Yosef raises an objection based on a baraita: It is stated: “And afterwards she bore a daughter, and called her name Dina” (Genesis 30:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by the addition of the word: Afterwards? What does the verse seek to convey by emphasizing that after the birth of Zebulun she gave birth to Dina? Rav said: After Leah passed judgment on herself and said: Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Jacob, six came from me and four from the maidservants, that is ten, and if this fetus is male, my sister Rachel will not even be the equivalent of one the maidservants; immediately the fetus was transformed into a daughter, as it is stated: And she called her name Dina; meaning she named her after her judgment din. The Gemara rejects this: One does not mention miraculous acts to teach general halakha.,The Gemara introduces an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that the story of Leah and her prayer with regard to the fetus was within forty days of conception. As it was taught in a baraita: During the first three days after intercourse, one should pray that the seed not putrefy, that it will fertilize the egg and develop into a fetus. From the third day until the fortieth, one should pray that it will be male. From the fortieth day until three months, one should pray that it will not be deformed, in the shape of a flat fish, as when the fetus does not develop it assumes a shape somewhat similar to a flat sandal fish. From the third month until the sixth, one should pray that it will not be stillborn. And from the sixth month until the ninth, one should pray that it will be emerge safely. Therefore, during the first forty days from conception, one may still pray to affect the gender of the fetus.,The Gemara asks: Is prayer effective for that purpose? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Ami, say: The tradition teaches that the gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the man emits seed first, his wife gives birth to a female; if the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, as it is stated: “When a woman emitted seed and bore a male” (Leviticus 12:2). The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where they both emit seed simultaneously. In that case, the gender is undetermined and prayer may be effectual.,We learned in the mishna: One who was walking along the way and heard a scream from the city, and says: May it be God’s will that this scream will not be from my house, it is a vain prayer.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who was coming on the road when he heard a scream in the city. He said: I am certain that the scream is not coming from my house. And of him, the verse says: “He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord” (Psalms 112:7). Rava said: Any way that you interpret this verse, its meaning is clear. It can be interpreted from beginning to end or it can be interpreted from end to beginning. The Gemara explains: It can be interpreted from beginning to end: Why is it that: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings? Because his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord. The Gemara continues: And it can be interpreted from end to beginning: One whose heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord is a person who shall not be afraid of evil tidings.,The Gemara relates: This student was once walking after Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the marketplace of Zion. Rabbi Yishmael saw that the student was afraid. He said to him: You are a sinner, as it is written: “The transgressors in Zion are afraid, trembling has seized the ungodly” (Isaiah 33:14). The student replied: And is it not written: “Happy is the man that fears always” (Proverbs 28:14)? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah, that one should be afraid lest he forget them. For everything else, one must trust in God.,In a similar vein, the Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Natan was coming and going after Rav Hamnuna. Yehuda bar Natan sighed; Rav Hamnuna said to him: Do you wish to bring suffering upon yourself; as it is stated: “For that which I did fear is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of has overtaken me” (Job 3:25)? He responded: Is it not said: “Happy is the man who fears always”? Rav Hamnuna answered: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah.,We learned in the mishna: One who enters a large city recites two prayers; Ben Azzai says he recites four prayers.,The Sages taught the details of Ben Azzai’s teaching in a baraita: rUpon his entrance to the city what does he recite? rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that You bring me into this city to peace. rAfter he entered the city, he recites: I thank You, O Lord my God, that You brought me into this city to peace. rWhen he seeks to leave the city, he recites: May it be Your will, O Lord my God and God of my ancestors, that You take me out of this city to peace. rAfter he left, he recites: I give thanks before You, O Lord my God, that You took me out of this city to peace; rand just as You took me out to peace, rso too lead me to peace, support me to peace, direct my steps to peace, rand rescue me from the hand of any enemy or those lying in ambush along the way.,Rav Mattana said: This was taught only with regard to a city where criminals are not tried and executed, as in a place like that he may be killed without trial. However, in a city where criminals are tried and executed, these prayers do not apply, as if one is not guilty he will not be harmed.,Some say that Rav Mattana said the opposite: Even in a city where criminals are tried and executed one must pray for mercy, as sometimes he may not encounter a person who will plead in his favor.,The Sages taught: One who enters a Roman bathhouse, where a fire burns beneath the pool of water used for bathing, and where there is the risk of collapse, says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that you save me from this and similar matters, rand do not let ruin or iniquity befall me, rand if ruin or iniquity does befall me, let my death be atonement for all of my transgressions.,Abaye said: One should not say: If ruin befalls me, so as not to open his mouth to Satan and provoke him. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said and as it was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One should never open his mouth to Satan by raising, at his own initiative, the possibility of mishap or death.,Rav Yosef said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “We should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9), after which what did the prophet reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10). After the analogy to Sodom was raised, it was realized.,Returning to the subject of the Roman bathhouse, the Gemara asks: When he emerges from the bathhouse, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: I give thanks to You, Lord, that You saved me from the fire.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu entered a bathhouse when the bathhouse floor collapsed beneath him and a miracle transpired on his behalf. He stood on a pillar and saved one hundred and one men with one arm. He held one or two people in his arm, with others holding on them and so on, so that all were saved. He said: This is confirmation of the statement of Rav Aḥa, who said that one should offer thanks upon leaving the bathhouse safely.,As Rav Aḥa said: One who enters to let blood says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, rthat this enterprise be for healing and that You should heal me. rAs You are a faithful God of healing and Your healing is truth. rBecause it is not the way of people to heal, but they have become accustomed. rRav Aḥa is saying that people should not practice medicine as they lack the ability to heal; rather, healing should be left to God.,Abaye responded and said: One should not say this, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that from the verse, “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exodus 21:19), from here we derive that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. The practice of medicine is in accordance with the will of God.,As for bloodletting, the Gemara asks: When one stands after having let blood, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: He recites in gratitude: Blessed…Who heals without payment. ' None

16. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, law • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 95, 185, 201; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 95, 185, 201

^10b דאי לאו דכותי חבר הוה לא מחתים ליה מקמיה אי הכי אפילו שאר שטרות נמי,אלא אמרינן רווחא שבק למאן דקשיש מיניה הכא נמי רווחא שבק למאן דקשיש מיניה,א"ר פפא זאת אומרת עדי הגט אין חותמין זה בלא זה,מאי טעמא אמר רב אשי גזירה משום כולכם,גופא אמר רבי אלעזר לא הכשירו בו אלא עד אחד כותי בלבד מאי קמ"ל תנינא כל גט שיש עליו עד כותי פסול כו\',אי ממתניתין הוה אמינא אפי\' תרי נמי והאי דקתני חד משום דבשטרות אפי\' חד נמי לא קמ"ל,ותרי לא והא קתני מעשה והביאו לפני רבן גמליאל לכפר עותנאי גט אשה והיו עדיו עדי כותים והכשיר אמר אביי תני עדו,רבא אמר לעולם תרי ורבן גמליאל מיפלג פליג וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ורבן גמליאל מכשיר בשנים ומעשה נמי שהביאו לפני רבן גמליאל לכפר עותנאי גט אשה והיו עדיו עדי כותים והכשיר:,11a בשמות מובהקין,היכי דמי שמות מובהקין אמר רב פפא כגון הורמיז ואבודינא בר שיבתאי ובר קידרי ובאטי ונקים אונא,אבל שמות שאין מובהקים מאי לא אי הכי אדתני סיפא לא הוזכרו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט לפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל שמות שאין מובהקין לא,הכי נמי קאמר בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל בשמות שאין מובהקין נעשה כמי שנעשו בהדיוט ופסולין,ואיבעית אימא סיפא אתאן לגיטי ממון והכי קאמר לא הוזכרו גיטי ממון דפסולים אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט,תניא אמר ר\' אלעזר בר\' יוסי כך אמר ר"ש לחכמים בצידן לא נחלקו ר"ע וחכמים על כל השטרות העולין בערכאות של עובדי כוכבי\' שאע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשרים ואפי\' גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים לא נחלקו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט שר"ע מכשיר וחכמים פוסלים חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים,רשב"ג אומר אף אלו כשירין במקום שאין ישראל חותמין אבל במקום שישראל חותמין לא,מקום שאין ישראל חותמין נמי ליגזור אטו מקום שישראל חותמין שמא בשמא מחליף אתרא באתרא לא מחליף,רבינא סבר לאכשורי בכנופיאתה דארמאי א"ל רפרם ערכאות תנן,אמר רבא האי שטרא פרסאה דמסריה ניהליה באפי סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה מבני חרי,והא לא ידעי למיקרא בדידעי,והא בעינא כתב שאינו יכול לזייף וליכא בדאפיצן והא בעינא צריך שיחזיר מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה וליכא בדמהדר,א"ה ממשעבדי נמי לית ליה קלא,בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר\' יוחנן ' None

^10b as, if not for the fact that the Samaritan was one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot ḥaver, the Jew would not have allowed him to sign the document before him. Therefore, one may rely on this Samaritan in this particular case. The Gemara asks: If so, that the mishna is referring to that case, then even other documents should be valid as well, if a Jew signed after the Samaritan.,Rather, this is not the case with regard to other documents, as we say that the fact that the Jew signed last does not prove that this Samaritan was a ḥaver, as perhaps in signing last he was leaving space above his signature for one who was older than he is in deference to the elder, and instead, a Samaritan came and signed the document. The Gemara asks: Here too, in the case of a bill of divorce, perhaps he was leaving space above his signature for one who was his elder. Why, then, are bills of divorce and bills of manumission valid while other documents are not?,Rav Pappa says: That is to say, in explanation of the difference between bills of divorce and manumission and other documents, that the witnesses of a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission may not sign one without the other; rather, each witness signs in the presence of the other. A Jew would be aware that a Samaritan was signing with him, and he would not sign unless he knew that the Samaritan was a valid witness. However, with regard to other documents, witnesses are not required to sign such documents in each other’s presence. Therefore, the signature of the Jew indicates nothing about the fitness of the Samaritan witness.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission together? Rav Ashi says: It is a rabbinic decree issued due to a case where the husband says: All of you are witnesses on this bill of divorce. In that case, if any one of them fails to sign the bill of divorce, it is invalid. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce together in all cases.,§ Since the Gemara mentioned the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar, it analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar says: They deemed a bill of divorce valid only when just one witness is a Samaritan. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by this statement? We already learned in the mishna: Any document that has a Samaritan witness on it is invalid except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. This indicates that those are valid only if they have the signature of one Samaritan witness, not two.,The Gemara responds: If it is learned from the mishna alone I would have said that even two Samaritan witnesses are also valid for a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission. And the fact that the mishna teaches one witness is because it wants to emphasize that for other documents even one Samaritan witness is also not valid. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer teaches us that in the case of bills of divorce only one Samaritan witness is valid, but if both witnesses are Samaritans the bill of divorce is not valid.,The Gemara asks: And are two Samaritan witnesses not accepted on a bill of divorce? But the mishna teaches: An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid. Abaye said that one should teach the mishna so that it does not read: Its witnesses, but rather: Its witness, i.e., Rabban Gamliel deemed valid a bill of divorce that had the signature of one Samaritan witness, as even he would invalidate a bill of divorce that included the signatures of two Samaritans.,Rava said: Actually, you do not need to say that the case was concerning one Samaritan witness, as it indeed is referring to two Samaritans witnesses, and Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the opinion of the first tanna. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: And Rabban Gamliel deems valid a bill of divorce that contains the signatures of two Samaritans, and an incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.,all documents produced in gentile courts, even though their signatures are those of gentiles they are all valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid, as these two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court.,tanna categorically teaches a general halakha in the mishna, and it is no different if it is a document concerning a sale and it is no different if it is a document concerning a gift, the document is valid in both cases.,The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of a sale this is reasonable, as from when the buyer gave money to the seller in the presence of the gentile judges he has acquired the property, since he has performed an act of acquisition. And the document is merely a proof for the acquisition. It must be that he already acquired the property in question, as if he had not given money in their presence the court would not act to its own detriment and write a document for him, as the document detailing the sale would not be accurate, and writing such a document would reflect poorly on them. Therefore, the document clearly serves as proof that the acquisition was performed in the correct manner.,However, with regard to a gift, by what means does the one who receives the gift acquire it from the giver? Is it not via this document? And yet this document is merely a shard, as a document written by gentiles is not considered a legal document according to halakha. Shmuel said: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live. Consequently, every form of property transfer accepted by local law is valid according to halakha as well.,And if you wish, say that one should emend the text of the mishna, and teach: They are all valid except for documents that are like bills of divorce. In other words, the distinction is between different types of documents: Documents that are meant to serve only as proof are valid even if they were produced in gentile courts, whereas documents that effect a legal act, such as bills of divorce, are invalid if they were written in a gentile court.,§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon says: Even these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are valid if they were written in a gentile court and were signed by gentiles. The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Shimon rule in this manner? But gentiles are not fit for this role, as they are not subject to the halakhot concerning scrolls of severance. Since the halakhot of marriage and divorce in the Torah are stated exclusively with regard to Jews, gentiles cannot serve in any capacity in cases of this kind.,Rabbi Zeira says: Rabbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that the witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. In other words, the signing of the bill of divorce is not essential to its effectiveness. Rather, the transfer of the bill of divorce completes the act of divorce, and therefore no attention is paid to who the signatories were.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say that although he considers a bill of divorce valid even without the signature of witnesses, Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it that it is invalid despite the fact that it was properly transferred. In other words, notwithstanding the halakha that the signatures on a bill of divorce are unnecessary, a document that includes invalid signatures is thereby invalidated. The reason is that there is a concern that people will rely upon these witnesses. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?' ^11a We are dealing with unambiguous gentile names, in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.,The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.,The Gemara infers: However, if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with ambiguous names, what is the halakha? Is this not a valid document? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: These two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of gentile courts itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, in a case of ambiguous names, no, gentile witnesses are not valid.,The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying, i.e., Rabbi Shimon’s statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: In what case is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names, the document becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and therefore such documents are invalid.,And if you wish, say a different answer: In the last clause of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, we arrive at the case of ficial documents. Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first tanna. And this is what the mishna is saying: Ficial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person, whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid.,It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in the city of Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, these documents are valid, even in the case of bills of divorce and bills of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, outside a court, as Rabbi Akiva deems a document of this kind valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, bills of divorce and manumission, are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. In other words, the halakha that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. However, in a place where Jews sign, no, these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.,The Gemara suggests: Let us also decree in a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign. The Gemara answers: One might confuse one name with another name. It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is not likely to confuse one place with another place. Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.,§ The Gemara relates that Ravina thought to deem valid a document that was written by a group of gentiles arma’ei. Rafram said to him that we learned: Gentile courts, in the mishna, i.e., these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.,Similarly, Rava said: With regard to this Persian document shetara parsa’a written by the Persian authorities that was transferred to the recipient in the presence of Jewish witnesses, he can collect with it non-liened property, i.e., property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.,The Gemara asks: But the witnesses for the transmission of this document do not know how to read Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation where the witnesses know how to read Persian.,The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But I require that the document be written in a manner that cannot be forged, and it is not so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava’s statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). But I require that a document review the essential topic of the document in its last line, and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement applies in a case where it returned to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.,The Gemara asks: If so, he should be able to collect from liened property as well, as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn’t Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does not generate publicity, i.e., a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase.,Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥa: ' None

17. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, law • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 100, 105; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 100, 105

^5a ומחריא תנורא שקלתא ואנחתא אגבה דכרעה קדחא ואיתרע מזלה ואייתיתה,א"ל רב ביבי בר אביי אית לכו רשותא למיעבד הכי אמר ליה ולא כתיב ויש נספה בלא משפט א"ל והכתיב (קהלת א, ד) דור הולך ודור בא,אמר דרעינא להו אנא עד דמלו להו לדרא והדר משלימנא ליה לדומה א"ל סוף סוף שניה מאי עבדת אמר אי איכא צורבא מרבנן דמעביר במיליה מוסיפנא להו ליה והויא חלופיה,רבי יוחנן כי מטי להאי קרא בכי (איוב ב, ג) ותסיתני בו לבלעו חנם עבד שרבו מסיתין לו וניסת תקנה יש לו רבי יוחנן כי מטי להאי קרא בכי (איוב טו, טו) הן בקדושיו לא יאמין אי בקדושיו לא יאמין במאן יאמין,יומא חד הוה קא אזיל באורחא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה מנקיט תאני שביק הנך דמטו ושקיל הנך דלא מטו א"ל לאו הני מעלן טפי א"ל הני לאורחא בעינן להו הני נטרן והני לא נטרן אמר היינו דכתיב הן בקדושיו לא יאמין,איני והא ההוא תלמידא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרבי אלכסנדרי ושכיב אדזוטר ואמר אי בעי האי מרבנן הוה חיי ואם איתא דלמא מהן בקדושיו לא יאמין הוה ההוא מבעט ברבותיו הוה,רבי יוחנן כי מטי להאי קרא בכי (מלאכי ג, ה) וקרבתי אליכם למשפט והייתי עד ממהר במכשפים ובמנאפים ובנשבעים לשקר ובעושקי שכר שכיר עבד שרבו מקרבו לדונו וממהר להעידו תקנה יש לו,אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אוי לנו ששקל עלינו הכתוב קלות כחמורות,אמר ריש לקיש כל המטה דינו של גר כאילו מטה דינו של מעלה שנאמר (מלאכי ג, ה) ומטי גר ומטי כתיב א"ר חנינא בר פפא כל העושה דבר ומתחרט בו מוחלין לו מיד שנאמר (מלאכי ג, ה) ולא יראוני הא יראוני מוחלין להם מיד,רבי יוחנן כי מטי להאי קרא בכי (קהלת יב, יד) כי את כל מעשה האלהים יביא במשפט על כל נעלם עבד שרבו שוקל לו שגגות כזדונות תקנה יש לו,מאי על כל נעלם אמר רב זה ההורג כינה בפני חברו ונמאס בה ושמואל אמר זה הרק בפני חבירו ונמאס,מאי אם טוב ואם רע אמרי דבי ר\' ינאי זה הנותן צדקה לעני בפרהסיא כי הא דרבי ינאי חזייה לההוא גברא דקא יהיב זוזא לעני בפרהסיא אמר ליה מוטב דלא יהבת ליה מהשתא דיהבת ליה וכספתיה,דבי ר\' שילא אמרי זה הנותן צדקה לאשה בסתר דקא מייתי לה לידי חשדא רבא אמר זה המשגר לאשתו בשר שאינו מחותך בערבי שבתות,והא רבא משגר שאני בת רב חסדא דקים ליה בגווה דבקיאה,רבי יוחנן כי מטי להאי קרא בכי (דברים לא, כא) והיה כי תמצאן אותו רעות רבות וצרות עבד שרבו ממציא לו רעות וצרות תקנה יש לו,מאי רעות וצרות אמר רב רעות שנעשות צרות זו לזו כגון זיבורא ועקרבא,ושמואל אמר זה הממציא לו מעות לעני בשעת דוחקו אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי זוזא לעללא לא שכיחא לתליתא שכיח,(דברים לא, יז) וחרה אפי בו ביום ההוא ועזבתים והסתרתי פני מהם אמר רב ברדלא בר טביומי אמר רב כל שאינו בהסתר פנים אינו מהם כל שאינו בוהיה לאכול'^5b אינו מהם אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא מר לא בהסתר פנים איתיה ולא בוהיה לאכול איתיה אמר להו מי ידעיתו כמה משדרנא בצנעא בי שבור מלכא אפי\' הכי יהבו ביה רבנן עינייהו אדהכי שדור דבי שבור מלכא וגרבוהו אמר היינו דתניא אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כל מקום שנתנו חכמים עיניהם או מיתה או עוני,(דברים לא, יח) ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני ביום ההוא אמר רבא אמר הקב"ה אף על פי שהסתרתי פני מהם בחלום אדבר בו רב יוסף אמר ידו נטויה עלינו שנאמר (ישעיהו נא, טז) ובצל ידי כסיתיך,ר\' יהושע בן חנניה הוה קאי בי קיסר אחוי ליה ההוא אפיקורוסא עמא דאהדרינהו מריה לאפיה מיניה אחוי ליה ידו נטויה עלינו אמר ליה קיסר לר\' יהושע מאי אחוי לך עמא דאהדרינהו מריה לאפיה מיניה ואנא מחוינא ליה ידו נטויה עלינו,אמרו ליה לההוא מינא מאי אחויית ליה עמא דאהדרינהו מריה מיניה ומאי אחוי לך לא ידענא אמרו גברא דלא ידע מאי מחוו ליה במחוג יחוי קמי מלכא אפקוהו וקטלוהו,כי קא ניחא נפשיה דרבי יהושע בן חנניה אמרו ליה רבנן מאי תיהוי עלן מאפיקורוסין אמר להם (ירמיהו מט, ז) אבדה עצה מבנים נסרחה חכמתם כיון שאבדה עצה מבנים נסרחה חכמתן של אומות העולם,ואי בעית אימא מהכא (בראשית לג, יב) ויאמר נסעה ונלכה ואלכה לנגדך,רבי אילא הוה סליק בדרגא דבי רבה בר שילא שמעיה לינוקא דהוה קא קרי (עמוס ד, יג) כי הנה יוצר הרים ובורא רוח ומגיד לאדם מה שיחו אמר עבד שרבו מגיד לו מה שיחו תקנה יש לו מאי מה שיחו אמר רב אפילו שיחה יתירה שבין איש לאשתו מגידים לו לאדם בשעת מיתה,איני והא רב כהנא הוה גני תותי פורייה דרב ושמעיה דסח וצחק ועשה צרכיו אמר דמי פומיה דרב כמאן דלא טעים ליה תבשילא אמר ליה כהנא פוק לאו אורח ארעא,לא קשיא כאן דצריך לרצויה הא דלא צריך לרצויה,(ירמיהו יג, יז) ואם לא תשמעוה במסתרים תבכה נפשי מפני גוה אמר רב שמואל בר איניא משמיה דרב מקום יש לו להקב"ה ומסתרים שמו מאי מפני גוה אמר רב שמואל בר יצחק מפני גאוותן של ישראל שניטלה מהם ונתנה לעובדי כוכבים ר\' שמואל בר נחמני אמר מפני גאוותה של מלכות שמים,ומי איכא בכיה קמיה הקב"ה והאמר רב פפא אין עציבות לפני הקב"ה שנאמר (דברי הימים א טז, כז) הוד והדר לפניו עוז וחדוה במקומו לא קשיא הא בבתי גואי הא בבתי בראי,ובבתי בראי לא והא כתיב (ישעיהו כב, יב) ויקרא אדני ה\' צבאות ביום ההוא לבכי ולמספד ולקרחה ולחגור שק שאני חרבן בית המקדש דאפילו מלאכי שלום בכו שנאמר (ישעיהו לג, ז) הן אראלם צעקו חוצה מלאכי שלום מר יבכיון:,(ירמיהו יג, יז) ודמע תדמע ותרד עיני דמעה כי נשבה עדר ה\' אמר ר\' אלעזר שלש דמעות הללו למה אחת על מקדש ראשון ואחת על מקדש שני ואחת על ישראל שגלו ממקומן ואיכא דאמרי אחת על ביטול תורה,בשלמא למאן דאמר על ישראל שגלו היינו דכתיב כי נשבה עדר ה\' אלא למאן דאמר על ביטול תורה מאי כי נשבה עדר ה\' כיון שגלו ישראל ממקומן אין לך ביטול תורה גדול מזה,תנו רבנן שלשה הקב"ה בוכה עליהן בכל יום על שאפשר לעסוק בתורה ואינו עוסק ועל שאי אפשר לעסוק בתורה ועוסק ועל פרנס המתגאה על הצבור,רבי הוה נקיט ספר קינות וקא קרי בגויה כי מטא להאי פסוקא (איכה ב, א) השליך משמים ארץ נפל מן ידיה אמר מאיגרא רם לבירא עמיקתא,רבי ורבי חייא הוו שקלי ואזלי באורחא כי מטו לההוא מתא אמרי איכא צורבא מרבנן הכא נזיל וניקביל אפיה אמרי איכא צורבא מרבנן הכא ומאור עינים הוא אמר ליה ר\' חייא לרבי תיב את לא תזלזל בנשיאותך איזיל אנא ואקביל אפיה,תקפיה ואזל בהדיה כי הוו מיפטרי מיניה אמר להו אתם הקבלתם פנים הנראים ואינן רואין תזכו להקביל פנים הרואים ואינן נראין אמר ליה איכו השתא מנעתן מהאי בירכתא,אמרו ליה ממאן שמיעא לך מפרקיה דרבי יעקב שמיע לי דרבי יעקב איש כפר חיטייא הוה מקביל אפיה דרביה כל יומא כי קש א"ל לא נצטער מר דלא יכיל מר,אמר ליה מי זוטר מאי דכתיב בהו ברבנן (תהלים מט, י) ויחי עוד לנצח לא יראה השחת כי יראה חכמים ימותו ומה הרואה חכמים במיתתן יחיה בחייהן על אחת כמה וכמה,רב אידי אבוה דרבי יעקב בר אידי הוה רגיל דהוה אזיל תלתא ירחי באורחא וחד יומא בבי רב והוו קרו ליה רבנן בר בי רב דחד יומא חלש דעתיה קרי אנפשיה (איוב יב, ד) שחוק לרעהו אהיה וגו\' א"ל ר\' יוחנן במטותא מינך לא תעניש להו רבנן,נפק ר\' יוחנן לבי מדרשא ודרש (ישעיהו נח, ב) ואותי יום יום ידרשון ודעת דרכי יחפצון וכי ביום דורשין אותו ובלילה אין דורשין אותו אלא לומר לך כל העוסק בתורה אפי\' יום אחד בשנה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עסק כל השנה כולה,וכן במדת פורענות דכתיב (במדבר יד, לד) במספר הימים אשר תרתם את הארץ וכי ארבעים שנה חטאו והלא ארבעים יום חטאו אלא לומר לך כל העובר עבירה אפי\' יום אחד בשנה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עבר כל השנה כולה:,אי זהו קטן כל שאינו יכול לרכוב על כתפו של אביו: מתקיף לה רבי זירא ' None

