1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 18.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 192; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 192
sup>
18.11 וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִים׃'' None | sup>
18.11 or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer.'' None |
|
2. Hesiod, Works And Days, 11-26 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • authority, competition for authority • competition • competition, • competition, as engine of innovation
Found in books: Alvarez (2018), The Derveni Papyrus: Unearthing Ancient Mysteries, 80; Castelli and Sluiter 92023), Agents of Change in the Greco-Roman and Early Modern Periods: Ten Case Studies in Agency in Innovation. 98; Edmonds (2019), Drawing Down the Moon: Magic in the Ancient Greco-Roman World, 68; Lloyd (1989), The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science, 58
sup>
11 οὐκ ἄρα μοῦνον ἔην Ἐρίδων γένος, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ γαῖαν'12 εἰσὶ δύω· τὴν μέν κεν ἐπαινέσσειε νοήσας, 13 ἣ δʼ ἐπιμωμητή· διὰ δʼ ἄνδιχα θυμὸν ἔχουσιν. 14 ἣ μὲν γὰρ πόλεμόν τε κακὸν καὶ δῆριν ὀφέλλει, 15 σχετλίη· οὔτις τήν γε φιλεῖ βροτός, ἀλλʼ ὑπʼ ἀνάγκης 16 ἀθανάτων βουλῇσιν Ἔριν τιμῶσι βαρεῖαν. 17 τὴν δʼ ἑτέρην προτέρην μὲν ἐγείνατο Νὺξ ἐρεβεννή, 18 θῆκε δέ μιν Κρονίδης ὑψίζυγος, αἰθέρι ναίων, 19 γαίης ἐν ῥίζῃσι, καὶ ἀνδράσι πολλὸν ἀμείνω· 20 ἥτε καὶ ἀπάλαμόν περ ὁμῶς ἐπὶ ἔργον ἔγειρεν. 21 εἰς ἕτερον γάρ τίς τε ἰδὼν ἔργοιο χατίζει 22 πλούσιον, ὃς σπεύδει μὲν ἀρώμεναι ἠδὲ φυτεύειν 23 οἶκόν τʼ εὖ θέσθαι· ζηλοῖ δέ τε γείτονα γείτων 24 εἰς ἄφενος σπεύδοντʼ· ἀγαθὴ δʼ Ἔρις ἥδε βροτοῖσιν. 25 καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει καὶ τέκτονι τέκτων, 26 καὶ πτωχὸς πτωχῷ φθονέει καὶ ἀοιδὸς ἀοιδῷ. ' None | sup>
11 Not one, but two Strifes live on earth: when these'12 Are known, one’s praised, one blamed, because these two 13 Far differ. For the one makes foul war thrive, 14 The wretch, unloved of all, but the gods on high 15 Gave the decree that every man alive 16 Should that oppressive goddess glorify. 17 The other, black Night’s first-born child, the son 18 of Cronus, throned on high, set in the soil, 19 A greater boon to men; she urges on 20 Even the slack to work. One craves to toil 21 When others prosper, hankering to seed 22 And plough and set his house in harmony. 23 So neighbour vies with neighbour in great need 24 of wealth: this Strife well serves humanity. 25 Potter hates potter, builder builder, and 26 A beggar bears his fellow-beggar spite, ' None |
|
3. Homer, Iliad, 14.201, 14.246, 18.550 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • beauty, competition • competition • elite, and competition
Found in books: Gagne (2021), Cosmography and the Idea of Hyperborea in Ancient Greece, 27; Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 74; Pirenne-Delforge and Pironti (2022), The Hera of Zeus: Intimate Enemy, Ultimate Spouse, 195
sup>
14.201 Ὠκεανόν τε θεῶν γένεσιν καὶ μητέρα Τηθύν,
14.246 Ὠκεανοῦ, ὅς περ γένεσις πάντεσσι τέτυκται·
18.550 ἐν δʼ ἐτίθει τέμενος βασιλήϊον· ἔνθα δʼ ἔριθοι'' None | sup>
14.201 For I am faring to visit the limits of the all-nurturing earth, and Oceanus, from whom the gods are sprung, and mother Tethys, even them that lovingly nursed and cherished me in their halls, when they had taken me from Rhea, what time Zeus, whose voice is borne afar, thrust Cronos down to dwell beneath earth and the unresting sea.
14.246 Oceanus, from whom they all are sprung; but to Zeus, son of Cronos, will I not draw nigh, neither lull him to slumber, unless of himself he bid me. For ere now in another matter did a behest of thine teach me a lesson, ' "
18.550 Therein he set also a king's demesne-land, wherein labourers were reaping, bearing sharp sickles in their hands. Some handfuls were falling in rows to the ground along the swathe, while others the binders of sheaves were binding with twisted ropes of straw. Three binders stood hard by them, while behind them "' None |
|
4. None, None, nan (7th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • beauty, competition • competition,
Found in books: Bowie (2021), Essays on Ancient Greek Literature and Culture, 242; Pirenne-Delforge and Pironti (2022), The Hera of Zeus: Intimate Enemy, Ultimate Spouse, 195, 197
|
5. None, None, nan (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition, • epinikion, elite competition and interaction in • festivals,, elite competition in
Found in books: Bowie (2021), Essays on Ancient Greek Literature and Culture, 601; Kowalzig (2007), Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, 386
|
6. None, None, nan (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition • shares, sacrificial (Delphi), competed for
Found in books: Kowalzig (2007), Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, 189; Lloyd (1989), The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science, 58
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 11.7 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 86; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 86
sup>
11.7 וָאֶרְעֶה אֶת־צֹאן הַהֲרֵגָה לָכֵן עֲנִיֵּי הַצֹּאן וָאֶקַּח־לִי שְׁנֵי מַקְלוֹת לְאַחַד קָרָאתִי נֹעַם וּלְאַחַד קָרָאתִי חֹבְלִים וָאֶרְעֶה אֶת־הַצֹּאן׃'' None | sup>
11.7 So I fed the flock of slaughter, verily the poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Graciousness, and the other I called Binders; and I fed the flock.'' None |
|
8. Herodotus, Histories, 4.15, 5.97, 8.47 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aeschylus, multiple competing • Akhaia, Akhaians (s. Italy), competing ethnic identities • aristocracy, aristocrats, aristocratic,, competition among • competition • competition, • ethnicity, ethnic identity, multiple competing for adhesion • identity, general, competitive renegotiation of • network, of myths and rituals (also myth-ritual web, grid, framework), and competing ethnicities (Aegean)
Found in books: Bowie (2021), Essays on Ancient Greek Literature and Culture, 678; Gagne (2021), Cosmography and the Idea of Hyperborea in Ancient Greece, 293; Kowalzig (2007), Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, 105, 308, 320; Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 159
sup>
4.15 ταῦτα μὲν αἱ πόλιες αὗται λέγουσι, τάδε δὲ οἶδα Μεταποντίνοισι τοῖσι ἐν Ἰταλίῃ συγκυρήσαντα μετὰ τὴν ἀφάνισιν τὴν δευτέρην Ἀριστέω ἔτεσι τεσσεράκοντα καὶ διηκοσίοισι, ὡς ἐγὼ συμβαλλόμενος ἐν Προκοννήσῳ τε καὶ Μεταποντίῳ εὕρισκον. Μεταποντῖνοι φασὶ αὐτὸν Ἀριστέην φανέντα σφι ἐς τὴν χώρην κελεῦσαι βωμὸν Ἀπόλλωνος ἱδρύσασθαι καὶ Ἀριστέω τοῦ Προκοννησίου ἐπωνυμίην ἔχοντα ἀνδριάντα πὰρʼ αὐτὸν ἱστάναι· φάναι γὰρ σφι τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα Ἰταλιωτέων μούνοισι δὴ ἀπικέσθαι ἐς τὴν χώρην, καὶ αὐτὸς οἱ ἕπεσθαι ὁ νῦν ἐὼν Ἀριστέης· τότε δὲ, ὅτε εἵπετο τῷ θεῷ, εἶναι κόραξ. καὶ τὸν μὲν εἰπόντα ταῦτα ἀφανισθῆναι, σφέας δὲ Μεταποντῖνοι λέγουσι ἐς Δελφοὺς πέμψαντας τὸν θεὸν ἐπειρωτᾶν ὃ τι τὸ φάσμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἴη. τὴν δὲ Πυθίην σφέας κελεύειν πείθεσθαι τῷ φάσματι, πειθομένοισι δὲ ἄμεινον συνοίσεσθαι. καὶ σφέας δεξαμένους ταῦτα ποιῆσαι ἐπιτελέα. καὶ νῦν ἔστηκε ἀνδριὰς ἐπωνυμίην ἔχων Ἀριστέω παρʼ αὐτῷ τῷ ἀγάλματι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, πέριξ δὲ αὐτὸν δάφναι ἑστᾶσι· τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ἐν τῇ ἀγορῇ ἵδρυται. Ἀριστέω μέν νυν πέρι τοσαῦτα εἰρήσθω.
