1. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 2.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 201| 2.6. "וְאֶת־בָּנֶיהָ לֹא אֲרַחֵם כִּי־בְנֵי זְנוּנִים הֵמָּה׃", | 2.6. "And I will not have compassion upon her children; For they are children of harlotry.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 22.13-22.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 177| 22.13. "כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ׃", 22.14. "וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע וְאָמַר אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא־מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים׃", 22.15. "וְלָקַח אֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] וְאִמָּהּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־בְּתוּלֵי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] אֶל־זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַשָּׁעְרָה׃", 22.16. "וְאָמַר אֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעַרָה] אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת־בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ׃", 22.17. "וְהִנֵּה־הוּא שָׂם עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים לֵאמֹר לֹא־מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה לִפְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר׃", 22.18. "וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר־הַהִוא אֶת־הָאִישׁ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ׃", 22.19. "וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹ־תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה לֹא־יוּכַל לְשַּׁלְּחָהּ כָּל־יָמָיו׃", 22.21. "וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] אֶל־פֶּתַח בֵּית־אָבִיהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ אַנְשֵׁי עִירָהּ בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתָה כִּי־עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ׃", | 22.13. "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,", 22.14. "and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: ‘I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity’;", 22.15. "then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.", 22.16. "And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders: ‘I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;", 22.17. "and, lo, he hath laid wanton charges, saying: I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.", 22.18. "And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him.", 22.19. "And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.", 22.20. "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;", 22.21. "then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Nahum, 3.5-3.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, ancient near east, punishment for •adultery, parallels to ezekielian punishment for Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 200, 209| 3.5. "הִנְנִי אֵלַיִךְ נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וְגִלֵּיתִי שׁוּלַיִךְ עַל־פָּנָיִךְ וְהַרְאֵיתִי גוֹיִם מַעְרֵךְ וּמַמְלָכוֹת קְלוֹנֵךְ׃", 3.6. "וְהִשְׁלַכְתִּי עָלַיִךְ שִׁקֻּצִים וְנִבַּלְתִּיךְ וְשַׂמְתִּיךְ כְּרֹאִי׃", | 3.5. "Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts, And I will uncover thy skirts upon thy face, And I will shew the nations thy nakedness, And the kingdoms thy shame.", 3.6. "And I will cast detestable things upon thee, and make thee vile, And will make thee as dung.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Lamentations, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.819 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 209| 1.8. "חֵטְא חָטְאָה יְרוּשָׁלִַם עַל־כֵּן לְנִידָה הָיָתָה כָּל־מְכַבְּדֶיהָ הִזִּילוּהָ כִּי־רָאוּ עֶרְוָתָהּ גַּם־הִיא נֶאֶנְחָה וַתָּשָׁב אָחוֹר׃", | 1.8. "Jerusalem sinned grievously, therefore she became a wanderer; all who honored her despised her, for they have seen her shame; moreover, she herself sighed and turned away.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 3.8, 13.26, 47.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, parallels to ezekielian punishment for •adultery, ancient near east, punishment for Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 200, 209| 3.8. "וָאֵרֶא כִּי עַל־כָּל־אֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִאֲפָה מְשֻׁבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ וָאֶתֵּן אֶת־סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא יָרְאָה בֹּגֵדָה יְהוּדָה אֲחוֹתָהּ וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתִּזֶן גַּם־הִיא׃", 13.26. "וְגַם־אֲנִי חָשַׂפְתִּי שׁוּלַיִךְ עַל־פָּנָיִךְ וְנִרְאָה קְלוֹנֵךְ׃", 47.3. "מִקּוֹל שַׁעֲטַת פַּרְסוֹת אַבִּירָיו מֵרַעַשׁ לְרִכְבּוֹ הֲמוֹן גַּלְגִּלָּיו לֹא־הִפְנוּ אָבוֹת אֶל־בָּנִים מֵרִפְיוֹן יָדָיִם׃", | 3.8. "And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot;", 13.26. "Therefore will I also uncover thy skirts upon thy face, And thy shame shall appear.", 47.3. "At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his strong ones, at the rushing of his chariots, at the rumbling of his wheels, the fathers look not back to their children for feebleness of hands;", |
|
| 6. Homer, Odyssey, 3.450 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •women, punishment for adultery Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015) 242 |
7. Aristophanes, Frogs, 388 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •women, punishment for adultery Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015) 242| 388. καὶ σῷζε τὸν σαυτῆς χορόν, | |
|
| 8. Isaeus, Orations, 8.19-8.20 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •women, punishment for adultery Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015) 242 |
9. Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 177-179 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015) 242| 179. θύειν δοκούσαις καταλαβεῖν τὴν ἀκρόπολιν. | |
|
10. Aristophanes, The Women Celebrating The Thesmophoria, 750-756, 758-761, 757 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015) 242| 757. κακῶς ἀπόλοι', ὡς φθονερὸς εἶ καὶ δυσμενής. | |
|
11. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 7.3. "מִצְוַת הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָיוּ מַתִּיזִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בְסַיִף כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִוּוּל הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְקוֹצֵץ בְּקוֹפִיץ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין מִיתָה מְנֻוֶּלֶת מִזּוֹ. מִצְוַת הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ, זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, עַד שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה: \n", | 7.3. "Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead.", |
|
12. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 9.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 9.4. "על שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח על הדינין ועל עבודת כוכבים ועל גלוי עריות ועל שפיכות דמים ועל הגזל ועל אבר מן החי על הדינין כיצד כשם שישראל מצווין להושיב בתי דינין בעיירות שלהן כך בני נח מצווין להושיב בתי דינין בעיר שלהם. על עבודת כוכבים ועל ברכת השם כיצד עובד כוכבים שעבד עבודת כוכבים וברך את השם לא נתנה מיתה לבני נח אלא בסייף בלבד. על גילוי עריות כיצד כל ערוה שב\"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה בני נח מוזהרים עליה וכל ערוה שב\"ד של ישראל מוזהרים עליה בני נח מומתין עליה דברי ר\"מ וחכמים אומרים הרבה עריות שאין ב\"ד ממיתין עליה בני נח מוזהרים עליה בא על עריות ישראל נדון בדייני ישראל בא על עריות העובדי כוכבים נדון בדיני העובדי כוכבים ואין לי אלא נערה מאורסה בלבד. ועל שפיכות דמים כיצד עובד כוכבים בעובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים בישראל חייב ישראל בעובד כוכבים פטור. על הגזילה כיצד גנב גזל יפת תואר וכן כיוצא בו עובד כוכבים בעובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים בישראל אסור ישראל בעובד כוכבים מותר על אבר מן החי כיצד אבר המדולדל בבהמה ואין בו להעלות ארוכה בשר המדולדל בבהמה ואין בו להעלות ארוכה אסור לבני נח ואין צריך לומר לישראל ואם יש בו להעלות ארוכה מותר לישראל ואין צריך לומר לבני נח. נטל צפור שאין בה כזית ואכלה רבי פוטר ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון מחייב ומה על אבר מן החי ממנו חייב כולו לא יהא חייב חנקה ואכלה פטור רבי חנניא בן גמליאל אומר אף על דם מן החי רבי חידקא אומר אף על הסירוס ר\"ש אומר אף על הכשפים רבי יוסי אומר כל האמור בפרשה בני נח מוזהרין עליה שנאמר (דברים י״ח:י׳) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש וגו' וחובר חבר כי תועבת ה' איפשר שכתוב עונש עד שלא יזהיר אלא מזהיר ואח\"כ עונש מלמד שהזהיר ואח\"כ עונשן רבי אלעזר אומר על הכלאים מותר לבני נח לזרוע וללבוש כלאים אסור להרביע ולהרכיב אילנות. ", | |
|
13. New Testament, John, 8.5 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 177| 8.5. ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ [ἡμῖν] Μωυσῆς ἐνετείλατο τὰς τοιαύτας λιθάζειν· σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις; | 8.5. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" |
|
| 14. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181 |
| 15. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181 |
| 16. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 5.17.8 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 163 |
| 17. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, 22.17 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181 |
18. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 2.35.4-2.35.8, 4.17.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •women, punishment for adultery Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015) 242| 2.35.4. τὸ δὲ λόγου μάλιστα ἄξιον ἱερὸν Δήμητρός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ Πρωνός. τοῦτο τὸ ἱερὸν Ἑρμιονεῖς μὲν Κλύμενον Φορωνέως παῖδα καὶ ἀδελφὴν Κλυμένου Χθονίαν τοὺς ἱδρυσαμένους φασὶν εἶναι. Ἀργεῖοι δέ, ὅτε ἐς τὴν Ἀργολίδα ἦλθε Δημήτηρ, τότε Ἀθέραν μὲν λέγουσι καὶ Μύσιον ὡς ξενίαν παράσχοιεν τῇ θεῷ, Κολόνταν δὲ οὔτε οἴκῳ δέξασθαι τὴν θεὸν οὔτε ἀπονεῖμαί τι ἄλλο ἐς τιμήν· ταῦτα δὲ οὐ κατὰ γνώμην Χθονίᾳ τῇ θυγατρὶ ποιεῖν αὐτόν. Κολόνταν μὲν οὖν φασιν ἀντὶ τούτων συγκαταπρησθῆναι τῇ οἰκίᾳ, Χθονίαν δὲ κομισθεῖσαν ἐς Ἑρμιόνα ὑπὸ Δήμητρος Ἑρμιονεῦσι ποιῆσαι τὸ ἱερόν. 2.35.5. Χθονία δʼ οὖν ἡ θεός τε αὐτὴ καλεῖται καὶ Χθόνια ἑορτὴν κατὰ ἔτος ἄγουσιν ὥρᾳ θέρους, ἄγουσι δὲ οὕτως. ἡγοῦνται μὲν αὐτοῖς τῆς πομπῆς οἵ τε ἱερεῖς τῶν θεῶν καὶ ὅσοι τὰς ἐπετείους ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν, ἕπονται δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες. τοῖς δὲ καὶ παισὶν ἔτι οὖσι καθέστηκεν ἤδη τὴν θεὸν τιμᾶν τῇ πομπῇ· οὗτοι λευκὴν ἐσθῆτα καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς κεφαλαῖς ἔχουσι στεφάνους. πλέκονται δὲ οἱ στέφανοί σφισιν ἐκ τοῦ ἄνθους ὃ καλοῦσιν οἱ ταύτῃ κοσμοσάνδαλον, ὑάκινθον ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν ὄντα καὶ μεγέθει καὶ χρόᾳ· ἔπεστι δέ οἱ καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῷ θρήνῳ γράμματα. 2.35.6. τοῖς δὲ τὴν πομπὴν πέμπουσιν ἕπονται τελείαν ἐξ ἀγέλης βοῦν ἄγοντες διειλημμένην δεσμοῖς τε καὶ ὑβρίζουσαν ἔτι ὑπὸ ἀγριότητος. ἐλάσαντες δὲ πρὸς τὸν ναὸν οἱ μὲν ἔσω φέρεσθαι τὴν βοῦν ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν ἀνῆκαν ἐκ τῶν δεσμῶν, ἕτεροι δὲ ἀναπεπταμένας ἔχοντες τέως τὰς θύρας, ἐπειδὰν τὴν βοῦν ἴδωσιν ἐντὸς τοῦ ναοῦ, προσέθεσαν τὰς θύρας. 2.35.7. τέσσαρες δὲ ἔνδον ὑπολειπόμεναι γρᾶες, αὗται τὴν βοῦν εἰσιν αἱ κατεργαζόμεναι· δρεπάνῳ γὰρ ἥτις ἂν τύχῃ τὴν φάρυγγα ὑπέτεμε τῆς βοός. μετὰ δὲ αἱ θύραι τε ἠνοίχθησαν καὶ προσελαύνουσιν οἷς ἐπιτέτακται βοῦν δὲ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην ἐπὶ ταύτῃ καὶ ἄλλην τετάρτην. κατεργάζονταί τε δὴ πάσας κατὰ ταὐτὰ αἱ γρᾶες καὶ τόδε ἄλλο πρόσκειται τῇ θυσίᾳ θαῦμα· ἐφʼ ἥντινα γὰρ ἂν πέσῃ τῶν πλευρῶν ἡ πρώτη βοῦς, ἀνάγκη πεσεῖν καὶ πάσας. 2.35.8. θυσία μὲν δρᾶται τοῖς Ἑρμιονεῦσι τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον· πρὸ δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ γυναικῶν ἱερασαμένων τῇ Δήμητρι εἰκόνες ἑστήκασιν οὐ πολλαί, καὶ παρελθόντι ἔσω θρόνοι τέ εἰσιν, ἐφʼ ὧν αἱ γρᾶες ἀναμένουσιν ἐσελαθῆναι καθʼ ἑκάστην τῶν βοῶν, καὶ ἀγάλματα οὐκ ἄγαν ἀρχαῖα Ἀθηνᾶ καὶ Δημήτηρ. αὐτὸ δὲ ὃ σέβουσιν ἐπὶ πλέον ἢ τἄλλα, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ εἶδον, οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀνὴρ ἄλλος οὔτε ξένος οὔτε Ἑρμιονέων αὐτῶν· μόναι δὲ ὁποῖόν τί ἐστιν αἱ γρᾶες ἴστωσαν. 4.17.1. ἔστι δὲ Αἴγιλα τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ἔνθα ἱερὸν ἵδρυται ἅγιον Δήμητρος. ἐνταῦθα ἐπιστάμενος ὁ Ἀριστομένης καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ τὰς γυναῖκας ἀγούσας ἑορτὴν ἀμύνεσθαι τῶν γυναικῶν οὐκ ἄνευ τῆς θεοῦ προαχθεισῶν λαμβάνουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν Μεσσηνίων τραύματα μαχαίραις τε, αἷς τὰ ἱερεῖα αἱ γυναῖκες ἔθυον, καὶ ὀβελοῖς, οἷς τὰ κρέα ἔπειρον ὀπτῶσαι· τὸν δὲ Ἀριστομένην τύπτουσαι ταῖς δᾳσὶ ζῶντα αἱροῦσιν. ἀπεσώθη δὲ ὅμως τῆς αὐτῆς ἐκείνης νυκτὸς ἐς τὴν Μεσσηνίαν. ἀφεῖναι δὲ αὐτὸν ἱέρεια τῆς Δήμητρος αἰτίαν ἔσχεν Ἀρχιδάμεια· ἀφῆκε δὲ οὐκ ἐπὶ χρήμασιν, ἀλλὰ ἐρῶσα ἔτυχεν αὐτοῦ πρότερον ἔτι, προὐφασίζετο δὲ ὡς Ἀριστομένης διακούσας τὰ δεσμὰ ἀποδρὰς οἴχοιτο. | 2.35.4. The object most worthy of mention is a sanctuary of Demeter on Pron. This sanctuary is said by the Hermionians to have been founded by Clymenus, son of Phoroneus, and Chthonia, sister of Clymenus. But the Argive account is that when Demeter came to Argolis , while Atheras and Mysius afforded hospitality to the goddess, Colontas neither received her into his home nor paid her any other mark of respect. His daughter Chthoia disapproved of this conduct. They say that Colontas was punished by being burnt up along with his house, while Chthonia was brought to Hermion by Demeter, and made the sanctuary for the Hermionians. 