^5a and sweeping the oven. She took the fire and set it on her foot; she was scalded and her luck suffered, which gave me the opportunity, and I brought her.,Rav Beivai bar Abaye said to the Angel of Death: Do you have the right to act in this manner, to take someone before his time? The Angel of Death said to him: And is it not written: “But there are those swept away without justice” (Proverbs 13:23)? Rav Beivai said to him: And isn’t it written: “One generation passes away, and another generation comes” (Ecclesiastes 1:4), which indicates that there is a predetermined amount of time for the life of every generation.,He said to him: I shepherd them, not releasing them until the years of the generation are completed, and then I pass them on to the angel Duma who oversees the souls of the dead. Rav Beivai said to him: Ultimately, what do you do with his extra years, those taken away from this individual? The Angel of Death said to him: If there is a Torah scholar who disregards his personal matters, i.e., who overlooks the insults of those who wrong him, I add those years to him and he becomes the deceased’s replacement for that time.,§ The Gemara returns to the previous topic. When Rabbi Yoḥa reached this verse, he cried, as God said to the Satan about Job: “Although you did incite Me against him, to destroy him without cause” (Job 2:3). Rabbi Yoḥa said: With regard to a slave whose master is one whom others incite to act harshly against the slave and the master is incited to do so, is there a remedy for the slave? Additionally, when Rabbi Yoḥa reached this verse, he cried: “Behold He puts no trust in His sacred ones” (Job 15:15), saying: If He does not place trust in His sacred ones, in whom does He place trust?,The Gemara relates: One day Rabbi Yoḥa was walking along the road, and he saw a certain man who was picking figs in an unusual manner: He left the ones that had reached the stage of ripeness and took those that had not yet reached that state. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Aren’t these ripe ones much better? He said to him: I need these dates for the road; these that are not yet ripe will be preserved, and these that are already ripe will not be preserved. Rabbi Yoḥa said: This is the same as is written: “Behold He puts no trust in His sacred ones”; there are righteous people whom God takes from this world before their time, as He knows that in the future they will stumble.,The Gemara asks: Is that so? But there was a certain student in the neighborhood of Rabbi Alexandri, and he died while he was still young. And Rabbi Alexandri said: If this young Sage had wanted, he would have lived, i.e., his actions caused him to die young. And if it is so, as Rabbi Yoḥa suggested, perhaps this student was from those concerning whom it is written: “Behold he puts no trust in his sacred ones,” and it was not his sins that caused his death. The Gemara answers: That student was one who acted irreverently toward his teachers, and Rabbi Alexandri knew of his improper behavior.,When Rabbi Yoḥa reached this verse, he cried: “And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false witnesses, and against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and who turn aside the convert from his right, and do not fear Me, says the Lord” (Malachi\xa03:5). He said: With regard to a slave whose master comes near to him to judge him and is swift to testify against him, is there a remedy for him?,With regard to that same verse, Rabbi Yoḥa ben Zakkai said: Woe to us, as the verse weighs lenient mitzvot for us like more stringent mitzvot, as it lists both those who violate sins punishable by death, e.g., sorcerers and adulterers, with those who violate apparently less severe sins, e.g., those who withhold payment from a hired worker.,Reish Lakish said: Anyone who distorts the judgment of a convert, it is considered as if he distorted the judgment of the One above, as it is stated: “And who turn aside umattei the convert” (Malachi\xa03:5). This term is written as: Umatti, turn Me aside, i.e., one who distorts the judgment of a convert it considered as though he distorts the judgment of God, as it were. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: Anyone who does something sinful and regrets it, he is forgiven immediately, as it is stated: “And do not fear Me” (Malachi 3:5), which indicates that if they do fear Me and are embarrassed to sin before God, they are forgiven immediately.,Additionally, when Rabbi Yoḥa reached this verse, he cried: “For God shall bring every work into the judgment concerning every hidden thing” (Ecclesiastes\xa012:14). He said: With regard to a slave whose master weighs his unwitting sins like intentional ones, i.e., God punishes him even for an action that was hidden from him, is there a remedy for him?,The Gemara asks: What sin is the verse referring to when it states: “Concerning every hidden thing”? Rav said: This is referring to one who kills a louse in the presence of another and his friend is disgusted by it. God judges him for the unintentional discomfort he caused. And similarly, Shmuel said: This is referring to one who spits in the presence of another and his friend is disgusted by his action.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “Whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14)? This verse indicates that God judges man harshly even for the good deeds he performs. The Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: This verse is referring to one who gives charity to a poor person in public. Although he performed a good deed, he embarrassed the pauper, as in this case of Rabbi Yannai, who saw a certain man who was giving a dinar to a poor person in public. He said to him: It would have been better had you not given it to him than what you did, as now you gave it to him and embarrassed him.,The Sages from the school of Rabbi Sheila say: This verse is referring to one who gives charity to a woman in private, as he subjects her to suspicion, for people might think that he is engaging her services as a prostitute. Rava said: This is referring to one who sends his wife meat that is not sliced, i.e., that has not yet had the prohibited sciatic nerve removed, on Shabbat eve. Since she is in a hurry she might not notice and will perhaps cook the prohibited meat.,The Gemara asks: But yet Rava himself would send this type of meat to his wife on Shabbat eve. The Gemara answers: The daughter of Rav Ḥisda, Rava’s wife, is different, as he was certain about her that she was an expert in this matter. Rava trusted that his wife would realize the sciatic nerve had not been removed even when she was in a hurry on Shabbat eve.,Additionally, when Rabbi Yoḥa reached this verse, he cried: “Then it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them” (Deuteronomy\xa031:21). He said: With regard to a slave whose master brings upon him evils and troubles, is there a remedy for him?,The Gemara asks: What is the verse referring to when it states: “Evils and troubles”? Rav said: Evils that become troubles for one another, i.e., the remedy for one problem has a deleterious effect on the other. For example, one who is stung by a hornet and a scorpion. The sting of a hornet must be treated only with a cold ointment, while that of a scorpion must be treated with a hot ointment. As these medicaments are mutually exclusive, one cannot treat both stings at the same time.,And Shmuel said: This verse is referring to one who provides money to a poor person as a loan during his exigent ficial circumstances, but immediately after the borrower is released from the initial pressure by receiving the loan, the lender begins to demand repayment, subjecting the recipient to further pressure. Rava said that this explains the folk saying that people say: A dinar for produce is not found; for hanging it can be found. A poor person cannot find money to buy basic necessities; however, when the lenders hang on and pressure him he must come up with the money somehow.,On the same topic the Gemara states: “Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured” (Deuteronomy\xa031:17). Rav Bardela bar Tavyumei said that Rav said: Anyone who is not subject to His hiding of the face, i.e., whose prayers are invariably answered, is not from the Jewish people, as the verse states about the Jewish people that God will hide His face from them as a result of their sins. Similarly, anyone who is not subject to: “And they shall be devoured,” i.e., gentiles do not steal his money,'^5b is not from among them. The Sages said to Rava: Master, you are not subject to His hiding of the face, as your prayers are heard, and you are not subject to: “And they shall be devoured,” as the authorities take nothing from you. He said to them: Do you know how many gifts I send in private to the house of King Shapur? Although it might seem that the monarchy does not take anything from me, in actuality I am forced to give many bribes. Even so, the Sages looked upon Rava with suspicion. In the meantime, messengers from the house of King Shapur sent for him and imprisoned him to extort more money from him. Rava said: This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Wherever the Sages looked upon someone, it resulted in either death or poverty.,With regard to the verse: “And I will hide my face in that day” (Deuteronomy\xa031:18), Rava said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Even though I hid my face from them and My Divine Presence is not revealed, nevertheless: “I speak with him in a dream” (Numbers 12:6). Rav Yosef said: His hand is outstretched, guarding over us, as it is stated: “And I have covered you in the shadow of my hand” (Isaiah 51:16).,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya was standing in the house of the Caesar. A certain heretic, who was also present, gestured to him, indicating that his was the nation whose Master, God, turned His face away from it. Rabbi Yehoshua gestured to him that His hand is outstretched over us in protection. The Caesar said to Rabbi Yehoshua: What did he gesture to you, and how did you respond? He replied: He indicated that mine is the nation whose Master turned His face from it, and I gestured to him that His hand is outstretched over us.,The members of the Caesar’s household said to that heretic: What did you gesture to him? He said to them: I gestured that his is the nation whose Master has turned His face from it. They asked: And what did he gesture to you? He said to them: I don’t know; I did not understand. They said: How can a man who does not know what others gesture to him dare to gesture in the presence of the king? They took him out and killed him.,The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya was dying, the Sages said to him: What will become of us, from the threat of the heretics, when there is no scholar like you who can refute them? He said to them that the verse states: “Is wisdom no more in Teiman? Has counsel perished from the prudent? Has their wisdom vanished?” (Jeremiah\xa049:7). He explained: Since counsel has perished from the prudent, from the Jewish people, the wisdom of the nations of the world has vanished as well, and there will be no superior scholars among them.,And if you wish, say instead that the same idea can be derived from here: “And he said: Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go corresponding to you” (Genesis\xa033:12). Just as the Jewish people rise and fall, so too, the nations of the world simultaneously rise and fall, and they will never have an advantage.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ila was ascending the stairs in the house of Rabba bar Sheila, a children’s teacher. He heard a child who was reading a verse out loud: “For, lo, He Who forms the mountains, and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his speech” (Amos 4:13). Rabbi Ila said: With regard to a servant whose master declares to him what is his proper speech, is there a remedy for him? The Gemara asks. What is the meaning of the phrase: “What is his speech”? Rav said: Even frivolous speech that is between a man and his wife before engaging in relations is declared to a person at the time of death, and he will have to account for it.,The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it prohibited for a man to speak in this manner with his wife? Wasn’t Rav Kahana lying beneath Rav’s bed, and he heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and performing his needs, i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana said out loud: The mouth of Rav is like one who has never eaten a cooked dish, i.e., his behavior is lustful. Rav said to him: Kahana, leave, as this is not proper conduct. This shows that Rav himself engaged in frivolous talk before relations.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where this type of speech is permitted, it is referring to a situation where he must appease his wife before relations, and therefore this speech is appropriate. However, this statement, that it is prohibited, is referring to a situation where he doesn’t need to appease her. In these circumstances, it is prohibited to engage in excessively lighthearted chatter with one’s wife.,The verse states: “But if you will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret bemistarim for your pride” (Jeremiah 13:17). Rav Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: The Holy One, Blessed be He, has a place where He cries, and its name is Mistarim. What is the meaning of “for your pride”? Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: God cries due to the pride of the Jewish people, which was taken from them and given to the gentile nations. Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: He cries due to the pride of the kingdom of Heaven, which was removed from the world.,The Gemara asks: But is there crying before the Holy One, Blessed be He? Didn’t Rav Pappa say: There is no sadness before the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Honor and majesty are before Him; strength and gladness are in His place” (I\xa0Chronicles 16:27)? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This statement, that God cries, is referring to the innermost chambers, where He can cry in secret, whereas this statement, that He does not cry, is referring to the outer chambers.,The Gemara asks: And doesn’t God cry in the outer chambers? Isn’t it written: “And on that day the Lord, the God of hosts, called to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth” (Isaiah 22:12)? The Gemara responds: The destruction of the Temple is different, as even the angels of peace cried, as it is stated: “Behold, their valiant ones cry without; the angels of peace weep bitterly” (Isaiah 33:7).,The verse continues: “And my eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the Lord’s flock is carried away captive” (Jeremiah 13:17). Rabbi Elazar said: Why these three references to tears in the verse? One is for the First Temple; one is for the Second Temple; and one is for the Jewish people who were exiled from their place. And there are those who say: The last one is for the unavoidable dereliction of the study of Torah in the wake of the exile.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that the last tear is for the Jewish people who were exiled, this is as it is written: “Because the Lord’s flock is carried away captive.” However, according to the one who said that this tear is for the dereliction of the study of Torah, what is the meaning of: “Because the Lord’s flock is carried away captive”? The Gemara answers: Since the Jewish people were exiled from their place, there is no greater involuntary dereliction of the study of Torah than that which was caused by this.,The Sages taught that there are three types of people for whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, cries every day: For one who is able to engage in Torah study and does not engage in it; and for one who is unable to engage in Torah study and nevertheless he endeavors and engages in it; and for a leader who lords over the community.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was holding the book of Lamentations and was reading from it. When he reached the verse: “He has cast down from heaven to earth the beauty of Israel” (Lamentations 2:1), in his distress the book fell from his hand. He said: From a high roof to a deep pit, i.e., it is terrible to tumble from the sky to the ground.,§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya were walking along the road. When they arrived at a certain city, they said: Is there a Torah scholar here whom we can go and greet? The people of the city said: There is a Torah scholar here but he is blind. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: You sit here; do not demean your dignified status as Nasi to visit someone beneath your stature. I will go and greet him.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi grabbed him and went with him anyway, and together they greeted the blind scholar. When they were leaving him, he said to them: You greeted one who is seen and does not see; may you be worthy to greet the One Who sees and is not seen. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Now, if I had listened to you and not gone to greet him, you would have prevented me from receiving this blessing.,They said to the blind scholar: From whom did you hear that we are worthy of this blessing? He said to them: I heard it from the instruction of Rabbi Ya’akov, as Rabbi Ya’akov of the village of Ḥitiyya would greet his teacher every day. When Rabbi Ya’akov grew elderly, his teacher said to him: Do not despair, my Master, that my Master is unable to make the effort to greet me. It is better that you should not visit me.,Rabbi Ya’akov said to him: Is it a minor matter, that which is written about the Sages: “That he should still live always, that he should not see the pit. For he sees that wise men die” (Psalms\xa049:10–11)? In this regard an a fortiori reference applies: Just as one who sees Sages in their death will live, all the more so one who sees them in their lifetime. From here the blind scholar learned the importance of greeting Torah scholars, which is why he blessed the Sages who came to greet him.,The Gemara relates: Rav Idi, father of Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi, would regularly travel three months on the road to reach the study hall and as he would immediately travel back again to arrive home for the festival of Sukkot, he spent only one day in the school of Rav. And the Sages would disparagingly call him: A student of Torah for one day. He was offended and read the following verse about himself: “I am as one that is a laughingstock to his neighbor, a man who calls upon God, and He answers him” (Job 12:4). Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Please do not punish the Sages, i.e., do not take offense and be harsh with them, as this will cause them to be punished by God.,Rabbi Yoḥa left Rav Idi and went to the study hall and taught: “Yet they seek Me daily, and delight to know My ways” (Isaiah 58:2). But is it possible that only during the day they seek Him and at night they do not seek Him? What is the meaning of daily? Rather, this verse comes to say to you that with regard to anyone who engages in Torah study even one day a year, the verse ascribes him credit as though he engaged in Torah study the entire year.,And the same applies to the attribute of punishment, as it is written: “After the number of the days in which you spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year, shall you bear your iniquities” (Numbers\xa014:34). But did they sin for forty years? Didn’t they sin for only forty days? Rather, this comes to say to you that anyone who transgresses a sin even one day a year, the verse ascribes him liability as though he transgressed the entire year.,§ The mishna taught: Who is a minor who is exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple? Any child who is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and ascend from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: ' None

18. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 105, 169, 198; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 105, 169, 198

^26a ואלו קרעין שאין מתאחין הקורע על אביו ועל אמו ועל רבו שלימדו תורה ועל נשיא ועל אב ב"ד ועל שמועות הרעות ועל ברכת השם ועל ספר תורה שנשרף ועל ערי יהודה ועל המקדש ועל ירושלים וקורע על מקדש ומוסיף על ירושלים,אביו ואמו ורבו שלימדו תורה מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יב) ואלישע ראה והוא מצעק אבי אבי רכב ישראל ופרשיו אבי אבי זה אביו ואמו רכב ישראל ופרשיו זה רבו שלימדו תורה,מאי משמע כדמתרגם רב יוסף רבי רבי דטב להון לישראל בצלותיה מרתיכין ופרשין,ולא מתאחין מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יב) ויחזק בבגדיו ויקרעם לשנים קרעים ממשמע שנאמר ויקרעם איני יודע שלשנים אלא מלמד שקרועים ועומדים לשנים לעולם,אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן אליהו חי הוא אמר ליה כיון דכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יב) ולא ראהו עוד לגבי דידיה כמת דמי,נשיא ואב בית דין ושמועות הרעות מנלן דכתיב (שמואל ב א, יא) ויחזק דוד בבגדיו ויקרעם וגם כל האנשים אשר אתו ויספדו ויבכו ויצומו עד הערב על שאול ועל יהונתן בנו ועל עם ה\' ועל בית ישראל כי נפלו בחרב,שאול זה נשיא יהונתן זה אב ב"ד על עם ה\' ועל בית ישראל אלו שמועות הרעות,א"ל רב בר שבא לרב כהנא ואימא עד דהוו כולהו א"ל על על הפסיק הענין,ומי קרעינן אשמועות הרעות והא אמרו ליה לשמואל קטל שבור מלכא תריסר אלפי יהודאי במזיגת קסרי ולא קרע לא אמרו אלא ברוב צבור וכמעשה שהיה,ומי קטל שבור מלכא יהודאי והא א"ל שבור מלכא לשמואל תיתי לי דלא קטלי יהודי מעולם התם אינהו גרמי לנפשייהו דא"ר אמי לקל יתירי דמזיגת קסרי פקע שורא דלודקיא,על ברכת השם מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב יח, לז) ויבא אליקים בן חלקיה אשר על הבית ושבנא הסופר ויואח בן אסף המזכיר אל חזקיהו קרועי בגדים,ת"ר אחד השומע ואחד השומע מפי השומע חייב לקרוע והעדים אינן חייבין לקרוע שכבר קרעו בשעה ששמעו,בשעה ששמעו מאי הוי הא קא שמעי השתא לא ס"ד דכתיב (מלכים ב יט, א) ויהי כשמוע המלך חזקיהו ויקרע את בגדיו המלך קרע והם לא קרעו,ולא מתאחין מנלן אתיא קריעה קריעה,ספר תורה שנשרף מנלן דכתיב (ירמיהו לו, כג) ויהי כקרא יהודי שלש דלתות וארבעה ויקרעה בתער הסופר והשלך אל האש אשר אל האח וגו\' מאי שלש דלתות וארבעה,אמרו ליה ליהויקים כתב ירמיה ספר קינות אמר להו מה כתיב ביה (איכה א, א) איכה ישבה בדד אמר להו אנא מלכא א"ל (איכה א, ב) בכה תבכה בלילה אנא מלכא (איכה א, ג) גלתה יהודה מעוני אנא מלכא (איכה א, ד) דרכי ציון אבלות אנא מלכא,(איכה א, ה) היו צריה לראש אמר להו מאן אמרה (איכה א, ה) כי ה\' הוגה על רוב פשעיה מיד קדר כל אזכרות שבה ושרפן באש והיינו דכתיב (ירמיהו לו, כד) ולא פחדו ולא קרעו את בגדיהם מכלל דבעו למיקרע,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אימר משום שמועות הרעות א"ל שמועות רעות בההיא שעתא מי הוו,א"ר חלבו אמר רב הונא הרואה ספר תורה שנקרע חייב לקרוע שתי קריעות אחד על הגויל ואחד על הכתב שנאמר (ירמיהו לו, כז) אחרי שרוף המלך את המגלה ואת הדברים,רבי אבא ורב הונא בר חייא הוו יתבי קמיה דרבי אבא בעא לאפנויי שקליה לטוטפתיה אחתיה אבי סדיא אתאי בת נעמיתא בעא למיבלעיה,אמר השתא איחייבין לי שתי קריעות א"ל מנא לך הא והא בדידי הוה עובדא ואתאי לקמיה דרב מתנה ולא הוה בידיה אתאי לקמיה דרב יהודה ואמר לי הכי אמר שמואל לא אמרו אלא בזרוע וכמעשה שהיה,ערי יהודה מנלן דכתיב (ירמיהו מא, ה) ויבאו אנשים משכם משילו ומשמרון שמונים איש מגולחי זקן וקרועי בגדים ומתגודדים ומנחה ולבונה בידם להביא בית ה\' וגו\',א"ר חלבו אמר עולא ביראה אמר ר\' אלעזר הרואה ערי יהודה בחורבנן אומר (ישעיהו סד, ט) ערי קדשך היו מדבר וקורע ירושלים בחורבנה אומר (ישעיהו סד, ט) ציון מדבר היתה ירושלם שממה וקורע בית המקדש בחורבנו אומר (ישעיהו סד, י) בית קדשנו ותפארתנו אשר הללוך אבותינו היה לשריפת אש וכל מחמדינו היה לחרבה וקורע:,קורע על מקדש ומוסיף על ירושלים: ורמינהו אחד השומע ואחד הרואה כיון שהגיע לצופים קורע וקורע על מקדש בפני עצמו ועל ירושלים בפני עצמה,לא קשיא הא דפגע במקדש ברישא הא דפגע בירושלים ברישא,תנו רבנן וכולן רשאין לשוללן ולמוללן וללוקטן ולעשותן כמין סולמות אבל לא לאחותן,אמר רב חסדא'^28a אלא חיה אבל שאר נשים מניחין,ר\' אלעזר אמר אפילו שאר הנשים דכתיב (במדבר כ, א) ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם סמוך למיתה קבורה,ואמר ר\' אלעזר אף מרים בנשיקה מתה אתיא שם שם ממשה ומפני מה לא נאמר בה על פי ה\' מפני שגנאי הדבר לאומרו,א"ר אמי למה נסמכה מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה לומר לך מה פרה אדומה מכפרת אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת א"ר אלעזר למה נסמכה מיתת אהרן לבגדי כהונה מה בגדי כהונה מכפרין אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת,ת"ר מת פתאום זו היא מיתה חטופה חלה יום אחד ומת זו היא מיתה דחופה ר\' חנניא בן גמליאל אומר זו היא מיתת מגפה שנאמר (יחזקאל כד, טז) בן אדם הנני לוקח ממך את מחמד עיניך במגפה וכתיב (יחזקאל כד, יח) ואדבר אל העם בבקר ותמת אשתי בערב,שני ימים ומת זו היא מיתה דחויה ג\' גערה ארבעה נזיפה חמשה זו היא מיתת כל אדם,א"ר חנין מאי קרא (דברים לא, יד) הן קרבו ימיך למות הן חד קרבו תרי ימיך תרי הא חמשה הן חד שכן בלשון יוני קורין לאחת הן,מת בחמשים שנה זו היא מיתת כרת חמשים ושתים שנה זו היא מיתתו של שמואל הרמתי ששים זו היא מיתה בידי שמים,אמר מר זוטרא מאי קרא דכתיב (איוב ה, כו) תבא בכלח אלי קבר בכלח בגימטריא שיתין הוו,שבעים שיבה שמונים גבורות דכתיב (תהלים צ, י) ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה ואם בגבורות שמונים שנה אמר רבה מחמשים ועד ששים שנה זו היא מיתת כרת והאי דלא חשיב להו משום כבודו של שמואל הרמתי,רב יוסף כי הוה בר שיתין עבד להו יומא טבא לרבנן אמר נפקי לי מכרת א"ל אביי נהי דנפק ליה מר מכרת דשני מכרת דיומי מי נפיק מר א"ל נקוט לך מיהא פלגא בידך,רב הונא נח נפשיה פתאום הוו קא דייגי רבנן תנא להו זוגא דמהדייב לא שנו אלא שלא הגיע לגבורות אבל הגיע לגבורות זו היא מיתת נשיקה,אמר רבא חיי בני ומזוני לא בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא דהא רבה ורב חסדא תרוייהו רבנן צדיקי הוו מר מצלי ואתי מיטרא ומר מצלי ואתי מיטרא,רב חסדא חיה תשעין ותרתין שנין רבה חיה ארבעין בי רב חסדא שיתין הלולי בי רבה שיתין תיכלי,בי רב חסדא סמידא לכלבי ולא מתבעי בי רבה נהמא דשערי לאינשי ולא משתכח,ואמר רבא הני תלת מילי בעאי קמי שמיא תרתי יהבו לי חדא לא יהבו לי חוכמתיה דרב הונא ועותריה דרב חסדא ויהבו לי ענותנותיה דרבה בר רב הונא לא יהבו לי,רב שעורים אחוה דרבא הוה יתיב קמיה דרבא חזייה דהוה קא מנמנם א"ל לימא ליה מר דלא לצערן א"ל מר לאו שושביניה הוא א"ל כיון דאימסר מזלא לא אשגח בי א"ל ליתחזי לי מר איתחזי ליה א"ל הוה ליה למר צערא א"ל כי ריבדא דכוסילתא,רבא הוה יתיב קמיה דר"נ חזייה דקא מנמנם א"ל לימא ליה מר דלא לצערן א"ל מר לאו אדם חשוב הוא א"ל מאן חשיב מאן ספין מאן רקיע,א"ל ליתחזי לי מר אתחזי ליה א"ל ה"ל למר צערא א"ל כמישחל בניתא מחלבא ואי אמר לי הקב"ה זיל בההוא עלמא כד הוית לא בעינא דנפיש בעיתותיה,רבי אלעזר הוה קאכיל תרומה איתחזי ליה א"ל תרומה קא אכילנא ולאו קודש איקרי חלפא ליה שעתא,רב ששת איתחזי ליה בשוקא אמר ליה בשוקא כבהמה איתא לגבי ביתא,רב אשי איתחזי ליה בשוקא א"ל איתרח לי תלתין יומין ואהדרי לתלמודאי דאמריתו אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו ביום תלתין אתא אמר ליה מאי כולי האי קא דחקא רגליה דבר נתן ואין מלכות נוגעת בחבירתה אפילו כמלא נימא,רב חסדא לא הוה יכיל ליה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק יתיב בארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתק ויכיל ליה,ר\' חייא לא הוה מצי למיקרבא ליה יומא חד אידמי ליה כעניא אתא טריף אבבא א"ל אפיק לי ריפתא אפיקו ליה א"ל ולאו קא מרחם מר אעניא אההוא גברא אמאי לא קא מרחם מר גלי ליה אחוי ליה שוטא דנורא אמצי ליה נפשיה: ' None

