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.





45 results for "collins"
1. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 21.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 183
21.17. "אִישׁ מַחְסוֹר אֹהֵב שִׂמְחָה אֹהֵב יַיִן־וָשֶׁמֶן לֹא יַעֲשִׁיר׃", 21.17. "He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man; He that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich.",
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 15.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins yarbro, adela Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 105
15.11. "מִי־כָמֹכָה בָּאֵלִם יְהוָה מִי כָּמֹכָה נֶאְדָּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ נוֹרָא תְהִלֹּת עֹשֵׂה פֶלֶא׃", 15.11. "Who is like unto Thee, O LORD, among the mighty? Who is like unto Thee, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders?",
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 24.1-24.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 93
24.1. "כִּי־תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה לֹא־תָבֹא אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ׃", 24.1. "כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ׃", 24.2. "וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵר׃", 24.2. "כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה׃", 24.3. "וּשְׂנֵאָהּ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן אֲשֶׁר־לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה׃", 24.4. "לֹא־יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר־שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה כִּי־תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה׃", 24.1. "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,", 24.2. "and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife,", 24.3. "and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;", 24.4. "her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.",
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 1.14-1.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 319
1.14. "וְאִם מִן־הָעוֹף עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָה וְהִקְרִיב מִן־הַתֹּרִים אוֹ מִן־בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה אֶת־קָרְבָּנוֹ׃", 1.15. "וְהִקְרִיבוֹ הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמָלַק אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה וְנִמְצָה דָמוֹ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃", 1.14. "And if his offering to the LORD be a burnt-offering of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons.", 1.15. "And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar.",
5. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 35.33 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 93
35.33. "וְלֹא־תַחֲנִיפוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בָּהּ כִּי הַדָּם הוּא יַחֲנִיף אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְלָאָרֶץ לֹא־יְכֻפַּר לַדָּם אֲשֶׁר שֻׁפַּךְ־בָּהּ כִּי־אִם בְּדַם שֹׁפְכוֹ׃", 35.33. "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood, it polluteth the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.",
6. Hebrew Bible, Job, 40.15-41.34 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 192
7. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 2.7, 2.23, 3.1-3.2, 3.9, 7.1-7.15, 7.30, 19.13, 26.1-26.24, 32.34 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 93
2.7. "וָאָבִיא אֶתְכֶם אֶל־אֶרֶץ הַכַּרְמֶל לֶאֱכֹל פִּרְיָהּ וְטוּבָהּ וַתָּבֹאוּ וַתְּטַמְּאוּ אֶת־אַרְצִי וְנַחֲלָתִי שַׂמְתֶּם לְתוֹעֵבָה׃", 2.23. "אֵיךְ תֹּאמְרִי לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי אַחֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים לֹא הָלַכְתִּי רְאִי דַרְכֵּךְ בַּגַּיְא דְּעִי מֶה עָשִׂית בִּכְרָה קַלָּה מְשָׂרֶכֶת דְּרָכֶיהָ׃", 3.1. "וְגַם־בְּכָל־זֹאת לֹא־שָׁבָה אֵלַי בָּגוֹדָה אֲחוֹתָהּ יְהוּדָה בְּכָל־לִבָּהּ כִּי אִם־בְּשֶׁקֶר נְאֻם־יְהוָה׃", 3.1. "לֵאמֹר הֵן יְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה מֵאִתּוֹ וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵר הֲיָשׁוּב אֵלֶיהָ עוֹד הֲלוֹא חָנוֹף תֶּחֱנַף הָאָרֶץ הַהִיא וְאַתְּ זָנִית רֵעִים רַבִּים וְשׁוֹב אֵלַי נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה׃", 3.2. "שְׂאִי־עֵינַיִךְ עַל־שְׁפָיִם וּרְאִי אֵיפֹה לֹא שגלת [שֻׁכַּבְתְּ] עַל־דְּרָכִים יָשַׁבְתְּ לָהֶם כַּעֲרָבִי בַּמִּדְבָּר וַתַּחֲנִיפִי אֶרֶץ בִּזְנוּתַיִךְ וּבְרָעָתֵךְ׃", 3.2. "אָכֵן בָּגְדָה אִשָּׁה מֵרֵעָהּ כֵּן בְּגַדְתֶּם בִּי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל נְאֻם־יְהוָה׃", 3.9. "וְהָיָה מִקֹּל זְנוּתָהּ וַתֶּחֱנַף אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וַתִּנְאַף אֶת־הָאֶבֶן וְאֶת־הָעֵץ׃", 7.1. "וּבָאתֶם וַעֲמַדְתֶּם לְפָנַי בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא־שְׁמִי עָלָיו וַאֲמַרְתֶּם נִצַּלְנוּ לְמַעַן עֲשׂוֹת אֵת כָּל־הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה׃", 7.1. "הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר הָיָה אֶל־יִרְמְיָהוּ מֵאֵת יְהוָה לֵאמֹר׃", 7.2. "עֲמֹד בְּשַׁעַר בֵּית יְהוָה וְקָרָאתָ שָּׁם אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְאָמַרְתָּ שִׁמְעוּ דְבַר־יְהוָה כָּל־יְהוּדָה הַבָּאִים בַּשְּׁעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לַיהוָה׃", 7.2. "לָכֵן כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהֹוִה הִנֵּה אַפִּי וַחֲמָתִי נִתֶּכֶת אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה עַל־הָאָדָם וְעַל־הַבְּהֵמָה וְעַל־עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה וְעַל־פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָעֲרָה וְלֹא תִכְבֶּה׃", 7.3. "כֹּה־אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵיטִיבוּ דַרְכֵיכֶם וּמַעַלְלֵיכֶם וַאֲשַׁכְּנָה אֶתְכֶם בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 7.3. "כִּי־עָשׂוּ בְנֵי־יְהוּדָה הָרַע בְּעֵינַי נְאֻום־יְהוָה שָׂמוּ שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָא־שְׁמִי עָלָיו לְטַמְּאוֹ׃", 7.4. "אַל־תִּבְטְחוּ לָכֶם אֶל־דִּבְרֵי הַשֶּׁקֶר לֵאמֹר הֵיכַל יְהוָה הֵיכַל יְהוָה הֵיכַל יְהוָה הֵמָּה׃", 7.5. "כִּי אִם־הֵיטֵיב תֵּיטִיבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶם אִם־עָשׂוֹ תַעֲשׂוּ מִשְׁפָּט בֵּין אִישׁ וּבֵין רֵעֵהוּ׃", 7.6. "גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא תַעֲשֹׁקוּ וְדָם נָקִי אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וְאַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תֵלְכוּ לְרַע לָכֶם׃", 7.7. "וְשִׁכַּנְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לְמִן־עוֹלָם וְעַד־עוֹלָם׃", 7.8. "הִנֵּה אַתֶּם בֹּטְחִים לָכֶם עַל־דִּבְרֵי הַשָּׁקֶר לְבִלְתִּי הוֹעִיל׃", 7.9. "הֲגָנֹב רָצֹחַ וְנָאֹף וְהִשָּׁבֵעַ לַשֶּׁקֶר וְקַטֵּר לַבָּעַל וְהָלֹךְ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יְדַעְתֶּם׃", 7.11. "הַמְעָרַת פָּרִצִים הָיָה הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָא־שְׁמִי עָלָיו בְּעֵינֵיכֶם גַּם אָנֹכִי הִנֵּה רָאִיתִי נְאֻם־יְהוָה׃", 7.12. "כִּי לְכוּ־נָא אֶל־מְקוֹמִי אֲשֶׁר בְּשִׁילוֹ אֲשֶׁר שִׁכַּנְתִּי שְׁמִי שָׁם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּרְאוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂיתִי לוֹ מִפְּנֵי רָעַת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 7.13. "וְעַתָּה יַעַן עֲשׂוֹתְכֶם אֶת־כָּל־הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה נְאֻם־יְהוָה וָאֲדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם הַשְׁכֵּם וְדַבֵּר וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם וָאֶקְרָא אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא עֲנִיתֶם׃", 7.14. "וְעָשִׂיתִי לַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא־שְׁמִי עָלָיו אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בֹּטְחִים בּוֹ וְלַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־נָתַתִּי לָכֶם וְלַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְשִׁלוֹ׃", 7.15. "וְהִשְׁלַכְתִּי אֶתְכֶם מֵעַל פָּנָי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלַכְתִּי אֶת־כָּל־אֲחֵיכֶם אֵת כָּל־זֶרַע אֶפְרָיִם׃", 19.13. "וְהָיוּ בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלִַם וּבָתֵּי מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה כִּמְקוֹם הַתֹּפֶת הַטְּמֵאִים לְכֹל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר קִטְּרוּ עַל־גַּגֹּתֵיהֶם לְכֹל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהַסֵּךְ נְסָכִים לֵאלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים׃", 26.1. "בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלְכוּת יְהוֹיָקִים בֶּן־יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה מֵאֵת יְהוָה לֵאמֹר׃", 26.1. "וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ שָׂרֵי יְהוּדָה אֵת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיַּעֲלוּ מִבֵּית־הַמֶּלֶךְ בֵּית יְהוָה וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בְּפֶתַח שַׁעַר־יְהוָה הֶחָדָשׁ׃", 26.2. "וְגַם־אִישׁ הָיָה מִתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה אוּרִיָּהוּ בֶּן־שְׁמַעְיָהוּ מִקִּרְיַת הַיְּעָרִים וַיִּנָּבֵא עַל־הָעִיר הַזֹּאת וְעַל־הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת כְּכֹל דִּבְרֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ׃", 26.2. "כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה עֲמֹד בַּחֲצַר בֵּית־יְהוָה וְדִבַּרְתָּ עַל־כָּל־עָרֵי יְהוּדָה הַבָּאִים לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת בֵּית־יְהוָה אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיהֶם אַל־תִּגְרַע דָּבָר׃", 26.3. "אוּלַי יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיָשֻׁבוּ אִישׁ מִדַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה וְנִחַמְתִּי אֶל־הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי חֹשֵׁב לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי רֹעַ מַעַלְלֵיהֶם׃", 26.4. "וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ אֵלַי לָלֶכֶת בְּתוֹרָתִי אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם׃", 26.5. "לִשְׁמֹעַ עַל־דִּבְרֵי עֲבָדַי הַנְּבִאִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ אֲלֵיכֶם וְהַשְׁכֵּם וְשָׁלֹחַ וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם׃", 26.6. "וְנָתַתִּי אֶת־הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה כְּשִׁלֹה וְאֶת־הָעִיר הזאתה [הַזֹּאת] אֶתֵּן לִקְלָלָה לְכֹל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ׃", 26.7. "וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַנְּבִאִים וְכָל־הָעָם אֶת־יִרְמְיָהוּ מְדַבֵּר אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּבֵית יְהוָה׃", 26.8. "וַיְהִי כְּכַלּוֹת יִרְמְיָהוּ לְדַבֵּר אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה לְדַבֵּר אֶל־כָּל־הָעָם וַיִּתְפְּשׂוּ אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַנְּבִאִים וְכָל־הָעָם לֵאמֹר מוֹת תָּמוּת׃", 26.9. "מַדּוּעַ נִבֵּיתָ בְשֵׁם־יְהוָה לֵאמֹר כְּשִׁלוֹ יִהְיֶה הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה וְהָעִיר הַזֹּאת תֶּחֱרַב מֵאֵין יוֹשֵׁב וַיִּקָּהֵל כָּל־הָעָם אֶל־יִרְמְיָהוּ בְּבֵית יְהוָה׃", 26.11. "וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַנְּבִאִים אֶל־הַשָּׂרִים וְאֶל־כָּל־הָעָם לֵאמֹר מִשְׁפַּט־מָוֶת לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה כִּי נִבָּא אֶל־הָעִיר הַזֹּאת כַּאֲשֶׁר שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּאָזְנֵיכֶם׃", 26.12. "וַיֹּאמֶר יִרְמְיָהוּ אֶל־כָּל־הַשָּׂרִים וְאֶל־כָּל־הָעָם לֵאמֹר יְהוָה שְׁלָחַנִי לְהִנָּבֵא אֶל־הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה וְאֶל־הָעִיר הַזֹּאת אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר שְׁמַעְתֶּם׃", 26.13. "וְעַתָּה הֵיטִיבוּ דַרְכֵיכֶם וּמַעַלְלֵיכֶם וְשִׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְיִנָּחֵם יְהוָה אֶל־הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עֲלֵיכֶם׃", 26.14. "וַאֲנִי הִנְנִי בְיֶדְכֶם עֲשׂוּ־לִי כַּטּוֹב וְכַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵיכֶם׃", 26.15. "אַךְ יָדֹעַ תֵּדְעוּ כִּי אִם־מְמִתִים אַתֶּם אֹתִי כִּי־דָם נָקִי אַתֶּם נֹתְנִים עֲלֵיכֶם וְאֶל־הָעִיר הַזֹּאת וְאֶל־יֹשְׁבֶיהָ כִּי בֶאֱמֶת שְׁלָחַנִי יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם לְדַבֵּר בְּאָזְנֵיכֶם אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃", 26.16. "וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַשָּׂרִים וְכָל־הָעָם אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאֶל־הַנְּבִיאִים אֵין־לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה מִשְׁפַּט־מָוֶת כִּי בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ דִּבֶּר אֵלֵינוּ׃", 26.17. "וַיָּקֻמוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָאָרֶץ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־כָּל־קְהַל הָעָם לֵאמֹר׃", 26.18. "מיכיה [מִיכָה] הַמּוֹרַשְׁתִּי הָיָה נִבָּא בִּימֵי חִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ־יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־כָּל־עַם יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר כֹּה־אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת צִיּוֹן שָׂדֶה תֵחָרֵשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיִּים תִּהְיֶה וְהַר הַבַּיִת לְבָמוֹת יָעַר׃", 26.19. "הֶהָמֵת הֱמִתֻהוּ חִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ־יְהוּדָה וְכָל־יְהוּדָה הֲלֹא יָרֵא אֶת־יְהוָה וַיְחַל אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה אֶל־הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר עֲלֵיהֶם וַאֲנַחְנוּ עֹשִׂים רָעָה גְדוֹלָה עַל־נַפְשׁוֹתֵינוּ׃", 26.21. "וַיִּשְׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ־יְהוֹיָקִים וְכָל־גִּבּוֹרָיו וְכָל־הַשָּׂרִים אֶת־דְּבָרָיו וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הֲמִיתוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע אוּרִיָּהוּ וַיִּרָא וַיִּבְרַח וַיָּבֹא מִצְרָיִם׃", 26.22. "וַיִּשְׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ יְהוֹיָקִים אֲנָשִׁים מִצְרָיִם אֵת אֶלְנָתָן בֶּן־עַכְבּוֹר וַאֲנָשִׁים אִתּוֹ אֶל־מִצְרָיִם׃", 26.23. "וַיּוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־אוּרִיָּהוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם וַיְבִאֻהוּ אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ יְהוֹיָקִים וַיַּכֵּהוּ בֶּחָרֶב וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶת־נִבְלָתוֹ אֶל־קִבְרֵי בְּנֵי הָעָם׃", 26.24. "אַךְ יַד אֲחִיקָם בֶּן־שָׁפָן הָיְתָה אֶת־יִרְמְיָהוּ לְבִלְתִּי תֵּת־אֹתוֹ בְיַד־הָעָם לַהֲמִיתוֹ׃", 32.34. "וַיָּשִׂימוּ שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָא־שְׁמִי עָלָיו לְטַמְּאוֹ׃", 2.7. "And I brought you into a land of fruitful fields, to eat the fruit thereof and the good thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled My land, and made My heritage an abomination.", 2.23. "How canst thou say: ‘I am not defiled, I have not gone after the Baalim’? See thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done; thou art a swift young camel traversing her ways;", 3.1. ". . . saying: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, may he return unto her again? Will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; and wouldest thou yet return to Me? Saith the LORD.", 3.2. "Lift up thine eyes unto the high hills, and see: Where hast thou not been lain with? By the ways hast thou sat for them, as an Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy harlotries and with thy wickedness.", 3.9. "and it came to pass through the lightness of her harlotry, that the land was polluted, and she committed adultery with stones and with stocks;", 7.1. "The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying:", 7.2. "Stand in the gate of the LORD’S house, and proclaim there this word, and say: Hear the word of the LORD, all ye of Judah, that enter in at these gates to worship the LORD.", 7.3. "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place.", 7.4. "Trust ye not in lying words, saying: ‘The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, are these.’", 7.5. "Nay, but if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute justice between a man and his neighbour;", 7.6. "if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt;", 7.7. "then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.", 7.8. "Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit.", 7.9. "Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and offer unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye have not known,", 7.10. "and come and stand before Me in this house, whereupon My name is called, and say: ‘We are delivered’, that ye may do all these abominations?", 7.11. "Is this house, whereupon My name is called, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, saith the LORD.", 7.12. "For go ye now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I caused My name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of My people Israel.", 7.13. "And now, because ye have done all these works, saith the LORD, and I spoke unto you, speaking betimes and often, but ye heard not, and I called you, but ye answered not;", 7.14. "therefore will I do unto the house, whereupon My name is called, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh.", 7.15. "And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim.", 7.30. "For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight, saith the LORD; they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My name is called, to defile it.", 19.13. "and the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, which are defiled, shall be as the place of Topheth, even all the houses upon whose roofs they have offered unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink-offerings unto other gods.", 26.1. "In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the LORD, saying:", 26.2. "’Thus saith the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word.", 26.3. "It may be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way; that I may repent Me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.", 26.4. "And thou shalt say unto them: Thus saith the LORD: If ye will not hearken to Me, to walk in My law, which I have set before you,", 26.5. "to hearken to the words of My servants the prophets, whom I send unto you, even sending them betimes and often, but ye have not hearkened;", 26.6. "then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.’", 26.7. "So the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD.", 26.8. "Now it came to pass, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold on him, saying: ‘Thou shalt surely die.", 26.9. "Why hast thou prophesied in the name of the LORD, saying: This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without an inhabitant?’ And all the people were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the LORD.", 26.10. "When the princes of Judah heard these things, they came up from the king’s house unto the house of the LORD; and they sat in the entry of the new gate of the LORD’S house.", 26.11. "Then spoke the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying: ‘This man is worthy of death; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears.’", 26.12. "Then spoke Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying: ‘The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard.", 26.13. "Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and hearken to the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent Him of the evil that He hath pronounced against you.", 26.14. "But as for me, behold, I am in your hand; do with me as is good and right in your eyes.", 26.15. "Only know ye for certain that, if ye put me to death, ye will bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof; for of a truth the LORD hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.’", 26.16. "Then said the princes and all the people unto the priests and to the prophets: ‘This man is not worthy of death; for he hath spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God.’", 26.17. "Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying:", 26.18. "’Micah the Morashtite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: Zion shall be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem shall become heaps, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.", 26.19. "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and entreat the favour of the LORD, and the LORD repented Him of the evil which He had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our own souls.’", 26.20. "And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of the LORD, Uriah the son of Shemaiah of Kiriath-jearim; and he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah;", 26.21. "and when Jehoiakim the king, with all his mighty men, and all the princes, heard his words, the king sought to put him to death; but when Uriah heard it, he was afraid, and fled, and went into Egypt;", 26.22. "and Jehoiakim the king sent men into Egypt, Elnathan the son of Achbor, and certain men with him, into Egypt;", 26.23. "and they fetched forth Uriah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king; who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the children of the people.", 26.24. "Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hand of the people to put him to death.", 32.34. "But they set their abominations in the house whereupon My name is called, to defile it.",
8. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 29.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 228
29.13. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי וְלִבּוֹ רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי וַתְּהִי יִרְאָתָם אֹתִי מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה׃", 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;",
