1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 18.9-18.14, 28.58 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • blasphemer • blasphemy • blasphemy (H RŠ), in the Aramaic magic bowls • blasphemy (H RŠ), in the Babylonian Talmud
Found in books: Lidonnici and Lieber (2007), Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism, 224; Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 126, 142; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 137; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 44, 74, 173; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 44, 74, 173
sup>
18.9 כִּי אַתָּה בָּא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ לֹא־תִלְמַד לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּתוֹעֲבֹת הַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם׃' '18.11 וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִים׃ 18.12 כִּי־תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה וּבִגְלַל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ׃ 18.13 תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃ 18.14 כִּי הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָם אֶל־מְעֹנְנִים וְאֶל־קֹסְמִים יִשְׁמָעוּ וְאַתָּה לֹא כֵן נָתַן לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃
28.58 אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת הַכְּתוּבִים בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת־הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא הַזֶּה אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃'' None | sup>
18.9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 18.10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, 18.11 or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer. 18.12 For whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD; and because of these abominations the LORD thy God is driving them out from before thee. 18.13 Thou shalt be whole-hearted with the LORD thy God. 18.14 For these nations, that thou art to dispossess, hearken unto soothsayers, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
28.58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;'' None |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 24.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy • blasphemer • blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 731; Lidonnici and Lieber (2007), Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism, 213, 216, 225; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 134
sup>
24.16 וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם־יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ־בוֹ כָּל־הָעֵדָה כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח בְּנָקְבוֹ־שֵׁם יוּמָת׃'' None | sup>
24.16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.'' None |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • blasphemy
Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 165; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74
| sup>
15.30 But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.'' None |
|
4. None, None, nan (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy/Blasphemers • blasphemy
Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 99; Stuckenbruck (2007), 1 Enoch 91-108, 260
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 29.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy, heresy as • blasphemy
Found in books: Boulluec (2022), The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries, 66, 67; Lynskey (2021), Tyconius’ Book of Rules: An Ancient Invitation to Ecclesial Hermeneutics, 156
sup>
29.13 וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי וְלִבּוֹ רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי וַתְּהִי יִרְאָתָם אֹתִי מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה׃'' None | sup>
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;'' None |
|
6. Euripides, Hippolytus, 13 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemy
Found in books: Fletcher (2012), Performing Oaths in Classical Greek Drama, 180, 189; Petrovic and Petrovic (2016), Inner Purity and Pollution in Greek Religion, 187, 188
sup>
13 λέγει κακίστην δαιμόνων πεφυκέναι:'' None | sup>
13 for that son of Theseus, born of the Amazon, Hippolytus, whom holy Pittheus taught, alone of all the dwellers in this land of Troezen, calls me vilest of the deities. Love he scorns, and, as for marriage, will none of it;'' None |
|
7. Anon., Didache, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemy • blasphemy (βλασφημία)
Found in books: Berglund Crostini and Kelhoffer (2022), Why We Sing: Music, Word, and Liturgy in Early Christianity, 235; Wilson (2012), The Sentences of Sextus, 122
| sup>
3.6 My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for anger leads the way to murder; neither jealous, nor quarrelsome, nor of hot temper; for out of all these murders are engendered. My child, be not a lustful one; for lust leads the way to fornication; neither a filthy talker, nor of lofty eye; for out of all these adulteries are engendered. My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads the way to idolatry; neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to look at these things; for out of all these idolatry is engendered. My child, be not a liar, since a lie leads the way to theft; neither money-loving, nor vainglorious, for out of all these thefts are engendered. My child, be not a murmurer, since it leads the way to blasphemy; neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these blasphemies are engendered. But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5 Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, Luke 18:14 nor give over-confidence to your soul. Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. The workings that befall you receive as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass. '' None |
|
8. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 1.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemer • blasphemy
Found in books: Kessler (2004), Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac, 81; Lidonnici and Lieber (2007), Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism, 214
sup>
1.17 λαβὼν δ' αὐτὸς τὴν ὑπ' ἐκείνου καταλελειμμένην ὑπώρειαν ᾤκει ἐν τῇ Ναβρῶ πόλει: παλαιοτέρα δέ ἐστιν ἔτεσιν ἑπτὰ πρὸ Τάνιδος τῆς Αἰγύπτου. Λῶτος δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὸ πεδίον κειμένην καὶ ποταμὸν ̓Ιορδάνην εἶχεν οὐκ ἄπωθεν τῆς Σοδομιτῶν πόλεως, ἣ τότε μὲν ἦν ἀγαθή, νῦν δὲ ἠφάνισται κατὰ βούλησιν θεοῦ. τὴν δὲ αἰτίαν κατὰ χώραν σημανῶ."
1.17 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς προϊὼν ὁ λόγος κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν τάξιν σημανεῖ: τοῦτο γὰρ διὰ ταύτης ποιήσειν τῆς πραγματείας ἐπηγγειλάμην οὐδὲν προσθεὶς οὐδ' αὖ παραλιπών." "" None | sup>
1.17 As I proceed, therefore, I shall accurately describe what is contained in our records, in the order of time that belongs to them; for I have already promised so to do throughout this undertaking; and this without adding any thing to what is therein contained, or taking away any thing therefrom.