5.97 νομίζουσι δὲ ταῦτα καὶ διαβεβλημένοισι ἐς τοὺς Πέρσας, ἐν τούτῳ δὴ τῷ καιρῷ ὁ Μιλήσιος Ἀρισταγόρης, ὑπὸ Κλεομένεος τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίου ἐξελασθεὶς ἐκ τῆς Σπάρτης, ἀπίκετο ἐς Ἀθήνας· αὕτη γὰρ ἡ πόλις τῶν λοιπέων ἐδυνάστευε μέγιστον. ἐπελθὼν δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δῆμον ὁ Ἀρισταγόρης ταὐτὰ ἔλεγε τὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ Σπάρτῃ περὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ καὶ τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ Περσικοῦ, ὡς οὔτε ἀσπίδα οὔτε δόρυ νομίζουσι εὐπετέες τε χειρωθῆναι εἴησαν. ταῦτά τε δὴ ἔλεγε καὶ πρὸς τοῖσι τάδε, ὡς οἱ Μιλήσιοι τῶν Ἀθηναίων εἰσὶ ἄποικοι, καὶ οἰκός σφεας εἴη ῥύεσθαι δυναμένους μέγα· καὶ οὐδὲν ὅ τι οὐκ ὑπίσχετο οἷα κάρτα δεόμενος, ἐς ὃ ἀνέπεισε σφέας. πολλοὺς γὰρ οἶκε εἶναι εὐπετέστερον διαβάλλειν ἢ ἕνα, εἰ Κλεομένεα μὲν τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον μοῦνον οὐκ οἷός τε ἐγένετο διαβάλλειν, τρεῖς δὲ μυριάδας Ἀθηναίων ἐποίησε τοῦτο. Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν δὴ ἀναπεισθέντες ἐψηφίσαντο εἴκοσι νέας ἀποστεῖλαι βοηθοὺς Ἴωσι, στρατηγὸν ἀποδέξαντες αὐτῶν εἶναι Μελάνθιον ἄνδρα τῶν ἀστῶν ἐόντα τὰ πάντα δόκιμον· αὗται δὲ αἱ νέες ἀρχὴ κακῶν ἐγένοντο Ἕλλησί τε καὶ βαρβάροισι.
8.47 οὗτοι μὲν ἅπαντες ἐντὸς οἰκημένοι Θεσπρωτῶν καὶ Ἀχέροντος ποταμοῦ ἐστρατεύοντο· Θεσπρωτοὶ γὰρ εἰσὶ ὁμουρέοντες Ἀμπρακιώτῃσι καὶ Λευκαδίοισι, οἳ ἐξ ἐσχατέων χωρέων ἐστρατεύοντο. τῶν δὲ ἐκτὸς τούτων οἰκημένων Κροτωνιῆται μοῦνοι ἦσαν οἳ ἐβοήθησαν τῇ Ἑλλάδι κινδυνευούσῃ μιῇ νηί, τῆς ἦρχε ἀνὴρ τρὶς πυθιονίκης Φάυλλος· Κροτωνιῆται δὲ γένος εἰσὶ Ἀχαιοί.'' None | sup>
4.15 Such is the tale told in these two towns. But this, I know, happened to the Metapontines in Italy, two hundred and forty years after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as reckoning made at Proconnesus and Metapontum shows me: ,Aristeas, so the Metapontines say, appeared in their country and told them to set up an altar to Apollo, and set beside it a statue bearing the name of Aristeas the Proconnesian; for, he said, Apollo had come to their country alone of all Italian lands, and he—the man who was now Aristeas, but then when he followed the god had been a crow—had come with him. ,After saying this, he vanished. The Metapontines, so they say, sent to Delphi and asked the god what the vision of the man could mean; and the Pythian priestess told them to obey the vision, saying that their fortune would be better. ,They did as instructed. And now there stands beside the image of Apollo a statue bearing the name of Aristeas; a grove of bay-trees surrounds it; the image is set in the marketplace. Let it suffice that I have said this much about Aristeas.
5.97 It was when the Athenians had made their decision and were already on bad terms with Persia, that Aristagoras the Milesian, driven from Sparta by Cleomenes the Lacedaemonian, came to Athens, since that city was more powerful than any of the rest. Coming before the people, Aristagoras spoke to the same effect as at Sparta, of the good things of Asia, and how the Persians carried neither shield nor spear in war and could easily be overcome. ,This he said adding that the Milesians were settlers from Athens, whom it was only right to save seeing that they themselves were a very powerful people. There was nothing which he did not promise in the earnestness of his entreaty, till at last he prevailed upon them. It seems, then, that it is easier to deceive many than one, for he could not deceive Cleomenes of Lacedaemon, one single man, but thirty thousand Athenians he could. ,The Athenians, now persuaded, voted to send twenty ships to aid the Ionians, appointing for their admiral Melanthius, a citizen of Athens who had an unblemished reputation. These ships were the beginning of troubles for both Greeks and foreigners.
8.47 All these people who live this side of Thesprotia and the Acheron river took part in the war. The Thesprotians border on the Ampraciots and Leucadians, who were the ones who came from the most distant countries to take part in the war. The only ones living beyond these to help Hellas in its danger were the Crotonians, with one ship. Its captain was Phayllus, three times victor in the Pythian games. The Crotonians are Achaeans by birth. '' None |
|
9. Thucydides, The History of The Peloponnesian War, 1.126.6-1.126.7, 3.37 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Athena, at Athens, Rhodes competing for • aristocracy, aristocrats, aristocratic,, competition among • competition
Found in books: Athanassaki and Titchener (2022), Plutarch's Cities, 1; Kowalzig (2007), Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, 229; Lloyd (1989), The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science, 97; Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 146
sup>
1.126.6 εἰ δὲ ἐν τῇ Ἀττικῇ ἢ ἄλλοθί που ἡ μεγίστη ἑορτὴ εἴρητο, οὔτε ἐκεῖνος ἔτι κατενόησε τό τε μαντεῖον οὐκ ἐδήλου ʽἔστι γὰρ καὶ Ἀθηναίοις Διάσια ἃ καλεῖται Διὸς ἑορτὴ Μειλιχίου μεγίστη ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, ἐν ᾗ πανδημεὶ θύουσι πολλὰ οὐχ ἱερεῖα, ἀλλ’ <ἁγνὰ> θύματα ἐπιχώριἀ, δοκῶν δὲ ὀρθῶς γιγνώσκειν ἐπεχείρησε τῷ ἔργῳ. 1.126.7 οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι αἰσθόμενοι ἐβοήθησάν τε πανδημεὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ προσκαθεζόμενοι ἐπολιόρκουν.' ' None | sup>
1.126.6 Whether the grand festival that was meant was in Attica or elsewhere was a question which he never thought of, and which the oracle did not offer to solve. For the Athenians also have a festival which is called the grand festival of Zeus Meilichios or Gracious, viz. the Diasia. It is celebrated outside the city, and the whole people sacrifice not real victims but a number of bloodless offerings peculiar to the country. However, fancying he had chosen the right time, he made the attempt. 1.126.7 As soon as the Athenians perceived it, they flocked in, one and all, from the country, and sat down, and laid siege to the citadel. ' ' None |
|
10. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • competitions, festival • elite, and competition • festivals, contests/competitions
Found in books: Cosgrove (2022), Music at Social Meals in Greek and Roman Antiquity: From the Archaic Period to the Age of Augustine, 230; Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 80, 82, 150
|
11. New Testament, Mark, 8.31 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Luke, competence of Jewish authorities • rhetoric, and comparison or competition
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 756; Keener(2005), First-Second Corinthians, 227
sup>
8.31 Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι·'' None | sup>
8.31 He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. '' None |
|
12. Plutarch, Demosthenes, 11.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition (agōn) • rhetoric, and comparison or competition
Found in books: Keener(2005), First-Second Corinthians, 218; Masterson (2016), Man to Man: Desire, Homosociality, and Authority in Late-Roman Manhood. 110
sup>
11.1 τοῖς δὲ σωματικοῖς ἐλαττώμασι τοιαύτην ἐπῆγεν ἄσκησιν, ὡς ὁ Φαληρεύς Δημήτριος ἱστορεῖ, λέγων αὐτοῦ Δημοσθένους ἀκούειν πρεσβύτου γεγονότος, τὴν μὲν ἀσάφειαν καὶ τραυλότητα τῆς γλώττης ἐκβιάζεσθαι καὶ διαρθροῦν εἰς τὸ στόμα ψήφους λαμβάνοντα καὶ ῥήσεις ἅμα λέγοντα,'' None | sup>
11.1 '' None |
|
13. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • archaeophilia, competitive spirit • objects, and political competition
Found in books: Rojas(2019), The Remains of the Past and the Invention of Archaeology in Roman Anatolia: Interpreters, Traces, Horizons, 26; Rutledge (2012), Ancient Rome as a Museum: Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting, 42
|
14. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Panathenaea, athletic competitions • competition,
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 36; Bowie (2021), Essays on Ancient Greek Literature and Culture, 680
|
15. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.2.1, 9.31.3, 10.7.4 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Panathenaea, athletic competitions • competition • competition, • competition, at festivals • competitive, • performance culture, Argolid, competitive • thymelic competitions
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 36; Bowie (2021), Essays on Ancient Greek Literature and Culture, 649, 652, 680, 684; Castelli and Sluiter 92023), Agents of Change in the Greco-Roman and Early Modern Periods: Ten Case Studies in Agency in Innovation. 76; Kowalzig (2007), Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, 129; Lupu (2005), Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL) 235
sup>
8.2.1 Λυκάων δὲ ὁ Πελασγοῦ τοσάδε εὗρεν ἢ ὁ πατήρ οἱ σοφώτερα· Λυκόσουράν τε γὰρ πόλιν ᾤκισεν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Λυκαίῳ καὶ Δία ὠνόμασε Λυκαῖον καὶ ἀγῶνα ἔθηκε Λύκαια. οὐκέτι δὲ τὰ παρʼ Ἀθηναίοις Παναθήναια τεθῆναι πρότερα ἀποφαίνομαι· τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ ἀγῶνι Ἀθήναια ὄνομα ἦν, Παναθήναια δὲ κληθῆναί φασιν ἐπὶ Θησέως, ὅτι ὑπὸ Ἀθηναίων ἐτέθη συνειλεγμένων ἐς μίαν ἁπάντων πόλιν.