9. Anon., Testament of Naphtali, 3.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 190
3.5. In like manner the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless.
10. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 8.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 190
8.10. "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them.",
11. Anon., Testament of Reuben, 1-6 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 190
12. Philo of Alexandria, On The Sacrifices of Cain And Abel, 68 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 120
68. for he does not say, "Here I stand and there, but now also when I am present do I stand there also at the same moment;" not being moved or changing his place so as to occupy one place and to quit another, but using one intense motion. Very properly therefore do his subject children, imitating the nature of their father, do all that is right without any delay, and with all diligence, their most excellent employment being the paying prompt and unremitting honour to God. XIX.
13. Philo of Alexandria, On Dreams, 1.81-1.84, 2.185 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 120
1.81. And it is for this reason that the sacred scripture says, that no one can be pure before the evening, as the disorderly motions of the outward senses agitate and confuse the intellect. Moreover, he establishes a law for the priests also which may not be avoided, combining with it an expression of a grave opinion when it says, "He shall not eat of the holy things unless he has washed his body in water, and unless the sun has set, and he has become Pure." 1.82. For by these words it is very clearly shown that there is no one whatever completely pure, so as to be fit to be initiated into the holy and sacred mysteries, to whose lot it has fallen to be honoured with these glories of life which are appreciable by the external senses. But if any one rejects these glories, he is deservedly made conspicuous by the light of wisdom, by means of which he will be able to wash off the stains of vain opinion and to become pure. 1.83. Do you not see that even the sun itself produces opposite effects when he is setting from those which he causes when rising? For when he rises everything upon the earth shines, and the things in heaven are hidden from our view; but, on the other hand, when he sets then the stars appear and the things on earth are overshadowed. 1.84. In the same manner, also, in us, when the light of the outward senses rises like the sun, the celestial and heavenly sciences are really and truly hidden from view; but when this light is near setting, then the starlike radiance of the virtues appears, when the mind is pure, and concealed by no object of the outward senses. XV. 2.185. But the high priest of whom we are speaking is a perfect man, the husband of a virgin (a most extraordinary statement), who has never been made a woman; but who on the contrary, has ceased to be influenced by the customs of women in regard to her connection with her Husband. And not only is this man competent to sow the seeds of unpolluted and virgin opinions, but he is also the father of sacred reasonings,
14. Philo of Alexandria, That God Is Unchangeable, 132-137, 131 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 120
131. And like this is the injunction given respecting the house in which it happens that leprosy often arises; for Moses says that, "If there be a taint of leprosy in the house, the owner shall come, and shall tell it to the priest, saying there is something like a taint of leprosy has been seen by me in my house,"34 and presently he adds, "And the priest shall command him to dismantle his house, before the priest enters into the house to see it, and all the things that are in the house shall not be impure; and after that the priest shall enter the house to examine it."
15. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.80-1.81, 1.102, 1.117-1.119, 1.159, 1.202-1.204, 1.209, 1.256-1.258, 1.260-1.266, 1.269-1.272, 1.281, 1.324-1.325, 2.163-2.164, 3.89, 3.207 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 120, 319
1.80. Now these are the laws which relate to the priests. It is enjoined that the priest shall be entire and unmutilated, having no blemish on his body, no part being deficient, either naturally or through mutilation; and on the other hand, nothing having been superfluous either from his birth or having grown out subsequently from disease; his skin, also, must never have changed from leprosy, or wild lichen, or scab, or any other eruption or breaking out; all which things appear to me to be designed to be symbols of the purity of his soul. 1.81. For if it was necessary to examine the mortal body of the priest that it ought not be imperfect through any misfortune, much more was it necessary to look into his immortal soul, which they say is fashioned in the form of the living God. Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made. 1.102. For God does not allow him even to look upon a harlot, or a profane body or soul, or upon any one who, having put away her pursuit of gain, now wears an elegant and modest appearance, because such a one is unholy in respect of her former profession and way of life; though in other respects she may be looked upon as honourable, by reason of her having purified herself of her former evil courses. For repentance for past sins is a thing to be praised; and no one else need be forbidden to marry her, only let her not come near a priest. For the especial property of the priesthood is justice and purity, which from the first beginning of its creation to the end, seeks a concord utterly irreproachable. 1.117. After he has said this, he immediately proceeds to lay down laws, concerning those who are to use the first fruits, "If therefore, any One,"{13}{#le 21:17.} says he, "should mutilate the priests as to their eyes, or their feet, or any part of their bodies, or if he should have received any blemish, let him not partake of the sacred ministrations by reason of the defects which exist in him, but still let him enjoy those honours which are common to all the priests, because of his irreproachable nobility of birth." 1.118. "Moreover, if any leprosies break out and attack him or if any one of the priests he afflicted with any flux, let him not touch the sacred table, nor any of the duties which are set apart for his race, until the flux stop, or the leprosy change, so that he become again resembling the complexion of sound Flesh."{14}{#le 22:4.} 1.119. And, if any priest do by any chance whatever touch anything that is unclean, or if he should have impure dreams by night, as is very often apt to be the case, let him during all that day touch nothing that has been consecrated, but let him wash himself and the ensuing evening, and after that let him not be hindered from touching them. 1.159. For as it was not consistent with holiness for one who had by any means whatever become the cause of death to any human being to come within the sacred precincts, using the temple as a place of refuge and as an asylum, Moses gave a sort of inferior sanctity to the cities above mentioned, allowing them to give great security, by reason of the privileges and honours conferred upon the inhabitants, who were to be justified in protecting their suppliants if any superior power endeavoured to bring force against them, not by warlike preparations, but by rank, and dignity, and honour, which they had from the laws by reason of the venerable character of the priesthood. 1.202. Again, the hands which are laid upon the head of the victim are a most manifest symbol of irreproachable actions, and of a life which does nothing which is open to accusation, but which in all respects is passed in a manner consistent with the laws and ordices of nature; 1.203. for the law, in the first place, desires that the mind of the man who is offering the sacrifice shall be made holy by being exercised in good and advantageous doctrines; and, in the second place, that his life shall consist of most virtuous actions, so that, in conjunction with the imposition of hands, the man may speak freely out of his cleanly conscience, and may say, 1.204. "These hands have never received any gift as a bribe to commit an unjust action, nor any division of what has been obtained by rapine or by covetousness, nor have they shed innocent blood. nor have they wrought mutilation, nor works of insolence, nor acts of violence, nor have they inflicted any wounds; nor, in fact, have they performed any action whatever which is liable to accusation or to reproach, but have been ministers in everything which is honourable and advantageous, and which is honoured by wisdom, or by the laws, or by honourable and virtuous men."XXXVIII. 1.209. And when I have been investigating these matters, this has appeared to me to be a probable conjecture; the soul which honours the living God, ought for that very reason to honour him not inconsiderately nor ignorantly, but with knowledge and reason; and the reasoning which we indulge in respecting God admits of division and partition, according to each of the divine faculties and excellencies; for God is both all good, and is also the maker and creator of the universe; and he also created it having a foreknowledge of what would take place, and being its preserver and most blessed benefactor, full of every kind of happiness; all which circumstances have in themselves a most dignified and praiseworthy character, both separately and when looked at in conjunction with their kindred qualities; 1.256. for the fine wheaten flour is their continual offering; a tenth part of a sacred measure every day; one half of which is offered up in the morning, and one half in the evening, having been soaked in oil, so that no portion of it can be left for food; for the command of God is, that all the sacrifices of the priests shall be wholly burnt, and that no portion of them shall be allotted for food. Having now, then, to the best of our ability, discussed the matters relating to the sacrifices, we will proceed in due order to speak concerning those who offer Them.{35}{yonge's translation includes a separate treatise title at this point: On Those Who offer Sacrifice. Accordingly, his next paragraph begins with roman numeral I (= XLVIII in the Loeb 1.257. The law chooses that a person who brings a sacrifice shall be pure, both in body and soul; --pure in soul from all passions, and diseases, and vices, which can be displayed either in word or deed; and pure in body from all such things as a body is usually defiled by. 1.258. And it has appointed a burning purification for both these things; for the soul, by means of the animals which are duly fit for sacrifices; and for the body, by ablutions and sprinklings; concerning which we will speak presently; for it is fit to assign the pre-eminence in honour in every point to the superior and domit part of the qualities existing in us, namely, to the soul. 1.260. for you will find that this exceeding accuracy of investigation into the animals, figuratively signifies the amelioration of your own disposition and conduct; for the law was not established for the sake of irrational animals, but for that of those who have intellect and reason." So that the real object taken care of is not the condition of the victims sacrificed in order that they may have no blemish, but that of the sacrificers that they may not be defiled by any unlawful passion. 1.261. The body then, as I have already said, he purifies with ablutions and bespringklings, and does not allow a person after he has once washed and sprinkled himself, at once to enter within the sacred precincts, but bids him wait outside for seven days, and to be besprinkled twice, on the third day and on the seventh day; and after this it commands him to wash himself once more, and then it admits him to enter the sacred precincts and to share in the sacred ministrations.XLIX. 1.262. We must consider what great prudence and philosophical wisdom is displayed in this law; for nearly all other persons are besprinkled with pure water, generally in the sea, some in rivers, and others again in vessels of water which they draw from fountains. But Moses, having previously prepared ashes which had been left from the sacred fire (and in what manner shall be explained hereafter 1.263. And the cause of this proceeding may very probably be said to be this:--The lawgiver's intention is that those who approach the service of the living God should first of all know themselves and their own essence. For how can the man who does not know himself ever comprehend the supreme and all-excelling power of God? 1.264. Therefore, our bodily essence is earth and water, of which he reminds us by this purification, conceiving that this result--namely, to know one's self, and to know also of what one is composed, of what utterly valueless substances mere ashes and water are--is of itself the most beneficial purification. 1.265. For when a man is aware of this he will at once reject all vain and treacherous conceit, and, discarding haughtiness and pride, he will seek to become pleasing to God, and to conciliate the merciful power of that Being who hates arrogance. For it is said somewhere with great beauty, "He that exhibits over proud words or actions offends not men alone but God also, the maker of equality and of every thing else that is most excellent." 1.266. Therefore, to us who are amazed and excited by this sprinkling the very elements themselves, earth and water, may almost be said to utter distinct words, and to say plainly, we are the essence of your bodies; nature having mixed us together, divine art has fashioned us into the figure of a man. Being made of us when you were born, you will again be dissolved into us when you come to die; for it is not the nature of any thing to be destroyed so as to become non-existent; but the end brings it back to those elements from which its beginnings come.L. 1.269. And what figurative meanings he conceals under these orders as symbols, we have accurately explained in another treatise, in which we have discussed the allegories. It is necessary, therefore, for those who are about to go into the temple to partake of the sacrifice, to be cleansed as to their bodies and as to their souls before their bodies. For the soul is the mistress and the queen, and is superior in every thing, as having received a more divine nature. And the things which cleanse the mind are wisdom and the doctrines of wisdom, which lead to the contemplation of the world and the things in it; and the sacred chorus of the rest of the virtues, and honourable and very praiseworthy actions in accordance with the virtues. 1.270. Let the man, therefore, who is adorned with these qualities go forth in cheerful confidence to the temple which most nearly belongs to him, the most excellent of all abodes to offer himself as a sacrifice. But let him in whom covetousness and a desire of unjust things dwell and display themselves, cover his head and be silent, checking his shameless folly and his excessive impudence, in those matters in which caution is profitable; for the temple of the truly living God may not be approached by unholy sacrifices. 1.271. I should say to such a man: My good man, God is not pleased even though a man bring hecatombs to his altar; for he possesses all things as his own, and stands in need of nothing. But he delights in minds which love God, and in men who practise holiness, from whom he gladly receives cakes and barley, and the very cheapest things, as if they were the most valuable in preference to such as are most costly. 1.272. And even if they bring nothing else, still when they bring themselves, the most perfect completeness of virtue and excellence, they are offering the most excellent of all sacrifices, honouring God, their Benefactor and Saviour, with hymns and thanksgivings; the former uttered by the organs of the voice, and the latter without the agency of the tongue or mouth, the worshippers making their exclamations and invocations with their soul alone, and only appreciable by the intellect, and there is but one ear, namely, that of the Deity which hears them. For the hearing of men does not extend so far as to be sensible of them.LI. 1.281. but if the gifts which proceed from a woman who has lived as a concubine are unholy, how can those be different which proceed from a soul which is deriled in the same manner, which has voluntarily abandoned itself to shame and to the lowest infamy, to drunkenness and gluttony, and covetousness and ambition, and love of pleasure, and to innumerable other kinds of passions, and diseases, and wickednesses? For what time can be long enough to efface those defilements, I indeed do not know. 1.324. But the law, being most especially an interpreter of equal communion, and of courteous humanity among men, has preserved the honour and dignity of each virtue; not permitting any one who is incurably sunk in vice to flee to them, but rejecting all such persons and repelling them to a distance. 1.325. Therefore, as it was aware that no inconsiderable number of wicked men are often mingled in these assemblies, and escape notice by reason of the crowds collected there, in order to prevent that from being the case in this instance, he previously excludes all who are unworthy from the sacred assembly, beginning in the first instance with those who are afflicted with the disease of effeminacy, men-women, who, having adulterated the coinage of nature, are willingly driven into the appearance and treatment of licentious women. He also banishes all those who have suffered any injury or mutilation in their most important members, and those who, seeking to preserve the flower of their beauty so that it may not speedily wither away, have altered the impression of their natural manly appearance into the resemblance of a woman. 2.163. The reason is that a priest has the same relation to a city that the nation of the Jews has to the entire inhabited world. For it serves as a priest--to state the truth--through the use of all purificatory offerings and the guidance both for body and soul of divine laws which have checked the pleasures of the stomach and those under the stomach and [tamed] the mob [of the Senses]{21}{there is a clear problem with the text here, i.e., the noun ochlon lacks a verb.} by having appointed reason as charioteer over the irrational senses; they also have driven back and overturned the undiscriminating and excessive urges of the soul, some by rather gentle instructions and philosophical exhortations, others by rather weighty and forcible rebukes and by fear of punishment, the fear which they brandish threateningly. 2.164. Apart from the fact that the legislation is in a certain way teaching about the priesthood and that the one who lives by the laws is at once considered a priest, or rather a high priest, in the judgment of truth, the following point is also remarkable. The multitude of gods, both male and female, honored in individual cities happens to be undetermined and indefinite. The poetic clan and the great company of humans have spoken fabulously about them, people for whom the search for truth is impractical and beyond their capability of investigation. Yet all do not reverence and honor the same gods, but different people different gods. The reason is that they do not consider as gods those belonging to another land but make the acceptance of them the occasion for laughter and a joke. They charge those who honor them with great foolishness since they completely violate sound sense. 3.89. Or shall we say that to those who have done no wrong the temple is still inaccessible until they have washed themselves, and sprinkled themselves, and purified themselves with the accustomed purifications; but that those who are guilty of indelible crimes, the pollution of which no length of time will ever efface, may approach and dwell among those holy seats; though no decent person, who has any regard for holy things would even receive them in his house?XVI. 3.207. for the soul of a man is a valuable thing, and when that has quitted its habitation, and passed to another place, everything that is left behind by it is polluted as being deprived of the divine image, since the human mind is made as a copy of the mind of God, having been created after the archetypal model, the most sublime reasoning.
16. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 2.107-2.108 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 120
2.107. for if the man who made the offerings was foolish and ignorant, the sacrifices were no sacrifices, the victims were not sacred or hallowed, the prayers were ill-omened, and liable to be answered by utter destruction, for even when they appear to be received, they produce no remission of sins but only a reminding of them. 2.108. But if the man who offers the sacrifice be bold and just, then the sacrifice remains firm, even if the flesh of the victim be consumed, or rather, I might say, even if no victim be offered up at all; for what can be a real and true sacrifice but the piety of a soul which loves God? The gratitude of which is blessed with immortality, and without being recorded in writing is engraved on a pillar in the mind of God, being made equally everlasting with the sun, and moon, and the universal world.
17. Mishnah, Menachot, 9.7-9.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 319
9.7. "כָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵין בָּהֶם סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִן הַפַּר הַבָּא עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד טְעוּנִים סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַפָּסַח. וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ וּמֵבִיא נְסָכִים וּמֵמִיר: \n", 9.8. "הַכֹּל סוֹמְכִין, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, סוּמָא, וְנָכְרִי, וְהָעֶבֶד, וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ, וְהָאִשָּׁה. וּסְמִיכָה, שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה, עַל הָרֹאשׁ, בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיִם. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין שׁוֹחֲטִין, וְתֵכֶף לַסְּמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה: \n", 9.9. "חֹמֶר בַּסְּמִיכָה מִבַּתְּנוּפָה וּבַתְּנוּפָה מִבַּסְּמִיכָה, שֶׁאֶחָד מֵנִיף לְכָל הַחֲבֵרִים וְאֵין אֶחָד סוֹמֵךְ לְכָל הַחֲבֵרִים. וְחֹמֶר בַּתְּנוּפָה, שֶׁהַתְּנוּפָה נוֹהֶגֶת בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד וּבְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר, בַּחַיִּים וּבַשְּׁחוּטִין, בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּסְּמִיכָה: \n", 9.7. "None of the communal offerings require the laying on of hands except the bull that is offered for [the transgression by the congregation] of any of the commandments, and the scapegoat. Rabbi Shimon says: also the he-goat offered for [the sin] of idol worship. All the offerings of an individual require the laying on of hands except the first-born, the cattle tithe, and the pesah. And an heir may lay his hands [on his father’s offering], and he may bring the libations for it, and can substitute [another animal for it].", 9.8. "All lay hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. [One must lay] the hands: On the head of the animal, Both hands In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; And the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.", 9.9. "Laying on of hands is [in certain respects] more stringent than waving and waving is [in other respects] more stringent than laying on of hands. For one may perform the waving on behalf of all the others, but one may not perform the laying on of hands on behalf of all the others. Waving is more stringent, for waving takes place for offerings of the individual and for offerings of the community, for living animals and for slaughtered animals, and for things that have life and for things that do not have life; but it is not so with laying on of the hands.",
18. Tacitus, Annals, 15.44 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 17
15.44. Et haec quidem humanis consiliis providebantur. mox petita dis piacula aditique Sibyllae libri, ex quibus supplicatum Vulcano et Cereri Proserpinaeque ac propitiata Iuno per matronas, primum in Capitolio, deinde apud proximum mare, unde hausta aqua templum et simulacrum deae perspersum est; et sellisternia ac pervigilia celebravere feminae quibus mariti erant. sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur. 15.44.  So far, the precautions taken were suggested by human prudence: now means were sought for appeasing deity, and application was made to the Sibylline books; at the injunction of which public prayers were offered to Vulcan, Ceres, and Proserpine, while Juno was propitiated by the matrons, first in the Capitol, then at the nearest point of the sea-shore, where water was drawn for sprinkling the temple and image of the goddess. Ritual banquets and all-night vigils were celebrated by women in the married state. But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.
19. New Testament, 1 Timothy, 6.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 17
6.17. Τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλού του ἀδηλότητι, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ θεῷ τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν, 6.17. Charge those who are rich in this present world that they not be haughty, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches, but on the living God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy;
20. New Testament, Apocalypse, 3.17, 12.1-12.18, 13.1-13.18 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 17, 190, 192
3.17. ὅτι λέγεις ὅτι Πλούσιός εἰμι καὶπεπλούτηκακαὶ οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω, καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεινὸς καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός, 12.1. Καὶ σημεῖον μέγα ὤφθη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ ἡ σελήνη ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς στέφανος ἀστέρων δώδεκα, καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα· 12.2. καὶκράζει ὠδίνουσα καὶ βασανιζομένη τεκεῖν. 12.3. καὶ ὤφθη ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἰδοὺ δράκων μέγας πυρρός, ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶκέρατα δέκακαὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ἑπτὰ διαδήματα, 12.4. καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτοντῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔβαλεναὐτοὺςεἰς τὴν γῆν.καὶ ὁ δράκων ἔστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ· 12.5. καὶἔτεκενυἱόν,ἄρσεν,ὃς μέλλειποιμαίνεινπάντατὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ·καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. 12.6. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ἐκεῖ τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. 12.7. Καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁΜιχαὴλκαὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦτοῦ πολεμῆσαιμετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος. καὶ ὁ δράκων ἐπολέμησεν καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, 12.8. καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν, οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. 12.9. καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας,ὁ ὄφιςὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλούμενοςΔιάβολοςκαὶ ὉΣατανᾶς,ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην, — ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν. 12.10. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαν Ἄρτι ἐγένετο ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐβλήθη ὁ κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, ὁ κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός· 12.11. καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι θανάτου· 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. 12.13. Καὶ ὅτε εἶδεν ὁ δράκων ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἐδίωξεν τὴν γυναῖκα ἥτις ἔτεκεν τὸν ἄρσενα. 12.14. καὶ ἐδόθησαν τῇ γυναικὶ αἱ δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἀετοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ἵνα πέτηται εἰς τὴν ἔρημον εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, ὅπου τρέφεται ἐκεῖκαιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως. 12.15. καὶ ἔβαλεν ὁ ὄφις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ὀπίσω τῆς γυναικὸς ὕδωρ ὡς ποταμόν, ἵνα αὐτὴν ποταμοφόρητον ποιήσῃ. 12.16. καὶ ἐβοήθησεν ἡ γῆ τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἤνοιξεν ἡ γῆ· τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς καὶ κατέπιεν τὸν ποταμὸν ὃν ἔβαλεν ὁ δράκων ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ· 12.17. καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς, τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ· 12.18. καὶ ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης. 13.1. Καὶ εἶδονἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον,ἔχονκέρατα δέκακαὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτά, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ὀνόματα βλασφημίας. 13.2. καὶ τὸθηρίονὃ εἶδον ἦνὅμοιον παρδάλει,καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦὡς ἄρκου,καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦὡςστόμαλέοντος. καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ δράκων τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην. 13.3. καὶ μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμενην εἰς θάνατον, καὶ ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ ἐθεραπεύθη. 13.4. καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ὅλη ἡ γῆ ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου, καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ δράκοντι ὅτι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῷ θηρίῳ, καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θηρίῳ λέγοντες Τίς ὅμοιος τῷ θηρίῳ, καὶ τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι μετʼ αὐτοῦ; 13.5. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷστόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλακαὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαποιῆσαιμῆνας τεσσεράκοντα [καὶ] δύο. 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. 13.7. [καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ νικῆσαι αὐτούς,] καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλὴν καὶ λαὸν καlt*gt γλῶσσαν καὶ ἔθνος. 13.8. καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,οὗοὐγέγραπταιτὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆςτοῦἀρνίουτοῦἐσφαγμένουἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. 13.9. Εἴ τις ἔχει οὖς ἀκουσάτω. 13.10. εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίανὑπάγει· εἴ τιςἐν μαχαίρῃἀποκτενεῖ, δεῖ αὐτὸνἐν μαχαίρῃἀποκτανθῆναι. Ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων. 13.11. Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλο θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ εἶχεν κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ, καὶ ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων. 13.12. καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου πᾶσαν ποιεῖ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. καὶ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν τὸ θηρίον τὸ πρῶτον, οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. 13.13. καὶ ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα καὶ πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνειν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 13.14. καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν. 13.15. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῇ δοῦναι πνεῦμα τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ θηρίου, ἵνα καὶ λαλήσῃ ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ποιήσῃ [ἵνα] ὅσοι ἐὰν μὴπροσκυνήσωσιν τῇ εἰκόνιτοῦ θηρίου ἀποκτανθῶσιν. 13.16. καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας, τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτω χούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους, ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν, 13.17. [καὶ] ἵνα μή τις δύνηται ἀγοράσαι ἢ πωλῆσαι εἰ μὴ ὁ ἔχων τὸ χάραγμα, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θηρίου ἢ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. 13.18. Ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν· ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου, ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν· καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ. 3.17. Because you say, 'I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing;' and don't know that you are the wretched one, miserable, poor, blind, and naked; 12.1. A great sign was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 12.2. She was with child. She cried out, laboring and in pain, giving birth. 12.3. Another sign was seen in heaven. Behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven crowns. 12.4. His tail drew one third of the stars of the sky, and threw them to the earth. The dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. 12.5. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. Her child was caught up to God, and to his throne. 12.6. The woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that there they may nourish her one thousand two hundred sixty days. 12.7. There was war in the sky. Michael and his angels made war on the dragon. The dragon and his angels made war. 12.8. They didn't prevail, neither was a place found for him any more in heaven. 12.9. The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 12.10. I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now is come the salvation, the power, and the Kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night. 12.11. They overcame him because of the Lamb's blood, and because of the word of their testimony. They didn't love their life, even to death. 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." 12.13. When the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 12.14. Two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, so that she might be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 12.15. The serpent spewed water out of his mouth after the woman like a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the stream. 12.16. The earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river which the dragon spewed out of his mouth. 12.17. The dragon grew angry with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep God's commandments and hold Jesus' testimony. 13.1. Then I stood on the sand of the sea. I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads. On his horns were ten crowns, and on his heads, blasphemous names. 13.2. The beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. 13.3. One of his heads looked like it had been wounded fatally. His fatal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled at the beast. 13.4. They worshiped the dragon, because he gave his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" 13.5. A mouth speaking great things and blasphemy was given to him. Authority to make war for forty-two months was given to him. 13.6. He opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his dwelling, those who dwell in heaven. 13.7. It was given to him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. Authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation was given to him. 13.8. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed. 13.9. If anyone has an ear, let him hear. 13.10. If anyone has captivity, he goes away. If anyone is with the sword, he must be killed. Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints. 13.11. I saw another beast coming up out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke like a dragon. 13.12. He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. He makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. 13.13. He performs great signs, even making fire come down out of the sky on the earth in the sight of men. 13.14. He deceives my own people who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given to him to do in front of the beast; saying to those who dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast who had the sword wound and lived. 13.15. It was given to him to give breath to it, to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause as many as wouldn't worship the image of the beast to be killed. 13.16. He causes all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free and the slave, so that they should give them marks on their right hand, or on their forehead; 13.17. and that no one would be able to buy or to sell, unless he has that mark, the name of the beast or the number of his name. 13.18. Here is wisdom. He who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is six hundred sixty-six.