^26a And these are the rents of mourning that may never be properly mended: One who rends his garments for the death his father, or for his mother, or for his teacher who taught him Torah, or for the Nasi, or for the president of the court; or upon hearing evil tidings; or hearing God’s name being blessed, which is a euphemism for hearing God’s name being cursed; or when a Torah scroll has been burned; or upon seeing the cities of Judea that were destroyed or the destroyed Temple or Jerusalem in ruins. This is the way one conducts himself when approaching Jerusalem when it lies in ruin: He first rends his garments for the Temple and then extends the rent for Jerusalem.,The Gemara elaborates upon the halakhot mentioned in this baraita: From where do we derive that one must rend his clothing for his father, his mother, and his teacher who taught him Torah? As it is written with regard to the prophet Elijah, when he ascended to Heaven in a tempest: “And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and their horsemen” (II\xa0Kings 2:12). The Gemara interprets this verse as follows: “My father, my father”; this comes to teach that one must rend his garments for the death of his father or mother. “The chariots of Israel and their horsemen”; this comes to include also one’s teacher who taught him Torah.,The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this is referring to one’s teacher? The Gemara explains: As the verse was translated by Rav Yosef: My teacher, my teacher, who was better for the protection of the Jewish people with his prayers than an army with chariots and horsemen.,And from where do we derive that these rents are never to be properly mended? As it is written: “And he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces” (II\xa0Kings 2:12). From the fact that it is stated: “And he rent them,” do I not know that he rent them in two pieces? Rather, when the verse adds that they were torn into two pieces, it teaches that they must remain torn in two pieces forever. Accordingly, this rent must never be properly mended.,Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But isn’t Elijah still alive? Why, then, did Elisha rend his garments for him? He said to him: Since it is written: “And he saw him no more” (II\xa0Kings 2:12), Elijah was considered dead from Elisha’s perspective, and so Elisha rent his clothing for him.,§ From where do we derive that one must rend his clothing for the death of the Nasi or the president of the court and upon hearing evil tidings? As it is written, when David heard about the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul and his sons: “Then David took hold of his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until evening, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword” (II\xa0Samuel 1:11–12).,The Gemara explains how the aforementioned halakhot are derived from the verse: “Saul”; this is a reference to the Nasi, as Saul was king of Israel. “Jonathan”; this is a reference to the president of the court. “For the people of the Lord, and for the house of the Israel”; these are a reference to evil tidings.,Rav bar Shaba said to Rav Kahana: But perhaps you can say that one need not rend his clothing until all these calamities occur together, and that rending clothing is performed only over a tragedy of this magnitude. He said to him: The repetition of the word “for”: “For Saul,” “for Jonathan,” and “for the people of the Lord” divides the matter and teaches that each individual misfortune is sufficient cause to rend one’s garments.,The Gemara asks: But do we actually rend our clothing upon hearing evil tidings? But didn’t they say to Shmuel: King Shapur killed twelve thousand Jews in Mezigat Caesarea, and Shmuel did not rend his clothing?The Gemara answers: They said that one must rend his clothing upon hearing evil tidings only in a case where the calamity involved the majority of the community of Israel and resembles the incident that occurred when Saul was killed and the entire nation of Israel suffered defeat.,The Gemara tangentially asks: Did King Shapur really kill Jews? But didn’t King Shapur say to Shmuel: I have a blessing coming to me, for I have never killed a Jew? The Gemara answers: King Shapur never instigated the killing of Jews; there, however, they brought it upon themselves, as Rabbi Ami said in an exaggerated manner: Due to the noise of the harp strings of Mezigat Caesarea, the walls of Laodicea were breached, for the residents of the city celebrated when they rebelled against King Shapur. Because they rebelled against him and threatened his rule, he was forced to kill them.,§ The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: From where do we derive that one must rend his garments upon hearing God’s name being blessed, i.e., cursed? As it is written with regard to the blasphemous words said by Rab-shakeh: “Then came Eliakim, son of Hilkiya, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent” (II\xa0Kings 18:37).,The Sages taught a baraita with regard to this issue: Both one who actually hears the curse and one who hears from the mouth of the one who heard the curse are obligated to rend their garments. But the witnesses who testify against the person who uttered the blasphemy are not obligated to rend their clothing when they testify as to what they heard because they already rent their clothing when they heard the curse the first time.,The Gemara asks: What difference does it make that they rent their garments when they heard the curse the first time? Didn’t they hear it again now? The Gemara rejects this argument: This will not enter your mind, as it is written: “And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes” (II\xa0Kings 19:1). This indicates that the king rent his garments, but those who reported the blasphemy to him did not rend theirs, as they had already rent their garments the first time.,And from where do we derive that these rents may not be properly mended? This is derived by way of a verbal analogy between the verb rending used here with regard to Hezekiah and the verb rending used in the case of Elijah and Elisha.,§ From where do we derive that one must rend his garments when a Torah scroll has been burned? As it is written: “And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he would cut it with a penknife, and cast it into the fire that was in the brazier” (Jeremiah 36:23). With regard to the verse itself the Gemara asks: What is meant by “three or four leaves,” and why did he cut the book only at that point?,The Gemara explains: They said to Jehoiakim: Jeremiah has written a book of Lamentations over the future downfall and destruction of Jerusalem. He said to them: What is written in it? They read him the first verse: “How does the city sit solitary” (Lamentations 1:1). He said to them: I am king, and this does not apply to me. They read him the second verse: “She weeps sore in the night” (Lamentations 1:2). He said to them: I am king, and this does not apply to me. They read him the third verse: “Judah is gone into exile due to affliction” (Lamentations 1:3). He said to them: I am king. They read to him: “The ways of Zion do mourn” (Lamentations 1:4). He said to them: I am king. These are the four leaves, or verses, that he read first.,They read him an additional verse: “Her adversaries have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), i.e., the reigning king will be removed from power. Once he heard this, he said to them: Who said this? They said to him: This is the continuation of the verse: “For the Lord has afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions” (Lamentations 1:5). Immediately, he cut out all the names of God from the book and burned them in fire. This is as it is written: “Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words” (Jeremiah 36:24). By inference, this shows that they were required to rend their clothing when they saw this.,Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Perhaps you can say that they should have rent their garments due to the evil tidings contained in the scroll and not because of the destruction of the book? Abaye said to him: Were they evil tidings at that time? This was a prophecy and not an account of current events.,Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: One who sees a Torah scroll that was torn is obligated to make two rents, one for the parchment that was damaged and one for the writing, as it is stated: “Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after the king had burned the scroll and the words” (Jeremiah 36:27). This implies that a separate rent must be made for each of them, both the parchment and the writing.,It was related that Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya were sitting before Rabbi Abba. Rabbi Abba needed to relieve himself. He removed his phylacteries from his head and placed them on the cushion on which he was sitting. An ostrich came and wanted to swallow the phylacteries.,He said: Now, had it succeeded to swallow it, I would have been obligated to make two rents. He said to him: From where do you derive this? There was an incident in which I was involved and I came before Rav Mattana asking what to do, but he did not have an answer readily available. I then came before Rav Yehuda, and he said to me: Shmuel said as follows: They said that one is obligated to rend his clothing only when a Torah scroll or some other sacred book is torn by force, and it resembles the incident that occurred with Jehoiakim.,§ From where do we derive that one must rend his garments upon seeing the cities of Judea in ruin? As it is written: “There came certain men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, eighty people, their beards shaven, and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, with offerings and incense in their hand, to bring to the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 41:5). This indicates that they rent their garments upon seeing the destruction.,Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Ulla Bira’a said that Rabbi Elazar said: One who sees the cities of Judea in their desolation says: “Your sacred cities are become a wilderness” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees Jerusalem in its desolation says: “Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees the Temple in its desolation says: “Our sacred and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised You, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (Isaiah 64:10), and then rends his garments.,It was taught in the baraita: He first rends his garments for the Temple and then extends the rent for Jerusalem. And they raise a contradiction from another baraita that states: Both one who hears that Jerusalem is in ruin and one who sees the destruction, once he reaches Mount Scopus Tzofim, rends his garments. And he rends his garments for the Temple separately and for Jerusalem separately.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that instead of making a separate rent for Jerusalem one may extend the first rent that he had made for the Temple, is referring to the case where one reached the Temple first, before seeing the rest of Jerusalem, and saw it in ruin. That baraita, which states that one must make separate rents for Jerusalem and for the Temple, is referring to the case where one reached Jerusalem first, and only afterward the Temple.,§ The Sages taught the following baraita: And all of these rents, one may tack them together with loose stitches, and hem them, and gather them, and fix them with imprecise ladder-like stitches. But one may not mend them with precise stitches.,Rav Ḥisda said:'^28a with regard to a woman who died in childbirth, and therefore continues to bleed. But the biers of other women may be set down in the street.,Rabbi Elazar said: Even the biers of other women must not be set down in the street, as it is written: “And Miriam died there and was buried there” (Numbers 20:1), which teaches that the site of her burial was close to the place of her death. Therefore, it is preferable to bury a woman as close as possible to the place where she died.,With regard to that same verse Rabbi Elazar said further: Miriam also died by the divine kiss, just like her brother Moses. What is the source for this? This is derived through a verbal analogy between the word “there” stated with regard to Miriam and the word “there” mentioned with regard to Moses. With regard to Moses it says: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 34:5). For what reason was it not explicitly stated with regard to her, as it is stated with regard to Moses, that she died “by the mouth of the Lord”? It is because it would be unseemly to say such a thing, that a woman died by way of a divine kiss, and therefore it is not said explicitly.,Rabbi Ami said: Why was the Torah portion that describes the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the portion dealing with the red heifer? To tell you: Just as the red heifer atones for sin, so too, the death of the righteous atones for sin. Rabbi Elazar said: Why was the Torah portion that describes the death of Aaron juxtaposed to the portion discussing the priestly garments? This teaches that just as the priestly garments atone for sin, so too, the death of the righteous atones for sin.,§ The Sages taught the following baraita: If one dies suddenly without having been sick, this is death through snatching. If he became sick for a day and died, this is an expedited death. Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel says: This is death at a stroke, as it is stated: “Son of man, behold, I am about to take away from you the delight of your eyes at a stroke” (Ezekiel 24:16). And when this prophecy is fulfilled it is written: “So I spoke to the people in the morning and at evening my wife died” (Ezekiel 24:18).,If he was sick for two days and died, this is a quickened death. If he was sick for three days and died, this is a death of rebuke. If he died after being sick for four days, this is a death of reprimand. If one died after a sickness lasting five days, this is the ordinary death of all people.,Rabbi Ḥanin said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is stated: “Behold, your days approach that you must die” (Deuteronomy 31:14). This verse is expounded in the following manner: “Behold hen” indicates one; “approach karvu,” a plural term, indicates two; “your days yamekha,” also a plural term, indicates another two; and therefore in total this is five. How does the word hen indicate one? Because in the Greek language they call the number one hen.,The Gemara discusses the significance of death at different ages: If one dies when he is fifty years old, this is death through karet, the divine punishment of excision, meted out for the most serious transgressions. If he dies when he is fifty-two years old, this is the death of Samuel from Ramah. If he dies at the age of sixty, this is death at the hand of Heaven.,Mar Zutra said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written: “You shall come to your grave in a ripe age bekhelaḥ” (Job 5:26). The word “ripe age” bekhelaḥ has the numerical value of sixty, and it is alluded to there that dying at this age involves a divine punishment.,One who dies at the age of seventy has reached old age. One who dies at the age of eighty dies in strength, as it is written: “The days of our years are seventy, or if by reason of strength, eighty years” (Psalms 90:10). Rabba said: Not only is death at the age of fifty a sign of karet, but even death from fifty to sixty years of age is death by karet. And the reason that all of these years were not counted in connection with karet is due to the honor of Samuel from Ramah, who died at the age of fifty-two.,The Gemara relates that when Rav Yosef turned sixty he made a holiday for the Sages. Explaining the cause for his celebration, he said: I have passed the age of karet. Abaye said to him: Master, even though you have passed the karet of years, have you, Master, escaped the karet of days? As previously mentioned, sudden death is also considered to be a form of karet. He said to him: Grasp at least half in your hand, for I have at least escaped one type of karet.,It was related that Rav Huna died suddenly, and the Sages were concerned that this was a bad sign. The Sage Zuga from Hadayeiv taught them the following: They taught these principles only when the deceased had not reached the age of strength, i.e., eighty. But if he had reached the age of strength and then died suddenly, this is death by way of a divine kiss.,Rava said: Length of life, children, and sustece do not depend on one’s merit, but rather they depend upon fate. As, Rabba and Rav Ḥisda were both pious Sages; one Sage would pray during a drought and rain would fall, and the other Sage would pray and rain would fall.,And nevertheless, their lives were very different. Rav Ḥisda lived for ninety-two years, whereas Rabba lived for only forty years. The house of Rav Ḥisda celebrated sixty wedding feasts, whereas the house of Rabba experienced sixty calamities. In other words, many fortuitous events took place in the house of Rav Ḥisda and the opposite occurred in the house of Rabba.,In the house of Rav Ḥisda there was bread from the finest flour semida even for the dogs, and it was not asked after, as there was so much food. In the house of Rabba, on the other hand, there was coarse barley bread even for people, and it was not found in sufficient quantities. This shows that the length of life, children, and sustece all depend not upon one’s merit, but upon fate.,Apropos Rav Ḥisda’s great wealth, the Gemara reports that Rava said: These three things I requested from Heaven, two of which were given to me, and one was not given to me: I requested the wisdom of Rav Huna and the wealth of Rav Ḥisda and they were given to me. I also requested the humility of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but it was not given to me.,The Gemara continues its discussion of the deaths of the righteous. Rav Seorim, Rava’s brother, sat before Rava, and he saw that Rava was dozing, i.e., about to die. Rava said to his brother: Master, tell him, the Angel of Death, not to torment me. Knowing that Rava was not afraid of the Angel of Death, Rav Seorim said to him: Master, are you not a friend of the Angel of Death? Rava said to him: Since my fate has been handed over to him, and it has been decreed that I shall die, the Angel of Death no longer pays heed to me. Rav Seorim said to Rava: Master, appear to me in a dream after your death. And Rava appeared to him. Rav Seorim said to Rava: Master, did you have pain in death? He said to him: Like the prick of the knife when letting blood.,It was similarly related that Rava sat before Rav Naḥman, and he saw that Rav Naḥman was dozing, i.e., slipping into death. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Master, tell the Angel of Death not to torment me. Rava said to him: Master, are you not an important person who is respected in Heaven? Rav Naḥman said to him: In the supernal world who is important? Who is honorable? Who is complete?,Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Master, appear to me in a dream after your death. And he appeared to him. Rava said to him: Master, did you have pain in death? Rav Naḥman said to him: Like the removal of hair from milk, which is a most gentle process. But nevertheless, were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to say to me: Go back to that world, the physical world, as you were, I would not want to go, for the fear of the Angel of Death is great. And I would not want to go through such a terrifying experience a second time.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar was once eating teruma, when the Angel of Death appeared to him. He said to the Angel of Death: I am eating teruma; is it not called sacred? It would be inappropriate for me to die now and thereby defile this sacred teruma. The Angel of Death accepted his argument and left him. The moment passed, and he lived for some time afterward.,It was similarly related that the Angel of Death once appeared to Rav Sheshet in the marketplace. Rav Sheshet said to the Angel of Death: Shall I die in the market like an animal? Come to my house and kill me there like a human being.,So too, the Angel of Death appeared to Rav Ashi in the marketplace. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: Give me thirty days so that I may review my studies, for you say above: Fortunate is he who comes here to Heaven with his learning in his hand. On the thirtieth day the Angel of Death came to take him. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: What is all of this? Why are you in such a hurry to take me? Why can you not postpone my death? He said to him: The foot of Rav Huna bar Natan is pushing you, as he is ready to succeed you as the leader of the generation, and one sovereignty does not overlap with its counterpart, even by one hairbreadth. Therefore, you cannot live any longer.,The Angel of Death was unable to take Rav Ḥisda because his mouth was never silent from study. So the Angel of Death went and sat on the cedar column that supported the roof of the study hall of the Sages. The cedar cracked and Rav Ḥisda was silent for a moment, as he was startled by the sound. At that point the Angel of Death was able to take him.,The Angel of Death could not come near Rabbi Ḥiyya, owing to his righteousness. One day the Angel of Death appeared to him as a poor person. He came and knocked on the door. He said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Bring out bread for me, and he took out bread for him. The Angel of Death then said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Master, do you not have mercy on a poor person? Why, then, do you not have mercy upon that man, i.e., upon me, and give me what I want? The Angel of Death then revealed his identity to him, and showed him a fiery rod in order to confirm that he was the Angel of Death. At this point Rav Ḥiyya surrendered himself to him. ' None

19. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 90, 105; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 90, 105

^54a ואיש תבונה ידלנה מים עמוקים עצה בלב איש זה עולא ואיש תבונה ידלנה זה רבה בר בר חנה ואינהו כמאן סברוה כי הא דאמר ר\' בנימן בר יפת אמר רבי יוחנן מברכין על האור בין במוצאי שבת בין במוצאי יום הכפורים וכן עמא דבר,מיתיבי אין מברכין על האור אלא במוצאי שבת הואיל ותחילת ברייתו הוא וכיון שרואה מברך מיד רבי יהודה אומר סודרן על הכוס ואמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהודה,לא קשיא כאן באור ששבת כאן באור היוצא מן העצים ומן האבנים,תני חדא אור היוצא מן העצים ומן האבנים מברכין עליו ותני חדא אין מברכין עליו לא קשיא כאן במוצאי שבת כאן במוצאי יום הכפורים,רבי מפזרן רבי חייא מכנסן אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אע"פ שרבי מפזרן חוזר וסודרן על הכוס כדי להוציא בניו ובני ביתו,ואור במוצאי שבת איברי והא תניא עשרה דברים נבראו בערב שבת בין השמשות אלו הן באר והמן וקשת כתב ומכתב והלוחות וקברו של משה ומערה שעמד בו משה ואליהו פתיחת פי האתון ופתיחת פי הארץ לבלוע את הרשעים,רבי נחמיה אומר משום אביו אף האור והפרד ר\' יאשיה אומר משום אביו אף האיל והשמיר רבי יהודה אומר אף הצבת הוא היה אומר צבתא בצבתא מתעבדא וצבתא קמייתא מאן עבד הא לאי בריה בידי שמים היא אמר ליה אפשר יעשנה בדפוס ויקבענה כיון הא לאי בריה בידי אדם היא,לא קשיא הא באור דידן הא באור דגיהנם אור דידן במוצאי שבת אור דגיהנם בערב שבת ואור דגיהנם בערב שבת איברי והא תניא *שבעה דברים נבראו קודם שנברא העולם ואלו הן תורה ותשובה וגן עדן וגיהנם וכסא הכבוד ובית המקדש ושמו של משיח,תורה דכתיב (משלי ח, כב) ה\' קנני ראשית דרכו תשובה דכתיב (תהלים צ, ב) בטרם הרים יולדו וכתיב (תהלים צ, ג) תשב אנוש עד דכא ותאמר שובו בני אדם,גן עדן דכתיב (בראשית ב, ח) ויטע ה\' אלהים גן בעדן מקדם גיהנם דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, לג) כי ערוך מאתמול תפתה,כסא הכבוד ובית המקדש דכתיב (ירמיהו יז, יב) כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו שמו של משיח דכתיב (תהלים עב, יז) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו,אמרי חללה הוא דנברא קודם שנברא העולם ואור דידיה בערב שבת,ואור דידיה בערב שבת איברי והתניא רבי יוסי אומר אור שברא הקב"ה בשני בשבת אין לו כבייה לעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, כד) ויצאו וראו בפגרי האנשים הפושעים בי כי תולעתם לא תמות ואשם לא תכבה ואמר רבי בנאה בריה דרבי עולא מפני מה לא נאמר כי טוב בשני בשבת מפני שנברא בו אור של גיהנם ואמר רבי אלעזר אע"פ שלא נאמר בו כי טוב חזר וכללו בששי שנאמר (בראשית א, לא) וירא אלהים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד,אלא חללה קודם שנברא העולם ואור דידיה בשני בשבת ואור דידן במחשבה עלה ליבראות בערב שבת ולא נברא עד מוצאי שבת דתניא ר\' יוסי אומר שני דברים עלו במחשבה ליבראות בערב שבת ולא נבראו עד מוצאי שבת ובמוצאי שבת נתן הקב"ה דיעה באדם הראשון מעין דוגמא של מעלה והביא שני אבנים וטחנן זו בזו ויצא מהן אור והביא שתי בהמות והרכיב זו בזו ויצא מהן פרד רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר פרד בימי ענה היה שנאמר (בראשית לו, כד) הוא ענה אשר מצא את הימים במדבר,דורשי חמורות היו אומרים ענה פסול היה לפיכך הביא פסול לעולם שנאמר (בראשית לו, כ) אלה בני שעיר החורי וכתיב אלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה אלא מלמד שבא צבעון על אמו והוליד ממנה ענה,ודילמא תרי ענה הוו אמר רבא אמינא מילתא דשבור מלכא לא אמרה ומנו שמואל איכא דאמרי אמר ר"פ אמינא מילתא דשבור מלכא לא אמרה ומנו רבא אמר קרא הוא ענה הוא ענה דמעיקרא,תנו רבנן עשרה דברים נבראו בערב שבת בין השמשות ואלו הן באר ומן וקשת הכתב והמכתב והלוחות קברו של משה ומערה שעמד בה משה ואליהו פתיחת פי האתון ופתיחת פי הארץ לבלוע את הרשעים ויש אומרים אף מקלו של אהרן שקדיה ופרחיה ויש אומרים אף המזיקין ויש אומרים אף'^57a נימא תלתא תנאי הוו לא תרי תנאי הוו ותנא קמא דר\' שמעון היינו ר\' יוסי ותנא קמא דר\' יוסי היינו ר\' שמעון ומאי אף אקמייתא,ת"ר בן בוהיין נתן פיאה לירק ובא אביו ומצאן לעניים שהיו טעונין ירק ועומדין על פתח הגינה אמר להם בני השליכו מעליכם ואני נותן לכם כפליים במעושר לא מפני שעיני צרה אלא מפני שאמרו חכמים אין נותנין פיאה לירק,למה ליה למימרא להו לא מפני שעיני צרה כי היכי דלא לימרו דחויי קא מדחי לן,ת"ר בראשונה היו מניחין עורות קדשים בלשכת בית הפרוה לערב היו מחלקין אותן לאנשי בית אב והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע התקינו שיהיו מחלקין אותן מערב שבת לע"ש דאתיין כולהו משמרות ושקלן בהדדי,ועדיין היו גדולי כהונה נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שחיפו את ההיכל כולו בטבלאות של זהב שהן אמה על אמה כעובי דינר זהב ולרגל היו מקפלין אותן ומניחין אותן על גב מעלה בהר הבית כדי שיהו עולי רגלים רואין שמלאכתם נאה ואין בה דלם,תנא אבא שאול אומר קורות של שקמה היו ביריחו והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,עליהם ועל כיוצא בהם אמר אבא שאול בן בטנית משום אבא יוסף בן חנין אוי לי מבית בייתוס אוי לי מאלתן אוי לי מבית חנין אוי לי מלחישתן אוי לי מבית קתרוס אוי לי מקולמוסן אוי לי מבית ישמעאל בן פיאכי אוי לי מאגרופן שהם כהנים גדולים ובניהן גיזברין וחתניהם אמרכלין ועבדיהן חובטין את העם במקלות,תנו רבנן ארבע צווחות צוחה עזרה ראשונה צאו מכאן בני עלי שטימאו היכל ה\' ועוד צווחה צא מיכן יששכר איש כפר ברקאי שמכבד את עצמו ומחלל קדשי שמים דהוה כריך ידיה בשיראי ועביד עבודה,ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס ישמעאל בן פיאכי תלמידו של פנחס וישמש בכהונה גדולה ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס יוחנן בן נרבאי תלמידו של פנקאי וימלא כריסו מקדשי שמים,אמרו עליו על יוחנן בן נרבאי שהיה אוכל ג\' מאות עגלים ושותה ג\' מאות גרבי יין ואוכל ארבעים סאה גוזלות בקינוח סעודה אמרו כל ימיו של יוחנן בן נרבאי לא נמצא נותר במקדש מאי סלקא ביה ביששכר איש כפר ברקאי אמרי מלכא ומלכתא הוו יתבי מלכא אמר גדיא יאי ומלכתא אמרה אימרא יאי אמרו מאן מוכח כהן גדול דקא מסיק קרבנות כל יומא אתא איהו ' None

^54a but a man of understanding will draw it out” (Proverbs 20:5). Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; that is a reference to Ulla, who had a thought but did not articulate it. But a man of understanding will draw it out; that is a reference to Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who understood the allusion even though it was not articulated. The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion do Ulla and Rabba bar bar Ḥana hold, leading them to reject Rabbi Abba’s statement of Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion? The Gemara answers: They hold in accordance with that which Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One recites the blessing over fire both at the conclusion of Shabbat and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. And that is how the people act.,The Gemara raises an objection from that which was previously taught: One recites a blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat and not at the conclusion of Festivals or Yom Kippur, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. And once he sees it, he recites the blessing immediately. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not recite the blessing immediately; rather, he waits and arranges and recites the blessings over fire and spices over the cup of wine that accompanies the recitation of havdala. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. How does Rabbi Yoḥa explain the baraita?,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rabbi Yoḥa said that one recites the blessing at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, it is referring to fire that rested on Yom Kippur, i.e., fire for which no prohibition was involved in its kindling, either because it was kindled before Yom Kippur or because it was kindled in a permitted manner, e.g., for a dangerously ill person. There, where Rabbi Yoḥa said that the blessing is recited only at the conclusion of Shabbat, it is referring to fire generated from wood and from stones after Shabbat, similar to the primordial fire, which was created at the conclusion of Shabbat.,It was taught in one baraita: With regard to fire generated from wood and stones, one recites a blessing over it; and it was taught in one other baraita: One does not recite a blessing over it. This apparent contradiction is not difficult. Here, where the baraita states that one recites a blessing, it is referring to the conclusion of Shabbat. There, where the baraita states that one does not recite a blessing, it is referring to the conclusion of Yom Kippur.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would distribute the blessings over the fire and the spices, reciting each when the opportunity arose. Rabbi Ḥiyya would collect them, reciting all the blessings at the same time in the framework of havdala. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Even though Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi distributes them and recites each blessing at his first opportunity, he repeats the blessings and arranges and recites them over the cup of wine in order to discharge the obligation of his children and the members of his household.,The Gemara stated that fire was originally created at the conclusion of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Was fire created at the conclusion of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten miraculous phenomena were created in heaven on Shabbat eve during twilight, and were revealed in the world only later? They were: Miriam’s well, and the manna that fell in the desert, and the rainbow, writing ketav, and the writing instrument mikhtav, and the tablets of the Ten Commandments, and the grave of Moses, and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the mouth of Balaam’s donkey, and the opening of the earth’s mouth to swallow the wicked in the incident involving Korah.,Rabbi Neḥemya said in the name of his father: Even the fire and the mule, which is a product of crossbreeding, were created at that time. Rabbi Yoshiya said in the name of his father: Even the ram slaughtered by Abraham in place of Isaac, and the shamir worm used to shape the stones for the altar, were created at that time. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the tongs were created at this time. He would say: Tongs can be fashioned only with other tongs, but who fashioned the first tongs? Indeed, the first pair of tongs was fashioned at the hand of Heaven. An anonymous questioner said to him: It is possible to fashion tongs with a mold and align it without the need for other tongs. Indeed, the first tongs were a creation of man. In any event, fire was originally created before Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Shabbat.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to our fire, and that baraita is referring to the fire of Gehenna. The Gemara explains: Our fire was created at the conclusion of Shabbat, but the fire of Gehenna was created on Shabbat eve. The Gemara proceeds to ask: Was the fire of Gehenna created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of Messiah.,The Gemara provides sources for the notion that each of these phenomena was created before the world was. Torah was created before the world was created, as it is written: “The Lord made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22), which, based on the subsequent verses, is referring to the Torah. Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God,” and it is written immediately afterward: “You return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man” (Psalms 90:2–3).,The Garden of Eden was created before the world was created, as it is written: “And God planted the Garden of Eden in the east mikedem” (Genesis 2:8). The term: In the east mikedem is interpreted in the sense of: Before mikodem, i.e., before the world was created. Gehenna was created before the world was created, as it is written: “For its hearth is ordained of old” (Isaiah 30:33). The hearth, i.e., Gehenna, was created before the world was created.,The Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Sanctuary” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written in the chapter discussing the Messiah: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. This baraita states that Gehenna was created before the world was created and not during twilight before the first Shabbat.,They say in answer: The void of Gehenna was created before the world, but its fire was created on Shabbat eve.,The Gemara asks: And was its fire created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The fire that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the second day of the week will never be extinguished, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, nor will their fire be extinguished; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24)? And Rabbi Bana’a, son of Rabbi Ulla, said: Why doesn’t the verse state: That it was good, at the end of the second day of the week of Creation, as it does on the other days? It is because on that day the fire of Gehenna was created. And Rabbi Elazar said that even though: That it was good, was not stated with regard to the creations of the second day, He later included it on the sixth day, as it is stated: “And God saw all that He had done and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).,Rather, the void of Gehenna was created before the world was created, and its fire was created only on the second day of the week. And the thought arose in God’s mind to create our fire on Shabbat eve; however, it was not actually created until the conclusion of Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The thoughts of two phenomena arose in God’s mind on Shabbat eve, but were not actually created until the conclusion of Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat, the Holy One, Blessed be He, granted Adam, the first man, creative knowledge similar to divine knowledge, and he brought two rocks and rubbed them against each other, and the first fire emerged from them. Adam also brought two animals, a female horse and a male donkey, and mated them with each other, and the resultant offspring that emerged from them was a mule. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says that the first mule was in the days of Anah, as it is stated: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah; this is Anah who found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father” (Genesis 36:24).,The interpreters of Torah symbolism ḥamurot would say: Anah was the product of an incestuous relationship, and as a result he was spiritually unfit to produce offspring. Therefore, he brought an example of unfitness, i.e., an animal physically unfit to produce offspring, into the world, as it is stated: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, and Shoval, and Zibeon, and Anah” (Genesis 36:20). And it is also stated: “And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). One verse describes both Anah and Zibeon as sons of Seir, meaning that they are brothers, while the other verse describes Anah as Zibeon’s son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon cohabited with his mother, the wife of Seir, and fathered Anah from her. He is called Seir’s son although in fact he was the offspring of Seir’s son and Seir’s wife.,The Gemara asks: And perhaps there were two people named Anah, one the son of Zibeon and the other the son of Seir? Rava said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be an epithet for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some say a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is he that Rav Pappa is referring to by the epithet King Shapur? He is Rava. The verse said: “This is Anah who found the mules,” indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially in the earlier verse.,The Sages taught: Ten phenomena were created on Shabbat eve during twilight, and they were: Miriam’s well, and manna, and the rainbow, writing, and the writing instrument, and the tablets, the grave of Moses, and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the mouth of Balaam’s donkey, and the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow the wicked in the time of Korah. And some say that even Aaron’s staff was created then with its almonds and its blossoms. Some say that even the demons were created at this time. And some say that even'^57a Let us say that there are three tanna’im who dispute this point: The two unattributed opinions, each of which is referring to two vegetables, and the opinion common to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that includes all three vegetables. The Gemara rejects this: No, there are only two tanna’im who dispute the point, and the first tanna whose opinion appears before the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is Rabbi Yosei. And the first tanna whose opinion appears before the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is Rabbi Shimon. And what is the meaning of the word even in both their statements? They agree with regard to the first vegetable, turnips; however, they disagree with regard to the second, and replace it with another vegetable.,The Gemara cites an episode from the Tosefta. The Sages taught: The son of a man named Bohayan designated for the poor the produce in the corner in a garden of vegetables, and his father Bohayan found the poor laden with vegetables and standing at the opening of the garden on their way out. He said to them: My sons, cast the vegetables that you have gathered from upon yourselves and I will give you twice the amount in tithed produce, and you will be no worse off. Not because I begrudge you what you have taken. Rather, it is because the Sages say: One does not designate for the poor the produce in the corner in a garden of vegetables. Therefore, the vegetables that you took require tithing.,The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for him to say to them: Not because I begrudge you what you have taken? It would have been sufficient to offer them tithed produce. The Gemara answers that he said it so they would not say: He is putting us off, taking what we collected now, but later he will not fulfill his commitment.,Apropos the people of Jericho, the Gemara relates that powerful people would steal wood from them. The Sages taught: Initially, the priests would place the hides that were flayed from animals consecrated as offerings of the most sacred order, which were given to the priests, in the Parva chamber. In the evening, they would distribute them to the members of the family of priests serving in the Temple that day. And the powerful priests among them would take them by force before they could be distributed. The Rabbis decreed that they would distribute them each Shabbat eve, because then all the families of both priestly watches came and took their part together. All the families from both the watch that was beginning its service and the one ending its service were together when they divided the hides. The powerful priests were unable to take the hides by force.,Yet still the prominent priests by virtue of their lineage would take them by force. Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, the owners of the sacrifices (Me’iri) arose and consecrated the hides to Heaven so the priests could not take them.,The Sages said: Not a few days passed before they had plated the entire sanctuary with golden tablets with the proceeds from the redemption and sale of the hides. These plates were one cubit by one cubit and as thick as a golden dinar. And when the people assembled for the Festival pilgrimage they would remove the tablets and place them on a stair of the Temple Mount so that the pilgrims would see that the craftsmanship of the tablets was beautiful and without flaw dalam. Afterward they replaced the tablets in the Sanctuary.,It was similarly taught that Abba Shaul says: There were sycamore tree trunks in Jericho, and powerful people would take them from their owners by force. The owners stood and consecrated these trunks to Heaven. It was with regard to these trunks and the branches that grew from them that the residents of Jericho acted against the will of the Sages.,With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers amarkalin. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.,Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: The people in the Temple courtyard all cried four cries, as they were in agreement over various issues (Pardes Rimonim). The first cry was: Leave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary (see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. And an additional cry: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates the items consecrated to Heaven. Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would wrap his hands in silk shirai and perform the service. This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it.,And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let the righteous Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas ben Elazar the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, although the members of this family were violent. And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥa ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings.,They said about Yoḥa ben Narbbai that he and his household would eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty se’a of doves for dessert. They said: Throughout all the days of Yoḥa ben Narbbai there was no leftover sacrificial meat in the Temple, as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting and talking. The king said that goat meat is better food, and the queen said lamb meat is better food. They said: Who can prove which one of us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day and tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai came, and when they asked him this question, ' None

20. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 10, 81, 201; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 10, 81, 201

