Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

   Search:  
validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       



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.





94 results for "authority"
1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 25.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 58, 60
25.14. "סוֹד יְהוָה לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם׃", 25.14. "The counsel of the LORD is with them that fear Him; And His covet, to make them know it.",
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 21.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 42, 43
21.18. "בְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִים כָּרוּהָ נְדִיבֵי הָעָם בִּמְחֹקֵק בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָם וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה׃", 21.18. "The well, which the princes digged, Which the nobles of the people delved, With the sceptre, and with their staves. And from the wilderness to Mattanah;",
3. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, a b c d\n0 2.10 2.10 2 10\n1 "2.4" "2.4" "2 4"\n2 "3.1" "3.1" "3 1" (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 66
2.10. "For she did not know that it was I that gave her The corn, and the wine, and the oil, And multiplied unto her silver and gold, Which they used for Baal.",
4. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, a b c d\n0 49.33 49.33 49 33 \n1 35.29 35.29 35 29 \n2 25.8 25.8 25 8 \n3 49 49 49 None\n4 46 46 46 None\n5 47 47 47 None\n6 48 48 48 None\n7 3 3 3 None\n8 8 8 8 None\n9 4 4 4 None\n10 5 5 5 None\n11 2 2 2 None\n12 9 9 9 None\n13 . . \n14 50 50 50 None\n15 6 6 6 None\n16 - None\n17 0 0 0 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 31
49.33. "וַיְכַל יַעֲקֹב לְצַוֺּת אֶת־בָּנָיו וַיֶּאֱסֹף רַגְלָיו אֶל־הַמִּטָּה וַיִּגְוַע וַיֵּאָסֶף אֶל־עַמָּיו׃", 49.33. "And when Jacob made an end of charging his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and expired, and was gathered unto his people.",
5. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, a b c d\n0 32 32 32 None\n1 33 33 33 None\n2 34 34 34 None\n3 4 4 4 None\n4 3 3 3 None\n5 21.1 21.1 21 1 \n6 20 20 20 None\n7 19 19 19 None\n8 1 1 1 None\n9 . . \n10 0 0 0 None\n11 2 2 2 None\n12 9 9 9 None\n13 - None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 18
6. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 20.10, 26.46, 29.28, 30.10-30.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 70; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 41, 45, 67
26.46. "אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְהַתּוֹרֹת אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְהוָה בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהַר סִינַי בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה׃", 20.10. "And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.", 26.46. "These are the statutes and ordices and laws, which the LORD made between Him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.",
7. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.5, 13.1-13.3, 17.8, 17.10, 18.20-18.22, 22.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 71; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 46, 49, 51, 54, 67
1.5. "בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב הוֹאִיל מֹשֶׁה בֵּאֵר אֶת־הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת לֵאמֹר׃", 13.1. "אֵת כָּל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ׃", 13.1. "כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה־בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל־הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה׃", 13.2. "כִּי־יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת׃", 13.3. "וּבָא הָאוֹת וְהַמּוֹפֵת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יְדַעְתָּם וְנָעָבְדֵם׃", 17.8. "כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין־דָּם לְדָם בֵּין־דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ׃", 18.21. "וְכִי תֹאמַר בִּלְבָבֶךָ אֵיכָה נֵדַע אֶת־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־דִבְּרוֹ יְהוָה׃", 18.22. "אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר הַנָּבִיא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה הַדָּבָר וְלֹא יָבוֹא הוּא הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־דִבְּרוֹ יְהוָה בְּזָדוֹן דִּבְּרוֹ הַנָּבִיא לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ׃", 22.22. "כִּי־יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב עִם־אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת־בַּעַל וּמֵתוּ גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם־הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃", 1.5. "beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, took Moses upon him to expound this law, saying:", 13.1. "All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.", 13.2. "If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams—and he give thee a sign or a wonder,", 13.3. "and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee—saying: ‘Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them’;", 17.8. "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose.", 17.10. "And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee.", 18.20. "But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’", 18.21. "And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?’", 18.22. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.", 22.22. "If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.",
8. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, a b c d\n0 28.15 28.15 28 15 \n1 28.6 28.6 28 6 \n2 28 28 28 None\n3 30.1 30.1 30 1 \n4 0 0 0 None\n5 3 3 3 None\n6 1 1 1 None\n7 . . (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 50
28.15. "וַיֹּאמֶר יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא אֶל־חֲנַנְיָה הַנָּבִיא שְׁמַע־נָא חֲנַנְיָה לֹא־שְׁלָחֲךָ יְהוָה וְאַתָּה הִבְטַחְתָּ אֶת־הָעָם הַזֶּה עַל־שָׁקֶר׃", 28.15. "Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Haiah the prophet: ‘Hear now, Haiah; the LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie.",
9. Hebrew Bible, 2 Kings, 2.1-2.4 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 76
2.1. "וַיֹּאמֶר הִקְשִׁיתָ לִשְׁאוֹל אִם־תִּרְאֶה אֹתִי לֻקָּח מֵאִתָּךְ יְהִי־לְךָ כֵן וְאִם־אַיִן לֹא יִהְיֶה׃", 2.1. "וַיְהִי בְּהַעֲלוֹת יְהוָה אֶת־אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּסְעָרָה הַשָּׁמָיִם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֵלִיָּהוּ וֶאֱלִישָׁע מִן־הַגִּלְגָּל׃", 2.2. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶל־אֱלִישָׁע שֵׁב־נָא פֹה כִּי יְהוָה שְׁלָחַנִי עַד־בֵּית־אֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלִישָׁע חַי־יְהוָה וְחֵי־נַפְשְׁךָ אִם־אֶעֶזְבֶךָּ וַיֵּרְדוּ בֵּית־אֵל׃", 2.2. "וַיֹּאמֶר קְחוּ־לִי צְלֹחִית חֲדָשָׁה וְשִׂימוּ שָׁם מֶלַח וַיִּקְחוּ אֵלָיו׃", 2.3. "וַיֵּצְאוּ בְנֵי־הַנְּבִיאִים אֲשֶׁר־בֵּית־אֵל אֶל־אֱלִישָׁע וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו הֲיָדַעְתָּ כִּי הַיּוֹם יְהוָה לֹקֵחַ אֶת־אֲדֹנֶיךָ מֵעַל רֹאשֶׁךָ וַיֹּאמֶר גַּם־אֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי הֶחֱשׁוּ׃", 2.4. "וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ אֱלִישָׁע שֵׁב־נָא פֹה כִּי יְהוָה שְׁלָחַנִי יְרִיחוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר חַי־יְהוָה וְחֵי־נַפְשְׁךָ אִם־אֶעֶזְבֶךָּ וַיָּבֹאוּ יְרִיחוֹ׃", 2.1. "And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah by a whirlwind into heaven, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.", 2.2. "And Elijah said unto Elisha: ‘Tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me as far as Beth-el.’ And Elisha said: ‘As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee.’ So they went down to Beth-el.—", 2.3. "And the sons of the prophets that were at Beth-el came forth to Elisha, and said unto him: ‘Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to-day?’ And he said: ‘Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.’—", 2.4. "And Elijah said unto him: ‘Elisha, tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me to Jericho.’ And he said: ‘As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee.’ So they came to Jericho.—",
10. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 10.1-10.4, 29.13, 40.3, 40.5, 54.16 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 66; Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 18; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 42, 43, 44, 45
10.1. "כַּאֲשֶׁר מָצְאָה יָדִי לְמַמְלְכֹת הָאֱלִיל וּפְסִילֵיהֶם מִירוּשָׁלִַם וּמִשֹּׁמְרוֹן׃", 10.1. "הוֹי הַחֹקְקִים חִקְקֵי־אָוֶן וּמְכַתְּבִים עָמָל כִּתֵּבוּ׃", 10.2. "לְהַטּוֹת מִדִּין דַּלִּים וְלִגְזֹל מִשְׁפַּט עֲנִיֵּי עַמִּי לִהְיוֹת אַלְמָנוֹת שְׁלָלָם וְאֶת־יְתוֹמִים יָבֹזּוּ׃", 10.2. "וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֹא־יוֹסִיף עוֹד שְׁאָר יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפְלֵיטַת בֵּית־יַעֲקֹב לְהִשָּׁעֵן עַל־מַכֵּהוּ וְנִשְׁעַן עַל־יְהוָה קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל בֶּאֱמֶת׃", 10.3. "וּמַה־תַּעֲשׂוּ לְיוֹם פְּקֻדָּה וּלְשׁוֹאָה מִמֶּרְחָק תָּבוֹא עַל־מִי תָּנוּסוּ לְעֶזְרָה וְאָנָה תַעַזְבוּ כְּבוֹדְכֶם׃", 10.3. "צַהֲלִי קוֹלֵךְ בַּת־גַּלִּים הַקְשִׁיבִי לַיְשָׁה עֲנִיָּה עֲנָתוֹת׃", 10.4. "בִּלְתִּי כָרַע תַּחַת אַסִּיר וְתַחַת הֲרוּגִים יִפֹּלוּ בְּכָל־זֹאת לֹא־שָׁב אַפּוֹ וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה׃", 29.13. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי וְלִבּוֹ רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי וַתְּהִי יִרְאָתָם אֹתִי מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה׃", 40.3. "קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר פַּנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה יַשְּׁרוּ בָּעֲרָבָה מְסִלָּה לֵאלֹהֵינוּ׃", 40.3. "וְיִעֲפוּ נְעָרִים וְיִגָעוּ וּבַחוּרִים כָּשׁוֹל יִכָּשֵׁלוּ׃", 40.5. "וְנִגְלָה כְּבוֹד יְהוָה וְרָאוּ כָל־בָּשָׂר יַחְדָּו כִּי פִּי יְהוָה דִּבֵּר׃", 54.16. "הן [הִנֵּה] אָנֹכִי בָּרָאתִי חָרָשׁ נֹפֵחַ בְּאֵשׁ פֶּחָם וּמוֹצִיא כְלִי לְמַעֲשֵׂהוּ וְאָנֹכִי בָּרָאתִי מַשְׁחִית לְחַבֵּל׃", 10.1. "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, And to the writers that write iniquity;", 10.2. "To turn aside the needy from judgment, And to take away the right of the poor of My people, That widows may be their spoil, And that they may make the fatherless their prey!", 10.3. "And what will ye do in the day of visitation, And in the ruin which shall come from far? To whom will ye flee for help? And where will ye leave your glory?", 10.4. "They can do nought except crouch under the captives, And fall under the slain. For all this His anger is not turned away, But His hand is stretched out still.", 29.13. "And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me, But have removed their heart far from Me, And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;", 40.3. "Hark! one calleth: ‘Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the LORD, make plain in the desert a highway for our God.", 40.5. "And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.’", 54.16. "Behold, I have created the smith That bloweth the fire of coals, And bringeth forth a weapon for his work; And I have created the waster to destroy.",
11. Sappho, Fragments, None (7th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 613
12. Sappho, Fragments, None (7th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 613
13. Pindar, Pythian Odes, 4.299 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •pindar, divine model of authority •authority, divine Found in books: Kingsley Monti and Rood (2022), The Authoritative Historian: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Historiography, 181
14. Pindar, Nemean Odes, 9.7 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •pindar, divine model of authority •authority, divine Found in books: Kingsley Monti and Rood (2022), The Authoritative Historian: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Historiography, 181
15. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 2.14, 7.10 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 47, 61
2.14. "הֶחָכָם עֵינָיו בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וְהַכְּסִיל בַּחֹשֶׁךְ הוֹלֵךְ וְיָדַעְתִּי גַם־אָנִי שֶׁמִּקְרֶה אֶחָד יִקְרֶה אֶת־כֻּלָּם׃", 2.14. "The wise man, his eyes are in his head; But the fool walketh in darkness. And I also perceived that one event happeneth to them all.", 7.10. "Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ for it is not out of wisdom that thou inquirest concerning this.",
16. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 9.25-9.26 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 66, 70
9.25. "וַיִּלְכְּדוּ עָרִים בְּצֻרוֹת וַאֲדָמָה שְׁמֵנָה וַיִּירְשׁוּ בָּתִּים מְלֵאִים־כָּל־טוּב בֹּרוֹת חֲצוּבִים כְּרָמִים וְזֵיתִים וְעֵץ מַאֲכָל לָרֹב וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׂבְּעוּ וַיַּשְׁמִינוּ וַיִּתְעַדְּנוּ בְּטוּבְךָ הַגָּדוֹל׃", 9.26. "וַיַּמְרוּ וַיִּמְרְדוּ בָּךְ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֶת־תּוֹרָתְךָ אַחֲרֵי גַוָּם וְאֶת־נְבִיאֶיךָ הָרָגוּ אֲשֶׁר־הֵעִידוּ בָם לַהֲשִׁיבָם אֵלֶיךָ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ נֶאָצוֹת גְּדוֹלֹת׃", 9.25. "And they took fortified cities, and a fat land, and possessed houses full of all good things, cisterns hewn out, vineyards, and oliveyards, and fruit-trees in abundance; so they did eat, and were filled, and became fat, and luxuriated in Thy great goodness.", 9.26. "Nevertheless they were disobedient, and rebelled against Thee, and cast Thy law behind their back, and slew Thy prophets that did forewarn them to turn them back unto Thee, and they wrought great provocations.",
17. Herodotus, Histories, 5.80-5.81, 7.6, 7.142-7.143, 9.33-9.35, 9.92-9.95 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 298, 299, 302, 310
5.80. They reasoned in this way, till at last one understood, and said: “I think that I perceive what the oracle is trying to tell us. Thebe and Aegina, it is said, were daughters of Asopus and sisters. The god's answer is, I think, that we should ask the Aeginetans to be our avengers.” ,Seeing that there seemed to be no better opinion before them than this, they sent straightaway to entreat the Aeginetans and invite their aid, since this was the oracle's bidding, and the Aeginetans were their nearest. These replied to their demand that they were sending the Sons of Aeacus in aid. 5.81. The Thebans took the field on the strength of their alliance with that family but were soundly beaten by the Athenians. Thereupon they sent a second message to Aegina, giving back the sons of Aeacus and asking for some men instead. ,The Aeginetans, who were enjoying great prosperity and remembered their old feud with Athens, accordingly made war on the Athenians at the entreaty of the Thebans without sending a herald. ,While the Athenians were busy with the Boeotians, they descended on Attica in ships of war, and ravaged Phaleron and many other seaboard townships. By so doing they dealt the Athenians a very shrewd blow. 7.6. He said this because he desired adventures and wanted to be governor of Hellas. Finally he worked on Xerxes and persuaded him to do this, and other things happened that helped him to persuade Xerxes. ,Messengers came from Thessaly from the Aleuadae (who were princes of Thessaly) and invited the king into Hellas with all earnestness; the Pisistratidae who had come up to Susa used the same pleas as the Aleuadae, offering Xerxes even more than they did. ,They had come up to Sardis with Onomacritus, an Athenian diviner who had set in order the oracles of Musaeus. They had reconciled their previous hostility with him; Onomacritus had been banished from Athens by Pisistratus' son Hipparchus, when he was caught by Lasus of Hermione in the act of interpolating into the writings of Musaeus an oracle showing that the islands off Lemnos would disappear into the sea. ,Because of this Hipparchus banished him, though they had previously been close friends. Now he had arrived at Susa with the Pisistratidae, and whenever he came into the king's presence they used lofty words concerning him and he recited from his oracles; all that portended disaster to the Persian he left unspoken, choosing and reciting such prophecies as were most favorable, telling how the Hellespont must be bridged by a man of Persia and describing the expedition. ,So he brought his oracles to bear, while the Pisistratidae and Aleuadae gave their opinions. 7.142. This answer seemed to be and really was more merciful than the first, and the envoys, writing it down, departed for Athens. When the messengers had left Delphi and laid the oracle before the people, there was much inquiry concerning its meaning, and among the many opinions which were uttered, two contrary ones were especially worthy of note. Some of the elder men said that the gods answer signified that the acropolis should be saved, for in old time the acropolis of Athens had been fenced by a thorn hedge, ,which, by their interpretation, was the wooden wall. But others supposed that the god was referring to their ships, and they were for doing nothing but equipping these. Those who believed their ships to be the wooden wall were disabled by the two last verses of the oracle: quote type="oracle" l met="dact" Divine Salamis, you will bring death to women's sons /l l When the corn is scattered, or the harvest gathered in. /l /quote ,These verses confounded the opinion of those who said that their ships were the wooden wall, for the readers of oracles took the verses to mean that they should offer battle by sea near Salamis and be there overthrown. 7.143. Now there was a certain Athenian, by name and title Themistocles son of Neocles, who had lately risen to be among their chief men. He claimed that the readers of oracles had incorrectly interpreted the whole of the oracle and reasoned that if the verse really pertained to the Athenians, it would have been formulated in less mild language, calling Salamis “cruel” rather than “divine ” seeing that its inhabitants were to perish. ,Correctly understood, the gods' oracle was spoken not of the Athenians but of their enemies, and his advice was that they should believe their ships to be the wooden wall and so make ready to fight by sea. ,When Themistocles put forward this interpretation, the Athenians judged him to be a better counsellor than the readers of oracles, who would have had them prepare for no sea fight, and, in short, offer no resistance at all, but leave Attica and settle in some other country. 9.33. On the second day after they had all been arrayed according to their nations and their battalions, both armies offered sacrifice. It was Tisamenus who sacrificed for the Greeks, for he was with their army as a diviner; he was an Elean by birth, a Clytiad of the Iamid clan, and the Lacedaemonians gave him the freedom of their city. ,This they did, for when Tisamenus was inquiring of the oracle at Delphi concerning offspring, the priestess prophesied to him that he should win five great victories. Not understanding that oracle, he engaged in bodily exercise, thinking that he would then be able to win in similar sports. When he had trained himself for the Five Contests, he came within one wrestling bout of winning the Olympic prize, in a match with Hieronymus of Andros. ,The Lacedaemonians, however, perceived that the oracle given to Tisamenus spoke of the lists not of sport but of war, and they attempted to bribe Tisamenus to be a leader in their wars jointly with their kings of Heracles' line. ,When he saw that the Spartans set great store by his friendship, he set his price higher, and made it known to them that he would do what they wanted only in exchange for the gift of full citizenship and all of the citizen's rights. ,Hearing that, the Spartans at first were angry and completely abandoned their request; but when the dreadful menace of this Persian host hung over them, they consented and granted his demand. When he saw their purpose changed, he said that he would not be content with that alone; his brother Hegias too must be made a Spartan on the same terms as himself. 9.34. By so saying he imitated Melampus, in so far as one may compare demands for kingship with those for citizenship. For when the women of Argos had gone mad, and the Argives wanted him to come from Pylos and heal them of that madness, Melampus demanded half of their kingship for his wages. ,This the Argives would not put up with and departed. When, however, the madness spread among their women, they promised what Melampus demanded and were ready to give it to him. Thereupon, seeing their purpose changed, he demanded yet more and said that he would not do their will except if they gave a third of their kingship to his brother Bias; now driven into dire straits, the Argives consented to that also. 9.35. The Spartans too were so eagerly desirous of winning Tisamenus that they granted everything that he demanded. When they had granted him this also, Tisamenus of Elis, now a Spartan, engaged in divination for them and aided them to win five very great victories. No one on earth save Tisamenus and his brother ever became citizens of Sparta. ,Now the five victories were these: one, the first, this victory at Plataea; next, that which was won at Tegea over the Tegeans and Argives; after that, over all the Arcadians save the Mantineans at Dipaea; next, over the Messenians at Ithome; lastly, the victory at Tanagra over the Athenians and Argives, which was the last won of the five victories. 9.92. He said this and added deed to word. For straightway the Samians bound themselves by pledge and oath to alliance with the Greeks. ,This done, the rest sailed away, but Leutychides bade Hegesistratus to sail with the Greeks because of the good omen of his name. The Greeks waited through that day, and on the next they sought and received favorable augury; their diviner was Deiphonus son of Evenius, a man of that Apollonia which is in the Ionian gulf. This man's father Evenius had once fared as I will now relate. 9.93. There is at Apollonia a certain flock sacred to the Sun, which in the daytime is pastured beside the river Chon, which flows from the mountain called Lacmon through the lands of Apollonia and empties into the sea by the harbor of Oricum. By night, those townsmen who are most notable for wealth or lineage are chosen to watch it, each man serving for a year, for the people of Apollonia set great store by this flock, being so taught by a certain oracle. It is kept in a cave far distant from the town. ,Now at the time of which I speak, Evenius was the chosen watchman. But one night he fell asleep, and wolves, coming past his guard into the cave, killed about sixty of the flock. When Evenius was aware of it, he held his peace and told no man, intending to restore what was lost by buying others. ,This matter was not, however, hidden from the people of Apollonia, and when it came to their knowledge they brought him to judgment and condemned him to lose his eyesight for sleeping at his watch. So they blinded Evenius, but from the day of their so doing their flocks bore no offspring, nor did their land yield fruit as before. ,Furthermore, a declaration was given to them at Dodona and Delphi, when they inquired of the prophets what might be the cause of their present ill: the gods told them by their prophets that they had done unjustly in blinding Evenius, the guardian of the sacred flock, “for we ourselves” (they said) “sent those wolves, and we will not cease from avenging him until you make him such restitution for what you did as he himself chooses and approves; when that is fully done, we ourselves will give Evenius such a gift as will make many men consider him happy.” 9.94. This was the oracle given to the people of Apollonia. They kept it secret and charged certain of their townsmen to carry the business through; they acted as I will now show. Coming and sitting down by Evenius at the place where he sat, they spoke of other matters, till at last they fell to commiserating his misfortune. Guiding the conversation in this way, they asked him what compensation he would choose, if the people of Apollonia should promise to requite him for what they had done. ,He, knowing nothing of the oracle, said he would choose for a gift the lands of certain named townsmen whom he thought to have the two fairest estates in Apollonia, and a house besides which he knew to be the fairest in the town; let him (he said) have possession of these, and he would lay aside his anger, and be satisfied with that by way of restitution. ,So he said this, and those who were sitting beside him said in reply: “Evenius, the people of Apollonia hereby make you that restitution for the loss of your sight, obeying the oracle given to them.” At that he was very angry, for he learned through this the whole story and saw that they had cheated him. They did, however, buy from the possessors and give him what he had chosen, and from that day he had a natural gift of divination, through which he won fame. 9.95. Deiphonus, the son of this Evenius, had been brought by the Corinthians, and was the army's prophet. But I have heard it said before now, that Deiphonus was not the son of Evenius, but made a wrongful use of that name and worked for wages up and down Hellas.