1.17 and he took himself what the other left, which were the lower grounds at the foot of the mountains; and he himself dwelt in Hebron, which is a city seven years more ancient than Tanis of Egypt. But Lot possessed the land of the plain, and the river Jordan, not far from the city of Sodom, which was then a fine city, but is now destroyed, by the will and wrath of God, the cause of which I shall show in its proper place hereafter.'' None |
|
9. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.237 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemer • blasphemy
Found in books: Kessler (2004), Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac, 81; Lidonnici and Lieber (2007), Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism, 224
sup>
2.237 ἐγὼ δ' οὐκ ἂν ἐβουλόμην περὶ τῶν παρ' ἑτέροις νομίμων ἐξετάζειν: τὰ γὰρ αὑτῶν ἡμῖν φυλάττειν πάτριόν ἐστιν, οὐ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων κατηγορεῖν. καὶ περί γε τοῦ μήτε χλευάζειν μήτε βλασφημεῖν τοὺς νομιζομένους θεοὺς παρ' ἑτέροις ἄντικρυς ἡμῖν ὁ νομοθέτης ἀπείρηκεν αὐτῆς ἕνεκα προσηγορίας τοῦ θεοῦ."" None | sup>
2.237 Now I have no mind to make an inquiry into the laws of other nations; for the custom of our country is to keep our own laws, but not to bring accusations against the laws of others. And indeed, our legislator hath expressly forbidden us to laugh at and revile those that are esteemed gods by other people, on account of the very name of God ascribed to them. '' None |
|
10. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7.5, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy • blasphemer • blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 732; Janowitz (2002b), Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity, 27; Lidonnici and Lieber (2007), Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism, 216; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 134, 151; Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 209; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 47, 72; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 47, 72
sup>
7.5 הַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי יַכֶּה יוֹסֵי אֶת יוֹסֵי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִים כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ:' "
10.1 כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו:" ' None | sup>
7.5 The blasphemer is punished only if he utters the divine name. Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day of the trial the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name:, ‘may Yose smite Yose.” When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed from court, and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, using the divine name. The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn. The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” but not uttering the divine name, and the third says: “I too heard thus.”
10.1 All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers a charm over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”' ' None |
|
11. New Testament, 2 Peter, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy • blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 732; Wilson (2012), The Sentences of Sextus, 384
sup>
2.2 καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις, διʼ οὓς ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφημηθήσεται·'' None | sup>
2.2 Many will follow their destructive ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned. '' None |
|
12. New Testament, Apocalypse, 2.9, 8.13, 12.12, 13.6, 16.11, 16.21 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy/Blasphemers • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy • blasphemy, blasphemers
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 732; Maier and Waldner (2022), Desiring Martyrs: Locating Martyrs in Space and Time, 41, 51; Stuckenbruck (2007), 1 Enoch 91-108, 260
sup>
2.9 Οἶδά σου τὴν θλίψιν καὶ τὴν πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ πλούσιος εἶ, καὶ τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων Ἰουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτούς, καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν, ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ.
8.13 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ πετομένου ἐν μεσουρανήματι λέγοντος φωνῇ μεγάλῃ Οὐαί οὐαί οὐαὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος τῶν τριῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν μελλόντων σαλπίζειν.
12.12 διὰ τοῦτο εὐφραίνεσθε, οὐρανοὶ καὶ οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς σκηνοῦντες· οὐαὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, ὅτι κατέβη ὁ διάβολος πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἔχων θυμὸν μέγαν, εἰδὼς ὅτι ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει.
13.6 καὶ ἤνοιξε τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εἰς βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν θεόν, βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ, τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηνοῦντας.
16.11 καὶ ἐβλασφήμησαντὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦἐκ τῶν πόνων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑλκῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν.
16.21 καὶχάλαζα μεγάληὡς ταλαντιαία καταβαίνει ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπρυς· καὶ ἐβλασφήμησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς τῆς χαλάζης, ὅτιμεγάληἐστὶν ἡ πληγὴ αὐτῆςσφόδρα.'' None | sup>
2.9 "I know your works, oppression, and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
8.13 I saw, and I heard an eagle, flying in mid heaven, saying with a loud voice, "Woe! Woe! Woe for those who dwell on the earth, because of the other voices of the trumpets of the three angels, who are yet to sound!"
12.12 Therefore rejoice, heavens, and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and to the sea, because the devil has gone down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has but a short time."
13.6 He opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his dwelling, those who dwell in heaven.' "
16.11 and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores. They didn't repent of their works. " 16.21 Great hailstones, about the weight of a talent, came down out of the sky on men. Men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, for this plague is exceedingly severe. '' None |
|
13. New Testament, Romans, 2.24 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy • blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 732; Lynskey (2021), Tyconius’ Book of Rules: An Ancient Invitation to Ecclesial Hermeneutics, 131; Wilson (2012), The Sentences of Sextus, 200
sup>
2.24 τὸγὰρὅνομα τοῦ θεοῦ διʼ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν,καθὼς γέγραπται.'' None | sup>
2.24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," just as it is written. '' None |
|
14. New Testament, John, 10.33 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 733; Ruzer (2020), Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror, 152
sup>
10.33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.'' None | sup>
10.33 The Jews answered him, "We don\'t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God."'' None |
|
15. New Testament, Luke, 5.21, 12.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 733; Ruzer (2020), Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror, 159, 173
sup>
5.21 καὶ ἤρξαντο διαλογίζεσθαι οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι λέγοντες Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφημίας; τίς δύναται ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θεός;
12.10 Καὶ πᾶς ὃς ἐρεῖ λόγον εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· τῷ δὲ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα βλασφημήσαντι οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται.'' None | sup>
5.21 The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"
12.10 Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. '' None |
|
16. New Testament, Mark, 2.5, 2.10, 3.28, 3.30, 14.62 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 733, 734; Ruzer (2020), Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror, 159, 162, 167
sup>
2.5 καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ Τέκνον, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι.
2.10 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς — λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ
3.28 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν·
3.30 ὅτι ἔλεγον Πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει.
14.62 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.'' None | sup>
2.5 Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you."
2.10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic -- ' "
3.28 Most assuredly I tell you, all of the sons of men's sins will be forgiven them, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; " 3.30 -- because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."
14.62 Jesus said, "I AM. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky."'' None |
|
17. New Testament, Matthew, 9.3, 12.24, 12.31, 24.19, 27.39 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • Blasphemy, heresy as • Blasphemy, in the Church itself • Blasphemy/Blasphemers • Mark, Jesus charged with blasphemy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 733; Boulluec (2022), The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries, 60, 521, 525, 526; Ruzer (2020), Early Jewish Messianism in the New Testament: Reflections in the Dim Mirror, 159, 162; Stuckenbruck (2007), 1 Enoch 91-108, 260
sup>
9.3 Καὶ ἰδού τινες τῶν γραμματέων εἶπαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς Οὗτος βλασφημεῖ.
12.24 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἀκούσαντες εἶπον Οὗτος οὐκ ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ Βεεζεβοὺλ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων.
12.31 Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται.
24.19 οὐαὶ δὲ ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
27.39 Οἱ δὲ παραπορευόμενοι ἐβλασφήμουν αὐτὸν κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν'' None | sup>
9.3 Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man blasphemes."