2.35.5. At any rate, the goddess herself is called Chthonia, and Chthonia is the name of the festival they hold in the summer of every year. The manner of it is this. The procession is headed by the priests of the gods and by all those who hold the annual magistracies; these are followed by both men and women. It is now a custom that some who are still children should honor the goddess in the procession. These are dressed in white, and wear wreaths upon their heads. Their wreaths are woven of the flower called by the natives cosmosandalon , which, from its size and color, seems to me to be an iris; it even has inscribed upon it the same letters of mourning. The letters AI, an exclamation of woe supposed to be inscribed on the flower. 2.35.6. Those who form the procession are followed by men leading from the herd a full-grown cow, fastened with ropes, and still untamed and frisky. Having driven the cow to the temple, some loose her from the ropes that she may rush into the sanctuary, others, who hitherto have been holding the doors open, when they see the cow within the temple, close the doors. 2.35.7. Four old women, left behind inside, are they who dispatch the cow. Whichever gets the chance cuts the throat of the cow with a sickle. Afterwards the doors are opened, and those who are appointed drive up a second cow, and a third after that, and yet a fourth. All are dispatched in the same way by the old women, and the sacrifice has yet another strange feature. On whichever of her sides the first cow falls, all the others must fall on the same. 2.35.8. Such is the manner in which the sacrifice is performed by the Hermionians. Before the temple stand a few statues of the women who have served Demeter as her priestess, and on passing inside you see seats on which the old women wait for the cows to be driven in one by one, and images, of no great age, of Athena and Demeter. But the thing itself that they worship more than all else, I never saw, nor yet has any other man, whether stranger or Hermionian. The old women may keep their knowledge of its nature to themselves. 4.17.1. There is a place Aegila in Laconia , where is a sanctuary sacred to Demeter. Aristomenes and his men knowing that the women were keeping festival there . . . the women were inspired by the goddess to defend themselves, and most of the Messenians were wounded with the knives with which the women sacrificed the victims and the spits on which they pierced and roasted the meat. Aristomenes was struck with the torches and taken alive. Nevertheless he escaped to Messenia during the same night. Archidameia, the priestess of Demeter, was charged with having released him, not for a bribe but because she had been in love with him before; but she maintained that Aristomenes had escaped by burning through his bonds. |
|
| 19. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
20. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 4a. דכתיב (דברים כב, יא) לא תלבש שעטנז גדילים תעשה לך,ואמר רבי אלעזר סמוכים מן התורה מנין שנאמר (תהלים קיא, ח) סמוכים לעד לעולם עשוים באמת וישר,ואמר רב ששת אמר ר' אלעזר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מנין ליבמה שנפלה לפני מוכה שחין שאין חוסמין אותה שנאמר (דברים כה, ד) לא תחסום שור בדישו וסמיך ליה כי ישבו אחים יחדיו,ואמר רב יוסף אפילו למאן דלא דריש סמוכים בעלמא במשנה תורה דריש דהא ר' יהודה בעלמא לא דריש ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובעלמא מנלן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,א"ל ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא זה לסקילה,אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל מכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להם ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנלן דדריש דתנן נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו רבי יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו,ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מ"ט דרבי יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסה כתיב מעילויה דקרא דכתיב (דברים כב, כט) ונתן האיש השוכב עמה לאבי הנערה חמשים כסף וסמיך ליה לא יקח איש וגו',ורבנן אי הוה סמיך ליה כדקאמרת השתא דלא סמיך ליה (דכתיב לא יקח איש את אשת אביו בנתים),בשומרת יבם הכתוב מדבר ולעבור עליו בשני לאוין,ובמשנה תורה מאי טעמא דדריש איבעית אימא משום דמוכח ואיבעית אימא משום דמופני,איבעית אימא משום דמוכח דאם כן לכתביה רחמנא גבי עריות ואיבעית אימא משום דמופני דאם כן לכתוב רחמנא לא יקח איש את אשת אביו לא יגלה כנף אביו למה לי | 4a. b As it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds /b of wool and linen together. b You shall make for yourself twisted fringes /b on the four corners of your covering with which you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:11–12). These verses teach that despite the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds of wool and linen, it is permitted to prepare ritual fringes of diverse kinds, e.g., sky-blue dyed threads of wool on linen garments. This shows that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds., b And Rabbi Elazar said: From where /b in the Torah is it derived that one may draw homiletical interpretations from the b juxtaposition /b of verses? In other words, from where is it derived that the fact that certain verses are adjacent one to the other is a reason to apply the i halakhot /i from one verse to the other? b As it is stated: /b “The works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. b Juxtaposed forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness” /b (Psalms 111:7–8). This verse indicates that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God’s commandments., b And /b similarly, b Rav Sheshet said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where /b is it derived with regard b to a i yevama /i who came before /b a i yavam /i b afflicted with boils that one may not muzzle her, /b i.e., she cannot be forced to enter into levirate marriage, and he is compelled to release her by i ḥalitza /i ? b As it is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn” /b (Deuteronomy 25:4), b and, juxtaposed to it, /b is the verse: b “If brothers dwell together” /b (Deuteronomy 25:5), which begins the passage that deals with the i halakhot /i of levirate marriage. This teaches that just as it is prohibited to muzzle the ox, so too, one may not muzzle and ignore the complaints of a i yevama /i who does not wish to marry a i yavam /i afflicted with boils., b And Rav Yosef said: Even according to the one who does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses, nevertheless, he does b derive /b them b from Deuteronomy, as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses, b and /b yet b he does