18. Plato, Republic, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 349
19. Thucydides, The History of The Peloponnesian War, 2.2.1, 4.133.2-4.133.3, 8.1.1 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 297, 299
2.2.1. τέσσαρα μὲν γὰρ καὶ δέκα ἔτη ἐνέμειναν αἱ τριακοντούτεις σπονδαὶ αἳ ἐγένοντο μετ’ Εὐβοίας ἅλωσιν: τῷ δὲ πέμπτῳ καὶ δεκάτῳ ἔτει, ἐπὶ Χρυσίδος ἐν Ἄργει τότε πεντήκοντα δυοῖν δέοντα ἔτη ἱερωμένης καὶ Αἰνησίου ἐφόρου ἐν Σπάρτῃ καὶ Πυθοδώρου ἔτι δύο μῆνας ἄρχοντος Ἀθηναίοις, μετὰ τὴν ἐν Ποτειδαίᾳ μάχην μηνὶ ἕκτῳ καὶ ἅμα ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ Θηβαίων ἄνδρες ὀλίγῳ πλείους τριακοσίων ʽἡγοῦντο δὲ αὐτῶν βοιωταρχοῦντες Πυθάγγελός τε ὁ Φυλείδου καὶ Διέμπορος ὁ Ὀνητορίδοὐ ἐσῆλθον περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον ξὺν ὅπλοις ἐς Πλάταιαν τῆς Βοιωτίας οὖσαν Ἀθηναίων ξυμμαχίδα. 4.133.2. καὶ ὁ νεὼς τῆς Ἥρας τοῦ αὐτοῦ θέρους ἐν Ἄργει κατεκαύθη, Χρυσίδος τῆς ἱερείας λύχνον τινὰ θείσης ἡμμένον πρὸς τὰ στέμματα καὶ ἐπικαταδαρθούσης, ὥστε ἔλαθεν ἁφθέντα πάντα καὶ καταφλεχθέντα. 4.133.3. καὶ ἡ Χρυσὶς μὲν εὐθὺς τῆς νυκτὸς δείσασα τοὺς Ἀργείους ἐς Φλειοῦντα φεύγει: οἱ δὲ ἄλλην ἱέρειαν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ προκειμένου κατεστήσαντο Φαεινίδα ὄνομα. ἔτη δὲ ἡ Χρυσὶς τοῦ πολέμου τοῦδε ἐπέλαβεν ὀκτὼ καὶ ἔνατον ἐκ μέσου, ὅτε ἐπεφεύγει. 8.1.1. ἐς δὲ τὰς Ἀθήνας ἐπειδὴ ἠγγέλθη, ἐπὶ πολὺ μὲν ἠπίστουν καὶ τοῖς πάνυ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἔργου διαπεφευγόσι καὶ σαφῶς ἀγγέλλουσι, μὴ οὕτω γε ἄγαν πανσυδὶ διεφθάρθαι: ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔγνωσαν, χαλεποὶ μὲν ἦσαν τοῖς ξυμπροθυμηθεῖσι τῶν ῥητόρων τὸν ἔκπλουν, ὥσπερ οὐκ αὐτοὶ ψηφισάμενοι, ὠργίζοντο δὲ καὶ τοῖς χρησμολόγοις τε καὶ μάντεσι καὶ ὁπόσοι τι τότε αὐτοὺς θειάσαντες ἐπήλπισαν ὡς λήψονται Σικελίαν. 2.2.1. The thirty years' truce which was entered into after the conquest of Euboea lasted fourteen years. In the fifteenth, in the forty-eighth year of the priestess-ship of Chrysis at Argos , in the Ephorate of Aenesias at Sparta , in the last month but two of the Archonship of Pythodorus at Athens , and six months after the battle of Potidaea , just at the beginning of spring, a Theban force a little over three hundred strong, under the command of their Boeotarchs, Pythangelus, son of Phyleides, and Diemporus, son of Onetorides, about the first watch of the night, made an armed entry into Plataea , a town of Boeotia in alliance with Athens . 4.133.2. The same summer also the temple of Hera at Argos was burnt down, through Chrysis, the priestess, placing a lighted torch near the garlands and then falling asleep, so that they all caught fire and were in a blaze before she observed it. 4.133.3. Chrysis that very night fled to Phlius for fear of the Argives, who, agreeably to the law in such a case, appointed another priestess named Phaeinis. Chrysis at the time of her flight had been priestess for eight years of the present war and half the ninth. 8.1.1. Such were the events in Sicily . When the news was brought to Athens , for a long while they disbelieved even the most respectable of the soldiers who had themselves escaped from the scene of action and clearly reported the matter, a destruction so complete not being thought credible. When the conviction was forced upon them, they were angry with the orators who had joined in promoting the expedition, just as if they had not themselves voted it, and were enraged also with the reciters of oracles and soothsayers, and all other omenmongers of the time who had encouraged them to hope that they should conquer Sicily .
20. Plato, Phaedrus, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •pindar, divine model of authority •authority, divine Found in books: Kingsley Monti and Rood (2022), The Authoritative Historian: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Historiography, 181
247a. κατὰ ἕνδεκα μέρη κεκοσμημένη. μένει γὰρ Ἑστία ἐν θεῶν οἴκῳ μόνη· τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ὅσοι ἐν τῷ τῶν δώδεκα ἀριθμῷ τεταγμένοι θεοὶ ἄρχοντες ἡγοῦνται κατὰ τάξιν ἣν ἕκαστος ἐτάχθη. πολλαὶ μὲν οὖν καὶ μακάριαι θέαι τε καὶ διέξοδοι ἐντὸς οὐρανοῦ, ἃς θεῶν γένος εὐδαιμόνων ἐπιστρέφεται πράττων ἕκαστος αὐτῶν τὸ αὑτοῦ, ἕπεται δὲ ὁ ἀεὶ ἐθέλων τε καὶ δυνάμενος· φθόνος γὰρ ἔξω θείου χοροῦ ἵσταται. ὅταν δὲ δὴ πρὸς δαῖτα καὶ ἐπὶ θοίνην ἴωσιν, ἄκραν ἐπὶ τὴν 247a. He is followed by an army of gods and spirits, arrayed in eleven squadrons; Hestia alone remains in the house of the gods. of the rest, those who are included among the twelve great gods and are accounted leaders, are assigned each to his place in the army. There are many blessed sights and many ways hither and thither within the heaven, along which the blessed gods go to and fro attending each to his own duties; and whoever wishes, and is able, follows, for jealousy is excluded from the celestial band. But when they go to a feast and a banquet,
21. Plato, Meno, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 300
80a. σοι ὅτι σὺ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ αὐτός τε ἀπορεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ποιεῖς ἀπορεῖν· καὶ νῦν, ὥς γέ μοι δοκεῖς, γοητεύεις με καὶ φαρμάττεις καὶ ἀτεχνῶς κατεπᾴδεις, ὥστε μεστὸν ἀπορίας γεγονέναι. καὶ δοκεῖς μοι παντελῶς, εἰ δεῖ τι καὶ σκῶψαι, ὁμοιότατος εἶναι τό τε εἶδος καὶ τἆλλα ταύτῃ τῇ πλατείᾳ νάρκῃ τῇ θαλαττίᾳ· καὶ γὰρ αὕτη τὸν ἀεὶ πλησιάζοντα καὶ ἁπτόμενον ναρκᾶν ποιεῖ, καὶ σὺ δοκεῖς μοι νῦν ἐμὲ τοιοῦτόν τι πεποιηκέναι, ναρκᾶν · ἀληθῶς γὰρ ἔγωγε καὶ 80a. that yours was just a case of being in doubt yourself and making others doubt also: and so now I find you are merely bewitching me with your spells and incantations, which have reduced me to utter perplexity. And if I am indeed to have my jest, I consider that both in your appearance and in other respects you are extremely like the flat torpedo sea-fish; for it benumbs anyone who approaches and touches it, and something of the sort is what I find you have done to me now. For in truth
22. Plato, Laws, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 302
23. Xenophon, The Persian Expedition, 1.7.18, 4.5.3-4.5.4, 5.6.15-5.6.19, 5.6.28-5.6.30, 5.6.34, 5.7.35, 6.4.13 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 302, 303, 304
1.7.18. ἐνταῦθα Κῦρος Σιλανὸν καλέσας τὸν Ἀμπρακιώτην μάντιν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δαρεικοὺς τρισχιλίους, ὅτι τῇ ἑνδεκάτῃ ἀπʼ ἐκείνης ἡμέρᾳ πρότερον θυόμενος εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὅτι βασιλεὺς οὐ μαχεῖται δέκα ἡμερῶν, Κῦρος δʼ εἶπεν· οὐκ ἄρα ἔτι μαχεῖται, εἰ ἐν ταύταις οὐ μαχεῖται ταῖς ἡμέραις· ἐὰν δʼ ἀληθεύσῃς, ὑπισχνοῦμαί σοι δέκα τάλαντα. τοῦτο τὸ χρυσίον τότε ἀπέδωκεν, ἐπεὶ παρῆλθον αἱ δέκα ἡμέραι. 4.5.3. ἐλέγοντο δʼ οὐδὲ πηγαὶ πρόσω εἶναι. ἐντεῦθεν ἐπορεύοντο διὰ χιόνος πολλῆς καὶ πεδίου σταθμοὺς τρεῖς παρασάγγας πεντεκαίδεκα . ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἐγένετο χαλεπὸς καὶ ἄνεμος βορρᾶς ἐναντίος ἔπνει παντάπασιν ἀποκαίων πάντα καὶ πηγνὺς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. 4.5.4. ἔνθα δὴ τῶν μάντεών τις εἶπε σφαγιάσασθαι τῷ ἀνέμῳ, καὶ σφαγιάζεται· καὶ πᾶσι δὴ περιφανῶς ἔδοξεν λῆξαι τὸ χαλεπὸν τοῦ πνεύματος. ἦν δὲ τῆς χιόνος τὸ βάθος ὀργυιά· ὥστε καὶ τῶν ὑποζυγίων καὶ τῶν ἀνδραπόδων πολλὰ ἀπώλετο καὶ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὡς τριάκοντα. 5.6.15. ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ Ξενοφῶντι, ὁρῶντι μὲν ὁπλίτας πολλοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ὁρῶντι δὲ πελταστὰς πολλοὺς καὶ τοξότας καὶ σφενδονήτας καὶ ἱππέας δὲ καὶ μάλα ἤδη διὰ τὴν τριβὴν ἱκανούς, ὄντας δʼ ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ, ἔνθα οὐκ ἂν ἀπʼ ὀλίγων χρημάτων τοσαύτη δύναμις παρεσκευάσθη, καλὸν αὐτῷ ἐδόκει εἶναι χώραν καὶ δύναμιν τῇ Ἑλλάδι προσκτήσασθαι πόλιν κατοικίσαντας. 5.6.16. καὶ γενέσθαι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐδόκει μεγάλη, καταλογιζομένῳ τό τε αὑτῶν πλῆθος καὶ τοὺς περιοικοῦντας τὸν Πόντον. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐθύετο πρίν τινι εἰπεῖν τῶν στρατιωτῶν Σιλανὸν παρακαλέσας τὸν Κύρου μάντιν γενόμενον τὸν Ἀμπρακιώτην. 5.6.17. ὁ δὲ Σιλανὸς δεδιὼς μὴ γένηται ταῦτα καὶ καταμείνῃ που ἡ στρατιά, ἐκφέρει εἰς τὸ στράτευμα λόγον ὅτι Ξενοφῶν βούλεται καταμεῖναι τὴν στρατιὰν καὶ πόλιν οἰκίσαι καὶ ἑαυτῷ ὄνομα καὶ δύναμιν περιποιήσασθαι. 5.6.18. αὐτὸς δʼ ὁ Σιλανὸς ἐβούλετο ὅτι τάχιστα εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἀφικέσθαι· οὓς γὰρ παρὰ Κύρου ἔλαβε τρισχιλίους δαρεικοὺς ὅτε τὰς δέκα ἡμέρας ἠλήθευσε θυόμενος Κύρῳ, διεσεσώκει. 5.6.19. τῶν δὲ στρατιωτῶν, ἐπεὶ ἤκουσαν, τοῖς μὲν ἐδόκει βέλτιστον εἶναι καταμεῖναι, τοῖς δὲ πολλοῖς οὔ. Τιμασίων δὲ ὁ Δαρδανεὺς καὶ Θώραξ ὁ Βοιώτιος πρὸς ἐμπόρους τινὰς παρόντας τῶν Ἡρακλεωτῶν καὶ Σινωπέων λέγουσιν ὅτι εἰ μὴ ἐκποριοῦσι τῇ στρατιᾷ μισθὸν ὥστε ἔχειν τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ἐκπλέοντας, ὅτι κινδυνεύσει μεῖναι τοσαύτη δύναμις ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ· βούλεται γὰρ Ξενοφῶν καὶ ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖ, ἐπειδὰν ἔλθῃ τὰ πλοῖα, τότε εἰπεῖν ἐξαίφνης τῇ στρατιᾷ· 5.6.28. ἐγώ, ὦ ἄνδρες, θύομαι μὲν ὡς ὁρᾶτε ὁπόσα δύναμαι καὶ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ ὅπως ταῦτα τυγχάνω καὶ λέγων καὶ νοῶν καὶ πράττων ὁποῖα μέλλει ὑμῖν τε κάλλιστα καὶ ἄριστα ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἐμοί. καὶ νῦν ἐθυόμην περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου, εἰ ἄμεινον εἴη ἄρχεσθαι λέγειν εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ πράττειν περὶ τούτων ἢ παντάπασι μηδὲ ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ πράγματος. 5.6.29. Σιλανὸς δέ μοι ὁ μάντις ἀπεκρίνατο τὸ μὲν μέγιστον, τὰ ἱερὰ καλὰ εἶναι· ᾔδει γὰρ καὶ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἄπειρον ὄντα διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ παρεῖναι τοῖς ἱεροῖς· ἔλεξε δὲ ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς φαίνοιτό τις δόλος καὶ ἐπιβουλὴ ἐμοί, ὡς ἄρα γιγνώσκων ὅτι αὐτὸς ἐπεβούλευε διαβάλλειν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ἐξήνεγκε γὰρ τὸν λόγον ὡς ἐγὼ πράττειν ταῦτα διανοοίμην ἤδη οὐ πείσας ὑμᾶς. 5.6.30. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἑώρων ἀποροῦντας ὑμᾶς, τοῦτʼ ἂν ἐσκόπουν ἀφʼ οὗ ἂν γένοιτο ὥστε λαβόντας ὑμᾶς πόλιν τὸν μὲν βουλόμενον ἀποπλεῖν ἤδη, τὸν δὲ μὴ βουλόμενον, ἐπεὶ κτήσαιτο ἱκανὰ ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ οἰκείους ὠφελῆσαί τι. 5.6.34. ἀνέτειναν ἅπαντες. ὁ δὲ Σιλανὸς ἐβόα, καὶ ἐπεχείρει λέγειν ὡς δίκαιον εἴη ἀπιέναι τὸν βουλόμενον. οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται οὐκ ἠνείχοντο, ἀλλʼ ἠπείλουν αὐτῷ ὅτι εἰ λήψονται ἀποδιδράσκοντα, τὴν δίκην ἐπιθήσοιεν. 5.7.35. παραινοῦντος δὲ Ξενοφῶντος καὶ τῶν μάντεων συμβουλευόντων ἔδοξε καθῆραι τὸ στράτευμα. καὶ ἐγένετο καθαρμός. 6.4.13. ἐκ τούτου ἐθύοντο οἱ στρατηγοί, μάντις δὲ παρῆν Ἀρηξίων Ἀρκάς· ὁ δὲ Σιλανὸς ὁ Ἀμπρακιώτης ἤδη ἀπεδεδράκει πλοῖον μισθωσάμενος ἐξ Ἡρακλείας. θυομένοις δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ ἀφόδῳ οὐκ ἐγίγνετο τὰ ἱερά. 4.5.3. and report was that the sources of the river were not far distant. From there they marched over a plain and through deep snow three stages, thirteen parasangs. The third stage proved a hard one, with the north wind, which blew full in their faces, absolutely blasting everything and freezing the men. 4.5.4. Then it was that one of the soothsayers bade them offer sacrifice to the wind, and sacrifice was offered; and it seemed quite clear to everybody that the violence of the wind abated. But the depth of the snow was a fathom, so that many of the baggage animals and slaves perished, and about thirty of the soldiers. 5.6.15. At this time, as Xenophon’s eyes rested upon a great body of Greek hoplites, and likewise upon a great body of peltasts, bowmen, slingers, and horsemen also, all of them now exceedingly efficient through constant service and all there in Pontus , Xenophon uses the term Πόντος both of the Euxine Sea and of the region along its south-eastern coast. See below. where so large a force could not have been gathered by any slight outlay of money, it seemed to him that it was a fine thing to gain additional territory and power for Greece by founding a city. 5.6.16. It would become a great city, he thought, as he reckoned up their own numbers and the peoples who dwelt around the Euxine. And with a view to this project, before speaking about it to any of the soldiers, he offered sacrifices, summoning for that purpose Silanus the Ambraciot, who had been the soothsayer of Cyrus . 5.6.17. Silanus , however, fearing that this thing might come to pass and that the army might settle down somewhere, carried forth to the troops a report that Xenophon wanted them to settle down, so that he could found a city and win for himself a name and power. 5.6.18. As for Silanus , his own desire was to reach Greece as quickly as possible; for the three thousand darics, which he had received from Cyrus at the time when he sacrificed for him and had told the truth about the ten days, See Xen. Anab. 1.7.18 . he had brought safely through. 5.6.19. When the soldiers heard this report, some of them thought it was best to settle down, but the majority thought otherwise. And Timasion the Dardanian and Thorax the Boeotian said to some Heracleot and Sinopean merchants who were there, that if they did not provide pay for the troops so that they would have provisions for the voyage from Cotyora , there would be danger of that great force remaining in Pontus . For Xenophon, they went on, wishes and is urging that as soon as the ships come, we should then say all of a sudden to the army: 6.4.13. Thereupon the generals proceeded to sacrifice, the soothsayer who was present being Arexion the Arcadian; for Silanus the Ambraciot had by this time stolen away, cp. Xen. Anab. 5.6.18 , 34. on a vessel which he hired at Heracleia. When they sacrificed, however, with a view to their departure, the victims would not prove favourable,
24. Aristotle, Politics, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 296
25. Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, 1 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 305
26. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 55
1.11. In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, "Let us go and make a covet with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us."
27. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 48
28. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 5.1-5.4, 6.8-6.13, 6.16, 6.19, 7.11-7.12, 8.10-8.16, 9.10-9.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 44, 55, 62, 63, 64
29. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 5.20-6.11, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 13.2, 13.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 80
30. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 5.20-6.11, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 13.2, 13.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 80
31. Anon., Jubilees, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25, 1.26, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10.17, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16, 11.17, 12.25, 12.26, 12.27, 15.28, 23.32, 30.11, 30.12, 33.13, 33.14, 33.15, 33.16, 33.17, 33.18, 41.26, 47.1-48.13, 49.1, 49.2, 49.7, 49.8, 49.11, 49.22, 49.23, 50.4, 50.6, 50.12, 50.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 45
12.25. And he made an end of speaking and praying, and behold the word of the Lord was sent to him through me, saying:
32. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 15.54.2, 16.66.3-16.66.5 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 293, 305
15.54.2.  Certain local oracle-mongers likewise came up to Epameinondas, saying that the Lacedaemonians were destined to meet with a great disaster by the tomb of the daughters of Leuctrus and Scedasus for the following reasons. 16.66.3.  During this voyage, a peculiar and strange event happened to Timoleon. Heaven came to the support of his venture and foretold his coming fame and the glory of his achievements, for all through the night he was preceded by a torch blazing in the sky up to the moment when the squadron made harbour in Italy. 16.66.4.  Now Timoleon had heard already in Corinth from the priestesses of Demeter and Persephonê that, while they slept, the goddesses had told them that they would accompany Timoleon on his voyage to their sacred island. 16.66.5.  He and his companions were, in consequence, delighted, recognizing that the goddesses were in fact giving them their support. He dedicated his best ship to them, calling it "The Sacred Ship of Demeter and Persephonê." Encountering no hazards, the squadron put in at Metapontum in Italy, and so, shortly after, did a Carthaginian trireme also bringing Carthaginian ambassadors.