10.7.4 τῆς δὲ τεσσαρακοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος καὶ ὀγδόης, ἣν Γλαυκίας ὁ Κροτωνιάτης ἐνίκησε, ταύτης ἔτει τρίτῳ ἆθλα ἔθεσαν οἱ Ἀμφικτύονες κιθαρῳδίας μὲν καθὰ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, προσέθεσαν δὲ καὶ αὐλῳδίας ἀγώνισμα καὶ αὐλῶν· ἀνηγορεύθησαν δὲ νικῶντες Κεφαλήν τε Μελάμπους κιθαρῳδίᾳ καὶ αὐλῳδὸς Ἀρκὰς Ἐχέμβροτος, Σακάδας δὲ Ἀργεῖος ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐλοῖς· ἀνείλετο δὲ ὁ Σακάδας οὗτος καὶ ἄλλας δύο τὰς ἐφεξῆς ταύτης πυθιάδας.' ' None | sup>
8.2.1 Lycaon the son of Pelasgus devised the following plans, which were more clever than those of his father. He founded the city Lycosura on Mount Lycaeus, gave to Zeus the surname Lycaeus and founded the Lycaean games. I hold that the Panathenian festival was not founded before the Lycaean. The early name for the former festival was the Athenian, which was changed to the Panathenian in the time of Theseus, because it was then established by the whole Athenian people gathered together in a single city.
10.7.4 In the third year of the forty-eighth Olympiad, 586 B.C at which Glaucias of Crotona was victorious, the Amphictyons held contests for harping as from the beginning, but added competitions for flute-playing and for singing to the flute. The conquerors proclaimed were Melampus, a Cephallenian, for harping, and Echembrotus, an Arcadian, for singing to the flute, with Sacadas of Argos for flute-playing. This same Sacadas won victories at the next two Pythian festivals.' ' None |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 85, 90; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 85, 90
| 57a נימא תלתא תנאי הוו לא תרי תנאי הוו ותנא קמא דר\' שמעון היינו ר\' יוסי ותנא קמא דר\' יוסי היינו ר\' שמעון ומאי אף אקמייתא,ת"ר בן בוהיין נתן פיאה לירק ובא אביו ומצאן לעניים שהיו טעונין ירק ועומדין על פתח הגינה אמר להם בני השליכו מעליכם ואני נותן לכם כפליים במעושר לא מפני שעיני צרה אלא מפני שאמרו חכמים אין נותנין פיאה לירק,למה ליה למימרא להו לא מפני שעיני צרה כי היכי דלא לימרו דחויי קא מדחי לן,ת"ר בראשונה היו מניחין עורות קדשים בלשכת בית הפרוה לערב היו מחלקין אותן לאנשי בית אב והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע התקינו שיהיו מחלקין אותן מערב שבת לע"ש דאתיין כולהו משמרות ושקלן בהדדי,ועדיין היו גדולי כהונה נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שחיפו את ההיכל כולו בטבלאות של זהב שהן אמה על אמה כעובי דינר זהב ולרגל היו מקפלין אותן ומניחין אותן על גב מעלה בהר הבית כדי שיהו עולי רגלים רואין שמלאכתם נאה ואין בה דלם,תנא אבא שאול אומר קורות של שקמה היו ביריחו והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,עליהם ועל כיוצא בהם אמר אבא שאול בן בטנית משום אבא יוסף בן חנין אוי לי מבית בייתוס אוי לי מאלתן אוי לי מבית חנין אוי לי מלחישתן אוי לי מבית קתרוס אוי לי מקולמוסן אוי לי מבית ישמעאל בן פיאכי אוי לי מאגרופן שהם כהנים גדולים ובניהן גיזברין וחתניהם אמרכלין ועבדיהן חובטין את העם במקלות,תנו רבנן ארבע צווחות צוחה עזרה ראשונה צאו מכאן בני עלי שטימאו היכל ה\' ועוד צווחה צא מיכן יששכר איש כפר ברקאי שמכבד את עצמו ומחלל קדשי שמים דהוה כריך ידיה בשיראי ועביד עבודה,ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס ישמעאל בן פיאכי תלמידו של פנחס וישמש בכהונה גדולה ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס יוחנן בן נרבאי תלמידו של פנקאי וימלא כריסו מקדשי שמים,אמרו עליו על יוחנן בן נרבאי שהיה אוכל ג\' מאות עגלים ושותה ג\' מאות גרבי יין ואוכל ארבעים סאה גוזלות בקינוח סעודה אמרו כל ימיו של יוחנן בן נרבאי לא נמצא נותר במקדש מאי סלקא ביה ביששכר איש כפר ברקאי אמרי מלכא ומלכתא הוו יתבי מלכא אמר גדיא יאי ומלכתא אמרה אימרא יאי אמרו מאן מוכח כהן גדול דקא מסיק קרבנות כל יומא אתא איהו 113b תני תנא קמיה דרבא ורב ספרא צהבו פניו דרב ספרא אמר לו רבא לאו כגון מר אלא כגון רב חנינא ורב אושעיא דהוו אושכפי בארעא דישראל והוו יתבי בשוקא דזונות ועבדי להו מסאני לזונות ועיילי להו אינהו מסתכלי בהו ואינהו לא מדלן עינייהו לאיסתכולי בהו ומומתייהו הכי בחייהן רבנן קדישי דבארעא דישראל:,שלשה הקדוש ברוך הוא אוהבן מי שאינו כועס ומי שאינו משתכר ומי שאינו מעמיד על מדותיו שלשה הקדוש ברוך הוא שונאן המדבר א\' בפה ואחד בלב והיודע עדות בחבירו ואינו מעיד לו והרואה דבר ערוה בחבירו ומעיד בו יחידי,כי הא דטוביה חטא ואתא זיגוד לחודיה ואסהיד ביה קמיה דרב פפא נגדיה לזיגוד א"ל טוביה חטא וזיגוד מינגד אמר ליה אין דכתיב (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד אחד באיש ואת לחודך אסהדת ביה שם רע בעלמא קא מפקת ביה,אמר רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב מותר לשנאתו שנאמר (שמות כג, ה) כי תראה חמור שנאך רובץ תחת משאו מאי שונא אילימא שונא נכרי והא תניא שונא שאמרו שונא ישראל ולא שונא נכרי,אלא פשיטא שונא ישראל ומי שריא למסניה והכתיב (ויקרא יט, יז) לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך אלא דאיכא סהדי דעביד איסורא כולי עלמא נמי מיסני סני ליה מאי שנא האי אלא לאו כי האי גוונא דחזיא ביה איהו דבר ערוה,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מצוה לשנאתו שנאמר (משלי ח, יג) יראת ה\' (שונאי) רע אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מהו למימרא ליה לרביה למשנייה אמר ליה אי ידע דמהימן לרביה כבי תרי לימא ליה ואי לא לא לימא ליה,תנו רבנן שלשה חייהן אינם חיים הרחמנין והרתחנין ואניני הדעת ואמר רב יוסף כולהו איתנהו בי,תנו רבנן שלשה שונאין זה את זה אלו הן הכלבים והתרנגולין והחברין וי"א אף הזונות וי"א אף תלמידי חכמים שבבבל,ת"ר שלשה אוהבין זה את זה אלו הן הגרים ועבדים ועורבין,ארבעה אין הדעת סובלתן אלו הן דל גאה ועשיר מכחש וזקן מנאף ופרנס מתגאה על הציבור בחנם ויש אומרים אף המגרש את אשתו פעם ראשונה ושניה ומחזירה,ותנא קמא זימנא דכתובתה מרובה אי נמי יש לו בנים הימנה ולא מצי מגרש לה,חמשה דברים צוה כנען את בניו אהבו זה את זה ואהבו את הגזל ואהבו את הזמה ושנאו את אדוניכם ואל תדברו אמת,ששה דברים נאמרים בסוס אוהב את הזנות ואוהב את המלחמה ורוחו גסה ומואס את השינה ואוכל הרבה ומוציא קמעה וי"א אף מבקש להרוג בעליו במלחמה,שבעה מנודין לשמים אלו הן יהודי שאין לו אשה ושיש לו אשה ואין לו בנים ומי שיש לו בנים ואין מגדלן לתלמוד תורה ומי שאין לו תפילין בראשו ותפילין בזרועו וציצית בבגדו ומזוזה בפתחו והמונע מנעלים מרגליו וי"א אף מי שאין מיסב בחבורה של מצוה,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי שמואל בר מרתא אמר רב משום רבי יוסי איש הוצל מניין שאין שואלין בכלדיים שנאמר (דברים יח, יג) תמים תהיה עם ה\' אלהיך,ומניין היודע בחבירו שהוא גדול ממנו אפילו בדבר אחד שחייב לנהוג בו כבוד שנאמר (דניאל ו, ד) כל קבל די רוח יתירא ביה ומלכא עשית להקמותיה על כל מלכותא,והיושבת על דם טהור אסורה לשמש עד כמה אמר רב עונה,תנא הוא יוסף איש הוצל הוא יוסף הבבלי הוא איסי בן גור אריה הוא איסי בן יהודה הוא איסי בן גמליאל הוא איסי בן מהללאל ומה שמו איסי בן עקביה שמו הוא רבי יצחק בן טבלא הוא רבי יצחק בן חקלא הוא רבי יצחק בן אלעא הוא'' None | 57a Let us say that there are three tanna’im who dispute this point: The two unattributed opinions, each of which is referring to two vegetables, and the opinion common to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that includes all three vegetables. The Gemara rejects this: No, there are only two tanna’im who dispute the point, and the first tanna whose opinion appears before the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is Rabbi Yosei. And the first tanna whose opinion appears before the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is Rabbi Shimon. And what is the meaning of the word even in both their statements? They agree with regard to the first vegetable, turnips; however, they disagree with regard to the second, and replace it with another vegetable.,The Gemara cites an episode from the Tosefta. The Sages taught: The son of a man named Bohayan designated for the poor the produce in the corner in a garden of vegetables, and his father Bohayan found the poor laden with vegetables and standing at the opening of the garden on their way out. He said to them: My sons, cast the vegetables that you have gathered from upon yourselves and I will give you twice the amount in tithed produce, and you will be no worse off. Not because I begrudge you what you have taken. Rather, it is because the Sages say: One does not designate for the poor the produce in the corner in a garden of vegetables. Therefore, the vegetables that you took require tithing.,The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for him to say to them: Not because I begrudge you what you have taken? It would have been sufficient to offer them tithed produce. The Gemara answers that he said it so they would not say: He is putting us off, taking what we collected now, but later he will not fulfill his commitment.,Apropos the people of Jericho, the Gemara relates that powerful people would steal wood from them. The Sages taught: Initially, the priests would place the hides that were flayed from animals consecrated as offerings of the most sacred order, which were given to the priests, in the Parva chamber. In the evening, they would distribute them to the members of the family of priests serving in the Temple that day. And the powerful priests among them would take them by force before they could be distributed. The Rabbis decreed that they would distribute them each Shabbat eve, because then all the families of both priestly watches came and took their part together. All the families from both the watch that was beginning its service and the one ending its service were together when they divided the hides. The powerful priests were unable to take the hides by force.,Yet still the prominent priests by virtue of their lineage would take them by force. Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, the owners of the sacrifices (Me’iri) arose and consecrated the hides to Heaven so the priests could not take them.,The Sages said: Not a few days passed before they had plated the entire sanctuary with golden tablets with the proceeds from the redemption and sale of the hides. These plates were one cubit by one cubit and as thick as a golden dinar. And when the people assembled for the Festival pilgrimage they would remove the tablets and place them on a stair of the Temple Mount so that the pilgrims would see that the craftsmanship of the tablets was beautiful and without flaw dalam. Afterward they replaced the tablets in the Sanctuary.,It was similarly taught that Abba Shaul says: There were sycamore tree trunks in Jericho, and powerful people would take them from their owners by force. The owners stood and consecrated these trunks to Heaven. It was with regard to these trunks and the branches that grew from them that the residents of Jericho acted against the will of the Sages.,With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers amarkalin. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.,Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: The people in the Temple courtyard all cried four cries, as they were in agreement over various issues (Pardes Rimonim). The first cry was: Leave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary (see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. And an additional cry: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates the items consecrated to Heaven. Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would wrap his hands in silk shirai and perform the service. This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it.,And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let the righteous Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas ben Elazar the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, although the members of this family were violent. And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥa ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings.,They said about Yoḥa ben Narbbai that he and his household would eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty se’a of doves for dessert. They said: Throughout all the days of Yoḥa ben Narbbai there was no leftover sacrificial meat in the Temple, as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting and talking. The king said that goat meat is better food, and the queen said lamb meat is better food. They said: Who can prove which one of us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day and tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai came, and when they asked him this question, 113b When the tanna taught this baraita before Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. Rava said to him: This does not refer to someone like the Master. Rather, the statement applies to people like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were cobblers in Eretz Yisrael, and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and fashion shoes for prostitutes. And the prostitutes would enter their shops and look at them. However, due to their piety, these Sages did not raise their eyes to look at the women. And those prostitutes were so impressed with this behavior that when they swore, they would say as follows: By the lives of the holy Sages of Eretz Yisrael. It is this type of bachelor who is praised by Heaven.,The Gemara cites a similar statement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people: One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three people: One who says one statement with his mouth and means another in his heart, i.e., a hypocrite; one who knows testimony about another person and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter performed by another person and testifies against him alone. His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation.,The Gemara comments: This is like that incident where Tuveya sinned with immorality, and Zigud came alone to testify about him before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa instructed that Zigud be lashed. Zigud said to him: Tuveya sinned and Zigud is lashed, an objection that became a popular saying. He said to him: Yes, as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man” (Deuteronomy 19:15), and you testified against him alone. You have merely given him a bad reputation.,Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Although one who sees another committing a sin should not testify against him by himself, he is nonetheless permitted to hate him, as it is stated: “If you see the donkey of he who hates you lying under its load” (Exodus 23:5). The Gemara clarifies this verse: What is the meaning of he who hates you mentioned in the verse? If you say it is referring to a gentile who hates you, but wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the phrase: He who hates, of which the Torah spoke, is a Jew who hates you, not a gentile who hates you?,Rather, it is obvious that the verse is referring to a Jew who hates you. But is one permitted to hate a fellow Jew? But isn’t it written: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), which clearly prohibits the hatred of another Jew? Rather, perhaps you will say that the verse is referring to a situation where there are witnesses that he performed a sin. However, in that case, everyone else should also hate him. What is different about this particular person who hates him? Rather, is it not referring to a case like this, when he saw him perform a licentious matter? He is therefore permitted to hate him for his evil behavior, whereas others who are unaware of his actions may not hate him.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Not only is this permitted, it is even a mitzva to hate him, as it is stated: “The fear of God is to hate evil” (Proverbs 8:13). Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the halakha with regard to whether one who saw someone sin may tell his teacher so that he too will hate him? Rav Ashi said to him: If the student knows that he is trusted by his teacher as two witnesses, and therefore his statement will be accepted, he should tell him, and if he is not trusted by his teacher as two witnesses, he should not tell him.,The Sages taught: There are three types of people whose lives are not lives, due to their constant suffering: The compassionate, the hot tempered, and the delicate. Rav Yosef said: All of these attributes are found in me.,Furthermore, the Sages taught: Members of three groups hate other members of the same group: Dogs, roosters, and the Persian priests. And some say: Also prostitutes. And some say: Also Torah scholars in Babylonia.,Likewise, the Sages taught: Members of three groups love one another: Converts, slaves, and ravens.,Four types of people cannot be endured by anyone: An arrogant pauper; a wealthy person who denies monetary claims against him; a lecherous old man; and a leader who lords over the community for no cause. And some say: Also one who divorces his wife once and twice and takes her back a third time. He should decide definitively whether or not he wants her.,The Gemara asks: And why didn’t the first tanna mention this case of a man who remarries his wife after two divorces? The Gemara answers: Sometimes the husband’s payment to her in the event of divorce, as stipulated in her marriage contract, is large, and since he is unable to pay he is forced to take her back. Alternatively, he has children with her and cannot divorce her, as he wants someone to care for them.,The Gemara continues: Canaan commanded his sons with regard to five matters that are apparently normal behavior for slaves: Love one another, love robbery, love promiscuity, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth.,Six matters are said with regard to a horse: It loves promiscuity, it loves war, its demeanor is arrogant, it despises sleep, it eats much, and it excretes little. And some say: Just as a horse always rushes straight into the heat of a battle, it also attempts to kill its master in war.,Seven are ostracized by Heaven, despite the fact that they have not been ostracized in any court: A Jew who does not have a wife; and one who has a wife but has no sons; and one who has sons whom he does not raise to engage in Torah study; and one who does not have phylacteries on his head, and phylacteries on his arm, and ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuza in his doorway; and one who withholds shoes from his feet. And some say: Also one who does not sit with a group that is partaking of a feast in celebration of a mitzva.,Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav said, citing Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal: From where is it derived that one may not consult astrologers? As it is stated: “You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 18:13). The Torah demands absolute faith in God and acceptance of His justice, without attempting to predict the future.,And from where is it derived concerning one who knows about another that he is greater than him, even in one matter, that he must treat him with respect? As it is stated: “Because a surpassing spirit was in him, the king thought to set him over the whole realm” (Daniel 6:4). This verse teaches that one who is in any way greater than another person is worthy of his respect.,And it was also stated by Rabba bar bar Ḥana: With regard to a woman who was observing her days of ritually pure blood, and those days have ended, she is prohibited to engage in intimacy immediately, lest she see ritually impure blood. Any blood emitted by a woman within forty days after giving birth to a male child or eighty days after giving birth to a female child is ritually pure. After this period of time has passed, a woman should not have relations with her husband immediately. The Gemara asks: Until when is she prohibited to her husband? Rav said: She must wait a set interval of time for the ritual impurity of a nidda, i.e., either one day or one night.,With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.'' None |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 86, 87; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 86, 87
