| 1. Septuagint, Genesis, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84 |
| 2. Septuagint, Exodus, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151 |
| 3. Septuagint, Baruch, 11.3 (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, death penalty Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 166 |
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 7.3.9-12.21, 8.2, 8.18, 9.11, 19.13, 19.18, 21.10, 21.16, 21.22, 21.37-22.3, 23.15, 31.15, 35.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 189| 19.13. "לֹא־תִגַּע בּוֹ יָד כִּי־סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל אוֹ־יָרֹה יִיָּרֶה אִם־בְּהֵמָה אִם־אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה בִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיֹּבֵל הֵמָּה יַעֲלוּ בָהָר׃", | 19.13. "no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram’s horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.’", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 2.16, 19.8, 19.14, 31.11-31.13, 31.24, 38.24-38.25 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty •death penalty, biblical law •death penalty, stoning •fornication, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, strangulation Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 97, 178; Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 345| 2.16. "וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל־הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ־הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל׃", 19.8. "הִנֵּה־נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר כִּי־עַל־כֵּן בָּאוּ בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי׃", 19.14. "וַיֵּצֵא לוֹט וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל־חֲתָנָיו לֹקְחֵי בְנֹתָיו וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִן־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי־מַשְׁחִית יְהוָה אֶת־הָעִיר וַיְהִי כִמְצַחֵק בְּעֵינֵי חֲתָנָיו׃", 31.11. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים בַּחֲלוֹם יַעֲקֹב וָאֹמַר הִנֵּנִי׃", 31.12. "וַיֹּאמֶר שָׂא־נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כָּל־הָעַתֻּדִים הָעֹלִים עַל־הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּבְרֻדִּים כִּי רָאִיתִי אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר לָבָן עֹשֶׂה לָּךְ׃", 31.13. "אָנֹכִי הָאֵל בֵּית־אֵל אֲשֶׁר מָשַׁחְתָּ שָּׁם מַצֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ לִּי שָׁם נֶדֶר עַתָּה קוּם צֵא מִן־הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְשׁוּב אֶל־אֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתֶּךָ׃", 31.24. "וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל־לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי בַּחֲלֹם הַלָּיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן־תְּדַבֵּר עִם־יַעֲקֹב מִטּוֹב עַד־רָע׃", 38.24. "וַיְהִי כְּמִשְׁלֹשׁ חֳדָשִׁים וַיֻּגַּד לִיהוּדָה לֵאמֹר זָנְתָה תָּמָר כַּלָּתֶךָ וְגַם הִנֵּה הָרָה לִזְנוּנִים וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵף׃", 38.25. "הִוא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל־חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה וַתֹּאמֶר הַכֶּר־נָא לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה הָאֵלֶּה׃", | 2.16. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: ‘of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;", 19.8. "Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.’", 19.14. "And Lot went out, and spoke unto his sons-in-law, who married his daughters, and said: ‘Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy the city.’ But he seemed unto his sons-in-law as one that jested.", 31.11. "And the angel of God said unto me in the dream: Jacob; and I said: Here am I.", 31.12. "And he said: Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the he-goats which leap upon the flock are streaked, speckled, and grizzled; for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.", 31.13. "I am the God of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar, where thou didst vow a vow unto Me. Now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy nativity.’", 31.24. "And God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night, and said unto him: ‘Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.’", 38.24. "And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying: ‘Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry.’ And Judah said: ‘Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.’", 38.25. "When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: ‘By the man, whose these are, am I with child’; and she said: ‘Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff.’", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 2.4, 11.9, 14.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 2.4. "רִיבוּ בְאִמְּכֶם רִיבוּ כִּי־הִיא לֹא אִשְׁתִּי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אִישָׁהּ וְתָסֵר זְנוּנֶיהָ מִפָּנֶיה וְנַאֲפוּפֶיהָ מִבֵּין שָׁדֶיהָ׃", 11.9. "לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה חֲרוֹן אַפִּי לֹא אָשׁוּב לְשַׁחֵת אֶפְרָיִם כִּי אֵל אָנֹכִי וְלֹא־אִישׁ בְּקִרְבְּךָ קָדוֹשׁ וְלֹא אָבוֹא בְּעִיר׃", 14.2. "שׁוּבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי כָשַׁלְתָּ בַּעֲוֺנֶךָ׃", | 2.4. "Plead with your mother, plead; For she is not My wife, neither am I her husband; And let her put away her harlotries from her face, And her adulteries from between her breasts;", 11.9. "I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in the midst of thee; And I will not come in fury.", 14.2. "Return, O Israel, unto the LORD thy God; For thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.11, 5.22, 13.2-13.6, 13.10-13.11, 17.5-17.8, 19.15, 19.20, 21.18-21.21, 21.23, 22.13-22.29, 23.3-23.4, 23.28, 24.1-24.4, 25.13-25.16, 28.15-28.69, 29.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 137| 28.66. "וְהָיוּ חַיֶּיךָ תְּלֻאִים לְךָ מִנֶּגֶד וּפָחַדְתָּ לַיְלָה וְיוֹמָם וְלֹא תַאֲמִין בְּחַיֶּיךָ׃", | 28.66. "And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear night and day, and shalt have no assurance of thy life.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.20, 19.11-19.13, 19.16, 19.35, 20.2, 20.10, 20.12, 20.14, 20.27, 24.13-24.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, biblical law •fornication, death penalty •death penalty •death penalty, stoning Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 176, 189; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 85, 134, 139; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 67, 84; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 62| 19.11. "לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ וְלֹא־תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא־תְשַׁקְּרוּ אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ׃", 19.12. "וְלֹא־תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת־שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃", 19.13. "לֹא־תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת־רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא־תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד־בֹּקֶר׃", 19.16. "לֹא־תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל־דַּם רֵעֶךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃", 19.35. "לֹא־תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט בַּמִּדָּה בַּמִּשְׁקָל וּבַמְּשׂוּרָה׃", 20.2. "וְאֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תֹּאמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן־הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ מוֹת יוּמָת עַם הָאָרֶץ יִרְגְּמֻהוּ בָאָבֶן׃", 20.2. "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־דֹּדָתוֹ עֶרְוַת דֹּדוֹ גִּלָּה חֶטְאָם יִשָּׂאוּ עֲרִירִים יָמֻתוּ׃", 20.12. "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־כַּלָּתוֹ מוֹת יוּמְתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם תֶּבֶל עָשׂוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם׃", 20.14. "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת־אִשָּׁה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ זִמָּה הִוא בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן וְלֹא־תִהְיֶה זִמָּה בְּתוֹכְכֶם׃", 20.27. "וְאִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה כִּי־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם אוֹב אוֹ יִדְּעֹנִי מוֹת יוּמָתוּ בָּאֶבֶן יִרְגְּמוּ אֹתָם דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם׃", 24.13. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 24.14. "הוֹצֵא אֶת־הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְסָמְכוּ כָל־הַשֹּׁמְעִים אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ וְרָגְמוּ אֹתוֹ כָּל־הָעֵדָה׃", 24.15. "וְאֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי־יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ׃", 24.16. "וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם־יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ־בוֹ כָּל־הָעֵדָה כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח בְּנָקְבוֹ־שֵׁם יוּמָת׃", | 18.20. "And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.", 19.11. "Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another.", 19.12. "And ye shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.", 19.13. "Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him; the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.", 19.16. "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.", 19.35. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.", 20.2. "Moreover, thou shalt say to the children of Israel: Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.", 20.10. "And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.", 20.12. "And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them.", 20.14. "And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.", 20.27. "A man also or a woman that divineth by a ghost or a familiar spirit, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.", 24.13. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 24.14. "’Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.", 24.15. "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.", 24.16. "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.11-5.31, 15.35-15.36 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, biblical law •fornication, death penalty •death penalty •death penalty, stoning Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 176, 189; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88, 302| 5.11. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 5.12. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי־תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל׃", 5.13. "וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה׃", 5.14. "וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ־קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִוא נִטְמָאָה אוֹ־עָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ־קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה׃", 5.15. "וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן וְהֵבִיא אֶת־קָרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ עֲשִׂירִת הָאֵיפָה קֶמַח שְׂעֹרִים לֹא־יִצֹק עָלָיו שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּן עָלָיו לְבֹנָה כִּי־מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הוּא מִנְחַת זִכָּרוֹן מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֺן׃", 5.16. "וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְהֶעֱמִדָהּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃", 5.17. "וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מַיִם קְדֹשִׁים בִּכְלִי־חָרֶשׂ וּמִן־הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל־הַמָּיִם׃", 5.18. "וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וּפָרַע אֶת־רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן עַל־כַּפֶּיהָ אֵת מִנְחַת הַזִּכָּרוֹן מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הִוא וּבְיַד הַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים׃", 5.19. "וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְאָמַר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אִם־לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָךְ וְאִם־לֹא שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ הִנָּקִי מִמֵּי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃", 5.21. "וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבֻעַת הָאָלָה וְאָמַר הַכֹּהֵן לָאִשָּׁה יִתֵּן יְהוָה אוֹתָךְ לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבֻעָה בְּתוֹךְ עַמֵּךְ בְּתֵת יְהוָה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ נֹפֶלֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵךְ צָבָה׃", 5.22. "וּבָאוּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּמֵעַיִךְ לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן׃", 5.23. "וְכָתַב אֶת־הָאָלֹת הָאֵלֶּה הַכֹּהֵן בַּסֵּפֶר וּמָחָה אֶל־מֵי הַמָּרִים׃", 5.24. "וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶת־מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרֲרִים לְמָרִים׃", 5.25. "וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה אֵת מִנְחַת הַקְּנָאֹת וְהֵנִיף אֶת־הַמִּנְחָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃", 5.26. "וְקָמַץ הַכֹּהֵן מִן־הַמִּנְחָה אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶת־הַמָּיִם׃", 5.27. "וְהִשְׁקָהּ אֶת־הַמַּיִם וְהָיְתָה אִם־נִטְמְאָה וַתִּמְעֹל מַעַל בְּאִישָׁהּ וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרֲרִים לְמָרִים וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ וְהָיְתָה הָאִשָּׁה לְאָלָה בְּקֶרֶב עַמָּהּ׃", 5.28. "וְאִם־לֹא נִטְמְאָה הָאִשָּׁה וּטְהֹרָה הִוא וְנִקְּתָה וְנִזְרְעָה זָרַע׃", 5.29. "זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַקְּנָאֹת אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׂטֶה אִשָּׁה תַּחַת אִישָׁהּ וְנִטְמָאָה׃", 5.31. "וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֺן וְהָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא תִּשָּׂא אֶת־עֲוֺנָהּ׃", 15.35. "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה מוֹת יוּמַת הָאִישׁ רָגוֹם אֹתוֹ בָאֲבָנִים כָּל־הָעֵדָה מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה׃", 15.36. "וַיֹּצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ כָּל־הָעֵדָה אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וַיִּרְגְּמוּ אֹתוֹ בָּאֲבָנִים וַיָּמֹת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃", | 5.11. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 5.12. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: If any man’s wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him,", 5.13. "and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act;", 5.14. "and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be not defiled;", 5.15. "then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.", 5.16. "And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD.", 5.17. "And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water.", 5.18. "And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse.", 5.19. "And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: ‘If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;", 5.20. "but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband—", 5.21. "then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman—the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;", 5.22. "and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away’; and the woman shall say: ‘Amen, Amen.’", 5.23. "And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness.", 5.24. "And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.", 5.25. "And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the LORD, and bring it unto the altar.", 5.26. "And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke upon the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.", 5.27. "And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away; and the woman shall be a curse among her people.", 5.28. "And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed.", 5.29. "This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, being under her husband, goeth aside, and is defiled;", 5.30. "or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon a man, and he be jealous over his wife; then shall he set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.", 5.31. "And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity.", 15.35. "And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.’", 15.36. "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the LORD commanded Moses.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 2.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 2.16. "כִּי־שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכִסָּה חָמָס עַל־לְבוּשׁוֹ אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם בְּרוּחֲכֶם וְלֹא תִבְגֹּדוּ׃", | 2.16. "For I hate putting away, Saith the LORD, the God of Israel, And him that covereth his garment with violence, Saith the LORD of hosts; Therefore take heed to your spirit, That ye deal not treacherously.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 9.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 85| 9.13. "וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִנָּתֵן גַּם־מָחָר לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּשׁוּשָׁן לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדָת הַיּוֹם וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי־הָמָן יִתְלוּ עַל־הָעֵץ׃", | 9.13. "Then said Esther: ‘If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews that are in Shushan to do to-morrow also according unto this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.’", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 7.21 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, biblical law •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 176| 7.21. "ואראה [וָאֵרֶא] בַשָּׁלָל אַדֶּרֶת שִׁנְעָר אַחַת טוֹבָה וּמָאתַיִם שְׁקָלִים כֶּסֶף וּלְשׁוֹן זָהָב אֶחָד חֲמִשִּׁים שְׁקָלִים מִשְׁקָלוֹ וָאֶחְמְדֵם וָאֶקָּחֵם וְהִנָּם טְמוּנִים בָּאָרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ הָאָהֳלִי וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ׃", | 7.21. "When I saw among the spoil a goodly Shinar mantle, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.’", |
|
13. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 3.1, 3.8, 23.25-23.32, 27.9, 28.32, 29.8, 31.23-31.26 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 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׃", 3.8. "וָאֵרֶא כִּי עַל־כָּל־אֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִאֲפָה מְשֻׁבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ וָאֶתֵּן אֶת־סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא יָרְאָה בֹּגֵדָה יְהוּדָה אֲחוֹתָהּ וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתִּזֶן גַּם־הִיא׃", 23.25. "שָׁמַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־אָמְרוּ הַנְּבִאִים הַנִּבְּאִים בִּשְׁמִי שֶׁקֶר לֵאמֹר חָלַמְתִּי חָלָמְתִּי׃", 23.26. "עַד־מָתַי הֲיֵשׁ בְּלֵב הַנְּבִאִים נִבְּאֵי הַשָּׁקֶר וּנְבִיאֵי תַּרְמִת לִבָּם׃", 23.27. "הַחֹשְׁבִים לְהַשְׁכִּיחַ אֶת־עַמִּי שְׁמִי בַּחֲלוֹמֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יְסַפְּרוּ אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכְחוּ אֲבוֹתָם אֶת־שְׁמִי בַּבָּעַל׃", 23.28. "הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר־אִתּוֹ חֲלוֹם יְסַפֵּר חֲלוֹם וַאֲשֶׁר דְּבָרִי אִתּוֹ יְדַבֵּר דְּבָרִי אֱמֶת מַה־לַתֶּבֶן אֶת־הַבָּר נְאֻם־יְהוָה׃", 23.29. "הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם־יְהוָה וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע׃", 23.31. "הִנְנִי עַל־הַנְּבִיאִם נְאֻם־יְהוָה הַלֹּקְחִים לְשׁוֹנָם וַיִּנְאֲמוּ נְאֻם׃", 23.32. "הִנְנִי עַל־נִבְּאֵי חֲלֹמוֹת שֶׁקֶר נְאֻם־יְהוָה וַיְסַפְּרוּם וַיַּתְעוּ אֶת־עַמִּי בְּשִׁקְרֵיהֶם וּבְפַחֲזוּתָם וְאָנֹכִי לֹא־שְׁלַחְתִּים וְלֹא צִוִּיתִים וְהוֹעֵיל לֹא־יוֹעִילוּ לָעָם־הַזֶּה נְאֻם־יְהוָה׃", 27.9. "וְאַתֶּם אַל־תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־נְבִיאֵיכֶם וְאֶל־קֹסְמֵיכֶם וְאֶל חֲלֹמֹתֵיכֶם וְאֶל־עֹנְנֵיכֶם וְאֶל־כַּשָּׁפֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־הֵם אֹמְרִים אֲלֵיכֶם לֵאמֹר לֹא תַעַבְדוּ אֶת־מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל׃", 29.8. "כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַל־יַשִּׁיאוּ לָכֶם נְבִיאֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְקֹסְמֵיכֶם וְאַל־תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־חֲלֹמֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם מַחְלְמִים׃", 31.23. "כֹּה־אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹד יֹאמְרוּ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בְּאֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה וּבְעָרָיו בְּשׁוּבִי אֶת־שְׁבוּתָם יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה נְוֵה־צֶדֶק הַר הַקֹּדֶשׁ׃", 31.24. "וְיָשְׁבוּ בָהּ יְהוּדָה וְכָל־עָרָיו יַחְדָּו אִכָּרִים וְנָסְעוּ בַּעֵדֶר׃", 31.25. "כִּי הִרְוֵיתִי נֶפֶשׁ עֲיֵפָה וְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ דָּאֲבָה מִלֵּאתִי׃", 31.26. "עַל־זֹאת הֱקִיצֹתִי וָאֶרְאֶה וּשְׁנָתִי עָרְבָה לִּי׃", | 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.", 3.8. "And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot;", 23.25. "I have heard what the prophets have said, That prophesy lies in My name, saying: ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed.’", 23.26. "How long shall this be? Is it in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies, And the prophets of the deceit of their own heart?", 23.27. "That think to cause My people to forget My name By their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, As their fathers forgot My name for Baal.", 23.28. "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; And he that hath My word; let him speak My word faithfully. What hath the straw to do with the wheat? Saith the LORD.", 23.29. "Is not My word like as fire? Saith the LORD; And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?", 23.30. "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal My words every one from his neighbour.", 23.31. "Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use there tongues and say: ‘He saith.’", 23.32. "Behold, I am against them that prophesy lying dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies, and by their wantonness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them; neither can they profit this people at all, saith the LORD.", 27.9. "But as for you, hearken ye not to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreams, nor to your soothsayers, nor to your sorcerers, that speak unto you, saying: Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon;", 29.8. "For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Let not your prophets that are in the midst of you, and your diviners, beguile you, neither hearken ye to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.", 31.23. "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Yet again shall they use this speech In the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, When I shall turn their captivity: ‘The LORD bless thee, O habitation of righteousness, O mountain of holiness.’", 31.24. "And Judah and all the cities thereof Shall dwell therein together: The husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks.", 31.25. "For I have satiated the weary soul, And every pining soul have I replenished.", 31.26. "Upon this I awaked, and beheld; And my sleep was sweet unto me.", |
|
14. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 6.9-6.10, 29.7-29.8, 30.20, 50.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14, 111; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 6.9. "וַיֹּאמֶר לֵךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ לָעָם הַזֶּה שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמוֹעַ וְאַל־תָּבִינוּ וּרְאוּ רָאוֹ וְאַל־תֵּדָעוּ׃", 29.7. "וְהָיָה כַּחֲלוֹם חֲזוֹן לַיְלָה הֲמוֹן כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם הַצֹּבְאִים עַל־אֲרִיאֵל וְכָל־צֹבֶיהָ וּמְצֹדָתָהּ וְהַמְּצִיקִים לָהּ׃", 29.8. "וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲלֹם הָרָעֵב וְהִנֵּה אוֹכֵל וְהֵקִיץ וְרֵיקָה נַפְשׁוֹ וְכַאֲשֶׁר יַחֲלֹם הַצָּמֵא וְהִנֵּה שֹׁתֶה וְהֵקִיץ וְהִנֵּה עָיֵף וְנַפְשׁוֹ שׁוֹקֵקָה כֵּן יִהְיֶה הֲמוֹן כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם הַצֹּבְאִים עַל־הַר צִיּוֹן׃", 50.1. "מִי בָכֶם יְרֵא יְהוָה שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל עַבְדּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ חֲשֵׁכִים וְאֵין נֹגַהּ לוֹ יִבְטַח בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וְיִשָּׁעֵן בֵּאלֹהָיו׃", 50.1. "כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אֵי זֶה סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת אִמְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ אוֹ מִי מִנּוֹשַׁי אֲשֶׁר־מָכַרְתִּי אֶתְכֶם לוֹ הֵן בַּעֲוֺנֹתֵיכֶם נִמְכַּרְתֶּם וּבְפִשְׁעֵיכֶם שֻׁלְּחָה אִמְּכֶם׃", | 6.9. "And He said: ‘Go, and tell this people: Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.", 6.10. "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they, seeing with their eyes, and hearing with their ears, and understanding with their heart, return, and be healed.’", 29.7. "And the multitude of all the nations that war against Ariel, Even all that war against her, and the bulwarks about her, and they that distress her, Shall be as a dream, a vision of the night.", 29.8. "And it shall be as when a hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth, But he awaketh, and his soul is empty; Or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh, But he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite— So shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion.", 30.20. "And though the Lord give you sparing bread and scant water, Yet shall not thy Teacher hide Himself any more, But thine eyes shall see thy Teacher;", 50.1. "Thus saith the LORD: Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, Wherewith I have put her away? Or which of My creditors is it To whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, And for your transgressions was your mother put away.", |