33. Ovid, Tristia, 3.5.33-3.5.34 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •vandals, aspirations to divine authority Found in books: Fielding (2017), Transformations of Ovid in Late Antiquity. 113
34. New Testament, Matthew, 5.20-5.48 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 72; Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 29
5.20. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5.21. Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐ φονεύσεις· ὃς δʼ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. 5.22. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. 5.23. ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κἀκεῖ μνησθῇς ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, 5.24. ἄφες ἐκεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καὶ ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, καὶ τότε ἐλθὼν πρόσφερε τὸ δῶρόν σου. 5.25. ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχὺ ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, μή ποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ, καὶ ὁ κριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ· 5.26. ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην. 5.27. Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Οὐ μοιχεύσεις. 5.28. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι [αὐτὴν] ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 5.29. εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν· 5.30. καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου εἰς γέενναν ἀπέλθῃ. 5.31. Ἐρρέθη δέ Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 5.32. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι[, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται]. 5.33. Πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 5.34. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μν̀ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ· 5.35. μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ· μήτε εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως· 5.36. μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 5.37. ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστίν. 5.38. Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. 5.39. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλʼ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα [σου], στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην· 5.40. καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον· 5.41. καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετʼ αὐτοῦ δύο. 5.42. τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς. 5.43. Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου. 5.44. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς· 5.45. ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. 5.46. ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; 5.47. καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; 5.48. Ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. 5.20. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. 5.21. "You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, 'You shall not murder;' and 'Whoever shall murder shall be in danger of the judgment.' 5.22. But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna. 5.23. "If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you, 5.24. leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 5.25. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him in the way; lest perhaps the prosecutor deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison. 5.26. Most assuredly I tell you, you shall by no means get out of there, until you have paid the last penny. 5.27. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' 5.28. but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 5.29. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. 5.30. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not your whole body be thrown into Gehenna. 5.31. "It was also said, 'Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,' 5.32. but I tell you that whoever who puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery. 5.33. "Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,' 5.34. but I tell you, don't swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; 5.35. nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 5.36. Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can't make one hair white or black. 5.37. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'no.' Whatever is more than these is of the evil one. 5.38. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 5.39. But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 5.40. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 5.41. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 5.42. Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow from you. 5.43. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' 5.44. But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, 5.45. that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. 5.46. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? 5.47. If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? 5.48. Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
35. New Testament, Mark, 7.5-7.8 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 66, 67
7.5. —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· 7.7. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· 7.8. ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things."
36. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 58
4.3. "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם אָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, מַה הֵן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. גָּזַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְגָזַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, עָלֶיךָ רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאַתָּה מַחְמִיר, שֶׁכָּל הַמַּחְמִיר, עָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי, אֲנִי לֹא שִׁנִּיתִי מִסֵּדֶר הַשָּׁנִים, טַרְפוֹן אָחִי שִׁנָּה, וְעָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה מִּצְרַיִם מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, בָּבֶל חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה בָּבֶל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם שֶׁהִיא קְרוֹבָה, עֲשָׂאוּהָ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, שֶׁהֵם קְרוֹבִים, נַעֲשִׂים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עֲלֵיהֶם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, הֲרֵי אַתָּה כִמְהַנָּן מָמוֹן, וְאֵין אַתָּה אֶלָּא כְמַפְסִיד נְפָשׁוֹת. קוֹבֵעַ אַתָּה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם מִלְּהוֹרִיד טַל וּמָטָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), הֲיִקְבַּע אָדָם אֱלֹהִים כִּי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים אֹתִי וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה קְבַעֲנוּךָ הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הֲרֵינִי כְמֵשִׁיב עַל טַרְפוֹן אָחִי, אֲבָל לֹא לְעִנְיַן דְּבָרָיו. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וּכְשֶׁבָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דֻּרְמַסְקִית אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּלוֹד, אָמַר לוֹ, מַה חִדּוּשׁ הָיָה לָכֶם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַיּוֹם. אָמַר לוֹ, נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. בָּכָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְאָמַר, סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם (תהלים כה). צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶם, אַל תָּחֹשּׁוּ לְמִנְיַנְכֶם. מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ, וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ עַד הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁעַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: \n", 4.3. "On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covet, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.",
37. New Testament, Colossians, 2.8, 2.20-2.22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 67
2.8. Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν· 2.20. Εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείεν τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε 2.21. Μὴ ἅψῃ μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ θίγῃς, 2.22. ἅ ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει, κατὰ τὰἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων; 2.8. Be careful that you don't let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ. 2.20. If you died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordices, 2.21. "Don't handle, nor taste, nor touch" 2.22. (all of which perish with use), according to the precepts and doctrines of men?
38. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, a b c d\n0 1.42 1.42 1 42 \n1 1.43 1.43 1 43 \n2 3 3 3 None\n3 1.37 1.37 1 37 \n4 4 4 4 None\n5 1.38 1.38 1 38 \n6 1.39 1.39 1 39 \n7 1.41 1.41 1 41 \n8 1.40 1.40 1 40 \n9 7 7 7 None\n10 . . \n11 1 1 1 None\n12 - None (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57
1.42. and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them.
39. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 70
1.1. "משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה: \n", 1.1. "Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.",
40. Mishnah, Eduyot, 1.5, 5.7, 8.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority •divine, authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 69; Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 65
1.5. "וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן: \n", 5.7. "בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר לִבְנוֹ, בְּנִי, חֲזֹר בְּךָ בְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אָמַר לוֹ, וְלָמָּה לֹא חָזַרְתָּ בָּךְ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים, וְהֵם שָׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים. אֲנִי עָמַדְתִּי בִשְׁמוּעָתִי, וְהֵם עָמְדוּ בִשְׁמוּעָתָן. אֲבָל אַתָּה שָׁמַעְתָּ מִפִּי הַיָּחִיד, וּמִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּין. מוּטָב לְהַנִּיחַ דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד, וְלֶאֱחֹז בְּדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. אָמַר לוֹ, אַבָּא, פְּקֹד עָלַי לַחֲבֵרֶיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי מַפְקִיד. אָמַר לוֹ, שֶׁמָּא עִילָה מָצָאתָ בִי. אָמַר לוֹ, לָאו. מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְקָרְבוּךָ וּמַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְרַחֲקוּךָ: \n", 8.7. "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁאֵין אֵלִיָּהוּ בָא לְטַמֵּא וּלְטַהֵר, לְרַחֵק וּלְקָרֵב, אֶלָּא לְרַחֵק הַמְקֹרָבִין בִּזְרוֹעַ וּלְקָרֵב הַמְרֻחָקִין בִּזְרוֹעַ. מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית צְרִיפָה הָיְתָה בְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְרִחֲקָהּ בֶּן צִיּוֹן בִּזְרוֹעַ, וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת הָיְתָה שָׁם וְקֵרְבָהּ בֶּן צִיּוֹן בִּזְרוֹעַ. כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ, אֵלִיָּהוּ בָא לְטַמֵּא וּלְטַהֵר, לְרַחֵק וּלְקָרֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְקָרֵב, אֲבָל לֹא לְרַחֵק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לְהַשְׁווֹת הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא לְרַחֵק וְלֹא לְקָרֵב, אֶלָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג) הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ לָכֶם אֵת אֵלִיָּה הַנָּבִיא וְגוֹ' וְהֵשִׁיב לֵב אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְלֵב בָּנִים עַל אֲבוֹתָם: \n", 1.5. "And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.", 5.7. "At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.”", 8.7. "Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2.",
41. New Testament, Galatians, 1.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 67
1.14. καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων. 1.14. I advanced inthe Jews' religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, beingmore exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
42. Mishnah, Orlah, 3.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 71
3.9. "סְפֵק עָרְלָה, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶנּוּ לוֹקֵט. כֶּרֶם נָטוּעַ יָרָק, וְיָרָק נִמְכָּר חוּצָה לוֹ, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׁרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקֹט בַּיָּד. הֶחָדָשׁ, אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהָעָרְלָה, הֲלָכָה. וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", 3.9. "Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it. A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand. New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places. And orlah is a halachah. And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.",
43. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority •divine, authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 70; Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85
2.6. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁזָּרַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאָלוּ. אָמַר נַחוּם הַלַּבְלָר, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבִּי מְיָאשָׁא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מֵאַבָּא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגוֹת, שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, אִם עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת: \n", 2.6. "It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.",
44. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 5.5, 11.1, 11.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 50, 62, 67
5.5. "אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, מַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ לְמָחָר. הָיוּ מִזְדַּוְּגִין זוּגוֹת זוּגוֹת, וּמְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל, וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְלַמָּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין לְבֵית דִּין. הַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי, וְהַמְחַיֵּב אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְחַיֵּב וּמְחַיֵּב אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי. הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. טָעוּ בְדָּבָר, שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, עוֹמְדִים לְמִנְיָן. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין, וַאֲפִלּוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. עַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין, שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין, דָּנִין אֵלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד אֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמְחַיְּבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין: \n", 11.1. "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, וּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, וְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן חַבּוּרָה. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּמְקַלֵּל מִבַּמַּכֶּה, שֶׁהַמְקַלֵּל לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, וְהַמַּכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה פָּטוּר. הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד) וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ. הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: \n", 5.5. "If they find him not guilty, he is discharged, if not, it [the trial] is adjourned till the following day. During this time they [the judges] go about in pairs, practice moderation in food, drink no wine the whole day, and discuss the case throughout the night. Early next morning they reassemble in court. He who is in favor of acquittal states, ‘I declare him innocent and I stand by my opinion.’ While he who is in favor of condemnation says: ‘I declare him guilty and stand by my opinion.’ One who [previously] argued for conviction may now argue for acquittal, but one who [previously] argued for acquittal may not now argue for conviction. If they have made any mistake, the two judges’ scribes are to remind them. If they find him not guilty, they discharge him. If not, they take a vote. If twelve acquit and eleven condemn, he is acquitted. If twelve condemn and eleven acquit, or if eleven condemn and eleven acquit and one says, ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two acquit or condemn and a single one says, ‘I do not know,’ they add to the judges. Up to what number is the court increased? By twos up to the limit of seventy-one. If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted. But if thirty-six condemn and thirty-five acquit, the two sides debate the case together until one of those who condemn agrees with the view of those who are for acquittal.", 11.1. "The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yoha ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him].",
45. Mishnah, Yevamot, 16.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 69
16.7. "אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כְּשֶׁיָּרַדְתִּי לִנְהַרְדְּעָא לְעַבֵּר הַשָּׁנָה, מָצָאתִי נְחֶמְיָה אִישׁ בֵּית דְּלִי, אָמַר לִי, שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בָּבָא. וְנוּמֵתִי לוֹ, כֵּן הַדְּבָרִים. אָמַר לִי, אֱמֹר לָהֶם מִשְּׁמִי, אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהַמְּדִינָה מְשֻׁבֶּשֶׁת בִּגְיָסוֹת, מְקֻבְּלָנִי מֵרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן, שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי הַדְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שָׂמַח לִדְבָרַי, וְאָמַר, מָצָאנוּ חָבֵר לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בָּבָא. מִתּוֹךְ הַדְּבָרִים נִזְכַּר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגוּ הֲרוּגִים בְּתֵל אַרְזָא, וְהִשִּׂיא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, וְהֻחְזְקוּ לִהְיוֹת מַשִּׂיאִין עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. וְהֻחְזְקוּ לִהְיוֹת מַשִּׂיאִין עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, מִפִּי עֶבֶד, מִפִּי אִשָּׁה, מִפִּי שִׁפְחָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא עַל פִּי אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא עַל פִּי עֶבֶד וְלֹא עַל פִּי שִׁפְחָה, וְלֹא עַל פִּי קְרוֹבִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַעֲשֶׂה בִבְנֵי לֵוִי שֶׁהָלְכוּ לְצֹעַר עִיר הַתְּמָרִים, וְחָלָה אַחַד מֵהֶם בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וֶהֱבִיאוּהוּ בְפֻנְדָּק, וּבַחֲזָרָתָם אָמְרוּ לַפֻּנְדָּקִית אַיֵּה חֲבֵרֵנוּ, אָמְרָה לָהֶם מֵת וּקְבַרְתִּיו, וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, וְלֹא תְהֵא כֹהֶנֶת כַּפֻּנְדָּקִית. אָמַר לָהֶם, לִכְשֶׁתְּהֵא פֻּנְדָּקִית נֶאֱמֶנֶת. הַפֻּנְדָּקִית הוֹצִיאָה לָהֶם מַקְלוֹ וְתַרְמִילוֹ וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁהָיָה בְיָדוֹ: \n", 16.7. "Rabbi Akiva said: When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year, I met Nehemiah of Bet D’li who said to me, “I heard that in the land of Israel no one, permits a [married] woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, except Rabbi Judah ben Bava”. “That is so”, I told him. He said to me, “Tell them in my name: ‘You know that this country is in confusion because of marauders. I have received a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: that they allow a [married] woman to remarry on the evidence of one witness’”. And when I came and recounted the conversation in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel he rejoiced at my words and exclaimed, “We have found a match for Rabbi Judah ben Bava!” As a result of this talk Rabban Gamaliel remembered that some men were once killed at Tel Arza, and that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder had allowed their wives to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and the law was established that they allow a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and on the testimony of one [who states that he has heard] from another witness, from a slave, from a woman or from a female slave. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say: a woman is not be allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Akiva ruled: [a woman is not allowed to marry again] on the evidence of a woman, on that of a slave, on that of a female slave or on that of relatives. They said to him: It once happened that a number of Levites went to Tsoar, the city of palms, and one of them became ill on the way, and they left him in an inn. When they returned they asked the [female] innkeeper, “Where is our friend?” And she replied, “He is dead and I buried him”, and they allowed his wife to remarry. Should not then a priest’s wife [be believed at least as much] as an innkeeper!” He answered them: When she will [give such evidence] as the innkeeper [gave] she will be believed, for the innkeeper had brought out to them [the dead man’s] staff, his bag and the Torah scroll which he had with him.",
46. New Testament, Philippians, 3.5-3.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 67
3.5. περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος, ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμείν, Ἐβραῖος ἐξ Ἐβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, 3.6. κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος. 3.5. circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 3.6. concerning zeal, persecuting the assembly; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless.
47. Mishnah, Eruvin, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 69
2.6. "אָמַר רַבִּי אִלָּעִאי, שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַאֲפִלּוּ הִיא כְּבֵית כּוֹר. וְכֵן שָׁמַעְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ, אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח אַחַד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵרֵב, בֵּיתוֹ אָסוּר מִלְּהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא, לוֹ, אֲבָל לָהֶם מֻתָּר. וְכֵן שָׁמַעְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בְּעַקְרַבְנִים בְּפֶסַח. וְחִזַּרְתִּי עַל כָּל תַּלְמִידָיו וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לִי חָבֵר, וְלֹא מָצָאתִי: \n", 2.6. "Rabbi Ilai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer, even if it is as large as a bet kor. I also heard from him that if one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden to him for taking in or taking out any object but it is permitted to them. I also heard from him that people may fulfill their duty [for bitter herbs] at Pesach by eating hart’s tongue (akrevanim). I went round among all his disciples seeking a fellowstudent but I found none.",
48. Plutarch, Nicias, 23.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 302
23.5. τῷ μέντοι Νικίᾳ συνηνέχθη τότε μηδὲ μάντιν ἔχειν ἔμπειρον· ὁ γὰρ συνήθης αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ πολὺ τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας ἀφαιρῶν Στιλβίδης ἐτεθνήκει μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν. ἐπεὶ τὸ σημεῖον, ὥς φησι Φιλόχορος, φεύγουσιν οὐκ ἦν πονηρόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ χρηστόν· ἐπικρύψεως γὰρ αἱ σὺν φόβῳ πράξεις δέονται, τὸ δὲ φῶς πολέμιόν ἐστιν αὐταῖς. 23.5.
49. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85
50. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 60
51. Tosefta, Niddah, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 69
1.3. "רבי אליעזר אומר ארבע נשים דיין שעתן בתולה מעוברת מניקה וזקנה אמר רבי יהושע אני לא שמעתי אלא בתולה. אמר לו רבי אליעזר אין אומרים למי שלא ראה את החדש יבא ויעיד אלא למי שראה. אתה לא שמעת ואנחנו שמענו. אתה שמעת אחת ואנחנו שמענו ארבע כל ימיו של ר\"א היו העם נוהגין כדבריו אחר שמת ר\"א החזיר רבי יהושע את הדברים ליושנן והלכה כרבי אליעזר.",
52. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 14.13-14.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 50, 52
53. Tosefta, Yevamot, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 61
1.2. "שש עריות חמורות מאלו מפני שהן נשואות לאחרים צרותיהן מותרות אמו ואשת אביו ואחות אביו ואחותו מאביו ואשת אחיו מאביו ואשת אחי אביו שאין צרה אלא מאח נישאו לאחין שלא בעבירה צרותיהן פטורות הלכו צרות אלו ונשאו ב\"ש אומרים הן פסולות והולד פסול וב\"ה אומרים הן כשירות והולד כשר נתיבמו ב\"ש אומרים הן כשירות והולד כשר וב\"ה אומרים הן פסולות והולד ממזר א\"ר יוחנן בן נורי בא וראה היאך הלכה זו רווחת בישראל [לקיים] כדברי ב\"ש הולד ממזר [כדברי] ב\"ה [אם לקיים] כדברי ב\"ה הולד פגום [כדברי] ב\"ש אלא בואו [נתקן] שיהו הצרות חולצות ולא מתיבמות [ולא הספיק] לגמור את הדבר עד שנטרפה [שעה] אמר רשב\"ג מה נעשה לצרות הראשונות שאלו את רבי יהושע [בני צרות מה הן אמר להם למה] אתם מכניסין ראשי בין שני הרים גדולים [בין] ב\"ש [ובין ב\"ה] שירוצו את ראשי אלא מעיד אני על משפחת בית עלובאי מבית [צבאים] [ועל משפחת] בית קופאי מבית מקושש [שהן] בני צרות ומהם כהנים והיו מקריבין [לגבי מזבח] א\"ר טרפון תאב אני שיהא לי צרת הבת ואשיאנה לכהונה א\"ר אליעזר אע\"פ שנחלקו בית שמאי [כנגד ב\"ה] בצרות מודים שאין הולד ממזר [שאין ממזר] אלא [מן האשה שאסורה] איסור ערוה [וחייבין עליה] כרת.",
54. Tosefta, Zevahim, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 69
55. Hermas, Mandates, a b c d\n0 115 115 115 None\n1 116 116 116 None\n2 "4.19" "4.19" "4 19" \n3 111 111 111 None\n4 112 112 112 None\n5 113 113 113 None\n6 114 114 114 None (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rüpke (2014), The individual in the religions of the ancient Mediterranean. 325
56. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 2.17.7, 5.13.11, 5.15.10 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 297, 298
2.17.7. ἔστι δὲ ὑπὲρ τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τοῦ προτέρου ναοῦ θεμέλιά τε καὶ εἰ δή τι ἄλλο ὑπελίπετο ἡ φλόξ. κατεκαύθη δὲ τὴν ἱέρειαν τῆς Ἥρας Χρυσηίδα ὕπνου καταλαβόντος, ὅτε ὁ λύχνος πρὸ τῶν στεφανωμάτων ἥπτετο. καὶ Χρυσηὶς μὲν ἀπελθοῦσα ἐς Τεγέαν τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν Ἀλέαν ἱκέτευεν· Ἀργεῖοι δὲ καίπερ κακοῦ τηλικούτου παρόντος σφίσι τὴν εἰκόνα οὐ καθεῖλον τῆς Χρυσηίδος, ἀνάκειται δὲ καὶ ἐς τόδε τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ κατακαυθέντος ἔμπροσθεν. 5.13.11. κατʼ ἔτος δὲ ἕκαστον φυλάξαντες οἱ μάντεις τὴν ἐνάτην ἐπὶ δέκα τοῦ Ἐλαφίου μηνὸς κομίζουσιν ἐκ τοῦ πρυτανείου τὴν τέφραν, φυράσαντες δὲ τῷ ὕδατι τοῦ Ἀλφειοῦ κονιῶσιν οὕτω τὸν βωμόν. ὑπὸ δὲ ἄλλου τὴν τέφραν ὕδατος ποιηθῆναι πηλὸν οὐ μή ποτε ἐγγένηται· καὶ τοῦδε ἕνεκα ὁ Ἀλφειὸς νενόμισται τῷ Ὀλυμπίῳ Διὶ ποταμῶν δὴ μάλιστα εἶναι φίλος. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν Διδύμοις τῶν Μιλησίων βωμός, ἐποιήθη δὲ ὑπὸ Ἡρακλέους τοῦ Θηβαίου, καθὰ οἱ Μιλήσιοι λέγουσιν, ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερείων τοῦ αἵματος· ἐς δὲ τὰ ὕστερα τὸ αἷμα τῶν θυμάτων οὐκ ἐς ὑπέρογκον ηὔξηκεν αὐτὸν μέγεθος. 5.15.10. ἑκάστου δὲ ἅπαξ τοῦ μηνὸς θύουσιν ἐπὶ πάντων Ἠλεῖοι τῶν κατειλεγμένων βωμῶν. θύουσι δὲ ἀρχαῖόν τινα τρόπον· λιβανωτὸν γὰρ ὁμοῦ πυροῖς μεμαγμένοις μέλιτι θυμιῶσιν ἐπὶ τῶν βωμῶν, τιθέασι δὲ καὶ κλῶνας ἐλαίας ἐπʼ αὐτῶν καὶ οἴνῳ χρῶνται σπονδῇ. μόναις δὲ ταῖς Νύμφαις οὐ νομίζουσιν οἶνον οὐδὲ ταῖς Δεσποίναις σπένδειν οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῷ βωμῷ τῷ κοινῷ πάντων θεῶν. μέλει δὲ τὰ ἐς θυσίας θεηκόλῳ τε, ὃς ἐπὶ μηνὶ ἑκάστῳ τὴν τιμὴν ἔχει, καὶ μάντεσι καὶ σπονδοφόροις, ἔτι δὲ ἐξηγητῇ τε καὶ αὐλητῇ καὶ τῷ ξυλεῖ· 2.17.7. Above this temple are the foundations of the earlier temple and such parts of it as were spared by the flames. It was burnt down because sleep overpowered Chryseis, the priestess of Hera, when the lamp before the wreaths set fire to them. Chryseis went to Tegea and supplicated Athena Alea. Although so great a disaster had befallen them the Argives did not take down the statue of Chryseis; it is still in position in front of the burnt temple. 5.13.11. Every year the soothsayers, keeping carefully to the nineteenth day of the month Elaphius, End of March and the beginning of April. bring the ash from the town-hall, and making it into a paste with the water of the Alpheius they daub the altar therewith. But never may the ash be made into paste with other water, and for this reason the Alpheius is thought to be of all rivers the dearest to Olympic Zeus. There is also an altar at Didyma of the Milesians, which Heracles the Theban is said by the Milesians to have made from the blood of the victims. But in later times the blood of the sacrifices has not made the altar excessively large. 5.15.10. Each month the Eleans sacrifice once on all the altars I have enumerated. They sacrifice in an ancient manner; for they burn on the altars incense with wheat which has been kneaded with honey, placing also on the altars twigs of olive, and using wine for a libation. Only to the Nymphs and the Mistresses are they not wont to pour wine in libation, nor do they pour it on the altar common to all the gods. The care of the sacrifices is given to a priest, holding office for one month, to soothsayers and libation-bearers, and also to a guide, a flute-player and the woodman.
57. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 11.7 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 50
58. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 67, 68
59. Palestinian Talmud, Orlah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 71
60. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 70
61. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 135, 153-154, 4, 84, 122 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 72
62. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 135 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 73
63. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85
24b. הכא נמי איכא נצויי אביו ונצויי רבו:,פוחח פורס על שמע וכו': בעא מיניה עולא בר רב מאביי קטן פוחח מהו שיקרא בתורה,אמר ליה ותיבעי לך ערום ערום מאי טעמא לא משום כבוד צבור הכא נמי משום כבוד צבור:,סומא פורס על שמע וכו': תניא אמרו לו לרבי יהודה הרבה צפו לדרוש במרכבה ולא ראו אותה מימיהם,ור' יהודה התם באבנתא דליבא תליא מילתא והא קא מיכוין וידע הכא משום הנאה הוא והא לית ליה הנאה,ורבנן אית ליה הנאה כרבי יוסי דתניא א"ר יוסי כל ימי הייתי מצטער על מקרא זה (דברים כח, כט) והיית ממשש בצהרים כאשר ימשש העור באפלה וכי מה אכפת ליה לעור בין אפילה לאורה,עד שבא מעשה לידי פעם אחת הייתי מהלך באישון לילה ואפלה וראיתי סומא שהיה מהלך בדרך ואבוקה בידו אמרתי לו בני אבוקה זו למה לך אמר לי כל זמן שאבוקה בידי בני אדם רואין אותי ומצילין אותי מן הפחתין ומן הקוצין ומן הברקנין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן שיש בידיו מומין לא ישא את כפיו ר' יהודה אומר אף מי שהיו ידיו צבועות סטיס לא ישא את כפיו מפני שהעם מסתכלין בו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא מומין שאמרו בפניו ידיו ורגליו אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי ידיו בוהקניות לא ישא את כפיו תניא נמי הכי ידיו בוהקניות לא ישא את כפיו עקומות עקושות לא ישא את כפיו,אמר רב אסי חיפני (ובשיני) לא ישא את כפיו תניא נמי הכי אין מורידין לפני התיבה לא אנשי בית שאן ולא אנשי בית חיפה ולא אנשי טבעונין מפני שקורין לאלפין עיינין ולעיינין אלפין,אמר ליה רבי חייא לר' שמעון בר רבי אלמלי אתה לוי פסול אתה מן הדוכן משום דעבי קלך אתא אמר ליה לאבוה אמר ליה זיל אימא ליה כשאתה מגיע אצל (ישעיהו ח, יז) וחכיתי לה' לא נמצאת מחרף ומגדף,אמר רב הונא זבלגן לא ישא את כפיו והא ההוא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרב הונא והוה פריס ידיה ההוא דש בעירו הוה תניא נמי הכי זבלגן לא ישא את כפיו ואם היה דש בעירו מותר,א"ר יוחנן סומא באחת מעיניו לא ישא את כפיו והא ההוא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרבי יוחנן דהוה פריס ידיה ההוא דש בעירו הוה תניא נמי הכי סומא באחת מעיניו לא ישא את כפיו ואם היה דש בעירו מותר:,ר"י אומר מי שהיו ידיו צבועות לא ישא את כפיו: תנא אם רוב אנשי העיר מלאכתן בכך מותר:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big האומר איני עובר לפני התיבה בצבועין אף בלבנים לא יעבור בסנדל איני עובר אף יחף לא יעבור,העושה תפלתו עגולה סכנה ואין בה מצוה נתנה על מצחו או על פס ידו הרי זו דרך המינות ציפן זהב ונתנה על בית אונקלי שלו ה"ז דרך החיצונים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט חיישינן שמא מינות נזרקה בו:,העושה תפלתו עגולה סכנה ואין בה מצוה: לימא תנינא להא דתנו רבנן תפלין מרובעות הלכה למשה מסיני ואמר רבא בתפרן ובאלכסונן,אמר רב פפא מתניתין דעבידא כי אמגוזא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big האומר 24b. b Here, also, /b according to Rabba bar Shimi, b it is /b to prevent b his father or teacher /b from b quarreling. /b ,§ We learned in the mishna: b One whose limbs are exposed [ i poḥe’aḥ /i ] may recite the /b introductory prayers and b blessing /b before b i Shema /i /b and translate the Torah reading into Aramaic, but he may not read from the Torah. b Ulla bar Rav raised a dilemma before Abaye: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to whether b a minor whose limbs are exposed /b may b read from the Torah? /b Can it be argued that a minor’s bare limbs do not fall under the category of nakedness, and therefore it is permitted for him to read the Torah despite the fact that parts of his body are exposed?,Abaye b said to him: And /b according to this reasoning, b raise the dilemma /b with regard to a minor who is totally b naked. What is the reason that /b a minor who is b naked may not /b read the Torah? It is b due to respect for the public. Here, too, /b a i poḥe’aḥ /i may not read from the Torah b due to respect for the public. /b ,The mishna continues: One who is b blind may recite the /b introductory prayers and b blessing /b before b i Shema /i , /b and he may also translate the Torah reading into Aramaic. Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who has not seen the luminaries in his life may not recite the first of the blessings before i Shema /i , which is the blessing over the luminaries. b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b they said to Rabbi Yehuda: Many have seen /b enough with their mind b to expound upon the /b Divine b Chariot, although they have never /b actually b seen it. /b Similarly, even one who has never seen the luminaries may recite the blessing., b And /b how does b Rabbi Yehuda /b counter this argument? He can say that b there, /b with regard to the Chariot, b the matter depends upon the heart’s comprehension, and one can concentrate /b his mind b and understand /b the Chariot even if he has never actually seen it. But b here, /b with regard to the luminaries, the blessing is recited b due to the benefit /b one derives from them, b and /b one who is blind b does not derive /b any b benefit /b from them, and therefore he may not recite a blessing over them., b And the Rabbis /b maintain that even a blind man b derives benefit /b from the luminaries, b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei said: All of my life I was troubled by this verse, /b which I did not understand: b “And you shall grope at noon as the blind man gropes in the darkness” /b (Deuteronomy 28:29). I was perplexed: b What /b does it b matter to a blind /b person b whether /b it is b dark or light? /b He cannot see in any event, so why does the verse speak about a blind man in the darkness?,I continued to ponder the matter b until /b the following b incident occurred to me. I was once walking in the absolute darkness of the night, and I saw a blind man who was walking on /b his b way with a torch in his hands. I said to him: My son, why do you /b need b this torch /b if you are blind? b He said to me: As long as I have a torch in my hand, people see me and save me from the pits and the thorns and the thistles. /b Even a blind man derives at least indirect benefit from the light, and therefore he may recite the blessing over the heavenly luminaries., strong MISHNA: /strong b A priest who has blemishes on his hands may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. Because of his blemish, people will look at his hands, and it is prohibited to look at the hands of the priests during the Priestly Benediction. b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one whose hands were colored with i satis /i , /b a blue dye, b may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction b because the congregation will look at him. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong It is b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The blemishes that /b the Sages b said /b disqualify a priest from reciting the Priestly Benediction include any blemishes found b on his face, hands, and feet, /b but not blemishes that are not visible to others. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: /b If b his hands are spotted /b with white blotches, b he may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. The Gemara notes that b this is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : If a priest’s b hands are spotted, he may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. Similarly, if his hands are b curved /b inward b or bent /b sideways, b he may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction.,Apropos the previous discussion, b Rav Asi said: /b A priest b from Haifa or Beit She’an may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction, as he does not know how to properly pronounce the guttural letters. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One may not allow the people of Beit She’an, nor the people of Beit Haifa, nor the people of Tivonin to pass before the ark /b in order to lead the service b because they pronounce i alef /i as i ayin /i and i ayin /i as i alef /i , /b and they thereby distort the meaning of the prayers.,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Ḥiyya /b once b said to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b If you were a Levite, you would be disqualified from /b singing on b the platform /b in the Temple courtyard b because your voice is thick. /b offended by this remark, Rabbi Shimon b went and told his father, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what Rabbi Ḥiyya had said. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: Go /b and b say to him: When you /b study and b reach /b the verse: b “And I will wait upon [ i veḥikkiti /i ] the Lord” /b (Isaiah 8:17), b will you not be a maligner and a blasphemer? /b Rabbi Ḥiyya, who was from Babylonia, was unable to differentiate between the letters i ḥet /i and i heh /i , and he would therefore pronounce the word i veḥikkiti /i as i vehikkiti /i , which means: And I will strike., b Rav Huna said: /b A priest b whose eyes /b constantly b run /b with tears b may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. The Gemara asks: b Wasn’t there a certain /b priest with this condition b in the neighborhood of Rav Huna, and he would spread his hands /b and recite the Priestly Benediction? The Gemara answers: b That /b priest b was a familiar /b figure b in his town. /b Since the other residents were accustomed to seeing him, he would not draw their attention during the Priestly Benediction. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One whose eyes run should not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction, b but if he is a familiar /b figure b in his town, he is permitted /b to do so., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One who is blind in one eye may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction because people will gaze at him. The Gemara asks: b Wasn’t there a certain /b priest who was blind in one eye b in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yoḥa, and he would lift his hands /b and recite the Priestly Benediction? The Gemara answers: b That /b priest b was a familiar /b figure b in his town, /b and therefore he would not attract attention during the Priestly Benediction. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who is blind in one eye may not lift his hands /b and recite the Priestly Benediction, b but if he is a familiar /b figure b in his town, he is permitted /b to do so.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda said: One whose hands are colored should not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. It was b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If most of the townspeople are engaged in this occupation, /b dyeing, b he is permitted /b to recite the Priestly Benediction, as the congregation will not pay attention to his stained hands., strong MISHNA: /strong b One who says: I will not pass before the ark /b to lead the prayer service b in colored /b garments, b may not pass /b before the ark to lead the prayer service b even in white /b garments. There is concern that one who insists on wearing clothing of a specific color during his prayers is a heretic and therefore unfit to lead the service. Similarly, if one says: b I will not pass /b before the ark b wearing sandals, he may not pass /b before it b even barefoot, /b as he is not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Sages., b One who constructs his phylacteries /b in b a round /b shape exposes himself to b danger /b during times of persecution, when foreign governments impose a ban on the mitzva of phylacteries, b and /b yet he does b not /b fulfill the b mitzva /b to don phylacteries, as phylacteries must be square. b If one placed /b the phylacteries worn on the head b on his forehead, /b and not in its proper place above his hairline, b or /b if he placed the phylacteries worn on the arm b on his palm, /b and not on his biceps, b this is the way of the heretics, /b i.e., those who reject the tradition of the Sages with regard to the proper placement of the phylacteries. If b one plated /b his phylacteries b with gold or placed /b the phylacteries worn on the arm b on /b the outside of b his sleeve [ i unkeli /i ], this is the way of the outsiders, /b i.e., those who do not take part in the traditions of the Jewish people., strong GEMARA: /strong b What is the reason /b that one who wishes to pray only with white clothes or barefoot is not permitted to lead the prayer? b We are concerned that perhaps he has been imbued with heresy, /b as these are the practices of idolaters. He is therefore barred from leading the service.,We learned in the mishna: b One who constructs his phylacteries /b in b a round /b shape exposes himself to b danger and /b does b not /b fulfill the b mitzva /b to don phylacteries. The Gemara comments: b Let us say /b that b we /b already b learned /b in this mishna b that which the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The requirement that b phylacteries /b must be b square is a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai. And Rava said /b about this: Square means b along their seams and their diagonals [ i alakhso /i ], /b i.e., they must be perfectly square. It would seem that all this was already stated in the mishna, which says that round phylacteries are disqualified., b Rav Pappa said: /b It is possible to understand that b the mishna /b is referring to phylacteries b that one constructed /b to be round b like a nut, /b i.e., in the shape of a ball. However, the mishna does not indicate that the phylacteries must be square, as it does not address the case of phylacteries that are rounded but not a true sphere., strong MISHNA: /strong If b one says /b in his prayers:
64. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 73
22b. ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה ומשלקה אמדו שיכול הוא לקבל ארבעים פטור:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט אי כתיב ארבעים במספר הוה אמינא ארבעים במניינא השתא דכתיב במספר ארבעים מנין שהוא סוכם את הארבעים אמר רבא כמה טפשאי שאר אינשי דקיימי מקמי ספר תורה ולא קיימי מקמי גברא רבה דאילו בס"ת כתיב ארבעים ואתו רבנן בצרו חדא:,רבי יהודה אומר ארבעים שלימות וכו' [בין כתפיו]: אמר ר' יצחק מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה דכתיב (זכריה יג, ו) מה המכות האלה בין ידיך ואמר אשר הכתי בית מאהבי ורבנן ההוא בתינוקות של בית רבן הוא דכתיב:,אין אומדין אלא במכות הראויות וכו': לקה אין לא לקה לא,ורמינהו אמדוהו לקבל ארבעים וחזרו ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה וחזרו ואמדוהו שיכול לקבל ארבעים פטור,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא דאמדוהו ליומי הא דאמדוהו למחר וליומא אוחרא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big עבר עבירה שיש בה שני לאוין אמדוהו אומד אחד לוקה ופטור ואם לאו לוקה ומתרפא וחוזר ולוקה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big והתניא אין אומדין אומד אחד לשני לאוין,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא דאמדוהו לארבעים וחדא הא דאמדוהו לארבעים ותרתי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כיצד מלקין אותו כופה שתי ידיו על העמוד הילך והילך וחזן הכנסת אוחז בבגדיו אם נקרעו נקרעו ואם נפרמו נפרמו עד שהוא מגלה את לבו והאבן נתונה מאחריו חזן הכנסת עומד עליו ורצועה בידו של עגל כפולה אחד לשנים ושנים לארבעה ושתי רצועות של חמור עולות ויורדות בה ידה טפח ורחבה טפח וראשה מגעת על פי כריסו,ומכה אותו שליש מלפניו ושתי ידות מלאחריו ואינו מכה אותו לא עומד ולא יושב אלא מוטה שנאמר (דברים כה, ב) והפילו השופט,והמכה מכה בידו אחת בכל כחו והקורא קורא (דברים כח, נח) אם לא תשמור לעשות וגו' והפלא ה' את מכותך ואת מכות וגו' וחוזר לתחלת המקרא (דברים כט, ח) ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת וגו' וחותם (תהלים עח, לח) והוא רחום יכפר עון וגו' וחוזר לתחלת המקרא,ואם מת תחת ידו פטור הוסיף לו עוד רצועה אחת ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו נתקלקל בין בריעי בין במים פטור רבי יהודה אומר האיש בריעי והאשה במים: 22b. b and /b then b they assessed /b him again and concluded b that he cannot receive forty /b lashes and survive, he is b exempt /b from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive /b only b eighteen /b lashes, b and once he was flogged /b eighteen times b they assessed that he is able to receive forty, /b he is b exempt /b from receiving additional lashes., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara begins with a discussion of the number of lashes. b What is the reason /b that the Rabbis said that he receives forty lashes less one? b If it had been written: Forty by number, I would say /b that it means b forty as /b a precise b sum; now that it is written: “By number, forty,” /b the reference is to b a sum that approaches forty. /b Likewise, b Rava said: How foolish /b are b the rest of the people who stand before a Torah scroll /b that passes before them, b and /b yet b they do not stand before a great man, /b when a Sage passes before them; b as in a Torah scroll, forty is written and the Sages came /b and b subtracted one, /b establishing the number of lashes as thirty-nine. Apparently, the authority of the Sages is so great that they are able to amend an explicit Torah verse.,The mishna teaches: b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b He is flogged with b a full forty /b lashes, with the additional lash administered between his shoulders. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda? /b It is b as it is written: “And one shall say to him: What are these wounds between your arms? Then he shall answer: Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends” /b (Zechariah 13:6). Rabbi Yehuda understands that this verse is referring to one with wounds from lashes administered between his arms, indicating that there is one lash administered between the shoulders. b And /b how do b the Rabbis, /b who hold that one is flogged only thirty-nine lashes, explain this verse? They explain that b this /b verse b is written with regard to schoolchildren /b struck by their teacher for laxity in their studies, and is not referring to lashes administered by the court.,The mishna teaches: b One assesses /b the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding b only with /b a number of b lashes fit /b to be divided into three equal groups. If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from any additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged with eighteen lashes they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving further lashes. The Gemara infers: If b he was flogged /b in practice, b yes, /b he is exempt; if b he was not flogged, no, /b he is not exempt from the rest of the forty lashes., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i : If doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive forty /b lashes and survive, b and they then assessed /b him again and concluded b that he cannot receive forty /b lashes and survive, he is b exempt. /b If the doctors initially b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive /b only b eighteen /b lashes, b and they then assessed that he is able to receive forty, /b he is b exempt. /b Apparently, even if he did not receive any lashes, if the assessment changes, it is as though he was flogged., b Rav Sheshet said: /b This is b not difficult, /b as b this /b case in the mishna is one b where /b doctors b assessed his /b fitness to receive lashes b for /b that b day, /b and there was no change in his condition; rather, it was discovered that the initial assessment was mistaken. He is exempt only if he was already flogged; if not, another assessment is performed. b That /b case in the i baraita /i is one b where /b doctors b assess his /b fitness to receive lashes b for /b the b next day or for a different day. /b In that case, the initial assessment was accurate; it is his condition that changed. Therefore, if it is determined that he is unable to receive lashes, he is exempt., strong MISHNA: /strong If b one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, /b and b they assessed /b concerning b him a single assessment /b of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, b he is flogged /b in accordance with their assessment b and /b is b exempt /b from any additional lashes. b And if not, /b if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, b he is flogged and /b is allowed to b heal, and then is flogged /b again for violating the second prohibition., strong GEMARA: /strong The case in the mishna is one where there is one assessment performed for two sets of lashes. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One does not perform one assessment for two prohibitions? /b , b Rav Sheshet said: /b This is b not difficult; this /b ruling in the i baraita /i that one does not perform a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case b where /b doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to /b receive b forty-one /b lashes, two lashes beyond a full set. Since those two additional lashes are not divisible by three, which is a requirement based on the previous mishna, he receives only thirty-nine lashes. That constitutes just one set of lashes. He remains liable to receive another set of lashes after he recovers, requiring another assessment and another set of lashes. b That /b ruling in the mishna that one performs a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case b where /b doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to /b receive b forty-two /b lashes. In that case, it is possible to ascribe thirty-nine lashes to one prohibition and three additional lashes to the second prohibition. That is tantamount to two separate assessments, although in practice only one assessment was performed., strong MISHNA: /strong b How do they flog him? He ties /b the b two hands /b of the person being flogged b on this /b side b and that /b side b of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments /b to remove them. b If they were ripped /b in the process, b they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, /b and he continues b until he bares his chest. And the stone /b upon which the attendant stands when flogging b is situated behind /b the person being flogged. b The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. /b It is a strap b of calf /b hide, and is b doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey /b hide b go up and down /b the doubled strap of calf hide. The length of b its handle /b is b one handbreadth, /b and the b width /b of the straps is b one handbreadth, and /b the strap must be long enough so that b its end reaches the top of his abdomen, /b i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind., b And /b the attendant b flogs him /b with b one-third /b of the lashes b from the front of him, /b on his chest, b and two /b one-third b portions from behind him, /b on his back. b And he does not flog him /b when the one receiving lashes is b standing, nor /b when he is b sitting; rather, /b he flogs him when he is b hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, /b and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down., b And the /b attendant b flogging /b the one receiving lashes b flogs [ i makeh /i ] him with one hand with all his strength, and the /b court b crier recites /b the verses: b “If you do not observe to perform /b all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. b And the Lord will make your plagues [ i makkotekha /i ] outstanding, and the plagues /b of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). b And /b then b he returns to the beginning of the verse. /b He also recites: b “And you shall observe the matters of this covet, /b and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), b and concludes /b with the verse: b “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; /b and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), b and /b then b returns to the beginning of the verse /b that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.”, b If /b the one being flogged b dies at /b the b hand /b of the attendant, the latter is b exempt, /b because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant b added for him an additional /b lash with b a strap and he died, /b the attendant b is exiled /b to a city of refuge b on his account, /b as an unwitting murderer. b If /b the one being flogged involuntarily b sullies himself, /b due to fear or pain, b whether with excrement or with urine, /b he is b exempt /b from further lashes. b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: b The man /b is exempted if he sullies himself b with excrement, and the woman /b is exempted even b with urine. /b
65. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.24, 7.20 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •adrian (author of the introduction to divine scriptures) Found in books: Motta and Petrucci (2022), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity, 125
66. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85
3a. חייב בשמחה ואת שאינו לא שומע ולא מדבר ושוטה וקטן פטורין אף מן השמחה הואיל ופטורין מכל מצות האמורות בתורה מאי שנא לענין ראיה דפטירי ומאי שנא לענין שמחה דמחייבי,לענין ראיה גמר ראיה ראיה מהקהל דכתיב (דברים לא, יב) הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף וכתיב (דברים לא, יא) בבא כל ישראל לראות,והתם מנלן דכתיב (דברים לא, יב) למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו ותניא למען ישמעו פרט למדבר ואינו שומע ולמען ילמדו פרט לשומע ואינו מדבר,למימרא דכי לא משתעי לא גמר והא הנהו תרי אילמי דהוו בשבבותיה דרבי בני ברתיה דרבי יוחנן בן גודגדא ואמרי לה בני אחתיה דרבי יוחנן דכל אימת דהוה עייל רבי לבי מדרשא הוו עיילי ויתבי קמייהו ומניידי ברישייהו ומרחשין שפוותייהו,ובעי רבי רחמי עלייהו ואיתסו ואשתכח דהוו גמירי הלכתא וספרא וספרי וכולה הש"ס,אמר מר זוטרא קרי ביה למען ילמדו רב אשי אמר ודאי למען ילמדו הוא דאי סלקא דעתך למען ילמדו וכיון דלא משתעי לא גמר וכיון דלא שמע לא גמר,האי מלמען ישמעו נפקא אלא ודאי למען ילמדו הוא,אמר ר' תנחום חרש באזנו אחת פטור מן הראיה שנאמר (דברים לא, יא) באזניהם,והאי באזניהם מבעי ליה באזניהם דכולהו ישראל ההוא מנגד כל ישראל נפקא אי מנגד כל ישראל הוה אמינא אע"ג דלא שמעי כתב רחמנא באזניהם והוא דשמעי,ההוא מלמען ישמעו נפקא,אמר רבי תנחום חיגר ברגלו אחת פטור מן הראיה שנאמר רגלים,והא רגלים מבעי ליה פרט לבעלי קבין ההוא מפעמים נפקא דתניא פעמים אין פעמים אלא רגלים וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו כו, ו) תרמסנה רגל רגלי עני פעמי דלים ואומר (שיר השירים ז, ב) מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב כמה נאין רגליהן של ישראל בשעה שעולין לרגל בת נדיב בתו של אברהם אבינו שנקרא נדיב שנאמר (תהלים מז, י) נדיבי עמים נאספו עם אלהי אברהם אלהי אברהם ולא אלהי יצחק ויעקב אלא אלהי אברהם שהיה תחילה לגרים,אמר רב כהנא דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משום ר' תנחום מאי דכתיב (בראשית לז, כד) והבור רק אין בו מים משמע שנאמר והבור רק איני יודע שאין בו מים אלא מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו,ת"ר מעשה ברבי יוחנן בן ברוקה ורבי אלעזר (בן) חסמא שהלכו להקביל פני ר' יהושע בפקיעין אמר להם מה חידוש היה בבית המדרש היום אמרו לו תלמידיך אנו ומימיך אנו שותין אמר להם אף על פי כן אי אפשר לבית המדרש בלא חידוש,שבת של מי היתה שבת של ר' אלעזר בן עזריה היתה ובמה היתה הגדה היום אמרו לו בפרשת הקהל ומה דרש בה,(דברים לא, יב) הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף אם אנשים באים ללמוד נשים באות לשמוע טף למה באין כדי ליתן שכר למביאיהן אמר להם מרגלית טובה היתה בידכם ובקשתם לאבדה ממני,ועוד דרש (דברים כו, יז) את ה' האמרת היום וה' האמירך היום,אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם דכתיב (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם שנאמר 3a. they are b obligated in rejoicing. And one who does not hear and does not speak, an imbecile, and a minor are /b all b exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. /b The Gemara asks: b What is different with regard to /b the mitzva of b appearance, that /b a deaf person and a mute b are exempt /b from this mitzva? b And what is different with regard to /b the mitzva of b rejoicing, that they are obligated? /b ,The Gemara explains: b With regard to /b their exemption from the obligation of b appearance, /b the i tanna /i b derives /b this i halakha /i by means of a verbal analogy between the term b appearance /b stated with regard to the mitzva of appearance at the Temple on the pilgrim Festival and the term b appearance /b stated with regard to the mitzva b of assembly, /b i.e., the obligation to assemble in the Temple on i Sukkot /i in the year following the Sabbatical Year. b As it is written, /b with regard to the mitzva of assembly: b “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12), b and it is written /b in that context: b “When all of Israel come to appear” /b (Deuteronomy 31:11). Just as a deaf person and a mute are not obligated to attend the assembly, they are likewise exempt from appearing in the Temple on the Festivals.,The Gemara asks: b And there, /b with regard to the mitzva of assembly, b from where do we /b derive that a deaf person and a mute are exempt? b As it is written /b there: b “That they may hear, and that they may learn” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12), b and it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the phrase b “that they may hear” excludes one who speaks but does not hear; /b and the phrase b “and that they may learn” excludes one who hears but does not speak, /b as he is unable to learn.