^70b אין שואלין בשלום אשה על ידי בעלה אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ליה דביתהו שרי ליה תגריה דלא נישוויך כשאר עם הארץ,א"ל מאי שיאטיה דמר הכא אמר ליה טסקא דהזמנותא שדר מר אבתראי אמר ליה השתא שותא דמר לא גמירנא טסקא דהזמנותא משדרנא למר אפיק דיסקא דהזמנותא מבי חדיה ואחזי ליה אמר ליה הא גברא והא דסקא אמר ליה הואיל ואתא מר להכא לישתעי מיליה כי היכי דלא לימרו מחנפי רבנן אהדדי,אמר ליה מאי טעמא שמתיה מר לההוא גברא ציער שליחא דרבנן ונגדיה מר דרב מנגיד על מאן דמצער שלוחא דרבנן דעדיף מיניה עבדי ליה,מאי טעמא אכריז מר עליה דעבדא הוא אמר ליה דרגיל דקרי אינשי עבדי ותני כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחא לעולם ואמר שמואל במומו פוסל אימר דאמר שמואל למיחש ליה לאכרוזי עליה מי אמר,אדהכי והכי (אתא ההוא בר דיניה מנהרדעי) א"ל ההוא בר דיניה לרב יהודה לדידי קרית לי עבדא דאתינא מבית חשמונאי מלכא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא,א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל ת"ח שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו אמר ליה הא איכא רב מתנה דקאי כוותי,רב מתנה לא חזייה לנהרדעא תליסר שני ההוא יומא אתא אמר ליה דכיר מר מאי אמר שמואל כי קאי חדא כרעא אגודא וחדא כרעא במברא א"ל הכי אמר שמואל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי מלכא קאתינא עבדא הוא דלא אישתיור מינייהו אלא ההיא רביתא דסלקא לאיגרא ורמיא קלא ואמרה כל דאמר מבית חשמונאי אנא עבדא הוא,נפלה מאיגרא ומיתה אכרוז עליה דעבדא הוא,ההוא יומא אקרען כמה כתובתא בנהרדעא כי קא נפיק נפקי אבתריה למירגמיה אמר להו אי שתיקו שתיקו ואי לא מגלינא עלייכו הא דאמר שמואל תרתי זרעייתא איכא בנהרדעא חדא מיקריא דבי יונה וחדא מיקריא דבי עורבתי וסימניך טמא טמא טהור טהור שדיוה לההוא ריגמא מידייהו וקם אטמא בנהר מלכא,מכריז רב יהודה בפומבדיתא אדא ויונתן עבדי יהודה בר פפא ממזירא בטי בר טוביה ברמות רוחא לא שקיל גיטא דחירותא מכריז רבא במחוזא בלאי דנאי טלאי מלאי זגאי כולם לפסול אמר רב יהודה גובאי גבעונאי דורנוניתא דראי נתינאי אמר רב יוסף האי בי כובי דפומבדיתא כולם דעבדי,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ארבע מאות עבדים ואמרי לה ארבעת אלפים עבדים היו לו לפשחור בן אימר וכולם נטמעו בכהונה וכל כהן שיש בו עזות פנים אינו אלא מהם אמר אביי כולהו יתבן בשורא דבנהרדעא ופליגא דרבי אלעזר דאמר ר\' אלעזר אם ראית כהן בעזות מצח אל תהרהר אחריו שנא\' (הושע ד, ד) ועמך כמריבי כהן,אמר רבי אבין בר רב אדא אמר רב כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו כשהקב"ה משרה שכינתו מעיד על כל השבטים ואין מעיד עליו שנאמר (תהלים קכב, ד) שבטי יה עדות לישראל אימתי הוי עדות לישראל בזמן שהשבטים שבטי יה,אמר ר\' חמא ברבי חנינא כשהקב"ה משרה שכינתו אין משרה אלא על משפחות מיוחסות שבישראל שנא\' (ירמיהו לא, א) בעת ההיא נאם ה\' אהיה לאלהים לכל משפחות ישראל לכל ישראל לא נאמר אלא לכל משפחות,והמה יהיו לי לעם אמר רבה בר רב הונא זו מעלה יתירה יש בין ישראל לגרים דאילו בישראל כתיב בהו (יחזקאל לז, כז) והייתי להם לאלהים והמה יהיו לי לעם ואילו בגרים כתיב (ירמיהו ל, כא) מי הוא זה ערב את לבו לגשת אלי נאם ה\' והייתם לי לעם ואנכי אהיה לכם לאלהים,אמר רבי חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת שנאמר (ישעיהו יד, א) ונלוה הגר עליהם ונספחו על בית יעקב כתיב הכא ונספחו וכתיב התם (ויקרא יד, נו) לשאת ולספחת,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא כשהקדוש ברוך הוא ^72a והאידנא הוא דליוה פרסאי אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף להא גיסא דפרת עד היכא אמר ליה מאי דעתיך משום בירם מייחסי דפומבדיתא מבירם נסבי,אמר רב פפא כמחלוקת ליוחסין כך מחלוקת לענין גיטין ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת ליוחסין אבל לגיטין דברי הכל עד ארבא תניינא דגישרא,אמר רמי בר אבא חביל ימא תכילתא דבבל שוניא וגוביא תכילתא דחביל ימא רבינא אמר אף ציצורא תניא נמי הכי חנן בן פנחס אומר חביל ימא תכילתא דבבל שוניא וגוביא וציצורא תכילתא דחביל ימא אמר רב פפא והאידנא איערבי בהו כותאי ולא היא איתתא הוא דבעא מינייהו ולא יהבו ליה מאי חביל ימא אמר רב פפא זו פרת דבורסי,ההוא גברא דאמר להו אנא מן שוט מישוט עמד רבי יצחק נפחא על רגליו ואמר שוט מישוט בין הנהרות עומדת וכי בין הנהרות עומדת מאי הוי אמר אביי אמר ר\' חמא בר עוקבא אמר רבי יוסי בר\' חנינא בין הנהרות הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין והיכא קיימא אמר ר\' יוחנן מאיהי דקירא ולעיל והא אמר רבי יוחנן עד מעברתא דגיזמא אמר אביי רצועה נפקא,אמר רב איקא בר אבין אמר רב חננאל אמר רב חלזון ניהוונד הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין א"ל אביי לא תציתו ליה יבמה היא דנפלה ליה התם א"ל אטו דידי היא דרב חננאל היא אזיל שיילוה לרב חננאל אמר להו הכי אמר רב חלזון ניהוונד הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין,ופליגא דר\' אבא בר כהנא דאמר ר\' אבא בר כהנא מאי דכתיב (מלכים ב יח, יא) וינחם בחלח ובחבור נהר גוזן וערי מדי חלח זו חלזון חבור זו הדייב נהר גוזן זו גינזק ערי מדי זו חמדן וחברותיה ואמרי לה זו נהוונד וחברותיה,מאי חברותיה אמר שמואל כרך מושכי חוסקי ורומקי אמר רבי יוחנן וכולם לפסול קסלקא דעתא מושכי היינו מושכני והאמר ר\' חייא בר אבין אמר שמואל מושכני הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין אלא מושכי לחוד ומושכני לחוד,(דניאל ז, ה) ותלת עלעין בפומה בין שיניה אמר רבי יוחנן זו חלזון הדייב ונציבין שפעמים בולעתן ופעמים פולטתן,(דניאל ז, ה) וארו חיוא אחרי תנינא דמיה לדוב תני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב ר\' אמי כי הוה חזי פרסא דרכיב אמר היינו דובא ניידא,א"ל רבי ללוי הראני פרסיים אמר ליה דומים לחיילות של בית דוד הראני חברין דומין למלאכי חבלה הראני ישמעאלים דומין לשעירים של בית הכסא הראני תלמידי חכמים שבבבל דומים למלאכי השרת,כי הוה ניחא נפשיה דרבי אמר הומניא איכא בבבל כולה עמונאי היא מסגריא איכא בבבל כולה דממזירא היא בירקא איכא בבבל שני אחים יש שמחליפים נשותיהם זה לזה בירתא דסטיא איכא בבבל היום סרו מאחרי המקום דאקפי פירא בכוורי בשבתא ואזיל וצדו בהו בשבתא ושמתינהו ר\' אחי ברבי יאשיה ואישתמוד אקרא דאגמא איכא בבבל אדא בר אהבה יש בה' ' None

^70b One may not send greetings to a woman even with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately. Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings with her husband, which would remove all concerns. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all. Yalta, his wife, who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, sent a message to him: Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus.,Desiring to release Rav Yehuda, Rav Naḥman said to him: What is the reason that the Master is here? Rav Yehuda said to him: The Master sent me a summons. Rav Naḥman said to him: Now that I have not even learned the Master’s form of speech, as you have demonstrated your superiority to me by reproving me even over such matters, could I have sent a summons to the Master? Rav Yehuda removed the summons from his bosom and showed it to him. While doing so, Rav Yehuda said to him: Here is the man and here is the document. Rav Naḥman said to him: Since the Master has come here, let him present his statement, in order that people should not say: The Sages flatter one another and do not judge each other according to the letter of the law.,Rav Naḥman commenced the deliberation, and said to him: What is the reason that the Master excommunicated that man? Rav Yehuda replied: He caused discomfort to an agent of one of the Sages, and therefore he deserved the punishment of one who causes discomfort to a Torah scholar. Rav Naḥman challenged this answer: If so, let the Master flog him, as Rav would flog one who causes discomfort to an agent of the Sages. Rav Yehuda responded: I punished him more severely than that. Rabbi Yehuda held that excommunication is a more severe punishment than flogging.,Rav Naḥman further inquired: What is the reason that the Master proclaimed about him that he is a slave? Rav Yehuda said to him: Because he is in the habit of calling people slaves, and it is taught: Anyone who disqualifies others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself is of flawed lineage. Another indication of his lineage being flawed is that he never speaks in praise of others. And Shmuel said: He disqualifies with his own flaw. Rav Naḥman retorted: You can say that Shmuel said this halakha only to the degree that one should suspect him of being of flawed lineage. But did he actually say this to the extent that one could proclaim about him that he is of flawed lineage?,The Gemara continues the story: Meanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings? Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants.,Rav Naḥman, who heard this exchange, said to Rav Yehuda: Does the Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to any Torah scholar who proceeds to teach a ruling of halakha with regard to a particular issue, if he said it before an action that concerns himself occurred, they should listen to him, and his ruling is accepted. But if not, if he quoted the halakha only after he was involved in an incident related to the halakha he is quoting, they do not listen to him, due to his personal involvement? Your testimony with regard to what Shmuel ruled should be ignored, as you stated it only after the incident. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: There is Rav Mattana, who stands by my report, since he has also heard this ruling of Shmuel.,The Gemara continues: Rav Mattana had not seen the city of Neharde’a for thirteen years. That very day he arrived. Rav Yehuda said to him: Does the Master remember what Shmuel said when he was standing with one foot on the bank and one foot on the ferry? Rav Mattana said to him: This is what Shmuel said at that time: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave, as none remained of them except for that young girl who ascended to the roof and raised her voice and said: From now on, anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. Other than this girl, the only members of the family who remained were descendants of Herod, and he was an Edomite slave.,The girl then fell from the roof and died, leaving only slaves from the Hasmoneans. With the confirmation of the report of the statement of Shmuel, they also publicized in Neharde’a about him, i.e., that man who claimed to come from the Hasmonean kings, that he was a slave.,The Gemara relates: On that day, several marriage contracts were torn up in Neharde’a, as many had their marriages annulled after having discovered that they had married slaves. When Rav Yehuda was leaving Neharde’a, they pursued him, seeking to stone him, as because of him it was publicized that their lineage was flawed. Rav Yehuda said to them: If you are silent, remain silent. And if you will not remain silent, I will reveal about you this statement that Shmuel said: There are two lines of offspring in Neharde’a. One is called the dove’s house, and one is called the raven’s house. And your mnemonic with regard to lineage is: The impure bird, the raven, is impure, meaning flawed, and the pure one, the dove, is pure, meaning unflawed. Upon hearing this, they threw all those stones that they were intending to stone him with from their hands, as they did not want him to reveal who had a flawed lineage. And as a result of all of the stones thrown into the river, a dam arose in the Malka River.,§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.,Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Four hundred slaves, and some say four thousand slaves, were owned by Pashḥur ben Immer, a priest in the time of Jeremiah, and due to their greatness they were assimilated into the priesthood and became known as priests. And any priest who has the trait of insolence is only from them. Abaye said: They all sit in the rows of honor that are in the city of Neharde’a. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If you see an insolent priest, do not speculate about him that he may be of flawed lineage, since it is stated: “For your people are as those who strive with a priest” (Hosea 4:4), which indicates that priests had a reputation for being cantankerous.,§ The Gemara discusses an idea raised earlier. Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda says that Rav says: Concerning anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him to marry, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence upon the Jewish people, He testifies with regard to all the tribes that they are His people, but He does not testify with regard to he who married improperly, as it is stated: “The tribes of the Lord, as a testimony to Israel” (Psalms 122:4). When is it a testimony to Israel? When the tribes are the tribes of the Lord, but not when their lineage is flawed.,Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence, He rests it only upon families of unflawed lineage among Israel, as it is stated: “At that time, says the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel” (Jeremiah 30:25). of all Israel, is not stated, but “of all the families,” which includes only those of unflawed lineage, the renowned families of Israel.,The verse from Jeremiah ends with the words “And they shall be my people.” Rabba bar Rav Huna says: This is a higher standard that differentiates between those born as Jews and converts, as with regard to those born as Jews it is written about them: “And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Ezekiel 37:27), whereas with regard to converts it is written: “For who is he that has pledged his heart to approach unto Me? says the Lord. And you shall be My people, and I will be your God” (Jeremiah 30:21–22). This teaches that converts are not drawn close to God, as indicated by the words “And I will be your God,” until they first draw themselves near to God, as indicated by the subsequent phrase “And you shall be my people.”,Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are as difficult for the Jewish people as a scab. The proof is that it is stated: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave venispeḥu to the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 14:1). It is written here “venispeḥu,” and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: “And for a sore and for a scab sappaḥat” (Leviticus 14:56). The use of a term with a similar root indicates that converts are like a scab for the Jewish people.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, ^72a And it is only now that the Persians moved the bridge further up northward. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Until where does the border extend on this western side of the Euphrates? Rav Yosef said to him: What are you thinking? Why do you ask? Is it due to the town of Biram? Even those of pure lineage who live in Pumbedita marry women from Biram, which demonstrates that the residents of Biram are presumed to have unflawed lineage.,Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to the northern border of Babylonia with regard to lineage, so is there a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. An agent bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must state that it was written and signed in his presence. If he brought it from Babylonia, there is no requirement for him to state this. Rav Pappa is teaching that the borders that define Babylonia with regard to this issue are the same as the borders with regard to lineage. And Rav Yosef says: This dispute is with regard to lineage, but with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that it is considered Babylonia up to the second lake of the bridge that Shmuel mentioned.,Rami bar Abba said: The province of Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia with regard to lineage; Shunya and Guvya are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Ravina said: The town of Tzitzora is also like Shunya and Guvya. This is also taught in a baraita: Ḥa ben Pineḥas says: Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia; Shunya and Guvya and Tzitzora are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Rav Pappa says: And nowadays, Samaritans have assimilated with them, and their lineage is problematic. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. Rather, one Samaritan requested to marry a woman from them and they would not give her to him, which led to the rumor that Samaritans had assimilated with them. The Gemara asks: What is this region called Ḥaveil Yamma? Rav Pappa said: This is the area near the Euphrates adjacent to Bursi.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to the Sages: I am from a place called Shot Mishot. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stood on his feet and said: Shot Mishot is located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The Gemara asks: And if it is located between the rivers, what of it? What halakha is this relevant for? Abaye said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The area between the rivers is like the exile, meaning Pumbedita, with regard to lineage. The Gemara inquires: And where is the area between the rivers located for the purpose of this halakha? Rabbi Yoḥa said: From Ihi Dekira and upward, i.e., northward. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: Until the crossing at Gizma but no further? Abaye said: A strip extends from that region past Ihi Dekira.,Rav Ika bar Avin says that Rav Ḥael says that Rav says: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. Abaye said to them: Do not listen to Rav Ika bar Avin about this, as it was a yevama who fell before him from there to perform levirate marriage, and he said that its lineage was unflawed because he wished to marry her. Rav Ika bar Avin said to him: Is that to say that this halakha is mine? It is Rav Ḥael’s, and it is not reasonable to say that I was influenced by my own interests in stating it. They went and asked Rav Ḥael. He said to them: Rav said as follows: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage.,The Gemara comments: And this disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the exile of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (II\xa0Kings 18:11)? Halah is Ḥillazon; Habor is Hadyav; the river of Gozan is Ginzak; the cities of the Medes are Ḥamadan and its neighboring towns, and some say: This is Nihavnad and its neighboring towns. Since the ten tribes assimilated with the gentiles, the lineage of Jews from those places is flawed, unlike that which was taught before.,The Gemara asks: What are the neighboring towns of Nihavnad? Shmuel said: The city of Mushekhei, Ḥosekei, and Rumekei. Rabbi Yoḥa says: And all of these are the same with regard to flawed lineage. It was assumed that Mushekhei is the same as Mushekanei. The Gemara therefore asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage? Rather, it must be that Mushekhei is discrete, and Mushekanei is discrete.,In connection to the aforementioned places, the Gemara analyzes the following verse, describing a vision of a bear-like animal: “And it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth” (Daniel 7:5). Rabbi Yoḥa says: This is Ḥillazon, Hadyav, and Netzivin, which the Persian government sometimes swallows and sometimes discharges. In other words, control over these places passed from the Persians to the Romans and back again several times.,The first part of that verse stated: “And behold a second beast, similar to a bear” (Daniel 7:5). Rav Yosef taught: These are Persians, who eat and drink copious amounts like a bear, and are corpulent like a bear, and grow hair like a bear, and have no rest like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another. When Rabbi Ami saw a Persian riding, he would say: This is a bear on the move.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Levi: Show me Persians, i.e., describe a typical Persian to me. Levi said to him: They are similar to the legions of the house of David. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ḥabbarin, Persian priests. Levi said to him: They are similar to angels of destruction. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ishmaelites. Levi said to him: They are similar to demons of an outhouse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Torah scholars of Babylonia. Levi said to him: They are similar to ministering angels.,When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, he said prophetically: There is a place called Homanya in Babylonia, and all its people are the sons of Ammon. There is a place called Masgariya in Babylonia, and all its people are mamzerim. There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers there who exchange wives with each other, and their children are therefore mamzerim. There is a place called Bireta DeSatya in Babylonia. Today they turned away from the Omnipresent. What did they do? A ditch with fish overflowed, and they went and trapped the fish on Shabbat. Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, excommunicated them, and they all became apostates. There is a place called Akra DeAgma in Babylonia. There is a man named Adda bar Ahava there.' ' None

21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, law • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 39, 50, 81, 95, 105; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 39, 50, 81, 95, 105

^25b קים לי בנפשאי דידענא טפי אבל תולה בדעת יונו אימא לא,ואי תנא תולה בדעת יונו דאמר בנקשא תליא מילתא ואנא ידענא לנקושי טפי אבל תולה בדעת עצמו אימא לא צריכא,מיתיבי המשחק בקוביא אלו הן המשחקים בפיספסים ולא בפיספסים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו קליפי אגוזים וקליפי רימונים,ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פיספסיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפילו בחנם לא עבדי,מלוה בריבית אחד המלוה ואחד הלוה ואימתי חזרתן משיקרעו את שטריהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה אפילו לנכרי לא מוזפי,ומפריחי יונים אלו שממרין את היונים ולא יונים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו בהמה חיה ועוף ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פגמיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפי\' במדבר נמי לא עבדי,סוחרי שביעית אלו שנושאין ונותנין בפירות שביעית ואימתי חזרתן משתגיע שביעית אחרת ויבדלו,וא"ר נחמיה לא חזרת דברים בלבד אמרו אלא חזרת ממון כיצד אומר אני פלוני בר פלוני כינסתי מאתים זוז בפירות שביעית והרי הן נתונין במתנה לעניים,קתני מיהת בהמה בשלמא למאן דאמר אי תקדמיה יונך ליון היינו דמשכחת לה בהמה אלא למ"ד ארא בהמה בת הכי היא,אין בשור הבר וכמאן דאמר שור הבר מין בהמה הוא דתנן שור הבר מין בהמה הוא רבי יוסי אומר מין חיה,תנא הוסיפו עליהן הגזלנין והחמסנין,גזלן דאורייתא הוא לא נצרכא אלא למציאת חרש שוטה וקטן,מעיקרא סבור מציאת חרש שוטה וקטן לא שכיחא אי נמי מפני דרכי שלום בעלמא כיון דחזו דסוף סוף ממונא הוא דקא שקלי פסלינהו רבנן,החמסנין מעיקרא סבור דמי קא יהיב אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא חטפי גזרו בהו רבנן,תנא עוד הוסיפו עליהן הרועים הגבאין והמוכסין,רועים מעיקרא סבור אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא מכווני ושדו לכתחילה גזרו בהו רבנן: הגבאין והמוכסין מעיקרא סבור מאי דקיץ להו קא שקלי כיון דחזו דקא שקלי יתירא פסלינהו,אמר רבא רועה שאמרו אחד רועה בהמה דקה ואחד רועה בהמה גסה,ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רבא רועה בהמה דקה בא"י פסולין בחוצה לארץ כשרין רועה בהמה גסה אפילו בא"י כשרין ההוא במגדלים איתמר,ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני נאמנין עלי שלשה רועי בקר מאי לאו לעדות,לא לדינא דיקא נמי דקתני שלשה רועי בקר ואי לעדות שלשה למה לי,ואלא מאי לדינא מאי איריא שלשה רועי בקר כל בי תלתא דלא גמרי דינא נמי,הכי קאמר אפילו הני דלא שכיחי ביישוב,א"ר יהודה סתם רועה פסול סתם גבאי כשר,אבוה דר\' זירא עבד גביותא תליסר שנין כי הוה אתי ריש נהרא למתא כי הוה חזי רבנן א"ל (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך כי הוה חזי אינשי דמתא אמר ריש נהרא אתא למתא והאידנא נכיס אבא לפום ברא וברא לפום אבא' ^39a (יחזקאל יח, ב) אבות יאכלו בוסר ושיני בנים תקהינה (ויקרא יט, לו) מאזני צדק אבני צדק (משלי יא, ח) צדיק מצרה נחלץ ויבא רשע תחתיו,א"ל כופר לרבן גמליאל אלהיכם גנב הוא דכתיב (בראשית ב, כא) ויפל ה\' אלהים תרדמה על האדם ויישן אמרה ליה ברתיה שבקיה דאנא מהדרנא ליה אמרה ליה תנו לי דוכוס אחד א"ל למה ליך ליסטין באו עלינו הלילה ונטלו ממנו קיתון של כסף והניחו לנו קיתון של זהב אמר לה ולוואי שיבא עלינו בכל יום ולא יפה היה לו לאדם הראשון שנטלו ממנו צלע אחת ונתנו לו שפחה לשמשו,אמר לה הכי קאמינא אלא לשקליה בהדיא אמרה ליה אייתו לי אומצא דבישרא אייתו לה אותבה תותי בחשא אפיקתה אמרה ליה אכול מהאי אמר לה מאיסא לי אמרה ליה ואדם הראשון נמי אי הות שקילה בהדיא הוה מאיסא ליה,א"ל כופר לרבן גמליאל ידענא אלהייכו מאי קא עביד (והיכן יתיב) איתנגד ואיתנח א"ל מאי האי א"ל בן אחד יש לי בכרכי הים ויש לי גיעגועים עליו בעינא דמחוית ליה ניהלי אמר מי ידענא היכא ניהו א"ל דאיכא בארעא לא ידעת דאיכא בשמיא ידעת,אמר ליה כופר לרבן גמליאל כתיב (תהלים קמז, ד) מונה מספר לכוכבים מאי רבותיה אנא מצינא למימנא כוכבי אייתי חבושי שדינהו בארבילא וקא מהדר להו אמר ליה מנינהו א"ל אוקמינהו א"ל רקיע נמי הכי הדרא,איכא דאמרי הכי א"ל מני לי כוכבי א"ל אימא לי ככיך ושיניך כמה הוה שדא ידיה לפומיה וקא מני להו א"ל דאיכא בפומיך לא ידעת דאיכא ברקיעא ידעת,א"ל כופר לרבן גמליאל מי שברא הרים לא ברא רוח שנאמר (עמוס ד, יג) כי הנה יוצר הרים ובורא רוח אלא מעתה גבי אדם דכתיב ויברא וייצר הכי נמי מי שברא זה לא ברא זה,טפח על טפח יש בו באדם ושני נקבים יש בו מי שברא זה לא ברא זה שנאמר (תהלים צד, ט) הנוטע אוזן הלא ישמע ואם יוצר עין הלא יביט א"ל אין א"ל ובשעת מיתה כולן נתפייסו,א"ל ההוא אמגושא לאמימר מפלגך לעילאי דהורמיז מפלגך לתתאי דאהורמיז א"ל א"כ היכי שביק ליה אהורמיז להורמיז לעבורי מיא בארעיה,אמר ליה קיסר לר\' תנחום תא ליהוו כולן לעמא חד אמר לחיי אנן דמהלינן לא מצינן מיהוי כוותייכו אתון מהליתו והוו כוותן א"ל מימר שפיר קאמרת מיהו כל דזכי למלכא לשדיוה לביבר שדיוה לביבר ולא אכלוה א"ל ההוא מינא האי דלא אכלוה משום דלא כפין הוא שדיוה ליה לדידיה ואכלוה,א"ל כופר לר"ג אמריתו כל בי עשרה שכינתא שריא כמה שכינתא איכא קרייה לשמעיה מחא ביה באפתקא א"ל אמאי על שמשא בביתיה דכופר א"ל שמשא אכולי עלמא ניחא ומה שמשא דחד מן אלף אלפי רבוא שמשי דקמי קודשא בריך הוא ניחא לכולי עלמא שכינתא דקב"ה על אחת כמה וכמה,א"ל ההוא מינא לרבי אבהו אלהיכם גחכן הוא דקאמר ליה ליחזקאל (יחזקאל ד, ד) שכב על צדך השמאלי וכתיב (יחזקאל ד, ו) ושכבת על צדך הימני אתא ההוא תלמידא א"ל מ"ט דשביעתא א"ל השתא אמינא לכו מילתא דשויא לתרוייהו,אמר הקב"ה לישראל זרעו שש והשמיטו שבע כדי שתדעו שהארץ שלי היא והן לא עשו כן אלא חטאו וגלו מנהגו של עולם מלך בשר ודם שסרחה עליו מדינה אם אכזרי הוא הורג את כולן אם רחמן הוא הורג חצים אם רחמן מלא רחמים הוא מייסר הגדולים שבהן ביסורין אף כך הקב"ה מייסר את יחזקאל כדי למרק עונותיהם של ישראל,א"ל ההוא מינא לרבי אבהו אלהיכם כהן הוא דכתיב (שמות כה, ב) ויקחו לי תרומה כי קבריה למשה במאי טביל וכי תימא במיא והכתיב (ישעיהו מ, יב) מי מדד בשעלו מים,א"ל בנורא טביל דכתיב (ישעיהו סו, טו) כי הנה ה\' באש יבא ומי סלקא טבילותא בנורא א"ל אדרבה עיקר טבילותא בנורא הוא דכתיב (במדבר לא, כג) וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים,אמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי אבינא כתיב (שמואל ב ז, כג) מי כעמך כישראל גוי אחד בארץ מאי רבותייהו אתון נמי ערביתו בהדן דכתיב (ישעיהו מ, יז) כל הגוים כאין נגדו אמר ליה מדידכו אסהידו עלן דכתיב ^46b ולא היו מתאבלין אבל אוננין שאין אנינות אלא בלב:,98a מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו,אמר לו רבי אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר (ירמיהו ד, א) אם תשוב ישראל נאום ה\' אלי תשוב אמר לו רבי יהושע והלא כבר נאמר (דניאל יב, ז) ואשמע את האיש לבוש הבדים אשר ממעל למימי היאור וירם ימינו ושמאלו אל השמים וישבע בחי העולם כי למועד מועדים וחצי וככלות נפץ יד עם קדש תכלינה כל אלה וגו\' ושתק רבי אליעזר,ואמר רבי אבא אין לך קץ מגולה מזה שנאמר (יחזקאל לו, ח) ואתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל וגו\' רבי (אליעזר) אומר אף מזה שנאמר (זכריה ח, י) כי לפני הימים (האלה) ההם שכר האדם לא נהיה ושכר הבהמה איננה וליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצר,מאי ליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצר רב אמר אף תלמידי חכמים שכתוב בהם שלום דכתיב (תהלים קיט, קסה) שלום רב לאהבי תורתך אין שלום מפני צר ושמואל אמר עד שיהיו כל השערים כולן שקולין,אמר רבי חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שיתבקש דג לחולה ולא ימצא שנאמר (יחזקאל לב, יד) אז אשקיע מימיהם ונהרותם כשמן אוליך וכתב (בתריה) (יחזקאל כט, כא) ביום ההוא אצמיח קרן לבית ישראל,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שתכלה מלכות הזלה מישראל שנאמר (ישעיהו יח, ה) וכרת הזלזלים במזמרות וכתיב בתריה בעת ההיא יובל שי לה\' צבאות עם ממשך ומורט,אמר זעירי אמר רבי חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו גסי הרוח מישראל שנאמר (צפניה ג, יא) כי אז אסיר מקרבך עליזי גאותך וכתיב (צפניה ג, יב) והשארתי בקרבך עם עני ודל וחסו בשם ה\',אמר רבי שמלאי משום רבי אלעזר בר"ש אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל שופטים ושוטרים מישראל שנאמר (ישעיהו א, כה) ואשיבה ידי עליך ואצרוף כבור סיגיך וגו\' ואשיבה שופטיך,אמר עולא אין ירושלים נפדית אלא בצדקה שנאמר (ישעיהו א, כז) ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה בצדקה אמר רב פפא אי בטלי יהירי בטלי אמגושי אי בטלי דייני בטלי גזירפטי אי בטלי יהירי בטלי אמגושי דכתיב (ישעיהו א, כה) ואצרוף כבור סיגיך ואסירה כל בדיליך ואי בטלי דייני בטלי גזירפטי דכתיב (צפניה ג, טו) הסיר ה\' משפטיך פנה אויבך,אמר ר\' יוחנן אם ראית דור שמתמעט והולך חכה לו שנאמר (שמואל ב כב, כח) ואת עם עני תושיע וגו\' אמר רבי יוחנן אם ראית דור שצרות רבות באות עליו כנהר חכה לו שנאמר (ישעיהו נט, יט) כי יבא כנהר צר (ו) רוח ה\' נוססה בו וסמיך ליה ובא לציון גואל,ואמר רבי יוחנן אין בן דוד בא אלא בדור שכולו זכאי או כולו חייב בדור שכולו זכאי דכתיב (ישעיהו ס, כא) ועמך כולם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ בדור שכולו חייב דכתיב (ישעיהו נט, טז) וירא כי אין איש וישתומם כי אין מפגיע וכתיב (ישעיהו מח, יא) למעני אעשה,אמר רבי אלכסנדרי רבי יהושע בן לוי רמי כתיב (ישעיהו ס, כב) בעתה וכתיב אחישנה זכו אחישנה לא זכו בעתה,אמר רבי אלכסנדרי רבי יהושע בן לוי רמי כתיב (דניאל ז, יג) וארו עם ענני שמיא כבר אינש אתה וכתיב (זכריה ט, ט) עני ורוכב על חמור זכו עם ענני שמיא לא זכו עני רוכב על חמור,אמר ליה שבור מלכא לשמואל אמריתו משיח על חמרא אתי אישדר ליה סוסיא ברקא דאית לי אמר ליה מי אית לך בר חיור גווני,ר\' יהושע בן לוי אשכח לאליהו דהוי קיימי אפיתחא דמערתא דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי אמר ליה אתינא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה אם ירצה אדון הזה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שנים ראיתי וקול ג\' שמעתי,אמר ליה אימת אתי משיח אמר ליה זיל שייליה לדידיה והיכא יתיב אפיתחא דקרתא ומאי סימניה יתיב ביני עניי סובלי חלאים וכולן שרו ואסירי בחד זימנא איהו שרי חד ואסיר חד אמר דילמא מבעינא דלא איעכב,אזל לגביה אמר ליה שלום עליך רבי ומורי אמר ליה שלום עליך בר ליואי א"ל לאימת אתי מר א"ל היום אתא לגבי אליהו א"ל מאי אמר לך א"ל שלום עליך בר ליואי א"ל אבטחך לך ולאבוך לעלמא דאתי א"ל שקורי קא שקר בי דאמר לי היום אתינא ולא אתא א"ל הכי אמר לך (תהלים צה, ז) היום אם בקולו תשמעו,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי יוסי בן קיסמא אימתי בן דוד בא אמר מתיירא אני שמא תבקשו ממני אות אמרו לו אין אנו מבקשין ממך אות,א"ל לכשיפול השער הזה ויבנה ויפול ויבנה ויפול ואין מספיקין לבנותו עד שבן דוד בא אמרו לו רבינו תן לנו אות אמר להם ולא כך אמרתם לי שאין אתם מבקשין ממני אות,אמרו לו ואף על פי כן אמר להם אם כך יהפכו מי מערת פמייס לדם ונהפכו לדם,בשעת פטירתו אמר להן העמיקו לי ארוני ' None