|
15. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 2.27, 21.10-21.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, biblical law •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 176; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87| 2.27. "וַיְגָרֶשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־אֶבְיָתָר מִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן לַיהוָה לְמַלֵּא אֶת־דְּבַר יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עַל־בֵּית עֵלִי בְּשִׁלֹה׃", 21.11. "וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ הַזְּקֵנִים וְהַחֹרִים אֲשֶׁר הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּעִירוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁלְחָה אֲלֵיהֶם אִיזָבֶל כַּאֲשֶׁר כָּתוּב בַּסְּפָרִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלְחָה אֲלֵיהֶם׃", 21.12. "קָרְאוּ צוֹם וְהֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת־נָבוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הָעָם׃", 21.13. "וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל וַיֵּשְׁבוּ נֶגְדּוֹ וַיְעִדֻהוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַבְּלִיַּעַל אֶת־נָבוֹת נֶגֶד הָעָם לֵאמֹר בֵּרַךְ נָבוֹת אֱלֹהִים וָמֶלֶךְ וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר וַיִּסְקְלֻהוּ בָאֲבָנִים וַיָּמֹת׃", | 2.27. "So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that the word of the LORD might be fulfilled, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.", 21.10. "and set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: Thou didst curse God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he die.’", 21.11. "And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, according as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them.", 21.12. "They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people.", 21.13. "And the two men, the base fellows, came in and sat before him; and the base fellows bore witness against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying: ‘Naboth did curse God and the king.’ Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.", |
|
16. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 16.40-16.41 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, biblical law •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 176| 16.41. "וְשָׂרְפוּ בָתַּיִךְ בָּאֵשׁ וְעָשׂוּ־בָךְ שְׁפָטִים לְעֵינֵי נָשִׁים רַבּוֹת וְהִשְׁבַּתִּיךְ מִזּוֹנָה וְגַם־אֶתְנַן לֹא תִתְּנִי־עוֹד׃", | 16.40. "They shall also bring up an assembly against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords.", 16.41. "And they shall burn thy houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women; and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou shalt also give no hire any more.", |
|
17. Euripides, Bacchae, 441-442, 445, 145 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 166| 145. ὁ Βακχεὺς ἀνέχων 145. πυρσώδη φλόγα πεύκας | |
|
18. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 10.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14| 10.2. "כִּי הַתְּרָפִים דִּבְּרוּ־אָוֶן וְהַקּוֹסְמִים חָזוּ שֶׁקֶר וַחֲלֹמוֹת הַשָּׁוא יְדַבֵּרוּ הֶבֶל יְנַחֵמוּן עַל־כֵּן נָסְעוּ כְמוֹ־צֹאן יַעֲנוּ כִּי־אֵין רֹעֶה׃", | 10.2. "For the teraphim have spoken vanity, And the diviners have seen a lie, And the dreams speak falsely, They comfort in vain; Therefore they go their way like sheep, They are afflicted, because there is no shepherd.", |
|
19. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.10 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 47 | 7.10. "Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ for it is not out of wisdom that thou inquirest concerning this.", |
|
| 20. Aristotle, Politics, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jouanna (2012), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen, 12 |
21. Anon., 1 Enoch, 37-61, 63-71, 62 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 56, 57, 60, 61, 62 | 62. And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said:,Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One.'",And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory, And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners, And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face.,And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty, And the exalted and those who hold the earth, And they shall see and recognize How he sits on the throne of his glory, And righteousness is judged before him, And no lying word is spoken before him.,Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, [And she has pain in bringing forth] When her child enters the mouth of the womb, And she has pain in bringing forth.And one portion of them shall look on the other, And they shall be terrified, And they shall be downcast of countece, And pain shall seize them, When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory.,And the kings and the mighty and all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol him who rules over all, who was hidden.,For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, And revealed him to the elect.,And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown, And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.,And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth Shall fall down before him on their faces, And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man, And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.,Nevertheless that Lord of Spirits will so press them That they shall hastily go forth from His presence, And their faces shall be filled with shame, And the darkness grow deeper on their faces.,And He will deliver them to the angels for punishment, To execute vengeance on them because they have oppressed His children and His elect,And they shall be a spectacle for the righteous and for His elect: They shall rejoice over them, Because the wrath of the Lord of Spirits resteth upon them, And His sword is drunk with their blood.,And the righteous and elect shall be saved on that day, And they shall never thenceforward see the face of the sinners and unrighteous.,And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, And with that Son of Man shall they eat And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.,And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth, And ceased to be of downcast countece. And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory,,And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits:And your garments shall not grow old, Nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits. |
|
| 22. Cicero, On Laws, 2.9.22, 2.19, 2.21-2.22, 2.28, 2.35-2.37, 2.41 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning in a sack •incest, death penalty •death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 183; Rupke (2016), Religious Deviance in the Roman World Superstition or Individuality?, 30 |
23. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 2.28 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14| 2.28. "בְּרַם אִיתַי אֱלָהּ בִּשְׁמַיָּא גָּלֵא רָזִין וְהוֹדַע לְמַלְכָּא נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר מָה דִּי לֶהֱוֵא בְּאַחֲרִית יוֹמַיָּא חֶלְמָךְ וְחֶזְוֵי רֵאשָׁךְ עַל־מִשְׁכְּבָךְ דְּנָה הוּא׃", | 2.28. "but there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and He hath made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the end of days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these:", |
|
24. Anon., Jubilees, 33.3-33.4, 33.7-33.13, 34.15-34.16, 41.25-41.26, 50.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty, strangulation •death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 124, 178; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 84, 97 | 33.3. And Reuben saw Bilhah, Rachel's maid, the concubine of his father, bathing in water in asecret place, and he loved her. br And he hid himself at night, and he entered the house of Bilhah [at night], and he found her sleeping alone on a bed in her house. 33.4. And he lay with her, and she awoke and saw, and behold Reuben was lying with her in the bed, and she uncovered the border of her covering and seized him, and cried out, 33.7. And Jacob did not approach her again because Reuben had defiled her. And as for any man who uncovereth his father's skirt. 33.8. his deed is wicked exceedingly, for he is abominable before the Lord. 33.9. For this reason it is written and ordained on the heavenly tables that a man should not lie with his father's wife, and should not uncover his father's skirt, for this is unclean: 33.10. they shall surely die together, the man who lieth with his father's wife and the woman also, for they have wrought uncleanness on the earth. 33.11. And there shall be nothing unclean before our God in the nation which He hath chosen for Himself as a possession. 33.12. And again, it is written a second time: "Cursed he be who lieth with the wife of his father, for he hath uncovered his father's shame"; and all the holy ones of the Lord said "So be it; so be it." 33.13. And do thou, Moses, command the children of Israel that they observe this word; for it (entaileth) a punishment of death; and it is unclean, and there is no atonement for ever to atone for the man who hath committed this, but he is to be put to death and slain, and stoned with stones, and rooted out from the midst of the people of our God. 34.15. And the sons of Jacob slaughtered a kid, and dipped the coat of Joseph in the blood, and sent (it) to Jacob their father on the tenth of the seventh month. 34.16. And he mourned all that night, for they had brought it to him in the evening, and he became feverish with mourning for his death, and he said: "An evil beast hath devoured Joseph"; 41.25. and he began to lament and to supplicate before the Lord because of his transgression.<>br>And we told him in a dream that it was forgiven him because he supplicated earnestly, and lamented, and did not again commit it. 41.26. And he received forgiveness because he turned from his sin and from his ignorance, for he transgressed greatly before our God; 50.12. and a holy day: and a day of the holy kingdom for all Israel is this day among their days for ever. |
|
25. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 23.7-23.11, 27.14, 34.1-34.8, 40.1-40.10, 50.1-50.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 139, 147, 151 | 27.14. The talk of men given to swearing makes ones hair stand on end,and their quarrels make a man stop his ears. 34.1. A man of no understanding has vain and false hopes,and dreams give wings to fools. 34.1. He that is inexperienced knows few things,but he that has traveled acquires much cleverness. 34.2. As one who catches at a shadow and pursues the wind,so is he who gives heed to dreams. 34.2. Like one who kills a son before his fathers eyes is the man who offers a sacrifice from the property of the poor. 34.3. The vision of dreams is this against that,the likeness of a face confronting a face. 34.4. From an unclean thing what will be made clean?And from something false what will be true? 34.5. Divinations and omens and dreams are folly,and like a woman in travail the mind has fancies. 34.6. Unless they are sent from the Most High as a visitation,do not give your mind to them. 34.7. For dreams have deceived many,and those who put their hope in them have failed. 34.8. Without such deceptions the law will be fulfilled,and wisdom is made perfect in truthful lips. 40.1. Much labor was created for every man,and a heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam,from the day they come forth from their mothers womb till the day they return to the mother of all. 40.1. All these were created for the wicked,and on their account the flood came. 40.2. Their perplexities and fear of heart -- their anxious thought is the day of death, 40.2. Wine and music gladden the heart,but the love of wisdom is better than both. 40.3. from the man who sits on a splendid throne to the one who is humbled in dust and ashes, 40.3. In the mouth of the shameless begging is sweet,but in his stomach a fire is kindled. 40.4. from the man who wears purple and a crown to the one who is clothed in burlap; 40.5. there is anger and envy and trouble and unrest,and fear of death, and fury and strife. And when one rests upon his bed,his sleep at night confuses his mind. 40.6. He gets little or no rest,and afterward in his sleep, as though he were on watch,he is troubled by the visions of his mind like one who has escaped from the battle-front; 40.7. at the moment of his rescue he wakes up,and wonders that his fear came to nothing. 40.8. With all flesh, both man and beast,and upon sinners seven times more, 40.9. are death and bloodshed and strife and sword,calamities, famine and affliction and plague. 50.1. The leader of his brethren and the pride of his people was Simon the high priest, son of Onias,who in his life repaired the house,and in his time fortified the temple. 50.1. like an olive tree putting forth its fruit,and like a cypress towering in the clouds. 50.2. He laid the foundations for the high double walls,the high retaining walls for the temple enclosure. 50.2. Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel,to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips,and to glory in his name; 50.3. In his days a cistern for water was quarried out,a reservoir like the sea in circumference. 50.4. He considered how to save his people from ruin,and fortified the city to withstand a seige. 50.5. How glorious he was when the people gathered round him as he came out of the inner sanctuary! |
|
| 26. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 51.11-51.18, 55.6, 57.10-57.11, 64.2-64.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty •adultery, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 194; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84, 85; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 131 |
| 27. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 6.27, 7.8, 7.15-7.18 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 85, 97, 147 |
| 28. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.2-9.8, 14.15, 15.1-15.5, 15.14-15.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 85, 87, 138, 139 |
| 29. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 9.2-9.8, 14.15, 15.1-15.5, 15.14-15.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 85, 87, 138, 139 |
| 30. Cicero, Pro Ligario, 11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 29 |
| 31. Cicero, In Verrem, 2, 1 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 47 |
32. Cicero, Republic, 4.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 25, 225| 4.12. Nostrae contra duo decim tabulae cum perpaucas res capite sanxissent, in his hanc quoque sanciendam putaverunt, si quis occentavisset sive carmen condidisset, quod infamiam faceret flagitiumve alteri. Praeclare; iudiciis enim magistratuum, disceptationibus legitimis propositam vitam, non poetarum ingeniis, habere debemus nec probrum audire nisi ea lege, ut respondere liceat et iudicio defendere. veteribus displicuisse Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari. | |
|
| 33. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, 4.2.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 25 |
| 34. Anon., Testament of Solomon, 111-115, 110 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84 |
35. Anon., Testament of Reuben, 1.6, 3.11-3.15, 6.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty •adultery, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 124; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151 | 1.6. And behold I call to witness against you this day the God of heaven, that ye walk not in the sins of youth and fornication, wherein I was poured out, and defiled the bed of my father Jacob. 6.9. I adjure you by the God of heaven to do truth each one unto his neighbour and to entertain love each one for his brother. |
|
| 36. Livy, History, 1.20.4, 1.45.5, 10.9.4 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty •execution, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 25; Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 47 |
37. Lucretius Carus, On The Nature of Things, 1.149 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 189| 1.149. Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet, | |
|
38. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 2.242-2.248, 3.30-3.31, 3.36, 3.82 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60, 61, 82 | 2.242. I have now then gone through all the five heads of laws in the first table, and have noticed also all the particular points which had any reference to any individual. I must also now point out the punishments affixed to the transgression of these laws. 2.243. Now there is one common penalty affixed to them all, namely, death, through which all such offences have a kind of relationship to one another. But the causes of this sentence being pronounced in such cases are different, and we must begin with the last, the one that relates to parents, since it is in reference to this one that the words are still ringing in our ears, "If any one shall beat his father or his mother, let him be Stoned."{45}{#ex 21:15.} And very justly, for it is not fit that that man should live who insults those who are the causes of his living; 2.244. but some of the men of high rank, and some of the lawgivers, looking rather at the vain opinions of men than at the truth, have softened this commandment, and instituted as a penalty, for those who beat their fathers, that their hands should be cut off; and for the sake of bearing a good reputation in the eyes of hasty and inconsiderate persons, they profess to them that it is becoming, that the parts with which such men have struck their parents should be cut off; 2.245. but it is a piece of folly to be angry with the servants rather than with those who are the causes of such folly; for it is not the hands that behave with such insolence, but insolent men perform their actions with their hands, and it is the men who must be punished, unless indeed it can be called fitting to let men go who have committed murder with the sword, and to content one's self with throwing away the sword; and unless, on the contrary, one ought not to give honour to those who have shown preeminent valour in war, but to the iimate coats of armour, by means of which they have behaved themselves valiantly; 2.246. and unless again it is reasonable, in the case of those who have gained the victory in the gymnastic games, in the stadium, or the double race, or the long straight course, or in the contest of boxing, or in the pancratium, to attempt to crown only the legs and arms of the conquerors, and to let the whole of their bodies remain unhonoured. Surely it would be a ridiculous thing to lay down such principles as these, and to abstain in consequence from punishing or honouring those who were the real causes of the results in question; for we do not pass over a man who has given a splendid exhibition of musical skill, playing exquisitely on the flute or the lyre, and think the instruments themselves worthy of proclamations and honours. 2.247. Why, then, should we deprive of their hands men who beat their fathers, O you most noble lawgivers? Is it that they may for the future be wholly useless for any purpose whatever, and that they may exact as a tribute, not once a year but every day, from those whom they have treated with iniquity, compelling them to supply them with necessary food, as being unable to provide for themselves? For their father is not so wholly hard-hearted as to endure to see even a son who has so grievously offended against him dying of hunger, after his anger has been blunted by time. 2.248. And even if he has not laid hands upon his parents, but has only spoken ill of those whom he was bound to praise and bless, or if he has in any other manner done anything which can tend to bring his parents into disrepute, still let him Die.{46}{#ex 21:16.} For since he is a common enemy, and if one may tell the plain truth, he is a public enemy of all men, to whom else can he be kind and favourable when he is not so to the authors of his being, by whose means he came into this world, and of whom he is a sort of supplement?XLV. 3.30. But if, proceeds the lawgiver, a woman having been divorced from her husband under any pretence whatever, and having married another, has again become a widow, whether her second husband is alive or dead, still she must not return to her former husband, but may be united to any man in the world rather than to him, having violated her former ties which she forgot, and having chosen new allurements in the place of the old ones. 3.31. But if any man should choose to form an alliance with such a woman, he must be content to bear the reputation of effeminacy and a complete want of manly courage and vigour, as if he had been castrated and deprived of the most useful portion of the soul, namely, that disposition which hates iniquity, by which the affairs both of houses and cities are placed on a good footing, and as having stamped deeply on his character two of the greatest of all iniquities, adultery and the employment of a pander; for the reconciliations which take place subsequently are indications of the death of each. Let him, therefore, suffer the punishment appointed, together with his wife.VI. 3.36. But those who marry women who have been previously tested by other men and ascertained to be barren, do merely covet the carnal enjoyment like so many boars or goats, and deserve to be inscribed among the lists of impious men as enemies to God; for God, as being friendly to all the animals that exist, and especially to man, takes all imaginable care to secure preservation and duration to every kind of creature. But those who seek to waste all their power at the very moment of putting it forth are confessedly enemies of nature.VII. 3.82. Then if they appear to have justice on their side, let the judges impose a pecuniary fine on those who have invented these false accusations, and let them also sentence those who have assaulted them to corporeal punishment, and let them also pronounce, what to those men will be the most unpleasant of all things, a confirmation of their marriage, if their wives will still endure to cohabit with them; for the law permits them at their own choice to remain with them or to abandon them, and will not allow the husbands any option either way, on account of the false accusations which they have brought.THE LAW CONCERNING MURDERERSXV. |
|
| 39. Philo of Alexandria, Hypothetica, 8.7.2, 8.7.6, 8.7.8 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 57, 60, 61, 62 |
40. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 6.1, 6.4, 7.1, 7.3-7.5, 8.4, 9.5, 10.1, 11.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 178, 180, 181, 194; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84, 87, 134, 139, 151; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 67; Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 80, 81, 82| 6.1. "נִגְמַר הַדִּין, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְסָקְלוֹ. בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל. אֶחָד עוֹמֵד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין וְהַסּוּדָרִין בְּיָדוֹ, וְאָדָם אֶחָד רוֹכֵב הַסּוּס רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹאֵהוּ. אוֹמֵר אֶחָד יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, הַלָּה מֵנִיף בַּסּוּדָרִין וְהַסּוּס רָץ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו. מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ, וְאִם לָאו, יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל. וְכָרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה פְלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, כָּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו: \n", 6.4. "בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ, הוֹפְכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. כָּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ, מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַקּוֹרָה מֻטָּה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין. וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם לָן, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ'. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל: \n", 7.1. "אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין, סְקִילָה, שְׂרֵפָה, הֶרֶג, וָחֶנֶק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׂרֵפָה, סְקִילָה, חֶנֶק, וָהֶרֶג. זוֹ מִצְוַת הַנִּסְקָלִין: \n", 7.3. "מִצְוַת הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָיוּ מַתִּיזִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בְסַיִף כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִוּוּל הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְקוֹצֵץ בְּקוֹפִיץ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין מִיתָה מְנֻוֶּלֶת מִזּוֹ. מִצְוַת הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ, זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, עַד שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה: \n", 7.4. "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּסְקָלִין, הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, וְעַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי, וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְהַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, וְהַמֵּסִית, וְהַמַּדִּיחַ, וְהַמְכַשֵּׁף, וּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵם וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָאֵם בִּלְבָד. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, אִם אָדָם חָטָא, בְּהֵמָה מֶה חָטָאת, אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאת לָאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָהּ, לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּסָּקֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא בְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדָהּ: \n", 7.5. "הַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי יַכֶּה יוֹסֵי אֶת יוֹסֵי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִים כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ: \n", 8.4. "הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה, אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּדֵּם אוֹ חִגֵּר אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְלֹא גִדְּמִין. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא חִגְּרִין. וְאָמְרוּ, וְלֹא אִלְּמִין. בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, וְלֹא סוּמִין. אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ, וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין. מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזַר וְקִלְקֵל, נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, זֶהוּ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּפְנֵיכֶם. בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָּרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n", 9.5. "מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִים אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵסוֹ מִתְבַּקָּעַת. הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לָחַץ: \n", 10.1. "כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו: \n", 11.1. "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, וּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, וְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן חַבּוּרָה. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּמְקַלֵּל מִבַּמַּכֶּה, שֶׁהַמְקַלֵּל לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, וְהַמַּכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה פָּטוּר. הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד) וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ. הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: \n", | 6.1. "When the trial is completed he [the condemned] is led forth to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside of the court, as it is says, “Bring out him that has cursed” (Lev. 24:14). A man was stationed at the door of the court with the handkerchiefs in his hand, and a man on a horse was stationed at a distance yet within sight of him. If one says, ‘I have something [further] to state in his favor’, he [the signaler] waves the handkerchief, and the man on the horse runs and stops them. And even if he [the convict] himself says, ‘I have something to plead in my own favor’, he is brought back, even four or five times, providing, however, that there is substance in his assertion. If then they find him innocent, they discharge him. But if not, he goes forth to be stoned, and a herald precedes him [crying]: so and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such and such an offense, and so and so are his witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come and state it.”", 6.4. "The place of stoning was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned.", 7.1. "Four deaths have been entrusted to the court: stoning, burning, slaying [by the sword] and strangulation. R. Simeon says: “burning, stoning, strangulation and slaying.” That (the previous chapter) is the manner of stoning.", 7.3. "Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead.", 7.4. "The following are stoned:He who has sexual relations with his mother, with his father's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a male; with a beast; a woman who commits bestiality with a beast; a blasphemer; an idolater; one who gives of his seed to molech; a necromancer or a wizard; one who desecrates the Sabbath; he who curses his father or mother; he who commits adultery with a betrothed woman; one who incites [individuals to idolatry]; one who seduces [a whole town to idolatry]; a sorcerer; and a wayward and rebellious son. He who has sexual relations with his mother incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his mother and as his father's wife. R. Judah says: “He is liable in respect of her as his mother only.” He who has sexual relations with his father's wife incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his father's wife, and as a married woman, both during his father's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his daughter-in-law and as a married woman, both during his son's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality: if the man has sinned, how has the animal sinned? But because the human was enticed to sin by the animal, therefore scripture ordered that it should be stoned. Another reason is that the animal should not pass through the market, and people say, this is the animal on account of which so and so was stoned.", 7.5. "The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] name. Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name:, ‘may Yose smite Yose.” When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn. The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: “I too heard thus.”", 8.4. "If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a “wayward and rebellious son”, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable.", 9.5. "He who was flogged and then flogged again [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by the court in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction.", 10.1. "All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”", 11.1. "The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yoha ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him].", |
|
41. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147| 2.9. "אמר להן רבי יוחנן בן זכאי כתבי הקדש חיבתם מטמאתן שלא יעשה אותן שטיחים לבהמה. אמרו בייתוסים קובלין עליכם פרושין מה <אם> בת בני הבא מכח בני שבא מכחו הרי יורשתני בתי הבאה מכחי אינו דין שתרשני <אמר להן לא אם אמרתם בבת הבן שכן חולקין עם האחים תאמרו בבת שאינה חולקת עם האחים>. אומר טיבלני שחרית קובלני עליכם פרושים שאתם מזכירים את הגוף שיש בו טומאה. ", | |
|
42. New Testament, John, 1.35-1.51, 7.22, 8.2-8.11, 15.25, 18.31, 19.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, christian writers •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, stoning •death penalty, burning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 175, 177; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88, 302| 1.35. Τῇ ἐπαύριον πάλιν ἱστήκει Ἰωάνης καὶ ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο, 1.36. καὶ ἐμβλέψας τῷ Ἰησοῦ περιπατοῦντι λέγει Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. 1.37. καὶ ἤκουσαν οἱ δύο μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος καὶ ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ. 1.38. στραφεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας λέγει αὐτοῖς Τί ζητεῖτε; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ Ῥαββεί, ?̔ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον Διδάσκαλε?̓ ποῦ μένεις; 1.39. λέγει αὐτοῖς Ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε. ἦλθαν οὖν καὶ εἶδαν ποῦ μένει, καὶ παρʼ αὐτῷ ἔμειναν τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην· ὥρα ἦν ὡς δεκάτη. 1.40. Ἦν Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου εἷς ἐκ τῶν δύο τῶν ἀκουσάντων παρὰ Ἰωάνου καὶ ἀκολουθησάντων αὐτῷ· 1.41. εὑρίσκει οὗτος πρῶτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον Σίμωνα καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν ?̔ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Χριστός̓. 1.42. ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάνου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς?̔ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος̓. 1.43. Τῇ ἐπαύριον ἠθέλησεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. καὶ εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἀκολούθει μοι. 1.44. ἦν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Βηθσαιδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Ἀνδρέου καὶ Πέτρου. 1.45. εὑρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν Ναθαναὴλ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ὃν ἔγραψεν Μωυσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται εὑρήκαμεν, Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ. 1.46. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ Ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ δύναταί τι ἀγαθὸν εἶναι; λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Φίλιππος Ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε. 1.47. εἶδεν Ἰησοῦς τὸν Ναθαναὴλ ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει περὶ αὐτοῦ Ἴδε ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλείτης ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν. 1.48. λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ Πόθεν με γινώσκεις; ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν εἶδόν σε. 1.49. ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ Ῥαββεί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. 1.50. ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς πιστεύεις; μείζω τούτων ὄψῃ. 1.51. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 7.22. διὰ τοῦτο Μωυσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν περιτομήν, — οὐχ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Μωυσέως ἐστὶν ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν πατέρων, — καὶ [ἐν] σαββάτῳ περιτέμνετε ἄνθρωπον. 8.2. Ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν[, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς]. 8.3. Ἄγουσιν δὲ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι γυναῖκα ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ κατειλημμένην, καὶ στήσαντες αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ 8.4. λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε, αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ κατείληπται ἐπʼ αὐτοφώρῳ μοιχευομένη· 8.5. ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ [ἡμῖν] Μωυσῆς ἐνετείλατο τὰς τοιαύτας λιθάζειν· σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις; 8.6. [τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγον πειράζοντες αὐτόν, ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ.] ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κάτω κύψας τῷ δακτύλῳ κατέγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν. 8.7. ὡς δὲ ἐπέμενον ἐρωτῶντες [αὐτόν], ἀνέκυψεν καὶ εἶπεν [αὐτοῖς] Ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ὑμῶν πρῶτος ἐπʼ αὐτὴν βαλέτω λίθον· 8.8. καὶ πάλιν κατακύψας ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν. 8.9. οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐξήρχοντο εἷς καθʼ εἷς ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ οὖσα. 8.10. ἀνακύψας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῇ Γύναι, ποῦ εἰσίν; οὐδείς σε κατέκρινεν; 8.11. ἡ δὲ εἶπεν Οὐδείς, κύριε. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.⟧ οὐκ ἐγείρεται. 15.25. ἀλλʼ ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ αὐτῶν γεγραμμένος ὅτι Ἐμίσησάν με δωρεάν. 18.31. εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς Πειλᾶτος Λάβετε αὐτὸν ὑμεῖς, καὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὑμῶν κρίνατε αὐτόν. εἶπον αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα· 19.7. ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν, καὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν. | 1.35. Again, the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples, 1.36. and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" 1.37. The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 1.38. Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What are you looking for?"They said to him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), "where are you staying?" 1.39. He said to them, "Come, and see."They came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour. 1.40. One of the two who heard John, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 1.41. He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah!" (which is, being interpreted, Christ). 1.42. He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, Peter). 1.43. On the next day, he was determined to go out into Galilee, and he found Philip. Jesus said to him, "Follow me." 1.44. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. 1.45. Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." 1.46. Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"Philip said to him, "Come and see." 1.47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" 1.48. Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?"Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." 1.49. Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!" 1.50. Jesus answered him, "Because I told you, 'I saw you underneath the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these!" 1.51. He said to him, "Most assuredly, I tell you, hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." 7.22. Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a boy. 8.2. At early dawn, he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him. He sat down, and taught them. 8.3. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, 8.4. they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. 8.5. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" 8.6. They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. 8.7. But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her." 8.8. Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. 8.9. They, when they heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest, even to the last. Jesus was left alone with the woman where she was, in the middle. 8.10. Jesus, standing up, saw her and said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?" 8.11. She said, "No one, Lord."Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more." 15.25. But this happened so that the word may be fulfilled which was written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.' 18.31. Pilate therefore said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law."Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," 19.7. The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." |
|
43. New Testament, Apocalypse, 1.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, death penalty Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 166| 1.10. ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος | 1.10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet |
|
44. Tosefta, Yevamot, 6.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 6.5. "מי שהיה נשוי שתי נשים ומת ביאתה או חליצתה של אחת מהן פוטרת את צרתה היתה אחת מהן אסורה לאחד מן האחים איסור ערוה וחלץ לה לא עשה כלום ולא פטר את צרתה אלא היא או צרתה מתיבמת לשאר אחים היתה איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה חלץ לה או בא עליה נפטרה צרתה.", | |
|
45. New Testament, Acts, 2.20, 3.14, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, 5.20, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 5.27, 5.28, 5.29, 5.30, 5.31, 5.32, 5.33, 5.34, 5.35, 5.36, 5.37, 5.38, 5.39, 5.40, 5.41, 5.42, 6.8-7.1, 7.53, 7.58, 7.59, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, 8.21, 8.22, 8.23, 8.24, 8.25, 15.5, 16, 16.22, 16.26, 16.27, 16.28, 16.37, 16.38, 16.39, 16.40, 18.3, 21, 21.11, 21.21, 21.28, 22, 22.3, 22.23-23.9, 22.30-23.11, 23, 23.6, 23.29, 24, 24.5, 24.14, 25, 25.8, 25.25, 26, 26.4, 26.5, 26.31, 26.32, 27, 28, 28.17, 28.18, 28.19, 28.20, 28.21, 28.22, 28.23, 28.24, 28.25, 28.26, 28.27, 28.28, 28.29, 28.30, 28.31 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 176| 7.59. καὶ ἐλιθοβόλουν τὸν Στέφανον ἐπικαλούμενον καὶ λέγοντα Κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου· | 7.59. They stoned Stephen as he called out, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit!" |
|
46. New Testament, 1 Thessalonians, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 345| 2.9. μνημονεύετε γάρ, ἀδελφοί, τὸν κόπον ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν μόχθον· νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν ἐκηρύξαμεν εἰς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ. | 2.9. For you remember, brothers, our labor and travail; for working night and day, that we might not burden any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God. |
|
47. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 7.3-7.5, 9.4, 14.37 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 57, 60, 345| 7.3. τῇ γυναικὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἀποδιδότω, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρί. 7.4. ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ὁ ἀνήρ· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ἡ γυνή. 7.5. μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, εἰ μήτι [ἂν] ἐκ συμφώνου πρὸς καιρὸν ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε, ἵνα μὴ πειράζῃ ὑμᾶς ὁ Σατανᾶς διὰ τὴν ἀκρασίαν [ὑμῶν]. 9.4. μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν; 14.37. ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; Εἴ τις δοκεῖ προφήτης εἶναι ἢ πνευματικός, ἐπιγινωσκέτω ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν ὅτι κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐντολή· | 7.3. Let the husband render to his wife the affectionowed her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 7.4. The wifedoesn't have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewisealso the husband doesn't have authority over his own body, but thewife. 7.5. Don't deprive one another, unless it is by consent for aseason, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and may betogether again, that Satan doesn't tempt you because of your lack ofself-control. 9.4. Have we no right to eat and to drink? 14.37. If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, orspiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you, that theyare the commandment of the Lord. |
|
| 48. Anon., Didache, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 345 |
49. Tosefta, Sotah, 5.9, 13.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 134; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 83, 88| 13.8. "שנה שמת בה שמעון הצדיק [אמר להם בשנה זו אני] מת אמרו לו מנין אתה יודע אמר להם כל ימות הכפורים היה זקן [אחד לובש] בגדים לבנים ומתכסה לבנים נכנס עמי [ויוצא] עמי שנה זו נכנס עמי ולא יצא לאחר הרגל חלה שבעת ימים ומת משמת שמעון הצדיק פסקו מלברך בשם <ס\"א> [נמנעו אחיו מלברך בשם].", | 13.8. "The year in which Shimon the Righteous died [he said to them] \"in this year I will die\" \"how do you know this?\" they responded. He (Shimon the Righteous) responded: \"all of the Yom Kippur days there was an old man dressed in all white who would go with me into the holy of holies and leave with me, on this year he went in with me but did not come out with me.\" Seven days passed after the holiday and he died. From the time of the death of Rebbi Shimon the Righteous they ceased blessing in the name of Hashem.", |
|
50. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147| 4.8. "אָמַר צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, קוֹבֵל אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם משֶׁה בַּגֵּט. אוֹמְרִים פְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ, צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִים אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם הַשֵּׁם בַּדַּף, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל מִלְמַעְלָן וְאֶת הַשֵּׁם מִלְּמַטָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ה) וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה מִי ה' אֲשֶׁר אֶשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ לְשַׁלַּח אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁלָּקָה מַהוּ אוֹמֵר (שם ט), ה' הַצַּדִּיק: \n", | 4.8. "A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27).", |
|
51. Mishnah, Yevamot, 4.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 4.12. "הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא חֲלוּצָתוֹ, וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ, יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּמוֹדִים בְּנוֹשֵׂא קְרוֹבַת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, שֶׁהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר: \n", | 4.12. "A man who remarried his divorced wife, or married his halutzah, or married the relative of his halutzah must divorce her, and the child is a mamzer; the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: the child is not a mamzer. They agree that where a man married the relative of his divorcee the child is a mamzer.", |
|