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that one who /b is b not /b able to b speak /b is b not /b able to b learn? But /b consider the following incident. There were b two mute people who were in the neighborhood of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. They were the b sons of the daughter of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda, and some say /b that they were the b sons of the sister of Rabbi Yoḥa /b ben Gudgeda. b Whenever Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would enter the study hall they would /b also b enter and sit before /b the Sages, b and they would nod their heads /b as if they understood b and move their lips. /b , b And Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b prayed for /b God to have b mercy upon them, and they were healed. And it was discovered that they had learned /b and were proficient in b i halakha /i , /b i.e., Mishna; b i Sifra /i , /b the halakhic midrash on Leviticus; b i Sifrei /i , /b the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy; b and the entire Talmud. /b This shows that those who cannot speak are able to learn., b Mar Zutra said /b that one should b read into /b the verse: b That they may teach [ i yelamdu /i ], /b instead of: “That they may learn [ i yilmedu /i ]” (Deuteronomy 31:12). Even if a mute person is able to learn he cannot teach others. b Rav Ashi said /b that the verse b is certainly /b to be read: b That they may teach. As, if it enters your mind /b that one should read: b “That they may learn,” /b as it is written, b and /b you will explain that b since he is not /b able to b speak he /b is b not /b able to b learn, /b and similarly the reason for the exemption of a deaf person is that b since he is not /b able to b hear he is not /b able to b learn, /b you will have erred. According to this interpretation, it is clear from the context that a deaf person is exempted by the phrase: “That they may hear,” not merely due to his lack of hearing but because his inability to hear prevents him from learning.,However, this is incorrect, for if so, b this /b exemption of a mute could also be b derived from: “That they may hear,” /b as the verse has already taught the basic principle that anyone who cannot learn is not obligated in the mitzva of assembly. b Rather, /b the verse b is certainly /b to be read as: b “That they may teach,” /b which indicates that although a mute is able to learn himself, and therefore he is not exempted by the previous verse, he is nevertheless exempt because he is unable to teach others., b Rabbi Tanḥum said: One who is deaf in one ear is exempt from /b the mitzva of b appearance /b in the Temple, b as it is stated /b with regard to the mitzva of assembly: “When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God in the place that He shall choose, you shall read this law before all Israel b in their ears” /b (Deuteronomy 31:11). This verse indicates that the obligation of assembly applies only to those who can hear with both ears. Since the two mitzvot are connected by verbal analogy, as explained above, this i halakha /i applies to the mitzva of appearance as well.,The Gemara asks: b But this /b phrase: b “In their ears,” is necessary /b to teach that the reading of the Torah at the assembly must enter b the ears of the entire Jewish people. /b Consequently, it cannot serve as the source of the i halakha /i concerning one who is deaf in one ear. The Gemara answers: b That /b i halakha /i , that the reading of the Torah must be heard by the entire Jewish people, b is derived from /b the phrase: b “Before all Israel” /b (Deuteronomy 31:11). The Gemara asks: b If /b that i halakha /i were derived b from: “Before all Israel,” I would say /b that the mitzva applies b even though they cannot hear; /b therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “In their ears,” and that /b indicates that b they /b must be able to b hear. /b If so, this phrase is not available for deriving the i halakha /i of someone who is deaf in one ear.,The Gemara answers: b That /b i halakha /i , that the people must hear, b is derived from: “That they may hear” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12). Therefore, the phrase: “In their ears,” is not required for that purpose. Rather, it teaches that only those who can hear with both ears are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, and by extension, in the mitzva of appearance as well., b Rabbi Tanḥum said: One who is lame in one leg is exempt from /b the mitzva of b appearance, as it is stated: /b “Three b times [ i regalim /i ] /b shall you keep a feast for Me in the year” (Exodus 23:14).Since the term for feet is i raglayim /i , it can be inferred from here that the obligation to ascend involves the use of both of one’s legs.,The Gemara asks: b But /b the term b “ i regalim /i ” is necessary /b to b exclude people with artificial legs. /b Although these people are capable of walking, as they do not have two natural legs they are exempt from ascending to the Temple. The Gemara responds: b That /b i halakha /i is b derived from: /b “Three b occasions [ i pe’amim /i ] /b in the year all your males will appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). The term i pe’amim /i can also mean legs, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i , with regard to the term b “ i pe’amim /i ”: i Pe’amim /i means nothing other /b than b legs. And so it says: “The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor and the steps [ i pa’amei /i ] of the needy” /b (Isaiah 26:6), b and it says: “How beautiful are your feet [ i fe’amayikh /i ] in sandals, daughter of the prince” /b (Song of Songs 7:2).,With regard to the aforementioned verse, b Rava taught: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, daughter of the prince [ i nadiv /i ]”? How pleasant are the feet [ i raglehen /i ] of the Jewish people when they ascend to /b Jerusalem b on the pilgrimage Festival [ i regel /i ]. “Daughter of the prince”: /b this is referring to b the daughter of Abraham our father who is called a prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham” /b (Psalms 47:10). The Gemara asks: Is God only b “the God of Abraham,” and not the God of Isaac and Jacob? Rather, /b the verse mentions b “the God of Abraham,” as /b he b was the first of the converts. /b Abraham was the first prince, as all converts who follow in his path are called “the princes of the peoples.”,The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Tanḥum. b Rav Kahana said /b that b Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: What is /b the meaning of b that which is written /b with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; b and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” /b (Genesis 37:24). b By inference from that which is stated: “And the pit was empty,” don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, /b this teaches that b there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. /b ,§ b The Sages taught: /b There was b an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma, when they went to greet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki’in. /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to them: What novel /b idea b was /b taught b today in the study hall? They said to him: We are your students and we drink /b from b your water, /b i.e., all of our Torah knowledge comes from you, and therefore how can we tell you something you have not already learned? b He said to them: Even so, there cannot be a study hall without a novelty. /b ,He asked them: b Whose week was it, /b i.e. who was the lecturer this week? They said to him: b It was Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s week. /b He inquired: b And on what /b subject b was the lecture today? They said to him: /b He spoke b about the portion of /b the mitzva of b assembly. /b Rabbi Yehoshua persisted: b And what /b verse b did he interpret homiletically with regard to /b this mitzva?,They said to him that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya interpreted the following verse: b “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12). This verse is puzzling: b If men come to learn, /b and b women, /b who might not understand, b come /b at least b to hear, why do the little ones come? /b They come b in order /b for God to b give a reward to those who bring them, /b i.e., God credits those who bring their children to the assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua b said to them: /b This b good pearl /b of wisdom b was in your hands, and you tried to conceal it from me? /b ,Upon seeing that Rabbi Yehoshua was pleased to hear this idea, Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma said to him: b Additionally, /b Rabbi Elazar b interpreted /b the following verses b homiletically: “You have affirmed, this day, /b that b the Lord /b is your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His mitzvot, and His ordices, and listen to His voice. b And the Lord has affirmed you, this day, /b to be His treasure, as He promised you, and that you should keep all His mitzvot” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18).,Rabbi Elazar explained: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: You have made Me a single entity in the world, /b as you singled Me out as separate and unique. b And /b therefore b I will make you a single entity in the world, /b as you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God. b You have made Me a single entity in the world, as it is written: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One” /b (Deuteronomy 6:4). b And /b therefore b I will make you a single entity in the world, as it is stated: /b
67. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85
32a. b And he would make a space above and a space below /b the text b and would prepare the passages of /b the i mezuza /i in the b open /b manner, i.e., he would begin the second passage on the line following the end of the first passage. b I said to him: My teacher, /b for b what reason /b do you prepare the passages in the open manner, when in a Torah scroll those same passages are written in the closed manner? b He said to me: Since /b the passages b are not adjacent /b to one another b in the Torah, /b as the first passage is Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and the second is Deuteronomy 11:13–21, I prepare them as open passages.,The Gemara continues: b And Rav Ḥael says /b that b Rav says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. What, is it not /b correct that Rav stated this b with regard to /b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion that one prepares the passages in the b open /b manner? This would present a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, Rav’s student, who wrote them in the closed manner.,The Gemara answers: b No; /b he meant that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar b with regard to /b the b space /b that one must leave above and below the text. The Gemara asks: b And how much space /b must one leave? b Rav Menashya bar Ya’akov says, and some say /b it is b Rav Shmuel bar Ya’akov /b who b says: /b The space b of a full scribe’s clip [ i atba /i ], /b with which the sheets of parchment are held., b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that when Rav said /b that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was referring b to /b the b space, /b not the manner of writing the passages? b But Rav is of /b the opinion that an established b custom /b must be observed, b and nowadays the general custom /b is to write the passages of the i mezuza /i b in /b the b closed /b manner.,The Gemara provides the source that according to Rav one must observe established customs. i Ḥalitza /i is the ritual that frees the widow of a childless man from the obligation to enter into levirate marriage with her late husband’s brother. This ceremony involves the widow removing her brother-in-law’s sandal from his foot. Rabba spoke of the importance of observing customs in that context, b as Rabba says /b that b Rav Kahana says /b that b Rav says: If Elijah comes and says /b that b one performs i ḥalitza /i with a shoe, /b the Sages b listen to him. /b But if he says that b one may not perform i ḥalitza /i with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed /b to performing i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal. /b ,The Gemara presents another version of Rav’s statement: b And Rav Yosef says /b that b Rav Kahana says /b that b Rav says: If Elijah comes and says /b that b one may not perform i ḥalitza /i with a shoe, /b the Sages b listen to him; /b if he says that b one may not perform i ḥalitza /i with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed /b to performing i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal. /b ,Abaye continues: b And we say, /b when discussing these versions of his statement: b What /b is the difference b between /b these two versions of his statement? The b difference is /b whether one may use b a shoe i ab initio /i . /b In any case, according to both statements Rav maintains that a custom must be observed, and the custom in this case is to write the passages in a closed manner. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from it /b that when Rav says that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was speaking b of /b the b space, /b not the manner of preparing the passages? The Gemara affirms: b Conclude from it /b that this is correct.,§ b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b It is b a mitzva /b i ab initio /i b to prepare /b the passages of a i mezuza /i in the b closed /b manner, b but if one prepared them /b in the b open /b manner, it is b permitted /b to use the i mezuza /i . b And what is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saying /b when he says that Rabbi Meir would prepare the passages in the b open /b manner? He means that one may prepare them b even /b in the b open /b manner.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that a i baraita /i b supports his /b opinion: b Similarly, /b just as one may not convert phylacteries of the head into phylacteries of the arm, with regard to b a Torah scroll that became worn and /b parchment of b phylacteries that became worn, one may not fashion them into a i mezuza /i /b by excising the relevant passages, despite the fact that the Torah passages of a i mezuza /i appear in them. This is prohibited b because one does not reduce /b the sanctity of an item b from /b a level of b greater sanctity, /b that of a Torah scroll or phylacteries, b to /b a level of b lesser sanctity, /b that of a i mezuza /i . The Gemara infers from this i baraita /i : If it were permitted to b reduce /b the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could b fashion /b a i mezuza /i from a Torah scroll.,The Gemara explains the proof: But b why /b is that the i halakha /i , when b here, /b in a Torah scroll, the passages are prepared in the b closed /b manner, b but there, /b in a i mezuza /i , the passages are prepared in the b open /b manner? Evidently, it is permitted to write a i mezuza /i with the passages prepared in the closed manner. The Gemara refutes this proof: b Perhaps /b one should infer from the i baraita /i that were it not for the fact that it is prohibited to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one would be allowed b to complete /b a line or two of a i mezuza /i by sewing to it those lines from a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries that became worn, but one may not fashion an entire i mezuza /i from a sheet of a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries, as the passages in a Torah scroll and phylacteries are prepared in the closed manner.,The Gemara asks another question: The i baraita /i indicates b that /b if it were permitted to b reduce /b the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could b fashion /b a i mezuza /i from phylacteries. b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai /b that the passages of b phylacteries /b are written b on parchment, /b the outer layer of an animal’s hide, b and /b the passages of b a i mezuza /i /b are written b on i dokhsostos /i , /b the inner layer, and when writing on b parchment, /b one writes b on the side of /b the hide that faced the b flesh; /b when writing on b i dokhsostos /i , /b one writes b on the side of /b the hide on which there was b hair? /b How, then, can one use the other side of the hide for a i mezuza /i ? The Gemara answers that this requirement is of i dokhsostos /i for a i mezuza /i is stated b as a mitzva, /b but it is not indispensable.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that if one b changed /b between parchment and i dokhsostos /i , the item is b unfit? /b The Gemara responds that this i baraita /i is referring b to phylacteries /b that one wrote on i dokhsostos /i in the manner of a i mezuza /i , not to a i mezuza /i which one wrote on parchment. The Gemara raises a further difficulty: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that if one b changed whether in this /b manner b or in that /b manner, it is b unfit? /b The Gemara explains that this i baraita /i does not mean that one changed either in the case of phylacteries or a i mezuza /i . Rather, both b this /b manner b and that /b manner are referring b to phylacteries, and this /b case is b where one wrote them on parchment /b but b on the side of /b the hide on which there was b hair, /b not on the side that faced the flesh, b and that /b
68. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 66
85a. אלא ספק איש ספק אשה,ורבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר אשה ודאית נמי תקעה דתניא בני ישראל סומכין ולא בנות ישראל סומכות,רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים נשים סומכות רשות,אמר רבינא ולמאי דקאמרי רבנן נמי אית ליה פירכא מה לתקיעת שופר שכן ודאה דוחה שבת במקדש תאמר בכיסוי דליתיה כלל,השיב ר"א הקפר בריבי מה למילה שכן אינה נוהגת בלילי ימים טובים בלילי ימים טובים הוא דלא נהגא בשאר לילי נהגא,אלא מה למילה שכן אינה נוהגת בלילות כבימים תאמר בכסוי שנוהג בלילות כבימים א"ר אבא זה אחד מן הדברים שאמר רבי חייא אין [לי] עליהן תשובה והשיב רבי אלעזר [הקפר] ברבי תשובה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big השוחט ונמצאת טריפה והשוחט לעבודת כוכבים והשוחט חולין בפנים וקדשים בחוץ חיה ועוף הנסקלים רבי מאיר מחייב וחכמים פוטרים,השוחט ונתנבלה בידו הנוחר והמעקר פטור מלכסות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן ראה רבי דבריו של ר"מ באותו ואת בנו ושנאו בלשון חכמים ודרבי שמעון בכסוי הדם ושנאו בלשון חכמים,מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר באותו ואת בנו אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי גמר שחיטה שחיטה משחוטי חוץ,מה התם שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה אף הכא נמי שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה,ורבי שמעון מאי טעמא א"ר מני בר פטיש גמר (בראשית מג, טז) מטבוח טבח והכן מה להלן שחיטה ראויה אף כאן שחיטה ראויה,ור"מ נמי ליגמר מטבוח דנין שחיטה משחיטה ואין דנין שחיטה מטביחה,מה נפקא מינה הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יד, לט) ושב הכהן ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה,הני מילי היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל איכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן,ורבי שמעון נמי ליגמר משחוטי חוץ דנין חולין מחולין ואין דנין חולין מקדשים,ור' מאיר אטו אותו ואת בנו בקדשים מי לא נהיג היינו דקאמר רבי חייא ראה רבי דבריו של רבי מאיר באותו ואת בנו ושנאו בלשון חכמים,מאי טעמא דר' מאיר בכסוי הדם אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש גמר שפיכה שפיכה משחוטי חוץ מה להלן שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה אף כאן שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה,ורבי שמעון (ויקרא יז, י) אשר יאכל כתיב ורבי מאיר ההוא למעוטי עוף טמא הוא דאתא ורבי שמעון עוף טמא מאי טעמא דלאו בר אכילה הוא טרפה נמי לאו בר אכילה הוא,והיינו דאמר רבי חייא ראה רבי דבריו של רבי שמעון בכסוי הדם ושנאו בלשון חכמים,אמר רבי אבא 85a. b Rather, /b it must be that the b uncertainty /b in the case of the sounding of the shofar concerns whether a particular individual is b a man /b or b a woman, /b e.g., a i tumtum /i , whose sexual organs are indeterminate. Although a woman is not obligated in the mitzva of sounding the shofar, a i tumtum /i is in fact obligated, despite the uncertainty of sex. It is therefore possible to derive from the sounding of the shofar that if one slaughters a i koy /i , an animal whose status as a domesticated or undomesticated animal is uncertain, on a Festival, one covers its blood.,The Gemara notes: b And Rabbi Yosei, /b who does not accept this refutation, conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning, as he says: /b One who is b definitely a woman may also sound /b the shofar on Rosh HaShana. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i concerning the verse that discusses a burnt offering: “Speak to the sons of Israel…and he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:2–4). The verse indicates that b the sons of Israel place /b their hands upon the head of an offering, b but the daughters of Israel do notplace /b their hands., b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: /b It is b optional /b for b women /b to b place /b their hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered. Even though women are not obligated to place their hands, doing so is not considered to be performing labor with a sacrificial item, an act normally prohibited, despite the fact that one performs the placing of the hands by leaning with all of his weight on the animal. Similarly, Rabbi Yosei holds that although women are not obligated in the sounding of the shofar, it is optional for them to sound it, and it is not considered a desecration of the Festival., b Ravina said: And /b even according b to what the Sages said, /b that a woman may not sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana but a i tumtum /i is nevertheless obligated due to uncertainty, b there is a refutation /b to their claim b as well. /b One cannot derive from this that the obligation to cover the blood of a i koy /i overrides a Festival. b What /b is notable b about the sounding of the shofar? /b It is notable in b that its definite /b obligation b overrides Shabbat in the Temple, /b as it was sounded in the Temple even when Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and it is therefore understandable that its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival as well. b Can you say /b the same b with regard to /b the mitzva of b covering /b the blood, b which does not /b override Shabbat in b any /b instance?,The Gemara continues its analysis of the i baraita /i : b Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished responded /b with another refutation to Rabbi Yosei’s i a fortiori /i inference: One cannot infer from the mitzva of circumcision that an uncertain obligation to cover the blood of a i koy /i does not override a Festival. b What /b is notable b about circumcision? /b It is notable in b that it is not in effect on Festival nights. /b Can you say the same with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, which is in effect on Festival nights? The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Elazar HaKappar mean to say b that /b the mitzva of circumcision b is not in effect /b only b on Festival nights, /b but b it is in effect on other, /b non-Festival b nights? /b Isn’t circumcision always performed during the day?,The Gemara responds: b Rather, /b Rabbi Elazar HaKappar meant the following: b What /b is notable b about circumcision? /b It is notable in b that it is not in effect at night as /b it is b by day. Can you say /b a similar i halakha /i b with regard to /b the mitzva of b covering /b the blood, b which is in effect at night as /b it is b by day? Rabbi Abba said: This /b i a fortiori /i inference drawn by Rabbi Yosei is b one of the matters /b with regard to b which Rabbi Ḥiyya says /b that b there is no refutation for them, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished /b successfully b responded /b with b a refutation. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b one who slaughters /b an undomesticated animal or a bird b and it is discovered to be an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [ i tereifa /i ]; /b and in the case of b one who slaughters /b an undomesticated animal or a bird b for /b the sake of b idol worship; and /b in the case of b one who slaughters a non-sacred /b animal or bird b inside /b the Temple courtyard b or a sacrificial /b bird b outside /b the Temple courtyard; or in the case of one who slaughters b an undomesticated animal or a bird that /b was sentenced to b be stoned, /b e.g., for killing a person; in all these cases, even though it is prohibited to eat any of these animals or birds, b Rabbi Meir deems /b one b obligated /b to cover their blood, b and the Rabbis deem /b one b exempt /b from doing so because, in their opinion, slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted for consumption is not considered an act of slaughter., b One who slaughters /b an animal or bird b and it became a carcass by his hand, /b i.e., the slaughter was performed incorrectly, and b one who stabs /b the animal or bird, b and one who tears loose /b the windpipe and the gullet, are b exempt from covering /b the blood, as no act of slaughter took place, and one is obligated to cover blood only after a valid slaughter., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the dispute in the mishna about whether an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted renders one obligated to cover the blood, b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna, b saw /b as correct b the statement of Rabbi Meir, /b that ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter, b with regard to /b the prohibition against slaughtering b a mother and its offspring /b on the same day, b and taught /b that i halakha /i in the mishna (81b) b using the term: The Rabbis, /b so that it would be accepted. b And /b he saw as correct the statement b of Rabbi Shimon, /b that ineffective slaughter is not considered an act of slaughter b with regard to /b the mitzva of b covering the blood, and taught /b that i halakha /i in the mishna here b using the term: The Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason that Rabbi Meir /b holds that ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter in the case of b a mother and its offspring? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: /b He b derives /b his opinion by means of a verbal analogy of the terms b slaughter /b and b slaughter, from /b the case of sacrificial animals b slaughtered outside /b the Temple. The verse states with regard to a mother and its offspring: “It and its offspring you shall not slaughter [ i lo tishḥatu /i ] in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), and the verse states with regard to sacrificial animals: “Or that is slaughtered [ i yishḥat /i ] outside the camp” (Leviticus 17:3).,Accordingly, b just as there, /b with regard to one who slaughters an offering outside the Temple it is a case of b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted, as one is prohibited from deriving any benefit from such meat, and it b is /b nevertheless b considered /b an act of b slaughter /b to render one liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple, b so too here, /b in the case of a mother and its offspring, an act of b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b is considered /b an act of b slaughter, /b and one is liable.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason /b he holds that an ineffective slaughter is not considered an act of slaughter? b Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said: /b Rabbi Shimon b derives /b his opinion b from /b the verse: b “Slaughter [ i tevo’aḥ /i ] and prepare; /b for the men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16). b Just as there, /b the verse is referring to an act of b slaughter /b that is b fit /b to render the meat permitted, b so too here, /b in the case of a mother and its offspring, only an act of b slaughter /b that is b fit /b to render the meat permitted is considered an act of slaughter.,The Gemara suggests: b And /b as for b Rabbi Meir as well, let him derive from “ i tevo’aḥ /i ” /b that only an effective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter. The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Meir, b one derives /b the i halakha /i with regard to a term of b i sheḥita /i from /b another instance of a term of b i sheḥita /i , and one does not derive /b the i halakha /i with regard to the term of b i sheḥita /i from /b the term of b i teviḥa /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: Being that both terms refer to slaughter, b what is the difference /b which one is used; b didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach /b a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses: The verse states: b “And the priest shall return [ i veshav /i ] /b on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: b “And the priest shall come [ i uva /i ] /b and look” (Leviticus 14:44). b This returning /b and b this coming /b have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the i halakha /i that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week.,The Gemara responds: b This statement /b of the school of Rabbi Yishmael applies only b where there are no /b other terms b that are identical to it /b from which one could derive a verbal analogy. b But /b if b there is /b another term b that is identical to it, we derive /b the verbal analogy b from /b the term b that is identical to it. /b Accordingly, Rabbi Meir derives a verbal analogy from the instance of i sheḥita /i that appears with regard to sacrificial animals that are slaughtered outside the Temple.,The Gemara suggests: b And /b as for b Rabbi Shimon as well, let him derive from /b the case of sacrificial animals that were b slaughtered outside /b the Temple that ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon holds that b one derives /b the i halakha /i with regard to the slaughter of b non-sacred /b animals b from /b another instance of the slaughter of b non-sacred /b animals, b and one does not derive /b the i halakha /i with regard to the slaughter of b non-sacred /b animals b from /b an instance of the slaughter of b sacrificial /b animals. The prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day is stated primarily with regard to non-sacred animals (see 78a).,The Gemara continues: b And Rabbi Meir /b would respond: b Is this to say /b that the prohibition against slaughtering b a mother and its offspring /b on the same day b does not apply to sacrificial /b animals? Rather, since the prohibition also applies to sacrificial animals, one can derive its i halakha /i from the case of sacrificial animals that were slaughtered outside the Temple. The Gemara comments: b This is /b what b Rabbi Ḥiyya /b was referring to when he b said /b that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b saw /b as correct b the statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to /b the i halakha /i of b a mother and its offspring, and taught it /b in the mishna b using the term: The Rabbis. /b ,§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna: b What is the reason that Rabbi Meir /b holds one is obligated b in /b the mitzva of b covering the blood /b in a case of ineffective slaughter? b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: /b Rabbi Meir b derives /b this from a verbal analogy between the terms b pouring /b and b pouring, from /b the case of a sacrificial animal that was b slaughtered outside /b the Temple courtyard. One verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And he shall pour out its blood” (Leviticus 17:13), and one verse states with regard to sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard: “He has poured blood” (Leviticus 17:4). Accordingly, b just as there, /b with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, it is a case of b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted but b is /b nevertheless b considered /b an act of b slaughter, so too here, /b with regard to covering the blood, an act of b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b is considered /b an act of b slaughter. /b ,The Gemara continues: b And Rabbi Shimon /b would respond: It is b written /b with regard to covering the blood: “An undomesticated animal or bird b that may be eaten” /b (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that the verse is referring specifically to slaughter fit to render the meat permitted for consumption. b And Rabbi Meir /b holds: b That /b phrase b comes to exclude a ritually impure bird /b from the mitzva of covering the blood. b And Rabbi Shimon /b would respond: b What is the reason an impure bird /b is not included in the mitzva of covering the blood? It is b because it is not fit for consumption. /b If so, b a i tereifa /i /b should b also /b not be included in the mitzva of covering the blood, since b it is /b also b not fit for consumption. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya is saying /b when he said that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b saw /b as correct b the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to /b the i halakha /i of b covering the blood, and taught it /b in the mishna b using the term: The Rabbis. /b ,§ b Rabbi Abba says: /b
69. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 47
25b. ואומר (תהלים צט, ו) משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקוראי שמו שקל הכתוב שלשה קלי עולם כשלשה חמורי עולם,לומר לך ירובעל בדורו כמשה בדורו בדן בדורו כאהרן בדורו יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו ללמדך שאפילו קל שבקלין ונתמנה פרנס על הצבור הרי הוא כאביר שבאבירים,ואומר (דברים יז, ט) ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם וכי תעלה על דעתך שאדם הולך אצל הדיין שלא היה בימיו הא אין לך לילך אלא אצל שופט שבימיו ואומר (קהלת ז, י) אל תאמר מה היה שהימים הראשונים היו טובים מאלה:,נטל מקלו ומעותיו בידו: תנו רבנן כיון שראה אותו עמד מכסאו ונשקו על ראשו אמר לו שלום עליך רבי ותלמידי רבי שלמדתני תורה ברבים ותלמידי שאני גוזר עליך גזירה ואתה מקיימה כתלמיד אשרי הדור שהגדולים נשמעים לקטנים קל וחומר קטנים לגדולים,קל וחומר חיובא הוא אלא מתוך שהגדולים נשמעים לקטנים נושאין קטנים קל וחומר בעצמן:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אם אינן מכירין /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongראוהו /strong /big בית דין וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר,ראוהו ב"ד בלבד יעמדו שנים ויעידו בפניהם ויאמרו מקודש מקודש ראוהו שלשה והן בית דין יעמדו השנים ויושיבו מחביריהם אצל היחיד ויעידו בפניהם ויאמרו מקודש מקודש שאין היחיד נאמן על ידי עצמו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big למה לי למיתנא ראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איצטריך סד"א הואיל וראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איפרסמא לה ולא ליעברוה קמ"ל,וכיון דתנא ליה ראוהו ב"ד וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים למה לי ה"ק א"נ נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר,וכיון דתנא עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר למה לי למיתנייה חקירת העדים כלל,איצטריך סד"א תיהוי חקירת עדים כתחילת דין ומקודש מקודש כגמר דין ולקדשי בליליא מידי דהוה אדיני ממונות דתנן דיני ממונות דנין ביום וגומרין בלילה הכא נמי מקדשין בליליא קמ"ל,ואימא הכי נמי אמר קרא (תהלים פא, ה) כי חק לישראל הוא משפט לאלהי יעקב אימת הוי חק בגמר דין וקא קרי ליה רחמנא משפט מה משפט ביום אף הכא נמי ביום:,ראוהו בית דין יעמדו שנים ויעידו בפניהם ואמאי לא תהא שמיעה גדולה מראייה,א"ר זירא כגון שראוהו בלילה:,ראוהו שלשה והן בית דין יעמדו שנים ויושיבו מחביריהם אצל היחיד אמאי הכא נמי נימא לא תהא שמיעה גדולה מראייה וכי תימא ה"נ כגון שראוהו בלילה היינו הך,סיפא איצטריכא ליה דאין היחיד נאמן על ידי עצמו דסלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל (ותנן) דיני ממונות בשלשה ואם היה מומחה לרבים דן אפילו ביחיד הכא נמי ניקדשיה ביחידי קמ"ל,ואימא הכא נמי אין לך מומחה לרבים בישראל יותר ממשה רבינו וקאמר ליה הקב"ה עד דאיכא אהרן בהדך דכתיב (שמות יב, א) ויאמר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים לאמר החדש הזה לכם,למימרא דעד נעשה דיין לימא מתני' דלא כר"ע דתניא סנהדרין שראו אחד שהרג את הנפש 25b. b And it says /b in another verse: b “Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call His name; /b they called upon the Lord, and He answered them” (Psalms 99:6). This verse equates Samuel to Moses and Aaron. In this manner, b the verse weighed three light ones of the world, /b i.e., it considered the three less distinguished figures of Gideon, Samson, and Jephthah b as /b equal to b three significant ones of the world, /b Moses, Aaron, and Samuel, three of the greatest leaders of the Jewish people.,This comes b to tell you /b that b Jerubaal in his generation /b is worthy of being treated b like Moses in his generation; Bedan in his generation /b is b like Aaron in his generation; /b and b Jephthah in his generation /b is b like Samuel in his generation. /b This serves b to teach you /b that b even the lightest of the light, /b i.e., the least distinguished individual, once b he has been appointed /b as b a leader over the community, he /b must be treated b like the greatest of the great, /b and all are required to heed him and obey his rulings., b And it /b further b says: “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days” /b (Deuteronomy 17:9). b But /b can it b enter your mind that a person /b can b go to a judge that is not /b alive b in his days? /b What, then, is the meaning of the phrase “in those days”? It teaches that b you /b need b to go only to the judge in one’s days, /b i.e., he is authorized to judge and decide matters. b And it /b also b says: “Do not say: How was it that the former days were better than these? /b For it is not out of wisdom that you inquire concerning this” (Ecclesiastes 7:10). Instead, one must accept the rulings of the leaders of his generation.,§ The mishna taught: Rabbi Yehoshua b took his staff and his money in his hand, /b and appeared before Rabban Gamliel on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred according to his calculation, as Rabban Gamliel had ordered him to do. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b When /b Rabban Gamliel b saw /b Rabbi Yehoshua, b he rose from his chair and kissed him on his head /b and b said to him: Peace be on you, my teacher and my student. My teacher, as you have taught me Torah in public, and my student, as I issue a decree against you and you fulfill it like a student /b of mine. b Fortunate is the generation in which the greater heed the lesser, and /b it is b an i a fortiori /i /b inference that the generation in which b the lesser /b heed b the greater /b is certainly fortunate as well.,The Gemara questions this last point: Is this derived by b an i a fortiori /i /b inference? This is incorrect, as b it is an obligation /b for the lesser to heed those who are greater than them. b Rather, /b Rabbi Gamliel meant the following: b Since the greater heed the lesser, the lesser apply an i a fortiori /i /b inference b to themselves /b and heed the leaders of the generation.,, strong MISHNA: /strong If b the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon, and b the witnesses were interrogated, but /b the court b did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, /b so that the thirtieth day already passed, the previous month b is /b rendered b a full, /b thirty-day month, and the following day is observed as the New Moon.,If b the court alone saw /b the new moon, b two /b members of the court b should stand and testify before the others, and /b the court b should say: Sanctified, sanctified. /b If b three /b people b saw /b the new moon, b and they are /b themselves members of b a court /b for this purpose, b two /b of them b should stand and seat /b two b of their colleagues next to the individual /b who remains of the three, thereby forming a new court of three. The two standing judges b should /b then b testify before /b the three seated judges that they saw the new moon and the seated judges b say: Sanctified, sanctified. /b This procedure is necessary b because an individual is not authorized /b to declare the month sanctified b by himself. /b Rather, a court of three is required., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the mishna b to teach: /b If b the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon? Merely stating that the court saw the moon would have sufficed, since its sanctification depends on them. The Gemara answers: b It was necessary /b for the mishna to teach that even in that case, the month is intercalated. As b it might enter your mind to say /b that b since the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon, b it was publicized /b that it was the New Moon that day, b and let them /b no longer b intercalate /b the month. Therefore, the i tanna /i of the mishna b teaches us /b that even in the case where all the Jewish people saw the new moon, the New Moon must be declared by the court.,The Gemara asks further: b But once /b the mishna b states: /b If b the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon, b why do I /b need it to say: And b the witnesses were interrogated? /b Why are witnesses necessary if the new moon was already seen by the court? The Gemara answers that b this is what /b the i tanna /i b is saying: Alternatively, /b if b the witnesses were interrogated, but /b the court b had no time to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, /b the previous month is b intercalated /b and rendered a full month of thirty days.,The Gemara raises another difficulty. b But once /b the mishna b taught: /b But the court did not manage to say: Sanctified, b before nightfall, /b the previous month is rendered a full, thirty-day month, b why do I /b need the mishna b to teach /b about b the interrogation of the witnesses? /b This i halakha /i was already stated with regard to a case where the court itself saw the new moon.,The Gemara explains: It b was necessary, /b as it might b enter your mind to say: Let the interrogation of the witnesses be /b regarded b as the beginning of the judicial /b process, b and /b let the declaration: b Sanctified, sanctified, /b be regarded b as the conclusion of the judicial /b process, b and let them sanctify /b the month b at night, /b because the process began during the day. This process would then be b just as it is in /b cases of b monetary law, as we learned /b in a mishna: In cases of b monetary law, /b although they must be adjudicated during the day, the court may b judge /b the majority of a case b during the day, /b and b complete /b the trial and issue the ruling b at night. Here too, /b one might assume that the court may b sanctify /b the month b at night, /b as the process began during the day. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that the court may not do so.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b Why not say /b that, b indeed, /b the sanctification of the month should be treated like monetary cases? The Gemara answers: b The verse states /b with regard to Rosh HaShana: b “For this is a statute for Israel, a judgment [ i mishpat /i ] of the God of Jacob” /b (Psalms 81:5). b When does /b the sanctification of the month b become a statute? At the end of the judicial process, and the Merciful One calls it a judgment /b as well, thereby teaching that b just as /b the primary time of b a judgment is during the day, here too, /b with regard to the sanctification of the New Moon, the process must take place b during the day, /b and not at night.,§ The mishna continues: If b the court /b alone b saw /b the new moon, b two /b members of the court b should stand and testify before the others. /b The Gemara ponders: If the court saw the new moon, b why /b is it necessary for two of its members to testify before the others? b Hearing /b their testimony b should not be greater than /b actually b seeing /b the new moon.,The Gemara responds that b Rabbi Zeira said: /b The mishna is addressing a case b where /b the court b saw /b the new moon b at night. /b Because they saw it at night, their testimony is inadmissible at that time, as testimonies are admissible only during the day. They must therefore wait until the following day and testify as any ordinary person would.,The mishna continues: If b three /b people b saw /b the new moon, b and they are /b themselves members of b a court /b for this purpose, b two /b of them b should stand and seat /b two b of their colleagues next to the individual /b who remains of the three. The Gemara asks: b Why /b is this necessary? b Here too, let us say: Hearing /b their testimony b should not be greater than /b actually b seeing /b the new moon. b And if you say /b that b here too, /b the mishna is addressing a case b where they saw /b the new moon b at night, this /b case b is /b identical to b that /b previous one, and there would be no need for two separate rulings.,The Gemara answers: b It was necessary /b to teach b the last clause, /b which states: b Because an individual is not deemed credible /b and authorized to declare the month sanctified b by himself. For /b it might b enter your mind to say /b that b since we learned /b in a i baraita /i : Cases of b monetary law /b are adjudicated b by /b a court of b three /b judges, b but if /b a person b was a publicly recognized expert, he may judge /b monetary matters b even individually, then here too, /b one judge b should /b be authorized to b sanctify /b the month b individually /b if he is a recognized expert. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that this is not so, and that three judges are required for the sanctification of the month.,The Gemara asks: b But why not say that here too, /b a recognized expert can sanctify the month individually? The Gemara rejects this possibility: But certainly b there was no publicly recognized expert among /b the b Jewish people greater than our teacher Moses, /b and nevertheless b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: /b You may not sanctify the new month b until Aaron is with you, as it is written: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, this month shall be for you /b the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:1–2), where the word “you” is in the plural form. And since, to avoid deadlock, a court cannot be composed of an even number of judges, another judge must be added. It is therefore apparent that three judges are required for the sanctification of the month by Torah law.,The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that a witness becomes a judge, /b i.e., that one who witnessed an event can himself serve as a judge concerning the matter? b Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, for it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b the Sanhedrin saw someone kill /b another b person, /b
70. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85
24a. ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, כג) בקדש באש תשרף בקדש בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,והאי בקדש באש תשרף להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר בקדש באש תשרף לימד על חטאת ששורפין אותה בקדש ואין לי אלא זו בלבד פסולי קדשי קדשים ואמורי קדשים קלים מנין תלמוד לומר (וכל) בקדש באש תשרף,אמר ליה רבי יונתן רבך מהאי קרא קאמר לה (שמות כט, לד) ואם יותר מבשר המלואים ומן הלחם עד הבקר וגו' שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל ומה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופיה דהא כתיב (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש תנהו ענין לשאר איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא ושרפת את הנותר נותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,והאי לא יאכל להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אלעזר דאמר ר' אלעזר לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו,אמר אביי לעולם מקרא קמא ואיפוך דליכתוב באש תשרף ולא בעי לא תאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא תאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו דנפקא ליה מדרבי אלעזר תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ואימא ליחודי ליה לאו לגופיה הוא דאתא דאי מדרבי אלעזר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,אלא אמר רב פפא מהכא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל,אם אינו ענין לגופו דהא נפקא ליה מקל וחומר ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה (דברים כו, יד) לא בערתי ממנו בטמא בשר קדש חמור לא כל שכן,וכי תימא אין מזהירין מן הדין הקישא הוא דכתיב (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וגו',מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין להנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,אמר לי' רבינא לרב אשי ואימא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין לאו מי אמר אביי אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבע,נמלה לוקה חמש 24a. b And if it does not /b apply to b the matter of /b the prohibition against b eating, /b as the prohibition against eating these items has already been mentioned, b apply it to the matter of the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,The Gemara continues: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the sin-offering is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire” /b (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that only that which is disqualified b in the sacred place /b is disposed of b with burning, but all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b ,Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani asked: b And did this /b verse: b “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire,” come to /b teach b this /b i halakha /i ? b It is needed /b to teach b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire”; /b this b taught that one /b must b burn a /b disqualified b sin-offering in the sacred place, /b and not outside the Temple. b And I have only /b derived b this, /b meaning the sin-offering. b From where do I derive that disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and portions consumed /b on the altar, such as the fats b of offerings of minor sanctity /b that become impure, are burned in the Temple courtyard? b The verse states: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire.” /b This indicates that any disqualified offering must be burned in the sacred place.,The Sage who taught this i halakha /i to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani b said to him: Rabbi Yonatan, your teacher, said that /b same i halakha /i b from this verse: “And if the flesh of the consecration /b offering, b or of the bread, remains until the morning, /b then you shall burn the leftover with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred” (Exodus 29:34). b As /b there is b no /b need for b the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not refer to the /b subject b matter itself, as it is /b already b written /b explicitly: b “Then you shall burn the leftover with fire,” /b which indicates that one may not eat it, b refer it to the matter of the other prohibitions in the Torah. And if it does not refer to the matter of /b the prohibition against b eating, /b as eating these items is explicitly prohibited, b refer it to the matter of the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b This indicates that it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any item that it is prohibited for him to eat.,The Gemara continues: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the sin-offering is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah, /b from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “You shall burn the leftover,” /b indicating that the b leftover /b sacrificial meat must be disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibitions in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning, /b despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.,The Gemara challenges: b And did this /b phrase: b “It shall not be eaten,” come /b to teach b this /b prohibition against deriving benefit? b This /b phrase b is needed /b to teach b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said /b with regard to the statement in the verse: b “It shall not be eaten, because it is sacred,” /b that b the verse comes to place a negative /b mitzva of b eating on whatever has been /b rendered b disqualified in the sacred place. /b In other words, this verse teaches a general i halakha /i that one who eats from offerings that have been disqualified in the Temple transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to be flogged. It teaches nothing with regard to a prohibition against deriving benefit., b Abaye said: Actually, /b derive this i halakha /i b from the first verse /b cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: “And any sin-offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire” (Leviticus 6:23). b And reverse /b the construct of his exposition. b Let /b the verse b write: “It shall be burnt with fire,” and it /b will b not need /b to write: b “Shall not be eaten.” /b For b what /b purpose then does b the verse state: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not apply to /b the subject b matter itself, as that was /b already b derived from /b the statement of b Rabbi Elazar /b that whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place may not be eaten, b apply it to all /b other b prohibitions in the Torah, /b including leavened bread on Passover and a stoned ox. b And if it does not /b apply to the prohibition against b eating, /b which is written explicitly, then b apply it to the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the leftover sacrificial meat is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah, /b from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: /b “You shall burn b the leftover,” /b indicating that the b leftover /b sacrificial meat must b be /b disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b , b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And /b why do you hold that the phrase: “You shall not eat,” describing the sin-offering that was sacrificed inside the Sanctuary, is not needed for other purposes? b Say /b that this expression b comes /b in order b to designate a negative /b mitzva for this prohibition b itself. As, if /b this prohibition were derived only b from /b the source quoted by b Rabbi Elazar, /b there will be a prohibition to eat the meat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary; however, one would not be liable to be flogged for violating it, because b one is not flogged for /b violating b a negative /b mitzva b stated in general terms. /b One is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva that contains several different prohibitions, such as this one, which refers to all disqualified offerings. This is because the negative mitzva is formulated too broadly. Therefore, it is possible to say that when the Torah states: “You shall not eat” with regard to this issue, it is teaching that there is a particular prohibition here and that one is flogged for violating it. If so, the verse cannot indicate a general prohibition against deriving benefit., b Rather, /b this suggestion should be rejected, and b Rav Pappa said /b that one derives this i halakha /i b from here: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. /b And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19). b As /b there is b no /b need for b the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what /b does it mean when b the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? /b , b If it does not /b refer to the subject b matter itself, as that /b can be b derived by /b means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from /b the second b tithe, /b the i halakhot /i of b which /b are more b lenient /b than those of offerings, then it must refer to something else. As it is possible to say: b If /b with regard to the second b tithe, which is /b more b lenient /b because it does not have the status of an offering, b the Torah said /b that when one recites the confession over the tithes, when destroying the tithes remaining in one’s possession that had not yet been given to the appropriate recipient, he says: “I have not eaten from it in my mourning, b neither have I removed it while impure” /b (Deuteronomy 26:14), indicating that it is prohibited for one to remove tithes while impure, then with regard to b consecrated meat, /b which is more b stringent, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it may not be eaten while a person is impure?, b And if you say /b that there is a general principle that b we do not warn, /b i.e., we may not deduce a prohibition, b through logical derivation /b alone, then one could respond that his issue is not only derived through an i a fortiori /i inference; rather, b it is /b also derived from an analogy based on b a juxtaposition. As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd /b or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you have vowed, nor your voluntary offerings, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Since the verse itself juxtaposes tithes to offerings, it indicates that there is a prohibition with regard to offerings just as there is with regard to tithes.,The Gemara continues explaining Rav Pappa’s opinion: For b what purpose /b then does b the verse state: “It shall not be eaten” /b with regard to impure consecrated meat? b If it does not /b apply to b the /b subject b matter /b of this verse b itself, /b as that prohibition is derived from the second tithe, then b apply it to the matter of all prohibited /b items b in the Torah. And if it does not /b apply to the prohibition against b eating, /b since that is clear, b apply it to the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,And if you say: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the meat that became impure in the Temple is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “The leftover,” /b indicating b that the leftover /b sacrificial meat must be disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b , b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And say /b that this expression: “It shall not be eaten,” comes to teach not the prohibition against deriving benefit, but rather that one who transgresses this negative mitzva b violates two prohibitions. /b And there is precedent for such an explanation, as b didn’t Abaye say /b with regard to a parallel case: b If one ate a small water creature /b [ b i putita /i /b ], b he is flogged /b with b four /b sets of lashes because one violates four prohibitions when eating such a creature? Two of these prohibitions are found in the verse that discusses all types of creeping animals: “You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be defiled by them” (Leviticus 11:43). A third prohibition applies to creeping animals that live in the water, as the verses say: “And all that have neither fins nor scales…They shall be a detestable thing unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11). A fourth prohibition is cited in the verse: “And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is impure unto you” (Deuteronomy 14:10).,Similarly, if one ate b an ant, he is flogged /b with b five /b sets of lashes, two sets for the previously mentioned prohibitions of eating a creeping animal, a third based on the verse: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41), and a fourth based on the verse: “All creeping things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:42). A fifth prohibition is stated in the verse: “You shall not make yourselves impure through every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:44).
71. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •divine, authority Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85
89b. שפרו ורבו עליה ישראל מדבר סיני שירדה שנאה לעכו"ם עליו ומה שמו חורב שמו ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו הר סיני שמו ולמה נקרא הר חורב שירדה חורבה לעכו"ם עליו:,מנין שקושרין לשון של זהורית וכו': כשנים כשני מיבעי ליה א"ר יצחק אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים הללו שסדורות ובאות מששת ימי בראשית ועד עכשיו כשלג ילבינו: דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (ישעיה א, יח) לכו נא ונוכחה יאמר ה' לכו נא בואו נא מיבעי ליה יאמר ה' אמר ה' מיבעי ליה לעתיד לבא יאמר להם הקב"ה לישראל לכו נא אצל אבותיכם ויוכיחו אתכם,ויאמרו לפניו רבש"ע אצל מי נלך אצל אברהם שאמרת לו (בראשית טו, יג) ידוע תדע ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יצחק שבירך את עשו (שם כז, מ) והיה כאשר תריד ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יעקב שאמרת לו (שם מו, ד) אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל מי נלך עכשיו יאמר ה' אמר להן הקב"ה הואיל ותליתם עצמכם בי אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מ"ד (ישעיה סג, טז) כי אתה אבינו כי אברהם לא ידענו וישראל לא יכירנו אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך לעתיד לבא יאמר לו הקב"ה לאברהם בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר אימר ליה ליעקב דהוה ליה צער גידול בנים אפשר דבעי רחמי עלייהו אמר ליה בניך חטאו אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר לא בסבי טעמא ולא בדרדקי עצה אמר לו ליצחק בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע בני ולא בניך בשעה שהקדימו לפניך נעשה לנשמע קראת להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי עכשיו בני ולא בניך,ועוד כמה חטאו כמה שנותיו של אדם שבעים שנה דל עשרין דלא ענשת עלייהו פשו להו חמשין דל כ"ה דלילותא פשו להו כ"ה דל תרתי סרי ופלגא דצלויי ומיכל ודבית הכסא פשו להו תרתי סרי ופלגא אם אתה סובל את כולם מוטב ואם לאו פלגא עלי ופלגא עליך ואת"ל כולם עלי הא קריבית נפשי קמך פתחו ואמרו (כי) אתה אבינו אמר להם יצחק עד שאתם מקלסין לי קלסו להקב"ה ומחוי להו יצחק הקב"ה בעינייהו מיד נשאו עיניהם למרום ואומרים (ישעיה סג, טז) אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן ראוי היה יעקב אבינו לירד למצרים בשלשלאות של ברזל אלא שזכותו גרמה לו דכתיב (הושע יא, ד) בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה ואהיה להם כמרימי עול על לחיהם ואט אליו אוכיל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המוציא עצים כדי לבשל ביצה קלה תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה ומצטרפין זה עם זה קליפי אגוזין קליפי רמונים איסטיס ופואה כדי לצבוע בהן בגד קטן פי סבכה מי רגלים נתר ובורית קמוליא ואשלג כדי לכבס בגד קטן פי סבכה רבי יהודה אומר כדי להעביר את הכתם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנינא חדא זימנא קנה כדי לעשות קולמוס אם היה עב או מרוסס כדי לבשל ביצה קלה שבביצים טרופה ונתונה באילפס מהו דתימא התם הוא דלא חזי למידי אבל עצים דחזו לככא דאקלידא אפילו כל שהוא קמ"ל:,תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה: ורמינהו תבלין שנים וג' שמות ממין אחד או משלשה מינין (ושם אחד) אסורין ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואמר חזקיה 89b. because b the Jewish people were fruitful /b [ b i paru /i /b ] b and multiplied in it; the Sinai Desert, /b because b hatred descended upon the nations of the world on it, /b on the mountain on which the Jewish people received the Torah. b And what is /b the mountain’s true b name? Horeb is its name. And /b that b disputes /b the opinion of b Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said: Mount Sinai is its name. And why is it called Mount Horeb? /b It is because b destruction [ i ḥurba /i ] of the nations of the world descended upon it. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b From where /b is it derived b that one ties a scarlet strip /b of wool to the scapegoat? As it says: “If your sins be like scarlet [ i kashanim /i ], they will become white like snow” (Isaiah 1:18). The Gemara wonders at this: Why does the verse use the plural form: b i Kashanim /i ? It should have /b used the singular form: b i Kashani /i . Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: /b Even b if your sins are /b as numerous b as those years [ i kashanim /i ] that have proceeded continuously from the six days of Creation until now, they will become white like snow. Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Go please and let us reason together, the Lord will say” /b (Isaiah 1:18)? Why does the verse say: b Go please? It should have /b said: b Come please. /b And why does the verse say: b The Lord will say? /b The prophet’s message is based on something that God already said. Therefore, the verse b should have /b said: b God said. /b Rather, the explanation of this verse is that b in the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to the Jewish people: Go please to your Patriarchs, and they will rebuke you. /b , b And /b the Jewish people b will say before Him: Master of the Universe, to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go b to Abraham, to whom You said: “Know certainly /b that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf? /b Or perhaps we should go b to Isaac, who blessed Esau /b and said: b “And it shall come to pass when you shall break loose, /b that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck” (Genesis 27:40), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b Or perhaps we should go b to Jacob, to whom You said: “I will go down to Egypt with you” /b (Genesis 46:4), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b And if so, b to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go to our Patriarchs, who do not have mercy on us? Rather, b now God /b Himself b says /b what punishment we deserve. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Since you made yourselves dependent on Me, “If your sins be like scarlet, they will become white like snow.” /b ,Apropos the Jewish people assessing their forefathers, the Gemara cites a related teaching. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “For You are our Father; for Abraham knows us not, and Israel does not acknowledge us; You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name” /b (Isaiah 63:16). b In the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Abraham: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Abraham will b say before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b God b said: I will say it to Jacob. /b Since he experienced b the pain of raising children, /b perhaps b he will ask for mercy on their behalf. /b He b said to /b Jacob: b Your children have sinned. /b Jacob b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b The Holy One, Blessed be He, b said: There is no reason in elders and no wisdom in youth. /b Neither Abraham nor Jacob knew how to respond properly. He b said to Isaac: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Isaac b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b are they b my children and not Your children? At /b Sinai, b when they accorded precedence to “We will do” over “We will listen” before You, /b didn’t You b call them, “My son, My firstborn son /b Israel” (Exodus 4:22)? b Now /b that they have sinned, are they b my children and not Your children? /b , b And furthermore, how much did they /b actually b sin? How long is a person’s life? Seventy years. Subtract /b the first b twenty /b years of his life. One b is not punished for /b sins committed then, as in heavenly matters, a person is only punished from age twenty. b Fifty /b years b remain for them. Subtract twenty-five /b years b of nights, /b and b twenty-five /b years b remain for them. Subtract twelve and a half /b years during which b one prays and eats and /b uses b the bathroom, /b and b twelve and a half /b years b remain for them. If You /b can b endure them all /b and forgive the sins committed during those years, b excellent. And if not, half /b of the sins are b upon me /b to bear b and half upon You. And if You say /b that b all of them, /b the sins of all twelve and a half years that remain, are b upon me, I sacrificed my soul before You /b and You should forgive them due to my merit. The Jewish people b began to say /b to Isaac: b You are our father. /b Only Isaac defended the Jewish people as a father would and displayed compassion toward his children. b Isaac said to them: Before you praise me, praise the Holy One, Blessed be He. And Isaac points to the Holy One, Blessed be He, before their eyes. Immediately they lifted their eyes to the heavens and say: “You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name.” /b ,And since the Gemara mentioned Jacob’s descent to Egypt, the Gemara cites that which b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Our father Jacob should have gone down to Egypt in iron chains /b as would an exile against his will, as decreed by God and related to Abraham. b However, his merit caused him /b to descend without suffering, b as it is written: “I drew them with cords of man, with bands of love, and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently” /b (Hosea 11:4)., strong MISHNA: /strong After an extended digression for a discussion of matters unrelated to the i halakhot /i of Shabbat, this mishna resumes treatment of the i halakhot /i of carrying from domain to domain on Shabbat. b One who carries out wood /b on Shabbat is liable for a measure b equivalent /b to the amount of wood necessary b to cook an easily /b cooked b egg. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b spices /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. And /b all types of spices b join together with one another /b to constitute the measure for liability. The measure that determines liability for carrying out b nutshells, pomegranate peels, safflower, and madder, /b which are used to produce dyes, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to dye a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b urine, natron, and i borit /i , cimolian earth [ i Kimoleya /i ], and potash, /b all of which are abrasive materials used for laundry, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to launder a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. And Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The measure that determines liability for these materials is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to remove a stain. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the measure of wood, the Gemara asks: Didn’t b we /b already b learn it once? /b As we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out b a reed /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to make a quill. And if /b the reed b was thick /b and unfit for writing, b or /b if it was b fragmented, /b the measure that determines its liability is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to cook an egg most easily /b cooked, one that is already b beaten and placed in a stew pot. /b The measure of firewood is clearly delineated. The Gemara answers: Still, this mishna is necessary. b You might have said: There, /b the measure of the crushed reed reflects the fact that b it is not suitable for anything /b other than kindling. b However, /b regarding b wood that is suitable to /b be used b as a tooth of a key [ i aklida /i ], /b the measure that determines its liability should be b even any /b small b amount. /b Therefore, b it teaches us /b that wood is typically designated for burning, and that determines the measure for liability for carrying out wood on Shabbat.,We learned in the mishna that all types of b spices /b join together with one another to constitute the measure b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. The /b Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which we learned elsewhere: b Spices, /b which are prohibited due to b two or three /b different b prohibitions, /b e.g., one is prohibited due to i orla /i , and one due to the prohibition of untithed produce, and they were all b of a single species /b ( i Tosafot /i ), b or /b if they were b of three /b different b species, are prohibited, and they join together with each other /b to constitute a complete measure. b And Ḥizkiya said: /b
72. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, divine Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 149
29a. כי הא (דרבה) בר חמא כי הוו קיימי מקמיה דרב חסדא מרהטי בגמרא בהדי הדדי והדר מעייני בסברא,אמר רבא מאני משתיא במטללתא מאני מיכלא בר ממטללתא חצבא ושחיל בר ממטללתא ושרגא במטללתא ואמרי לה בר ממטללתא ולא פליגי הא בסוכה גדולה הא בסוכה קטנה:,ירדו גשמים: תנא משתסרח המקפה של גריסין,אביי הוה קא יתיב קמיה דרב יוסף במטללתא נשב זיקא וקא מייתי ציבותא אמר להו רב יוסף פנו לי מאני מהכא אמר ליה אביי והא תנן משתסרח המקפה אמר ליה לדידי כיון דאנינא דעתאי כמי שתסרח המקפה דמי לי,ת"ר היה אוכל בסוכה וירדו גשמים וירד אין מטריחין אותו לעלות עד שיגמור סעודתו היה ישן תחת הסוכה וירדו גשמים וירד אין מטריחין אותו לעלות עד שיאור,איבעיא להו עד שיעור או עד שיאור ת"ש עד שיאור ויעלה עמוד השחר תרתי אלא אימא עד שיעור ויעלה עמוד השחר:,משל למה הדבר דומה: איבעיא להו מי שפך למי ת"ש דתניא שפך לו רבו קיתון על פניו ואמר לו אי אפשי בשמושך,ת"ר בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לכל העולם כולו משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שעשה סעודה לעבדיו והניח פנס לפניהם כעס עליהם ואמר לעבדו טול פנס מפניהם והושיבם בחושך,תניא רבי מאיר אומר כל זמן שמאורות לוקין סימן רע לשונאיהם של ישראל מפני שמלומדין במכותיהן משל לסופר שבא לבית הספר ורצועה בידו מי דואג מי שרגיל ללקות בכל יום ויום הוא דואג,תנו רבנן בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לעובדי כוכבים לבנה לוקה סימן רע לשונאיהם של ישראל מפני שישראל מונין ללבנה ועובדי כוכבים לחמה לוקה במזרח סימן רע ליושבי מזרח במערב סימן רע ליושבי מערב באמצע הרקיע סימן רע לכל העולם כולו,פניו דומין לדם חרב בא לעולם לשק חיצי רעב באין לעולם לזו ולזו חרב וחיצי רעב באין לעולם לקה בכניסתו פורענות שוהה לבא ביציאתו ממהרת לבא וי"א חילוף הדברים,ואין לך כל אומה ואומה שלוקה שאין אלהיה לוקה עמה שנאמר (שמות יב, יב) ובכל אלהי מצרים אעשה שפטים ובזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום אין מתיראין מכל אלו שנאמר (ירמיהו י, ב) כה אמר ה' אל דרך הגוים אל תלמדו ומאותות השמים אל תחתו כי יחתו הגוים מהמה עובדי כוכבים יחתו ואין ישראל יחתו,ת"ר בשביל ארבעה דברים חמה לוקה על אב בית דין שמת ואינו נספד כהלכה ועל נערה המאורסה שצעקה בעיר ואין מושיע לה ועל משכב זכור ועל שני אחין שנשפך דמן כאחד,ובשביל ארבעה דברים מאורות לוקין על כותבי (פלסתר) ועל מעידי עדות שקר ועל מגדלי בהמה דקה בא"י ועל קוצצי אילנות טובות,ובשביל ד' דברים נכסי בעלי בתים נמסרין למלכות על משהי שטרות פרועים ועל מלוי ברבית 29a. b As /b in b that /b situation involving Rava and Rami b bar Ḥama, when they would stand before Rav Ḥisda, /b after he taught them a i halakha /i b they /b would b quickly /b review b the tradition /b that they heard from him b together and /b only b then analyze the rationale /b of the tradition that they had received. Apparently, in the study of Mishna and the amoraic commentary on the Mishna there is a distinction between extensive and intensive study.,With regard to residence in the i sukka /i , b Rava said: Drinking vessels /b such as cups, which are usually clean, remain b in the i sukka /i . Eating vessels /b are taken b out of the i sukka /i /b after use. b An earthenware jug and a wicker basket [ i shaḥil /i ] /b that are used for drawing water are taken b outside the i sukka /i . And a lamp /b remains b inside the i sukka /i , and some say /b it is taken b outside the i sukka /i . /b The Gemara comments: b And they do not disagree. /b Rather, b this /b opinion, that a lamp remains inside the i sukka /i , is referring b to a large i sukka /i , /b where the lamp and its odor do not disturb those residing in the i sukka /i . And b that /b opinion, that the lamp is taken outside the i sukka /i , is referring b to a small i sukka /i , /b where the lamp’s odor is offensive.,§ The mishna stated: If b rain fell, /b it is permitted to leave the i sukka /i from the point that it is raining so hard that the congealed dish will spoil. b It was taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : The measure is b from when a congealed dish of pounded grain, /b a dish ruined by even slight rainfall, b will spoil. /b , b Abaye was sitting before Rav Yosef in the i sukka /i . The wind blew and brought /b with it b splinters /b from the roofing, and they fell onto the food. b Rav Yosef said to him: Vacate my vessels from here, /b and I will eat in the house. b Abaye said to him: Didn’t we learn /b in the mishna that one remains in the i sukka /i b until the congealed dish will spoil? /b That is not yet the case. b He said to him: For me, since I am delicate, /b this situation b is as if the congealed dish will spoil. /b , b The Sages taught: /b If b one was eating in the i sukka /i , and rain fell, /b and b he descended /b from the i sukka /i on the roof to eat in his house, b one does not burden him to ascend /b back to the i sukka /i once the rain ceases b until /b after b he finishes his meal. /b Similarly, if b one was sleeping under /b the roofing of b the i sukka /i , and rain fell, and he descended /b to sleep in the house, b one does not burden him to ascend /b back to the i sukka /i once the rain ceases; rather, he may sleep in the house b until it becomes light. /b , b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: Is the correct reading of the i baraita /i : b Until one awakens [ i sheyeor /i ], /b spelled with an i ayin /i , and once he awakens he returns to the i sukka /i even in the middle of the night? Or is the correct reading: b Until it becomes light [ i sheyeor /i ], /b spelled with an i alef /i , and he need not return to the i sukka /i until morning? b Come /b and b hear /b a proof that will resolve the matter from a related i baraita /i : One need not return to the i sukka /i b until it becomes light [ i sheyeor /i ], /b spelled with an i alef /i , b and dawn /b arrives. The Gemara asks: Why did the i baraita /i repeat the arrival of light b two /b times (Ritva)? b Rather, say /b instead: b Until he awakens [ i sheyeor /i ], /b spelled with an i ayin /i , b and the dawn /b arrives. Both of the readings are accurate, as until one awakens and it becomes light he may remain in the house.,§ The mishna continues: The Sages b told a parable: To what is this matter comparable? /b It is comparable to a servant who comes to pour wine for his master, and he pours a jug of water in his face. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b Who poured /b the water b in whose /b face? b Come /b and b hear /b a proof, b as it is taught /b explicitly in a i baraita /i : b His master poured a jug /b of water b on his face and said to him: I do not want your service. /b ,Apropos the fact that rain on i Sukkot /i is an indication of divine rebuke, the Gemara cites several related topics. b The Sages taught: When the sun is eclipsed it is a bad omen for the entire world. /b The Gemara tells b a parable. To what is this matter comparable? /b It is comparable b to a king of flesh and blood who prepared a feast for his servants and placed a lantern [ i panas /i ] before them /b to illuminate the hall. b He became angry at them and said to his servant: Take the lantern from before them and seat them in darkness. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir says: When the /b heavenly b lights, /b i.e., the sun and the moon, b are eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the enemies of the Jewish people, /b which is a euphemism for the Jewish people, b because they are experienced in their beatings. /b Based on past experience, they assume that any calamity that afflicts the world is directed at them. The Gemara suggests b a parable: /b This is similar b to a teacher who comes to the school with a strap in his hand. Who worries? /b The child b who is accustomed to be beaten each and every day is /b the one who b worries. /b , b The Sages taught /b in another i baraita /i : b When the sun is eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the /b other b nations. /b When b the moon is eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the enemies of the Jewish people. /b This is b due to /b the fact b that the Jewish people calculate /b their calendar primarily based b on the moon, and the /b other b nations /b calculate based b on the sun. /b When the sun is b eclipsed in the east, it is a bad omen for the residents /b of the lands of b the east. /b When it is eclipsed b in the west, it is a bad omen for the residents /b of the lands of b the west. /b When it is eclipsed b in the middle of the sky, it is a bad omen for the entire world. /b ,If, during an eclipse, b the visage /b of the sun b is /b red b like blood, /b it is an omen that b sword, /b i.e., war, b is coming to the world. /b If the sun b is /b black b like sackcloth /b made of dark goat hair, it is an omen that b arrows of hunger are coming to the world, /b because hunger darkens people’s faces. When it is similar both b to this, /b to blood, b and to that, /b to sackcloth, it is a sign that both b sword and arrows of hunger are coming to the world. /b If it was b eclipsed upon its entry, /b soon after rising, it is an omen that b calamity is tarrying to come. /b If the sun is eclipsed b upon its departure /b at the end of the day, it is an omen that b calamity is hastening to come. And some say the matters are reversed: /b An eclipse in the early morning is an omen that calamity is hastening, while an eclipse in the late afternoon is an omen that calamity is tarrying.,The Sages said: b There is no nation that is afflicted whose god is not afflicted with it, as it is stated: “And against all the gods of Egypt I will mete out judgment; I am God” /b (Exodus 12:12). The Gemara adds: b When the Jewish people perform God’s will, they /b need b not fear any of these /b omens, b as it is stated: “Thus says the Lord: Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of Heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them” /b (Jeremiah 10:2). b The nations will be dismayed, but the Jewish people will not be dismayed, /b provided they do not follow the ways of the nations., b The Sages taught /b that b on account of four matters the sun is eclipsed: On /b account of b a president of the court who dies and is not eulogized appropriately, /b and the eclipse is a type of eulogy by Heaven; b on /b account of b a betrothed young woman who screamed in the city /b that she was being raped b and there was no one to rescue her; on /b account of b homosexuality; and on /b account of b two brothers whose blood was spilled as one. /b , b And on account of four matters the /b heavenly b lights /b are b eclipsed: On /b account of b forgers of a fraudulent document [ i pelaster /i ] /b that is intended to discredit others; b on /b account of b testifiers of false testimony; on /b account of b raisers of small domesticated animals in Eretz Yisrael /b in a settled area; b and on /b account of b choppers of good, /b fruit-producing b trees. /b , b And on account of four matters the property of homeowners is delivered to the monarchy /b as punishment: b On /b account of those b keepers of paid /b promissory b notes, /b who keep these documents instead of tearing them or returning them to the borrowers, as that would allow the lender to collect money with the note a second time; b and on /b account of b lenders with interest; /b