12.24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons."
12.31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
24.19 But woe to those who are with child and to nursing mothers in those days!
27.39 Those who passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, '' None |
|
18. Justin, First Apology, 26.1, 26.6 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy, heresy as • blasphemy
Found in books: Boulluec (2022), The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries, 55, 60, 61, 62; Moss (2012), Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions, 84
| sup>
26.1 And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius C sar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: - Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meder, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparet a, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds - the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh - we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you. " "
26.6 And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius C sar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: - Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meder, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparet a, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds - the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh - we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you. "" None |
|
19. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemy
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74
|
20. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemy
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 44, 173; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 44, 173
|
21. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • blasphemy
Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 165, 175; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 74; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 74
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemy
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 75; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 75
| 11b (ישעיהו מה, ז) יוצר אור ובורא חשך,לימא יוצר אור ובורא נוגה,כדכתיב קאמרינן,אלא מעתה (ישעיהו מה, ז) עושה שלום ובורא רע מי קא אמרינן כדכתיב אלא כתיב רע וקרינן הכל לישנא מעליא הכא נמי לימא נוגה לישנא מעליא,אלא אמר רבא כדי להזכיר מדת יום בלילה ומדת לילה ביום,בשלמא מדת לילה ביום כדאמרינן יוצר אור ובורא חשך אלא מדת יום בלילה היכי משכחת לה,אמר אביי גולל אור מפני חשך וחשך מפני אור,ואידך מאי היא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אהבה רבה וכן אורי ליה רבי אלעזר לר\' פדת בריה אהבה רבה,תניא נמי הכי אין אומרים אהבת עולם אלא אהבה רבה ורבנן אמרי אהבת עולם וכן הוא אומר (ירמיהו לא, ג) ואהבת עולם אהבתיך על כן משכתיך חסד,א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל השכים לשנות עד שלא קרא ק"ש צריך לברך משקרא ק"ש א"צ לברך שכבר נפטר באהבה רבה,אמר רב הונא למקרא צריך לברך ולמדרש א"צ לברך,ור\' אלעזר אמר למקרא ולמדרש צריך לברך למשנה א"צ לברך,ור\' יוחנן אמר אף למשנה נמי צריך לברך אבל לתלמוד א"צ לברך,ורבא אמר אף לתלמוד צריך (לחזור ו) לברך,דאמר רב חייא בר אשי זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב לתנויי פרקין בספרא דבי רב הוה מקדים וקא משי ידיה ובריך ומתני לן פרקין.,מאי מברך א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעסוק בדברי תורה,ור\' יוחנן מסיים בה הכי הערב נא ה\' אלהינו את דברי תורתך בפינו ובפיפיות עמך בית ישראל ונהיה אנחנו וצאצאינו וצאצאי עמך בית ישראל כלנו יודעי שמך ועוסקי תורתך ברוך אתה ה\' המלמד תורה לעמו ישראל,ורב המנונא אמר אשר בחר בנו מכל העמים ונתן לנו את תורתו ברוך אתה ה\' נותן התורה אמר רב המנונא זו היא מעולה שבברכות,הלכך לימרינהו לכולהו:,תנן התם אמר להם הממונה ברכו ברכה אחת והם ברכו וקראו עשרת הדברות שמע והיה אם שמוע ויאמר וברכו את העם ג\' ברכות אמת ויציב ועבודה וברכת כהנים ובשבת מוסיפין ברכה אחת למשמר היוצא,מאי ברכה אחת כי הא דרבי אבא ור\' יוסי בר אבא אקלעו לההוא אתרא בעו מנייהו מאי ברכה אחת לא הוה בידייהו ואתו שיילוהו לרב מתנה לא הוה בידיה אתו שיילוהו לרב יהודה אמר להו הכי אמר שמואל אהבה רבה,ואמר רבי זריקא אמר רבי אמי א"ר שמעון בן לקיש יוצר אור כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר הא דרבי זריקא לאו בפירוש אתמר אלא מכללא אתמר דאמר ר\' זריקא א"ר אמי אמר ר\' שמעון בן לקיש זאת אומרת ברכות אין מעכבות זו את זו,אי אמרת בשלמא יוצר אור הוו אמרי היינו דברכות אין מעכבות זו את זו דלא קא אמרי אהבה רבה'' None | 11b “Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil, I am the Lord Who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).,With regard to this formula of the blessing, the Gemara asks: Let him say the following formula instead: Who forms light and creates brightness, so as not to mention darkness, which has negative connotations.,The Gemara answers: We say the blessing as the verse is written in the Bible and do not alter the formula that appears in the verse.,The Gemara strongly objects: But if so, what about the continuation of the verse: “Who makes peace and creates evil”? Do we say this blessing as it is written in the Bible? Rather, it is written evil and we euphemistically recite the blessing all things to avoid mention of evil. Here, too, let us euphemistically say brightness instead of darkness.,Rather, Rava said: The reason we recite: “Who creates darkness” is in order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night during the day, and thereby unify day and night as different parts of a single entity.,The Gemara continues and asks: Granted, the attribute of night is mentioned during the day, as we say: Who forms light and creates darkness, but where do you find the attribute of day mentioned at night? In the blessing over the radiant lights recited at night there is no mention of “Who forms light.”,Abaye said: Nevertheless, the attribute of day is mentioned at night in the words: Rolling away light before the darkness and darkness before the light.,The Gemara asks: And what is the formula of the other blessing recited before Shema? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: An abounding love ahava rabba. And Rabbi Elazar instructed his son, Rabbi Pedat, to also say: An abounding love.,That was also taught in a baraita: One does not recite: An eternal love ahavat olam; rather, one recites: An abounding love. And the Rabbis say that one recites: An eternal love, and so it says: “And an eternal love I have loved you, therefore I have drawn you with kindness” (Jeremiah 31:2).,The blessing: An abounding love, is about God’s love for us and includes praise for His giving us the Torah. Therefore, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who arose to study, until he recites Shema he must recite a special blessing over the Torah. If he already recited Shema he need not recite that blessing, as he has exempted himself by reciting the blessing of: An abounding love, which includes the components of the blessing over the Torah.,Having mentioned the blessing recited over Torah, the Gemara focuses on a dispute over what constitutes Torah in terms of requiring a blessing. Rav Huna said: For the study of Bible, one must recite a blessing, as it is the word of God, and for halakhic midrash, the derivation of halakhot from verses, one need not recite a blessing.,And Rabbi Elazar said: For Bible and midrash, which includes halakhot derived from verses themselves, one must recite a blessing; for Mishna, which is only comprised of halakhic rulings issued by the Sages, one need not recite a blessing.,And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even for Mishna, which includes final, binding halakhic rulings, one must recite a blessing as well, but for Talmud, which comprises a study of the Mishna and the rationales for its rulings, one need not recite a blessing.,And Rava said: Even for Talmud, which is the means to analyze the significance of the halakhot, and is the only form of Torah study that leads one to its true meaning, one must recite a blessing.,This statement is supported by the practical halakha derived from observation of Rav’s practice. His student, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, said: Many times I stood before Rav to study our chapter in the Sifra, also known as Torat Kohanim, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, of the school of Rav, and I saw that Rav would first wash his hands, then recite a blessing, and only then he would teach us our chapter. This demonstrates that even before their study of Torat Kohanim, which, due to Rav’s explanation of the reasons behind the halakhot, was the equivalent of studying Talmud, one must recite a blessing.,The Gemara clarifies: What formula of blessings does he recite? There is a dispute over the formula of the blessings as well. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The formula of this blessing is like the standard formula for blessings recited over other mitzvot: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with his mitzvot and commanded us to engage in matters of Torah.,And Rabbi Yoḥa concludes the blessing by adding the following: Lord our God, make the words of Your Torah sweet in our mouths and in the mouths of Your people, the house of Israel, so that we and our descendants and the descendants of Your people, the house of Israel, may be those who know Your name and engage in Your Torah. Blessed are You, Lord, Who teaches Torah to His people Israel.,And Rav Hamnuna said an additional formula: Who has chosen us from all the peoples and given us His Torah. Blessed are You, Lord, Giver of the Torah. With regard to this formula, Rav Hamnuna said: This concise blessing is the most outstanding of all the blessings over the Torah, as it combines thanks to God for giving us the Torah as well as acclaim for the Torah and for Israel.,Since several formulas for the blessing over Torah were suggested, each with its own distinct advantage, the Gemara concludes: Therefore, let us recite them all as blessings over the Torah.,The Gemara returns to dealing with the blessings that accompany Shema, and describes the practice in the Temple. We learned there, in a mishna in tractate Tamid: In the morning the deputy High Priest appointed to oversee activity in the Temple, said to the priests who were members of the priestly watch mishmar on duty that week: Recite a single blessing. The members of the priestly watch recited a blessing, and read the Ten Commandments, Shema, VeHaya im Shamoa and VaYomer, the standard recitation of Shema. Additionally, they blessed the people with three blessings. These blessings were: True and Firm, the blessing of redemption recited after Shema; Avoda, service, the special blessing recited over God’s acceptance of the sacrifices with favor, similar to the blessing of Temple Service recited in the Amida prayer; and the priestly benediction, recited in the form of a prayer without the outstretched hands that usually accompany that blessing (Tosafot). And on Shabbat one blessing is added to bless the outgoing priestly watch, as the watch serving in the Temple was replaced on Shabbat.,Certain details in this mishna are not sufficiently clear. First, what is the single blessing that the deputy High Priest instructed the guards to recite? The Gemara relates: It is like the incident where Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yosei bar Abba happened to visit a certain unnamed place, and the people there asked them: What is the single blessing mentioned in the mishna? They did not have an answer readily available. So they came and asked Rav Mattana, and he too did not have an answer readily available. They came and asked Rav Yehuda, and he told them: Shmuel said as follows: An abounding love is the single blessing recited by the priestly watch.,Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said a different answer: This single blessing is: Who creates light. That was how Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement was received in Babylonia, yet when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this halakha was not a direct quote of a statement by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. That which Rabbi Zerika said was not stated explicitly by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, but rather it was inferred from another statement. As Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: From the expression: Recite a single blessing, in the mishna in tractate Tamid, it follows that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other. This means that if only one of the blessings was recited, the obligation to recite that blessing was fulfilled, as the two blessings are not mutually dependent.,The conclusion was drawn from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement that he held that the single blessing recited was: Who creates light. The considerations that led the Sages to that conclusion were: Granted, if you say that they would recite: Who creates light, then the conclusion of Reish Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other, is understandable, as they recited: Who creates light, and did not recite: An abounding love, and they nonetheless fulfilled their obligation.'' None |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Blasphemy • blasphemy
Found in books: Janowitz (2002b), Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity, 27; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 47, 74, 173; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 47, 74, 173
| 56a בכל יום דנין את העדים בכינוי יכה יוסי את יוסי,נגמר הדין לא הורגין בכינוי אלא מוציאין כל אדם לחוץ שואלין את הגדול שביניהן ואומר לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינין עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין,והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו:,65b מתיב ר\' זירא יצאו עדים זוממין שאין בהן מעשה ואמאי הא ליתנהו בלב,אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנו בקול,וקול לרבי יוחנן לאו מעשה הוא והא איתמר חסמה בקול והנהיגה בקול רבי יוחנן אמר חייב ור"ל אמר פטור,רבי יוחנן אמר חייב עקימת פיו הוי מעשה ר"ל אמר פטור עקימת פיו לא הוי מעשה,אלא אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנן בראיה,ת"ר בעל אוב זה המדבר בין הפרקים ומבין אצילי ידיו ידעוני זה המניח עצם ידוע בפיו והוא מדבר מאליו,מיתיבי (ישעיהו כט, ד) והיה כאוב מארץ קולך מאי לאו דמשתעי כי אורחיה לא דסליק ויתיב בין הפרקים ומשתעי,תא שמע (שמואל א כח, יג) ותאמר האשה אל שאול אלהים ראיתי עולים מן הארץ מאי לאו דמשתעי כי אורחיה לא דיתיב בין הפרקים ומשתעי,ת"ר בעל אוב אחד המעלה בזכורו ואחד הנשאל בגולגולת מה בין זה לזה מעלה בזכורו אינו עולה כדרכו ואינו עולה בשבת נשאל בגולגולת עולה כדרכו ועולה בשבת,עולה להיכא סליק הא קמיה מנח אלא אימא עונה כדרכו ועונה בשבת,ואף שאלה זו שאל טורנוסרופוס את ר"ע אמר לו ומה יום מיומים אמר לו ומה גבר מגוברין א"ל דמרי צבי שבת נמי דמרי צבי,א"ל הכי קאמינא לך מי יימר דהאידנא שבתא אמר לו נהר סבטיון יוכיח בעל אוב יוכיח קברו של אביו יוכיח שאין מעלה עשן בשבת אמר לו ביזיתו ביישתו וקיללתו,שואל אוב היינו ודורש אל המתים,דורש למתים כדתניא (דברים יח, יא) ודורש אל המתים זה המרעיב עצמו והולך ולן בבה"ק כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה,וכשהיה ר"ע מגיע למקרא זה היה בוכה ומה המרעיב עצמו כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה שורה עליו רוח טומאה המרעיב עצמו כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טהרה על אחת כמה וכמה אבל