derive /b them b from Deuteronomy. /b ,§ The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive that Rabbi Yehuda b generally does not derive homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the punishment of a sorceress that b ben Azzai says /b that b it is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” /b (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, b and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death” /b (Exodus 22:18). The Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that /b so as to say: b Just as one who lies with a beast /b is executed b by stoning /b (see Leviticus 20:16), b so too, a sorceress /b is executed b by stoning. /b ,With regard to this proof, b Rabbi Yehuda said to /b ben Azzai: b And /b simply b due to /b the fact b that /b the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that /b one, b shall we take this /b person b out to be stoned? /b Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on the basis of a juxtaposition of passages?, b Rather, /b Rabbi Yehuda claims that the source is the following statement: b Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out /b from the rest in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? It is to b draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard /b are executed b by stoning, so too, a sorceress /b is executed b by stoning. /b This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses.,§ b And from where do we /b derive b that /b Rabbi Yehuda b does derive /b homiletic interpretations b in Deuteronomy? As we learned /b in a mishna: b A person may wed /b a woman b raped by his father and /b one b seduced by his father, /b despite the fact that his father’s wife is forbidden to him. Similarly, he may marry a woman b raped by his /b son b and /b one b seduced by his son. /b Although one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, these prohibitions do not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them. b And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits /b him from marrying b a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. /b , b And Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt” /b (Deuteronomy 23:1). The latter expression: “And shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” is referring to b a skirt that has been seen by his father, /b i.e., any woman who has had relations with his father b may not be uncovered /b by his son, meaning that his son may not marry her., b And from where /b is it known b that /b the verse b is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? /b It is b from the previous /b verse, which deals with the i halakhot /i of rape, b as it is written: “And the man who lay with her must give the maiden’s father fifty shekels of silver” /b (Deuteronomy 22:29), b and juxtaposed to it /b is the verse: b “A man shall not take his father’s wife /b and shall not uncover his father’s skirt.” This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Deuteronomy.,§ The Gemara asks: b And /b how do b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to this argument? They say: b If /b the two verses were fully b juxtaposed, /b it would be interpreted b as you said. /b However, b now /b that b it is not /b properly b juxtaposed, as it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife,” in between /b the i halakhot /i of rape and the pronouncement with regard to uncovering one’s father’s garment, this serves to break the juxtaposition.,Consequently, this particular b verse /b concerning the uncovering of one’s father’s garment b is speaking of a woman waiting for her i yavam /i , /b in this case one’s father. In other words, the i yevama /i of a father who is waiting for levirate marriage to the father is already considered “his father’s skirt,” and she is therefore forbidden to the son. Although this woman who is awaiting levirate marriage is in fact his uncle’s wife and explicitly prohibited to him in any case, this passage comes to teach that b he violates two prohibitions. /b In other words, were he to engage in relations with her he would be penalized both for relations with his uncle’s wife and relations with “his father’s skirt.”,§ The Gemara asks: b But /b as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, b what is the reason that he derives /b these interpretations b in Deuteronomy? /b The Gemara responds: b If you wish, say /b that it is b because /b it b is evident /b from the context; b and if you wish, say /b instead that it is b because /b this verse is extraneous and is therefore b free /b for this inference.,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b it is b because /b it b is evident; as, if /b it is b so /b that the verse did not intend to teach by juxtaposition, b let the Merciful One write /b this i halakha /i prohibiting marriage to a father’s wife b alongside /b the other women b with whom relations are forbidden, /b in Leviticus. Since this verse is out of place, it is certainly coming to teach by way of juxtaposition. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is b because /b this verse is b free, as, if /b it is b so /b that the verse is not coming to teach an additional i halakha /i , b let the Merciful One write /b only: b “A man shall not take his father’s wife.” Why do I /b need the phrase: b “And shall not uncover his father’s skirt”? /b This phrase is superfluous, and therefore it teaches by juxtaposition. |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 56a. בכל יום דנין את העדים בכינוי יכה יוסי את יוסי,נגמר הדין לא הורגין בכינוי אלא מוציאין כל אדם לחוץ שואלין את הגדול שביניהן ואומר לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינין עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין,והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא עד שיברך שם בשם,מנהני מילי אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם וגו' בנקבו שם יומת,ממאי דהאי נוקב לישנא דברוכי הוא דכתיב (במדבר כג, ח) מה אקב לא קבה אל ואזהרתיה מהכא (שמות כב, כז) אלהים לא תקלל,ואימא מיברז הוא דכתיב (מלכים ב יב, י) ויקב חור בדלתו ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם,בעינא שם בשם וליכא,ואימא דמנח שני שמות אהדדי ובזע להו ההוא נוקב וחוזר ונוקב הוא ואימא דחייק שם אפומא דסכינא ובזע בה ההוא חורפא דסכינא הוא דקא בזע,אימא פרושי שמיה הוא דכתיב (במדבר א, יז) ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים האלה אשר נקבו בשמות ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים ו, יג) את ה' אלהיך תירא,חדא דבעינא שם בשם וליכא ועוד הויא ליה אזהרת עשה ואזהרת עשה לא שמה אזהרה,ואיבעית אימא אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, יא) ויקב ויקלל למימרא דנוקב קללה הוא,ודילמא עד דעבד תרוייהו לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (ויקרא כד, יד) הוצא את המקלל ולא כתיב הוצא את הנוקב