| 72a והאידנא הוא דליוה פרסאי אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף להא גיסא דפרת עד היכא אמר ליה מאי דעתיך משום בירם מייחסי דפומבדיתא מבירם נסבי,אמר רב פפא כמחלוקת ליוחסין כך מחלוקת לענין גיטין ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת ליוחסין אבל לגיטין דברי הכל עד ארבא תניינא דגישרא,אמר רמי בר אבא חביל ימא תכילתא דבבל שוניא וגוביא תכילתא דחביל ימא רבינא אמר אף ציצורא תניא נמי הכי חנן בן פנחס אומר חביל ימא תכילתא דבבל שוניא וגוביא וציצורא תכילתא דחביל ימא אמר רב פפא והאידנא איערבי בהו כותאי ולא היא איתתא הוא דבעא מינייהו ולא יהבו ליה מאי חביל ימא אמר רב פפא זו פרת דבורסי,ההוא גברא דאמר להו אנא מן שוט מישוט עמד רבי יצחק נפחא על רגליו ואמר שוט מישוט בין הנהרות עומדת וכי בין הנהרות עומדת מאי הוי אמר אביי אמר ר\' חמא בר עוקבא אמר רבי יוסי בר\' חנינא בין הנהרות הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין והיכא קיימא אמר ר\' יוחנן מאיהי דקירא ולעיל והא אמר רבי יוחנן עד מעברתא דגיזמא אמר אביי רצועה נפקא,אמר רב איקא בר אבין אמר רב חננאל אמר רב חלזון ניהוונד הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין א"ל אביי לא תציתו ליה יבמה היא דנפלה ליה התם א"ל אטו דידי היא דרב חננאל היא אזיל שיילוה לרב חננאל אמר להו הכי אמר רב חלזון ניהוונד הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין,ופליגא דר\' אבא בר כהנא דאמר ר\' אבא בר כהנא מאי דכתיב (מלכים ב יח, יא) וינחם בחלח ובחבור נהר גוזן וערי מדי חלח זו חלזון חבור זו הדייב נהר גוזן זו גינזק ערי מדי זו חמדן וחברותיה ואמרי לה זו נהוונד וחברותיה,מאי חברותיה אמר שמואל כרך מושכי חוסקי ורומקי אמר רבי יוחנן וכולם לפסול קסלקא דעתא מושכי היינו מושכני והאמר ר\' חייא בר אבין אמר שמואל מושכני הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין אלא מושכי לחוד ומושכני לחוד,(דניאל ז, ה) ותלת עלעין בפומה בין שיניה אמר רבי יוחנן זו חלזון הדייב ונציבין שפעמים בולעתן ופעמים פולטתן,(דניאל ז, ה) וארו חיוא אחרי תנינא דמיה לדוב תני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב ר\' אמי כי הוה חזי פרסא דרכיב אמר היינו דובא ניידא,א"ל רבי ללוי הראני פרסיים אמר ליה דומים לחיילות של בית דוד הראני חברין דומין למלאכי חבלה הראני ישמעאלים דומין לשעירים של בית הכסא הראני תלמידי חכמים שבבבל דומים למלאכי השרת,כי הוה ניחא נפשיה דרבי אמר הומניא איכא בבבל כולה עמונאי היא מסגריא איכא בבבל כולה דממזירא היא בירקא איכא בבבל שני אחים יש שמחליפים נשותיהם זה לזה בירתא דסטיא איכא בבבל היום סרו מאחרי המקום דאקפי פירא בכוורי בשבתא ואזיל וצדו בהו בשבתא ושמתינהו ר\' אחי ברבי יאשיה ואישתמוד אקרא דאגמא איכא בבבל אדא בר אהבה יש בה'' None | 72a And it is only now that the Persians moved the bridge further up northward. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Until where does the border extend on this western side of the Euphrates? Rav Yosef said to him: What are you thinking? Why do you ask? Is it due to the town of Biram? Even those of pure lineage who live in Pumbedita marry women from Biram, which demonstrates that the residents of Biram are presumed to have unflawed lineage.,Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to the northern border of Babylonia with regard to lineage, so is there a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. An agent bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must state that it was written and signed in his presence. If he brought it from Babylonia, there is no requirement for him to state this. Rav Pappa is teaching that the borders that define Babylonia with regard to this issue are the same as the borders with regard to lineage. And Rav Yosef says: This dispute is with regard to lineage, but with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that it is considered Babylonia up to the second lake of the bridge that Shmuel mentioned.,Rami bar Abba said: The province of Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia with regard to lineage; Shunya and Guvya are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Ravina said: The town of Tzitzora is also like Shunya and Guvya. This is also taught in a baraita: Ḥa ben Pineḥas says: Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia; Shunya and Guvya and Tzitzora are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Rav Pappa says: And nowadays, Samaritans have assimilated with them, and their lineage is problematic. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. Rather, one Samaritan requested to marry a woman from them and they would not give her to him, which led to the rumor that Samaritans had assimilated with them. The Gemara asks: What is this region called Ḥaveil Yamma? Rav Pappa said: This is the area near the Euphrates adjacent to Bursi.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to the Sages: I am from a place called Shot Mishot. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stood on his feet and said: Shot Mishot is located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The Gemara asks: And if it is located between the rivers, what of it? What halakha is this relevant for? Abaye said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The area between the rivers is like the exile, meaning Pumbedita, with regard to lineage. The Gemara inquires: And where is the area between the rivers located for the purpose of this halakha? Rabbi Yoḥa said: From Ihi Dekira and upward, i.e., northward. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: Until the crossing at Gizma but no further? Abaye said: A strip extends from that region past Ihi Dekira.,Rav Ika bar Avin says that Rav Ḥael says that Rav says: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. Abaye said to them: Do not listen to Rav Ika bar Avin about this, as it was a yevama who fell before him from there to perform levirate marriage, and he said that its lineage was unflawed because he wished to marry her. Rav Ika bar Avin said to him: Is that to say that this halakha is mine? It is Rav Ḥael’s, and it is not reasonable to say that I was influenced by my own interests in stating it. They went and asked Rav Ḥael. He said to them: Rav said as follows: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage.,The Gemara comments: And this disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the exile of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (II\xa0Kings 18:11)? Halah is Ḥillazon; Habor is Hadyav; the river of Gozan is Ginzak; the cities of the Medes are Ḥamadan and its neighboring towns, and some say: This is Nihavnad and its neighboring towns. Since the ten tribes assimilated with the gentiles, the lineage of Jews from those places is flawed, unlike that which was taught before.,The Gemara asks: What are the neighboring towns of Nihavnad? Shmuel said: The city of Mushekhei, Ḥosekei, and Rumekei. Rabbi Yoḥa says: And all of these are the same with regard to flawed lineage. It was assumed that Mushekhei is the same as Mushekanei. The Gemara therefore asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage? Rather, it must be that Mushekhei is discrete, and Mushekanei is discrete.,In connection to the aforementioned places, the Gemara analyzes the following verse, describing a vision of a bear-like animal: “And it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth” (Daniel 7:5). Rabbi Yoḥa says: This is Ḥillazon, Hadyav, and Netzivin, which the Persian government sometimes swallows and sometimes discharges. In other words, control over these places passed from the Persians to the Romans and back again several times.,The first part of that verse stated: “And behold a second beast, similar to a bear” (Daniel 7:5). Rav Yosef taught: These are Persians, who eat and drink copious amounts like a bear, and are corpulent like a bear, and grow hair like a bear, and have no rest like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another. When Rabbi Ami saw a Persian riding, he would say: This is a bear on the move.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Levi: Show me Persians, i.e., describe a typical Persian to me. Levi said to him: They are similar to the legions of the house of David. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ḥabbarin, Persian priests. Levi said to him: They are similar to angels of destruction. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ishmaelites. Levi said to him: They are similar to demons of an outhouse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Torah scholars of Babylonia. Levi said to him: They are similar to ministering angels.,When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, he said prophetically: There is a place called Homanya in Babylonia, and all its people are the sons of Ammon. There is a place called Masgariya in Babylonia, and all its people are mamzerim. There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers there who exchange wives with each other, and their children are therefore mamzerim. There is a place called Bireta DeSatya in Babylonia. Today they turned away from the Omnipresent. What did they do? A ditch with fish overflowed, and they went and trapped the fish on Shabbat. Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, excommunicated them, and they all became apostates. There is a place called Akra DeAgma in Babylonia. There is a man named Adda bar Ahava there.'' None |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 90; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 90
| 116a שאין זה מקומה ר\' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר\',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר\' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה\' וא"ר חמא בר\' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה\' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי\' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) ו אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה\' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר\' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.,אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה'' None | 116a that this is not its place, as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is not for that reason that signs were inserted. Rather, the signs are there because this portion is considered a book unto itself.,The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said that Rabbi Yonatan said, that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, she carved its seven pillars” (Proverbs 9:1), these are the seven books of the Torah? According to whose opinion? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy.,Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here, where it appears, and will be written in its proper place. And why was it written here, even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is in order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishment that appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: “And the people complained wickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is the first punishment? It is the verse: “And they traveled from the mountain of God mehar Hashem for three days” (Numbers 10:33), and Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God me’aḥarei Hashem and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: And if so, where is the proper place for this paragraph? Rav Ashi said: In the portion of the flags, where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the blank folios of parchment of a Torah scroll, does one rescue them from the fire on Shabbat, or does one not rescue them from the fire? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to a Torah scroll that is worn, if there is enough in it to compile eighty-five complete letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues it from the fire, and if not one does not rescue it. If even the blank folios are rescued, why would one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to its blank folios. The Gemara answers: A Torah scroll that is worn is different, because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters.,Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in another baraita: With regard to a Torah scroll that was erased, if there is enough in it to compile eighty-five complete letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues it from the fire, and if not, one does not rescue it. And why is that so? Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to its blank folios, as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where the place of the writing is erased it is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due to the writing. If the writing is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me is with regard to the blank portions that are above and below, that are between one section and another section, that are between one page and another page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, and that are at the end of the scroll. The Gemara asks again: Derive that this scroll may be rescued due to that area that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case where the blank area was cut and thrown out, and all that remains is the place of the writing.,Come and hear a different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that the blank folios that are above and below, that are between one section and another section, that are between one page and another page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, and that are at the end of the scroll render the hands that touch them ritually impure. Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as perhaps when it is part of the Torah scroll, it is different, and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in another baraita: With regard to the blank folios and the Torah scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names of God contained therein. What, is this not referring to the blank folios of a Torah scroll? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the blank folios of the scrolls of heretics. The Gemara is surprised at this: Now, with regard to the scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescue them; is it necessary to say that one does not rescue their blank folios? Rather, this is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios.,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. With regard to the blank folios and the Torah scrolls of the heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the names of God contained therein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon said in the form of an oath: I will bury my sons if I fail to do the following, that if these books come into my possession I will burn them and the names contained therein. As even if a person is pursuing him with the intent to kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of these heretics. The reason is that these heretics are aware of the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, and nevertheless, they deny the existence of God; whereas these idolators are not aware, and that is the reason that they deny the existence of God. And with regard to the heretics, the verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory” (Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door.,Rabbi Yishmael said: The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as to make peace between a husband and his wife, the Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the water in the framework of the ordeal of the sota; these, the heretics, who impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more so it is proper to erase God’s names because of them. And with regard to heretics, David said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me” (Psalms 139:21–22). And just as they, the scrolls of heretics, are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from any other matter that destroys them.,Yosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu: With regard to these books of the house of Abidan, does one rescue them from the fire or does one not rescue them? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said yes and no, and the matter was uncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidan for conversation, and all the more so he would not go to the house of Nitzrefei, the Persian fire-temple. Shmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go, but to the house of Abidan he did go. The gentile scholars said to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan? He evaded their question with an excuse and said to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, and that makes the path difficult for me. They said to him: We will uproot it. He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in its place will be difficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I am one of them, we are friends, and I do not fear them. Still, one time he went and argued with them and they sought to endanger his life. Rabbi Meir would call the Christian writing, the Evangelion, the wicked folio aven gilyon; Rabbi Yoḥa called it the sinful folio avon gilyon.,The Gemara relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was a Christian philosopher pilosofa in their neighborhood'' None |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 97; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 97
| 34b ועדים רואין אותו מבחוץ מאי,א"ל רב המנונא והלה מה טוען אי אמר לא היו דברים מעולם הוחזק כפרן אי אמר אין שקלי ודידי שקלי כי אתו עדים מאי הוי א"ל המנונא את עול תא,ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה אתו תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"ל הוחזק כפרן,מתקיף לה ר"נ האי דינא פרסאה הוא מי קאמר מעולם בעסק זה קא"ל,איכא דאמרי ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה מעולם נפקו ביה סהדי דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"נ הוחזק כפרן,א"ל רבא לר"נ כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאיניש עביד לה ולאו אדעתיה:,ר"ש אומר חייב כאן וחייב בפקדון כו\':,מחכו עלה במערבא מאי חוכא,דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מושבע מפי עצמו בעדות לר"ש מנא ליה דגמר מפקדון פקדון נמי מושבע מפי אחרים נגמר מעדות,ומאי חוכא דלמא ר"ש בק"ו מייתי לה מפי אחרים חייב מפי עצמו לא כל שכן,אלא חוכא אמזיד כשוגג דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מזיד גבי עדות מנא ליה דלא כתיב ביה ונעלם ה"נ לא כתיב ביה ונעלם,אמר להו רב הונא ומאי חוכא דלמא מזיד דלאו כשוגג בפקדון ממעילה ר"ש גמר לה,והיינו חוכא אדגמר לה ממעילה נגמר לה מעדות,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה ממעילה,אדרבה מעדות הוה ליה למילף שכן תחטא מתחטא,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה בכל נהנה בקבוע חומש ואשם,אדרבה מעדות ה"ל למילף שכן חטא הדיוט בשבועה תבעיה וכפריה ואואין הנך נפישין,אלא מאי חוכא,כי אתא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא מכדי ר"ש ג"ש גמיר למה ליה דפריך מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,ומאי חוכא דלמא כי פריך מקמי דתיקום ליה ג"ש בתר דקמא ליה ג"ש לא פריך,ולא והאמר להו רבא בר איתי לרבנן מאן תנא שבועת הפקדון לא ניתן זדונה לכפרה ר"ש היא,דלמא מזיד כשוגג פריך דגמר לה ממעילה דהנך נפישין אבל מושבע כנשבע לא פריך,ותהדר עדות ותגמר לה מפקדון מזיד דלאו כשוגג מה פקדון שוגג אין מזיד לא אף עדות שוגג אין מזיד לא כי היכי דיליף פקדון ממעילה'' None | 34b and witnesses see him counting the money from outside, what is the halakha? Is their testimony accepted?,Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Yehuda: And what does the other person claim in response to the demand for repayment? If he says: These matters never happened, he assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the witnesses testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him. If he says: Yes, I took money from him, but it is my money that I took, then when the witnesses come and testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him, what of it? The testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his claim, as the witnesses do not know the circumstances under which the money changed hands. Rav Yehuda said to him: Are you Hamnuna? Enter and come into the study hall, as you make your teacher wiser.,The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain individual who said to another: I counted for you and gave you one hundred dinars as a loan alongside this column. The other person said to him in response: I did not pass alongside this column. Two witnesses came and testified about him that they saw that he urinated alongside this column. Reish Lakish said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the testimony of witnesses proves that he passed alongside the column.,Rav Naḥman objects to this: That is a ruling characteristic of a Persian court, not a reasonable ruling characteristic of a Jewish court. Did the respondent say that he never passed alongside the column? It was that he did not pass alongside the column in the context of this matter that he said to him that he did not pass the column; therefore, the testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his statement.,There are those who say that the incident transpired a bit differently. There was a certain individual who said to another: I counted for you and gave you one hundred dinars as a loan alongside this