^25b I am certain of myself that I know better than my competitor how to win. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as he is aware that he cannot guarantee the results and therefore resolves to transfer the money if he loses.,And conversely, had the mishna taught this halakha only with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, one might assume that only this type of gambler is disqualified, as he presumably says: The matter, i.e., the race, is determined by knocking on trees and other objects to speed up the pigeons, and I know how to knock better than my opponent. Therefore, he does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on his own decision, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as the roll of the dice is pure chance. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.,The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an ara, from a baraita: With regard to the expression one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with pispasim, which are dice of marble or other types of stone. But the Sages did not mean to say that only one who plays with pispasim is disqualified from bearing witness, but rather even one who plays with nutshells or pomegranate shells is disqualified.,And when is their repentance accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? Once they break their pispasim and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even for nothing, i.e., they do not play even without betting.,The baraita continues: The expression: One who lends with interest, is referring to both the lender and the borrower. Both are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they tear their promissory notes and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not lend with interest even to a gentile.,The expression: And those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who induce the pigeons to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. And the Sages did not mean to say that only those who fly pigeons are disqualified; rather, even those who do this with a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or any type of bird are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they break their fixtures pigmeihen upon which they stand the competing animals, and repent completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even in the wilderness, where there is no one from whom to steal.,The expression: Merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, is referring to those who do business with the produce of the Sabbatical Year. And when is their repentance accepted? Once another Sabbatical Year occurs and they refrain from selling its produce or from assuming ownership of such produce.,The baraita continues: And Rabbi Neḥemya said: The Sages did not say that verbal repentance alone is sufficient for a merchant who traded in the produce of the Sabbatical Year to be reinstated as a valid witness; rather, returning the money is also necessary. How can one return the money he gained from selling produce of the Sabbatical Year? He says: I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, gathered, i.e., profited, two hundred dinars from trading in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and as I gained it improperly, this sum is hereby given as a gift to the poor.,The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, it is taught in the baraita that the status of one who flies pigeons applies to one who uses a domesticated animal in the same manner. Granted, according to the one who says that the term: One who flies pigeons, is referring to those who race pigeons, saying: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money, this is how you find a parallel case of one who races a domesticated animal against another animal. But according to the one who says that the term pigeon flyer means an ara, is a domesticated animal capable of luring other domesticated animals?,The Gemara answers: Yes, the baraita states this with regard to the wild ox, which can be lured away from its owner’s property because it is not a completely domesticated animal. And the baraita states this according to the one who says that the wild ox is a species of domesticated animal, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:6): The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. But Rabbi Yosei says: It is a species of undomesticated animal.,§ It was taught in a baraita: The Sages added the robbers and those who force transactions, i.e., who compel others to sell to them, to the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness.,The Gemara asks: A robber is disqualified by Torah law; why is it necessary for the Sages to add such an individual to the list? The Gemara answers: It is necessary only to add one who steals an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who acquire those items by rabbinic law only (see Gittin 59b). Since these people are not considered halakhically competent, by Torah law they do not acquire an item that they find, and consequently one who steals such an item from them is not in violation of a prohibition by Torah law.,One possibility is that taking such an item is prohibited by rabbinic law because it constitutes robbery. Nevertheless, initially the Sages did not disqualify such an individual from bearing witness, as they assumed that the case of an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is uncommon. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to disqualify one who robs them of such an item. Alternatively, the Sages may have reasoned that taking such an item is prohibited merely on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy, and is not considered actual robbery. When they realized that ultimately these people were taking property from others and were likely to perform actual robbery, the Sages disqualified them.,Similarly, with regard to those who force transactions, initially the Sages did not disqualify them, as they assumed that their behavior could be excused for two reasons: They would pay money for the items they took, and their forcing transactions was merely occasional; it was not a common practice. When they realized that these people were snatching items regularly, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness.,§ It is taught in a baraita: The Sages further added the following to the list of those disqualified from bearing witness: The shepherds, who shepherd their animals in the fields of others and are therefore considered like robbers; the collectors of government taxes, who collect more than the amount that people are legally liable to pay; and the customs officials, who collect customs in an illegal manner.,The Gemara explains: Shepherds were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed it was merely incidental that they would let their animals graze in the fields of others. When they realized that they would intentionally send the animals to the fields of others from the outset, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness. The collectors of taxes and the customs officials were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed they would take the set amount they were instructed to take. When they realized that these officials were taking more than that, they disqualified them.,Rava says: The shepherd that the Sages said is disqualified from bearing witness is referring to both a shepherd of small livestock and a herder of large livestock.,The Gemara asks: And does Rava say this? But doesn’t Rava say: Shepherds of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael are disqualified from bearing witness, as besides grazing in others’ fields they also ruin the land? Outside of Eretz Yisrael they are fit to bear witness. By contrast, herders of large livestock, even in Eretz Yisrael, are fit to bear witness. The Gemara answers: That was stated with regard to those who raise their animals on their own land, without herding them on land in the public domain.,The Gemara suggests a proof for Rava’s opinion that a herder of large livestock is also disqualified: This too stands to reason, from the fact that the mishna (24a) teaches that a litigant may state: Three cattle herders are trusted for me in court; by inference, cattle herders are generally disqualified. What, is it not with regard to bearing witness that cattle herders are disqualified, in accordance with Rava’s statement?,The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is with regard to sitting in judgment. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: Three cattle herders are trusted for me. And if it is with regard to bearing witness, why do I need three witnesses? Two are enough.,The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to what are cattle herders disqualified? If it is with regard to sitting in judgment, why does the mishna mention specifically three cattle herders? Any three people who did not study halakha are also disqualified from serving as a court.,The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The litigants can accept as judges even those cattle herders who dwell in the fields and do not frequent the settled area, and are therefore not proficient in the ways of business.,Rav Yehuda says: An ordinary shepherd is disqualified from bearing witness unless the court recognizes him as one who does not let his animals graze in the fields of others. An ordinary tax collector is fit unless the court determines he is one who collects more than people are obligated to pay.,The Gemara relates a story about a tax collector: The father of Rabbi Zeira collected taxes for thirteen years. When the head tax collector of the river region would come to the city, Rabbi Zeira’s father would prepare the residents ahead of time. When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them as a hint: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed” (Isaiah 26:20). He said this so that the head tax collector would not see the rabbis, and it would be possible to lower the taxes of the city. When he would see the ordinary people of the city, he would say to them: Beware, as the head tax collector of the river region is coming to the city, and will now slaughter the father, i.e., take one’s money, before the son, and the son before the father.' ^39a And they are the parables concerning the following verses: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezekiel 18:2); “Just balances, just weights…shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36); and “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked comes in his stead” (Proverbs 11:8).,§ The Roman emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Your God is a thief, as it is written: “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept; and He took one of his sides, and closed up the place with flesh instead” (Genesis 2:21). The daughter of the emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Leave him, as I will respond to him. She said to her father: Provide one commander dukhus for me to avenge someone’s wrongdoing. The emperor said to her: Why do you need him? She said to him: Armed bandits came to us this past night, and took a silver jug kiton from us, and left a golden jug for us. The emperor said to her: If so, would it be that armed bandits such as these would come to us every day. She said to him: And was it not similarly good for Adam the first man that God took a side from him and gave him a maidservant to serve him?,The emperor said to her: This is what I was saying: But if it is good for Adam, let God take his side from him in the open, not during the time of his deep sleep, like a thief. She said to him: Bring me a slice of raw meat. They brought it to her. She placed it under the embers, and removed it after it was roasted. She said to him: Eat from this meat. The emperor said to her: It is repulsive to me. Although he knew that this is how meat is prepared, seeing the raw meat made it repulsive to him. She said to him: With regard to Adam the first man as well, had God taken her from him in the open, she would have been repulsive to him. Therefore God acted while Adam was asleep.,The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: I know your God, what He does and where He sits. Meanwhile, the emperor was moaning and groaning. Rabban Gamliel said to him: What is this? Why are you in distress? The emperor said to him: I have one son in the cities overseas and I miss him. Rabban Gamliel said to him: I want you to show him to me. The emperor said: Do I know where he is? Rabban Gamliel said to him: If you do not know that which is on earth, is it possible that you do know that which is in the heavens?,The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: It is written in praise of the Lord: “He counts the number of the stars; He gives them all their names” (Psalms 147:4). What is His greatness? I can also count the stars. Rabban Gamliel brought quinces, put them in a sieve, and spun them. He said to the emperor: Count them. The emperor said to him: Stand them still so that I can count them. Rabban Gamliel said to him: The firmament also revolves like this, therefore you cannot count the stars in it.,Some say that this is what the emperor said to him: I have counted the stars. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Tell me how many teeth and incisors you have. The emperor put his hand in his mouth and was counting them. Rabban Gamliel said to him: You do not know what is in your mouth, but you do know what is in the firmament?,The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: He Who created mountains did not create wind, rather two separate gods created them, as it is stated: “For, lo, He forms mountains and creates wind” (Amos 4:13); one is described with the verb “forms,” and the other with the verb “creates.” Rabban Gamliel said to him: If that is so, then with regard to Adam, as it is written concerning him: “And God created” (Genesis 1:27), and also: “And the Lord God formed” (Genesis 2:7), so too should one say that He who created this did not create that?,If you will claim that different gods created different parts of Adam, that will not suffice. A person has one handbreadth by one handbreadth of facial countece, with two types of orifices in it, eyes and ears. Should one say that He who created this did not create that; as it is stated: “He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see?” (Psalms 94:9)? The verse employs two verbs for the eyes and ears alone. The emperor said to him: Yes, different gods created different parts of the face. Rabban Gamliel said to him: And at the moment of death, are they all appeased? Do all these gods agree as one that the time arrived for the person to die?,The Gemara relates: A certain magus said to Ameimar: From your midpoint and up is in the domain of Hurmiz, the god of good, who created the significant and important parts of the body, and from your midpoint and down is in the domain of Ahurmiz, the god of bad. Ameimar said to him: If so, how does Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to urinate in his territory? A person drinks with his mouth, which is in his upper half, and urinates from below.,The Gemara relates: The emperor said to Rabbi Tanḥum: Come, let us all be one people. Rabbi Tanḥum said: Very well. But we, who are circumcised, cannot become uncircumcised as you are; you all circumcise yourselves and become like us. The emperor said to Rabbi Tanḥum: In terms of the logic of your statement, you are saying well, but anyone who bests the king in a debate is thrown to the enclosure labeivar of wild animals. They threw him to the enclosure but the animals did not eat him, as God protected him. A certain heretic said to the emperor: This incident, that they did not eat him, happened because they are not hungry. They then threw the heretic into the enclosure and the animals ate him.,The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: You say that the Divine Presence dwells in any place where there are ten adult male Jews. He asked, sarcastically: How many Divine Presences are there? Rabban Gamliel summoned the servant of the emperor and hit him on his neck be’appatka. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Why did you allow the sun to enter the house of the emperor? The emperor said to him: The sun rests upon all the world; no one can prevent it from shining. Rabban Gamliel said to him: And if the sun, which is one of ten thousand attendants that are before the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests upon all the world, the Divine Presence of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so rests upon the world.,A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu: Your God is a jester, as He said to Ezekiel the prophet: “Lie on your left side” (Ezekiel 4:4), and it is also written: “Lie on your right side” (Ezekiel 4:6); God had Ezekiel turn from side to side, apparently for comic effect. In the meantime, a certain student came before Rabbi Abbahu and said to him: What is the reason for the mitzva of the Sabbatical Year? Rabbi Abbahu said to them: Now I will tell you something that is fit for the two of you.,Rabbi Abbahu continued: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: Sow for six years, and withhold sowing during the seventh year, so that that you will know that the land is Mine. But the Jewish people did not do so; rather, they sinned and were consequently exiled. The manner of the world is that in the case of a flesh-and-blood king whose province sinned against him, if he is cruel, he kills them all; if he is compassionate, he kills only half of them; and if he is compassionate and is full of compassion, he afflicts the leaders among them with suffering. Rabbi Abbahu continues: So too in this case, the Holy One, Blessed be He, afflicts Ezekiel in order to cleanse the sins of the Jewish people. God instructed him to lie down and suffer the same number of days as the number of years that the Jewish people did not observe the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.,A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu: Your God is a priest, as it is written: “That they take for Me an offering teruma” (Exodus 25:2), and teruma is given to the priests. He asked, sarcastically: When He buried Moses, in what ritual bath did He immerse? A priest who contracts impurity from a corpse must immerse in order to be able to partake of teruma. And if you would say that He immersed in water, but isn’t it written: “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand” (Isaiah 40:12), that all waters of the world fit in the palm of God, so He could not immerse in them.,Rabbi Abbahu said to him: He immersed in fire, as it is written: “For, behold, the Lord will come in fire” (Isaiah 66:15). The heretic said to him: But is immersion in fire effective? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: On the contrary, the main form of immersion is in fire, as it is written with regard to the removal of non-kosher substances absorbed in a vessel: “And all that abides not the fire you shall make to go through the water” (Numbers 31:23), indicating that fire purifies more than water does.,A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avina: It is written: “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the earth” (II\xa0Samuel 7:23). The heretic asked: What is your greatness? You are also mixed together with us, as it is written: “All nations before Him are as nothing; they are counted by Him less than nothing and vanity” (Isaiah 40:17). Rabbi Avina said to him: One of yours, the gentile prophet Balaam, has already testified for us, as it is written: ^46b And the relatives of the executed man would not mourn him with the observance of the usual mourning rites, so that his unmourned death would atone for his transgression; but they would grieve over his passing, since grief is felt only in the heart.,The Sages taught in a baraita: Were it stated: And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death you shall hang him on a tree, I would have said that first they hang him and only afterward they put him to death, the way the gentile government does, executing the transgressor by hanging. Therefore, the verse states: “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:22), teaching that first they put him to death, and only afterward they hang him. How so? They delay the verdict until it is near to sunset, and then they conclude his judgment, and they put him to death, and immediately afterward hang him. One ties him to the hanging post, and another immediately unties him, in order to fulfill the mitzva of hanging the corpse of the executed transgressor.,The Sages taught: From the verse: “And you shall hang him on a tree,” I would derive that the body may be hung either on a tree that has been detached from the ground or on one that is still attached to the ground. Therefore, the verse states: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him kavor tikberennu that day” (Deuteronomy 21:23). Based on the doubled verb, it is derived that not only must the transgressor’s body be buried, but the tree on which it is hung must also be buried. As the verse employs the same term to instruct that both must be buried, the verse teaches that the corpse must be hung on a tree that has already been detached from the ground and is lacking only burial, just as the corpse is lacking only burial. This serves to exclude hanging the corpse on a tree that is still attached to the ground and is lacking both cutting down and burial.,Rabbi Yosei says: The tree upon which the corpse is hung is not sunk into the ground; rather, it is leaned against a wall, as the verse teaches that the tree must be lacking only burial. This serves to exclude hanging the corpse on a tree that is lacking both detachment and burial. And the Rabbis say: Detaching from the ground a tree that had already been cut down and was later sunk back into the ground is nothing, i.e., it is an insignificant act.,§ The mishna teaches: That is to say: Were the dead man’s corpse to remain hanging, reminding everyone of his transgression, people would ask: For what reason was this one hung? They would be answered: Because he blessed God, a euphemism for blasphemy, and the name of Heaven would be desecrated. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: The Sages told a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to two brothers who were twins and lived in the same city. One was appointed king, while the other went out to engage in banditry. The king commanded that his brother be punished, and they hanged his twin brother for his crimes. Anyone who saw the bandit hanging would say: The king was hanged. The king, therefore, commanded that his brother be taken down, and they took the bandit down. Similarly, people are created in God’s image, and therefore God is disgraced when a corpse is hung for a transgression that the person has committed.,The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir said that the phrase “For he that is hung is a curse kilelat of God” should be understood as follows: When a man suffers in the wake of his sin, the Divine Presence says: I am distressed kallani about My head, I am distressed about My arm. The Gemara asks: From where is this inferred? How does Rabbi Meir understand the word kilelat? Abaye says: When a man is hung after he is put to death, God is like one who said: I am not light kal leit, meaning: My head is heavy for Me, My arm is heavy for Me. God is in distress when He has to administer punishment. Rava said to him: If so, he should have said explicitly: My head is heavy for Me, My arm is heavy for Me. Rather, Rava said: When a man is hung after he is put to death, God is like one who said: The world is light for me kil li alma, meaning: I am light, and therefore the world is heavy for Me, and I am in distress.,The Gemara asks: This word “kilelat” is needed for what it itself teaches, namely that a blasphemer is hung after he has been stoned. How, then, can it be interpreted as alluding to God’s distress at the death of a transgressor? The Gemara answers: If so, the verse should have stated: One who curses mekallel . What is the meaning of kilelat? It serves to teach the statement taught by Rabbi Meir. The Gemara asks: If so, say perhaps that the entire verse comes for this purpose, to underscore the dignity of the transgressor, who was created in God’s image, and not to teach the halakha governing a blasphemer. The Gemara responds: If so, the verse should have stated: Lightness kilat. What is the meaning of kilelat? Conclude two conclusions from it: Conclude that the blasphemer is hung after he has been stoned, and conclude that God is distressed at the death of a transgressor.,§ The mishna teaches that everyone, not only an executed transgressor, must be buried on the day of his death, if that is at all possible. Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: From where is it derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition? The verse states: “But you shall bury him kavor tikberennu” (Deuteronomy 21:23), doubling the verb for emphasis. From here it is derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition.,There are those who say that Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? The verse states: “But you shall bury him kavor tikberennu,” doubling the verb for emphasis. From here there is a hint to the mitzva of burial in the Torah.,The Gemara relates: King Shapur, the monarch of Persia, once said to Rav Ḥama: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? What proof is there that the dead must be buried and not treated in some other manner? Rav Ḥama was silent and said nothing to him, as he could not find a suitable source. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The world has been handed over to the foolish, as Rav Ḥama should have said to King Shapur that the mitzva of burial is derived from the verse: “But you shall bury him” (Deuteronomy 21:23).,The Gemara explains: In that case, King Shapur could have replied that the verse merely proves that a coffin should be made for the deceased so that he can be placed in it, not that the deceased should be buried in the ground, as the verse could be understood as instructing that the corpse be placed in some sort of receptacle, not in the ground. The Gemara challenges: Rav Ḥama could still have claimed that the mitzva of burial is derived from the doubled verb “you shall bury him kavor tikberennu.” The Gemara answers: In that case, King Shapur could have replied that he does not learn anything from a doubled verb, which seems to be merely a stylistic choice and not the source of a new halakha.,The Gemara asks: But let Rav Ḥama say that the mitzva to bury the dead is derived from the fact that the righteous forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all buried. The Gemara answers: King Shapur could have said that this was merely a custom of the time, but not a mitzva. The Gemara asks: Rav Ḥama could have derived the mitzva from the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried Moses, which proves that this is the proper way to handle the dead. The Gemara answers: King Shapur could still have said that God acted in this manner in order not to deviate from the general custom, but this does not prove that burying the dead is a mitzva.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that burying the dead is a mitzva, as the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite said about Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him” (I\xa0Kings 14:13). The Gemara answers: From here, too, there is no proof, as they may have buried Abijah in order not to deviate from the general custom of the world, and not because they were required to do so.,The Gemara proposes another proof: Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon the wicked, saying: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth” (Jeremiah 16:4), which proves that when no curse has been pronounced, the dead should be buried. The Gemara rejects this proof: From here, too, there is no proof that it is a mitzva to bury the dead, as Jeremiah cursed the wicked, saying that they would deviate from the general custom and not be buried. Due to all these difficulties, Rav Ḥama was unable to adduce incontrovertible proof that there is a mitzva to bury the dead.,§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is burial obligatory on account of disgrace, i.e., so that the deceased should not suffer the disgrace of being left exposed as his body begins to decompose, or is it on account of atonement, i.e., so that the deceased will achieve atonement by being returned to the ground from which he was formed?,The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from knowing the reason that burial is necessary? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where one said before he died: I do not want them to bury that man, i.e., myself. If you say that burial is required on account of disgrace, it is not in his power to waive his own burial, as his family shares in the disgrace. But if you say that burial is required on account of atonement, didn’t he effectively say: I do not want atonement, and with regard to himself one should be able to do as he wishes? What, then, is the halakha?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the fact that the righteous patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all buried. And if you say that burial is required on account of atonement, do the righteous need atonement? The Gemara rejects this proof: Yes, even the righteous are in need of atonement, as it is written: “For there is no righteous person on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20), and so even the righteous need atonement for the few sins that they committed over the course of their lifetimes.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam shall come to the grave” (I\xa0Kings 14:13). And if you say that burial is required so that the deceased should achieve atonement, these too, i.e., Jeroboam’s other sons, should also be buried so that they should achieve atonement. The Gemara rejects this argument: This son, Abijah, who was righteous, should achieve atonement through his death and burial, but these other sons, who were wicked, should not achieve atonement even in death.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried” (Jeremiah 16:4), which indicates that it is not on account of atonement that burial is required, as were that the case the wicked are certainly in need of atonement, and therefore they should be buried. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as Jeremiah’s intention might be that the wicked should not achieve atonement. Therefore, the question of whether burial is necessary in order to prevent disgrace or achieve atonement remains unresolved.,§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the eulogy delivered for the honor of the living relatives of the deceased, or is it delivered for the honor of the dead? The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two possible reasons? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where one said before he died: Do not eulogize that man, i.e., myself. If the eulogy is delivered to honor the deceased, he is able to forgo this honor, but if it is delivered to honor the living, he is not, as it is not in the power of one individual to forgo the honor of others. Alternately, the difference is with regard to whether it is possible to collect the eulogist’s fee from the heirs. If the eulogy is to honor the dead, it is possible to collect this fee from the heirs, even against their will, but if it is to honor the living, they are able to forgo this honor.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse that states: “And Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and weep over her” (Genesis 23:2), indicating that Sarah’s funeral was delayed until Abraham returned from Beersheba to Hebron to eulogize her. And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, would they have unduly delayed burying Sarah due to Abraham’s honor? The Gemara rejects this argument: It was satisfactory to Sarah herself that her funeral was delayed so that Abraham could be honored by eulogizing her. Since Sarah herself would prefer that Abraham eulogize her, there was no disgrace in waiting for Abraham to arrive.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different resolution of this dilemma from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him” (I\xa0Kings 14:13). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, are these people, Jeroboam’s surviving family, worthy of this honor? The Gemara answers: It is satisfactory to the righteous when other people are honored through them. Since that is their wish, they are eulogized even if their wicked relatives are honored as a result.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried” (Jeremiah 16:4). If you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, why should the wicked not be eulogized, as perhaps they are survived by righteous people who are worthy of this honor? The Gemara answers: It is not satisfactory to the righteous when they are honored through the wicked, and therefore they prefer that a eulogy not be delivered for their wicked relatives.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from what Jeremiah said to Zedekiah: “You shall die in peace; and with the burnings of your fathers, the former kings that were before you, so shall they make a burning for you; and they will eulogize you, saying: Ah, master” (Jeremiah 34:5). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living relatives of the deceased, what difference does it make to him if he is eulogized? The Gemara answers: It is possible that a eulogy is to honor the living, and this is what Jeremiah is saying to Zedekiah: Enjoy the thought that Israel shall be honored through you at your funeral just as they were honored through your ancestors at their funerals. ^98a Kings shall see and arise, princes shall prostrate themselves, because of the Lord, Who is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, Who has chosen you” (Isaiah 49:7), indicating that redemption will come independent of repentance?,Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “If you will return, Israel, says the Lord, return to Me” (Jeremiah 4:1), indicating that redemption is contingent upon repentance? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he lifted up his right hand and his left hand to heaven and swore by the One Who lives forever that it shall be for a period, periods, and a half; when the crushing of the power of the holy people shall have been completed, all these things shall be finished” (Daniel 12:7), indicating that the time for redemption is set and unrelated to repentance? And Rabbi Eliezer was silent, unable to refute the proof from that verse.,§ And Rabbi Abba says: You have no more explicit manifestation of the end of days than this following phenomenon, as it is stated: “But you, mountains of Israel, you shall give your branches, and yield your fruit to My people of Israel, for they will soon be coming” (Ezekiel 36:8). When produce will grow in abundance in Eretz Yisrael, it is an indication that the Messiah will be coming soon. Rabbi Eliezer says: You have no greater manifestation of the end of days than this following phenomenon as well, as it is stated: “For before these days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beast; nor was there peace from the oppressor to him who exits and to him who enters” (Zechariah 8:10). When there are no wages for work and no rent paid for use of one’s animal, that is an indication that the coming of the Messiah is at hand.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Nor was there peace from the oppressor to him who exits and to him who enters”? Rav says: It means that even for Torah scholars, with regard to whom the promise of peace is written, as it is written: “Great peace have they who love Your Torah; and there is no obstacle for them” (Psalms 119:165), there will be no peace from the oppressor. And Shmuel says: It means that the Messiah will not come until all the prices are equal.,Rabbi Ḥanina says: The son of David will not come until a fish will be sought for an ill person and will not be found, as it is stated with regard to the downfall of Egypt: “Then I will make their waters clear and cause their rivers to run like oil” (Ezekiel 32:14), meaning that the current in the rivers will come to a virtual standstill. And it is written thereafter: “On that day I will cause the glory of the house of Israel to flourish” (Ezekiel 29:21).,Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: The son of David will not come until the contemptuous hazalla kingdom of Rome will cease from the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And He shall sever the sprigs hazalzallim with pruning hooks” (Isaiah 18:5). And it is written thereafter: “At that time shall a present be brought to the Lord of hosts, by a people scattered and hairless” (Isaiah 18:7).,Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The son of David will not come until the arrogant will cease to exist from among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “For then I will remove from your midst your proudly exulting ones” (Zephaniah 3:11), and it is written afterward: “And I will leave in your midst a poor and lowly people, and they shall take refuge in the name of the Lord” (Zephaniah 3:12).,Rabbi Simlai says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The son of David will not come until all the judges and officers will cease to exist from among the Jewish people, and there will be no more autonomous government in Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “And I will turn My hand against you and purge away your dross as with lye and take away your base alloy. And I will restore your judges as at the first” (Isaiah 1:25–26).,Ulla says: Jerusalem is redeemed only by means of righteousness, as it is stated: “Zion shall be redeemed with justice and those who return to it with righteousness” (Isaiah 1:27). Rav Pappa says: If the arrogant will cease to exist, the Persian sorcerers will cease to exist as well. If the deceitful judges will cease to exist, the royal officers gazirpatei and taskmasters will cease to exist. Rav Pappa elaborates: If the arrogant will cease, the Persian sorcerers will cease, as it is written: “And I will purge away your dross sigayikh as with lye, and I will remove all your alloy bedilayikh.” When the arrogant sigim are purged, the sorcerers, who are separated muvdalim from the fear of God, will also cease. And if the deceitful judges cease to exist, the royal officers and taskmasters will cease to exist, as it is written: “The Lord has removed your judgments; cast out your enemy” (Zephaniah 3:15).,Rabbi Yoḥa says: If you saw a generation whose wisdom and Torah study is steadily diminishing, await the coming of the Messiah, as it is stated: “And the afflicted people You will redeem” (II\xa0Samuel 22:28). Rabbi Yoḥa says: If you saw a generation whose troubles inundate it like a river, await the coming of the Messiah, as it is stated: “When distress will come like a river that the breath of the Lord drives” (Isaiah 59:19). And juxtaposed to it is the verse: “And a redeemer will come to Zion” (Isaiah 59:20).,And Rabbi Yoḥa says: The son of David will come only in a generation that is entirely innocent, in which case they will be deserving of redemption, or in a generation that is entirely guilty, in which case there will be no alternative to redemption. He may come in a generation that is entirely innocent, as it is written: “And your people also shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land forever” (Isaiah 60:21). He may come in a generation that is entirely guilty, as it is written: “And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His arm brought salvation to Him, and His righteousness, it sustained Him” (Isaiah 59:16). And it is written: “For My own sake, for My own sake will I do it; for how should it be profaned? And My glory I will not give it to another” (Isaiah 48:11).,§ Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction in a verse addressing God’s commitment to redeem the Jewish people. In the verse: “I the Lord in its time I will hasten it” (Isaiah 60:22), it is written: “In its time,” indicating that there is a designated time for the redemption, and it is written: “I will hasten it,” indicating that there is no set time for the redemption. Rabbi Alexandri explains: If they merit redemption through repentance and good deeds I will hasten the coming of the Messiah. If they do not merit redemption, the coming of the Messiah will be in its designated time.,Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: “There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey.,King Shapur of Persia said to Shmuel mockingly: You say that the Messiah will come on a donkey; I will send him the riding barka horse that I have. Shmuel said to him: Do you have a horse with one thousand colors bar ḥivar gavanei like the donkey of the Messiah? Certainly his donkey will be miraculous.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi found Elijah the prophet, who was standing at the entrance of the burial cave of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Will I be privileged to come to the World-to-Come? Elijah said to him: If this Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will wish it so. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Two I saw, Elijah and me, and the voice of three I heard, as the Divine Presence was also there, and it was in reference to Him that Elijah said: If this Master will wish it so.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to Elijah: When will the Messiah come? Elijah said to him: Go ask him. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: And where is he sitting? Elijah said to him: At the entrance of the city of Rome. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked him: And what is his identifying sign by means of which I can recognize him? Elijah answered: He sits among the poor who suffer from illnesses. And all of them untie their bandages and tie them all at once, but the Messiah unties one bandage and ties one at a time. He says: Perhaps I will be needed to serve to bring about the redemption. Therefore, I will never tie more than one bandage, so that I will not be delayed.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went to the Messiah. He said to the Messiah: Greetings to you, my rabbi and my teacher. The Messiah said to him: Greetings to you, bar Leva’i. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When will the Master come? The Messiah said to him: Today. Sometime later, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi came to Elijah. Elijah said to him: What did the Messiah say to you? He said to Elijah that the Messiah said: Greetings shalom to you, bar Leva’i. Elijah said to him: He thereby guaranteed that you and your father will enter the World-to-Come, as he greeted you with shalom. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to Elijah: The Messiah lied to me, as he said to me: I am coming today, and he did not come. Elijah said to him that this is what he said to you: He said that he will come “today, if you will listen to his voice” (Psalms 95:7).,§ Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma’s students asked him: When will the son of David come? Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said: I am hesitant to answer you, lest you request from me a sign to corroborate my statement. They said to him: We are not asking you for a sign.,Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: You will see when this existing gate of Rome falls and will be rebuilt, and will fall a second time and will be rebuilt, and will fall a third time. And they will not manage to rebuild it until the son of David comes. The students said to him: Our rabbi, give us a sign. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: But didn’t you say to me that you are not asking me for a sign?,They said to him: And nevertheless, provide us with a sign. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: If it is as I say, the water of the Cave of Pamyas will be transformed into blood. The Gemara relates: And it was transformed into blood.,At the time of his death, Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to his students: Place my coffin deep in the ground, ' None

22. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 58, 90, 169, 198; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 58, 90, 169, 198

^110a בר קשא דפומבדיתא דטרקיה חיויא הוה תליסר חמרי חיורתא בפומבדיתא קרעינהו לכולהו ואישתכחו טריפה הואי חדא בההוא גיסא דפומבדיתא עד דאזלי מייתי לה אכלה אריה אמר להו אביי דילמא חיויא דרבנן טרקיה דלית ליה אסותא דכתיב (קהלת י, ח) ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש אמרו ליה אין רבי דכי נח נפשיה דרב גזר רב יצחק בר ביסנא דליכא דלימטייה אסא וגידמי לבי הילולא בטבלא ואזל איהו אמטי אסא וגידמי לבי הילולא בטבלא טרקיה חיויא ומית,האי מאן דכרכיה חיויא לינחות למיא וליסחוף דיקולא ארישא ולהדקיה מיניה וכי סליק עילויה לישדיה למיא וליסלוק וליתי האי מאן דמיקני ביה חיויא אי איכא חבריה בהדיה לירכביה ארבע גרמידי ואי לא לישואר נגרא ואי לא ליעבר נהרא ובליליא לותביה לפוריא אארבעה חביתא וניגני בי כוכבי ולייתי ד\' שונרי וליסרינהו בארבעה כרעי דפורייה וליתי שחפי ולישדי התם דכי שמע קלי אכלי ליה האי מאן דרהיט אבתריה לירהיט בי חלתא,האי איתתא דחזיא חיויא ולא ידעה אי יהיב דעתיה עילוה אי לא יהיב דעתיה עילוה תשלח מאנה ונשדייה קמיה אי מכרך בהו דעתיה עילוה ואי לא לא יהיב דעתיה עילוה,מאי תקנתה תשמש קמיה איכא דאמרי כ"ש דתקיף ליה יצריה אלא תשקול ממזיה ומטופרה ותשדי ביה ותימא דישתנא אנא האי איתתא דעייל בה חיויא ליפסעה ולתבוה אתרתי חביתא וליתי בישרא שמנה ולישדי אגומרי וליתי אגנא דתחלי וחמרא ריחתנא ולותבו התם וליטרוקינהו בהדי הדדי ולינקוט צבתא בידה דכי מירח ריחא נפיק ואתי ולישקליה וליקלייה בנורא דאי לא הדר עילוה:,כל האוכלין כו\': כל האוכלין לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי טחול לשינים וכרשינין לבני מעיים כל המשקין לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי מי צלפין בחומץ א"ל רבינא לרבא מהו לשתות מי רגלים בשבת א"ל תנינא כל המשקין שותה ומי רגלים לא שתו אינשי:,חוץ ממי דקלים: תנא חוץ ממי דקרים מאן דתנא מי דקרים שהם דוקרים את המרה ומאן דאמר מי דקלים שיוצאין מן שני דקלי מאי מי דקלים אמר רבה בר ברונא תרתי תלאי איכא במערבא ונפקא עינא דמיא מבינייהו כסא קמא מרפי אידך משלשל ואידך כי היכי דעיילי הכי נפקי אמר עולא לדידי שתי שיכרא דבבלאי ומעלי מינייהו והוא דלא רגיל ביה ארבעין יומין,רב יוסף אמר זיתום המצרי תילתא שערי ותילתא קורטמי ותילתא מילחא רב פפא אמר תילתא חיטי ותילתא קורטמי ותילתא מילחא (וכמונא) וסימניך סיסאני ושתי להו בין דבחא לעצרתא דקמיט מרפי ליה ודרפי קמיט ליה:,וכוס עקרין: מאי כוס עקרין אמר ר\' יוחנן לייתי מתקל זוזא קומא אלכסנדריא ומתקל זוזא גביא גילא ומתקל זוזא כורכמא רישקא ולישחקינהו בהדי הדדי לזבה תלתא בחמרא ולא מיעקרא לירקונא תרין בשיכרא ומיעקר לזבה תלתא בחמרא ולא מיעקרא ואי לא לייתי תלתא'^116a שאין זה מקומה ר\' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר\',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר\' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה\' וא"ר חמא בר\' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה\' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי\' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) ו אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה\' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר\' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.,אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה ' None

^110a Jewish official in Pumbedita that was bitten by a snake. There were thirteen white donkeys in Pumbedita and they tore them all open and they were found to be tereifot. There was one donkey on the other side of Pumbedita, and until they went to bring it, a lion ate it. Abaye said to them: Since all of these things have happened, perhaps a snake of the Rabbis bit him, for which there is no cure, as it is written: “One that digs a pit will fall into it, and one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake” (Ecclesiastes 10:8). Perhaps this person violated a rabbinic decree, also known as a fence, and was bitten by a snake as punishment. That bite has no cure. They said to him: Yes, my teacher, it is so, as when Rav died Rav Yitzḥak bar Bisna ruled that one may not bring myrtle and palm branches to a wedding hall to accompany bells, and he went and brought myrtle and palm branches to the wedding hall with bells. Therefore, a snake bit him. And it is reported that ultimately the official died.,The Gemara cites additional information about the dangers posed by snakes and how to deal with them. One whom a snake encircled should descend into water and place a basket on his head and remove the snake slowly from him into the basket. And once the snake goes into the basket, let him throw it into the water and climb and emerge. One at whom a snake is angry and is being pursued by a snake, if he has another with him, let him ride him four cubits. And if not, let him jump over a ditch. And if not, let him cross a river. And at night let him place his bed on four barrels and sleep outside beneath the stars. And let one bring four cats and let one tie them to the four legs of the bed. And let one bring twigs and branches and throw them there so that when the cats hear the sound of the snake crawling they will eat it. One who is being pursued by a snake, let him run in sand because a snake cannot move as quickly in sand as a person can.,A woman who is seen by a snake and does not know whether it has directed his attention toward her or whether it has not directed his attention toward her, she should remove her garment and throw it before the snake. If the snake wraps itself in the garments, it is an indication that it has directed his attention toward her; and if not, it is an indication that it has not directed his attention toward her.,What is her remedy so the snake will leave her alone? She should have relations with her husband before the snake. Some say: If she has relations in front of the snake, all the more so that its desire will become stronger. Rather, she should take from her hair and her nails and throw them at the snake, and say the following to it as an incantation: I am a menstruating woman dishtana. A woman whom a snake has entered, let them spread her legs and place her on two barrels, and let them bring fatty meat and throw it onto coals. And let them bring her a bowl of cress and fragrant wine and place them there and mix them together. And she should take tongs in her hand, as when the snake smells the fragrance it emerges. And then one should take the snake and burn it in the fire, as if it is not burned, it will come back onto her.,We learned in the mishna: All types of food that healthy people eat may be eaten by one eating them for medicinal purposes on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: The phrase: All foods, what does it come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include spleen for healing teeth and vetch for healing intestines, although they are not common foods. We also learned in the mishna: And one may drink all drinks on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: The phrase: All drinks, what does it come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include mixing water in which capers have soaked, with vinegar. Ravina said to Rava: What is the ruling with regard to drinking urine on Shabbat? Rava said to him: We already learned in the mishna: One may drink all drinks, and people do not drink urine and is not considered a drink. It is only consumed for medical purposes and is therefore prohibited.,We learned in the mishna: One may drink anything on Shabbat except for palm tree water mei dekalim. It was taught slightly differently in the Tosefta: Water that stabs mei dekarim. The Gemara explains: The one who taught water that stabs means that the waters pierce the gall bladder; and the one who said palm tree water means that they come from two palm trees. In order to explain what palm tree water is, Rabba bar Beruna said: There are two palm trees in Eretz Yisrael, and a spring of water emerges from between them. The first cup one drinks of this water loosens the intestines, another cup causes diarrhea, and another, a third cup, just as it entered as water, so too it emerges. Ulla said: For me, I drink Babylonian beer, and it is more effective than palm tree water in causing diarrhea. The Gemara comments: And this is true. It is effective for the stomach when the person who drinks it has not become accustomed to beer for forty days.,Rav Yosef said: Water that stabs is Egyptian zitom, which is made from one-third barley, and one-third saffron, and one-third salt. Rav Pappa said: It is one-third wheat, and one-third saffron, and one-third salt and cumin. And this is your mnemonic to remember which said zitom is made from barley: A basket which is called sisanei, a word with two samekhs. This word alludes to the fact that Rav Yosef, who has a samekh in his name, is the one who says that Egyptian zitom is made from barley se’orim, which has the letter sin. Sin is interchangeable with samekh. And one should drink it between Passover and Shavuot. For one whose intestines are blocked, it will loosen his intestines and cure him; and for one whose bowels are loose, it will block him and cure him as well.,And we also learned about a kos ikarin in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What is a kos ikarin? Rabbi Yoḥa said: Let one bring the weight of a zuz of Alexandrian gum, and a weight of a zuz of alum, and a weight of a zuz of garden saffron, and let one grind them together. The procedure for treating a zava is that she should drink these three ingredients with wine, and she will be cured of her emission and will not become barren. For treating jaundice one should drink two of these ingredients with beer; however, one will become sterile from it. It was said that for treating a zava, she should drink these three ingredients with wine and she will be healed from her emission and will not become barren. And if it is not effective, let one bring three'^116a that this is not its place, as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is not for that reason that signs were inserted. Rather, the signs are there because this portion is considered a book unto itself.,The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said that Rabbi Yonatan said, that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, she carved its seven pillars” (Proverbs 9:1), these are the seven books of the Torah? According to whose opinion? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy.,Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here, where it appears, and will be written in its proper place. And why was it written here, even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is in order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishment that appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: “And the people complained wickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is the first punishment? It is the verse: “And they traveled from the mountain of God mehar Hashem for three days” (Numbers 10:33), and Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God me’aḥarei Hashem and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: And if so, where is the proper place for this paragraph? Rav Ashi said: In the portion of the flags, where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the blank folios of parchment of a Torah scroll, does one rescue them from the fire on Shabbat, or does one not rescue them from the fire? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to a Torah scroll that is worn, if there is enough in it to compile eighty-five complete letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues it from the fire, and if not one does not rescue it. If even the blank folios are rescued, why would one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to its blank folios. The Gemara answers: A Torah scroll that is worn is different, because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters.,Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in another baraita: With regard to a Torah scroll that was erased, if there is enough in it to compile eighty-five complete letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues it from the fire, and if not, one does not rescue it. And why is that so? Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to its blank folios, as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where the place of the writing is erased it is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due to the writing. If the writing is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me is with regard to the blank portions that are above and below, that are between one section and another section, that are between one page and another page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, and that are at the end of the scroll. The Gemara asks again: Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to that area that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case where the blank area was cut and thrown out, and all that remains is the place of the writing.,Come and hear a different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that the blank folios that are above and below, that are between one section and another section, that are between one page and another page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, and that are at the end of the scroll render the hands that touch them ritually impure. Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as perhaps when it is part of the Torah scroll, it is different, and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in another baraita: With regard to the blank folios and the Torah scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names of God contained therein. What, is this not referring to the blank folios of a Torah scroll? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the blank folios of the scrolls of heretics. The Gemara is surprised at this: Now, with regard to the scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescue them; is it necessary to say that one does not rescue their blank folios? Rather, this is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios.,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. With regard to the blank folios and the Torah scrolls of the heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the names of God contained therein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon said in the form of an oath: I will bury my sons if I fail to do the following, that if these books come into my possession I will burn them and the names contained therein. As even if a person is pursuing him with the intent to kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of these heretics. The reason is that these heretics are aware of the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, and nevertheless, they deny the existence of God; whereas these idolators are not aware, and that is the reason that they deny the existence of God. And with regard to the heretics, the verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory” (Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door.,Rabbi Yishmael said: The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as to make peace between a husband and his wife, the Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the water in the framework of the ordeal of the sota; these, the heretics, who impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more so it is proper to erase God’s names because of them. And with regard to heretics, David said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me” (Psalms 139:21–22). And just as they, the scrolls of heretics, are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from any other matter that destroys them.,Yosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu: With regard to these books of the house of Abidan, does one rescue them from the fire or does one not rescue them? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said yes and no, and the matter was uncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidan for conversation, and all the more so he would not go to the house of Nitzrefei, the Persian fire-temple. Shmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go, but to the house of Abidan he did go. The gentile scholars said to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan? He evaded their question with an excuse and said to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, and that makes the path difficult for me. They said to him: We will uproot it. He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in its place will be difficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I am one of them, we are friends, and I do not fear them. Still, one time he went and argued with them and they sought to endanger his life. Rabbi Meir would call the Christian writing, the Evangelion, the wicked folio aven gilyon; Rabbi Yoḥa called it the sinful folio avon gilyon.,The Gemara relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was a Christian philosopher pilosofa in their neighborhood ' None

23. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, law

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 97, 98; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 97, 98

^34b ועדים רואין אותו מבחוץ מאי,א"ל רב המנונא והלה מה טוען אי אמר לא היו דברים מעולם הוחזק כפרן אי אמר אין שקלי ודידי שקלי כי אתו עדים מאי הוי א"ל המנונא את עול תא,ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה אתו תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"ל הוחזק כפרן,מתקיף לה ר"נ האי דינא פרסאה הוא מי קאמר מעולם בעסק זה קא"ל,איכא דאמרי ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה מעולם נפקו ביה סהדי דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"נ הוחזק כפרן,א"ל רבא לר"נ כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאיניש עביד לה ולאו אדעתיה:,ר"ש אומר חייב כאן וחייב בפקדון כו\':,מחכו עלה במערבא מאי חוכא,דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מושבע מפי עצמו בעדות לר"ש מנא ליה דגמר מפקדון פקדון נמי מושבע מפי אחרים נגמר מעדות,ומאי חוכא דלמא ר"ש בק"ו מייתי לה מפי אחרים חייב מפי עצמו לא כל שכן,אלא חוכא אמזיד כשוגג דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מזיד גבי עדות מנא ליה דלא כתיב ביה ונעלם ה"נ לא כתיב ביה ונעלם,אמר להו רב הונא ומאי חוכא דלמא מזיד דלאו כשוגג בפקדון ממעילה ר"ש גמר לה,והיינו חוכא אדגמר לה ממעילה נגמר לה מעדות,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה ממעילה,אדרבה מעדות הוה ליה למילף שכן תחטא מתחטא,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה בכל נהנה בקבוע חומש ואשם,אדרבה מעדות ה"ל למילף שכן חטא הדיוט בשבועה תבעיה וכפריה ואואין הנך נפישין,אלא מאי חוכא,כי אתא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא מכדי ר"ש ג"ש גמיר למה ליה דפריך מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,ומאי חוכא דלמא כי פריך מקמי דתיקום ליה ג"ש בתר דקמא ליה ג"ש לא פריך,ולא והאמר להו רבא בר איתי לרבנן מאן תנא שבועת הפקדון לא ניתן זדונה לכפרה ר"ש היא,דלמא מזיד כשוגג פריך דגמר לה ממעילה דהנך נפישין אבל מושבע כנשבע לא פריך,ותהדר עדות ותגמר לה מפקדון מזיד דלאו כשוגג מה פקדון שוגג אין מזיד לא אף עדות שוגג אין מזיד לא כי היכי דיליף פקדון ממעילה'' None

^34b and witnesses see him counting the money from outside, what is the halakha? Is their testimony accepted?,Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Yehuda: And what does the other person claim in response to the demand for repayment? If he says: These matters never happened, he assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the witnesses testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him. If he says: Yes, I took money from him, but it is my money that I took, then when the witnesses come and testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him, what of it? The testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his claim, as the witnesses do not know the circumstances under which the money changed hands. Rav Yehuda said to him: Are you Hamnuna? Enter and come into the study hall, as you make your teacher wiser.,The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain individual who said to another: I counted for you and gave you one hundred dinars as a loan alongside this column. The other person said to him in response: I did not pass alongside this column. Two witnesses came and testified about him that they saw that he urinated alongside this column. Reish Lakish said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the testimony of witnesses proves that he passed alongside the column.,Rav Naḥman objects to this: That is a ruling characteristic of a Persian court, not a reasonable ruling characteristic of a Jewish court. Did the respondent say that he never passed alongside the column? It was that he did not pass alongside the column in the context of this matter that he said to him that he did not pass the column; therefore, the testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his statement.,There are those who say that the incident transpired a bit differently. There was a certain individual who said to another: I counted for you and gave you one hundred dinars as a loan alongside this column. The other person said to him in response: I never passed alongside this column. Witnesses emerged and testified concerning him that he urinated alongside this column. Rav Naḥman said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the witnesses contradicted his claim.,Rava said to Rav Naḥman: There is no proof from here that he assumes the presumptive status of a denier, as any matter that is not incumbent upon a person to remember, he performs it and it is not on his mind. Therefore, when he denied ever passing alongside the column, it was because there was never any reason for him to remember that he had been there.,§ The Gemara proceeds to cite the opinion cited last in the baraita explaining the source of the halakha that one is liable for taking a false oath of testimony only for a case involving monetary matters. Rabbi Shimon says: The Torah rendered one liable if he takes a false oath here, with regard to an oath of testimony, and the Torah rendered one liable if he takes a false oath with regard to an oath on a deposit; just as there, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims, so too here, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims.,They mocked this proof in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asked: What is worthy of mockery in the statement of Rabbi Shimon?,The Gemara explains that they mocked that which the baraita teaches in the continuation, rejecting the a fortiori inference suggested by Rabbi Shimon: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath.,This rejection is difficult: Now, with regard to the fact that one who administered an oath to himself is liable in the case of an oath of testimony, from where is it derived according to Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon derives it by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit. If so, based on the same verbal analogy, in the case of an oath on a deposit too, let us derive from the case of an oath of testimony the fact that one is liable for a false oath that was administered by others.,The Gemara rejects this: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps Rabbi Shimon does not derive that one who takes a false oath of testimony on his own is liable by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit; rather, he derives it by means of an a fortiori inference: If one is liable for a false oath of testimony administered by others, is it not all the more so that he is liable for an oath that he takes on his own?,The Gemara answers: Rather, the mockery is with regard to the distinction between an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony in the matter of whether the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath, as it teaches in the baraita: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath.,Now, from where does he derive that one who takes an intentional false oath of testimony is liable? He derives it as it is not written in the context of an oath of testimony: And it is hidden. Here too, it is not written in the context of an oath on a deposit: And it is hidden. Therefore, there should be no distinction between intentional and unwitting with regard to an oath on a deposit either.,Rav Huna said to the Sages: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps the fact that the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is not like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath in the case of a deposit, and it is from the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property that Rabbi Shimon derived it. Just as one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for the misuse of consecrated property only if he did so unwittingly, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit only if he unwittingly took the false oath.,The Gemara answers: And that is what is worthy of mockery. Instead of deriving the lack of liability for an intentional false oath of deposit from the case of misuse of consecrated property, let him derive liability for an intentional false oath on a deposit from the case of an oath of testimony.,The Gemara rejects this: It stands to reason that he should have derived it from the case of misuse of consecrated property, as that is a derivation of misuse written with regard to an oath on a deposit: “If any one shall sin and commits an act of misuse and dealt falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit” (Leviticus 5:21), which is derived from misuse written with regard to misuse of consecrated property: “If any one commits an act of misuse and sinned unwittingly from items consecrated to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15).,The Gemara asks: On the contrary, he should have derived it from the case of an oath of testimony, as that is a derivation of “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit which is derived from “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony: “And if any one shall sin and he hears the voice of an oath, and he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara rejects this: It stands to reason that it is from the case of misuse of consecrated property that he should have derived it, as there are many elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property represented by the mnemonic: Misuse, with regard to all, derive benefit, with fixed, one-fifth, and guilt-offering. The term misuse is employed in both cases. Both cases are relevant with regard to all individuals and not only those fit to testify. Both involve one deriving benefit from property that is not his. In both cases, one is liable to bring a fixed guilt-offering, as opposed to one who takes a false oath of testimony, who is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. In both cases, one adds one-fifth to the payment of the principal. In both cases, that is the offering with which one gains atonement.,The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, he should have derived the halakha with regard to an oath on a deposit from the halakha of an oath of testimony, as there are many elements common to both oaths represented by the mnemonic: Sin, ordinary hedyot, with an oath, claimed from him, denied his claim, and multiple instances of the term “or.” The term “shall sin” is written in both contexts. Both oaths relate to the property of ordinary individuals, not to consecrated property. In both cases there is a claim presented by one of the parties and denial of that claim by the one taking the oath. Multiple instances of the term “or” appear in both passages in the Torah. The Gemara responds: These elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property are more numerous than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony.,Rather, after resolving all the difficulties that were raised against the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the question remains: What did the Sages of Eretz Yisrael find that is worthy of mockery in that baraita?,When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall of their teacher, they said: This is what is worthy of mockery: Now, since ultimately Rabbi Shimon derives the halakha by means of a verbal analogy between the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit and the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony, why is it that he refutes the parallel between them by saying: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath. Rabbi Shimon should have derived by means of the verbal analogy that all the halakhot of an oath of testimony and all the halakhot of an oath on a deposit are identical.,The Gemara rejects this: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps when Rabbi Shimon refuted the parallel between the two oaths, it was prior to the verbal analogy being established for him, and the derivation was by means of a paradigm. After the verbal analogy was established for him, he does not refute the parallel and holds that in the case of an oath on a deposit one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for false oaths administered by others as well as for intentional false oaths.,The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon not refute the parallel between the two oaths? But didn’t Rava bar Ittai say to the Sages: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to an oath on a deposit that atonement by means of an offering is not possible for one who takes an intentional false oath? It is Rabbi Shimon. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon concludes that there remains a distinction between intentional and unwitting in the case of an oath on a deposit.,The Gemara suggests: Perhaps with regard to the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath being like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath, Rabbi Shimon refutes the parallel between the two oaths even after the verbal analogy is established for him, as he derives the halakha of an oath on a deposit from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property, where there is a distinction between intentional and unwitting, as those elements common to an oath on a deposit and the misuse of consecrated property are more numerous than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony. But he does not refute the parallel between the two oaths with the claim that there is a distinction between them with regard to whether the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others is like that of one who himself took an oath. Once the verbal analogy was established for him, there is no longer a distinction between the two oaths in that regard.,The Gemara asks: If, according to Rabbi Shimon, based on the derivation from the misuse of consecrated property, one who intentionally takes a false oath on a deposit does not bring a guilt-offering like one who took the false oath unwittingly, let the discussion of the case of an oath of testimony return to the verbal analogy and derive it from the case of an oath on a deposit that the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is not like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath. Just as in the case of an oath on a deposit, one who takes an unwitting false oath, yes, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering, and one who takes an intentional false oath, no, he is not liable, so too, in the case of an oath of testimony, one who takes an unwitting false oath, yes, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one who takes an intentional false oath, no, he is not liable, just as he derives the case of an oath on a deposit from the case of misuse of consecrated property.'' None

24. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 105; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 105

^53a אשה היתה בוררת חטים לאור של בית השואבה:,חסידים ואנשי מעשה כו\': ת"ר יש מהן אומרים אשרי ילדותנו שלא ביישה את זקנותנו אלו חסידים ואנשי מעשה ויש מהן אומרים אשרי זקנותנו שכפרה את ילדותנו אלו בעלי תשובה אלו ואלו אומרים אשרי מי שלא חטא ומי שחטא ישוב וימחול לו,תניא אמרו עליו על הלל הזקן כשהיה שמח בשמחת בית השואבה אמר כן אם אני כאן הכל כאן ואם איני כאן מי כאן הוא היה אומר כן למקום שאני אוהב שם רגלי מוליכות אותי אם תבא אל ביתי אני אבא אל ביתך אם אתה לא תבא אל ביתי אני לא אבא אל ביתך שנאמר (שמות כ, כד) בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבא אליך וברכתיך,אף הוא ראה גלגולת אחת שצפה על פני המים אמר לה על דאטפת אטפוך ומטיפיך יטופון אמר רבי יוחנן רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה,הנהו תרתי כושאי דהוו קיימי קמי שלמה (מלכים א ד, ג) אליחרף ואחיה בני שישא סופרים דשלמה הוו יומא חד חזייה למלאך המות דהוה קא עציב א"ל אמאי עציבת א"ל דקא בעו מינאי הני תרתי כושאי דיתבי הכא מסרינהו לשעירים שדרינהו למחוזא דלוז כי מטו למחוזא דלוז שכיבו,למחר חזיא מלאך המות דהוה קבדח א"ל אמאי בדיחת א"ל באתר דבעו מינאי תמן שדרתינהו מיד פתח שלמה ואמר רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה,תניא אמרו עליו על רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כשהיה שמח שמחת בית השואבה היה נוטל שמנה אבוקות של אור וזורק אחת ונוטל אחת ואין נוגעות זו בזו וכשהוא משתחוה נועץ שני גודליו בארץ ושוחה ונושק את הרצפה וזוקף ואין כל בריה יכולה לעשות כן וזו היא קידה,לוי אחוי קידה קמיה דרבי ואיטלע והא גרמא ליה והאמר רבי אלעזר לעולם אל יטיח אדם דברים כלפי מעלה שהרי אדם גדול הטיח דברים כלפי מעלה ואיטלע ומנו לוי הא והא גרמא ליה,לוי הוה מטייל קמיה דרבי בתמני סכיני שמואל קמיה שבור מלכא בתמניא מזגי חמרא אביי קמיה (דרבא) בתמניא ביעי ואמרי לה בארבעה ביעי,תניא אמר ר\' יהושע בן חנניה כשהיינו שמחים שמחת בית השואבה לא ראינו שינה בעינינו כיצד שעה ראשונה תמיד של שחר משם לתפלה משם לקרבן מוסף משם לתפלת המוספין משם לבית המדרש משם לאכילה ושתיה משם לתפלת המנחה משם לתמיד של בין הערבים מכאן ואילך לשמחת בית השואבה,איני והאמר רבי יוחנן שבועה שלא אישן שלשה ימים מלקין אותו וישן לאלתר אלא הכי קאמר לא טעמנו טעם שינה דהוו מנמנמי אכתפא דהדדי:,חמש עשרה מעלות: אמר ליה רב חסדא לההוא מדרבנן דהוי קמסדר אגדתא קמיה א"ל שמיע לך הני חמש עשרה מעלות כנגד מי אמרם דוד א"ל הכי אמר רבי יוחנן בשעה שכרה דוד שיתין קפא תהומא ובעי למשטפא עלמא אמר דוד חמש עשרה מעלות והורידן אי הכי חמש עשרה מעלות יורדות מיבעי ליה,אמר ליה הואיל ואדכרתן (מלתא) הכי אתמר בשעה שכרה דוד שיתין קפא תהומא ובעא למשטפא עלמא אמר דוד מי איכא דידע אי שרי למכתב שם'' None

^53a It was so bright that a woman would be able to sort wheat by the light of the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.,§ The mishna continues: The pious and the men of action would dance before the people who attended the celebration. The Sages taught in the Tosefta that some of them would say in their song praising God: Happy is our youth, as we did not sin then, that did not embarrass our old age. These are the pious and the men of action, who spent all their lives engaged in Torah and mitzvot. And some would say: Happy is our old age, that atoned for our youth when we sinned. These are the penitents. Both these and those say: Happy is he who did not sin; and he who sinned should repent and God will absolve him.,It is taught in the Tosefta: They said about Hillel the Elder that when he was rejoicing at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water he said this: If I am here, everyone is here; and if I am not here, who is here? In other words, one must consider himself as the one upon whom it is incumbent to fulfill obligations, and he must not rely on others to do so. He would also say this: To the place that I love, there my feet take me, and therefore, I come to the Temple. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If you come to My house, I will come to your house; if you do not come to My house, I will not come to your house, as it is stated: “In every place that I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).,The Gemara cites another statement of Hillel the Elder. Additionally, he saw one skull that was floating on the water and he said to it: Because you drowned others, they drowned you, and those that drowned you will be drowned. That is the way of the world; everyone is punished measure for measure. Apropos following one’s feet, Rabbi Yoḥa said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.,The Gemara relates with regard to these two Cushites who would stand before Solomon: “Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha” (I Kings 4:3), and they were scribes of Solomon. One day Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was sad. He said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: They are asking me to take the lives of these two Cushites who are sitting here. Solomon handed them to the demons in his service, and sent them to the district of Luz, where the Angel of Death has no dominion. When they arrived at the district of Luz, they died.,The following day, Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was happy. He said to him: Why are you happy? He replied: In the place that they asked me to take them, there you sent them. The Angel of Death was instructed to take their lives in the district of Luz. Since they resided in Solomon’s palace and never went to Luz, he was unable to complete his mission. That saddened him. Ultimately, Solomon dispatched them to Luz, enabling the angel to accomplish his mission. That pleased him. Immediately, Solomon began to speak and said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.,§ It is taught in a baraita: They said about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that when he would rejoice at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, he would take eight flaming torches and toss one and catch another, juggling them, and, though all were in the air at the same time, they would not touch each other. And when he would prostrate himself, he would insert his two thumbs into the ground, and bow, and kiss the floor of the courtyard and straighten, and there was not any other creature that could do that due to the extreme difficulty involved. And this was the form of bowing called kidda performed by the High Priest.,The Gemara relates: Levi demonstrated a kidda before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and strained his thigh and came up lame. The Gemara asks: And is that what caused him to be lame? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: One should never speak impertinently toward God above; as a great person once spoke impertinently toward God above, and even though his prayers were answered, he was still punished and came up lame. And who was this great person? It was Levi. Apparently his condition was not caused by his bow. The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction. Both this and that caused him to come up lame; because he spoke impertinently toward God, he therefore was injured when exerting himself in demonstrating kidda.,Apropos the rejoicing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, the Gemara recounts: Levi would walk before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi juggling with eight knives. Shmuel would juggle before King Shapur with eight glasses of wine without spilling. Abaye would juggle before Rabba with eight eggs. Some say he did so with four eggs. All these were cited.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said: When we would rejoice in the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, we did not see sleep in our eyes the entire Festival. How so? In the first hour of the day, the daily morning offering was sacrificed and everyone came to watch. From there they proceeded to engage in prayer in the synagogue; from there, to watch the sacrifice of the additional offerings; from there, to the synagogue to recite the additional prayer. From there they would proceed to the study hall to study Torah; from there to the eating and drinking in the sukka; from there to the afternoon prayer. From there they would proceed to the daily afternoon offering in the Temple. From this point forward, they proceeded to the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.,The Gemara wonders: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: One who took an oath that I will not sleep three days, one flogs him immediately for taking an oath in vain, and he may sleep immediately because it is impossible to stay awake for three days uninterrupted. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehoshua is saying: We did not experience the sense of actual sleep, because they would merely doze on each other’s shoulders. In any case, they were not actually awake for the entire week.,§ The mishna continues: The musicians would stand on the fifteen stairs that descend from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of the Ascents in Psalms. Rav Ḥisda said to one of the Sages who was organizing aggada before him: Did you hear with regard to these fifteen Songs of Ascents in Psalms, corresponding to what did David say them? He said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥa said: At the time that David dug the drainpipes in the foundation of the Temple, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. Immediately, David recited the fifteen Songs of the Ascents and caused them to subside. Rav Ḥisda asked: If so, should they be called fifteen Songs of the Ascents? They should have been called Songs of the Descents.,Rav Ḥisda continued and said to him: Since you reminded me of this matter, this is what was originally stated: At the time that David dug the drainpipes, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. David said: Is there anyone who knows whether it is permitted to write the sacred name'' None

25. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 199; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 199

26. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 5, 62, 105; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 5, 62, 105

27. None, None, nan (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • empire, imperial administration • imperial administration and the city, institutions in Athens

Found in books: Breytenbach and Tzavella (2022), Early Christianity in Athens, Attica, and Adjacent Areas, 165; Tanaseanu-Döbler and von Alvensleben (2020), Athens II: Athens in Late Antiquity, 253

28. None, None, nan (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Administration, provincial • Roman Empire, administrative relief • administration, Roman • administration, Roman Imperial • administration, taxes and customs • provinces administration • provincial administration • “territorial specialists,” in Roman administration

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 825; Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 291, 294; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 214; Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 392; Talbert (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, 403

29. Anon., Letter of Aristeas, 24, 26, 30, 42
Tagged with subjects: • Judaea (Judea), Ptolemaic administration of • Ptolemies, Administration • Seleucids, Administration

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 323, 336, 342; Salvesen et al. (2020), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, 241

sup>
24 Wherefore since it is acknowledged that we are accustomed to render justice to all men and especially to those who are unfairly in a condition of servitude, and since we strive to deal fairly with all men according to the demands of justice and piety, we have decreed, in reference to the persons of the Jews who are in any condition of bondage in any part of our dominion, that those who possess them shall receive the stipulated sum of money and set them at liberty and that no man shall show any tardiness in discharging his obligations. Within three days after the publication of this decree, they must make lists of slaves for the officers appointed to carry out our will,²⁶ When the decree was brought to be read over to the king for his approval, it contained all the other provisions except the phrase 'any captives who were in the land before that time or were brought hither afterwards,' and in his magimity and the largeness of his heart the king inserted this clause and gave orders that the grant of money required for the redemption should be deposited in full with the paymasters of the forces and the royal bankers, and so the matter was decided and the" ³⁰ and I now have the following proposal to lay before you. The books of the law of the Jews (with some few others) are absent from the library. They are written in the Hebrew characters and language and have been carelessly interpreted, and do not represent the original text as I am ⁴² rejoiced by your purpose and your noble counsel. I summoned together the whole people and read it to them that they might know of your devotion to our God. I showed them too the cups which you sent, twenty of gold and thirty of silver, the five bowls and the table of dedication, and the hundred talents of silver for the offering of the sacrifices and providing the things of which the " None

30. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, law • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 50, 102, 103, 108, 109, 169, 201, 202; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 50, 102, 103, 108, 109, 169, 201, 202

^18a הוגה את השם באותיותיו והיכי עביד הכי והתנן אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר אין תורה מן השמים ואין תחיית המתים מן התורה אבא שאול אומר אף ההוגה את השם באותיותיו,להתלמד עבד כדתניא (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות,אלא מאי טעמא אענש משום הוגה את השם בפרהסיא דהוי ועל אשתו להריגה דלא מיחה ביה מכאן אמרו כל מי שיש בידו למחות ואינו מוחה נענש עליו,ועל בתו לישב בקובה של זונות דאמר ר\' יוחנן פעם אחת היתה בתו מהלכת לפני גדולי רומי אמרו כמה נאות פסיעותיה של ריבה זו מיד דקדקה בפסיעותיה והיינו דאמר ר\' שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב (תהלים מט, ו) עון עקבי יסבני עונות שאדם דש בעקביו בעולם הזה מסובין לו ליום הדין,בשעה שיצאו שלשתן צדקו עליהם את הדין הוא אמר (דברים לב, ד) הצור תמים פעלו וגו\' ואשתו אמרה (דברים לב, ד) אל אמונה ואין עול בתו אמרה (ירמיהו לב, יט) גדול העצה ורב העליליה אשר עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי וגו\' אמר רבי כמה גדולים צדיקים הללו שנזדמנו להן שלש מקראות של צדוק הדין בשעת צדוק הדין,תנו רבנן כשחלה רבי יוסי בן קיסמא הלך רבי חנינא בן תרדיון לבקרו אמר לו חנינא אחי (אחי) אי אתה יודע שאומה זו מן השמים המליכוה שהחריבה את ביתו ושרפה את היכלו והרגה את חסידיו ואבדה את טוביו ועדיין היא קיימת ואני שמעתי עליך שאתה יושב ועוסק בתורה ומקהיל קהלות ברבים וספר מונח לך בחיקך,אמר לו מן השמים ירחמו אמר לו אני אומר לך דברים של טעם ואתה אומר לי מן השמים ירחמו תמה אני אם לא ישרפו אותך ואת ספר תורה באש אמר לו רבי מה אני לחיי העולם הבא,אמר לו כלום מעשה בא לידך אמר לו מעות של פורים נתחלפו לי במעות של צדקה וחלקתים לעניים אמר לו אם כן מחלקך יהי חלקי ומגורלך יהי גורלי,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שנפטר רבי יוסי בן קיסמא והלכו כל גדולי רומי לקברו והספידוהו הספד גדול ובחזרתן מצאוהו לרבי חנינא בן תרדיון שהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה ומקהיל קהלות ברבים וס"ת מונח לו בחיקו,הביאוהו וכרכוהו בס"ת והקיפוהו בחבילי זמורות והציתו בהן את האור והביאו ספוגין של צמר ושראום במים והניחום על לבו כדי שלא תצא נשמתו מהרה אמרה לו בתו אבא אראך בכך אמר לה אילמלי אני נשרפתי לבדי היה הדבר קשה לי עכשיו שאני נשרף וס"ת עמי מי שמבקש עלבונה של ס"ת הוא יבקש עלבוני,אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי מה אתה רואה אמר להן גליון נשרפין ואותיות פורחות אף אתה פתח פיך ותכנס בך האש אמר להן מוטב שיטלנה מי שנתנה ואל יחבל הוא בעצמו,אמר לו קלצטונירי רבי אם אני מרבה בשלהבת ונוטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבך אתה מביאני לחיי העולם הבא אמר לו הן השבע לי נשבע לו מיד הרבה בשלהבת ונטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבו יצאה נשמתו במהרה אף הוא קפץ ונפל לתוך האור,יצאה בת קול ואמרה רבי חנינא בן תרדיון וקלצטונירי מזומנין הן לחיי העולם הבא בכה רבי ואמר יש קונה עולמו בשעה אחת ויש קונה עולמו בכמה שנים,ברוריא דביתהו דר\' מאיר ברתיה דר\' חנינא בן תרדיון הואי אמרה לו זילא בי מלתא דיתבא אחתאי בקובה של זונות שקל תרקבא דדינרי ואזל אמר אי לא איתעביד בה איסורא מיתעביד ניסא אי עבדה איסורא לא איתעביד לה ניסא,אזל נקט נפשיה כחד פרשא אמר לה השמיעני לי אמרה ליה דשתנא אנא אמר לה מתרחנא מרתח אמרה לו נפישין טובא (ואיכא טובא הכא) דשפירן מינאי אמר ש"מ לא עבדה איסורא כל דאתי אמרה ליה הכי,אזל לגבי שומר דידה א"ל הבה ניהלה אמר ליה מיסתפינא ממלכותא אמר ליה שקול תרקבא דדינרא פלגא פלח ופלגא להוי לך א"ל וכי שלמי מאי איעביד א"ל אימא אלהא דמאיר ענני ומתצלת א"ל' ^39a התם ידיע ממשו הכא לא ידיע ממשן:,וטרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה וכו\': מאי חילק אמר רב נחמן בר אבא אמר רב זו סולתנית ומפני מה אסורה מפני שערבונה עולה עמה:,תנו רבנן אין לו עכשיו ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן כגון הסולתנית והעפיץ הרי זה מותר יש לו עכשיו ועתיד להשיר בשעה שעולה מן הים כגון אקונס ואפונס כטספטייס ואכספטייס ואוטנס מותר,אכריז רבי אבהו בקיסרי קירבי דגים ועוברן ניקחין מכל אדם חזקתן אינן באים אלא מפלוסא ואספמיא כי הא דאמר אביי האי צחנתא דבב נהרא שריא,מ"ט אילימא משום דרדיפי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה חוט השדרה בדוכתא דרדיפי מיא לא מצי קאי והא קא חזינן דקאי,אלא משום דמליחי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה קלפי בדוכתא דמליחי מיא לא מצי קאי והא קחזינן דקאי אלא משום דלא מרבה טינא דג טמא אמר רבינא האידנא דקא שפכי ביה נהר גוזא ונהר גמדא אסירי,אמר אביי האי חמרא דימא שרי תורא דימא אסיר וסימניך טמא טהור טהור טמא,אמר רב אשי שפר נונא שרי קדש נונא אסיר וסימניך (שמות טז, כג) קדש לה\' איכא דאמרי קבר נונא אסור וסימניך קברי עובדי כוכבים,רבי עקיבא איקלע לגינזק אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא דהוה דמי לחיפושא חפייה בדיקולא חזא ביה קלפי ושרייה רב אשי איקלע לטמדוריא אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא דהוה דמי לצלופחא נקטיה להדי יומא חזא דהוה ביה צימחי ושרייה,רב אשי איקלע לההוא אתרא אייתו לקמיה נונא דהוי דמי לשפרנונא חפייה במשיכלי חיורי חזא ביה קלפי ושרייה רבה בר בר חנה איקלע לאקרא דאגמא קריבו ליה צחנתא שמעיה לההוא גברא דהוה קרי ליה באטי,אמר מדקא קרי ליה באטי ש"מ דבר טמא אית ביה לא אכל מיניה לצפרא עיין בה אשכח ביה דבר טמא קרי אנפשיה (משלי יב, כא) לא יאונה לצדיק כל און:,והקורט של חילתית: מ"ט משום דמפסקי ליה בסכינא אע"ג דאמר מר נותן טעם לפגם מותר אגב חורפיה דחילתיתא מחליא ליה שמנוניתא והוה ליה כנותן טעם לשבח ואסור,עבדיה דר\' לוי הוה קא מזבין חילתיתא כי נח נפשיה דר\' לוי אתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמרו ליה מהו למיזבן מיניה אמר להו עבדו של חבר הרי הוא כחבר,רב הונא בר מניומי זבן תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרב עמרם חסידא אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף לא הוה בידיה,פגע ביה חנן חייטא א"ל יוסף עניא מנא ליה בדידי הוה עובדא דזביני תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרבנאה אחוה דר\' חייא בר אבא ואתאי לקמיה דרב מתנא לא הוה בידיה אתאי לקמיה דרב יהודה מהגרוניא אמר לי נפלת ליד הכי אמר שמואל אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר,תנינא להא דת"ר אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר עבדו של חבר הרי הוא כחבר חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי הן בחזקתן עד שתיפסל,ת"ר אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אינן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות לכתחלה דברי ר"מ,ר\' יהודה אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות לכתחלה וכן היה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קושרת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת למוכס והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו,אמר רב חבי"ת אסור בחותם אחד חמפ"ג מותר בחותם אחד חלב בשר יין תכלת ^71a ורמינהי עיר שכבשוה כרקום כל כהנות שבתוכה פסולות אמר רב מרי לנסך אין פנאי לבעול יש פנאי:,76b גדנפא דלישא אפומא ומליוה מיא וארתחה אמר רבא מאן חכים למעבד כי הא מילתא אי לאו רב עקביה דגברא רבא הוא קסבר כבולעו כך פולטו מה בולעו בנצוצות אף פולטו בנצוצות:,הסכין שפה והיא טהורה: אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא ונועצה עשרה פעמים בקרקע אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ובקרקע שאינה עבודה א"ר כהנא ובסכין יפה שאין בה גומות תניא נמי הכי סכין יפה שאין בה גומות נועצה עשרה פעמים בקרקע אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לאכול בה צונן,כי הא דמר יהודה ובאטי בר טובי הוו יתבי קמיה דשבור מלכא אייתו לקמייהו אתרוגא פסק אכל פסק והב ליה לבאטי בר טובי הדר דצה עשרה זימני בארעא פסק הב ליה למר יהודה א"ל באטי בר טובי וההוא גברא לאו בר ישראל הוא א"ל מר קים לי בגויה ומר לא קים לי בגויה,איכא דאמרי א"ל אידכר מאי עבדת באורתא:,

^18a pronounce the ineffable name of God with all of its letters, i.e., as it is spelled. The Gemara asks: And how could he do that? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Sanhedrin 90a): These are the people who have no share in the World-to-Come: One who says that the Torah is not from Heaven or that there is no source from the Torah for the resurrection of the dead. Abba Shaul says: Also one who pronounces the ineffable name as it is written, with all of its letters, has no share in the World-to-Come.,The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon did it to teach himself, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against sorcery: “You shall not learn to do” (Deuteronomy 18:9); this indicates: But you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, certain prohibitions do not apply when one is acting only in order to acquire knowledge of the subject.,The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the reason that he was punished? The Gemara answers: He was punished because he would pronounce the ineffable name of God in public, instead of privately. And his wife was condemned to execution by decapitation because she did not protest his doing so. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who has the capability to protest effectively the sinful conduct of another and does not protest is punished for that person’s sin.,The Gemara asks: And why was his daughter condemned to sit in a brothel? As Rabbi Yoḥa says: Once, the daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon was walking before the nobles of Rome, and they said to each other: How pleasant are the steps of this young woman. Upon hearing this, she immediately took care to keep walking in such a fashion that her steps would continue to be pleasing to them. And this is the same as that which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The iniquity of my heel encircles me” (Psalms 49:6)? It means that the sins that a person tramples with one’s heel in this world, i.e., dismisses and pays no attention to them as they seem to lack importance, e.g., the way that one walks, come and encircle him on the Day of Judgment.,The Gemara relates: When the three of them went out after being sentenced, they accepted the justice of God’s judgment. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said: “The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4). And his wife said the continuation of the verse: “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity.” His daughter said: “Great in counsel, and mighty in work; whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways” (Jeremiah 32:19). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: How great are these righteous people, that these three verses, which speak of the acceptance of God’s judgment, occurred to them at the time of accepting the righteousness of His judgment.,§ The Sages taught: When Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma fell ill, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon went to visit him. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: Ḥanina my brother, do you not know that this nation has been given reign by a decree from Heaven? The proof is that Rome has destroyed God’s Temple, and burned His Sanctuary, and killed His pious ones, and destroyed His best ones, and it still exists. Evidently, all of this is by Divine decree. And yet I heard about you that you sit and engage in Torah study, and convene assemblies in public, and have a Torah scroll placed in your lap, thereby demonstrating complete disregard for the decrees issued by the Romans.,Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: Heaven will have mercy and protect me. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: I am saying reasonable matters to you, and you say to me: Heaven will have mercy? I wonder if the Romans will not burn both you and your Torah scroll by fire. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: My teacher, what will become of me? Am I destined for life in the World-to-Come?,Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: Did any special incident occur to you which might serve as an indication? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: I confused my own coins that I needed for the festivities of Purim with coins of charity, and I distributed them all to the poor at my own expense. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: If that is so, may my portion be of your portion, and may my lot be of your lot.,The Sages said: Not even a few days passed before Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma died of his illness, and all of the Roman notables went to bury him, and they eulogized him with a great eulogy. And upon their return, they found Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon, who was sitting and engaging in Torah study and convening assemblies in public, with a Torah scroll placed in his lap.,They brought him to be sentenced, and wrapped him in the Torah scroll, and encircled him with bundles of branches, and they set fire to it. And they brought tufts of wool and soaked them in water, and placed them on his heart, so that his soul should not leave his body quickly, but he would die slowly and painfully. His daughter said to him: Father, must I see you like this? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to her: If I alone were being burned, it would be difficult for me, but now that I am burning along with a Torah scroll, He who will seek retribution for the insult accorded to the Torah scroll will also seek retribution for the insult accorded to me.,His students said to him: Our teacher, what do you see? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to them: I see the parchment burning, but its letters are flying to the heavens. They said to him: You too should open your mouth and the fire will enter you, and you will die quickly. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to them: It is preferable that He who gave me my soul should take it away, and one should not harm oneself to speed his death.,The executioner kaltzatoniri said to him: My teacher, if I increase the flame and take off the tufts of wool from your heart, so that you will die sooner and suffer less, will you bring me to the life of the World-to-Come? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to the executioner: Yes. The executioner said: Take an oath for me, that what you say is true. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon took the oath for him, and the executioner immediately increased the flame and took off the tufts of wool from his heart, causing his soul to leave his body quickly. The executioner too leaped and fell into the fire and died.,A Divine Voice emerged and said: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon and the executioner are destined for the life of the World-to-Come. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wept and said: There is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come in one moment, such as the executioner, and there is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come only after many years of toil, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon.,§ The Gemara relates: Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir, was a daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon. She said to Rabbi Meir: It is a disrespectful matter for me that my sister is sitting in a brothel; you must do something to save her. Rabbi Meir took a vessel tarkeva full of dinars and went. He said to himself: If no transgression was committed with her, a miracle will be performed for her; if she committed a transgression, no miracle will be performed for her.,Rabbi Meir went and dressed as a Roman knight, and said to her: Accede to my wishes, i.e., engage in intercourse with me. She said to him: I am menstruating dashtana and cannot. He said to her: I will wait. She said to him: There are many women in the brothel, and there are many women here who are more beautiful than I. He said to himself: I can conclude from her responses that she did not commit a transgression, as she presumably said this to all who come.,Rabbi Meir went over to her guard, and said to him: Give her to me. The guard said to him: I fear that if I do so, I will be punished by the government. Rabbi Meir said to him: Take this vessel full of dinars; give half to the government as a bribe, and half will be for you. The guard said to him: But when the money is finished, what shall I do? Rabbi Meir said to him: Say: God of Meir answer me! And you will be saved. The guard said to him:' ^39a The Gemara explains: There, the substance of the wine is a recognizable component of the fish stew; here, its substance is not a recognizable component of the pickled vegetables.,§ The mishna teaches: And minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ḥilak are all prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is ḥilak? Rav Naḥman bar Abba says that Rav says: This is sultanit, a type of small fish that is generally caught before its scales have developed. And for what reason is it prohibited? It is because its size causes it to be intermingled with other fish, and as a result sultanit rises out of the water with non-kosher fish when it is caught.,The Sages taught: If a fish does not currently possess scales but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afiyatz fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the sea, such as akunas and afuna, ketasfatiyas and akhsaftiyas and otanas fish, it is permitted.,Rabbi Abbahu announced in Caesarea: Fish entrails and their eggs may be purchased from any person, as the presumption with regard to them is that they come only from Pelusium Pilusa and Spain Aspamya, and non-kosher fish are not found in those areas. This is similar to that which Abaye says: These small fish tzaḥanta of the Bav River are permitted, as non-kosher fish are not found in that river.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? If we say that it is due to the fact that the water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in a place where the water flows rapidly, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case, since we see that non-kosher fish exist in rivers with strong currents.,Rather, perhaps Abaye permitted the fish because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in a place of salty water since they do not have scales. This, too, is not the case, since we see that non-kosher fish exist in salty water. Rather, Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River because the mud in that river is not suitable for non-kosher fish to reproduce. The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. Ravina says: Nowadays, as the government built canals between the rivers, and the Goza River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav and carry non-kosher fish there, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.,The Gemara cites several other statements of amora’im that concern the halakhic status of fish. Abaye says: This creature known as the sea donkey ḥamara deyamma is permitted; the creature known as the sea ox tora deyamma is prohibited, and your mnemonic to remember this halakha is: Impure is pure, and pure is impure, i.e., the name of an animal which is non-kosher on land is kosher in the sea, and that which is kosher on land is non-kosher in the sea.,Rav Ashi said: The type of fish known as shefar nuna is permitted, and the type of fish known as kadesh nuna is prohibited, and your mnemonic to remember this halakha is: That which is holy kodesh is to the Lord, and not for humans. And some say that Rav Ashi said: The type of fish known as kevar nuna is prohibited, and your mnemonic is: The grave kever is impure like the graves of gentiles.,The Gemara relates several incidents involving Sages and their rulings with regard to fish. Rabbi Akiva happened to come to Ginzak and they brought before him a certain fish that was similar to a ḥippusha, a non-kosher aquatic creature. When he enclosed it in a basket he saw that it had scales which it shed as it struggled to escape from the basket, and he permitted it on that basis. Rav Ashi happened to come to Tamduria where they brought before him a certain fish that was similar to an eel tzelofḥa. He took it out and held it against the light of day and saw that there were thin scales on it, and he permitted it.,Rav Ashi also happened to come to a certain land where they brought before him a fish that was similar to a shefarnuna. He enclosed it in a white vessel and saw that it shed dark scales, which he could see against the white background of the container, and he permitted it. Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened to come to Akra DeAgma and they brought him some tzaḥanta, a dish prepared from small fish. He heard a certain man calling it batei, the name of a non-kosher sea creature.,Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to himself: From the fact that he called it batei, I can conclude from here that there is a non-kosher substance in the tzaḥanta. And he did not eat from it that night. In the morning, he examined the dish and in fact found a non-kosher substance in it. He read the following verse about himself: “No sin shall befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21).,§ The mishna teaches: And a sliver of ḥiltit may not be consumed, although one may derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it is prohibited? It is because they slice it with a knife on which there is presumably non-kosher residue. And even though the Master said that a prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is permitted, that principle does not apply in this case because as a result of the sharpness of the ḥiltit, the act of slicing it with a knife sweetens, i.e., enhances, the taste of the non-kosher residue. And there-fore it is like a prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the enhancement of the mixture, and it is prohibited.,The Gemara relates that the gentile slave of Rabbi Levi would sell ḥiltit, and it was permitted to purchase it from him as he was the slave of a Sage. When Rabbi Levi passed away, they came before Rabbi Yoḥa and said to him: Now that Rabbi Levi has passed, what is the halakha with regard to whether or not it is permitted to purchase ḥiltit from his gentile slave? Rabbi Yoḥa said to them: The slave of a ḥaver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, is as a ḥaver himself, and therefore it is permitted to buy ḥiltit from him.,The Gemara relates another incident that involves the status of a ḥaver and his household. Rav Huna bar Minyumi purchased sky-blue dye tekhelta from the people of the household, i.e., the wife, of Rav Amram the pious. One may purchase sky-blue dye for ritual fringes only from a reliable individual, as it is easy to counterfeit it. Rav Huna then came before Rav Yosef to ask if he could rely on her assurance that it was usable for the mitzva. The answer was not available to Rav Yosef.,Later, Ḥa the tailor happened to meet Rav Huna, and he said to him: From where could poor Rav Yosef have known the answer to this question? Ḥa continued: There was an incident in which I was involved, as I purchased sky-blue dye from the people of the household, i.e., the wife, of Rabena’a, brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before Rav Mattana to ask him the same question, and the answer was not available to him either. I then came before Rav Yehuda of Hagronya, who said to me: You have fallen into my hand, i.e., I am the only one who can answer your question. This is what Shmuel says: The wife of a ḥaver is herself considered like a ḥaver, and you may therefore rely on her statement.,The Gemara comments: We learn here that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: The wife of a ḥaver is like a ḥaver; the slave of a ḥaver is like a ḥaver. Furthermore, with regard to a ḥaver that died, his wife and children and members of his household remain in their presumptive status until they are suspected of engaging in inappropriate deeds. And similarly, with regard to a courtyard in which they sell sky-blue dye, it remains in its presumptive status as a place in which kosher sky-blue dye is sold until it is disqualified due to unscrupulous behavior.,The Sages taught: The wife of one who is not careful to keep the particulars of certain halakhot am ha’aretz, who later marries a ḥaver, and likewise the daughter of an am ha’aretz who marries a ḥaver, and likewise the slave of an am ha’aretz who is sold to a ḥaver, must all accept upon themselves the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status. But the wife of a ḥaver who later marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the daughter of a ḥaver who marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the slave of a ḥaver who was sold to an am ha’aretz, these people need not accept upon themselves the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.,Rabbi Yehuda says: They too must accept upon themselves the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would illustrate this point and say: There was an incident involving a certain woman who married a ḥaver and would tie for him phylacteries on his hand, and she later married a tax collector and would tie for him tax-seals on his hand, which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety.,§ Rav says: The substances represented by the acronym ḥet, beit, yod, tav are prohibited if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed with only one seal. Those represented by the acronym ḥet, beit, peh, gimmel are permitted if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed with one seal. The Gemara elaborates: Milk ḥalav, meat basar, wine yayin, and sky-blue dye tekhelet ^71a And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the assumption that soldiers during wartime do not have time to commit transgressions from that which is taught in another mishna (Ketubot 27a): With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped. Rav Mari resolved the contradiction and said: They do not have time to pour wine for libations, as their passion for idolatry is not pressing at that time, but they have time to engage in intercourse, because their lust is great even during wartime.,Jewish craftsmen to whom a gentile sent a barrel of wine used for a libation in lieu of their wage, it is permitted for them to say to him: Give us its monetary value instead. But once it has entered into their possession, it is prohibited for them to say so, as that would be tantamount to selling the wine to the gentile and deriving benefit from it.,Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is permitted for a person to say to a gentile: Go and placate the collectors of the governmental tax on wine for me, and I will reimburse you subsequently, even if he pays the tax with wine used for a libation.,One of the Sages raised an objection from a baraita: A person may not say to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary la’otzer to pay the wine tax for me, if he pays it in wine used for a libation. Rav said to him: You say that the case I am referring to is similar to one who says to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary? In that case, since he says: In my stead, whatever the gentile gives the commissary is considered as though the Jew gave it himself. This case that I am referring to is comparable only to that which is taught in the baraita: But the Jew may say to a gentile: Save me from the commissary.,who sells his wine to a gentile, if he fixed a price before he measured the wine into the gentile’s vessel, deriving benefit from the money paid for the wine is permitted. It is not tantamount to selling wine used for a libation, as the gentile purchased the wine before it became forbidden, and the money already belonged to the Jew. But if the Jew measured the wine into the gentile’s vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, before he fixed a price, the money paid for the wine is forbidden.,Ameimar says: The legal act of acquiring an object by pulling it applies to a gentile. Know that it is so, as those Persians send gifts pardashnei to one another and do not retract them, which shows that they acquire one from another by pulling the object alone, even without paying for it. Rav Ashi says: Actually, I will say to you that pulling an object does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, and the fact that they do not retract their gifts is not due to the halakhot of acquisition but because they are taken over by haughtiness, and they consider it shameful to retract a gift.,Rav Ashi said: From where do I say that acquisition by pulling does not apply to gentiles? It is from that which Rav said to certain wine shopkeepers: When you measure wine for gentiles, take the dinars from them and then measure the wine for them. And if they do not have dinars with them readily available, lend them dinars and then take those dinars back from them, so that it will be a loan provided to them that they are repaying. As if you do not do so, when it becomes wine used for a libation it becomes so in your possession, and when you take the money it will be payment for wine used for a libation that you are taking. Rav Ashi concludes his proof for his opinion: And if it enters your mind that pulling an object acquires it in a transaction involving a gentile, ^76b with a rim gedanfa of dough around its rim, and filled it with water and boiled it, so that the water boiled along its rim. Rava said: Who would be clever enough to perform such an action if not Rav Akavya, as he is a great man. He maintains that as it absorbs it so it expels it; just as the rim absorbs the forbidden substance by small drops of it that reach the rim, so too it expels the forbidden substance by small drops of boiling water that reach the rim.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the knife, one must polish it and it is rendered pure. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama says: And one must thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And this must be done in untilled earth, i.e., hard earth. Rav Kahana says: And this applies to a good knife that does not have notches, so that the entire surface of the knife is scraped against the ground. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a good knife that does not have notches, one can thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: This is sufficient for the purpose of eating cold food with it.,This is like that incident involving Mar Yehuda, an important personage of the house of the Exilarch, and Bati bar Tuvi, a wealthy man, who were sitting before King Shapur, the king of Persia. The king’s servants brought an etrog before them. The king cut a slice and ate it, and then he cut a slice and gave it to Bati bar Tuvi. He then stuck the knife ten times in the ground, cut a slice, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati bar Tuvi said to him: And is that man, referring to himself, not Jewish? King Shapur said to him: I am certain of that master, Mar Yehuda, that he is meticulous about halakha; but I am not certain of that master, referring to Bati bar Tuvi, that he is meticulous in this regard.,There are those who say that King Shapur said to him: Remember what you did last night. The Persian practice was to present a woman to each guest, with whom he would engage in intercourse. Mar Yehuda did not accept the woman who was sent to him, but Bati bar Tuvi did, and therefore he was not assumed to be meticulous with regard to eating kosher food., ' None