והמקלל שמע מינה חדא היא,תנו רבנן איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף,והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה' זו ברכת השם,אמר ר' יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר,דתניא (ויקרא כד, טו) איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת לפי שנאמר ונוקב שם מות יומת יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד מניין לרבות כל הכינויין תלמוד לומר איש כי יקלל אלהיו מכל מקום דברי רבי מאיר,וחכמים אומרים על שם המיוחד במיתה ועל הכינויין באזהרה,ופליגא דרבי מיישא דאמר רבי מיישא בן נח שבירך את השם בכינויים לרבנן חייב,מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) כגר כאזרח גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן בנקבו שם אבל עובד כוכבים אפילו בכינוי,ורבי מאיר האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח בסקילה אבל עובד כוכבים בסייף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קמ"ל,ורבי יצחק נפחא אליבא דרבנן האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן שם בשם אבל עובד כוכבים לא בעינן שם בשם,איש איש למה לי דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם,תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם ע"ז גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וגזל ואבר מן החי | 56a. b On every day /b of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges b judge the witnesses, /b i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use b an appellation /b for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: b Let Yosei smite Yosei, /b as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton.,When b the judgment is over, /b and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, b they do not sentence /b him b to death based on /b the testimony of the witnesses in which they used b an appellation /b for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. b Rather, they remove all /b the b people /b who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges b interrogate the eldest of /b the witnesses, b and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says /b exactly what he heard. b And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear /b in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. b And they do not /b ever fully b stitch /b it back together again., b And the second /b witness b says: I too /b heard b as he /b did, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. b And the third /b witness, in the event that there is one, b says: I too /b heard b as he /b did. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary., strong GEMARA: /strong The Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : A blasphemer is not liable b unless he blesses, /b a euphemism for curses, the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, e.g., by saying: Let such and such a name strike such and such a name.,The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter /b derived? b Shmuel says: /b It is derived from that b which the verse states: “And he who blasphemes [ i venokev /i ] the name /b of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, b when he blasphemes [ i benokvo /i ] the name, he shall be put to death” /b (Leviticus 24:16). It is derived from the repetition of the phrase “blasphemes the name” that the reference is to cursing the name of God with the name of God.,The Gemara asks: b From where /b is it derived b that this /b word b i nokev /i is a term for blessing, /b i.e., cursing? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the statement of Balaam, who was sent by Balak to curse the Jewish people: b “How shall I curse [ i ekkov /i ] whom God has not cursed?” /b (Numbers 23:8). b And /b the b prohibition /b against cursing God is derived b from here: “You shall not curse God” /b (Exodus 22:27).,The Gemara asks: b But say /b that perhaps the meaning of i nokev /i b is /b not cursing, but rather b making a hole, as it is written: “And made a hole [ i vayyikkov /i ] in its lid” /b (II Kings 12:10). According to this, the word i nokev /i is referring to one who makes a hole and damages the written name of God. b And /b the b prohibition /b against doing so is derived b from here: “And you shall destroy their name /b out of that place. b You shall not do so to the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).,The Gemara answers: It is derived from the repetition of i nokev /i that for one to be liable, it is b necessary /b that his transgression involve the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, b and /b such a transgression is b not /b possible if the reference is to making a hole.,The Gemara challenges: b But say that /b such a transgression is possible, as one can b place two /b written b names /b of God, b one on top of the other, and tear /b through b them /b at once. The Gemara explains: b That /b would be defined as b making a hole and again making a hole, /b not making a hole in one name by means of another name. The Gemara asks: b But say that /b one can b etch /b the b name /b of God b on the point of a knife and cut /b through another name b with it. /b The Gemara answers: In b that /b case, b it is the point of the knife that is cutting, /b not the name of God.,The Gemara asks: b Say /b that i nokev /i means the b utterance of the /b ineffable b name of /b God. b As it is written: “And Moses and Aaron took these men that are pointed out [ i nikkevu /i ] by name” /b (Numbers 1:17). b And /b the b prohibition /b to do so is derived b from here: “You shall fear the Lord, your God” /b (Deuteronomy 6:13).,The Gemara answers: b One /b answer is b that /b for one to be liable, it is b necessary /b that his transgression involve the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, b and /b such a transgression is b not /b possible if the reference is to uttering the ineffable name of God. b Furthermore, /b the prohibition derived from the verse “You shall fear the Lord, your God” b is a prohibition /b stated as b a positive mitzva, and a prohibition /b stated as b a positive mitzva is not considered a prohibition. /b ,The Gemara presents an alternative proof that i nokev /i is referring to cursing: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the verse states: “And /b the son of the Israelite woman b blasphemed [ i vayyikkov /i ] /b the name b and cursed” /b (Leviticus 24:11). b That is to say that /b the meaning of b i nokev /i is /b to b curse. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b this verse does not prove that the meaning of i nokev /i is to curse; rather, it indicates that one is not liable to be executed b unless he does both, /b i.e., both i nokev /i and cursing God? The Gemara answers: This shall b not enter your mind, as it is written: “Bring forth the one who cursed… /b and stone him” (Leviticus 24:14), b and it is not written: Bring forth the i nokev /i and one who cursed. Conclude from it /b that b it is one /b act and not two.