column. The other person said to him in response: I never passed alongside this column. Witnesses emerged and testified concerning him that he urinated alongside this column. Rav Naḥman said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the witnesses contradicted his claim.,Rava said to Rav Naḥman: There is no proof from here that he assumes the presumptive status of a denier, as any matter that is not incumbent upon a person to remember, he performs it and it is not on his mind. Therefore, when he denied ever passing alongside the column, it was because there was never any reason for him to remember that he had been there.,§ The Gemara proceeds to cite the opinion cited last in the baraita explaining the source of the halakha that one is liable for taking a false oath of testimony only for a case involving monetary matters. Rabbi Shimon says: The Torah rendered one liable if he takes a false oath here, with regard to an oath of testimony, and the Torah rendered one liable if he takes a false oath with regard to an oath on a deposit; just as there, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims, so too here, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims.,They mocked this proof in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asked: What is worthy of mockery in the statement of Rabbi Shimon?,The Gemara explains that they mocked that which the baraita teaches in the continuation, rejecting the a fortiori inference suggested by Rabbi Shimon: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath.,This rejection is difficult: Now, with regard to the fact that one who administered an oath to himself is liable in the case of an oath of testimony, from where is it derived according to Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon derives it by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit. If so, based on the same verbal analogy, in the case of an oath on a deposit too, let us derive from the case of an oath of testimony the fact that one is liable for a false oath that was administered by others.,The Gemara rejects this: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps Rabbi Shimon does not derive that one who takes a false oath of testimony on his own is liable by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit; rather, he derives it by means of an a fortiori inference: If one is liable for a false oath of testimony administered by others, is it not all the more so that he is liable for an oath that he takes on his own?,The Gemara answers: Rather, the mockery is with regard to the distinction between an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony in the matter of whether the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath, as it teaches in the baraita: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath.,Now, from where does he derive that one who takes an intentional false oath of testimony is liable? He derives it as it is not written in the context of an oath of testimony: And it is hidden. Here too, it is not written in the context of an oath on a deposit: And it is hidden. Therefore, there should be no distinction between intentional and unwitting with regard to an oath on a deposit either.,Rav Huna said to the Sages: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps the fact that the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is not like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath in the case of a deposit, and it is from the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property that Rabbi Shimon derived it. Just as one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for the misuse of consecrated property only if he did so unwittingly, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit only if he unwittingly took the false oath.,The Gemara answers: And that is what is worthy of mockery. Instead of deriving the lack of liability for an intentional false oath of deposit from the case of misuse of consecrated property, let him derive liability for an intentional false oath on a deposit from the case of an oath of testimony.,The Gemara rejects this: It stands to reason that he should have derived it from the case of misuse of consecrated property, as that is a derivation of misuse written with regard to an oath on a deposit: “If any one shall sin and commits an act of misuse and dealt falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit” (Leviticus 5:21), which is derived from misuse written with regard to misuse of consecrated property: “If any one commits an act of misuse and sinned unwittingly from items consecrated to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15).,The Gemara asks: On the contrary, he should have derived it from the case of an oath of testimony, as that is a derivation of “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit which is derived from “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony: “And if any one shall sin and he hears the voice of an oath, and he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara rejects this: It stands to reason that it is from the case of misuse of consecrated property that he should have derived it, as there are many elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property represented by the mnemonic: Misuse, with regard to all, derive benefit, with fixed, one-fifth, and guilt-offering. The term misuse is employed in both cases. Both cases are relevant with regard to all individuals and not only those fit to testify. Both involve one deriving benefit from property that is not his. In both cases, one is liable to bring a fixed guilt-offering, as opposed to one who takes a false oath of testimony, who is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. In both cases, one adds one-fifth to the payment of the principal. In both cases, that is the offering with which one gains atonement.,The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, he should have derived the halakha with regard to an oath on a deposit from the halakha of an oath of testimony, as there are many elements common to both oaths represented by the mnemonic: Sin, ordinary hedyot, with an oath, claimed from him, denied his claim, and multiple instances of the term “or.” The term “shall sin” is written in both contexts. Both oaths relate to the property of ordinary individuals, not to consecrated property. In both cases there is a claim presented by one of the parties and denial of that claim by the one taking the oath. Multiple instances of the term “or” appear in both passages in the Torah. The Gemara responds: These elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property are more numerous than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony.,Rather, after resolving all the difficulties that were raised against the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the question remains: What did the Sages of Eretz Yisrael find that is worthy of mockery in that baraita?,When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall of their teacher, they said: This is what is worthy of mockery: Now, since ultimately Rabbi Shimon derives the halakha by means of a verbal analogy between the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit and the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony, why is it that he refutes the parallel between them by saying: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath. Rabbi Shimon should have derived by means of the verbal analogy that all the halakhot of an oath of testimony and all the halakhot of an oath on a deposit are identical.,The Gemara rejects this: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps when Rabbi Shimon refuted the parallel between the two oaths, it was prior to the verbal analogy being established for him, and the derivation was by means of a paradigm. After the verbal analogy was established for him, he does not refute the parallel and holds that in the case of an oath on a deposit one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for false oaths administered by others as well as for intentional false oaths.,The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon not refute the parallel between the two oaths? But didn’t Rava bar Ittai say to the Sages: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to an oath on a deposit that atonement by means of an offering is not possible for one who takes an intentional false oath? It is Rabbi Shimon. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon concludes that there remains a distinction between intentional and unwitting in the case of an oath on a deposit.,The Gemara suggests: Perhaps with regard to the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath being like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath, Rabbi Shimon refutes the parallel between the two oaths even after the verbal analogy is established for him, as he derives the halakha of an oath on a deposit from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property, where there is a distinction between intentional and unwitting, as those elements common to an oath on a deposit and the misuse of consecrated property are more numerous than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony. But he does not refute the parallel between the two oaths with the claim that there is a distinction between them with regard to whether the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others is like that of one who himself took an oath. Once the verbal analogy was established for him, there is no longer a distinction between the two oaths in that regard.,The Gemara asks: If, according to Rabbi Shimon, based on the derivation from the misuse of consecrated property, one who intentionally takes a false oath on a deposit does not bring a guilt-offering like one who took the false oath unwittingly, let the discussion of the case of an oath of testimony return to the verbal analogy and derive it from the case of an oath on a deposit that the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is not like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath. Just as in the case of an oath on a deposit, one who takes an unwitting false oath, yes, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering, and one who takes an intentional false oath, no, he is not liable, so too, in the case of an oath of testimony, one who takes an unwitting false oath, yes, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one who takes an intentional false oath, no, he is not liable, just as he derives the case of an oath on a deposit from the case of misuse of consecrated property.'' None |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 88; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 88