73. Eusebius of Caesarea, Generalis Elementaria Introductio (= Eclogae Propheticae), None (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Motta and Petrucci (2022), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity, 125
74. Anon., The Acts of Paul And Thecla, 229 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •modern scholarship on divine sonship author's methods and presuppositions Found in books: Peppard (2011), The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context, 28
75. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 56, 60
88b. בן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו,זקן ממרא שרצו בית דינו למחול לו מוחלין לו וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום על שנים הודו לי על זקן ממרא לא הודו לי כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל תיובתא,תניא אמר רבי יוסי מתחילה לא היו מרבין מחלוקת בישראל אלא בית דין של שבעים ואחד יושבין בלשכת הגזית ושני בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה יושבין בכל עיירות ישראל,הוצרך הדבר לשאול שואלין מבית דין שבעירן אם שמעו אמרו להן ואם לאו באין לזה שסמוך לעירן אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח הר הבית אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח העזרה,ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך למדתי וכך למדו חבירי אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין ללשכת הגזית ששם יושבין מתמיד של שחר עד תמיד של בין הערבים,ובשבתות ובימים טובים יושבין בחיל נשאלה שאלה בפניהם אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו עומדין למנין רבו המטמאים טמאו רבו המטהרין טהרו,משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן רבו מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות,משם כותבין ושולחין בכל מקומות כל מי שהוא חכם ושפל ברך ודעת הבריות נוחה הימנו יהא דיין בעירו משם מעלין אותו להר הבית משם לעזרה משם ללשכת הגזית,שלחו מתם איזהו בן העולם הבא ענוותן ושפל ברך שייף עייל שייף ונפיק וגריס באורייתא תדירא ולא מחזיק טיבותא לנפשיה יהבו ביה רבנן עינייהון ברב עולא בר אבא:,חזר לעירו ושנה: ת"ר אינו חייב עד שיעשה כהוראתו או שיורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו,בשלמא יורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו מעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא שיעשה כהוראתו מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא התינח היכא דאורי בחלב ודם דמעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא היכא דאורי בחייבי מיתות ב"ד מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא,מעיקרא בעי התראה השתא לא בעי התראה,מסית דלא בעי התראה מאי איכא למימר מעיקרא אי אמר טעמא מקבלינן מיניה השתא אי אמר טעמא לא מקבלינן מיניה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חומר בדברי סופרים מבדברי תורה האומר אין תפילין כדי לעבור על ד"ת פטור חמש טוטפות להוסיף על דברי סופרים חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' אושעיא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע ואין לנו אלא תפילין אליבא דרבי יהודה,והאיכא לולב דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בלולב מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דלולב אין צריך אגד האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן דצריך אגד גרוע ועומד הוא,והאיכא ציצית דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בציצית מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דקשר העליון לאו דאורייתא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן 88b. The second matter is that in the case of b a stubborn and rebellious son whose father and mother sought to forgive him /b for his gluttonous and drunken conduct and decided not to bring him to court, b they /b can b forgive him. /b ,The third is that in the case of b a rebellious elder whom his court sought to forgive /b for his deviation from their ruling, b they /b can b forgive him. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, with regard to two /b of the cases b they agreed with me, /b but b with regard to a rebellious elder they did not agree with me, so that discord /b would b not proliferate in Israel. /b This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and is b a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion of Rav Kahana., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei said: Initially, discord would not proliferate among Israel. Rather, the court of seventy-one /b judges b would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And /b there were b two /b additional b courts /b each consisting b of twenty-three /b judges; b one /b would b convene at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one /b would b convene at the entrance to the /b Temple b courtyard. And all the other courts /b consisting b of twenty-three /b judges would b convene in all cities /b inhabited by the b Jewish people. /b ,If b the matter /b was unclear and it b was necessary to ask /b and clarify it, those uncertain of the i halakha /i would b ask the court that is in their city. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to /b a court b that is adjacent to their city. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to the court at the entrance to the Temple Mount. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to the court at the entrance to the /b Temple b courtyard. /b , b And /b the elder whose ruling deviated from the ruling of his colleagues b says: This /b is what b I interpreted and that /b is what b my colleagues interpreted; this /b is what b I taught and that /b is what b my colleagues taught. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, these /b judges b and those /b judges would b come to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, where /b the Sanhedrin would be b convened from /b the time that b the daily morning offering /b is sacrificed b until /b the time that b the daily afternoon offering /b is sacrificed., b And on i Shabbatot /i and Festivals, /b when court is not in session, the members of the court b would sit at the rampart. /b When b a question was asked before them, if /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they would say /b it b to them, and if not they would stand for a vote /b on the matter. If the judges b who deemed /b the item in question b ritually impure outnumbered /b those who deemed it pure, the court b would deem /b the item b impure. /b If the judges b who deemed /b the item in question b ritually pure outnumbered /b those who deemed it impure, the court b would deem /b the item b pure. /b , b From /b the time b that the disciples of Shammai and Hillel grew in number, /b and they were disciples b who did not attend /b to their masters b to the requisite /b degree, b dispute proliferated among the Jewish people and the Torah became like two Torahs. /b Two disparate systems of i halakha /i developed, and there was no longer a halakhic consensus with regard to every matter.,The i baraita /i continues its discussion of the workings of the Sanhedrin: b From there, /b the Sanhedrin b writes and dispatches /b the following statement b to all places: Anyone who is wise and humble and the minds of people are at ease with him shall be a judge in his city. /b If he is successful in his city, b from there, they promote him to the /b court at the entrance to b the Temple Mount /b if there is a vacant seat on the court, and b from there /b they promote him to the court at the entrance b to the /b Temple b courtyard, /b and b from there to the /b court in the b Chamber of Hewn Stone. /b ,Apropos the appointment of judges, the Gemara relates that b they sent /b the following statement b from there, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b Who is /b the one b destined /b to receive a place in b the World-to-Come? /b It is one who is b modest and humble, /b who b bows /b and b enters /b and b bows /b and b exits, and /b who b studies Torah regularly, and /b who b does not take credit for himself. The Sages cast their eyes on Rav Ulla bar Abba, /b as they perceived him as the embodiment of all these characteristics.,The mishna teaches: If the rebellious elder b returned to his city and he taught /b in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment, unless he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling. b The Sages taught: He is not liable unless he acts in accordance with his ruling, or he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b Granted, /b if b he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling /b there is a novel element in the fact that he is liable to be executed, as b initially, /b before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is b not liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for instructing others to perform the transgression, b and now, /b he is b to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b But /b if b he acts in accordance with his ruling, initially, /b before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is b also liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for performing that action. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: b This works out well /b in a case b where he ruled with regard to /b forbidden b fat and blood, as initially he /b would b not /b have been b liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty; rather, he would have been liable to receive i karet /i , b and now he is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b But /b in a case b where he ruled with regard to /b a transgression for which one is b liable /b to receive b a court /b -imposed b death /b penalty, b initially, /b he b is also liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty.,The Gemara explains: There is a novel element even in a case where he acts in accordance with his ruling, as b initially, /b before he is deemed a rebellious elder, b he requires forewarning /b in order to be executed; b now, he does not require forewarning /b in order to be executed.,The Gemara asks: If the rebellious elder’s ruling was with regard to one who b instigates /b others to engage in idol worship, b who does not require forewarning, what is there to say? /b Both before and after he is deemed a rebellious elder he is executed without forewarning. The Gemara answers: b Initially, /b before the rebellious elder ruled that instigating others to engage in idol worship is permitted, b if /b after he instigated others, he b stated a reason /b why he thought that it is permitted, b we accept /b his explanation b from him /b and exempt him. b Now, /b after he issued the divergent ruling, b if he stated a reason, we do not accept /b the explanation b from him, /b since he already indicated that he holds that instigating others to engage in idol worship incitement is permitted and that is the reason that he engaged in instigation., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to the rulings of the rebellious elder the mishna states: There is greater b stringency with regard to /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah b than with regard to matters of Torah. /b If b one states: /b There is b no /b mitzva to don b phylacteries, /b and his intention is b in order to /b have others b violate matters of Torah, /b he is b exempt /b from punishment as a rebellious elder. One who disputes matters written explicitly in the Torah is not considered an elder and a Torah scholar, and therefore does not assume the status of a rebellious elder. If, however, he disputed a matter based on rabbinic tradition, e.g., he stated that there should be b five compartments /b in the phylacteries of the head, in order b to add /b an extra compartment b to /b the four established according to traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah, he is b liable. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Elazar says /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says: One is liable only for /b issuing a ruling with regard to b a matter whose essence, /b whose basic obligation, b is from matters of Torah and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation. b And we have only /b the mitzva to don b phylacteries /b that meets those criteria. b And /b Rabbi Oshaya’s statement is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, /b who says: A rebellious elder is liable only for a matter whose essence is from matters of Torah and whose explanation is from traditional rabbinic interpretations of the Torah.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there /b the mitzva of b i lulav /i /b and the other species that one takes on the festival of i Sukkot /i , b whose essence is from matters of Torah, and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b that establish the identity and the number of the four species enumerated in the Torah, b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b other species to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: That is not the case, as b with regard to /b the mitzva of b i lulav /i , what do we hold? If we hold that /b fundamentally b a i lulav /i does not require binding /b of the species together in order to fulfill the mitzva, then adding an additional species is inconsequential, as b these /b species with which he fulfills the mitzva b stand alone and that /b additional species b stands alone. /b It is as though he were holding the species of the mitzva and an additional unrelated item that does not affect fulfillment of the mitzva. b And if we hold /b that b a i lulav /i requires binding /b of the four species together in order to fulfill the mitzva, fulfillment of the mitzva b is already compromised /b from the outset. The rebellious elder is liable only when the object of the mitzva was as it should be and the addition compromised that object and disqualifies it. In this case, the object was never as it should be.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there /b the mitzva of b ritual fringes, whose essence is from matters of Torah, and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b that establish the number of fringes enumerated in the Torah and the number of threads in each fringe, b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b fringes or threads to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: That is not the case, as b with regard to ritual fringes, what do we hold? If we hold that the upper knot is not /b mandated b by Torah law, /b and one fulfills his obligation by placing the threads on the corner of the garment, b these /b threads with which he fulfills the mitzva b are independent and that /b additional thread b is independent /b and does not compromise fulfillment of the mitzva. The additional string is not considered as joined to the required strings. b And if we hold /b
76. Justinian, Digest, 5 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, divine Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 65
77. Justinian, Digesta, 5 (6th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •authority, divine Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 65
78. Quran, Quran, 2.231, 7.143-7.147, 8.3, 17.51, 21.104, 22.13, 36.1, 36.81, 96.1-96.5 (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •signs, and divine authority Found in books: Gwynne (2004), Logic, Rhetoric and Legal Reasoning in the Qur'an: God's Arguments, 25, 66, 113
2.231. وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ وَلَا تُمْسِكُوهُنَّ ضِرَارًا لِتَعْتَدُوا وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ ظَلَمَ نَفْسَهُ وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا آيَاتِ اللَّهِ هُزُوًا وَاذْكُرُوا نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَا أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَالْحِكْمَةِ يَعِظُكُمْ بِهِ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ 7.143. وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَى لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَنْ تَرَانِي وَلَكِنِ انْظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ مُوسَى صَعِقًا فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ 7.144. قَالَ يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي اصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى النَّاسِ بِرِسَالَاتِي وَبِكَلَامِي فَخُذْ مَا آتَيْتُكَ وَكُنْ مِنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ 7.145. وَكَتَبْنَا لَهُ فِي الْأَلْوَاحِ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ مَوْعِظَةً وَتَفْصِيلًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ فَخُذْهَا بِقُوَّةٍ وَأْمُرْ قَوْمَكَ يَأْخُذُوا بِأَحْسَنِهَا سَأُرِيكُمْ دَارَ الْفَاسِقِينَ 7.146. سَأَصْرِفُ عَنْ آيَاتِيَ الَّذِينَ يَتَكَبَّرُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَإِنْ يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا وَإِنْ يَرَوْا سَبِيلَ الرُّشْدِ لَا يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًا وَإِنْ يَرَوْا سَبِيلَ الْغَيِّ يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًا ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا وَكَانُوا عَنْهَا غَافِلِينَ 7.147. وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا وَلِقَاءِ الْآخِرَةِ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ هَلْ يُجْزَوْنَ إِلَّا مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ 8.3. الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ 8.3. وَإِذْ يَمْكُرُ بِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِيُثْبِتُوكَ أَوْ يَقْتُلُوكَ أَوْ يُخْرِجُوكَ وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ 17.51. أَوْ خَلْقًا مِمَّا يَكْبُرُ فِي صُدُورِكُمْ فَسَيَقُولُونَ مَنْ يُعِيدُنَا قُلِ الَّذِي فَطَرَكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ فَسَيُنْغِضُونَ إِلَيْكَ رُءُوسَهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ مَتَى هُوَ قُلْ عَسَى أَنْ يَكُونَ قَرِيبًا 21.104. يَوْمَ نَطْوِي السَّمَاءَ كَطَيِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُعِيدُهُ وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَا إِنَّا كُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ 22.13. يَدْعُو لَمَنْ ضَرُّهُ أَقْرَبُ مِنْ نَفْعِهِ لَبِئْسَ الْمَوْلَى وَلَبِئْسَ الْعَشِيرُ 36.1. بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ يس 36.1. وَسَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنْذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنْذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ 36.81. أَوَلَيْسَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِقَادِرٍ عَلَى أَنْ يَخْلُقَ مِثْلَهُمْ بَلَى وَهُوَ الْخَلَّاقُ الْعَلِيمُ 96.1. بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ 96.1. عَبْدًا إِذَا صَلَّى 96.2. خَلَقَ الْإِنْسَانَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ 96.3. اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ 96.4. الَّذِي عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ 96.5. عَلَّمَ الْإِنْسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ
79. Epigraphy, Ils, "3019", "3051", "3160", "3168", "3170", "3263", "3274", "3339", "3392", "3503", "3534", "3542", "3659", 3005, 3006, 3007, "3229"  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rüpke (2014), The individual in the religions of the ancient Mediterranean. 75
80. Isokrates, Ad Nikolem, 6  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 297
81. Various, Fgrh, None  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, seers/diviners (manteis) Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 300
82. Epigraphy, Ig Iv ,1, 128.8-128.9  Tagged with subjects: •religious authority, divine agency Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 350
83. Stobaeus, Stobaei Hermetica (Sh), 24, 25, 26, 27, "23"  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rüpke (2014), The individual in the religions of the ancient Mediterranean. 390
84. Anon., Corpus Hermeticum, "11", "1"  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rüpke (2014), The individual in the religions of the ancient Mediterranean. 390
85. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q377, 0  Tagged with subjects: •authority, divine Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 142
86. Anon., Tanhuma Bemidbar, 1.7  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 68
87. Anon., 4Q375, None  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 53
88. Anon., 4 Ezra, a b c d\n0 4 4 4 None\n1 14.37 14.37 14 37 \n2 14.35 14.35 14 35 \n3 14.27 14.27 14 27 \n4 14.36 14.36 14 36 \n5 14.29 14.29 14 29 \n6 2 2 2 None\n7 14.34 14.34 14 34 \n8 14.22 14.22 14 22 \n9 14.32 14.32 14 32 \n10 1 1 1 None\n11 14.33 14.33 14 33 \n12 14.38 14.38 14 38 \n13 14.30 14.30 14 30 \n14 14.24 14.24 14 24 \n15 14.26 14.26 14 26 \n16 14.28 14.28 14 28 \n17 14.23 14.23 14 23 \n18 14.31 14.31 14 31 \n19 14.25 14.25 14 25 \n20 14.39 14.39 14 39 \n21 14.41 14.41 14 41 \n22 . . \n23 14.44 14.44 14 44 \n24 14.48 14.48 14 48 \n25 14.45 14.45 14 45 \n26 14.46 14.46 14 46 \n27 14.42 14.42 14 42 \n28 14.40 14.40 14 40 \n29 8 8 8 None\n30 - None\n31 14.43 14.43 14 43 \n32 14.47 14.47 14 47  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57
89. Dracontius, Sat., 1, 137-148  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fielding (2017), Transformations of Ovid in Late Antiquity. 113
90. Epigraphy, Lscg, 46, 69, 55  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 350
91. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q166, 2.4-2.6  Tagged with subjects: •authority, human vs. divine/scriptural •oral tora, human vs. divine source of authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 67
92. Epigraphy, Lsam, 19-20  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Eidinow and Kindt (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, 350
93. Hermas, Sim, a b c d\n0 "5.7" "5.7" "5 7"  Tagged with subjects: •authority, divine Found in books: Rüpke (2014), The individual in the religions of the ancient Mediterranean. 325
94. Anon., 4Q376, 0  Tagged with subjects: •divine revelation, as source of authority •halakhah, divine versus human authority in Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 54