52. Mishnah, Sotah, 5.1, 7.6, 9.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 5.1. "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ, כָּךְ הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וּבָאוּ, וּבָאוּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל, כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) נִטְמְאָה, וְנִטְמָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּךְ הָיָה דוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה בֶן הַקַּצָּב. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה אִם נִטְמְאָה נִטְמָאָה, אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל: \n", 7.6. "בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים כֵּיצַד, בַּמְּדִינָה אוֹמְרִים אוֹתָהּ שָׁלשׁ בְּרָכוֹת, וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּרָכָה אֶחָת. בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹמֵר אֶת הַשֵּׁם כִּכְתָבוֹ, וּבַמְּדִינָה בְכִנּוּיוֹ. בַּמְּדִינָה כֹּהֲנִים נוֹשְׂאִים אֶת יְדֵיהֶן כְּנֶגֶד כִּתְפֵיהֶן, וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי רָאשֵׁיהֶן, חוּץ מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה מִן הַצִּיץ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַגְבִּיהַּ יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה מִן הַצִּיץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ט) וַיִּשָּׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת יָדָיו אֶל הָעָם וַיְבָרְכֵם: \n", 9.9. "מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרַצְחָנִים, בָּטְלָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, מִשֶּׁבָּא אֶלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן דִּינַאי, וּתְחִינָה בֶּן פְּרִישָׁה הָיָה נִקְרָא, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתוֹ בֶּן הָרַצְחָן. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַמְנָאֲפִים, פָּסְקוּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים, וְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי הִפְסִיקָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (הושע ד) לֹא אֶפְקוֹד עַל בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תִזְנֶינָה וְעַל כַּלּוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תְנָאַפְנָה כִּי הֵם וְגוֹ'. מִשֶּׁמֵּת יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, בָּטְלוּ הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מיכה ז) אֵין אֶשְׁכּוֹל לֶאֱכֹל בִּכּוּרָה אִוְּתָה נַפְשִׁי: \n", | 5.1. "Just as the water checks her so the water checks him, as it is said, “And shall enter”, “And shall enter” (Numbers 5:22,. Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the lover, as it is said, “defiled … and is defiled” (Numbers 5:27,, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Joshua said: thus Zechariah ben Hakatzav used to expound. Rabbi says: twice in the portion, “If she is defiled…defiled”--one referring [to her being prohibited] to the husband and the other to the paramour.", 7.6. "How was the priestly blessing [pronounced]?In the province (outside of the Temple) it was said as three blessings, but in the Temple as one blessing. In the Temple the name was uttered as it is written, but in the province in its substituted name. In the province the priests raise their hands at the height of their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest who does not raise his hands higher than the frontlet (on his forehead). Rabbi Judah says: even the high priest raises his hands higher than the frontlet, as it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).", 9.9. "When murderers multiplied, the [ceremony of] breaking a heifer’s neck ceased. That was from the time of Eliezer ben Dinai, and he was also called Tehinah ben Perisha and he was afterwards renamed “son of the murderer”. When adulterers multiplied, the ceremony of the bitter waters ceased and it was Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai who discontinued it, as it is said, “I will not punish their daughters for fornicating, nor their daughters-in-law for committing adultery, for they themselves [turn aside with whores and sacrifice with prostitutes]” (Hosea 4:14). When Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah and Yose ben Yoha of Jerusalem died, the grape-clusters ceased, as it is said, “There is not a cluster [of grapes] to eat; not a ripe fig I could desire [The pious are vanished from the land, none upright are left among men” (Micah 7:1-2).", |
|
53. Mishnah, Shevuot, 4.13 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 137, 151| 4.13. "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אוֹסֶרְכֶם אָנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. בְּאל\"ף דל\"ת, בְּיו\"ד ה\"א, בְּשַׁדַּי, בִּצְבָאוֹת, בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד, וּבְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַתּוֹרָה. אַל יַכְּךָ, וִיבָרֶכְךָ, וְיֵיטִיב לְ ךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: \n", | 4.13. "[If he said]: \"I adjure you\"; \"I command you\"; \"I bind you\"; they are liable. \"By heaven and earth!\", they are exempt. \"By Alef Daleth\"; \"By Yod He\"; \"By God Almighty\"; \"By The Lord of Hosts; \"By the Merciful and Gracious one\"; \"By the Long Suffering One\"; \"By the One Abounding in Kindness\"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] \"May God smite you\"; or \"Yea, may God smite you\"; this is the curse written in the Torah. \"May [God] not smite you\"; or \"May he bless you\"; Or \"May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]\": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].", |
|
| 54. Tosefta, Shabbat, 15.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 306 |
55. Mishnah, Peah, 8.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 345| 8.7. "אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין לֶעָנִי הָעוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם מִכִּכָּר בְּפוּנְדְיוֹן, מֵאַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע. לָן, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ פַּרְנָסַת לִינָה. שָׁבַת, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שָׁלשׁ סְעֻדּוֹת. מִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת, לֹא יִטֹּל מִן הַתַּמְחוּי. מְזוֹן אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה סְעֻדּוֹת, לֹא יִטֹּל מִן הַקֻּפָּה. וְהַקֻּפָּה נִגְבֵּית בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת בִּשְׁלשָׁה:", | 8.7. "They may not give a poor person wandering from place to place less than a loaf worth a pundion at a time when four seahs [of wheat cost] one sela. If he spends the night [at a place], they must give him the cost of what he needs for the night. If he stays over Shabbat they must give him enough food for three meals. He who has the money for two meals, he may not take anything from the charity dish. And if he has enough money for fourteen meals, he may not take any support from the communal fund. The communal fund is collected by two and distributed by three people.", |
|
56. Mishnah, Nedarim, 1.2, 11.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 137; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88| 1.2. "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, קוֹנָם קוֹנָח, קוֹנָס, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִנּוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן. חֵרֶק חֵרֶךְ, חֵרֵף, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִנּוּיִין לְחֵרֶם. נָזִיק נָזִיחַ, פָּזִיחַ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִנּוּיִין לִנְזִירוּת. שְׁבוּתָה, שְׁקוּקָה, נָדַר בְּמוֹתָא, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִנּוּיִין לִשְׁבוּעָה:", 11.12. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים יוֹצְאוֹת וְנוֹטְלוֹת כְּתֻבָּה, הָאוֹמֶרֶת טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לְךָ, שָׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינֶךָ, נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא אִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת עֵינֶיהָ בְאַחֵר וּמְקַלְקֶלֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ. אֶלָּא הָאוֹמֶרֶת טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לְךָ, תָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ. שָׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינֶךָ, יַעֲשׂוּ דֶרֶךְ בַּקָּשָׁה. נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים, יָפֵר חֶלְקוֹ, וּתְהֵא מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, וּתְהֵא נְטוּלָה מִן הַיְּהוּדִים: \n", | 1.2. "One who says, “konam” “qonah” or “qonas”: these are the substitutes for korban. “Herek” “herech” or “heref,” these are substitutes for herem. “Nazik” “naziah” “paziah” these are substitutes for nazirite vows. “Shevuthah” “shekukah” or one who vows with the word “mota” these are substitutes for shevuah (an oath).", 11.12. "At first they would say that three women must be divorced and receive their ketubah: She who says: “I am defiled to you”; “Heaven is between me and you”; “I have been removed from the Jews.” But subsequently they changed the ruling to prevent her from setting her eye on another and spoiling herself to her husband: She who said, “I am defiled unto you” must bring proof. “Heaven is between me and you” they [shall appease them] by a request. “I have been removed from the Jews” he [the husband] must annul his portion, and she may have relations with him, and she shall be removed from other Jews.", |
|
57. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, death penalty Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 81, 82| 1.10. "מִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּבָרַח וּבָא לִפְנֵי אוֹתוֹ בֵית דִּין, אֵין סוֹתְרִים אֶת דִּינוֹ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ, מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג. סַנְהֶדְרִין נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. סַנְהֶדְרִין הַהוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד בְּשָׁבוּעַ נִקְרֵאת חָבְלָנִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בַסַּנְהֶדְרִין לֹא נֶהֱרַג אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", | 1.10. "If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed. [Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it. A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked: “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.”", |
|
58. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60| 7.1. "הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּהָנוֹת לוֹ, עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכֹהֶנֶת, שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה: \n", | 7.1. "If a man forbade his wife by vow to have any benefit from him, for thirty days, he may appoint a provider, but if for a longer period he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. Rabbi Judah ruled: if he was an Israelite he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for one month, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] two months. If he was a priest he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for two months, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] three.", |
|
| 59. Mishnah, Eduyot, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 306 |
60. Mishnah, Berachot, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147| 9.5. "חַיָּב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְיָ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ. בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ, בִּשְׁנֵי יְצָרֶיךָ, בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב וּבְיֵצֶר רָע. וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשֶׁךָ. וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ, בְּכָל מָמוֹנֶךָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר בְּכָל מְאֹדֶךָ, בְּכָל מִדָּה וּמִדָּה שֶׁהוּא מוֹדֵד לְךָ הֱוֵי מוֹדֶה לוֹ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד. לֹא יָקֵל אָדָם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ כְּנֶגֶד שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח, שֶׁהוּא מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים. לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְהַר הַבַּיִת בְּמַקְלוֹ, וּבְמִנְעָלוֹ, וּבְפֻנְדָּתוֹ, וּבְאָבָק שֶׁעַל רַגְלָיו, וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קַפַּנְדַּרְיָא, וּרְקִיקָה מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. כָּל חוֹתְמֵי בְרָכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים מִן הָעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁקִּלְקְלוּ הַמִּינִין, וְאָמְרוּ, אֵין עוֹלָם אֶלָּא אֶחָד, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹמְרִים, מִן הָעוֹלָם וְעַד הָעוֹלָם. וְהִתְקִינוּ, שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם שׁוֹאֵל אֶת שְׁלוֹם חֲבֵרוֹ בַּשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (רות ב) וְהִנֵּה בֹעַז בָּא מִבֵּית לֶחֶם, וַיֹּאמֶר לַקּוֹצְרִים יְיָ עִמָּכֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, יְבָרֶכְךָ יְיָ. וְאוֹמֵר (שופטים ו) יְיָ עִמְּךָ גִּבּוֹר הֶחָיִל. וְאוֹמֵר (משלי כג) אַל תָּבוּז כִּי זָקְנָה אִמֶּךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קיט) עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַייָ הֵפֵרוּ תוֹרָתֶךָ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, הֵפֵרוּ תוֹרָתֶךָ עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַייָ: \n", | 9.5. "One must bless [God] for the evil in the same way as one blesses for the good, as it says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “With all your heart,” with your two impulses, the evil impulse as well as the good impulse. “With all your soul” even though he takes your soul [life] away from you. “With all your might” with all your money. Another explanation, “With all your might” whatever treatment he metes out to you. One should not show disrespect to the Eastern Gate, because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple Mount with a staff, or with shoes on, or with a wallet, or with dusty feet; nor should one make it a short cut, all the more spitting [is forbidden]. All the conclusions of blessings that were in the Temple they would say, “forever [lit. as long as the world is].” When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever [lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world]. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2:. And it also says, “The Lord is with your, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [this means] “They have violated your teaching It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.”", |
|
61. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 10.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84| 10.2. גֵּט פָּשׁוּט, עֵדָיו בִּשְׁנָיִם. וּמְקֻשָּׁר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד, וּמְקֻשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. כָּתַב בּוֹ זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן סִלְעִין עֶשְׂרִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא עֶשְׂרִין. זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן תְּלָתִין סִלְעִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. כְסַף זוּזִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כְּסַף סִלְעִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנָיִם. דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְמַעְלָה מָנֶה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם, מִלְמַעְלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָנֶה, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה כוֹתְבִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, יִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן. | 10.2. "A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. If it was written in a debt document: “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the creditor) can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the creditor) can claim only 100 zuz. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure.", |
|
62. Mishnah, Avot, 1.2, 1.13, 2.15, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 57, 345| 1.2. "שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק הָיָה מִשְּׁיָרֵי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עַל שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הָעוֹלָם עוֹמֵד, עַל הַתּוֹרָה וְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה וְעַל גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים: \n", 1.13. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, נָגֵד שְׁמָא, אָבֵד שְׁמֵהּ. וּדְלֹא מוֹסִיף, יָסֵף. וּדְלֹא יָלֵיף, קְטָלָא חַיָּב. וּדְאִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּתָגָא, חָלֵף: \n", 2.15. "רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַיּוֹם קָצָר וְהַמְּלָאכָה מְרֻבָּה, וְהַפּוֹעֲלִים עֲצֵלִים, וְהַשָּׂכָר הַרְבֵּה, וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת דּוֹחֵק:", 4.5. "רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ אוֹמֵר, הַלּוֹמֵד תּוֹרָה עַל מְנָת לְלַמֵּד, מַסְפִּיקִין בְּיָדוֹ לִלְמֹד וּלְלַמֵּד. וְהַלּוֹמֵד עַל מְנָת לַעֲשׂוֹת, מַסְפִּיקִין בְּיָדוֹ לִלְמֹד וּלְלַמֵּד לִשְׁמֹר וְלַעֲשׂוֹת. רַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, אַל תַּעֲשֵׂם עֲטָרָה לְהִתְגַּדֵּל בָּהֶם, וְלֹא קַרְדֹּם לַחְפֹּר בָּהֶם. וְכָךְ הָיָה הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, וּדְאִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּתָגָא, חָלָף. הָא לָמַדְתָּ, כָּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, נוֹטֵל חַיָּיו מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 1.2. "Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly. He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety.", 1.13. "He [also] used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to his knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; on who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall pass away.", 2.15. "Rabbi Tarfon said: the day is short, and the work is plentiful, and the laborers are indolent, and the reward is great, and the master of the house is insistent.", 4.5. "Rabbi Ishmael his son said: He who learns in order to teach, it is granted to him to study and to teach; But he who learns in order to practice, it is granted to him to learn and to teach and to practice. Rabbi Zadok said: do not make them a crown for self-exaltation, nor a spade with which to dig. So to Hillel used to say, “And he that puts the crown to his own use shall perish.” Thus you have learned, anyone who derives worldly benefit from the words of the Torah, removes his life from the world.", |
|
63. New Testament, Luke, 9.44, 13.15, 18.32, 24.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 111| 24.7. λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ παραδοθῆναι εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ σταυρωθῆναι καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι. | 24.7. saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?" |
|
| 64. Petronius Arbiter, Satyricon, 1.1-1.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 129 |
| 65. Petronius Arbiter, Satyricon, 1.1-1.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 129 |
66. Tosefta, Nedarim, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 137| 1.2. "כנדבת רשעים לא אמר כלום שאין רשעים מתנדבין כנדבת כשרים ר' יהודה אומר נדר בנזיר שחסידים הראשונים היו [מתנדבין נזירות שאין המקום מפסיק להביא שגגה על ידיהם היו מתנדבין נזירות בשביל שיביא קרבן] ר\"ש [ב\"ג] אומר [כנדבת כשרין] לא נדר בנזיר שחסידים הראשונים לא היו מתנדבין נזירות [שאם ירצה להביא עולה יביא שלמים יביא תודה וארבעה מיני לחמים יביא לא היו מתנדבין נזירות] מפני שהן צריכין כפרה שנאמר (במדבר ו׳:י״א) וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש.", | |
|
67. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 4.251, 4.253, 4.260-4.264, 4.271, 4.278, 13.171, 13.288, 13.293, 16.198, 18.6.6, 18.11, 20.199 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty •execution, death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60, 61, 62, 83, 302; Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 47 | 4.251. He that hath corrupted a damsel espoused to another man, in case he had her consent, let both him and her be put to death, for they are both equally guilty; the man, because he persuaded the woman willingly to submit to a most impure action, and to prefer it to lawful wedlock; the woman, because she was persuaded to yield herself to be corrupted, either for pleasure or for gain. 4.253. He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do: but if she be misused by him also, or if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him. 4.260. 24. As to those young men that despise their parents, and do not pay them honor, but offer them affronts, either because they are ashamed of them or think themselves wiser than they,—in the first place, let their parents admonish them in words, (for they are by nature of authority sufficient for becoming their judges,) 4.261. and let them say thus to them:—That they cohabited together, not for the sake of pleasure, nor for the augmentation of their riches, by joining both their stocks together, but that they might have children to take care of them in their old age, and might by them have what they then should want. And say further to him, “That when thou wast born, we took thee up with gladness, and gave God the greatest thanks for thee, and brought time up with great care, and spared for nothing that appeared useful for thy preservation, and for thy instruction in what was most excellent. 4.262. And now, since it is reasonable to forgive the sins of those that are young, let it suffice thee to have given so many indications of thy contempt of us; reform thyself, and act more wisely for the time to come; considering that God is displeased with those that are insolent towards their parents, because he is himself the Father of the whole race of mankind, and seems to bear part of that dishonor which falls upon those that have the same name, when they do not meet with dire returns from their children. And on such the law inflicts inexorable punishment; of which punishment mayst thou never have the experience.” 4.263. Now if the insolence of young men be thus cured, let them escape the reproach which their former errors deserved; for by this means the lawgiver will appear to be good, and parents happy, while they never behold either a son or a daughter brought to punishment. 4.264. But if it happen that these words and instructions, conveyed by them in order to reclaim the man, appear to be useless, then the offender renders the laws implacable enemies to the insolence he has offered his parents; let him therefore be brought forth by these very parents out of the city, with a multitude following him, and there let him be stoned; and when he has continued there for one whole day, that all the people may see him, let him be buried in the night. 4.271. 27. Let death be the punishment for stealing a man; but he that hath purloined gold or silver, let him pay double. If any one kill a man that is stealing something out of his house, let him be esteemed guiltless, although the man were only breaking in at the wall. 4.278. He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given the woman’s husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life. 13.171. 9. At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes. 13.288. 5. However, this prosperous state of affairs moved the Jews to envy Hyrcanus; but they that were the worst disposed to him were the Pharisees, who were one of the sects of the Jews, as we have informed you already. These have so great a power over the multitude, that when they say any thing against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed. 13.293. 6. Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus’s, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? 16.198. Pheroras knew that this advice would be for his own advantage, particularly because he had been accused before, and forgiven; so he put his wife away, although he already had a son by her, and engaged to the king that he would take his second daughter, and agreed that the thirtieth day after should be the day of marriage; and sware he would have no further conversation with her whom he had put away; 18.11. 2. The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essenes, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees; of which sects, although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish War, yet will I a little touch upon them now. 20.199. But this younger Aus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; |
|
68. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.119, 2.160 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60, 302 | 2.119. 2. For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. 2.160. 13. Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. |
|
69. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.27, 2.175, 2.201-2.202, 2.206, 2.213, 2.215-2.216 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 56, 57, 60, 61, 62 | 2.27. for the words i Sabbo /i and i Sabbath /i are widely different from one another; for the word Sabbath in the Jewish language denotes rest from all sorts of work; but the word Sabbo, as he affirms, denotes among the Egyptians the malady of a bubo in the groin. /p 2.175. for he did not suffer the guilt of ignorance to go on without punishment, but demonstrated the law to be the best and the most necessary instruction of all others, permitting the people to leave off their other employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law, and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice, or oftener, but every week; which thing all the other legislators seem to have neglected. /p 2.201. for (says the scripture) “A woman is inferior to her husband in all things.” Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so, that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband. A husband, therefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath married; but to have to do with another man’s wife is a wicked thing; which, if any one ventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he avoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices another man’s wife. 2.202. The law, moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind: if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean. 2.206. 28. The law ordains also, that parents should be honored immediately after God himself, and delivers that son who does not requite them for the benefits he hath received from them, but is deficient on any such occasion, to be stoned. It also says, that the young men should pay due respect to every elder, since God is the eldest of all beings. 2.213. Indeed he hath taught us gentleness and humanity so effectually, that he hath not despised the care of brute beasts, by permitting no other than a regular use of them, and forbidding any other; and if any of them come to our houses, like supplicants, we are forbidden to slay them: nor may we kill the dams, together with their young ones; but we are obliged, even in an enemy’s country, to spare and not kill those creatures that labor for mankind. 2.215. 31. Now the greatest part of offenses with us are capital, as if any one be guilty of adultery; if any one force a virgin; if any one be so impudent as to attempt sodomy with a male; or if, upon another’s making an attempt upon him, he submits to be so used. There is also a law for slaves of the like nature that can never be avoided. 2.216. Moreover, if any one cheats another in measures or weights, or makes a knavish bargain and sale, in order to cheat another; if any one steals what belongs to another, and takes what he never deposited; all these have punishments allotted them, not such as are met with among other nations, but more severe ones. |