21. New Testament, Luke, 3.11, 12.33, 16.19-16.31 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 319
3.11. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ὁ ἔχων δύο χιτῶνας μεταδότω τῷ μὴ ἔχοντι, καὶ ὁ ἔχων βρώματα ὁμοίως ποιείτω. 12.33. Πωλήσατε τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑμῶν καὶ δότε ἐλεημοσύνην· ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς βαλλάντια μὴ παλαιούμενα, θησαυρὸν ἀνέκλειπτον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 16.19. Ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος, καὶ ἐνεδιδύσκετο πορφύραν καὶ βύσσον εὐφραινόμενος καθʼ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς. 16.20. πτωχὸς δέ τις ὀνόματι Λάζαρος ἐβέβλητο πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα αὐτοῦ εἱλκωμένος 16.21. καὶ ἐπιθυμῶν χορτασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τοῦ πλουσίου· ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ κύνες ἐρχόμενοι ἐπέλειχον τὰ ἕλκη αὐτοῦ. 16.22. ἐγένετο δὲ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πτωχὸν καὶ ἀπενεχθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰς τὸν κόλπον Ἀβραάμ· ἀπέθανεν δὲ καὶ ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ἐτάφη. 16.23. καὶ ἐν τῷ ᾄδῃ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ, ὑπάρχων ἐν βασάνοις, ὁρᾷ Ἀβραὰμ ἀπὸ μακρόθεν καὶ Λάζαρον ἐν τοῖς κόλποις αὐτοῦ. 16.24. καὶ αὐτὸς φωνήσας εἶπεν Πάτερ Ἀβραάμ, ἐλέησόν με καὶ πέμψον Λάζαρον ἴνα βάψῃ τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου αὐτοῦ ὕδατος καὶ καταψύξῃ τὴν γλῶσσάν μου, ὅτι ὀδυνῶμαι ἐν τῇ φλογὶ ταύτῃ. 16.25. εἶπεν δὲ Ἀβραάμ Τέκνον, μνήσθητι ὅτι ἀπέλαβες τὰ ἀγαθά σου ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου, καὶ Λάζαρος ὁμοίως τὰ κακά· νῦν δὲ ὧδε παρακαλεῖται σὺ δὲ ὀδυνᾶσαι. 16.26. καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις μεταξὺ ἡμῶν καὶ ὑμῶν χάσμα μέγα ἐστήρικται, ὅπως οἱ θέλοντες διαβῆναι ἔνθεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς μὴ δύνωνται, μηδὲ ἐκεῖθεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς διαπερῶσιν. 16.27. εἶπεν δέ Ἐρωτῶ σε οὖν, πάτερ, ἵνα πέμψῃς αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου, 16.28. ἔχω γὰρ πέντε ἀδελφούς, ὅπως διαμαρτύρηται αὐτοῖς, ἵνα μὴ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔλθωσιν εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῆς βασάνου. 16.29. λέγει δὲ Ἀβραάμ Ἔχουσι Μωυσέα καὶ τοὺς προφήτας· ἀκουσάτωσαν αὐτῶν. 16.30. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Οὐχί, πάτερ Ἀβραάμ, ἀλλʼ ἐάν τις ἀπὸ νεκρῶν πορευθῇ πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετανοήσουσιν. 16.31. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Εἰ Μωυσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, οὐδʼ ἐάν τις ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ πεισθήσονται. 3.11. He answered them, "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise." 12.33. Sell that which you have, and give gifts to the needy. Make for yourselves purses which don't grow old, a treasure in the heavens that doesn't fail, where no thief approaches, neither moth destroys. 16.19. "Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. 16.20. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, 16.21. and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 16.22. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. 16.23. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. 16.24. He cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.' 16.25. "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in like manner, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. 16.26. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' 16.27. "He said, 'I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house; 16.28. for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won't also come into this place of torment.' 16.29. "But Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.' 16.30. "He said, 'No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 16.31. "He said to him, 'If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.'"
22. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23, 10.2-10.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 228, 229, 283
7.1. Καὶ συνἄγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων 7.2. καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους. 7.3. —οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.4. καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων. 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. 7.9. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε· 7.10. Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· 7.11. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12. οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13. ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.14. Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 7.15. οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 7.16. 7.17. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν. 7.18. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 7.19. ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται; —καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. 7.20. ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· 7.21. ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, 7.22. μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· 7.23. πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 10.2. Καὶ [προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι] ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι, πειράζοντες αὐτόν. 10.3. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τί ὑμῖν ἐνετείλατο Μωυσῆς; 10.4. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν Ἐπέτρεψεν Μωυσῆς βιβλίον ἀποστασίου γράψαι καὶ ἀπολῦσαι. 10.5. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην· 10.6. ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν [αὐτούς]· 10.7. ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα, 10.8. καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν· ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ· 10.9. ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω. 10.10. Καὶ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν πάλιν οἱ μαθηταὶ περὶ τούτου ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν. 10.11. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπʼ αὐτήν, 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 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." 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?" 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." 10.2. Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 10.3. He answered, "What did Moses command you?" 10.4. They said, "Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her." 10.5. But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. 10.6. But from the beginning of the creation, 'God made them male and female. 10.7. For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, 10.8. and the two will become one flesh,' so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10.9. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10.10. In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter. 10.11. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her.
23. New Testament, Acts, 16.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 17
16.14. καί τις γυνὴ ὀνόματι Λυδία, πορφυρόπωλις πόλεως Θυατείρων σεβομένη τὸν θεόν, ἤκουεν, ἧς ὁ κύριος διήνοιξεν τὴν καρδίαν προσέχειν τοῖς λαλουμένοις ὑπὸ Παύλου. 16.14. A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one who worshiped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened to listen to the things which were spoken by Paul.
24. Mishnah, Eruvin, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 228
6.2. "אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַעֲשֶׂה בִצְדוֹקִי אֶחָד, שֶׁהָיָה דָר עִמָּנוּ בְּמָבוֹי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, מַהֲרוּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת כָּל הַכֵּלִים לַמָּבוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר, מַהֲרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ צָרְכֵיכֶם בַּמָּבוֹי עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם: \n", 6.2. "Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.",
25. Anon., The Life of Adam And Eve, 12-15, 17, 16 (1st cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 190
26. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 319
27. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 316, 317, 318, 319
4.13. יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן. רַבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא הִנִּיחוּ אוֹתִי לִפְשֹׁט יָדִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן כִּכָּר אַחַת וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֹּאכַלְנָה הִיא וּבַעֲלָהּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל שְׁכֶנְתָּהּ, הָיְתָה נוֹטֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ הַכִּכָּר וּמְנַחֶמָה אוֹתָהּ בָּהּ, וְהֶעֱלָה עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן לְמִצְווֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָרוֹת לָמוֹ.
28. Palestinian Talmud, Eruvin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan
29. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
16b. ללדת עולה לראש ההר כדי שיפול ממנה וימות ואני מזמין לה נשר שמקבלו בכנפיו ומניחו לפניה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מתאחר רגע אחד מיד מת בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לט, א) חולל אילות תשמור אילה זו רחמה צר בשעה שכורעת ללדת אני מזמין לה דרקון שמכישה בבית הרחם ומתרפה ממולדה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מאחר רגע אחד מיד מתה בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לד, לה) [איוב] לא בדעת ידבר ודבריו לא בהשכל (וכתיב (איוב מב, ז) כי לא דברתם אלי נכונה כעבדי איוב) אמר רבא מכאן שאין אדם נתפס בשעת צערו,(איוב ב, יא) וישמעו שלשת רעי איוב את כל הרעה הזאת הבאה עליו ויבאו איש ממקומו אליפז התימני ובלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ויועדו יחדו לבוא לנוד לו ולנחמו מאי ויועדו יחדו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שנכנסו כולן בשער אחד ותנא בין כל אחד ואחד שלש מאות פרסי,מנא הוו ידעי איכא דאמרי כלילא הוה להו ואיכא דאמרי אילני הוה להו וכיון דכמשי הוו ידעי אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברא כחברי דאיוב או מיתותא,(בראשית ו, א) ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב על פני האדמה ובנות יולדו להם רבי יוחנן אמר רביה באה לעולם ריש לקיש אמר מריבה באה לעולם אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן לדידך דאמרת רבייה באה לעולם מפני מה לא נכפלו בנותיו של איוב,אמר לו נהי דלא נכפלו בשמות אבל נכפלו ביופי דכתיב (איוב מב, יג) ויהי לו שבענה בנים ושלוש בנות ויקרא שם האחת ימימה ושם השנית קציעה ושם השלישית קרן הפוך,ימימה שהיתה דומה ליום קציעה שהיה ריחה נודף כקציעה קרן הפוך אמרי דבי רבי שילא שדומה לקרנא דקרש מחייכו עלה במערבא קרנא דקרש לקותא היא אלא אמר רב חסדא ככורכמא דרישקא במיניה שנאמר (ירמיהו ד, ל) כי תקרעי בפוך,רבי שמעון ברבי איתילידא ליה ברתא הוה קא חלש דעתיה אמר ליה אבוה רביה באה לעולם אמר ליה בר קפרא תנחומין של הבל ניחמך אבוך [דתניא] אי אפשר לעולם בלא זכרים ובלא נקבות אלא אשרי למי שבניו זכרים אוי לו למי שבניו נקבות אי אפשר לעולם בלא בסם ובלא בורסי אשרי מי שאומנותו בוסמי אוי למי שאומנותו בורסי,כתנאי (בראשית כד, א) וה' ברך את אברהם בכל מאי בכל רבי מאיר אומר שלא היתה לו בת רבי יהודה אומר שהיתה לו בת אחרים אומרים בת היתה לו לאברהם ובכל שמה רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר איצטגנינות היתה בלבו של אברהם אבינו שכל מלכי מזרח ומערב משכימין לפתחו רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אבן טובה היתה תלויה בצוארו של אברהם אבינו שכל חולה הרואה אותו מיד מתרפא ובשעה שנפטר אברהם אבינו מן העולם תלאה הקדוש ברוך הוא בגלגל חמה אמר אביי היינו דאמרי אינשי אידלי יומא אידלי קצירא,דבר אחר שלא מרד עשו בימיו דבר אחר שעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו שלא מרד עשו בימיו מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף ותנא אותו היום נפטר אברהם אבינו ועשה יעקב אבינו תבשיל של עדשים לנחם את יצחק אביו,[ומ"ש של עדשים] אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבה בר מרי מה עדשה זו אין לה פה אף אבל אין לו פה דבר אחר מה עדשה זו מגולגלת אף אבילות מגלגלת ומחזרת על באי העולם מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לנחומי בביעי,אמר רבי יוחנן חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע באותו היום בא על נערה מאורסה והרג את הנפש וכפר בעיקר וכפר בתחיית המתים ושט את הבכורה,בא על נערה מאורסה כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה וכתיב התם (דברים כב, כז) כי בשדה מצאה הרג את הנפש כתיב הכא עיף וכתיב התם (ירמיהו ד, לא) אוי נא לי כי עיפה נפשי להורגים וכפר בעיקר כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, לב) למה זה לי וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו וכפר בתחיית המתים דכתיב (בראשית כה, לב) הנה אנכי הולך למות ושט את הבכורה דכתיב (בראשית כה, לד) ויבז עשו את הבכורה,ושעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו מנלן כי הא דרבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי הוו יתבי קמיה דרבא וקא מנמנם רבא א"ל רבינא לרב חמא בר בוזי ודאי דאמריתו כל מיתה שיש בה גויעה זו היא מיתתן של צדיקים אמר ליה אין והא דור המבול אמר ליה אנן גויעה ואסיפה קאמרינן,והא ישמעאל דכתיב ביה גויעה ואסיפה אדהכי איתער בהו רבא אמר להו דרדקי הכי א"ר יוחנן ישמעאל עשה תשובה בחיי אביו שנאמר (בראשית כה, ט) ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו,ודילמא דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו אלא מעתה (בראשית לה, כט) ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו מאי טעמא לא חשיב להו דרך חכמתן אלא מדאקדמיה אדבורי אדבריה ומדאדבריה שמע מינה תשובה עבד בימיו,תנו רבנן שלשה הטעימן הקב"ה בעולם הזה 16b. b to give birth she ascends to the top of a mountain so that /b the kid b should fall down from her and die. And I summon her an eagle that receives it with his wings and places it before her; and if /b the eagle b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, /b the kid b would immediately die. /b Now, if b I do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,Similarly: b “Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” /b (Job 39:1). b The womb of this hind is narrow, /b which makes for a difficult delivery. b When she squats to give birth, I summon her a snake [ i derakon /i ] that bites her at the opening of the womb, which /b then b becomes loose, and she gives birth, and if /b the snake b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, she would immediately die. /b Now, if I b do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,The Gemara comments: On the one hand, the text states: b “Job has spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom” /b (Job 34:35). b But /b on the other hand, b it is written /b with regard to Job’s friends: b “You have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, like my servant Job” /b (Job 42:8). b Rava said: From here /b it may be inferred b that a person is not held responsible /b for what he says b when he is in distress. /b Although Job uttered certain words that were wrong and inappropriate, he was not punished for them because he said them at a time of pain and hardship.,The verse states: b “And Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him” /b (Job 2:11). b What /b does b “they had made an appointment together” /b mean? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: This /b phrase b teaches that they all entered /b through b one gate /b at the same time. b And /b a Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : There were b three hundred parasangs between each and every one /b of them, i.e., each one lived three hundred parasangs away from the other.,The Gemara asks: b How did they /b all b know /b at the same time what had happened to Job so that the three of them came together? b There are /b those b who say /b that b they /b each b had a crown /b which displayed certain signs when something happened to one of the others. b And there are /b those b who say they /b each b had trees and when /b the trees b withered they knew /b that sorrow had visited one of them. b Rava said /b that b this /b closeness between Job and his friends explains the adage b that people say: Either a friend like the friends of Job or death. /b If a person lacks close friends, he is better off dead.,The Gemara cites another place where Job is mentioned. b “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply [ i larov /i ] on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them” /b (Genesis 6:1). b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b i Larov /i means that b propagation [ i reviyya /i ] came to the world /b through these daughters. b Reish Lakish says: Strife [ i meriva /i ] came to the world. /b Once daughters were born, the men began to fight among themselves over them. b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: According to you who say /b that due to the daughters b propagation came to the world, for what /b reason b were /b the number of b Job’s daughters not doubled, /b when at the end of the story God doubled everything that Job had lost (see Job 1:3, 42:12)?,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Granted, /b the numbers of Job’s daughters b were not doubled in name, /b meaning they did not become twice as many, b but they were doubled in beauty, as it is written: “He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, and the name of the second was Keziah, and the name of the third one was Keren-happuch” /b (Job 42:13–14). All three names relate to the daughters’ beauty., b Jemimah [ i Yemima /i ]; /b in her beauty b she was similar to the day [ i yom /i ]. Keziah; her scent wafted like /b the b cassia [ i ketzia /i ] /b tree. b Keren-happuch; in the school of Rav Sheila they say: She was similar to the horn [ i keren /i ] of a i keresh /i , /b an animal whose horns are particularly beautiful. b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, since it is considered b a blemish /b when a person resembles b the horn of a i keresh /i . Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: /b She was b like garden saffron [ i kekurkema derishka /i ], /b which is the best b of its kind. /b i Keren /i refers to a garden, and i pukh /i means ornament, b as it is stated: “Though you enlarge /b your eyes b with paint [ i pukh /i ], /b you beautify yourself in vain” (Jeremiah 4:30).,It is reported that b a daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, and b he was upset /b that he did not have a son. b His father said to him: Propagation has come to the world /b through the birth of a daughter. b Bar Kappara said to /b Rabbi Shimon: b Your father has consoled you with meaningless consolation, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The world cannot endure without males and females, /b as both are needed for the perpetuation of humanity. b But fortunate is he whose children are males and woe to him whose children are females. /b Similarly, b the world cannot endure without either a spice dealer /b whose wares are sweet-smelling, b or a tanner [ i bursi /i ], /b who is engaged in a foul-smelling occupation. b Fortunate is he whose occupation is a spice seller, /b and b woe to him whose occupation is a tanner. /b ,The Gemara comments that this disagreement is b parallel to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i : /b The Torah states: b “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything [ i bakkol /i ]” /b (Genesis 24:1), and the Sages disagree about b what i bakkol /i /b means. b Rabbi Meir says: /b The blessing is b that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b On the contrary, the blessing was b that he had a daughter. Others say: Abraham had a daughter and her name was Bakkol. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Abraham our forefather was so knowledgeable in astrology [ i itztagninut /i ] that all the kings of the East and the West would come early to his door /b due to his wisdom. This is the blessing of i bakkol /i , that he possessed knowledge that everybody needed. b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A precious stone hung around the neck of Abraham our forefather; any sick person who looked at it would immediately be healed. When Abraham our forefather died, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hung /b this stone b from the sphere of the sun, /b which from that point on brought healing to the sick. b Abaye said: This /b explains the adage b that people say: As the day progresses, sickness is lifted. /b , b Alternatively, /b what is the blessing of i bakkol /i ? b That Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime, /b that is to say, as long as Abraham lived Esau did not sin. b Alternatively, /b the blessing of i bakkol /i is b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b The Gemara explains: b From where do we /b derive that b Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? As it is written: /b “And Jacob was cooking a stew b and Esau came in from the field and he was faint” /b (Genesis 25:29), b and /b a i baraita /i b taught: On that day Abraham our forefather passed away, and Jacob our forefather prepared a lentil stew to comfort Isaac, his father, /b as it was customary to serve mourners lentil stew.,The Gemara explains: b And what is different about lentils /b that they in particular are the fare customarily offered to mourners? b They say in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b in the name of Rabba bar Mari: Just as this lentil has no mouth, /b i.e., it does not have a crack like other legumes, b so too a mourner has no mouth, /b that is, his anguish prevents him from speaking. b Alternatively, just as this lentil is /b completely b round, so too mourning comes around to the inhabitants of the world. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between /b the two explanations? The Gemara answers: b There is /b a practical difference b between them /b with regard to whether it is appropriate b to console /b a mourner b with eggs, /b which have no opening but are not completely round., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: That wicked /b Esau b committed five transgressions on that day /b that Abraham died: b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, he killed a person, he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, b he denied resurrection of the dead, and he despised the birthright. /b ,The Gemara cites proofs to support these charges. b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, /b as b it is written here: “And Esau came in from the field”; and it is written there /b with regard to rape of a betrothed maiden: b “For he found her in a field” /b (Deuteronomy 22:27). b He killed a person, /b as b it is written here: /b “And he was b faint”; and it is written there: “Woe is me, for my soul faints before the slayers” /b (Jeremiah 4:31). b And he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, as b it is written here: “What profit is this to me” /b (Genesis 25:32); b and it is written there: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” /b (Exodus 15:2). When he questioned the profit of “this,” he was challenging the assertion that “this is my God.” b And he denied resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “Behold, I am at the point of death” /b (Genesis 25:32), indicating that he did not believe in resurrection after death. b And he despised the birthright, as it is written: “And Esau despised the birthright” /b (Genesis 25:34)., b And from where do we /b derive b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? From /b the incident involving b Ravina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi, /b who b were sitting before Rava, and Rava was dozing /b while they were talking. b Ravina said to Rav Ḥama bar Buzi: Is it true that you say /b that b any death with regard to which /b the word b i gevia /i , /b expire, is mentioned b is the death of the righteous? /b Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: Yes. /b For example: “And Isaac expired [ i vayyigva /i ], and died” (Genesis 35:29). Ravina objected: b But /b with regard to b the generation of the flood /b it states: “And all flesh expired [ i vayyigva /i ]” (Genesis 7:21), and there they died for their wickedness. Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: We say /b this only when both b i gevia /i and i asifa /i , /b gathering, are used; when these two terms are mentioned together they indicate the death of a righteous person.,Ravina asked: b But isn’t there Ishmael, about whom i gevia /i and i asifa /i are written, /b as it is stated: “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael…and he expired and died [ i vayyigva vayyamot /i ]; and was gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:17)? b Meanwhile Rava, /b who had heard the discussion in his dozed state, fully b awoke /b and b said to them: Children [ i dardekei /i ], this is what Rabbi Yoḥa says: Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father, as it is stated: “And Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 25:9). The fact that Ishmael allowed Isaac to precede him demonstrates that he had repented and accepted his authority.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b the verse b listed them in the order of their wisdom; /b that is to say, perhaps in fact Ishmael preceded Isaac but the Torah did not list them in that order. The Gemara answers: b But if that is so, /b consider that the verse states: b “And Esau and Jacob, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 35:29). b What is the reason /b that the verse there b did not list them in the order of their wisdom? Rather, since /b Ishmael b allowed /b Isaac b to precede him, /b it is clear that he b made /b Isaac b his leader, and since he made him his leader, learn from it that he repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b ,Incidental to the discussion of the verse “And God blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1), the Gemara states that b the Sages taught: /b There were b three /b people b to whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave /b already b in this world /b
30. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
31. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
4a. שפתיו נהוי מעשה גבי מגדף אמר רבא שאני מגדף הואיל וישנו בלב אבל בעלמא עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה,מתיב רבי זירא יצאו עדים זוממין שאין בו מעשה ואמאי הא על פי כתיב בהן אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנן בראייה:,האוכל חלב: ת"ר (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו לחייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר' ישמעאל וחכ"א אינו חייב אלא אחת,נימא בהא קמיפלגי דר' ישמעאל סבר לוקין על לאו שבכללות ורבנן סברי אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,לעולם סבר ר' ישמעאל אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות ושאני הכא דמייתרי ליה קראי נכתוב קרא כל חלב לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן אי לא כתיב שור וכשב ועז ה"א אפילו חלב חיה במשמע להכי כתב שור כשב ועז למימרא דחלב שור וכשב ועז הוא דאסור אבל דחיה שרי,שפיר קאמרי ליה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי ישמעאל דקסבר א"כ לכתוב כל חלב שור לא תאכלו כשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב רחמנא כל חלב שור ה"א נילף שור שור מסיני,מה גבי סיני חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף גבי אכילה חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן להכי כתב רחמנא שור וכשב ועז למימרא דהני דאסור אבל חיה ועוף שרי,שפיר קא"ל אלא היינו טעמא דקסבר נכתוב כל חלב כשב לא תאכלו א"נ כל חלב עז לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב כל חלב כשב ה"א חלב כשב אסור ושור ועז שרי וכ"ת מאי אולמיה דכשב משום דנתרבה באליה,וכדתנא ר' חנניא למה מנה הכתוב אימורין בשור ואימורים בכשב ואימורים בעז דכתיב (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור וגו',צריכי דאי כתב שור ה"א כשב ועז לא ילפינן מיניה דאיכא למיפרך מה לשור שכן נתרבה בנסכים,נכתוב רחמנא בכשב ונילף שור ועז מכשב איכא למיפרך מה לכשב שכן נתרבה באליה,נכתוב רחמנא עז ונילף שור וכשב מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לעז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,מן חד לא ילפינן נכתוב תרתי ונילף חדא מתרתי הי דין נילף שור מכשב ועז אית להון פירכא מה לכשב ועז שכן נתרבו אצל הפסח,לא נכתוב כשב ונילף משור ועז אית להון פירכא מה לשור ועז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,לא נכתוב עז ונילף משור וכשב אית להון פירכא מה לשור וכשב שכן יש בו צד ריבוי הלכך לא ילפי מהדדי,שפיר קא"ל אלא לעולם טעמא דרבי ישמעאל כדאמרינן מעיקרא דאם כן נכתוב כל חלב ולישתוק מאי אמרת האי דכתב שור וכשב ועז למשרי חלב חיה,הא כי כתב קרא בעניינא דקדשים ודבר למד מעניינו,מכלל דרבנן סברי לא ילפינן דבר למד מעניינו לא דכולי עלמא ילפינן דבר הלמד מעניינו והכא בהא פליגי רבי ישמעאל סבר למידין לאו מלאו בין מלאו ובין מלאו דכרת,דכל חלב שור וכשב ועז מלאו (ויקרא ג, יז) דחוקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו דכתיב בעניינא דקדשים ובקדשים לא אית בהון חיה אף כל חלב שור כי כתיב ליה סתמא ליכא לספוקי בחיה הלכך שור וכשב ועז לחלק הוא דאתא לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,וילפינן לאו דכל חלב ולאו דחוקת עולם מכרת (ויקרא ז, כה) דכי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה מה ההוא לחלק אף הדין לחלק,ורבנן לאו מלאו ילפינן לאו מכרת לא ילפינן,ואיבעית אימא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן כדאמר ליה רב מרי לרב זביד אלא מעתה אליה דחולין תיתסר אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז דבר השוה בשלשתן בעינן וליכא,הלכך כי אתא שור וכשב ועז למישרי אליה דחולין הוא דאתא ור' ישמעאל אמר לך א"כ לימא קרא כל חלב שור וכשב עז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,א"ר חנינא מודה רבי ישמעאל לענין קרבן שאין מביא אלא חטאת אחת מ"ט דלא דמי הדין לאו ללאו דעריות,ת"ר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,שאם אכל חלב וחלב שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים שתי שמות בהעלם אחת חייב שתים,א"ל רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא בשלמא שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים משום דהעלמות מחלקין אלא שני שמות בהעלם אחת אמאי חייב שתים הא בעינן העלמות מוחלקין וליכא,א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאכל חלב דנותר דמחייב משום נותר ומשום חלב א"ל א"כ ניחייב נמי משום קודש,אלא אמר רב ששת כגון דאכל חלב דהקדש ור' יהודה היא דתניא אכל חלב נבלה אכל חלב מוקדשין חייב שתים ר' יהודה אומר חלב מוקדשין לוקה שלש,מחייכו עלה במערבא ונוקמה כגון חלב דשור וכשב ועז ור' ישמעאל היא דאמר לוקה שלש 4a. b his lips should be /b considered b an action in /b the case of one who b blasphemes. Rava said: /b The case of one who b blasphemes is different, since it is /b primarily b in the heart. /b In other words, the transgression of blasphemy is not the actual speech but the verbalizing of a sentiment. One is not liable to bring a sin offering for such an action, as it is essentially a matter of the heart. b But in general, the twisting of one’s lips is /b considered b an action. /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises an objection /b from that which is taught in a different context. It is stated in a i baraita /i that all who unwittingly transgress prohibitions punishable by death are liable to bring sin offerings, b except for conspiring witnesses, /b who are not obligated to bring sin offerings, b as /b their transgression b does not involve an action. But why /b is that so? b It is written with regard to /b such witnesses: b “At the mouth /b of two witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6). They acted through speech, and the twisting of their lips should be considered an action, as they are liable for what they actually said, not for what was in their hearts. b Rava said: /b The case of b conspiring witnesses is different, since their /b transgression b is /b primarily b through sight, /b i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not an action.,§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive i karet /i b one who eats /b forbidden b fat. /b With regard to this, b the Sages taught /b a i baraita /i which deals with the verse: b “You shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This verse serves b to render one liable /b to receive lashes b for each and every one, /b i.e., one who eats the fat of an ox, and a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive three sets of lashes. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And the Rabbis say he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis b disagree about this /b matter, b that Rabbi Yishmael maintains one is flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition and the Rabbis maintain one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition. /b This is referring to the violation of a prohibition that includes several different actions, such as this one, which pertains to eating the fat of an ox, sheep, and goat. The Rabbis contend that one does not receive multiple sets of lashes for transgressing each element of such a prohibition.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, Rabbi Yishmael /b also b maintains /b that b one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition, but here it is different, as /b elements of b the verse are superfluous. /b The Gemara explains: b Let the verse write /b only: b You shall eat no fat, /b and all the individual types of fat would be included. b Why do I /b need the additional terms: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b how do they respond to this reading of the verse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis would say that no element of the verse is superfluous, since b if /b it had b not written: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” I would say /b that b even /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal is included /b in the prohibition. b For this /b reason the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that it is /b the b fat of an ox, or a sheep, or a goat that is forbidden, but /b all the fats b of an undomesticated animal are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: If so, /b that the verse serves to exclude the fat of only an undomesticated animal from the prohibition, then b let it write: You shall eat no fat of an ox, /b which would be understood as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal. b Why do I /b need the phrase: b “Sheep or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if the Merciful One had written /b only: You shall eat no b fat of an ox, I would say: Let us derive /b a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “ox” /b stated here as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal [ i behema /i ] and the word b “ox,” /b i.e., i behema /i , stated with regard to a mitzva given in preparation for the revelation at b Sinai: /b “Whether it be animal [ i behema /i ] or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13).,The Gemara explains the meaning of this hypothetical verbal analogy: b Just as with regard to /b the command at b Sinai, undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the use of the term i behema /i , b so too, with regard to eating /b their fat, b undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the verse employing the example of an ox. b For this /b reason b the Merciful One writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that these are forbidden, but /b all the fats of b an undomesticated animal and birds are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. How could he say the terms in the verse are superfluous? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: Let /b the verse b write: You shall eat no fat of sheep; alternatively, /b let it state: b You shall eat no fat of goat. Why do I /b need the verse to state all three: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if /b the Torah b had written /b merely: b You shall eat no fat of sheep, I would say /b it is only b the fat of sheep /b that is b forbidden, but /b the fat of b an ox or a goat /b is b permitted. And if you would say: /b In b what /b way b is /b the category b of sheep stronger, /b i.e., more fitting to have its fats forbidden, than the categories of ox and goats, that one would think the prohibition applies only to sheep? The answer is that one might have thought so b due to /b the fact b that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as it is sacrificed upon the altar, which is not the case with an ox or a goat., b And /b this is b as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: Why does the verse list /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions /b on the altar b with regard to /b a firstborn b ox, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions [ i ve’eimurim /i ] with regard to /b a firstborn b sheep, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions with regard to /b a firstborn b goat? As it is written: “But the firstborn of a bull, /b or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire” (Numbers 18:17). The “fat” mentioned in this verse is their portions to be burned on the altar.,Rabbi Ḥanina explains: These repetitions b are necessary, as, if /b the Torah b had written /b this obligation only with regard to a firstborn b ox I would say /b that b we do not derive /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep and a goat from it, as /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about an ox? /b It is notable b in that /b an ox b has an increased /b number b of /b wine b libations, /b more than those poured with sheep and goat offerings. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation to burn the sacrificial portions applies only with regard to an ox.,And likewise, if you were to suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only b with regard to a sheep and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat from /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep, /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a sheep? /b It is notable b in that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as explained earlier.,And similarly, if you suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only with regard to b a goat, and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep from /b the i halakha /i of a goat, this too b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a goat? /b It is notable b in that /b a goat b has an increased /b applicability b with regard to idol worship, /b as one who sins unwittingly in the case of idol worship is liable to bring a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27), unlike one who transgresses other prohibitions unwittingly, for which they are liable to bring a sheep.,Rabbi Ḥanina continues: b We cannot derive /b these i halakhot /i b from /b the i halakha /i of any b one /b of the others, but b let /b the Torah b write two /b of them b and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b one /b of them b from /b the i halakha /i of the other b two. Which /b is b this /b animal that should not be written? If one suggests b we will derive /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of a firstborn b ox from /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about a sheep and a goat? /b They are notable b in that /b that b they have increased /b applicability, as they are suitable b for the Paschal offering, /b whereas an ox is not suitable for this purpose.,If one suggests the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a goat? /b They are notable b in that they have increased /b applicability as suitable offerings to atone b for /b an unwitting transgression of b idol worship, /b as when a community unwittingly sins with regard to idol worship they bring an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), while an individual brings a goat but not a sheep.,If one suggests that the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a goat, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a sheep? /b They are notable b in that each /b of them b has an increased aspect /b of applicability with regard to the altar, as the libations for an ox are greater than those for a goat, and the tail of a sheep, but not that of a goat, is burned on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina concludes: b Therefore, /b all three cases are necessary, as b they cannot be derived from each other. /b ,The Rabbis have explained why all three mentions of an ox, a sheep, and a goat are necessary. Consequently, the Gemara again states: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests: b Rather, the reason of Rabbi Yishmael /b is b actually as we said at the outset, that if so, /b that one who eats the forbidden fats of all three animals is liable to receive only one set of lashes, b let /b the verse b write: /b You shall eat no b fat, and be silent. What did you say /b in response? That b this /b fact b that /b the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b serves b to permit /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal? /b This is not a valid objection.,The Gemara explains: b When the verse /b concerning forbidden fat b is written /b it is b in the context of sacrificial /b animals, since the subsequent verse concerning the prohibition against eating forbidden fat states: “For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The verse categorizes an animal whose fat one may not eat as an “animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord,” i.e., offerings. b And /b one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles is: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, /b i.e., one interprets a verse according to the context in which it is written. Since offerings may be brought only from domesticated, not undomesticated, animals, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat applies only to such animals.