31. Epigraphy, Ig I , 253, 292, 325, 363, 365, 369-370, 375, 386-387
Tagged with subjects: • Athens, administration of sacred matters • Euboulos, administration of • Lykourgos, financial administration • administration, of sacred funds • demarchs, administer deme property • festivals, administration of

Found in books: Dignas (2002), Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, 15, 17; Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 86, 90, 93, 95, 136, 239

sup>
253 IV name as demarch handed over total of money of Dionysos at least 2,000 dr. total of Ikarios 2,107 dr. 1/2 obol total of hosios (money) 26,933 dr. 4 obols. V (5)name as demarch handed over total of money of Dionysos 4?,600 dr., total of Ikarios at least 2,100 dr. 1 obol total of hosios (money) 24?,002 dr. 4 obols. VI name as demarch handed over total of money of Dionysos at least 4,000 dr.?, total of money of Ikarios over 2,120 dr. (10)total of hosios money 25,122 dr. I name as demarch handed over total of money of Dionysos sum over 4,000? and ending in 16 dr. 3 obols, of hosios money total 26,288 dr. 3 obols. II (15)name as demarch handed over total of money of Dionysos sum over 4,000? and ending in 66 dr. 4 obols, of hosios money total 26,697 dr. of money for Ikarios? total (20) sum ending in 2 obols. III name as demarch handed over of the hosios money total at least 26,000 dr. of money of Dionysos total at least 3,500 dr. of money of Ikarios total (25) - text from Attic Inscriptions Online, IG I³
253 - Ficial accounts of the deme Ikarion ' ³⁶³ . . . . . . . . . . . . of Phrearrhioi (?) . . . (5) ≥ 128 talents. The Athenians spent . . . against the Samians . . . of Athena P . . . and his colleagues? to whom Phyromachus son of - of - was secretary, under the Council for which . . . was first? (10) secretary; treasurers . . . Eubou- . . . from Oion, Naus- . . . ≥ 368 talents. From the treasurers . . . to whom -oleos . . . was secretary, and under the Council for which Epichar?inos of Piraeus was first ? secretary, the following was given to those . . . to Samos? (15) later (husteron) (?). These were treasurers?: - of Kerameis, L- . . . of Aphidna . . . of Prasiai . . . ≥ 908 talents. Total of the whole: . . . ≥ 1400 talents . . . text from Attic Inscriptions Online, IG I³
363 - Payments for Athens’ war against Samos, 440-439 BC ³⁶⁹ These are the debts reckoned by the accountants (logistai) in the four years from Panathenaia to Panathenaia. Athena (Polias) 426/5 BC These sums the treasurers handed over, Androkles of Phlya and his colleagues, to the Greek treasurers (hellenotamiais), - of - and his colleagues, for the generals Hippokrates of Cholargos and his colleagues, in the prytany of KekropisVII, the second prytany, four days from its entry, under the (5) Council for which Megakleides was first secretary, in the archonship of Euthynos (426/5), 20 tal.; the interest on this was 5,696 dr.. Second grant (dosis), in the prytany of KekropisVII, the second prytany, seven days were left of the prytany, 50 tal.; interest on this, 2 tal. 1,970 dr.. Third grant, in the prytany of PandionisIII, the fourth prytany, five days from the prytany’s entry, 28 tal. 5,610 dr. 3½ ob.; interest on this, 1 tal. 1,719 dr. 2 ob.. Fourth grant, in the prytany of AkamantisV, (10) the eighth prytany, five days from the entry of the prytany, 44 tal. 3,000 dr.; interest on this, 1 tal. 4,700 dr. 1 ob.. Fifth grant, in the prytany of AkamantisV, the eighth prytany, ten days from the entry of the prytany, 100 tal.; interest on this, 3 tal. 5,940 dr.. Sixth grant, in the prytany of ErechtheisI, the tenth prytany, seven days from the entry of the prytany, 18 tal. 3,000 dr.; the interest on this was 4,173 dr. 4 ob.. Total of the payment of principal in the period of office of Androkles (15) and his colleagues, 261 tal. 5,610 dr. 3½ ob.. Total of the interest on the money paid in (16) the period of office of Androkles and his colleagues, 11 tal. 199 dr. 1 ob.. 425/4 BC (16) These sums the treasurers handed over, Phokiades of Oion and his colleagues, in the archonship of Stratokles (425/4) and under the Council for which Pleistias was first secretary, for the generals around the Peloponnese, Demosthenes son of Alkisthenes of Aphidna, in the prytany of OineisVI, the fourth prytany, on the third day from the prytany’s entry, from the (20) Rear Chamber (opisthodomo), 30 tal.; the interest on this was 5,910 dr.. Another grant, to the generals, Nikias son of Nikeratos of Kydantidai and his colleagues, in the prytany of PandionisIII, the ninth prytany, on the fifteenth day from the prytany’s entry, 100 tal.; the interest on this was 2 tal. 3,800 dr.. Total of the payment of principal in the period of office of Phokiades and his colleagues, 130 tal.. Total of the interest on the money paid in the period of office of Phokiades and his colleagues, 3 tal. 3,710 dr.. 424/3 BC (25) These sums the treasurers handed over, Thoukydides of Acherdous and his colleagues, in the archonship of Isarchos (424/3) and under the Council for which Epilykos was first secretary, to the old Greek treasurers (hellenotamiais), - of - and his colleagues, and the new, Charopides of Skambonidai and his colleagues, in the prytany of HippothontisVIII, the first prytany, on the twenty-sixth of the prytany, . . . 32 tal. 5,983 dr.; the interest on this was 4,665 dr. 5 ob.. Second grant, in the prytany (30) of -, the - prytany, on the twelfth of the prytany, ≥ 23 tal. . . . . . . Third grant, in the prytany of ErechtheisI, . . . 5 tal. 4,800 dr.?; the interest on this was 632 dr. 1½ ob.. Fourth grant, in the prytany of AkamantisV, the eighth prytany, on the thirtieth of the prytany, 100 tal.; the interest on this was 1 tal. 2960 dr.?. Total of the payment of principal in the period of office of Thoukydides and his colleagues, (35) 163 tal.. Total of the interest on the money paid in the period of office of Thoukydides and his (36) colleagues, ≥ 2 tal. 5,210 dr.. 423/2 BC (36) These sums the treasurers handed over, Timokles of Eitea and his colleagues, in the archonship of Ameinias (423/2) and under the Council for which Demetrios of Kollytos was first secretary, . . . of Myrrhinous and his colleagues, in the prytany of AkamantisV, the first prytany, on the twelfth of the prytany, 64 tal. 4,720 dr.; the interest on this was (40) 4,244 dr. 5 ob.. Second grant, in the prytany of PandionisIII, the third prytany, on the twelfth of the prytany, 2 tal. 5,500 dr.; the interest on this was 163 dr. 5 ob.. Third grant, in the prytany of -, the fourth prytany, on the fourth of the prytany, from the Samians?, 11 tal. 3,300 dr.; interest on this was 582 dr. 1 ob.. Fourth grant, in the prytany of AiantisIX, the eighth prytany, on the twenty-fourth of the prytany, 100 tal.; interest on this was 1,700 dr.. (45) Fifth grant, in the prytany of LeontisIV, the tenth prytany, on the third of the prytany, 18 tal. 122 dr. 2½ ob.; interest on this, 122 dr. 2½ ob.. Total of the payment of principal in the period of office of Timokles and his colleagues, 192 tal. 1,642 dr. 2½ ob.. Total of the interest on the money paid in the period of office of Timokles and his colleagues 1 tal. 813 dr. 1½ ob.. Total of the whole of Athena’s payments in the four years from Panathenaia to Panathenaia, 747 tal. 1,
253 dr.. (50) Total of the whole of Athena’s interest in the four years from Panathenaia to Panathenaia, (51) ≥ 18 tal. 3,935 dr. Athena Nike (51) These sums of Athena Nike, in the prytany of -, the - prytany, on the fourth of the prytany, Timokles of Eitea and his colleagues handed over: 6 tal.; the interest on this was ≥ 100 dr.. Other Gods These debts to the Other Gods were reckoned by the accountants (logistai) in the four years from (55) Panathenaia to Panathenaia. These sums the treasurers of the Other Gods, Gorgoinos son of Oineides of Ikarion and his colleagues, handed over from the monies of each god, in the archonship of Ameinias (423/2), to the generals . . . , . . . under the Council for which Demetrios was first secretary in the prytany of AkamantisV? the first prytany? . . . of Hekatombaion? . . . . . . : Artemis Agrotera . . . (60) . . . interest on this ≥ 360 dr.. . . . . . . interest on this . . . ≥ 5,170 dr. . . . . . . Poseidon at Sounion ≥ 5 tal. 2,000 dr.; interest on this ≥ 370 dr. . . . . . . interest on this . . . Artemis at Mounichia 1 tal. 4,551 dr. 1½ ob.; interest on this . . . ≥ 226 dr. 1 ob.; interest on this . . . (65) . . . ≥ 1,976 dr. 2 ob. . . . ≥ 14 dr. 4 ob.; interest on this ≥ 2½ ob.; Aphrodite at the Hippolyteion . . . ≥ 3 dr. 5½ ob.; the Muses ≥ 500 dr.; interest on this 6 dr. 2 ob.; Apollo Zoster . . . Adrasteia 86 dr.; interest on this 1 dr.; Bendis 86 dr.; interest on this 1 dr.; . . . ≥ 1¾ ob.; Apollo . . . interest on this 8 dr. . . . Herakles at Kynosarges (70) 20 dr.; interest on this 1½ ob. . . . Demophon . . . interest on this . . . Athena at Pallenis ≥ 1 tal. 5,200 dr.; interest on this 129 dr. 3¾ ob.; Apollo . . . . . . Artemis Brauronia 1,396 dr. 4 ob.; interest on this ≥ 16 dr. . . . . . . ≥ 1,110 dr. . . . Athena at the Derioneian Palladion ≥ 850 dr.; interest on this ≥ 11 dr. . . . ≥ 1,700 dr. . . . interest on this 20 dr. ½ ob.; Poseidon Kalaureatis . . . (75) interest on this . . . Total of the principal of the Other Gods paid in the first grant in the period of office of Gorgoinos 30 tal. 5,990 dr.; total of the interest on this payment ≥ 2,120 dr.. The treasurers of the Other Gods handed over the second grant, Gorgoinos son of Oineides of Ikarion and his colleagues, god by god, from the monies, in the prytany of LeontisIV, the tenth prytany, on the twenty-third (ogdoei phthinontos) of Skirophorion, on the twentieth of the prytany: Artemis Agrotera (80) 4 tal. 1,950 dr.; interest on this 14 dr. 4½ ob.; Aphrodite in the Gardens 2 tal. 5,175 dr. 1 ob.; interest on this 9 dr. 4½ ob. . . . ≥ 2,840 dr.; interest on this 1 dr. 3¾ ob.; Dionysos, 356 dr. 1 ob.; interest on this 1½ ob.. . . . interest on this . . . Poseidon at Sounion 4 tal. 1,527 dr. 4½ ob.; interest on this 14 dr. 2¾ ob.; . . . 4,749 dr. 4 ob.; interest on this 2 dr. 4½ ob.; Artemis at Mounichia . . . . . . ≥ 1 dr. 2 ob.; Theseus 808 dr. 4½ ob.; interest on this 2¾ ob.; Ilissos 402 dr. 1 ob.; interest on this (85) 1½ ob.; . . . interest on this . . . Hephaistos 1 tal. 1,748 dr.; interest on this 4 dr. 2½ ob. Aphrodite at the Hippolyteion ≥ 1 dr. 2 ob.; interest on this . . . Muses 521 dr.; interest on this 1¾ ob.; god of strangers (theo chseniko) . . . . . . interest on this . . . Herakles at Kynosarges 80 dr.; interest on this ½ ob.; Demophon . . . Athena at Pallenis 3,418 dr. 1 ob.; interest on this 1 dr. 5½ ob.; Apollo . . . interest . . . Artemis Brauronia 353 dr. 2½ ob.; interest on this 1½ ob.; (90) . . . Athena at the Palladion 2 dr. 1½ ob.; interest on this . . . . . . 144 dr. 3 ob.; interest on this ½ ob.. Mother at Agrai ≥ 200 dr. . . . ≥ 2 dr.; interest on this ½ ob.; Athena Zosteria ≥ 100 dr. . . . 427 dr.; interest on this 1½ ob.. Total of the principal of the Other Gods paid in the second grant in the period of office of Gorgoinos 23 tal. 5,998 dr.; (95) total interest on this money 82 dr.. Total of the principal paid in the period of office of Gorgoinos 54 tal. 5,988 dr.. Total of all the interest on this money ≥ 2,200 dr.. Accumulated interest on payments made before this accounting period This was reckoned by the accountants (logistai) as interest over the four years on the monies of the Goddess for which the previous accountants reckoned the interest and handed over in the seven years, on four thousand talents, (100) one talent, four thousand five hundred and twenty-two drachmas: the interest on this was 195 tal. 1,713 dr. 3 ob.. They reckoned as interest for the Other Gods in the four years on what the previous accountants reckoned and handed over in the seven years, five hundred talents, two hundred talents, sixty talents, six talents, one thousand and ninety drachmas, five drachmas, (105) four drachmas in the four years 37 tal. 2,338 dr. 2½ ob.. They also reckoned interest for the monies of Athena Nike in the four years which the previous accountants reckoned and handed over in the seven years, twenty talents, two talents three thousand and ninety drachmas, eight drachmas, two obols, 1 tal. 592 dr. 5 ob.. They reckoned as interest on the monies of Hermes in the four years, which the previous (110) accountants reckoned and handed over in the seven years, ≥ one talent four hundred and ninety drachmas . . . ≥ 316 dr.. Summary of Athena Nike, principal owed in eleven years, 28 tal. 3,548 dr. 2 ob.; of Athena Nike, the interest was ≥ 5 tal. 191 dr. 2½ ob., but ≤ 6 tal. 1,131 dr. 2½ ob.. of Athena Polias, in eleven years, principal owed, 4,748 tal. 5,775 dr.; (115) of Athena Polias, the interest in eleven years was 1,243 tal. 3,804 dr.. In eleven years of Athena Nike and Polias 4,777 tal. 3,323 dr. 2 ob.; in eleven years the total interest of Polias and Nike ≥ 1,248 tal. 3,995 dr. 2½ ob., but ≤ 1,249 tal. 4,935 dr. 2½ ob.. For the Other Gods, total of the principal paid in eleven years 821 tal. 1,087 dr.; (120) for the Other Gods, total of the whole interest in eleven years . . . . . . Whole principal in eleven years for all the gods ≥ 5,599 tal. 4,900 dr.; total of the whole interest in eleven years for all the gods . . . . . . text from Attic Inscriptions Online, IG I³
369 - Loans from the sacred treasuries, 433/2-423/2 BC ³⁷⁰ Gods. 418/7 BC The Athenians expended in the archonship of Antiphon (418/7) and under the Council for which . . . was first secretary. We, the treasurers of the sacred monies of Athena, Pythodoros of Halai and his colleagues, for whom Phormion son of Aristion of Kydathenaion was secretary, handed over to the Greek treasurers (hellenotamiais) Ergokles son of Aristeides of Besa and his colleagues, and to their deputies (paredrois), (5) Hierokles son of Archestratos of Athmonon and his colleagues, in the prytany of -, the first prytany, and on the -second day . . . to the . . . under Demosthenes’ command. The People decided in accordance with the decree of - that the Greek treasurers and their deputies should pay back the money handed over, to the treasurers of the goddess, Pythodoros of Halai and his colleagues, and that the treasurers of the goddess should hand it over again to the Greek treasurers and their deputies, and that they should give it to the generals for the region of Thrace, Euthydemos son of Eudemos (10) . . . In the prytany of -, the second prytany, we handed over to the Greek treasurers, Ergokles son of Aristeides of Besa, - son of - of Aixone and his colleagues and to their deputies, Hierokles son of Archestratos of Athmonon and his colleagues, on the - of the prytany, in Kyzikene gold, ≥ 4,000 staters . . . the silver from this was ≥ 2 ob. This gold we handed over to (15) the trierarchs for Argos under Demosthenes’ command, the People having voted the immunity (adeian). In the prytany of -, the - prytany, on the twenty-eighth day? of the prytany, we handed over to the generals, - of -, Autokles of Anaphlystos, . . . In the prytany of PandionisIII, the ninth? prytany, on the thirteenth day of the? prytany, we handed over from the money which came from Samos to the city? to the Greek treasurers, Ergokles son of Aristeides of Besa and his colleagues and to the (20) deputies of the Greek treasurers, Hierokles son of Archestratos of Athmonon and his colleagues and to the generals Nikias son of Nikeratos of Kydantidai, Kallistratos son of Empedos of Oe, K- . . . Total payment in the period of office ≥ 16 tal. 1,800 dr.. Inscribed on the side of the stele on fr. g (ll. 18-23) . . . . . . in the - prytany, of Erechtheis or Aigeis or OineisI, II or VI, on the thirty-sixth (5) of the prytany . . . ? 417/6 BC The Athenians expended in the archonship of Euphemos (417/6) and under the Council for which - was first secretary. We the treasurers (25) of the sacred monies of Athena, Anaxikrates of Lamptrai and his colleagues, for whom Euxenos son of Euphanes of Prospalta was secretary, handed over . . . to the generals in the region of Thrace and Rhinon son of Charikles of Paiania, in the prytany of -, the - prytany, and on the twenty-second day of the prytany, the People having voted the immunity . . . In the prytany of AiantisIX, the - prytany, we handed over to the generals for Melos Teisias son of Teisimachos of Kephale, (30) Kleomedes son of Lykomedes of Phlya, on the - of the prytany, the People having voted the immunity, 10 tal. In the prytany of AntiochisX, the - prytany, we handed over to the Greek treasurers, - of Auridai, Timarchos of Pallene, and to the generals for Melos, Teisias son of Teisimachos of Kephale, Kleomedes son of Lykomedes of Phlya, on the thirteenth of the prytany, the People having voted the immunity, . . . Total payment in the period of (35) office . . . 416/5 BC The Athenians expended in the archonship of Arimnestos (416/5) and under the Council for which Ar- was first secretary. We the treasurers of the sacred monies of Athena, Dexitheos of Phlya or Thria and his colleagues, for whom Lysikles son of Drakontides of Bate (38) was secretary . . . of Pallene . . . Uncertain number of lines missing (46) ≥ 20 dr.. in the prytany of KekropisVII . . . . . . In the prytany of KekropisVII . . . day of the prytany, to the generals (50) Alkibiades son of Kleinias of Skambonidai, Lamachos son of Xenophanes of Oe, Nikias son of Nikeratos of Kydantidai and to the deputies . . . ≥ 3 dr. 1 ob.. In the . . . day, to the generals for Sicily, Alkibiades, Lamachos, Nikias, and . . . Antimachos of Hermos 30 tal.. In the . . . day, to the generals for Sicily, Alkibiades, Lamachos, (55) Nikias, and . . . Antimachos of Hermos ≥ 14 tal. 1,400 dr. but ≤ 14 tal. 2,300 dr.. In the . . . day, to the generals for Sicily, Alkibiades, Lamachos, Nikias, and . . . Antimachos of Hermos, in Kyzikene gold . . . staters . . . ≥ 3 dr. 3½ ob.. Total payment in the period of (60) office . . . ≥ 16 dr. 4 ob. 415/4 BC The Athenians expended in the archonship of Charias (415/4) and under the Council for which -ides was first secretary. The treasurers of the sacred monies of Athena Leochares of Alopeke and his colleagues, for whom Teleas son of Telenikos of Pergase was secretary, handed over to the generals Telephonos of - and his colleagues and to the Greek treasurers and their deputy, Pherekleides of Piraeus, the People having voted the immunity, in the prytany of AiantisIX, the third prytany, on the - day of the prytany, 11 tal. 3,787 dr. 4½ ob., and in Kyzikene (65) gold, 248 staters: the value of these is . . . We lent to the Greek treasurers and their deputies . . . Aristokrates of Euonymon and his colleagues 9 tal.; and these gave it to the Games-masters (athlothetais) for the Panathenaia, Amemptos . . . and his colleagues, in the prytany of ErechtheisI, the second prytany, on the twentieth day of the prytany. In the prytany of KekropisVII, the fourth prytany, on the sixth day of the prytany, to the Greek treasurers and their deputies, Aristokrates (70) of Euonymon and his colleagues for the soldiers in Melos ≥ 20 dr. In the prytany of AntiochisX, the eighth prytany, on the tenth day of the prytany, to the Greek treasurers and their deputies, Aristokrates of Euonymon and his colleagues for the soldiers in Melos ≥ 60 dr. In the prytany of AntiochisX, the eighth prytany, on the third day of the prytany, to the Greek treasurers and their deputies, Aristokrates of Euonymon and his colleagues 300 tal.; and these gave it to the force (stratiai) in Sicily. (75) In the prytany of AntiochisX, the eighth prytany, on the twentieth day of the prytany, to the Greek treasurers and their deputies, Aristokrates of Euonymon and his colleagues for the ships to deliver? the money to Sicily, 4 tal. 2,000 dr.. In the prytany of AntiochisX, the eighth prytany, on the second day of the prytany, to the Greek treasurers and their deputy, Philomelos of Marathon and the general in the Thermaic Gulf . . . and on the same day to the Greek treasurer(s) and their deputy, Philomelos of Marathon, and the general in Eph- or Heph- (80) Total payment in the period of office ≥ 353 tal.. text from Attic Inscriptions Online, IG I³ 370 - Payments from the treasury of Athena, 418/7–415/4 BC ³⁷⁵ The Athenians expended in the archonship of Glaukippos (410/9), and under the Council for which Kleigenes of Halai was first secretary. The treasurers of the sacred funds (hierog chrematon) of Athena, Kallistratros of Marathon, and his fellow officials handed over from the annual income (epeteion), the People having voted it, in the first prytany, of AiantisIX: to the hellenotamiai was handed over, to Kallimachos of Hagnous, Phrasiteleides (?) of Ikarion, for the horses was given for fodder (sitos), of Athena Polias (5) 3 talents 3,237 drachmas ½ obol, of Nike 91 dr. 3¼ ob.. In the second prytany, of AigeisII, to the Games-masters (athlothetais) was handed over for the Great Panathenaia, to Philon of Kydathenaion and his fellow officials, of Athena Polias 5 tal. 1,000 dr.; to the annual religious officials (hieropoiois), to Diyllos of Erchia and his fellow officials for the hekatomb, 5,114 dr.. In the third prytany, of OineisVI, to the hellenotamiai was handed over, to Perikles of Cholargos and his fellow officials, for the horses was given for fodder, 2 tal. 5,420 dr.; another payment to the same hellenotamiai, for the horses was given 2 tal. 5,400 dr.; another payment to the same hellenotamiai was given (10) for Hermon, the archon at Pylos, 6 tal.; another payment to the same hellenotamiai for the two-obol grant (diobelian), 2 tal.. In the fourth prytany, of AkamantisV, to the hellenotamiai was handed over, to Perikles of Cholargos and his fellow officials, fodder was given for the horses, 3 tal.; another payment to the same hellenotamiai for the two-obol grant was given 8 tal. 1,355 dr.. In the fifth prytany, of KekropisVII, to the hellenotamiai was handed over, to Perikles of Cholargos and his fellow officials, for the two-obol grant, 4 tal. 2,200 dr. In the sixth prytany, of LeontisIV, on the third day of the prytany (15) was handed over to the hellenotamiai, to Dionysios of Kydathenaion and his fellow officials, 1,284 dr.; on the ninth of the prytany to the hellenotamiai, to Thrason of Boutadai and his fellow officials, 3 tal. 1,083 dr. 2 ob.; on the eleventh of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was handed over, to Proxenos of Aphidna and his fellow officials, for the general from Eretria, Eukleides, acknowledgement (anomologema), 3740 dr. 1¼ ob.; on the thirteenth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai, Perikles of Cholargos and his fellow officials, one digit (≥) 4,906 dr.; on the twenty-eighth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai, Spoudias of Phlya and his fellow officials, 2 tal. 2,000 one or two digits (≥) 100 dr.; (20) on the thirtieth of the prytany, the (money) from Samos acknowledged (anomologethe), to the hellenotamias Anaitios of Sphettos and his deputy (paredroi), Polyaratos of Cholargos, 57 tal. 1,000 dr.. In the seventh prytany, of AntiochisX, on the fifth of the prytany, was handed over to Dionysios of Kydathenaion and his fellow officials, for the two-obol grant, 1 tal; on the seventh of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai Thrason of Boutadai and his fellow officials, for the two-obol grant, 1 tal. 1,232 dr. 3¼ ob.; on the same day, to the hellenotamiai Phalanthos of Alopeke and his fellow officials, fodder for the horses, 4 tal. (?); on the sixteenth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai Proxenos (25) of Aphidna and his fellow officials, 1,534 dr. 3 ob.; on the twenty-fourth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai Eupolis of Aphidna and his fellow officials, 5,400 dr.; on the twenty-seventh of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai Kallias of Euonymon and his fellow officials, 1 tal. 2,565 dr. 4½ ob.. In the eighth prytany, of HippothontisVIII, on the twelfth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was handed over, to Proxenos of Aphidna and his fellow officials, 3 tal. 634 dr. 4 ob.; on the twenty-fourth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given, to Dionysios of Kydathenaion and his fellow officials, 3 tal. 4,318 dr. 1½ ob.; on the thirty-sixth (30) of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given, to Thrason of Boutadai and his fellow officials, 1 tal. 3,329 dr. 3 ob.. In the ninth prytany, of ErechtheisI, on the twelfth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given, to Proxenos of Aphidna and his fellow officials, 2,188 dr. 1 ob.; on the twenty-third of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given, to Dionysios of Kydathenaion and his fellow officials, one digit (≥) 3 tal. 793 dr. 3 ob.; on the thirty-sixth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given, to Thrason of Boutadai and his fellow officials, 2 tal. 3,850 dr. 2½ ob.; on the thirty-sixth of the prytany, the allies acknowledged (anomologesanto) (money) from Samos, (35) to the generals on Samos, to Dexikrates of Aigilia, 21 tal. 1,000 dr., to Pasiphon of Phrearrhioi, 6 tal., to Aristokrates of Trinemeia?, 5 tal., to Eumachos? of Euonymon, 5 tal. 3,896 dr., to Nikeratos of Kydantidai the trierarch, 3,000 dr., to Aristophanes of Anagyrous or phlystos the trierarch . . . In the tenth prytany, of PandionisIII, on the eleventh of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given, to Proxenos of Aphidna and his fellow officials, 5 tal. 442 dr. 5 ob.; on the twenty-third of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given . . . . . . and his fellow officials, 2 tal. 5,090 dr. 3 ob.; on the thirty-sixth of the prytany, to the hellenotamiai was given . . . (40) . . . and his fellow officials, 5 tal. 4,656 dr. 4 ob.. Whole total of the money which Kallistratos of Marathon and his fellow officials handed over, -?. text from Attic Inscriptions Online, IG I³
375 - Payments from the treasury of Athena, 410/9 BC ' None

32. Strabo, Geography, 13.4.12
Tagged with subjects: • administration, in provinces of the Roman Republic • rituals, administrative

Found in books: Ando (2013), Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, 354; Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 260

sup>
13.4.12 The parts situated next to this region towards the south as far as the Taurus are so inwoven with one another that the Phrygian and the Carian and the Lydian parts, as also those of the Mysians, since they merge into one another, are hard to distinguish. To this confusion no little has been contributed by the fact that the Romans did not divide them according to tribes, but in another way organized their jurisdictions, within which they hold their popular assemblies and their courts. Mt. Tmolus is a quite contracted mass of mountain and has only a moderate circumference, its limits lying within the territory of the Lydians themselves; but the Mesogis extends in the opposite direction as far as Mycale, beginning at Celaenae, according to Theopompus. And therefore some parts of it are occupied by the Phrygians, I mean the parts near Celaenae and Apameia, and other parts by Mysians and Lydians, and other parts by Carians and Ionians. So, also, the rivers, particularly the Maeander, form the boundary between some of the tribes, but in cases where they flow through the middle of countries they make accurate distinction difficult. And the same is to be said of the plains that are situated on either side of the mountainous territory and of the river-land. Neither should I, perhaps, attend to such matters as closely as a surveyor must, but sketch them only so far as they have been transmitted by my predecessors.'' None

33. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration, law

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 96; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 96

34. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Sasanian, administrators/administration • Sasanian, administrators/administration, royals

Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 166; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 166

35. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Roman Empire, administrative relief • administration, Roman • commentarii, administrative files

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 822; Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 309

36. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Administrative law • jurors, juries,, administration of

Found in books: Gagarin and Cohen (2005), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, 310, 311; Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 81

37. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Athens, administration of sacred matters • Euboulos, administration of • Lykourgos, financial administration • administration, of sacred funds • demarchs, administer deme property • festivals, administration of

Found in books: Dignas (2002), Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, 15, 17; Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 86, 90, 93, 95, 136, 239

38. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Administration, provincial • administration, Roman • commentarii, administrative files • rituals, administrative

Found in books: Ando (2013), Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, 354, 361; Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 285, 288, 308, 309; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 350

39. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Administration, provincial • Lykourgos, financial administration • Nemesis at Rhamnus administration • Roman Empire, administrative relief • administration, Roman • administration, administrator • festivals, administration of • provinces administration

Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 824; Bruun and Edmondson (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 289; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 214, 248; Papazarkadas (2011), Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 86; Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 65; Talbert (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, 394; Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 70, 82

Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database