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), that the verse could have stated: b One [ i ish /i ] /b who curses his God. b Why /b must b the verse state: “Anyone [ i ish ish /i ]”? /b It is b to include the gentiles, who are prohibited from blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b the name /b of God, just b like Jews /b are. b And they are executed /b for this transgression b by the sword alone, as all death /b penalties b stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are by the sword alone. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But is this /b i halakha /i b derived from here? /b Rather, b it is derived from there: /b “And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16), as is stated in a i baraita /i that will soon be quoted at length: b “The Lord,” this /b is referring to b the blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b of the name /b of God. This verse concerns Adam, the first man, and is therefore binding on all of humanity., b Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: /b The verse “anyone who curses his God” b is necessary only to include /b gentiles who curse God using b the appellations /b for the name of God, rather than mentioning the ineffable name, b and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Meir. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Why /b must b the verse state: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin”? But isn’t it already stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death” /b (Leviticus 24:16)? Rather, b since it is stated: “And he who blasphemes the name /b of the Lord b shall be put to death,” /b one b might /b have thought that one b will be liable only for /b cursing b the ineffable name /b of God. b From where /b is it derived that the verse b includes /b one who curses b any of the appellations /b as well? b The verse states: “Anyone who curses his God,” /b to indicate that one is liable to be executed b in any case. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b And the Rabbis say: For /b cursing b the ineffable name /b of God, one is punished b by death, and for /b cursing b the appellations, /b one is liable to receive lashes b for /b violating b a prohibition. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Rabbis, gentiles are not liable for cursing appellations for the name of God, b disagrees with /b the opinion of b Rav Meyasha. As Rav Meyasha says: A descendant of Noah who blessed God by /b one of the b appellations is liable /b to be executed even b according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b , b What is the reason? /b It is b because the verse states: “The convert as well as the homeborn, /b when he blasphemes the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16), from which it is derived that b it is /b only in the case of b a convert or a homeborn /b Jew b that we require /b the condition: b “When he blasphemes the name,” /b i.e., he is liable to be executed only if he curses the ineffable name. b But a gentile /b is liable to be executed b even due to /b merely cursing b an appellation. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what does Rabbi Meir do with this /b part of the verse: b “The convert as well as the homeborn”? /b What does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir derives that b a convert or a homeborn /b Jew is liable to be executed b by stoning /b for this transgression, b but a gentile /b is executed b by the sword. /b This exclusion is necessary as otherwise it might b enter your mind to say /b that b since /b gentiles b are included /b in the i halakhot /i of this verse, b they are included /b in all the i halakhot /i of blasphemy. Therefore the verse b teaches us /b that they are not stoned.,The Gemara asks: b And what does Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa do with this /b part of the verse: b “The convert as well as the homeborn,” according to /b the opinion b of the Rabbis, /b since Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa holds that the Rabbis do not deem either a Jew or a gentile liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: He derives that b it is /b specifically with regard to b a convert and a homeborn /b Jew b that we require /b the condition that he curse b a name /b of God b by a name /b of God; b but /b with regard to b a gentile, we do not require /b that he curse b a name /b of God b by a name /b of God in order for him to be liable.,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the inclusive term b “anyone /b who curses his God,” according to the opinions that do not derive from it that a gentile is liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: No i halakha /i is derived from it; it is not a superfluous term, as b the Torah spoke in the language of people. /b ,§ Since the i halakhot /i of the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Noahide mitzvot is presented. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The descendants of Noah, /b i.e., all of humanity, b were commanded /b to observe b seven mitzvot: /b The mitzva of establishing courts of b judgment; and /b the prohibition against b blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b the name /b of God; and the prohibition of b idol worship; /b and the prohibition against b forbidden sexual relations; and /b the prohibition of b bloodshed; and /b the prohibition of b robbery; and /b the prohibition against eating b a limb from a living /b animal. |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 21b. או צבור וצבור אבל יחיד לגבי צבור כמאן דלא צלי דמי קמ"ל ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דלא אתחיל בה אבל התם דאתחיל בה אימא לא צריכא,אמר רב הונא הנכנס לבית הכנסת ומצא צבור שמתפללין אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"ץ למודים יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל ריב"ל אמר אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"צ לקדושה יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר יחיד אומר קדושה ומר סבר אין יחיד אומר קדושה,וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מנין שאין היחיד אומר קדושה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, לב) ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל כל דבר שבקדושה לא יהא פחות מעשרה,מאי משמע דתני רבנאי אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא אתיא תוך תוך כתיב הכא ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל וכתיב התם (במדבר טז, כא) הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת מה להלן עשרה אף כאן עשרה,ודכולי עלמא מיהת מפסק לא פסיק,איבעיא להו מהו להפסיק ליהא שמו הגדול מבורך כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יהודה ור"ש תלמידי דרבי יוחנן אמרי לכל אין מפסיקין חוץ מן יהא שמו הגדול מבורך שאפילו עוסק במעשה מרכבה פוסק ולית הלכתא כותיה:,ר' יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם: למימרא דקסבר רבי יהודה בעל קרי מותר בדברי תורה והאמר ריב"ל מנין לבעל קרי שאסור בדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת וגו' מה להלן בעלי קריין אסורין אף כאן בעלי קריין אסורין,וכי תימא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכים והאמר רב יוסף אפילו מאן דלא דריש סמוכים בכל התורה במשנה תורה דריש דהא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכין בכל התורה כולה ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובכל התורה כולה מנא לן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו לומר מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה נמי בסקילה,אמר ליה ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא לזה לסקילה אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל כל המכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להן ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנא לן דדריש דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו,ר' יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ובמפותת אביו ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מאי טעמא דר' יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה (את) כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסת אביו כתיב דסמיך ליה ונתן האיש השוכב עמה וגו',אמרי אין במשנה תורה דריש והני סמוכין מבעי ליה לאידך דריב"ל דאמר ריב"ל כל המלמד לבנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו קבלה מהר חורב שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב,תנן זב שראה קרי ונדה שפלטה שכבת זרע המשמשת וראתה דם צריכין טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר,עד כאן לא פטר רבי יהודה אלא בזב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב,וכי תימא ה"ה דאפילו בעל קרי גרידא נמי פטר רבי יהודה והאי דקא מפלגי בזב שראה קרי להודיעך כחן דרבנן אימא סיפא המשמשת וראתה דם צריכה טבילה,למאן קתני לה אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא ומה זב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא מחייבי רבנן המשמשת וראתה דם דמעיקרא בת טבילה היא לא כל שכן אלא לאו ר' יהודה היא ודוקא קתני לה | 21b. b or /b a case where he prayed as part of b a congregation and /b began to repeat it as part of b a congregation; however, /b in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that b an individual vis-à-vis the congregation is /b considered b as one who has not prayed. /b Therefore, b he taught us /b that in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. b And, /b on the other hand, b if he had taught us here /b only with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is b because he did not /b yet b begin /b to recite the prayer, b but there, in the case where he /b already b began /b to recite the prayer, b say /b that this is b not /b the case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are b necessary. /b , b Rav Huna said: One who /b did not yet pray and b enters a synagogue and found that the congregation is /b in the midst of b reciting /b the i Amida /i b prayer, if he is able to begin and complete /b his own prayer b before the prayer leader reaches /b the blessing of b thanksgiving [ i modim /i ], he should /b begin to b pray, and, if not, he should not /b begin to b pray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and complete /b his prayer b before the prayer leader reaches sanctification [ i kedusha /i ], then he should /b begin to b pray. If not, then he should not /b begin to b pray. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The basis for their dispute is that one b Sage, /b Rav Huna, b holds: An individual /b is permitted to b recite i kedusha /i /b on his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; b and /b the other b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, b holds /b that b an individual may not recite i kedusha /i /b alone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches i kedusha /i ., b Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated, /b in accordance with the second opinion: b From where is it derived that an individual may not recite i kedusha /i /b alone? b As it is stated: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel” /b (Leviticus 22:32), b any expression of sanctity may not be /b recited in a quorum of b fewer than ten /b men.,The Gemara asks: b How is this inferred /b from that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a i baraita /i , b which was taught by Rabbenai, the brother /b of b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is inferred /b by means of a verbal analogy [ i gezera shava /i ] between the words b among, among. Here it is written: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,” and there, /b regarding Korah’s congregation, b it is written “Separate yourselves from among this congregation” /b (Numbers 16:21). b Just as there /b among connotes b ten, so too here, /b among connotes b ten. /b The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten., b And, in any case, everyone /b agrees that b one may not interrupt /b his prayer in order to respond to i kedusha /i .,However, b a dilemma was raised /b before the Sages of the yeshiva: b What is /b the ruling? Is one permitted b to interrupt /b his prayer in order b to /b recite: b “May His great name be blessed” /b in i kaddish /i ? b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yoḥa, said: One may not interrupt /b his prayer b for anything, except for: “May His great name be blessed,” as even /b if one was b engaged in /b the exalted study of the b Act of the /b Divine b Chariot /b [ b i Ma’aseh Merkava /i ] /b (see Ezekiel 1) b he stops /b to recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: b The i halakha /i is not in accordance with his /b opinion.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda says /b with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; b he recites a blessing beforehand and afterward /b in both the case of i Shema /i and in the case of food. The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted /b to engage b in matters of Torah? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From where /b in the Torah is it derived b that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from /b engaging b in matters of Torah? As it is stated: /b “Just take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, b and you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. b And, juxtaposed to it, /b is the verse: b “The day that you stood /b before the Lord your God at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that b just as below, /b at the revelation at Mount Sinai, b those who experienced a seminal emission were prohibited /b and were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, b so too here, /b throughout the generations, b those who experience a seminal emission are prohibited /b from engaging in Torah study., b And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses, b didn’t Rav Yosef /b already say: b Even one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses throughout b the entire Torah, /b nevertheless, b derives /b them b in Deuteronomy [ i Mishne Torah /i ], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses b throughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in i Mishne Torah /i . /b , b And from where do we derive /b that Rabbi Yehuda b does not derive homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses b throughout the entire Torah? As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the punishment of a sorceress, b ben Azzai says: It is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” /b (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, b and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death” /b (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that /b was b to say: Just as one who lies with a beast /b is executed b by stoning /b (see Leviticus 20), b so too a sorceress /b is executed b by stoning. /b ,With regard to this proof b Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And does /b the fact b that /b the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that warrant taking /b this person b out to be stoned? /b Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis b Rather, /b the source is: b Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out /b from the rest, in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to b draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard /b are executed b by stoning, so too is a sorceress /b executed b by stoning. /b , b And from where do we derive /b that Rabbi Yehuda b derives homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses b in i Mishne Torah /i ? As it was taught /b in another i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer said that a man /b may b wed /b a woman b raped by his father and /b one b seduced by his father; /b a woman b raped by his son and /b one b seduced by his son. /b Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them., b And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits /b him from marrying b a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt” /b (Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, “and shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” implies that: b A skirt that has been seen by his father, /b i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, b may not be uncovered /b by his son, i.e., his son may not marry her., b And from where /b do we know b that /b the verse b is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? As /b the previous section, b juxtaposed to it, /b deals with the laws of rape: b “And the man who lay with her must give /b her father fifty shekels…because he has violated her” (Deuteronomy 22:29).,At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? b They replied: Indeed, in i Mishne Torah /i /b Rabbi Yehuda b does derive homiletic interpretations /b from the juxtaposition of verses, b but /b he requires b these juxtaposed verses /b in order b to /b derive b another /b statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to him /b credit b as if he received /b the Torah b from Mount Horeb. As it is stated: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9) b after which it is written: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.” /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah., b We learned /b in a mishna that b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercourse /b with her husband b and she saw /b menstrual b blood, /b all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless b require ritual immersion /b in order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. b And Rabbi Yehuda exempts /b them from immersion.,However, b Rabbi Yehuda only exempted /b from immersion in the case b of a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, /b as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the i zav /i . b But, /b in the case of b one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda b requires /b immersion before he may engage in Torah matters., b And if you say: The same is true even /b in the case of b one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b that b Rabbi Yehuda also exempts /b him from immersion, b and the fact that they disagree /b in the case of b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission /b and not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone b is in order to convey the far-reaching /b nature of the opinion b of the Rabbis, /b who require immersion even in this case. If so, b say the last case /b of that same mishna: b A woman who was engaged in intercourse and she saw /b menstrual b blood requires immersion. /b ,The Gemara seeks to clarify: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b was this /b case in the mishna b taught? If you say /b that it is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, that is obvious; if /b in the case of b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, /b when he experienced the seminal emission, b the Rabbis /b nevertheless b require immersion, all the more so /b wouldn’t they require immersion for b a woman who engaged in intercourse and /b only then b saw blood, /b who b was fit to immerse herself from the outset, /b when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? b Rather, isn’t this Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion, b and /b this case b was taught specifically /b in order to teach |
|
| 23. John Chrysostom, De Virginitate, 1.2 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 177 |
| 24. Jerome, Commentaria In Matthaeum (Commentaria In Evangelium S. Matthaei), 1.18 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 177 |
| 25. Justinian, Digest, 23.2.26, 48.5.5, 48.9.9, 48.19.28 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181 |
| 26. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Theodosian Code, 3.16.1 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 163 |
| 27. Jesubarnun, Code, 5, 79 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 177 |
| 28. Jesubocht, Code, 3.4 Tagged with subjects: •adultery, punishment Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 177 |
| 29. Demosthenes, Schol., 59.85-59.86 Tagged with subjects: •women, punishment for adultery Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015) 467 |
| 30. Severus of Minorca, Letters, 45, 38 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 177 |