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one conclude b by inference that the Rabbis maintain we do not derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context? /b This cannot be correct, as it is an accepted basic principle of exegesis. The Gemara answers: b No, everyone /b agrees that b we do derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, and here /b it is b about this /b issue b that they disagree: Rabbi Yishmael maintains /b that b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another b prohibition, /b and this applies b whether /b it is b from /b a standard b prohibition, /b whose transgression results in the punishment of lashes, b or whether from a prohibition /b whose transgression results in the punishment b of i karet /i . /b ,Accordingly, the prohibition b of: /b “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b can be derived b from the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood” /b (Leviticus 3:17), b which is written with regard to the matter of sacrificial /b animals. b And there are no undomesticated animals in /b the category of b sacrificial /b animals. b So too, /b with regard to the prohibition of: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, /b or sheep, or goat,” b when /b the verse b writes it without /b further b specification, there is no /b reason b to be uncertain /b whether or not it is referring also b to undomesticated animals. Therefore, /b the phrase b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes to separate, /b i.e., b to render one liable for /b eating the forbidden fat of b each and every one /b of them.,All this teaches only that a separate prohibition applies to each type of animal. b And /b with regard to the liability to receive lashes for eating each one b we derive the prohibition of: /b “You shall eat b no fat,” and the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute,” from the /b example of b i karet /i /b stated in the verse: b “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal, of which people present /b an offering of fire to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:25). b Just as that /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that if one unwittingly ate the fat of an ox, a goat, and a sheep he is liable to bring a sin offering for each one, b so too, this /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that one is liable to receive lashes for eating the fat of each one., b And the Rabbis /b maintain b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another standard b prohibition, /b but b we do not derive /b the i halakhot /i of a standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of a prohibition whose transgression results in the punishment of b i karet /i . /b ,The Gemara suggests: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this is the reason of the Rabbis: As Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid /b when asked about a different issue: b If that is so, /b that a sheep tail is categorized as fat by the verses and is included in the portions of an offering for which one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property, then the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal b should be prohibited /b for consumption as forbidden fat. Rav Zevid b said to /b Rav Mari: b With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states /b concerning forbidden fat: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that for the prohibition against eating forbidden fat to take effect b we require an item that is /b found b equally in all three /b types of animals, an ox, and a sheep, and a goat, b and that is not /b the case here. Since an ox and goat do not have tails, the tail is not prohibited even in the case of a sheep., b Therefore, /b the same applies with regard to the issue at hand: b When /b the verse b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes, it comes to permit /b consumption of the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal, and one cannot learn from here that a separate prohibition applies to each type of forbidden fat. b And Rabbi Yishmael /b could b say to you /b in response: b If so, let /b the verse b state: /b You shall eat b no fat of ox or sheep; why do I /b need the mention of b a goat? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b Although b Rabbi Yishmael /b maintains that one who unwittingly eats the fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each one, he b concedes with regard to /b bringing b an offering that /b if he ate those types of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness he b brings only one sin offering. What is the reason? /b The reason is b that this prohibition is not similar to the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden. /b As derived in the Gemara on 2b, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with many women to whom he is forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. In that context the verse states a separate prohibition for each forbidden relative, whereas in this case there is a single prohibition that applies to the forbidden fat of all domesticated animals.,§ With regard to the sin offering required of one who transgresses the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments of God that may not be performed, and from one of them” (Leviticus 4:2). This phrase should be interpreted as though it states: b And performs one, /b and again states: b And performs them, /b i.e., it serves b to render one liable /b to bring a sin offering b for each and every /b transgression.,The i baraita /i continues: This teaches b that if one ate /b forbidden b fat and /b again ate forbidden b fat, /b if it was from b one category, /b i.e., the same type of forbidden fat, and he ate it b in two lapses of awareness, /b that is, he was made aware of his sin after the first instance of consumption and then again ate unwittingly, he is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings. If he ate forbidden fat from b two categories, /b as the Gemara will soon explain, b in one lapse of awareness, /b he is likewise b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings., b Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: Granted, /b one who ate forbidden fat from b one category in two lapses of awareness /b is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings, as this is b due to /b the fact b that the lapses of awareness separate /b between his transgressions; each time he becomes aware of his transgression he is liable to bring another sin offering. b But /b in a case where he ate forbidden fat from b two categories in one lapse of awareness, why /b is he b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings? b We require separate lapses of awareness and that is not /b the case here.,Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Here we are dealing with /b a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [ i notar /i ], as he is liable due to /b eating b i notar /i and /b is also liable b due to /b eating forbidden b fat. /b These are the two categories mentioned in the i baraita /i . Rami bar Ḥama b said to him: If so, /b that the case involves more than one prohibition, b let him be liable due to /b eating b sacrificial /b food b as well, /b and he should be liable to bring a guilt offering for the unwitting misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16)., b Rather, Rav Sheshet said: /b Here we are dealing with a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, b and /b this ruling b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who renders one liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial food. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of an animal carcass, /b or if he b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, he is b liable /b to receive b two /b sets of lashes, either for transgressing the prohibitions of eating forbidden fat and eating an animal carcass, or for both eating forbidden fat and transgressing the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes, because there are two separate prohibitions of forbidden fat in the case of sacrificial animals, as the Gemara will soon explain, in addition to the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals.,The Gemara comments: b They laughed at this /b suggestion b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b And let us interpret /b this i baraita /i as referring to a case b where /b he ate the forbidden b fat of an ox, and /b of b a sheep, and /b of b a goat, and /b explain that b it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, who says /b that he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes for the different types of fat, if he did so intentionally and was forewarned.
32. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 319
93a. if the repeated term “his offering” is not needed to counter the i a fortiori /i inferences, b why do I /b need these three b verses? /b The Gemara explains: One instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of another /b person. Another instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of a gentile. /b The third instance of b “his offering” /b serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,§ The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then b the heir /b is regarded as the offering’s owner. Therefore, he b places /b his b hands /b on the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred., b Rav Ḥaya taught /b a i baraita /i b in the presence of Rava: An heir does not place hands /b on an offering he inherited, and b an heir cannot substitute /b a non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b The heir places /b his b hands /b on the offering, b and brings /b the accompanying b libations, and he can substitute /b a non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?,Rav Ḥaya b said to /b Rava: b Should I reverse /b the current version of the i baraita /i to have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava b said to him: No, /b as b whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An heir places hands, /b and b an heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands, /b and b an heir cannot effect substitution. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? /b He expounds the term b “his offering” /b as teaching that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b one’s father’s offering /b that one inherited. b And /b furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda b derives /b the i halakha /i concerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is b the initial stage of consecration, from /b the i halakha /i concerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is b the final stage of consecration: Just as /b with regard to b the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place /b his b hands, so too, /b with regard to b the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution. /b , b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ] /b animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of i hamer yamir /i serving b to include the heir /b as one capable of effecting substitution. b And /b furthermore, b they derive /b the i halakha /i concerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the b final stage of consecration, from /b the i halakha /i concerning who can effect substitution, which is b an initial stage of consecration: Just as /b with regard to b the initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too, /b with regard to b the final stage of consecration, an heir places /b his b hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, what do they do with this /b term: b “His offering”? /b The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of a gentile. /b Another instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of another /b person. The third instance of b “his offering” /b serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,The Gemara clarifies: b And Rabbi Yehuda does not hold /b that one of the mentions serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. b Alternatively, /b if b he holds /b that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must b derive /b that one does not place hands on the offering of b a gentile or /b of b another /b person b from /b the same b one /b mention in the b verse, /b which b leaves him two /b more mentions in the b verses. One /b he expounds to teach that on b “his offering” /b he places hands, b but not /b on b his father’s offering /b that he inherited, b and the other /b mention remains b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do /b with the use of the doubled form b in this /b verse: “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ]”? /b The Gemara answers: b He requires it to include a woman /b among those who can effect substitution. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Since the entire matter /b of substitution b is stated /b in the Torah b only in the masculine form, what /b is the reason that b we ultimately /b come b to include a woman? The verse states: /b “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ],” /b using a doubled form., b And /b as for b the Rabbis, they derive /b that a woman can effect substitution b from /b the term: b “And if” /b (Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase “and if he shall substitute.” b And Rabbi Yehuda does not expound /b the term b “and if” /b at all., strong MISHNA: /strong b Everyone /b who brings an animal offering b places hands /b upon its head, b except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile, /b a Canaanite b slave, the agent /b of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner’s behalf, b and a woman. /b , b And /b the requirement of b placing hands is a non-essential mitzva; /b therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.,The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning b on the head /b of the offering b with two hands. And in the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands, one slaughters /b the animal. b And immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: b Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor /b do not place their hands on the offering, b as they are not mentally competent. /b The exclusion of b a gentile /b is also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them” (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that b the children of Israel place hands /b upon their offerings, b but gentiles do not place /b their b hands /b upon their offerings. b But /b with regard to b a blind person, what is the reason /b that he does b not /b place his hands on his offering?, b Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi /b disagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. b One said /b that it is b derived /b from a verbal analogy between the mention of b placing hands /b in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of b placing hands /b stated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed b by /b the b Elders of /b the b congregation, /b i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see i Sanhedrin /i 34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person., b And /b the other b one said /b that it is b derived /b from a verbal analogy between the mention of b placing hands /b in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of b placing hands /b stated with regard to the b burnt offering of appearance /b brought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see i Ḥagiga /i 2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who said /b that the exclusion of a blind person is derived b from /b the b burnt offering of appearance, what is the reason /b that b he does not derive /b this b from /b the placing of hands performed by the b Elders of /b the b congregation? /b
33. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
42a. הא גדילים תעשה לך מהם:,אמר מר וכולם שגילחו שלא בתער או ששיירו שתי שערות לא עשו ולא כלום אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא זאת אומרת רובו ככולו מדאורייתא,ממאי מדגלי רחמנא גבי נזיר (במדבר ו, ט) ביום השביעי יגלחנו הכא הוא דעד דאיכא כולו הא בעלמא רובו ככולו,מתקיף לה ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא האי בנזיר טמא כתיב מחכו עלה במערבא מכדי נזיר טמא דבתער מנלן מנזיר טהור יליף ליתי נזיר טהור ולילף מנזיר טמא מה טמא כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד הכא נמי כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד,בעי אביי נזיר שגילח ושייר שתי שערות צמח ראשו וחזר וגילחן מהו מי מעכבי או לא,בעי רבא נזיר שגילח והניח שתי שערות וגילח אחת ונשרה אחת מהו א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא גילח שערה שערה קא מיבעי ליה לרבא,אלא אימא נשרה אחת וגילח אחת מהו א"ל גילוח אין כאן שער אין כאן אי שער אין כאן גילוח יש כאן ה"ק אע"פ ששער אין כאן מצות גילוח אין כאן:,מתני' נזיר חופף ומפספס אבל לא סורק:,גמ' חופף ומפספס מני ר"ש היא דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר אבל לא סורק אתאן לרבנן,רישא ר"ש וסיפא רבנן אמר רבה כולה ר"ש היא כל הסורק להסיר נימין מדולדלות מתכוין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big רבי ישמעאל אומר לא יחוף באדמה מפני שמשרת את השער:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו מפני שהיא משרת את השער תנן או דלמא מפני המשרת תנן למאי נפקא מינה,כגון דאיכא אדמה דלא מתרא אי אמרת מפני שהיא משרת תנן היכא דידעינן דלא מתרא שפיר אלא אי אמרת מפני המשרת כלל כלל לא תיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מגלח כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תגלח אל תגלח והוא מגלח חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מטמא למתים כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא והוא מטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת: 42a. indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: b “You shall make for yourself fringes” /b (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be b from them, /b wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. b The Master said /b above: b And /b with regard to b all of them, if they shaved with /b an implement b other than a razor, or if they left two hairs /b uncut, b they have done nothing. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say /b that the principle: b The majority of /b an entity is considered b like all of it, /b applies b by Torah law. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where /b do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived b from /b the fact b that the Merciful One revealed /b in the Torah and specified b with regard to a nazirite: “On the seventh day he shall shave it” /b (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: “And he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.” This teaches that b it is /b only in this case b here /b that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving b until there is /b the removal b of all of it, /b i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that b in general the majority of /b an entity is b like all of it. /b , b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, objects to this /b assertion. b This /b verse: “On the seventh day he shall shave it,” b is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite, /b not a pure one, whereas the i halakha /i in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. b They laughed at /b this difficulty b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b After all, from where do we /b derive the i halakha /i that b an impure nazirite /b shaves b with a razor? /b It is b derived from /b the i halakha /i of b a pure nazirite. /b If so, b let /b the case of b a pure nazirite come and derive /b the following i halakha /i b from /b the case of b an impure nazirite: Just as /b with regard to b an impure /b nazirite, b if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too, /b if a pure nazirite b leaves two hairs he has done nothing. /b ,On the same topic, b Abaye raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, /b which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of b his head grew and he again shaved, /b this time those two hairs alone, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Do /b these hairs b invalidate /b the fulfillment of his obligation b or not? /b Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?,Similarly, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and /b afterward b shaved one /b of them, b and /b the other b one fell out /b of its own accord, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is this considered shaving one’s entire head or not? b Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma /b as to whether one can b shave /b his head one b hair by /b one b hair? /b How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?, b Rather, say /b that the dilemma is as follows: If b one /b hair b fell out and he shaved /b the other b one, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina b said to him: /b In that case b there is no shaving here; there is no hair here. /b The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: b If there is no hair here, /b then b there is shaving here, /b as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: b This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here, /b as only one hair remains, nevertheless b there is no /b fulfillment of the b mitzva of shaving here, /b as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite may shampoo [ i ḥofef /i ] /b his head b and separate [ i mefaspes /i ] /b his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. b However, he may not comb /b his hair., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara clarifies: b Who is /b the i tanna /i who maintains that a nazirite b may shampoo and separate /b his hairs? b It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted. /b Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: b However, he may not comb /b his hair, b we have come to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.,This leads to a surprising conclusion, that b the first clause /b represents the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis. Rabba said: /b The b entire /b mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b as he maintains that b anyone who combs /b his hair b intends to remove stray hairs, /b and therefore this is considered an intentional act., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Yishmael says: /b A nazirite b may not shampoo /b his hair b with earth because /b this b causes the hair to fall out. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do b we learn: Because it removes hair, /b i.e., earth in general removes hair, b or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes /b hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: b What /b is the b difference /b of this textual question?,The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case b where there is /b a type of b earth that does not remove /b hair. b If you say /b that b we learned /b in the mishna: b Because it removes /b hair, then in a case b where we know that it does not remove /b hair b it is fine /b to shampoo with that substance. b However, if you say /b the text reads: b Because of that which removes /b hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may b not /b shampoo his head with any earth b at all, /b not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If people b said to him /b during the course of the day: b Do not drink, do not drink, and /b nevertheless b he /b continues to b drink, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If a nazirite b kept shaving all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If he b became ritually impure from a corpse /b many times b all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he /b continues to b become impure, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned.
34. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
109a. מאן נשדר נשדר בהדי נחום איש גם זו דמלומד בנסים הוא,כי מטא לההוא דיורא בעא למיבת אמרי ליה מאי איכא בהדך אמר להו קא מובילנא כרגא לקיסר קמו בליליא שרינהו לסיפטיה ושקלו כל דהוה גביה ומלנהו עפרא כי מטא להתם אישתכח עפרא אמר אחוכי קא מחייכי בי יהודאי אפקוהו למקטליה אמר גם זו לטובה אתא אליהו ואידמי להו כחד מינייהו אמר להו דילמא האי עפרא מעפרא דאברהם אבינו הוא דהוה שדי עפרא הוו חרבי גילי הוו גירי בדוק ואשכחו הכי,הוה מחוזא דלא הוו קא יכלי ליה למיכבשיה שדו מההוא עפרא עליה וכבשוה עיילוהו לבי גנזא אמרי שקול דניחא לך מלייה לסיפטא דהבא כי הדר אתא אמרו ליה הנך דיורי מאי אמטית לבי מלכא אמר להו מאי דשקלי מהכא אמטאי להתם שקלי אינהו אמטו להתם קטלינהו להנך דיורי:,דור הפלגה אין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו': מאי עבוד אמרי דבי רבי שילא נבנה מגדל ונעלה לרקיע ונכה אותו בקרדומות כדי שיזובו מימיו מחכו עלה במערבא א"כ ליבנו אחד בטורא,(אלא) א"ר ירמיה בר אלעזר נחלקו לג' כיתות אחת אומרת נעלה ונשב שם ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה זו שאומרת נעלה ונשב שם הפיצם ה' וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה נעשו קופים ורוחות ושידים ולילין וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים (בראשית יא, ט) כי שם בלל ה' שפת כל הארץ,תניא רבי נתן אומר כולם לשם עבודת כוכבים נתכוונו כתיב הכא (בראשית יא, ד) נעשה לנו שם וכתיב התם (שמות כג, יג) ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו מה להלן עבודת כוכבים אף כאן עבודת כוכבים,אמר רבי יוחנן מגדל שליש נשרף שליש נבלע שליש קיים אמר רב אויר מגדל משכח אמר רב יוסף בבל ובורסיף סימן רע לתורה מאי בורסיף אמר ר' אסי בור שאפי:,אנשי סדום אין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו': ת"ר אנשי סדום אין להן חלק לעולם הבא שנאמר (בראשית יג, יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה' מאד רעים בעוה"ז וחטאים לעולם הבא,אמר רב יהודה רעים בגופן וחטאים בממונם רעים בגופן דכתיב (בראשית לט, ט) ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלהים וחטאים בממונם דכתיב (דברים טו, ט) והיה בך חטא לה' זו ברכת השם מאד שמתכוונים וחוטאים,במתניתא תנא רעים בממונם וחטאים בגופן רעים בממונם דכתיב (דברים טו, ט) ורעה עינך באחיך האביון וחטאים בגופן דכתיב (בראשית לט, ט) וחטאתי לאלהים לה' זו ברכת השם מאד זו שפיכות דמים שנאמר (מלכים ב כא, טז) גם דם נקי שפך מנשה (בירושלים) הרבה מאד [וגו'],ת"ר אנשי סדום לא נתגאו אלא בשביל טובה שהשפיע להם הקב"ה ומה כתיב בהם (איוב כח, ה) ארץ ממנה יצא לחם ותחתיה נהפך כמו אש מקום ספיר אבניה ועפרות זהב לו נתיב לא ידעו עיט ולא שזפתו עין איה לא הדריכוהו בני שחץ לא עדה עליו שחל,אמרו וכי מאחר שארץ ממנה יצא לחם ועפרות זהב לו למה לנו עוברי דרכים שאין באים אלינו אלא לחסרינו [מממוננו] בואו ונשכח תורת רגל מארצנו שנאמר (איוב כח, ד) פרץ נחל מעם גר הנשכחים מני רגל דלו מאנוש נעו,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים סב, ד) עד אנה תהותתו על איש תרצחו כולכם כקיר נטוי גדר הדחויה מלמד שהיו נותנין עיניהן בבעלי ממון ומושיבין אותו אצל קיר נטוי ודוחין אותו עליו ובאים ונוטלין את ממונו,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (איוב כד, טז) חתר בחשך בתים יומם חתמו למו לא (ראו) [ידעו] אור מלמד שהיו נותנים עיניהם בבעלי ממון ומפקידים אצלו אפרסמון ומניחים אותו בבית גנזיהם לערב באים ומריחין אותו ככלב שנא' (תהלים נט, ז) ישובו לערב יהמו ככלב ויסובבו עיר ובאים וחותרים שם ונוטלין אותו ממון,(איוב כד, י) ערום הלכו מבלי לבוש ואין כסות בקרה חמור יתומים ינהגו יחבלו שור אלמנה גבולות ישיגו עדר גזלו וירעו (איוב כא, לב) והוא לקברות יובל ועל גדיש ישקוד,דרש ר' יוסי בציפורי אחתרין ההיא ליליא תלת מאה מחתרתא בציפורי אתו וקא מצערי ליה אמרו ליה יהבית אורחיה לגנבי אמר להו מי הוה ידענא דאתו גנבי כי קא נח נפשיה דרבי יוסי שפעי מרזבי דציפורי דמא,אמרי דאית ליה חד תורא מרעי חד יומא דלית ליה לירעי תרי יומי ההוא יתמא בר ארמלתא הבו ליה תורי למרעיה אזל שקלינהו וקטלינהו אמר להו 109a. b whom shall we send /b the gift? They decided: b We will send /b it b with Naḥum of Gam Zo, as he is experienced in miracles. /b , b When he reached a certain lodging, he sought to sleep /b there. The residents of that lodging b said to him: What /b do you b have with you? /b Naḥum b said to them: I am taking the head tax to the emperor. They rose in the night, opened his chest and took everything that was in it, and /b then b filled /b the chest b with dirt. When he arrived there, /b in Rome, b earth was discovered /b in the chest. The emperor b said: The Jews are mocking me /b by giving me this gift. b They took /b Naḥum b out to kill him. /b Naḥum b said: This too is for the best. Elijah /b the prophet b came and appeared to them as one of /b Naḥum’s traveling party. Elijah b said to them: Perhaps this earth is from the earth of Abraham our forefather, who would throw dust /b and b it became swords, /b and who would throw b straw /b and b it became arrows. They examined /b the dust b and discovered /b that it was indeed the dust of Abraham., b There was a province that /b the Romans b were unable to conquer. They threw /b some b of this earth upon /b that province b and they conquered it. /b In appreciation for the gift that Naḥum of Gam Zo had brought on behalf of the Jewish people, b they brought him into the treasury /b and b said: Take /b that b which is preferable to you. He filled his chest /b with b gold. When he returned /b to that lodging, b those residents said to him: What did you bring to the king’s palace? /b Naḥum b said to them: What I took from here, I brought to there. /b The residents concluded that the earth with which they had filled the chest had miraculous properties. b They took /b earth and b brought it to /b the emperor. Once the Romans discovered that the earth was ineffective in battle, b they executed those residents. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that the members of b the generation of the dispersion have no share in the World-to-Come. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b sin b did they perform? /b Their sin is not explicitly delineated in the Torah. b The school of Rabbi Sheila say /b that the builders of the Tower of Babel said: b We will build a tower and ascend to heaven, and we will strike it with axes so that its waters will flow. They laughed at /b this explanation b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and asked: b If /b that was their objective, b let them build /b a tower b on a mountain; /b why did they build it specifically in a valley (see Genesis 11:2)?, b Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Elazar says: They divided into three factions; one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and dwell there. And one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and engage in idol worship. And one said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and wage war. /b With regard to b that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and dwell there, God dispersed them. And that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and wage war, became apes, and spirits, and demons, and female demons. And /b with regard to b that /b faction b that said: Let us ascend /b to the top of the tower b and engage in idol wor-ship, /b it is written: b “Because there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth” /b (Genesis 11:9)., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says: All of /b those factions b intended /b to build the tower b for the sake of idol worship. It is written here: “And let us make a name for us” /b (Genesis 11:4), b and it is written there: “And make no mention of the name of the other gods” /b (Exodus 23:13). b Just as there, /b the connotation of “name” b is idol worship, so too here, /b the connotation of “name” b is idol worship. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa says: The /b uppermost b third /b of the b tower was burned, /b the lowermost b third /b of the tower b was swallowed /b into the earth, and the middle b third remained /b intact. b Rav says: The atmosphere of the tower causes forgetfulness; /b anyone who goes there forgets what he has learned. As a result of the building of the tower, forgetting was introduced into the world. b Rav Yosef says: Babylonia and /b the adjacent place, b Bursif, are /b each b a bad omen for Torah, /b i.e., they cause one to forget his knowledge. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b Bursif? Rabbi Asi says: /b It is an abbreviation of b empty pit [ i bor shafi /i ]. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” /b (Genesis 13:13). b “Wicked” /b indicates b in this world; “and sinners” /b indicates b for the World-to-Come. /b , b Rav Yehuda says: “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies; “and sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money. “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies, as it is written /b with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: b “And how can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God” /b (Genesis 39:9). b “And sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money, as it is written: /b “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother, and you give him nothing… b for it shall be reckoned to you as a sin” /b (Deuteronomy 15:9). b “Before the Lord”; this /b is referring to b blessing, /b a euphemism for cursing, b God. “Exceedingly” /b means b that they had intent and sinned /b and did not sin unwittingly or driven by lust., b It was taught in a i baraita /i : “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money; “and sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies. “Wicked” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their money, as it is written: “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother /b and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). b “And sinners” /b is referring to sins they committed b with their bodies, as it is written /b with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: b “And sin against God” /b (Genesis 39:9). b “Before the Lord”; this /b is referring to b blessing, /b a euphemism for cursing, b God. “Exceedingly [ i meod /i ]” /b is referring to b bloodshed, as it is stated: “Moreover Manasseh shed very [ i meod /i ] much blood” /b (II Kings 21:16)., b The Sages taught: The people of Sodom became haughty /b and sinned b due only to the /b excessive b goodness that the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed upon them. And what is written concerning them, /b indicating that goodness? b “As for the earth, out of it comes bread, and underneath it is turned up as it were by fire. Its stones are the place of sapphires, and it has dust of gold. That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the falcon’s eye seen it. The proud beasts have not trodden it, nor has the lion passed thereby” /b (Job 28:5–8). The reference is to the city of Sodom, which was later overturned, as it is stated thereafter: “He puts forth His hand upon the flinty rock; He overturns the mountains by the roots” (Job 28:9).,The people of Sodom b said: Since /b we live in b a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold, /b we have everything that we need. b Why do we need travelers, as they come only to divest us of our property? Come, let us cause the /b proper b treatment of travelers to be forgotten from our land, as it is stated: “He breaks open a watercourse in a place far from inhabitants, forgotten by pedestrians, they are dried up, they have moved away from men” /b (Job 28:4)., b Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “How long will you seek to overwhelm a man? You will all be murdered like a leaning wall or a tottering fence” /b (Psalms 62:4)? This b teaches that /b the people of Sodom b set their sights on property owners. /b They would take one b and place him alongside an inclined, /b flimsy b wall /b that was about to fall, b and push it upon him /b to kill him, b and /b then b they /b would b come and take his property. /b , b Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “In the dark they dig through houses; by day they shut themselves up; they know not the light” /b (Job 24:16)? This b teaches that they would set their sights on property owners. /b They would take one b and /b they would b give him balsam, /b whose smell diffuses, b and /b the property owner would b place it in his treasury. In the evening, /b the people of Sodom b would come and sniff it /b out b like a dog /b and discover the location of the property owner’s treasury, b as it is stated: “They return at evening; they howl like a dog, and go round about the city” /b (Psalms 59:7). b And /b after discovering the location b they would come and dig there, and they would take that property. /b ,The Gemara cites verses that allude to the practices of the people of Sodom: b “They lie at night naked without clothing, and they have no covering in the cold” /b (Job 24:7). And likewise: b “They drive away the donkey of the fatherless; they take the widow’s ox as a pledge” /b (Job 24:3). And likewise: b “They trespass; they violently steal flocks and graze them” /b (Job 24:2). And likewise: b “For he is brought to the grave, and watch is kept over his tomb” /b (Job 21:32)., b Rabbi Yosei taught in Tzippori /b the methods of theft employed in Sodom. b That night three hundred tunnels were excavated in Tzippori /b in order to employ those methods. Homeowners b came and harassed him; they said to him: You have given a way for thieves /b to steal. Rabbi Yosei b said to them: Did I know that thieves would come /b as a result of my lecture? The Gemara relates: b When Rabbi Yosei died, the gutters of Tzippori /b miraculously b overflowed /b with b blood /b as a sign of his death.,The people of Sodom b would say: /b Anyone b who has one ox shall herd /b the city’s oxen b for one day. /b Anyone b who does not have /b any oxen b shall herd /b the city’s oxen b for two days. /b The Gemara relates: b They gave oxen to a certain orphan, son of a widow, to herd. He went /b and b took them and killed them. /b The orphan b said /b to the people of Sodom:
35. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
26a. חדא מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:,ר' ישמעאל אומר אינו חייב אלא על העתיד לבא: ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) להרע או להיטיב אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים,אין לי אלא להבא לשעבר מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) לכל אשר יבטא האדם בשבועה דברי רבי עקיבא רבי ישמעאל אומר להרע או להיטיב להבא,אמר לו רבי עקיבא אם כן אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הטבה והרעה דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין אמר לו מרבוי הכתוב אמר לו אם ריבה הכתוב לכך ריבה הכתוב לכך,שפיר קא"ל רבי עקיבא לר' ישמעאל,א"ר יוחנן ר' ישמעאל ששימש את רבי נחוניא בן הקנה שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בכלל ופרט איהו נמי דורש בכלל ופרט רבי עקיבא ששימש את נחום איש גם זו שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בריבה ומיעט איהו נמי דורש ריבה ומיעט,מאי ר' עקיבא דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי דתניא או נפש כי תשבע ריבה להרע או להיטיב מיעט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל,מאי ריבה ריבה כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט דבר מצוה,ור' ישמעאל דריש כלל ופרט או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים כלל להרע או להיטיב פרט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש להבא אף כל להבא,אהני כללא לאתויי אפי' דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה להבא אהני פרטא למעוטי אפילו דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה לשעבר,איפוך אנא,א"ר יצחק דומיא דלהרע או להיטיב מי שאיסורו משום (במדבר ל, ג) בל יחל דברו יצאתה זו שאין איסורו משום בל יחל דברו אלא משום בל תשקרו,רב יצחק בר אבין אמר אמר קרא או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים מי שהשבועה קודמת לביטוי ולא שהביטוי קודמת לשבועה יצא זה אכלתי ולא אכלתי שהמעשה קודם לשבועה,ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס ונעלם פרט למזיד,ממנו שנתעלמה ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלמה ממנו חפץ ת"ל בשבועה ונעלם על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,אמר מר האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס היכי דמי,כדרב כהנא ורב אסי כי הוו קיימי מקמי דרב מר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב ומר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב כי אתו לקמיה דרב אמר כחד מינייהו אמר ליה אידך ואנא בשיקרא אישתבעי,אמר ליה לבך אנסך,ונעלם ממנו שנתעלם ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלם ממנו חפץ תלמוד לומר בשבועה ונעלם ממנו על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,מחכו עלי' במערבא בשלמא שבועה משכחת לה בלא חפץ כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור שאוכל קאמר דשבועתיה אינשי חפצא דכיר אלא חפץ בלא שבועה ה"ד,כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור של שעורים קאמר דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא אינשי כיון דחפצא אינשי להו היינו העלם שבועה,אלא אמר רבי אלעזר דא ודא אחת היא,מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלמא חפץ בלא שבועה לא משכחת לה והא משכחת לה כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין והושיט ידו לסל ליטול פת שעורין ועלתה בידו של חטין וכסבור שעורים היא ואכלה דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא הוא דלא ידע ליה,אמר ליה אביי כלום מחייבת ליה קרבן אלא אמאי דתפיס בידיה העלם שבועה הוא,לישנא אחרינא אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף סוף סוף קרבן דקא מייתי עלה דהאי פת מיהת העלם שבועה הוא,ורב יוסף אמר לך כיון דכי ידע ליה דחטין הוא פריש מיניה העלם חפץ הוא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו אמר ליה הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אדרבה הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,אמר רב אשי חזינן אי מחמת שבועה קא פריש הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אי מחמת חפץ קא פריש הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי כלום פריש משבועה אלא משום חפץ כלום פריש מחפץ אלא משום שבועה אלא לא שנא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן 26a. b Rav Pappa said one of those /b statements, not Abaye.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yishmael says: One is liable only /b for an oath on an utterance taken b about the future. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to an oath on an utterance: From the verse: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips b to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4), b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips,” /b which includes other matters., b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for oaths referring b to the future. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for oaths referring b to the past? The verse /b subsequently b states: “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath” /b (Leviticus 5:4); this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: /b The verse states: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b referring exclusively to oaths b about the future. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, /b then b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? /b Rabbi Yishmael b said to /b Rabbi Akiva in response: It is derived b from an amplification /b of the meaning b of the verse. /b Rabbi Akiva b said to him: If the verse is amplified for this, /b i.e., to extend the i halakha /i of an oath on an utterance to matters that do not involve doing evil or good, b the verse is amplified for that, /b i.e., oaths about the past.,The Gemara questions: b Rabbi Akiva said well /b his critique of the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael. /b Why does Rabbi Yishmael disagree?, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b It is because b Rabbi Yishmael /b was the one b who served /b as a disciple of b Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael b also interprets /b the Torah b with /b the method of b a generalization and a detail. Rabbi Akiva /b was one b who served /b as a disciple of b Naḥum of Gam Zo, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b amplification and restriction. /b Therefore, Rabbi Akiva b also interprets /b the Torah by b amplification and restriction. /b , b What /b is the specific instance in this context where one finds b that Rabbi Akiva interprets /b with b amplifications and restrictions? /b It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that when the verse states: b “Or if anyone take an oath /b clearly with his lips” (Leviticus 5:4), it b amplifies /b the range of possible oaths for which one could be liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance. When the verse continues: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b it b restricts /b that range. When it further continues: b “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” it b then amplifies /b again. According to the hermeneutical principle that when a verse b amplified, and /b then b restricted, and /b then b amplified, it amplified /b the relevant category to include b everything /b except for the specific matter that was excluded by the restriction., b What /b was included when the verse b amplified /b the range of liability? b It amplified /b it to include b all matters /b about which one might take an oath. b And /b in b what /b way did it b restrict /b it when it continued: “To do evil, or to do good”? It b restricted /b the range of liability for an oath on an utterance to exclude an oath that is b a matter /b involving b a mitzva, /b i.e., an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva., b And Rabbi Yishmael interprets /b the verse following the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips” /b (Leviticus 5:4), is b a generalization; “to do evil, or to do good,” /b is b a detail; “whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” the verse b then /b further b generalized. /b There is a hermeneutical principle that when a verse contains b a generalization, and a detail, and /b another b generalization, you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. Just as the detail /b in the verse is b explicitly /b an oath referring b to the future, so too, all /b the oaths for which one is liable must be referring b to the future. /b , b The generalization serves to include even /b those b matters that do not concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the future; the detail serves to exclude even matters that concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the past. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b I will reverse /b it and say that the generalization serves to include oaths concerning the past, and the detail serves to exclude matters that do not involve doing evil or doing good. Why is that not an equally legitimate interpretation of the verse?, b Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that Rabbi Yishmael understands that liability is extended to one whose oath b is similar to an oath “to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4). b He whose prohibition is due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word” /b (Numbers 30:3), is liable, as liability for an oath about the future entails breaking one’s word. b Excluded is that /b oath b whose prohibition is not due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word”; rather, /b it is b due to /b the verse b : “You shall not lie” /b (Leviticus 19:11), since liability for an oath about the past applies when the oath itself was a lie., b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin says /b that there is a different explanation of Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion: b The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips /b to do evil, or to do good,” referring to b one whose oath precedes /b its b clarification, /b i.e., the action that breaks it, b and not /b to one who takes an oath b where the clarification, /b i.e., the action prohibited in the oath, b precedes the oath. Excluded is that /b oath where one said, for example: b I ate, or: I did not eat, where the action precedes the oath. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; and, when he knows of it, be guilty in one of these things” (Leviticus 5:4). The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control /b from liability to bring an offering. The term b “and it is hidden” /b serves b to exclude /b from liability one who broke his oath b intentionally, /b as he does not deserve to be able to achieve atonement through bringing an offering.,The i baraita /i continues: The term b “from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of /b his b oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that an oath taker is also liable when he broke an oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b The Master says /b above in the i baraita /i : The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control. /b The Gemara asks: b What are /b such b circumstances? /b ,The Gemara answers: It is b as /b it was b with Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, /b who, b when they were standing up in the presence of Rav, /b their teacher, at the conclusion of a lesson, disagreed with regard to exactly what he said. One b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like this, and /b the other b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like that. When they came before Rav /b to clarify what he had said, b he stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b what b one of them /b had said. b The other said to /b Rav: b Did I /b then b take a false oath? /b ,Rav b said to him: Your heart compelled you. /b It is not regarded as a false oath, since at the time that you took the oath you were certain that you were telling the truth.,§ The i baraita /i teaches: The phrase b “and it is hidden from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of his oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that the oath taker is also liable when he broke the oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath, but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and said: b Granted, you find /b lack of awareness of one’s b oath without /b there being lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath, as in a case b where one said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: I will eat /b wheat bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is forgotten /b and b the object /b of it b is remembered. But /b under b what circumstances /b is there a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath /b itself?,The Gemara suggests: It can be found in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: /b On my oath I will not eat b barley /b bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is remembered by him /b and b the object /b of it b is forgotten. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Once the object /b of the oath b is forgotten by him, that is /b a case of b lack of awareness of his oath. /b , b Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: /b The distinction made in the i baraita /i between lack of awareness of one’s oath and lack of awareness of the object of one’s oath is not valid, and both b this and that are one /b and the same., b Rav Yosef objects to this. /b Is it b really /b the case that b you do not find /b a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of an oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath? But you find /b it in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he extended his hand to the basket to take barley bread, and wheat /b bread b came up in his hand, and he thought it was barley /b bread b and ate it. /b That is a case b where his oath is remembered by him, and it is the object /b of the oath b of which he is unaware. /b , b Abaye said to him: Don’t you deem him liable /b to bring b an offering /b for breaking his oath b only for that which he holds in his hand /b and eats? When he eats the bread, that b is lack of awareness of the oath, /b since he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted.,The Gemara presents b another formulation /b of this statement. b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Ultimately, the offering he brings for this bread is in any event /b due to b lack of awareness of the oath, /b as he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted., b And Rav Yosef /b could b say to you: Since were he to know of it that it is wheat /b bread b he would refrain from /b eating b it, /b this should be regarded as a case of b lack of awareness of the object. /b , b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b In a case where one b has a lack of awareness of this, /b the oath, b and that, /b its object, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rav Naḥman b said to him: He /b breaks the oath while b having a lack of awareness of the oath and /b is therefore b liable. /b Rava replied: b On the contrary, he has a lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath b and /b should therefore be b exempt. /b , b Rav Ashi said: We see: If he refrains /b from eating b due to the oath, /b i.e., when he is reminded that he took an oath, b he had a lack of awareness of the oath and is liable. If he refrains due to the object /b of the oath, i.e., when he is reminded what it is he is about to eat, b he had a lack of awareness due to the object, and is exempt. /b , b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Doesn’t he refrain only from /b breaking the b oath due to /b his recognition of the b object? Doesn’t he refrain from /b the b object due only to /b the b oath? /b In either case, he needs to remember both the oath and its object, and the manner in which he was reminded does not serve to indicate anything. b Rather, there is no difference /b between the two., b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b
36. Justinian, Institutiones, 2.1.11 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 83
37. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q 491, 0  Tagged with subjects: •collins yarbro, adela Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 105
38. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
15a. אפשר לתקונה או לא אפשר לתקונה,ת"ש קבל הכשר ונתן לפסול יחזיר לכשר,ונהי נמי דיחזור הכשר ויקבלנו אי סלקא דעתך לא אפשר לתקונה איפסלא לה,מי סברת דקאי זר גואי לא דקאי זר בראי,איתמר אמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן הולכה שלא ברגל פסולה אלמא לא אפשר לתקונה,איתיביה רב נחמן לעולא נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו כשר,הכא במאי עסקינן כשיצא לחוץ,לבראי נפיק לגואי לא עייל במקום מדרון איבעית אימא בגומא ואיבעית אימא בסמיכא,ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן כל הני ועוד אדתני באידך פירקין נשפך על הרצפה ואספו פסול ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לחוץ אבל נכנס לפנים פסול תיובתא,אתמר הולכה שלא ברגל מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן בהולכה רבתי דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דפסולה כי פליגי בהולכה זוטרתי,מחכו עלה במערבא אלא חטאת העוף דפסולה בה מחשבה לר"ש היכי משכחת לה אי דחשיב עלה מקמי דליפוק דם לא כלום היא ואי בתר דנפק דם איתעבידא ליה מצותו,מאי קושיא דלמא מדפריש ועד דמטא למזבח,דהא בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא היה מזה ונקטעה ידו של מזה עד שלא הגיע דם לאויר המזבח מהו וא"ל [פסולה מ"ט] והזה ונתן בעינן,כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא ובהולכה רבתי לא פליגי והא כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי פליגי,אלא בהולכה זוטרתי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פסלה כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי,הוליכו זר והחזירו כהן וחזר והוליכו פליגי בה בני רבי חייא ור' ינאי חד אמר כשר וחד אמר פסול מר סבר אפשר לתקונה ומר סבר לא אפשר לתקונה,הוליכו כהן והחזירו וחזר והוליכו זר אמר רב שימי בר אשי לדברי המכשיר פסול לדברי הפוסל מכשיר,רבא אמר אף לדברי הפוסל פסול מאי טעמא דהא צריך 15a. The Gemara asks: If the blood was conveyed by hand, is it b possible to correct it /b by conveying it again properly, b or /b is it b not possible to correct it, /b and the offering is disqualified permanently?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from the aforementioned mishna: If a priest b fit /b for Temple service b collected /b the blood in a vessel b and gave /b the vessel b to an unfit /b person standing next to the altar, the latter b should return /b it b to the fit /b priest. Apparently, even after the blood is conveyed in an inappropriate manner, it can be corrected., b And though /b one can b indeed /b explain b that the fit /b priest b should then receive it /b from him, as posited above, b if it enters your mind /b that if the blood is conveyed incorrectly it is b not possible to correct it, /b the offering b was /b already b disqualified /b when the priest gave the blood to the unfit person. Taking it back is of no consequence.,The Gemara rejects this inference: b Do you maintain that /b this is referring to a case where the b non-priest is standing inside, /b between the fit priest and the altar? b No, /b it is a case b where /b the b non-priest is standing outside, /b farther away from the altar than the priest. Therefore, when the priest gave him the blood, he was not conveying it toward the altar at all; he was moving it farther away from the altar., b It was stated: Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Conveying /b the blood b not by foot /b renders the offering b unfit. Apparently, it is not possible to correct it, /b as otherwise Rabbi Yoḥa would have merely stated that it is not considered conveying, as in his earlier statement (14b)., b Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Ulla /b from a mishna (32a): If the blood b spilled from the vessel onto the floor and one collected it /b from the floor, it is b fit /b for sacrifice. Apparently, although spilling the blood on the floor constitutes a not valid conveying toward the altar, it can still be corrected after the fact.,The Gemara explains: b Here we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the blood that spilled b went outward, /b i.e., away from the altar, so it did not constitute conveying at all.,The Gemara asks: Can spilled blood b go outward /b and b not come inward? /b Clearly, spilled blood spreads to all sides. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the blood spilled b on an inclined plane, /b and it therefore spilled only outward, away from the altar. And b if you wish, say /b instead that it spilled b into a hole /b in the ground, so it did not spread in any direction. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is a case b where /b the blood is b thick, /b so it did not spread in all directions.,The Gemara asks: b But did the i tanna /i go to all that trouble [ i ikhpal /i /b ] just b to teach us all these /b unlikely cases? b And furthermore, rather than teaching in another chapter /b (see 25a) that if the blood b spilled /b from the animal’s neck b onto the floor and one collected it /b in a vessel from the floor it is b unfit, let /b the mishna b teach a distinction within /b the case where the blood spilled from the vessel b itself: In what /b case b is this statement, /b that the blood is fit, b said? /b In a case b where /b the spilled blood b went outward, /b away from the altar, b but /b if it b came inward /b it is b unfit. /b The Gemara concludes: This is b a conclusive refutation; /b if the blood is conveyed in a not valid manner, it can be corrected.,§ b It was stated: /b The b dispute /b in the mishna (13a) between b Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis /b as to whether improper intent while conveying the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to b conveying /b the blood b not by foot. With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by moving the feet, b everyone agrees that /b if one performs it with prohibited intent, the offering is b unfit. When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand without moving the feet, in a case where the offering was slaughtered next to the altar., b They laughed at /b this statement b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, saying: b But /b if so, one encounters difficulty with regard to b a bird sin offering, which /b is killed through pinching its nape on the altar and whose blood is sprinkled directly from its neck. It is known that if one sprinkled its blood with prohibited b intent, /b the offering is b unfit. /b And b according to Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that prohibited intent while conveying the blood by hand does not disqualify the offering, b how can you find these /b circumstances? b If /b the priest b has /b prohibited b intent with regard to /b the offering b before /b the b blood comes out /b of the bird, this intent b is nothing, /b since his waving it is like conveying by hand. b And if /b he has such intent b after the blood came out, its mitzva was /b already b performed, /b as the blood already reached the altar.,The Gemara asks: b What is the difficulty? Perhaps /b the offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent b from /b the moment the blood b leaves /b the bird b until /b the moment b it reaches the altar. /b ,This is b as Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: /b If the priest b was sprinkling /b the blood, b and the hand of the one sprinkling was severed before /b the b blood reached the airspace of the altar, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the sprinkling not valid since it was performed by a blemished priest, or is it valid because the blood left the bird before he was blemished? b And /b Rabbi Zeira b said to him: /b It is b not valid. What is the reason? We require /b that the verse: b “And sprinkle /b of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), be fulfilled in the same manner as the verse that follows it: b “And /b the priest shall b place /b of the blood upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), namely, that the blood reach the altar. Therefore, the blood can be disqualified anytime until it reaches the altar, whether through the priest becoming blemished or through prohibited intent., b When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall, they said: This is /b the reason for b the laughter /b of the scholars of Eretz Yisrael: b With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying by foot, can one say Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis b do not disagree? /b Clearly, b when they disagree /b in the mishna, b they disagree with regard to greater conveying, /b as Rabbi Shimon reasons that conveying is a dispensable rite. Only conveying by foot is dispensable, since even if the offering is slaughtered next to the altar, the priest will need to move its blood somewhat with his hand., b Rather, /b the statement under discussion should be emended to say: b With regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand, b everyone agrees that it does not disqualify /b the offering due to prohibited intent. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood for a distance by foot. Rabbi Shimon holds that improper intent even then does not disqualify the offering, as the rite is dispensable, and the Rabbis maintain that it does disqualify it.,§ If b a non-priest conveyed /b the blood to the altar, b and a priest returned it /b to its original location, b and /b a priest then b conveyed it again /b to the altar, b the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai disagree with regard to /b the i halakha /i . b One says /b that the offering is b fit, and one says /b it is b unfit. /b This is because one b Sage holds /b that if the blood is conveyed improperly, it is b possible to correct it, and /b one b Sage holds /b that it is b not possible to correct it. /b ,If b a priest conveyed it /b to the altar, b and /b then b returned it, and a non-priest /b then b conveyed it again, Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b fit /b in the previous case, where a non-priest conveyed it the first time and a priest conveyed it the second time, in this case the offering is b unfit, /b as a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in the previous case, as a non-priest conveyed it the first time, in this case, where a priest conveyed it the first time, b he deems /b the offering b fit. /b , b Rava says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in a case where a non-priest conveyed it the first time, it is b unfit /b in this case as well, where a priest conveyed it the first time and a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b What is the reason? Because /b after the blood is returned to its original location, b it is necessary /b
40. Anon., 2 Enoch, 7.3-7.4, 29.4-29.6, 31.3-31.4  Tagged with subjects: •yarbro collins, adela Found in books: Mathews (2013), Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, 190
41. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q199, None  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229
42. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q 246, 0  Tagged with subjects: •collins yarbro, adela Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 105
43. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 15.7  Tagged with subjects: •collins, adela yarbro Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 316, 317, 318, 319
44. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q 471, 0  Tagged with subjects: •collins yarbro, adela Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 105
45. Anon., Leges Publicae, None  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 316, 317, 318, 319