| 22a שקרא ושנה ולא שימש תלמידי חכמים,אתמר קרא ושנה ולא שימש ת"ח ר\' אלעזר אומר הרי זה עם הארץ ר\' שמואל בר נחמני אמר הרי זה בור ר\' ינאי אומר ה"ז כותי,רב אחא בר יעקב אומר הרי זה מגוש אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מסתברא כרב אחא בר יעקב דאמרי אינשי רטין מגושא ולא ידע מאי אמר תני תנא ולא ידע מאי אמר,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש שחרית וערבית בברכותיה דברי ר\' מאיר וחכ"א כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר\' יונתן בן יוסף אמר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלן ללמוד תורה אחרים אומרים אפילו קורא ושונה ולא שימש ת"ח זהו ע"ה,קרא ולא שנה הרי זה בור לא קרא ולא שנה עליו הכתוב אומר (ירמיהו לא, כז) וזרעתי את בית ישראל ואת בית יהודה זרע אדם וזרע בהמה,(משלי כד, כא) ירא את ה\' בני ומלך ועם שונים אל תתערב אמר רבי יצחק אלו ששונים הלכות פשיטא מהו דתימא שונין בחטא וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא כיון שעבר אדם עבירה ושנה בה הותרה לו קמ"ל,תנא התנאים מבלי עולם מבלי עולם ס"ד אמר רבינא שמורין הלכה מתוך משנתן תניא נמי הכי א"ר יהושע וכי מבלי עולם הן והלא מיישבי עולם הן שנאמר (חבקוק ג, ו) הליכות עולם לו אלא שמורין הלכה מתוך משנתן,אשה פרושה וכו\' ת"ר בתולה צליינית ואלמנה שובבית וקטן שלא כלו לו חדשיו הרי אלו מבלי עולם,איני והאמר רבי יוחנן למדנו יראת חטא מבתולה וקיבול שכר מאלמנה יראת חטא מבתולה דר\' יוחנן שמעה לההיא בתולה דנפלה אאפה וקאמרה רבש"ע בראת גן עדן ובראת גיהנם בראת צדיקים ובראת רשעים יהי רצון מלפניך שלא יכשלו בי בני אדם,קיבול שכר מאלמנה דההיא אלמנה דהואי בי כנישתא בשיבבותה כל יומא הות אתיא ומצלה בי מדרשיה דר\' יוחנן אמר לה בתי לא בית הכנסת בשיבבותך אמרה ליה רבי ולא שכר פסיעות יש לי,כי קאמר כגון יוחני בת רטיבי,מאי קטן שלא כלו לו חדשיו הכא תרגימו זה ת"ח המבעט ברבותיו,רבי אבא אמר זה תלמיד שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה דא"ר אבהו אמר רב הונא אמר רב מאי דכתיב (משלי ז, כו) כי רבים חללים הפילה ועצומים כל הרוגיה כי רבים חללים הפילה זה ת"ח שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה ועצומים כל הרוגיה זה ת"ח שהגיע להוראה ואינו מורה'' None | 22a is one who read the Written Torah and learned the Mishna but did not serve Torah scholars in order to learn the reasoning behind the halakhot. Since he believes himself knowledgeable, he issues halakhic rulings, but due to his lack of understanding he rules erroneously and is therefore considered wicked. His cunning is in his public display of knowledge, which misleads others into considering him a true Torah scholar.,It was stated: With regard to one who read the Written Torah and learned the Mishna but did not serve Torah scholars, Rabbi Elazar says: This person is an ignoramus. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This person is a boor. Rabbi Yannai says: This person is comparable to a Samaritan, who follows the Written Torah but not the traditions of the Sages.,Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This person is comparable to a sorcerer magosh, who uses his knowledge to mislead people. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to accept the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, as people say proverbially: The sorcerer chants and does not know what he is saying; so too, the tanna teaches the Mishna and does not know what he is saying.,§ The Sages taught: Who is an ignoramus am ha’aretz? It is anyone who does not recite Shema in the morning and evening with its blessings; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is anyone who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: It is anyone who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef said: It is anyone who has sons and does not raise them to study Torah. Aḥerim say: Even if one reads the Written Torah and learns the Mishna but does not serve Torah scholars, he is an ignoramus.,If one read the Written Torah but did not learn the Mishna, he is a boor. With regard to one who did not read and did not learn at all, the verse states: “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast” (Jeremiah 31:26). One who has not studied at all is comparable to a beast.,The verse states: “My son, fear the Lord and the king; and meddle not with those who are repeating” (Proverbs 24:21). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are individuals who repeatedly learn the halakhot but do not know the reasons behind them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? How else could the verse be understood? The Gemara answers: He states this lest you say that the verse is referring to individuals who repeatedly commit sins, and this is in accordance with the words of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: Once a person committed a transgression and repeated it, in his eyes it became permitted for him. Since the verse could be interpreted in this manner, Rabbi Yitzḥak teaches us that the verse is referring to those who learn without understanding.,It was taught in a baraita: The tanna’im, who recite the tannaitic sources by rote, are individuals who erode the world. The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: Could it enter your mind that they are individuals who erode the world? Ravina says: This statement is referring to those who issue halakhic rulings based on their knowledge of mishnayot. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua said: Are they individuals who erode the world? Aren’t they settling the world, as it is stated: “His ways halikhot are eternal” (Habakkuk 3:6)? The Sages read the term halikhot as halakhot, inferring that one who learns halakhot attains eternal life. Rather, this is referring to those who issue halakhic rulings based on their knowledge of mishnayot.,§ The mishna states that an abstinent woman is among those who erode the world. The Sages taught: A maiden who prays constantly, and a neighborly shovavit widow who constantly visits her neighbors, and a child whose months of gestation were not completed, all these are people who erode the world.,The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: We learned the meaning of fear of sin from a maiden, and the significance of receiving divine reward from a widow. The meaning of fear of sin can be learned from a maiden, as Rabbi Yoḥa heard a certain maiden who fell on her face in prayer, and she was saying: Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me and consequently go to Gehenna.,The significance of receiving divine reward can be learned from a widow, as there was a certain widow in whose neighborhood there was a synagogue, and despite this every day she went and prayed in the study hall of Rabbi Yoḥa. Rabbi Yoḥa said to her: My daughter, is there not a synagogue in your neighborhood? She said to him: My teacher, don’t I attain a reward for all the steps I take while walking to pray in the distant study hall?,The Gemara answers: When it is stated in the baraita that a maiden who prays constantly is one who erodes the world, it is referring, for example, to Yoḥani bat Retivi, who constantly prayed and pretended to be saintly but actually engaged in sorcery.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a child whose months of gestation were not completed? Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted this as alluding to an imperfect, incomplete Torah scholar who scorns his teachers.,Rabbi Abba says: This is a student who has not yet attained the ability to issue halakhic rulings, and yet he issues rulings and is therefore compared to a prematurely born child. This is as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For she has cast down many wounded; and a mighty host are all her slain” (Proverbs 7:26)? “For she has cast down hippila many wounded”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has not yet attained the ability to issue rulings, and yet he issues rulings. “And a mighty host ve’atzumim are all her slain”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has attained the ability to issue rulings, but does not issue rulings and prevents the masses from learning Torah properly.'' None |
|
21. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of The Philosophers, 1.53 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • aristocracy, aristocrats, aristocratic,, competition among • elite, and competition
Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 82, 98; Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 65
| sup>
1.53 I am not the only man who has aimed at a tyranny in Greece, nor am I, a descendant of Codrus, unfitted for the part. That is, I resume the privileges which the Athenians swore to confer upon Codrus and his family, although later they took them away. In everything else I commit no offence against God or man; but I leave to the Athenians the management of their affairs according to the ordices established by you. And they are better governed than they would be under a democracy; for I allow no one to extend his rights, and though I am tyrant I arrogate to myself no undue share of reputation and honour, but merely such stated privileges as belonged to the kings in former times. Every citizen pays a tithe of his property, not to me but to a fund for defraying the cost of the public sacrifices or any other charges on the State or the expenditure on any war which may come upon us.'' None |
|
22. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 192; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 192
|
23. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • competition
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 86; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 86
|