מה אעשה שעונותינו גרמו לנו שנאמר (ישעיהו נט, ב) כי אם עונותיכם היו מבדילים ביניכם לבין אלהיכם,אמר רבא אי בעו צדיקי ברו עלמא שנאמר כי עונותיכם היו מבדילים וגו\',רבא ברא גברא שדריה לקמיה דר\' זירא הוה קא משתעי בהדיה ולא הוה קא מהדר ליה אמר ליה מן חבריא את הדר לעפריך,רב חנינא ורב אושעיא הוו יתבי כל מעלי שבתא ועסקי בספר יצירה ומיברו להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי ליה,תנו רבנן מעונן ר\' שמעון אומר זה המעביר שבעה מיני זכור על העין וחכ"א זה האוחז את העינים ר"ע אומר זה המחשב עתים ושעות ואומר היום יפה לצאת למחר יפה ליקח לימודי ערבי שביעיות חיטין יפות עיקורי קטניות מהיות רעות,תנו רבנן מנחש זה האומר פתו נפלה מפיו מקלו נפלה מידו בנו קורא לו מאחריו עורב קורא לו צבי הפסיקו בדרך נחש מימינו ושועל משמאלו 67b מיתה אחת,בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר (שמות כב, יח) כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשף בסקילה,אמר לו רבי יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא לזה בסקילה אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל מכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש עליהן ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשף בסקילה,לרבי יהודה נמי ליהוו אוב וידעוני שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין,אמר רבי זכריה עדא אמרה קסבר ר\' יהודה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד מלמדין,אמר רבי יוחנן למה נקרא שמן כשפים שמכחישין פמליא של מעלה:,(דברים ד, לה) אין עוד מלבדו אמר רבי חנינא אפילו לדבר כשפים,ההיא איתתא דהות קא מהדרא למשקל עפרא מתותי כרעיה דרבי חנינא אמר לה אי מסתייעת זילי עבידי אין עוד מלבדו כתיב,איני והאמר רבי יוחנן למה נקרא שמן מכשפים שמכחישין פמליא של מעלה שאני רבי חנינא דנפיש זכותיה,אמר רבי אייבו בר נגרי אמר רבי חייא בר אבא בלטיהם אלו מעשה שדים בלהטיהם אלו מעשה כשפים וכן הוא אומר (בראשית ג, כד) ואת להט החרב המתהפכת,אמר אביי דקפיד אמנא שד דלא קפיד אמנא כשפים,אמר אביי הלכות כשפים כהלכות שבת יש מהן בסקילה ויש מהן פטור אבל אסור ויש מהן מותר לכתחלה,העושה מעשה בסקילה האוחז את העינים פטור אבל אסור מותר לכתחלה כדרב חנינא ורב אושעיא כל מעלי שבתא הוו עסקי בהלכות יצירה ומיברי להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי ליה,אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לאבוה דקרנא דנפיץ ושדי כריכי דשיראי מנחיריה,(שמות ח, טו) ויאמרו החרטומים אל פרעה אצבע אלהים היא אמר ר\' אליעזר מיכן שאין השד יכול לבראות בריה פחות מכשעורה,רב פפא אמר האלהים אפילו כגמלא נמי לא מצי ברי האי מיכניף ליה והאי לא מיכניף ליה,א"ל רב לרבי חייא לדידי חזי לי ההוא טייעא דשקליה לספסירא וגיידיה לגמלא וטרף ליה בטבלא וקם אמר ליה לבתר הכי דם ופרתא מי הואי אלא ההיא אחיזת עינים הוה,זעירי איקלע לאלכסנדריא של מצרים זבן חמרא כי מטא לאשקוייה מיא פשר וקם גמלא דוסקניתא אמרו ליה אי לאו זעירי את לא הוה מהדרינן לך מי איכא דזבין מידי הכא ולא בדיק ליה אמיא:,ינאי איקלע לההוא אושפיזא אמר להו אשקין מיא קריבו שתיתא חזא דקא מרחשן שפוותה שדא פורתא מיניה הוו עקרבי אמר להו אנא שתאי מדידכו אתון נמי שתו מדידי אשקייה הואי חמרא רכבה סליק לשוקא אתא חברתה פשרה לה חזייה דרכיב וקאי אאיתתא בשוקא,(שמות ח, ב) ותעל הצפרדע ותכס את ארץ מצרים אמר ר\' אלעזר צפרדע אחת היתה השריצה ומלאה כל ארץ מצרים,כתנאי רבי עקיבא אומר צפרדע אחת היתה ומלאה כל ארץ מצרים אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלה מדברותיך ולך אצל נגעים ואהלות צפרדע אחת היתה שרקה להם והם באו:,אמר ר\' עקיבא כו\': ' None | 56a On every day of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges judge the witnesses, i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton.,When the judgment is over, and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, they do not sentence him to death based on the testimony of the witnesses in which they used an appellation for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. Rather, they remove all the people who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges interrogate the eldest of the witnesses, and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says exactly what he heard. And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. And they do not ever fully stitch it back together again.,And the second witness says: I too heard as he did, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. And the third witness, in the event that there is one, says: I too heard as he did. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary.,taught in a baraita: A blasphemer is not liable unless he blesses, a euphemism for curses, the name of God with the name of God, e.g., by saying: Let such and such a name strike such and such a name.,The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel says: It is derived from that which the verse states: “And he who blasphemes venokev the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, when he blasphemes benokvo the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16). It is derived from the repetition of the phrase “blasphemes the name” that the reference is to cursing the name of God with the name of God.,The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this word nokev is a term for blessing, i.e., cursing? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the statement of Balaam, who was sent by Balak to curse the Jewish people: “How shall I curse ekkov whom God has not cursed?” (Numbers 23:8). And the prohibition against cursing God is derived from here: “You shall not curse God” (Exodus 22:27).,The Gemara asks: But say that perhaps the meaning of nokev is not cursing, but rather making a hole, as it is written: “And made a hole vayyikkov in its lid” (II\xa0Kings 12:10). According to this, the word nokev is referring to one who makes a hole and damages the written name of God. And the prohibition against doing so is derived from here: “And you shall destroy their name out of that place. You shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).,The Gemara answers: It is derived from the repetition of nokev that for one to be liable, it is necessary that his transgression involve the name of God with the name of God, and such a transgression is not possible if the reference is to making a hole.,The Gemara challenges: But say that such a transgression is possible, as one can place two written names of God, one on top of the other, and tear through them at once. The Gemara explains: That would be defined as making a hole and again making a hole, not making a hole in one name by means of another name. The Gemara asks: But say that one can etch the name of God on the point of a knife and cut through another name with it. The Gemara answers: In that case, it is the point of the knife that is cutting, not the name of God.,The Gemara asks: Say that nokev means the utterance of the ineffable name of God. As it is written: “And Moses and Aaron took these men that are pointed out nikkevu by name” (Numbers 1:17). And the prohibition to do so is derived from here: “You shall fear the Lord, your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13).,The Gemara answers: One answer is that for one to be liable, it is necessary that his transgression involve the name of God with the name of God, and such a transgression is not possible if the reference is to uttering the ineffable name of God. Furthermore, the prohibition derived from the verse “You shall fear the Lord, your God” is a prohibition stated as a positive mitzva, and a prohibition stated as a positive mitzva is not considered a prohibition.,The Gemara presents an alternative proof that nokev is referring to cursing: And if you wish, say instead that the verse states: “And the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed vayyikkov the name and cursed” (Leviticus 24:11). That is to say that the meaning of nokev is to curse.,The Gemara asks: But perhaps this verse does not prove that the meaning of nokev is