|
| 70. Josephus Flavius, Life, 191, 197, 426, 10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 302 |
| 71. Pliny The Elder, Natural History, 17.267, 28.9, 30.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 25 |
| 72. Suetonius, Augustus, 27 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 92 |
| 73. Suetonius, De Poetis, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 284 |
74. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 5.5, 10.10, 11.2, 11.6-11.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty, strangulation Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 178; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84, 87; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 61| 5.5. "הוסיפו עליהן הרועין והגזלנין החמסנין וכל החשודין על הממון עדותן פסולה לעולם.", 11.2. "רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משם רבי שמעון המדיח הרי זה בחנק אמר רבי עקיבה שלש מאות הלכות היה ר' אליעזר שונה במכשפה ולא למדתי ממנו אלא שני דברים שנים מלקטין קשואין אחד לוקט פטור ואחד לוקט חייב העושה מעשה חייב האוחז את העינים פטור בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות למה נכתב אלא לומר דרוש וקבל שכר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בדין הוא הבת ולא הבן אלא גזירת המלך היה. בן סורר ומורה אפילו העלה על שולחנו כשלמה בשעתו אין נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיתן לתוך פיו כשעור או עד שיאכל בחברה שהוא כיוצא בו.", | 11.2. "...Said Rabbi Akiva: Rabbi Eliezer taught three-hundred laws about magic but I only learnt from him two things: Two collecting gourds—one who collects is exempt, one who collects is liable; one who does the deed is liable, one who does sleight of hand is exempt (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:11)...", |
|
| 75. Suetonius, Tiberius, 36 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 26, 77 |
| 76. Suetonius, Vitellius, 14.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 77 |
| 77. Suetonius, Domitianus, 8.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 32 |
| 78. Tacitus, Dialogus De Oratoribus, 29.3-29.4, 35.4-35.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 129 |
79. Tacitus, Histories, 2.62 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 77 | 2.62. No other severe measures were taken against the rebels; there were no further confiscations. The wills of those who fell in Otho's ranks were allowed to stand, and if the soldiers died intestate, the law took its regular course. In fact, if Vitellius had only moderated his luxurious mode of life, there would have been no occasion to fear his avarice. But his passion for elaborate banquets was shameful and insatiate. Dainties to tempt his palate were constantly brought from Rome and all Italy, while the roads from both the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas hummed with hurrying vehicles. The preparation of banquets for him ruined the leading citizens of the communities through which he passed; the communities themselves were devastated; and his soldiers lost their energy and their valour as they became accustomed to pleasure and learned to despise their leader. Vitellius sent a proclamation to Rome in advance of his arrival, deferring the title Augustus and declining the name Caesar, although he rejected none of an emperor's powers. The astrologers were banished from Italy; strict measures were taken to prevent Roman knights from degrading themselves in gladiatorial schools and the arena. Former emperors had driven knights to such actions by money or more often by force; and most municipal towns and colonies were in the habit of rivalling the emperors in bribing the worst of their young men to take up these disgraceful pursuits. |
|
80. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 8.4, 9.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, roman law •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, stoning •death penalty, axe •death penalty, burning •death penalty, crucifixion •death penalty, mauling •death penalty, status of convict •death penalty, strangulation •death penalty,drowning in a sack Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 180, 181| 8.4. "השוכר את הפועל לעשות חצי היום באיסור וחצי היום בהיתר ונתן כולן בכרך אחד כולן אסורות אלו בפני עצמן ואלו בפני עצמן ראשונות אסורות ושניות מותרות. השוכר את הפועל לעשות עמו מלאכה ולעתותי ערב אמר לו הולך לי את הלגין הזה במקום פלוני אע\"פ שאין ישראל רשאי לעשות כן שכרו מותר. השוכר את החמור לרכוב עליה ואמר לו תנה לי את הלגין הזה עליה אע\"פ שאין ישראל רשאי לעשות כן שכרו מותר. אומר אדם לחברו ולפועלו צאו ואכלו בדינר זה צאו ושתו בדינר זה ואינו חושש משם מעשרות ומשם שביעית ומשם יין נסך אבל אם אמר לו צא ואכול ככר ואני נותן דמיה צא ושתה רביעית ואני נותן את דמיה הרי זה חושש משום מעשרות ומשום שביעית ומשום יין נסך הנותן צמר לצבע עובד כוכבים לצבוע לו אינו חושש שמא צבעו בחומץ של יין נסך אם באו לבית חשבון אסור.", 9.4. "על שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח על הדינין ועל עבודת כוכבים ועל גלוי עריות ועל שפיכות דמים ועל הגזל ועל אבר מן החי על הדינין כיצד כשם שישראל מצווין להושיב בתי דינין בעיירות שלהן כך בני נח מצווין להושיב בתי דינין בעיר שלהם. על עבודת כוכבים ועל ברכת השם כיצד עובד כוכבים שעבד עבודת כוכבים וברך את השם לא נתנה מיתה לבני נח אלא בסייף בלבד. על גילוי עריות כיצד כל ערוה שב\"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה בני נח מוזהרים עליה וכל ערוה שב\"ד של ישראל מוזהרים עליה בני נח מומתין עליה דברי ר\"מ וחכמים אומרים הרבה עריות שאין ב\"ד ממיתין עליה בני נח מוזהרים עליה בא על עריות ישראל נדון בדייני ישראל בא על עריות העובדי כוכבים נדון בדיני העובדי כוכבים ואין לי אלא נערה מאורסה בלבד. ועל שפיכות דמים כיצד עובד כוכבים בעובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים בישראל חייב ישראל בעובד כוכבים פטור. על הגזילה כיצד גנב גזל יפת תואר וכן כיוצא בו עובד כוכבים בעובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים בישראל אסור ישראל בעובד כוכבים מותר על אבר מן החי כיצד אבר המדולדל בבהמה ואין בו להעלות ארוכה בשר המדולדל בבהמה ואין בו להעלות ארוכה אסור לבני נח ואין צריך לומר לישראל ואם יש בו להעלות ארוכה מותר לישראל ואין צריך לומר לבני נח. נטל צפור שאין בה כזית ואכלה רבי פוטר ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון מחייב ומה על אבר מן החי ממנו חייב כולו לא יהא חייב חנקה ואכלה פטור רבי חנניא בן גמליאל אומר אף על דם מן החי רבי חידקא אומר אף על הסירוס ר\"ש אומר אף על הכשפים רבי יוסי אומר כל האמור בפרשה בני נח מוזהרין עליה שנאמר (דברים י״ח:י׳) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש וגו' וחובר חבר כי תועבת ה' איפשר שכתוב עונש עד שלא יזהיר אלא מזהיר ואח\"כ עונש מלמד שהזהיר ואח\"כ עונשן רבי אלעזר אומר על הכלאים מותר לבני נח לזרוע וללבוש כלאים אסור להרביע ולהרכיב אילנות. ", | |
|
| 81. Tosefta, Berachot, a b c d\n0 6(7).24 6(7).24 6(7) 24\n1 6(7).23 6(7).23 6(7) 23\n2 6(7).20 6(7).20 6(7) 20 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147 |
82. New Testament, Matthew, 1.19-1.20, 9.39, 12.11, 12.14, 23.16-23.22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, stoning •death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 189; Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 302, 345| 1.19. Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. 1.20. Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου κατʼ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυείδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου· 12.11. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τίς [ἔσται] ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἕξει πρόβατον ἕν, καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον, οὐχὶ κρατήσει αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγερεῖ; 12.14. Ἐξελθόντες δὲ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι συμβούλιον ἔλαβον κατʼ αὐτοῦ ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν. 23.16. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ οἱ λέγοντες Ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ ναῷ, οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃς δʼ ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ ὀφείλει· 23.17. μωροὶ καὶ τυφλοί, τίς γὰρ μείζων ἐστίν, ὁ χρυσὸς ἢ ὁ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάσας τὸν χρυσόν; 23.18. καί Ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃς δʼ ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ δώρῳ τῷ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὀφείλει· 23.19. τυφλοί, τί γὰρ μεῖζον, τὸ δῶρον ἢ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἁγιάζον τὸ δῶρον; 23.20. ὁ οὖν ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ ὀμνύει ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ· 23.21. καὶ ὁ ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ ναῷ ὀμνύει ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ κατοικοῦντι αὐτόν· 23.22. καὶ ὁ ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὀμνύει ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. | 1.19. Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. 1.20. But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 12.11. He said to them, "What man is there among you, who has one sheep, and if this one falls into a pit on the Sabbath day, won't he grab on to it, and lift it out? 12.14. But the Pharisees went out, and conspired against him, how they might destroy him. 23.16. "Woe to you, you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.' 23.17. You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 23.18. 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a obligated.' 23.19. You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 23.20. He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. 23.21. He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who is living in it. 23.22. He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it. |
|
83. New Testament, Mark, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 302| 3.6. Καὶ ἐξελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι εὐθὺς μετὰ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν συμβούλιον ἐδίδουν κατʼ αὐτοῦ ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν. | 3.6. The Pharisees went out, and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. |
|
84. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 8.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60| 8.3. "היורד לנכסי אשתו ונתן עיניו לגרשה אם קדם ותלש מן הקרקע כל שהוא ה\"ז זריז ונשכר. היורד לנכסי [שבוין ושמע שהן ממשמשין ובאין אם קדם ותלש מן הקרקע כל שהוא ה\"ז זריז ונשכר אלו] נכסי שבוין כל שהלך אביו או אחיו או אחד מן [היורשין] למדה\"י ושמע בהן שמתו וירד לנחלה אלו הן נכסי נטושין כל שלא [שמע בהן] שמתו וירד לנחלה רשב\"ג [אומר] שמעתי שהנטושים כשבוין היורד לנכסי רטושין מוציאין מידו.", | 8.3. "A man who takes possession of his wife's property and [then] decides to divorce her, if he goes first and plucks any amount from the ground [i.e. uses up any amount of the property], behold he is rewarded by his haste [i.e. he gets to keep anything he \"plucked\"]. One who takes possession of the property of captives and hears about them that they are slowly approaching, if he goes first and plucks any amount from the ground, behold he is rewarded by his haste. This is the property of captives: Anyone whose father or brother or one of his inheritors went to the land beyond the sea, and he heard about them that they died, and he took possession of it as an inheritance [and he may get to keep what he takes]. This is the property of fugitives: Anyone who did not hear about them [his relatives that went to the land beyond the sea] that they died, but he took possession as an inheritance [but he won't get to keep what he took]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: I heard that fugitives' [property] is the same as captives' [property, in that he gets to keep both, whatever he took]. One who took possession of the property of exiles, they take it from him.", |
|
85. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 57| 3.11. "מדלגין בנביא ואין מדלגין בתורה [ואין] מדלגין מנביא לנביא ובנביא של שנים עשר [מדלגין] ובלבד שלא ידלג מסוף הספר [לראשו].", | |
|
| 86. Tosefta, Shevuot, 2.15-2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 137 |
87. Tacitus, Annals, 2.32, 4.34, 12.52 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 26, 77| 2.32. Bona inter accusatores dividuntur, et praeturae extra ordinem datae iis qui senatorii ordinis erant. tunc Cotta Messalinus, ne imago Libonis exequias posterorum comitaretur, censuit, Cn. Lentulus, ne quis Scribonius cognomentum Drusi adsumeret. supplicationum dies Pomponii Flacci sententia constituti, dona Iovi, Marti, Concordiae, utque iduum Septembrium dies, quo se Libo interfecerat, dies festus haberetur, L. Piso et Gallus Asinius et Papius Mutilus et L. Apronius decrevere; quorum auctoritates adulationesque rettuli ut sciretur vetus id in re publica malum. facta et de mathematicis magisque Italia pellendis senatus consulta; quorum e numero L. Pituanius saxo deiectus est, in P. Marcium consules extra portam Esquilinam, cum classicum canere iussissent, more prisco advertere. 4.34. Cornelio Cosso Asinio Agrippa consulibus Cremutius Cordus postulatur novo ac tunc primum audito crimine, quod editis annalibus laudatoque M. Bruto C. Cassium Romanorum ultimum dixisset. accusabant Satrius Secundus et Pinarius Natta, Seiani clientes. id perniciabile reo et Caesar truci vultu defensionem accipiens, quam Cremutius relinquendae vitae certus in hunc modum exorsus est: 'verba mea, patres conscripti, arguuntur: adeo factorum innocens sum. sed neque haec in principem aut principis parentem, quos lex maiestatis amplectitur: Brutum et Cassium laudavisse dicor, quorum res gestas cum plurimi composuerint, nemo sine honore memoravit. Titus Livius, eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in primis, Cn. Pompeium tantis laudibus tulit ut Pompeianum eum Augustus appellaret; neque id amicitiae eorum offecit. Scipionem, Afranium, hunc ipsum Cassium, hunc Brutum nusquam latrones et parricidas, quae nunc vocabula imponuntur, saepe ut insignis viros nominat. Asinii Pollionis scripta egregiam eorundem memoriam tradunt; Messala Corvinus imperatorem suum Cassium praedicabat: et uterque opibusque atque honoribus perviguere. Marci Ciceronis libro quo Catonem caelo aequavit, quid aliud dictator Caesar quam rescripta oratione velut apud iudices respondit? Antonii epistulae Bruti contiones falsa quidem in Augustum probra set multa cum acerbitate habent; carmina Bibaculi et Catulli referta contumeliis Caesarum leguntur: sed ipse divus Iulius, ipse divus Augustus et tulere ista et reliquere, haud facile dixerim, moderatione magis an sapientia. namque spreta exolescunt: si irascare, adgnita videntur. 12.52. Fausto Sulla Salvio Othone consulibus Furius Scribonianus in exilium agitur, quasi finem principis per Chaldaeos scrutaretur. adnectebatur crimini Vibia mater eius, ut casus prioris (nam relegata erat) impatiens. pater Scriboniani Camillus arma per Dalmatiam moverat; idque ad clementiam trahebat Caesar, quod stirpem hostilem iterum conservaret. neque tamen exuli longa posthac vita fuit: morte fortuita an per venenum extinctus esset, ut quisque credidit, vulgavere. de mathematicis Italia pellendis factum senatus consultum atrox et inritum. laudati dehinc oratione principis qui ob angustias familiaris ordine senatorio sponte cederent, motique qui remanendo impudentiam paupertati adicerent. | 2.32. His estate was parcelled out among the accusers, and extraordinary praetorships were conferred on those of senatorial status. Cotta Messalinus then moved that the effigy of Libo should not accompany the funeral processions of his descendants; Gnaeus Lentulus, that no member of the Scribonian house should adopt the surname of Drusus. Days of public thanksgiving were fixed at the instance of Pomponius Flaccus. Lucius Piso, Asinius Gallus, Papius Mutilus, and Lucius Apronius procured a decree that votive offerings should be made to Jupiter, Mars, and Concord; and that the thirteenth of September, the anniversary of Libo's suicide, should rank as a festival. This union of sounding names and sycophancy I have recorded as showing how long that evil has been rooted in the State. â Other resolutions of the senate ordered the expulsion of the astrologers and magic-mongers from Italy. One of their number, Lucius Pituanius, was flung from the Rock; another â Publius Marcius â was executed by the consuls outside the Esquiline Gate according to ancient usage and at sound of trumpet. 4.34. The consulate of Cornelius Cossus and Asinius Agrippa opened with the prosecution of Cremutius Cordus upon the novel and till then unheard-of charge of publishing a history, eulogizing Brutus, and styling Cassius the last of the Romans. The accusers were Satrius Secundus and Pinarius Natta, clients of Sejanus. That circumstance sealed the defendant's fate â that and the lowering brows of the Caesar, as he bent his attention to the defence; which Cremutius, resolved to take his leave of life, began as follows:â "Conscript Fathers, my words are brought to judgement â so guiltless am I of deeds! Nor are they even words against the sole persons embraced by the law of treason, the sovereign or the parent of the sovereign: I am said to have praised Brutus and Cassius, whose acts so many pens have recorded, whom not one has mentioned save with honour. Livy, with a fame for eloquence and candour second to none, lavished such eulogies on Pompey that Augustus styled him 'the Pompeian': yet it was without prejudice to their friendship. Scipio, Afranius, this very Cassius, this Brutus â not once does he describe them by the now fashionable titles of brigand and parricide, but time and again in such terms as he might apply to any distinguished patriots. The works of Asinius Pollio transmit their character in noble colours; Messalla Corvinus gloried to have served under Cassius: and Pollio and Corvinus lived and died in the fulness of wealth and honour! When Cicero's book praised Cato to the skies, what did it elicit from the dictator Caesar but a written oration as though at the bar of public opinion? The letters of Antony, the speeches of Brutus, contain invectives against Augustus, false undoubtedly yet bitter in the extreme; the poems â still read â of Bibaculus and Catullus are packed with scurrilities upon the Caesars: yet even the deified Julius, the divine Augustus himself, tolerated them and left them in peace; and I hesitate whether to ascribe their action to forbearance or to wisdom. For things contemned are soon things forgotten: anger is read as recognition. 12.52. In the consulate of Faustus Sulla and Salvius Otho, Furius Scribonianus was driven into exile, on a charge of inquiring into the end of the sovereign by the agency of astrologers: his mother Vibidia was included in the arraignment, on the ground that she had not acquiesced in her former misadventure â she had been sentenced to relegation. Camillus, the father of Scribonianus, had taken arms in Dalmatia: a point placed by the emperor to the credit of his clemency, since he was sparing this hostile stock for a second time. The exile, however, did not long survive: the question whether he died by a natural death or from poison was answered by the gossips according to their various beliefs. The expulsion of the astrologers from Italy was ordered by a drastic and impotent decree of the senate. Then followed a speech by the emperor, commending all who voluntarily renounced senatorial rank owing to straitened circumstances: those who, by remaining, added impudence to poverty were removed. |
|
| 88. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151 |
89. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 4.28 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 25 | 4.28. ... And (the sorcerer), taking (a paper), directs the inquirer to write down with water whatever questions he may desire to have asked from the demons. Then, folding up the paper, and delivering it to the attendant, he sends him away to commit it to the flames, that the ascending smoke may waft the letters to demons. While, however, the attendant is executing this order, (the sorcerer) first removes equal portions of the paper, and on some more parts of it he pretends that demons write in Hebrew characters. Then burning an incense of the Egyptian magicians, termed Cyphi, he takes these (portions of paper) away, and places them near the incense. But (that paper) which the inquirer happens to have written (upon), having placed on the coals, he has burned. Then (the sorcerer), appearing to be borne away under divine influence, (and) hurrying into a corner (of the house), utters a loud and harsh cry, and unintelligible to all, ... and orders all those present to enter, crying out (at the same time), and invoking Phryn, or some other demon. But after passing into the house, and when those that were present stood side by side, the sorcerer, flinging the attendant upon a bed, utters to him several words, partly in the Greek, and partly, as it were, the Hebrew language, (embodying) the customary incantations employed by the magicians. (The attendant), however, goes away to make the inquiry. And within (the house), into a vessel full of water (the sorcerer) infusing copperas mixture, and melting the drug, having with it sprinkled the paper that forsooth had (the characters upon it) obliterated, he forces the latent and concealed letters to come once more into light; and by these he ascertains what the inquirer has written down. And if one write with copperas mixture likewise, and having ground a gall nut, use its vapour as a fumigator, the concealed letters would become plain. And if one write with milk, (and) then scorch the paper, and scraping it, sprinkle and rub (what is thus scraped off) upon the letters traced with the milk, these will become plain. And urine likewise, and sauce of brine, and juice of euphorbia, and of a fig, produce a similar result. But when (the sorcerer) has ascertained the question in this mode, he makes provision for the manner in which be ought to give the reply. And next he orders those that are present to enter, holding laurel branches and shaking them, and uttering cries, and invoking the demon Phryn. For also it becomes these to invoke him; and it is worthy that they make this request from demons, which they do not wish of themselves to put forward, having lost their minds. The confused noise, however, and the tumult, prevent them directing attention to those things which it is supposed (the sorcerer) does in secret. But what these are, the present is a fair opportunity for us to declare. Considerable darkness, then, prevails. For the (sorcerer) affirms that it is impossible for mortal nature to behold divine things, for that to hold converse (with these mysteries) is sufficient. Making, however, the attendant lie down (upon the couch), head foremost, and placing by each side two of those little tablets, upon which had been inscribed in, forsooth, Hebrew characters, as it were names of demons, he says that (a demon) will deposit the rest in their ears. But this (statement) is requisite, in order that some instrument may be placed beside the ears of the attendant, by which it is possible that he signify everything which he chooses. First, however, he produces a sound that the (attendant) youth may be terrified; and secondly, he makes a humming noise; then, thirdly, he speaks through the instrument what he wishes the youth to say, and remains in expectation of the issue of the affair; next, he makes those present remain still, and directs the (attendant) to signify, what he has heard from the demons. But the instrument that is placed beside his ears is a natural instrument, viz., the windpipe of long-necked cranes, or storks, or swans. And if none of these is at hand, there are also some different artificial instruments (employed); for certain pipes of brass, ten in number, (and) fitting into one another, terminating in a narrow point, are adapted (for the purpose), and through these is spoken into the ear whatsoever the (magician) wishes. And the youth hearing these (words) with terror as uttered by demons, when ordered, speaks them out. If any one, however, putting around a stick a moist hide, and having dried it and drawn it together, close it up, and by removing the rod fashion the hide into the form of a pipe, he attains a similar end. Should any of these, however, be not at hand, he takes a book, and, opening it inside, stretches it out as far as he think requisite, (and thus) achieves the same result. But if he knows beforehand that one is present who is about to ask a question, he is the more ready for all (contingencies). If, however, he may also previously ascertain the question, he writes (it) with the drug, and, as being prepared, he is considered more skilful, on account of having clearly written out what is (about) being asked. If, however, he is ignorant of the question, he forms conjectures, and puts forth something capable of a doubtful and varied interpretation, in order that the oracular response, being originally unintelligible, may serve for numerous purposes, and in the issue of events the prediction may be considered correspondent with what actually occurs. Next, having filled a vessel with water, he puts down (into it) the paper, as if uninscribed, at the same time infusing along with it copperas mixture. For in this way the paper written upon floats upwards (to the surface), bearing the response. Accordingly there ensue frequently to the attendant formidable fancies for also he strikes blows plentifully on the terrified (bystanders). For, casting incense into the fire, he again operates after the following method. Covering a lump of what are called fossil salts with Etruscan wax, and dividing the piece itself of incense into two parts, he throws in a grain of salt; and again joining (the piece) together, and placing it on the burning coals, he leaves it there. And when this is consumed, the salts, bounding upwards, create the impression of, as it were, a strange vision taking place. And the dark-blue dye which has been deposited in the incense produces a blood-red flame, as we have already declared. But (the sorcerer) makes a scarlet liquid, by mixing wax with alkanet, and, as I said, depositing the wax in the incense. And he makes the coals be moved, placing underneath powdered alum; and when this is dissolved and swells up like bubbles, the coals are moved. |