to curse; rather, it indicates that one is not liable to be executed unless he does both, i.e., both nokev and cursing God? The Gemara answers: This shall not enter your mind, as it is written: “Bring forth the one who cursed…and stone him” (Leviticus 24:14), and it is not written: Bring forth the nokev and one who cursed. Conclude from it that it is one act and not two.,§ The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), that the verse could have stated: One ish who curses his God. Why must the verse state: “Anyone ish ish”? It is to include the gentiles, who are prohibited from blessing, i.e., cursing, the name of God, just like Jews are. And they are executed for this transgression by the sword alone, as all death penalties stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are by the sword alone.,The Gemara asks: But is this halakha derived from here? Rather, it is derived from there: “And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16), as is stated in a baraita that will soon be quoted at length: “The Lord,” this is referring to the blessing, i.e., cursing, of the name of God. This verse concerns Adam, the first man, and is therefore binding on all of humanity.,Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: The verse “anyone who curses his God” is necessary only to include gentiles who curse God using the appellations for the name of God, rather than mentioning the ineffable name, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.,As it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin”? But isn’t it already stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16)? Rather, since it is stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death,” one might have thought that one will be liable only for cursing the ineffable name of God. From where is it derived that the verse includes one who curses any of the appellations as well? The verse states: “Anyone who curses his God,” to indicate that one is liable to be executed in any case. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.,And the Rabbis say: For cursing the ineffable name of God, one is punished by death, and for cursing the appellations, one is liable to receive lashes for violating a prohibition.,The Gemara comments: And Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Rabbis, gentiles are not liable for cursing appellations for the name of God, disagrees with the opinion of Rav Meyasha. As Rav Meyasha says: A descendant of Noah who blessed God by one of the appellations is liable to be executed even according to the opinion of the Rabbis.,What is the reason? It is because the verse states: “The convert as well as the homeborn, when he blasphemes the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16), from which it is derived that it is only in the case of a convert or a homeborn Jew that we require the condition: “When he blasphemes the name,” i.e., he is liable to be executed only if he curses the ineffable name. But a gentile is liable to be executed even due to merely cursing an appellation.,The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Meir do with this part of the verse: “The convert as well as the homeborn”? What does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir derives that a convert or a homeborn Jew is liable to be executed by stoning for this transgression, but a gentile is executed by the sword. This exclusion is necessary as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since gentiles are included in the halakhot of this verse, they are included in all the halakhot of blasphemy. Therefore the verse teaches us that they are not stoned.,The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa do with this part of the verse: “The convert as well as the homeborn,” according to the opinion of the Rabbis, since Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa holds that the Rabbis do not deem either a Jew or a gentile liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: He derives that it is specifically with regard to a convert and a homeborn Jew that we require the condition that he curse a name of God by a name of God; but with regard to a gentile, we do not require that he curse a name of God by a name of God in order for him to be liable.,The Gemara asks: Why do I need the inclusive term “anyone who curses his God,” according to the opinions that do not derive from it that a gentile is liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: No halakha is derived from it; it is not a superfluous term, as the Torah spoke in the language of people.,§ Since the halakhot of the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Noahide mitzvot is presented. The Sages taught in a baraita: The descendants of Noah, i.e., all of humanity, were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: The mitzva of establishing courts of judgment; and the prohibition against blessing, i.e., cursing, the name of God; and the prohibition of idol worship; and the prohibition against forbidden sexual relations; and the prohibition of bloodshed; and the prohibition of robbery; and the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal.' 65b Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to Rava’s answer, as it is stated in a baraita that one who unwittingly commits a transgression punishable by death is obligated to bring a sin-offering, excluding conspiring witnesses, who are not obligated to bring a sin-offering, as their transgressions do not involve an action. Rabbi Zeira asks: And why is a false witness’s testimony not considered a transgression that involves an action? The testimony is delivered through speech, which should be considered an action, as this is not a transgression that is committed in the heart; the witnesses are liable for what they said, and not for their intention.,Rava says: Conspiring witnesses are different, since their transgression is committed through their voice. The essence of their transgression is not speech itself but rather making themselves heard by the court. Therefore, since the projection of one’s voice does not involve action, the transgression of conspiring witnesses is considered not be to involving action.,The Gemara asks: And is projecting one’s voice not considered an action according to Rabbi Yoḥa? But wasn’t it stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the following case: If one muzzled an animal by projecting his voice, by berating it whenever it tried to eat, has he transgressed the prohibition of: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25:4)? And similarly, if one led different species to work together by projecting his voice, without performing any action, has he transgressed the prohibition of: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10)? Rabbi Yoḥa says he is liable, and Reish Lakish says he is exempt.,The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their opinions: Rabbi Yoḥa says he is liable, as he maintains that the twisting of one’s mouth to speak is considered an action, whereas Reish Lakish says he is exempt, because he holds that that the twisting of one’s mouth to speak is not considered an action. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥa holds that a transgression one commits by projecting his voice is considered to involve an action.,Rather, Rava says there is a different answer to Rabbi Zeira’s objection: Conspiring witnesses are different, since they are rendered liable mainly through sight, i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not considered an action.,§ The Sages taught: A necromancer is one who causes the voice of the dead to be heard speaking from between his joints or from his armpit. A sorcerer yideoni is one who places a bone of an animal called a yadua in his mouth, and the bone speaks on its own.,The Gemara raises an objection from the verse: “And your voice shall be as a ghost out of the ground” (Isaiah 29:4). What, does the dead person not speak from the grave on his own? The Gemara answers: No, this is not so, as the dead person rises by sorcery and sits between the joints of the necromancer and speaks.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the statement of the necromancer to King Saul: “And the woman said to Saul, I see a godlike being coming up out of the earth” (I\xa0Samuel 28:13). What, does the verse not mean to say that the dead person spoke on his own? The Gemara refutes this proof: No, this is not so, as the dead person sits between the joints of the necromancer and speaks.,The Sages taught: The category of a necromancer includes both one who raises the dead with his zekhur, which is a form of sorcery, and one who inquires about the future from a skull begulgolet. What is the difference between this type of necromancer and that type of necromancer? When one raises the dead with his zekhur, the dead does not rise in its usual manner, but appears upside-down, and it does not rise on Shabbat. By contrast, when one inquires about the future from a skull, the dead rises in its usual manner, and it rises oleh even on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks with regard to the wording of the last statement: Rises? To where does it rise? Isn’t the skull lying before him? Rather, say as follows: The dead answers in its usual manner, and it answers ve’oneh even on Shabbat.,With regard to the statement that the dead do not rise on Shabbat, the Gemara relates: The wicked Turnus Rufus, the Roman governor of Judea, asked this question of Rabbi Akiva as well. Turnus Rufus said to him: And what makes this day, Shabbat, different from other days? Rabbi Akiva said to him: And what makes this man, referring to his interlocutor, more distinguished than other men? Turnus Rufus said to him: I am more distinguished because my master the emperor wants it that way. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Shabbat too is unique because my Master wants it that way, as he has sanctified that day.,Turnus Rufus said to him: This is what I mean to say to you: Who is to say that now is Shabbat? Perhaps a different day of the week is Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The Sabbatyon River can prove that today is Shabbat, as it is calm only on Shabbat. A necromancer can also prove this, as the dead do not rise on Shabbat. The grave of his father, referring to Turnus Rufus’s father, can also prove this, as it does not emit smoke on Shabbat, although smoke rises from it all week, as during the week he is being punished in Gehenna. Turnus Rufus said to him: You have demeaned my father, you have publicly shamed him, and you have cursed him by saying that he is being punished in Gehenna.,§ The Gemara asks: Isn’t one who inquires about the future from a necromancer the same as what is described in the verse: “Or directs inquiries to the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:11)? Why are they mentioned separately in the verse?,The Gemara answers: One who directs inquiries to the dead em-ploys a different method to contact the dead, as it is taught in a baraita: “Or directs inquiries to the dead”; this is one who starves himself and goes and sleeps overnight in a graveyard so that a spirit of impurity should settle upon him, and he can listen to what the dead are saying.,And when Rabbi Akiva would arrive at this verse he would weep and say: If one who starves himself so that a spirit of impurity will settle upon him succeeds in doing so, and a spirit of impurity settles upon him, all the more so one who starves himself so that a spirit of purity will settle upon him should be successful, and a spirit of purity should settle upon him. But what can I do, as our iniquities have caused us not to merit the spirit of sanctity and purity, as it is stated: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).,Rava says: If the righteous wish to do so, they can create a world, as it is stated: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God.” In other words, there is no distinction between God and a righteous person who has no sins, and just as God created the world, so can the righteous.,Indeed, Rava created a man, a golem, using forces of sanctity. Rava sent his creation before Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him but he would not reply. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You were created by one of the members of the group, one of the Sages. Return to your dust.,The Gemara relates another fact substantiating the statement that the righteous could create a world if they so desired: Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya would sit every Shabbat eve and engage in the study of Sefer Yetzira, and a third-born calf igla tilta would be created for them, and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat.,§ The Sages taught: What is the definition of the soothsayer mentioned in the verse: “There shall not be found among you…a soothsayer” (Deuteronomy 18:10)? Rabbi Shimon says: This is one who applies seven types of semen zekhur to one’s eye in order to perform sorcery. And the Rabbis say: This is one who deceives the eyes, as though he is performing sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says: This is one who calculates the fortune of times and hours, and says, for example: Today is a propitious day for going away on a journey; tomorrow is propitious for purchasing property successfully. Or he says that on the eve of the Sabbatical Years, the wheat harvest is generally good; uprooting legumes rather than cutting them from above the ground prevents them from going bad.,The Sages taught: The enchanter mentioned in the verse (Deuteronomy 18:10) is one who relies on superstitious signs, e.g., one who says: If one’s bread fell from his mouth, that is a bad sign for him; or: If one’s staff fell from his hand, it is a bad sign; or: If one’s son calls him from behind, it is a sign that he should return from his journey; or: If a raven calls to him, or if a deer blocks him on the way, or if a snake is to his right, or if a fox is to his left, all of these are bad signs. An enchanter is one who relies on these as bad signs and consequently changes his course of action. 67b one type of death penalty, namely, decapitation. Since that is the only type of capital punishment that applies to gentiles, it cannot be derived through a verbal analogy that the same type applies to a Jewish sorceror.,The baraita continues: Ben Azzai says that it is stated: “You shall not allow a witch to live” (Exodus 22:17), and it is stated in the following verse: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death” (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah juxtaposes this matter to that matter is to teach that just as one who lies with an animal is executed by stoning (see Leviticus, chapter 20), so too, a warlock is executed by stoning.,With regard to this derivation, Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And because the Torah juxtaposes this matter with that matter, shall we take this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe type of capital punishment on that basis? Rather, the source is as follows: A necromancer and a sorcerer were included in the general category of warlocks, and why were they singled out from the rest, with their prohibition and punishment stated independently? This was done in order to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too, a warlock is executed by stoning.,The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as well, let the punishment with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer be considered two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same matter, and therefore the halakha of other cases cannot be derived from it, according to the principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach about other cases. In other words, if a halakha is taught with regard to two individual cases in the Torah, the understanding is that this halakha applies only to those cases. Had this halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.,Rabbi Zekharya says: This means that Rabbi Yehuda holds that two verses that come as one do teach about other cases.,§ Rabbi Yoḥa says: Why is sorcery called keshafim? Because it is an acronym for: Contradicts the heavenly entourage shemakhḥishin pamalia shel mala. Sorcery appears to contradict the laws of nature established by God.,The verse states: “To you it was shown, so that you should know that the Lord is God; there is none else besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). Rabbi Ḥanina says: This is true even with regard to a matter of sorcery; sorcery is ineffective against a righteous person.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was attempting to take dust from under the feet of Rabbi Ḥanina in order to perform sorcery on him and harm him. Rabbi Ḥanina said to her: If you succeed, go and do it. I am not concerned about it, as it is written: “There is none else besides Him.”,The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: Why are sorcerers called mekhashefim? Because it is an acronym for: Contradicts the heavenly entourage. This indicates that one should be wary of sorcery. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina is different, as his merit is great, and sorcery certainly has no effect on such a righteous person.,Rabbi Aivu bar Nagri says that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that in the verse: “And the magicians of Egypt did in that manner with their secret arts belateihem” (Exodus 7:22), these words are describing acts of employing demons, which are invisible, and their actions are therefore hidden balat. With regard to the similar term “belahateihem” (Exodus 7:11), these are acts of sorcery, which sorcerers perform themselves, without using demons. And likewise it says: “And the flaming lahat sword that turned every way” (Genesis 3:24), referring to a sword that revolves by itself.,Abaye says: A sorcerer who is particular about using a certain utensil for his sorcery is employing a demon; one who is not particular about using a certain utensil is performing an act of sorcery.,Abaye says: The halakhot of sorcery are like the halakhot of Shabbat, in that their actions can be divided into three categories: There are some of them for which one is liable to be executed by stoning, and there are some of them for which one is exempt from punishment by Torah law but they are prohibited by rabbinic law, and there are some of them that are permitted ab initio.,Abaye elaborates: One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable to be executed by stoning. One who deceives the eyes is exempt from punishment, but it is prohibited for him to do so. What is permitted ab initio is to act like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya: Every Shabbat eve they would engage in the study of the halakhot of creation, and a third-born calf would be created for them, and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat.,Rav Ashi said: I saw Karna’s father perform a magic trick in which he would blow his nose and cast rolls of silk from his nostrils by deceiving the eye.,With regard to the verse: “And the magicians said to Pharaoh: This is the finger of God” (Exodus 8:15), Rabbi Eliezer says: It is derived from here that a demon cannot create an entity smaller than the size of a barley grain. Consequently, the magicians were not capable of duplicating the plague of lice, and they realized that this was not an act of sorcery but was performed by God.,Rav Pappa said: By God! They cannot create even an entity as large as a camel. They do not create anything. Rather, they can gather these large animals, leading them from one place to another, but they cannot gather those small animals.,Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: I myself saw a certain Arab who took a sword and sliced a camel and then beat a drum betavla, and the camel arose from the dead. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Was there blood and excretion afterward in that place, which flowed from the camel when it was sliced? Rather, since there was none, that was clearly a deception of the eyes and not sorcery.,The Gemara relates: Ze’eiri happened to come to Alexandria of Egypt. He bought a donkey. When he was about to give it water to drink the magic thawed when the donkey touched the water and it was revealed that it was not a donkey, and it turned into the plank of a bridge. The ones who sold it to him said to him: If you were not Ze’eiri, a distinguished person, we would not refund you the money for the donkey. Is there anyone who buys an item here and does not examine it first with water? Since sorcery was widespread there, anyone who bought an item examined it in order to find out if it was affected by sorcery, and if one did not examine an acquired item by exposing it to water and it turned out to be under a spell, he suffered the loss.,The Gemara relates: A man named Yannai arrived at a certain inn. He said to the innkeepers: Give me water to drink. They brought him flour mixed with water. He saw that the lips of the innkeeper woman were moving, and he cast a bit of the drink to the ground, and it turned into scorpions, and he understood that the innkeepers performed sorcery on the drink. Yannai said to them: I drank from yours; you too drink from mine, and he also performed sorcery on the drink. He gave it to her to drink and she turned into a donkey. He rode upon her and went to the marketplace. Her friend came and released her from the sorcery, and people saw him riding on a woman in the marketplace.,It is stated with regard to the plagues of Egypt: “And the frog came up and covered the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:2). Noting that the term “the frog” is written in the singular, Rabbi Elazar says: At first it was one frog; it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs.,The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Akiva says: It was one frog, and it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take your statements to the tractates of Nega’im and Oholot. In other words, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity imparted in a tent, which are among the most difficult areas of halakha and are within your field of expertise. Rather, the verse is to be understood as follows: It was one frog; it whistled to the other frogs, and they all came after it.,§ In the mishna, Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery, one of whom is exempt, as he merely deceives the eyes, and one of whom is liable, as he performs real sorcery. ' None |
|
24. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • blasphemy
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 43, 44, 47, 71, 72, 74, 75; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 43, 44, 47, 71, 72, 74, 75
|