|
90. Philostratus The Athenian, Life of Apollonius, 1.7 (2nd cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 32| 1.7. προϊὼν δὲ ἐς ἡλικίαν, ἐν ᾗ γράμματα, μνήμης τε ἰσχὺν ἐδήλου καὶ μελέτης κράτος, καὶ ἡ γλῶττα ̓Αττικῶς εἶχεν, οὐδ' ἀπήχθη τὴν φωνὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔθνους, ὀφθαλμοί τε πάντες ἐς αὐτὸν ἐφέροντο, καὶ γὰρ περίβλεπτος ἦν τὴν ὥραν. γεγονότα δὲ αὐτὸν ἔτη τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἄγει ἐς Ταρσοὺς ὁ πατὴρ παρ' Εὐθύδημον τὸν ἐκ Φοινίκης. ὁ δὲ Εὐθύδημος ῥήτωρ τε ἀγαθὸς ἦν καὶ ἐπαίδευε τοῦτον, ὁ δὲ τοῦ μὲν διδασκάλου εἴχετο, τὸ δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἦθος ἄτοπόν τε ἡγεῖτο καὶ οὐ χρηστὸν ἐμφιλοσοφῆσαι, τρυφῆς τε γὰρ οὐδαμοῦ μᾶλλον ἅπτονται σκωπτόλαι τε καὶ ὑβρισταὶ πάντες καὶ δεδώκασι τῇ ὀθόνῃ μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ σοφίᾳ ̓Αθηναῖοι, ποταμός τε αὐτοὺς διαρρεῖ Κύδνος, ᾧ παρακάθηνται, καθάπερ τῶν ὀρνίθων οἱ ὑγροί. τό τοι“ παύσασθε μεθύοντες τῷ ὕδατι” ̓Απολλωνίῳ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐν ἐπιστολῇ εἴρηται. μεθίστησιν οὖν τὸν διδάσκαλον δεηθεὶς τοῦ πατρὸς ἐς Αἰγὰς τὰς πλησίον, ἐν αἷς ἡσυχία τε πρόσφορος τῷ φιλοσοφήσοντι καὶ σπουδαὶ νεανικώτεραι καὶ ἱερὸν ̓Ασκληπιοῦ καὶ ὁ ̓Ασκληπιὸς αὐτὸς ἐπίδηλος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. ἐνταῦθα ξυνεφιλοσόφουν μὲν αὐτῷ Πλατώνειοί τε καὶ Χρυσίππειοι καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ περιπάτου, διήκουε δὲ καὶ τῶν ̓Επικούρου λόγων, οὐδὲ γὰρ τούτους ἀπεσπούδαζε, τοὺς δέ γε Πυθαγορείους ἀρρήτῳ τινὶ σοφίᾳ ξυνέλαβε: διδάσκαλος μὲν γὰρ ἦν αὐτῷ τῶν Πυθαγόρου λόγων οὐ πάνυ σπουδαῖος, οὐδὲ ἐνεργῷ τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ χρώμενος, γαστρός τε γὰρ ἥττων ἦν καὶ ἀφροδισίων καὶ κατὰ τὸν ̓Επίκουρον ἐσχημάτιστο: ἦν δὲ οὗτος Εὔξενος ὁ ἐξ ̔Ηρακλείας τοῦ Πόντου, τὰς δὲ Πυθαγόρου δόξας ἐγίγνωσκεν, ὥσπερ οἱ ὄρνιθες ἃ μανθάνουσι παρὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ γὰρ “χαῖρε” καὶ τὸ “εὖ πρᾶττε” καὶ τὸ “Ζεὺς ἵλεως” καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα οἱ ὄρνιθες εὔχονται οὔτε εἰδότες ὅ τι λέγουσιν οὔτε διακείμενοι πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλὰ ἐρρυθμισμένοι τὴν γλῶτταν: ὁ δέ, ὥσπερ οἱ νέοι τῶν ἀετῶν ἐν ἁπαλῷ μὲν τῷ πτερῷ παραπέτονται τοῖς γειναμένοις αὐτοὺς μελετώμενοι ὑπ' αὐτῶν τὴν πτῆσιν, ἐπειδὰν δὲ αἴρεσθαι δυνηθῶσιν, ὑπερπέτονται τοὺς γονέας ἄλλως τε κἂν λίχνους αἴσθωνται καὶ κνίσης ἕνεκα πρὸς τῇ γῇ πετομένους, οὕτω καὶ ὁ ̓Απολλώνιος προσεῖχέ τε τῷ Εὐξένῳ παῖς ἔτι καὶ ἤγετο ὑπ' αὐτοῦ βαίνων ἐπὶ τοῦ λόγου, προελθὼν δὲ ἐς ἔτος δέκατον καὶ ἕκτον ὥρμησεν ἐπὶ τὸν τοῦ Πυθαγόρου βίον, πτερωθεὶς ἐπ' αὐτὸν ὑπό τινος κρείττονος. οὐ μὴν τόν γε Εὔξενον ἐπαύσατο ἀγαπῶν, ἀλλ' ἐξαιτήσας αὐτῷ προάστειον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ᾧ κῆποί τε ἁπαλοὶ ἦσαν καὶ πηγαί, “σὺ μὲν ζῆθι τὸν σεαυτοῦ τρόπον” ἔφη “ἐγὼ δὲ τὸν Πυθαγόρου ζήσομαι”. | 1.7. ON reaching the age when children are taught their letters, he showed great strength of memory and power of application; and his tongue affected the Attic dialect, nor was his accent corrupted by the race he lived among. All eyes were turned upon him, for he was, moreover, conspicuous for his beauty. When he reached his fourteenth year, his father brought him to Tarsus, to Euthydemus the teacher from Phoenicia. Now Euthydemus was a good rhetor, and began his education; but, though he was attached to his teacher, he found the atmosphere of the city harsh and strange and little conducive to the philosophic life, for nowhere are men more addicted than here to luxury; jesters and full of insolence are they all; and they attend more to their fine linen than the Athenians did to wisdom; and a stream called the Cydnus runs through their city, along the banks of which they sit like so many water-fowl. Hence the words which Apollonius addresses to them in his letter: Be done with getting drunk upon your water. He therefore transferred his teacher, with his father's consent, to the town of Aegae, which was close by, where he found a peace congenial to one who would be a philosopher, and a more serious school of study and a sanctuary of Asclepius, where that god reveals himself in person to men. There he had as his companions in philosophy followers of Plato and Chrysippus and peripatetic philosophers. And he diligently attended also to the discourses of Epicurus, for he did not despise these either, although it was to those of Pythagoras that he applied himself with unspeakable wisdom and ardor. However, his teacher of the Pythagorean system was not a very serious person, nor one who practiced in his conduct the philosophy he taught; for he was the slave of his belly and appetites, and modeled himself upon Epicurus. And this man was Euxenus from the town of Heraclea in Pontus, and he knew the principles of Pythagoras just as birds know what they learn from men; for the birds will wish you farewell, and say Good day or Zeus help you, and such like, without understanding what they say and without any real sympathy for mankind, merely because they have been trained to move their tongue in a certain manner. Apollonius, however, was like the young eagles who, as long as they are not fully fledged, fly alongside of their parents and are trained by them in flight, but who, as soon as they are able to rise in the air, outsoar the parent birds, especially when they perceive the latter to be greedy and to be flying along the ground in order to snuff the quarry; like them Apollonius attended Euxenus as long as he was a child and was guided by him in the path of argument, but when he reached his sixteenth year he indulged his impulse towards the life of Pythagoras, being fledged and winged thereto by some higher power. Notwithstanding he did not cease to love Euxenus, nay, he persuaded his father to present him with a villa outside the town, where there were tender groves and fountains, and he said to him: Now you live there your own life, but I will live that of Pythagoras. |
|
| 91. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 130 |
| 92. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, 22.17, 32.13 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, axe •death penalty, burning •death penalty, crucifixion •death penalty, mauling •death penalty, status of convict •death penalty, stoning •death penalty, strangulation •death penalty,drowning in a sack •death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 181; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 176 |
| 93. Gaius, Instiutiones, 4.18.4 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning in a sack •incest, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 183 |
| 94. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 95. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151 |
| 96. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 176 |
| 97. Palestinian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87 |
| 98. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 122, 151, 153-154, 269, 406, 219 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84 |
| 99. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
100. Cassius Dio, Roman History, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 26, 77 | 57.15.9. In fact, all the citizens would have been acquitted even contrary to his wish, had not a certain tribune prevented it. Here was a particularly good illustration of the democratic form of government, inasmuch as the senate, agreeing with the motion of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, overruled Drusus and Tiberius, only to be thwarted in its turn by the tribune. |
|
| 101. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 102. Palestinian Talmud, Shevuot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87 |
| 103. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 85 |
| 104. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87 |
| 105. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 114, 39, 43, 14 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151 |
| 106. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87 |
| 107. Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5.3.23 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 67 |
108. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84| 160b. זה פשוט וחתום זה מקושר והעד שנים עדים שלשה הא כיצד שנים לפשוט שלשה למקושר,ואיפוך אנא מתוך שנתרבה בקשריו נתרבה בעדיו,רפרם אמר מהכא (ירמיהו לב, יא) ואקח את ספר המקנה את החתום המצוה והחקים ואת הגלוי ואקח את ספר המקנה זה פשוט את החתום זה מקושר ואת הגלוי זה פשוט שבמקושר,המצוה והחקים אלו דברים שבין פשוט למקושר הא כיצד זה עדיו שנים וזה עדיו שלשה זה עדיו מתוכו וזה עדיו מאחוריו,ואיפוך אנא מתוך שנתרבה בקשריו נתרבה בעדיו,רמי בר יחזקאל אמר מהכא (דברים יט, טו) על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר אם תתקיים עדותן בשנים למה פרט לך בשלשה לומר לך שנים לפשוט שלשה למקושר,ואיפוך אנא מתוך שנתרבה בקשריו נתרבה בעדיו,והני להכי הוא דאתו כל חד וחד למילתיה הוא דאתא לכדתניא (ירמיהו לב, מד) שדות בכסף יקנו וכתוב בספר וחתום עצה טובה קא משמע לן ואקח את ספר המקנה הכי הוה מעשה על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים להקיש שלשה לשנים בפלוגתא דרבי עקיבא ורבנן,אלא מקושר מדרבנן וקראי אסמכתא בעלמא,וטעמא מאי תקינו רבנן מקושר אתרא דכהני הוו והוו קפדי טובא ומגרשי נשייהו ועבדי רבנן תקנתא אדהכי והכי מיתבא דעתייהו,התינח גיטין שטרות מאי איכא למימר כדי שלא תחלק בין גיטין לשטרות,היכן עדים חותמין רב הונא אמר בין קשר לקשר ורב ירמיה בר אבא אמר אחורי הכתב וכנגד הכתב מבחוץ,אמר ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא לרב הונא דאמר בין קשר לקשר קא סלקא דעתין בין קשר לקשר מגואי והא ההוא מקושר דקאתא לקמיה דרבי ואמר רבי אין זמן בזה אמר ליה רבי שמעון ברבי לרבי שמא בין קשריו מובלע פלייה וחזייה ואם איתא אין זמן בזה ואין עדים בזה מיבעי ליה,אמר ליה מי סברת בין קשר לקשר מגואי לא בין קשר לקשר מאבראי,וניחוש דלמא זייף וכתב מאי דבעי וחתימי סהדי,דכתיב ביה שריר וקיים,וניחוש דלמא כתב מאי דבעי והדר כתב שריר וקיים אחרינא חד שריר וקיים כתבינן תרי שריר וקיים לא כתבינן,וליחוש דלמא מחיק ליה לשריר וקיים וכתב מאי דבעי והדר כתב שריר וקיים הא אמר ר' יוחנן תלויה מקויימת כשרה | 160b. b this /b is referring to b an ordinary /b document. When the verse states: b “And seal them,” this /b is referring to b a tied /b document. The next phrase, “and call witnesses [ i veha’ed edim /i ],” which more literally would be translated: And have witnesses bear witness, is interpreted as follows: b “And have bear witness [ i veha’ed /i ],” /b this indicates the need for b two /b witnesses, as the term “witness [ i ed /i ]” in the Torah generally refers to two witnesses. As to the word b “witnesses [ i edim /i ],” /b this additional term indicates the need for b three /b witnesses. b How so? /b How can the verse call for both two witnesses and three witnesses? Rabbi Ḥanina explains: b Two /b witnesses are required b for an ordinary /b document, and b three /b are required b for a tied /b document.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But I /b can just as well b reverse /b it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the tied document requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its ties, /b it stands to reason that it requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its witnesses, /b requiring three rather than two., b Rafram says /b that there is a different source for two kinds of documents, b from here: “So I took the deed of the purchase, that which was sealed, the terms and conditions, and that which was open” /b (Jeremiah 32:11). When the verse states: b “So I took the deed of the purchase,” this /b is referring to b an ordinary /b document. When it states: b “That which was sealed,” this /b is referring to b a tied /b document. When it states: b “And that which was open,” this /b is referring to the b ordinary, /b unfolded part b of a tied /b document.,Rafram continues: With regard to the phrase: b “The terms and conditions,” these are the matters that /b distinguish b an ordinary /b document b from a tied /b one. b How so? /b What are the details that differentiate the two types of documents? b This /b one, the ordinary document, has b two witnesses, and that /b one, the tied document, has b three witnesses. /b And in b this /b one, the ordinary document, b its witnesses /b are signed b inside it, /b on the front side, while in b that /b one, the tied document, b its witnesses /b are signed b on the back of it. /b ,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But I /b can just as well b reverse /b it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the tied document requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its ties, /b it stands to reason that it requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its witnesses, /b requiring three rather than two., b Rami bar Yeḥezkel said /b that there is a different source for two sets of i halakhot /i for two types of documents b from here: “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established” /b (Deuteronomy 19:15). b If /b witnesses’ b testimony is established with two /b witnesses, b why /b did the verse b specify for you /b that it is also established b with three, /b which is self-evident? Rather, this verse serves b to tell you /b that there is a requirement for b two /b witnesses b for an ordinary /b document, and a requirement for b three /b witnesses b for a tied /b document.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But I /b can just as well b reverse /b it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the tied document requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its ties, /b it stands to reason that it requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its witnesses, /b requiring three rather than two.,The Gemara asks: b And /b is it so that b these /b verses b are coming for this /b purpose, to teach that there are two types of documents? But b each and every one /b of them b comes for its /b own b purpose. /b The first verse comes b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : When the verse states: b “They shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them, /b and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44), it is merely to b teach us good advice, /b that people should carefully document their purchases in order to provide permanent proof of purchase. When the verse states: b “So I took the deed of the purchase” /b (Jeremiah 32:11), b this was /b merely how that b incident /b occurred, and the phrase is not intended to teach any i halakhot /i . When the verse states: b “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses /b shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), this is stated in order b to juxtapose three /b witnesses b with two /b witnesses for several reasons, as delineated b in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis /b ( i Makkot /i 5b).,The Gemara explains: b Rather, /b the entire institution of the b tied /b document is b rabbinic /b in origin, b and /b all these b verses /b that were cited above by various i amora’im /i were intended as b mere support /b for the concept of a tied document, as opposed to actual sources.,The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that b the Sages instituted /b the b tied /b document? The Gemara explains: There was b a place where there were /b many b priests, and they were very quick tempered, and they would /b seek to b divorce their wives /b impetuously. The i halakha /i is that a priest may not marry a divorcée, even his own ex-wife. These priests, who acted impetuously, often regretted having divorced their wives. b And /b therefore, b the Sages instituted an ordice /b that the bill of divorce for these people should be of the tied format, which is a long, drawn-out process, hoping that b meanwhile, their composure would be regained /b and they would reconsider their decision to divorce.,The Gemara asks: This b works out well /b for b bills of divorce, /b but b what can be said /b with regard to other b documents? /b Why is this procedure used for other documents as well? The Gemara answers: This was instituted b so that you should not differentiate between bills of divorce and /b other b documents. /b ,§ b Where do the witnesses sign /b on a tied document? b Rav Huna says: /b They sign b between each tied /b fold. b And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: /b They sign b on the back of the written /b side, taking care that the signatures are exactly b opposite the writing, on the outside. /b , b Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: According to Rav Huna, who says /b that the witnesses sign b between each tied /b fold, it b enters our mind /b that he meant b between each tied /b fold b on the inside /b of the document. b But /b this is difficult, as there was b a certain tied /b document b that came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was tied, b said: There is no date on this /b document, so it is not valid. Then, b Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b said to Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b Perhaps /b the date is b hidden between the tied /b folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b opened it and saw /b that the date was in fact between the tied folds. b And if it is so /b that the witnesses sign between each tied fold on the inside of the document, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b should have /b had two objections, and said: b There is no date on this /b document, b and there are /b also b no witnesses /b signed b on this /b document.,Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Do you maintain /b that Rav Huna meant that the witnesses sign b between the tied /b folds b on the inside? No, /b he meant b between the tied /b folds b on the outside /b of the document.,The Gemara questions Rav Huna’s opinion: b But let us be concerned /b that b perhaps /b the party holding the document b falsified /b some information b and wrote whatever he wanted. And /b this is a concern, as there are already b witnesses signed /b on the document. In an ordinary document the witnesses sign immediately following the text, so there is no possibility of adding to the text. A tied document has part of its text written in the folds, but also has a part written on the face of the document on the unfolded paper, before or after the text in the folded part. If the witnesses sign between the folds there is the possibility of writing additional text in the unfolded section.,The Gemara explains: The case is one b where it is written in /b the document: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b That is, every folded document must contain this formula at the end of the text, to prevent forgery, as any writing after this formula would be disregarded.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But let us be concerned /b that b perhaps /b the holder of the document b wrote whatever he wanted and afterward wrote another /b time: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b The Gemara explains: b We write /b only b one /b declaration of: Everything is b confirmed and established; we do not write two /b declarations of: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b Therefore, anything written after the first declaration would be rejected, even if followed by a repetition of the declaration.,The Gemara questions further: b But let /b there be b a concern /b that b perhaps /b the holder of the document b erased /b the declaration: Everything is b confirmed and established, and /b then b wrote whatever he wanted /b over the erasure, b and afterward wrote /b the declaration: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b The Gemara responds: How could this happen? b Doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: /b A document that includes b a suspended /b correction of text inserted between lines of the document, which is b verified /b at the end of the document, b is valid; /b |
|
109. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87| 70b. חלפתא אמר לו,הרי שאכלה שנה ראשונה בפני שנים שניה בפני שנים שלישית בפני שנים מהו,אמר לו הרי זו חזקה אמר לו אף אני אומר כן אלא שרבי עקיבא חולק בדבר שהיה רבי עקיבא אומר (דברים יט, טו) דבר ולא חצי דבר,אמר אביי אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא מי לא מודה רבי עקיבא בשנים אומרים קידש ושנים אומרים בעל,דאע"ג דעדי ביאה צריכי לעדי קדושין כיון דעדי קדושין לא צריכי לעדי ביאה דבר קרינא ביה,ה"נ אע"ג דעדי טביחה צריכי לעדי גניבה כיון דעדי גניבה לא צריכי לעדי טביחה דבר קרינא ביה,ורבנן האי דבר ולא חצי דבר למעוטי מאי למעוטי אחד אומר אחד בגבה ואחד אומר אחד בכריסה,האי חצי דבר וחצי עדות הוא,אלא למעוטי שנים אומרים אחד בגבה ושנים אומרים אחד בכריסה הני אמרי קטנה היא והני אמרי קטנה היא:,גנב ומכר בשבת [וכו']: והתניא פטור,אמר רמי בר חמא כי תניא ההיא דפטור באומר לו עקוץ (לך) תאינה מתאינתי ותיקני לי גניבותיך,אמרי וכיון דכי תבע ליה קמן בדינא לא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים דמחייב בנפשו הוא הא מכירה נמי לאו מכירה היא,אלא אמר רב פפא באומר לו זרוק גניבותיך לחצרי ותיקני לי גניבותיך,כמאן כר"ע דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא,דאי כרבנן כיון דמטיא לחצר ביתו קנה לענין שבת לא מחייב עד דמטיא לארעא,באומר לא תיקני לי גניבותיך עד שתנוח,רבא אמר לעולם כרמי בר חמא אתנן אסרה תורה ואפילו בא על אמו ואי תבעה ליה קמן בדינא מי אמרינן ליה קום הב לה אתנן,אלא אע"ג דכי קא תבעה ליה בדינא לא אמרינן ליה זיל הב לה כיון דכי יהיב לה הוי אתנן הכא נמי אע"ג דלענין תשלומין אי תבע בדינא קמן לא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים | 70b. b Ḥalafta, /b he b said to him /b the following in the course of their discussion of the i halakhot /i of possession.,If one has been in possession of real estate for three years, this serves as proof of his claim that he is the legal owner. One who is able to prove uninterrupted possession for the necessary period is not required to produce documentary evidence of his legal title to the property. Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri or father Ḥalafta asked: b If /b one harvested and b ate /b the produce of a field that he claims as his own the b first year /b of the three years required for establishing possession of the land b in the presence of two /b witnesses, and subsequently ate the produce of the b second /b year b in the presence of two /b other witnesses, and finally ate the produce of the b third /b year b in the presence of /b yet b two /b other witnesses, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Can the three testimonies combine to establish full testimony that he ate the produce of three years, thereby confirming his ownership of the field?,Rabbi Ḥalafta b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri, or vice versa: b This is /b considered to establish b presumptive ownership /b by the one who ate the produce. The other Sage b said to him: I too say /b that this is b so, but Rabbi Akiva disputes /b this b matter, as Rabbi Akiva would say: /b The Torah requires that witnesses must testify with regard to a complete b matter and not part of a matter. /b Since there must be testimony concerning consumption of the produce over three years, and each set of witnesses establishes only that it took place for one year, their separate testimonies do not combine. If so, the mishna is apparently not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.,The Gemara rejects this assertion. b Abaye said: You /b can b even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva. Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede /b that b in /b a case where b two /b witnesses b say: /b So-and-so b betrothed /b a certain woman, b and two /b other witnesses b say: /b Someone else subsequently b engaged in sexual intercourse /b with that same woman, this is proof that the act of intercourse was adulterous?,The reason for this is b that even though the witnesses /b testifying about the b intercourse require the witnesses /b who testify about the b betrothal, /b i.e., the testimony of the second set of witnesses is meaningless without the testimony of the first witnesses, nevertheless, b since the witnesses /b testifying about the b betrothal do not require the witnesses /b who testify about the b intercourse, /b i.e., their testimony by itself establishes a halakhic status, b we call /b the testimony of each pair a complete b matter. /b , b Here too, /b the same logic applies in the case of a thief who steals an animal and subsequently slaughters or sells it: b Even though the witnesses /b who testify about the b slaughter require the /b testimony of the b witnesses /b about the b theft /b in order for their testimony to have any halakhic significance, b since the witnesses /b testifying about the b theft do not require the /b testimony of the b witnesses /b who testify about the b slaughter, /b as their testimony alone establishes that person as a thief who is liable to pay the double payment, b we call /b the testimony of each pair a complete b matter. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Akiva that the Torah stipulates that testimony must be about b a matter and not half of a matter, /b the term “matter” (Deuteronomy 19:15) serves b to exclude what? /b The Gemara answers: It serves b to exclude /b a case involving testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which b one /b witness b says /b that he saw b one /b hair on b her /b lower b back, and one /b witness b says /b that he saw b one /b hair on b her /b lower b abdomen. /b A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair, and therefore each testimony is halakhically meaningless on its own. The Rabbis derive from the verse that these testimonies do not combine.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: In b this /b case each testimony is obviously invalid, as it is b half a matter and /b also b half a testimony. /b Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered of age in this case.,The Gemara therefore rejects this explanation. b Rather, /b the Rabbis maintain that the term “matter” serves b to exclude /b a case in which b two /b witnesses b say /b that they saw b one /b hair on a girl’s b back, and two /b other witnesses b say /b that they saw b one /b hair b on her /b lower b abdomen. /b In this case the testimony of either set of witnesses concerns only one hair, and therefore b these /b witnesses b are /b essentially b saying /b that b she is /b still b a minor and those /b witnesses b are saying /b that b she is /b still b a minor. /b Therefore, each testimony concerns only half of a matter.,§ The mishna teaches: If one b stole /b an animal b and sold /b it b on Shabbat, /b he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that in this case he is b exempt /b from the fourfold or fivefold payment?, b Rami bar Ḥama said: When it is taught /b in b that /b i baraita /i b that /b he is b exempt, /b this is referring to a case b where /b the purchaser b says to /b the thief: b Pick off a fig for yourself from my fig tree /b on Shabbat, b and /b through performing this act b your stolen /b animal shall be b acquired by me. /b Since the act of acquisition of the animal involved the type of Shabbat desecration for which one is liable to receive the death penalty, the thief is exempt from the monetary obligations he would ordinarily incur from this act, i.e., the fourfold or fivefold payment to the animal’s prior owner. This is in accordance with the principle that one who commits two or more transgressions by means of a single act, both of which entail punishment, is exempt from the lesser punishment.,The Sages b say, /b questioning this explanation of the i baraita /i : b But since, if /b the purchaser b would bring a legal claim against /b the thief b before us, /b to force him to deliver the animal acquired by means of picking the fig, the court b would not say to /b the thief: b Go /b and b pay /b him the animal you owe him, b because /b the thief b is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for his desecration of Shabbat, this shows that b the sale is not /b a valid b sale /b at all. Therefore, the i baraita /i would not call this exchange a sale and this interpretation of the i baraita /i cannot be correct., b Rather, Rav Pappa said: /b The i baraita /i is discussing a case b where /b the purchaser b said to /b the thief: b Throw your stolen /b animal from the public domain b into my /b enclosed b courtyard, and your stolen /b animal b will /b thereby b be acquired by me. /b One can acquire an item if it is placed on his property. In this case, when the thief places the animal on the purchaser’s property he moves it from the public domain into the private domain, which is a desecration of Shabbat that entails the death penalty. Consequently, he is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment.,The Gemara asks: If this is the correct explanation of the i baraita /i , b in accordance with whose /b opinion is the i baraita /i taught? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, who says: /b An item b in /b the b airspace /b of a certain area b is considered /b as though it were b at rest /b in that area., b As, if /b the i baraita /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who hold that an item in the airspace of a certain area is not considered as though it were at rest in that area, b once /b the animal b reaches the /b airspace b of the courtyard /b of the purchaser’s b house /b he has acquired it, as one can acquire items that are in the airspace of his courtyard just like those on its ground, whereas b with regard to /b moving an item from one domain to another on b Shabbat /b the thief b is not liable /b for Shabbat desecration b until it reaches the ground. /b Since the thief’s monetary liability is not simultaneous with his incurring of the death penalty, he would not be exempt from payment.,The Gemara answers: It is possible that the i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis as well, as one can explain that it is speaking of a case b in /b which the purchaser b says /b to the thief: b Your stolen /b animal b shall not be acquired by me until it rests /b on the ground. In that case, the acquisition of the animal and the Shabbat desecration are simultaneous., b Rava said: Actually, /b it is possible to explain the b i baraita /i as Rami bar Ḥama /b did, that the animal was acquired through the picking of a fig on Shabbat. And the objection raised earlier, that this act should not be considered a sale at all, is incorrect. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the b Torah prohibits /b one to bring as an offering an animal given as the b payment /b to a prostitute for services rendered (Deuteronomy 23:19). b And /b this prohibition applies b even /b if the man in question b engaged in intercourse with his own mother, /b which is a capital offense. b But if she /b would bring b a legal claim before us, demanding /b the payment of the animal that was agreed upon as her fee, b would we say to him: Arise and pay her /b the animal? The court would not say this, as the monetary liability was incurred simultaneously with the commission of a capital crime., b Rather, /b one must say that b even though if she /b brings b a legal claim /b against b him demanding /b the payment of the animal that was agreed upon as her fee b we do not say to him: Go and pay her, /b nevertheless, b since if /b he does b give /b it b to her it is /b considered b payment /b to a prostitute, it cannot be used as an offering. b Here too, /b in the case of the acquisition of the animal through picking a fig, b even though with regard to payment, if /b the purchaser would bring b a legal claim before us /b against the thief, b seeking /b to force him to deliver the animal, b we would not say to him: Go pay, /b |
|
110. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 181| 21b. או צבור וצבור אבל יחיד לגבי צבור כמאן דלא צלי דמי קמ"ל ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דלא אתחיל בה אבל התם דאתחיל בה אימא לא צריכא,אמר רב הונא הנכנס לבית הכנסת ומצא צבור שמתפללין אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"ץ למודים יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל ריב"ל אמר אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"צ לקדושה יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר יחיד אומר קדושה ומר סבר אין יחיד אומר קדושה,וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מנין שאין היחיד אומר קדושה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, לב) ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל כל דבר שבקדושה לא יהא פחות מעשרה,מאי משמע דתני רבנאי אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא אתיא תוך תוך כתיב הכא ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל וכתיב התם (במדבר טז, כא) הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת מה להלן עשרה אף כאן עשרה,ודכולי עלמא מיהת מפסק לא פסיק,איבעיא להו מהו להפסיק ליהא שמו הגדול מבורך כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יהודה ור"ש תלמידי דרבי יוחנן אמרי לכל אין מפסיקין חוץ מן יהא שמו הגדול מבורך שאפילו עוסק במעשה מרכבה פוסק ולית הלכתא כותיה:,ר' יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם: למימרא דקסבר רבי יהודה בעל קרי מותר בדברי תורה והאמר ריב"ל מנין לבעל קרי שאסור בדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת וגו' מה להלן בעלי קריין אסורין אף כאן בעלי קריין אסורין,וכי תימא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכים והאמר רב יוסף אפילו מאן דלא דריש סמוכים בכל התורה במשנה תורה דריש דהא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכין בכל התורה כולה ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובכל התורה כולה מנא לן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו לומר מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה נמי בסקילה,אמר ליה ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא לזה לסקילה אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל כל המכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להן ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנא לן דדריש דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו,ר' יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ובמפותת אביו ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מאי טעמא דר' יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה (את) כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסת אביו כתיב דסמיך ליה ונתן האיש השוכב עמה וגו',אמרי אין במשנה תורה דריש והני סמוכין מבעי ליה לאידך דריב"ל דאמר ריב"ל כל המלמד לבנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו קבלה מהר חורב שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב,תנן זב שראה קרי ונדה שפלטה שכבת זרע המשמשת וראתה דם צריכין טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר,עד כאן לא פטר רבי יהודה אלא בזב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב,וכי תימא ה"ה דאפילו בעל קרי גרידא נמי פטר רבי יהודה והאי דקא מפלגי בזב שראה קרי להודיעך כחן דרבנן אימא סיפא המשמשת וראתה דם צריכה טבילה,למאן קתני לה אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא ומה זב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא מחייבי רבנן המשמשת וראתה דם דמעיקרא בת טבילה היא לא כל שכן אלא לאו ר' יהודה היא ודוקא קתני לה | 21b. b or /b a case where he prayed as part of b a congregation and /b began to repeat it as part of b a congregation; however, /b in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that b an individual vis-à-vis the congregation is /b considered b as one who has not prayed. /b Therefore, b he taught us /b that in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. b And, /b on the other hand, b if he had taught us here /b only with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is b because he did not /b yet b begin /b to recite the prayer, b but there, in the case where he /b already b began /b to recite the prayer, b say /b that this is b not /b the case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are b necessary. /b , b Rav Huna said: One who /b did not yet pray and b enters a synagogue and found that the congregation is /b in the midst of b reciting /b the i Amida /i b prayer, if he is able to begin and complete /b his own prayer b before the prayer leader reaches /b the blessing of b thanksgiving [ i modim /i ], he should /b begin to b pray, and, if not, he should not /b begin to b pray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and complete /b his prayer b before the prayer leader reaches sanctification [ i kedusha /i ], then he should /b begin to b pray. If not, then he should not /b begin to b pray. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The basis for their dispute is that one b Sage, /b Rav Huna, b holds: An individual /b is permitted to b recite i kedusha /i /b on his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; b and /b the other b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, b holds /b that b an individual may not recite i kedusha /i /b alone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches i kedusha /i ., b Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated, /b in accordance with the second opinion: b From where is it derived that an individual may not recite i kedusha /i /b alone? b As it is stated: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel” /b (Leviticus 22:32), b any expression of sanctity may not be /b recited in a quorum of b fewer than ten /b men.,The Gemara asks: b How is this inferred /b from that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a i baraita /i , b which was taught by Rabbenai, the brother /b of b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is inferred /b by means of a verbal analogy [ i gezera shava /i ] between the words b among, among. Here it is written: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,” and there, /b regarding Korah’s congregation, b it is written “Separate yourselves from among this congregation” /b (Numbers 16:21). b Just as there /b among connotes b ten, so too here, /b among connotes b ten. /b The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten., b And, in any case, everyone /b agrees that b one may not interrupt /b his prayer in order to respond to i kedusha /i .,However, b a dilemma was raised /b before the Sages of the yeshiva: b What is /b the ruling? Is one permitted b to interrupt /b his prayer in order b to /b recite: b “May His great name be blessed” /b in i kaddish /i ? b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yoḥa, said: One may not interrupt /b his prayer b for anything, except for: “May His great name be blessed,” as even /b if one was b engaged in /b the exalted study of the b Act of the /b Divine b Chariot /b [ b i Ma’aseh Merkava /i ] /b (see Ezekiel 1) b he stops /b to recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: b The i halakha /i is not in accordance with his /b opinion.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda says /b with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; b he recites a blessing beforehand and afterward /b in both the case of i Shema /i and in the case of food. The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted /b to engage b in matters of Torah? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From where /b in the Torah is it derived b that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from /b engaging b in matters of Torah? As it is stated: /b “Just take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, b and you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. b And, juxtaposed to it, /b is the verse: b “The day that you stood /b before the Lord your God at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that b just as below, /b at the revelation at Mount Sinai, b those who experienced a seminal emission were prohibited /b and were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, b so too here, /b throughout the generations, b those who experience a seminal emission are prohibited /b from engaging in Torah study., b And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses, b didn’t Rav Yosef /b already say: b Even one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses throughout b the entire Torah, /b nevertheless, b derives /b them b in Deuteronomy [ i Mishne Torah /i ], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses b throughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in i Mishne Torah /i . /b , b And from where do we derive /b that Rabbi Yehuda b does not derive homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses b throughout the entire Torah? As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the punishment of a sorceress, b ben Azzai says: It is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” /b (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, b and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death” /b (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that /b was b to say: Just as one who lies with a beast /b is executed b by stoning /b (see Leviticus 20), b so too a sorceress /b is executed b by stoning. /b ,With regard to this proof b Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And does /b the fact b that /b the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that warrant taking /b this person b out to be stoned? /b Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis b Rather, /b the source is: b Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out /b from the rest, in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to b draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard /b are executed b by stoning, so too is a sorceress /b executed b by stoning. /b , b And from where do we derive /b that Rabbi Yehuda b derives homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses b in i Mishne Torah /i ? As it was taught /b in another i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer said that a man /b may b wed /b a woman b raped by his father and /b one b seduced by his father; /b a woman b raped by his son and /b one b seduced by his son. /b Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them., b And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits /b him from marrying b a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt” /b (Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, “and shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” implies that: b A skirt that has been seen by his father, /b i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, b may not be uncovered /b by his son, i.e., his son may not marry her., b And from where /b do we know b that /b the verse b is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? As /b the previous section, b juxtaposed to it, /b deals with the laws of rape: b “And the man who lay with her must give /b her father fifty shekels…because he has violated her” (Deuteronomy 22:29).,At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? b They replied: Indeed, in i Mishne Torah /i /b Rabbi Yehuda b does derive homiletic interpretations /b from the juxtaposition of verses, b but /b he requires b these juxtaposed verses /b in order b to /b derive b another /b statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to him /b credit b as if he received /b the Torah b from Mount Horeb. As it is stated: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9) b after which it is written: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.” /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah., b We learned /b in a mishna that b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercourse /b with her husband b and she saw /b menstrual b blood, /b all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless b require ritual immersion /b in order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. b And Rabbi Yehuda exempts /b them from immersion.,However, b Rabbi Yehuda only exempted /b from immersion in the case b of a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, /b as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the i zav /i . b But, /b in the case of b one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda b requires /b immersion before he may engage in Torah matters., b And if you say: The same is true even /b in the case of b one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b that b Rabbi Yehuda also exempts /b him from immersion, b and the fact that they disagree /b in the case of b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission /b and not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone b is in order to convey the far-reaching /b nature of the opinion b of the Rabbis, /b who require immersion even in this case. If so, b say the last case /b of that same mishna: b A woman who was engaged in intercourse and she saw /b menstrual b blood requires immersion. /b ,The Gemara seeks to clarify: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b was this /b case in the mishna b taught? If you say /b that it is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, that is obvious; if /b in the case of b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, /b when he experienced the seminal emission, b the Rabbis /b nevertheless b require immersion, all the more so /b wouldn’t they require immersion for b a woman who engaged in intercourse and /b only then b saw blood, /b who b was fit to immerse herself from the outset, /b when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? b Rather, isn’t this Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion, b and /b this case b was taught specifically /b in order to teach |
|
111. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 176| 96a. ואיבעית אימא דכ"ע לצאת לא בעי כוונה והכא לעבור משום בל תוסיף קמיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר לעבור משום בל תוסיף לא בעי כוונה ורבן גמליאל סבר לעבור משום בל תוסיף בעי כוונה,ואיבעית אימא אי דסבירא לן דשבת זמן תפילין דכ"ע לא לעבור בעי כוונה ולא לצאת בעי כוונה,והכא בלעבור שלא בזמנו קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר לא בעי כוונה ורבן גמליאל סבר לעבור שלא בזמנו בעי כוונה,אי הכי לרבי מאיר זוג אחד נמי לא,ועוד הישן בשמיני בסוכה ילקה אלא מחוורתא כדשנינן מעיקרא,ומאן שמעת ליה שבת זמן תפילין ר' עקיבא דתניא (שמות יג, י) ושמרת את החקה הזאת למועדה מימים ימימה ימים ולא לילות מימים ולא כל ימים פרט לשבתות וימים טובים דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי,ר' עקיבא אומר לא נאמר חוקה זו אלא לענין פסח בלבד,ואלא הא דתנן הפסח והמילה מצות עשה לימא דלא כרבי עקיבא דאי ר"ע כיון דמוקי לה בפסח לאו נמי איכא כדרבי אבין א"ר אילעאי דאמר רבי אבין אמר רבי אילעאי כל מקום שנאמר השמר פן ואל אינו אלא בלא תעשה,אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא השמר דלאו לאו השמר דעשה עשה,וסבר רבי עקיבא שבת זמן תפילין הוא והתניא ר"ע אומר יכול יניח אדם תפילין בשבתות וימים טובים ת"ל (שמות יג, ט) והיה לך לאות על ידך מי שצריכין אות יצאו אלו שהן גופן אות,אלא האי תנא הוא דתניא הניעור בלילה רצה חולץ רצה מניח דברי רבי נתן יונתן הקיטוני אומר אין מניחין תפילין בלילה מדלילה לתנא קמא זמן תפילין שבת נמי זמן תפילין,דילמא ס"ל לילה זמן תפילין הוא שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא דהא שמעינן ליה לרבי עקיבא דאמר לילה זמן תפילין הוא שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא,אלא האי תנא הוא דתניא מיכל בת כושי היתה מנחת תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים ואשתו של יונה היתה עולה לרגל ולא מיחו בה חכמים מדלא מיחו בה חכמים אלמא קסברי מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא היא,ודילמא סבר לה | 96a. b And if you wish, say /b instead that b everyone agrees /b that b to fulfill /b a mitzva b one does not need intent, and here they disagree with regard to /b the condition needed b to violate /b the prohibition: b Do not add /b to mitzvot of the Torah. b As the first i tanna /i holds /b that b one does not need intent to violate /b the prohibition: b Do not add /b to mitzvot. One who dons another pair of phylacteries transgresses the prohibition against adding to mitzvot even if he does not don them with the intention of fulfilling the mitzva. b And Rabban Gamliel holds /b that in order b to violate /b the prohibition: b Do not add /b to mitzvot, b one needs intent /b to perform a mitzva. Since in this case one’s intention is merely to move the phylacteries to a safer place, he may don a second pair., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the dispute may be explained as follows. b If we were to maintain /b that b Shabbat is /b a fit b time for /b donning b phylacteries, everyone /b would b agree /b that b one does not need intent to violate /b the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, b nor does one need intent to fulfill /b a mitzva. In this case, one’s intention has no bearing on his action., b However, here, they disagree with regard to /b the condition for b violating /b the prohibition against adding to a mitzva b not in its /b proper b time, /b i.e., when a mitzva is performed not at its prescribed time. b The first i tanna /i holds /b that if the act of a mitzva is performed not in its proper time, b one does not need intent; /b that is, even if one does not intend to perform the mitzva he nonetheless violates the prohibition against adding to mitzvot by his action alone. Consequently, in this case, a person may not don more than one pair of phylacteries. b And Rabban Gamliel holds that to violate /b the prohibition against adding to a mitzva b not in its /b proper b time, one needs intent /b to fulfill the mitzva. Without such intent one does not violate the prohibition, and therefore in this case he may don a second pair of phylacteries.,With regard to this last explanation the Gemara asks: b If so, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b one should b not even /b don b one pair /b of phylacteries. According to Rabbi Meir’s opinion, one who does so violates the prohibition against adding to mitzvot merely by donning one pair, since he is fulfilling the mitzva of phylacteries at a time when he is not commanded to do so., b And furthermore, /b according to this opinion, b one who sleeps in a i sukka /i on the Eighth Day /b of Assembly b should be flogged /b for violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, as he adds to the mitzva of: “You shall dwell in booths for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42). Yet the Sages instituted that outside of Eretz Yisrael, Jews must observe i Sukkot /i for eight days, even though one who sleeps in a i sukka /i on the eighth night outside of Eretz Yisrael transgresses a Torah law. b Rather, it is clear as we originally answered, /b i.e., you must accept one of the other explanations.,Since the topic of phylacteries was discussed, the Gemara continues to explore this issue. b Whom did you hear /b who said that b Shabbat is /b a fit b time for /b donning b phylacteries? /b It is b Rabbi Akiva, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the end of the section in the Torah beginning with: “Sanctify all firstborns to me” (Exodus 13:2), which deals with the mitzvot of the Paschal lamb and phylacteries: b “And you shall observe this ordice in its season from year [ i miyamim /i ] to year” /b (Exodus 13:10), which indicates that these mitzvot apply during the b days /b [ b i yamim /i /b ] b and not /b during the b nights. /b Furthermore, the letter i mem /i in b “from year” [ i miyamim /i ] /b teaches: b But not /b on b all days; /b this b excludes Shabbat and Festivals, /b on which phylacteries are not worn. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. /b , b Rabbi Akiva says: This ordice is stated only with regard to the Paschal /b lamb, and it does not refer to phylacteries at all. According to Rabbi Akiva, there is no reason to refrain from donning phylacteries on Shabbat and Festivals.,The Gemara asks: b But /b with regard to b that /b which b we learned /b in a mishna that b the Paschal /b lamb b and circumcision are positive mitzvot, let us say that /b this statement is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva. /b The reason for this claim is b that if /b you say this teaching is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, since he establishes /b this verse as referring b to the Paschal /b lamb, this would mean that in failure to bring this offering there b is also /b the violation of b a negative /b mitzva, b in accordance with /b the principle b that Rabbi Avin /b said that b Rabbi Elai said. As Rabbi Avin said /b that b Rabbi Elai said: Any place /b where b it is stated: Observe, lest, or do not, /b this means b nothing other than a negative /b mitzva, as these are negative terms. Consequently, the verse “You shall observe this ordice,” which refers to the Paschal lamb, constitutes a negative mitzva.,The Gemara rejects this: b Even if you say /b that b Rabbi Akiva /b holds that no negative mitzva applies to the Paschal lamb, it is not difficult, as an additional principle must be taken into account. Although it is true that the term b observe with regard to a negative /b mitzva indicates the presence of another b negative /b mitzva; that same term b observe /b with regard to b a positive /b mitzva has the force of b a positive /b mitzva, as the Torah is warning adherents to take special care in the observance of a mitzva. The word observe in connection with the Paschal lamb is an example of this type of positive mitzva.,The Gemara returns to the issue at hand: b And /b does b Rabbi Akiva /b really b hold that Shabbat is a time for /b donning b phylacteries? Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Akiva says: /b I b might /b have thought that b a person should don phylacteries on i Shabbatot /i and Festivals. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “And it shall be for a sign for you on your arm, /b and for a remembrance between your eyes, so that God’s law shall be in your mouth; for with a strong arm God brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:9). The obligation to don phylacteries applies when Jews b require a sign /b to assert their Judaism and their status as the Chosen People, i.e., during the week, b excluding /b Shabbat and Festivals, b as they are themselves signs /b of Israel’s status as the Chosen People and a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. Consequently, no further sign is required on these days. This teaching proves that Rabbi Akiva maintains that Shabbat is not a fit time for donning phylacteries., b Rather, it is this i tanna /i , /b Rabbi Natan, who maintains that Shabbat is a fit time for donning phylacteries, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b one who is awake at night, if he wishes he /b may b remove /b his phylacteries, and b if he wishes he /b may continue to b don /b them, and he need not worry about violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot. This is b the statement of Rabbi Natan. Yonatan HaKitoni says: One /b may b not don phylacteries at night. From /b the fact b that according to the first i tanna /i , /b Rabbi Natan, b night is /b a fit b time for phylacteries, /b it may be inferred that b Shabbat, too, is a time for /b donning b phylacteries, /b as Rabbi Natan evidently does not accept Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s limitation based on the phrase: From year to year.,The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not a conclusive proof, as b perhaps he holds /b that although b night is /b a fit b time for phylacteries, Shabbat is not /b a fit b time for phylacteries. As we /b have b heard that Rabbi Akiva said /b that b night is a time for phylacteries, /b because he does not accept the limitation of “from days to days,” and yet he maintains that b Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries, /b as no sign is required on Shabbat. It is therefore possible that Rabbi Natan holds the same opinion., b Rather, /b we must say that b it is this i tanna /i /b who maintains that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Michal, daughter of Kushi, /b King Saul, b would don phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her /b behavior, as she was permitted to do so. b And /b similarly, b Jonah’s wife would undertake the Festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not protest against her /b practice. b From /b the fact b that the Sages did not protest against /b Michal’s donning phylacteries, b it is apparent that these /b Sages b hold /b that phylacteries b is a positive mitzva not bound by time, /b i.e., it is a mitzva whose performance is mandated at all times, including nights and Shabbat. There is an accepted principle that women are obligated in all positive mitzvot not bound by time.,The Gemara rejects this contention: b But perhaps /b that i tanna /i b holds /b |
|
112. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84| 2b. לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה,רבא אמר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתיוהו בי תרי אי נמי ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל,אי נמי באותה מדינה במדינת הים,ולרבה דאמר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה ליבעי תרי מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה עד אחד נאמן באיסורין,אימור דאמרינן עד אחד נאמן באיסורין כגון חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן דלא איתחזק איסורא,אבל הכא דאיתחזק איסורא דאשת איש הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,רוב בקיאין הן ואפילו לר"מ דחייש למיעוטא סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי ורבנן הוא דאצרוך והכא | 2b. It is b because /b the people who live overseas b are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake. /b It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question., b Rava says /b a different reason: It is b because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. /b Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the difference b between /b these two explanations? The Gemara answers: b There is /b a difference b between them /b with regard to a case b where two /b people b brought /b the bill of divorce. In this case, two witnesses are available to ratify the bill of divorce if someone objects to its validity. b Alternatively, /b the difference concerns a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce b from /b one b region to /b another b region within Eretz Yisrael. /b Here there is no concern that the bill of divorce might not have been written for her sake, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of this requirement. However, witnesses are not necessarily available to confirm the document., b Alternatively, /b there is a difference between the two explanations in a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce b within that /b same b region in a country overseas. /b According to the opinion of Rabba, who says the concern is that the people there might not know that the document must be written for her sake, this problem is equally relevant in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the reason is because witnesses are not available, if the bill of divorce is brought in the same region then the witnesses will be available to ratify it.,The Gemara asks: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabba, who said /b that the reason is b because they are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake, let us require two /b witnesses to testify about this, b just as is /b the case b with regard to all testimonies in the Torah. /b The Gemara answers: b One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. /b In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witnesses is sufficient.,The Gemara asks: One can b say that we say one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions /b in a case b such as /b where there is b a piece /b of fat, and it is b uncertain /b if it is forbidden b fat /b [ b i ḥelev /i /b ] and b uncertain /b if it is permitted b fat. /b In this situation the piece can be rendered permitted by a single witness, b as there is no presumption /b that it is b forbidden. /b Therefore, as there is an uncertainty, and one witness said it is permitted fat, he is deemed credible., b However, here, where there is a presumption /b that this woman is b forbidden, as /b she is b a married woman, /b a status she retains until it is established that she has received a bill of divorce, if so, this b is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and /b the general principle is that b there is no matter /b of testimony b for forbidden sexual relations /b that can be attested to by b fewer than two /b witnesses.,The Gemara answers: Rabba’s concern is not equivalent to a case of uncertainty, as b most /b Jewish people b are experts /b in the requirement that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. b And /b this is so b even according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who is /b generally b concerned about a minority /b in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. In this case Rabbi Meir concedes that one need not be concerned for the minority, as b ordinary judicial scribes, /b who write bills of divorce, b are learned /b in this i halakha /i , and know that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. b And it is the Sages who required /b testimony about this matter, as an extra precaution. b And here, /b with regard to this testimony, |
|
| 113. Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation For The Gospel, 8.7.3 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 57 |
114. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 104| 9b. כל היוצא למלחמת בית דוד גט כריתות כותב לאשתו דכתיב (שמואל א יז, יח) ואת אחיך תפקד לשלום ואת ערובתם תקח מאי ואת ערובתם תקח תני רב יוסף דברים המעורבין בינו לבינה,אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא בתולה נשאת ליום הרביעי ליום רביעי אין ליום חמישי לא מאי טעמא משום איקרורי דעתא,ולמאי אי למיתב לה כתובה ניתיב לה אלא לאוסרה עליו ודקא טעין טענה,מאי לאו דקטעין טענת פתח פתוח לא דקטעין טענת דמים,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל האומר פתח פתוח מצאתי נאמן להפסידה כתובתה אמר רב יוסף מאי קמ"ל תנינא האוכל אצל חמיו ביהודה שלא בעדים אינו יכול לטעון טענת בתולים מפני שמתייחד עמה ביהודה הוא דלא מצי טעין הא בגליל מצי טעין,ולמאי אי לאוסרה עליו ביהודה אמאי לא אלא לאו להפסידה כתובתה ודקא טעין טענה מאי לאו דקא טעין טענת פתח פתוח לא דקא טעין טענת דמים | 9b. b Anyone who goes to a war /b waged by the royal b house of David writes a /b conditional b bill of divorce to his wife. /b This was done to prevent a situation in which the wife of the soldier would be unable to remarry because her husband did not return from battle and there were no witnesses with regard to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded the wife the status of a divorcée and freed her to remarry, b as it is written: “And to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [ i arubatam /i ]” /b (I Samuel 17:18). b What is /b the meaning of: b And take i arubatam /i ? Rav Yosef taught: /b It is referring to b matters that are shared [ i hame’oravin /i ] between /b the husband b and /b his wife, i.e., marriage. Since apparently it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, and since Uriah later died, Bathsheba assumed divorced status retroactively from the time that he set out to war. Therefore, she was not forbidden to David.,§ Apropos the credibility of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, b Abaye said: We, too, learn /b in the mishna proof for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: b A virgin is married on Wednesday. /b Abaye infers: b On Wednesday, yes, /b a virgin is married; b on Thursday, no, /b she is not married. b What is the reason /b for this ruling? It is b due to /b the fact b that /b if the marriage were to be held on Thursday, several days would elapse before the court would next convene, and in the interim b his resolve will cool /b and his anger subside. The concern is that consequently he will fail to claim before the court that his bride was not a virgin.,The Gemara asks: b And for what /b matter is that a source of concern? b If /b the concern is with regard b to giving her /b payment for her b marriage contract, /b i.e., if he fails to go to court, her legal status at the time of marriage will remain that of a virgin, and when the time comes she will receive payment for her marriage contract to which she is not entitled; then b let him give /b it b to her /b if he wishes. Why is that a concern? b Rather, it is /b with regard b to rendering her forbidden to him, and /b that would result in a case b where he makes a claim. /b , b What, is it not /b referring to a case b where he makes the claim: /b I encountered b an unobstructed orifice, /b after engaging in intercourse with his bride, and his claim is accorded credibility to render her forbidden to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects that proof: b No, /b it can be explained that it is a case b where he makes the claim /b that there was no b blood, /b which would have resulted from rupture of the hymen had she been a virgin. That is a claim based on objective, verifiable evidence and not merely dependent on his subjective sensation.,§ b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said /b that a groom b who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is deemed credible /b with regard b to causing her to lose her marriage contract. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We /b already b learned /b explicitly in a mishna (12a): A man b who eats at /b the house of b his father-in-law in Judea /b after betrothal, b without witnesses /b to attest to the fact that he was not alone with her, b cannot make a claim about /b his bride’s b virginity /b after marriage, b because /b in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is b that he secluded himself with her /b and it was he who engaged in intercourse with her. The Gemara infers: It is b in Judea that he cannot claim /b that she is not a virgin, b but in the Galilee, he can claim /b that this is the case.,The Gemara asks: b And for what /b matter is this claim directed? b If it is to render her forbidden to him, /b then b in Judea why /b is the claim b not /b credible? If he is certain that he did not engage in intercourse with her, and finds that she is not a virgin, apparently she committed adultery and that claim should render her forbidden. b Rather, is it not /b that he is seeking b to cause her to lose her marriage contract /b in a case b where he makes a claim? /b And b what, is it not /b referring to a case b where he makes the claim: /b I encountered b an unobstructed orifice, /b and apparently he is accorded credibility? The Gemara rejects that proof: b No, /b it can be explained that it is a case b where he makes the claim /b that there was no b blood. /b |
|
115. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 138| 14b. תניא הנודר בתורה לא אמר כלום במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין,קתני במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה צריך למימר,אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא הא דמחתא אורייתא אארעא הא דנקיט לה בידיה מחתא על ארעא דעתיה אגווילי נקט לה בידיה דעתיה על האזכרות שבה,ואיבעית אימא דמחתא על ארעא והא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמחתא על ארעא כיוון דאמר במה שכתוב בה מהני וזו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני,ואי בעית אימא כולה מציעתא נמי דנקיט ליה בידיה והא קא משמע לן כיוון דנקיט ליה בידיה אף על גב דלא אמר אלא בה כמאן דאמר במה שכתוב בה דמי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big קונם שאני ישן שאני מדבר שאני מהלך האומר לאשה קונם שאני משמשך הרי זה בלא יחל דברו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איתמר קונם עיני בשינה היום אם אישן למחר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אל יישן היום שמא יישן למחר ורב נחמן אמר יישן היום ולא חיישינן שמא יישן למחר ומודה רב יהודה באומר קונם עיני בשינה למחר אם אישן היום שישן היום | 14b. § b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who takes a vow /b by associating an item b with a Torah /b scroll b has not said anything, /b and the vow does not take effect. However, he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. /b Since the name of God is written in the Torah, he has invoked God’s name in his vow. If he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld. /b ,The Gemara asks: b It is taught /b that if he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. Need it be said /b that the i halakha /i is the same if he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it? /b That is obvious., b Rav Naḥman said: /b This is b not difficult. This /b case, in which the item is associated with it and with what is written in it, is referring to b where the Torah /b scroll b is placed on the ground, /b while b that /b case, in which the item is associated with what is written in it, is referring to b where he is holding it in his hands. /b If b it is placed on the ground, /b whether one mentions the Torah scroll or what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the parchment, /b i.e., the physical scroll, as he naturally assumes that since the scroll is placed on the ground, the parchment must be blank. Therefore, the vow takes effect only if he mentions both it and what is written in it, indicating that he is aware that it is a Torah scroll. However, where b he is holding it in his hands /b and associates the item with what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the mentions [ i azkarot /i ] /b of the name of God b that are in it, /b and the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the entire i baraita /i is referring to a case b where it is placed on the ground, and this /b middle clause of: With what is written in the Torah scroll, b teaches us that even though it is placed on the ground, since he said: With what is written in it, it is /b an b effective /b vow, as he was clearly referring to the names of God. b And /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b teaches /b employing the style: b This, and it is unnecessary to say that. /b The i baraita /i teaches the i halakha /i where he said: What is written in it, which has a novel element, and then states a more obvious ruling, i.e., it goes without saying that if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the entire middle clause, /b i.e., the latter clause, where he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, is referring to a case b where he is holding /b the Torah scroll b in his hands. And /b the i baraita /i b teaches us this: Since he is holding it in his hands, even though he said only: With /b the Torah scroll, and did not explicitly state: With what is written in it, he is b considered /b to be b like one who said: With what is written in it. /b Therefore, the item is prohibited., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to one who says: b Sleeping is /b forbidden b for me as if /b it were b an offering [ i konam /i ], /b thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: b Speaking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or: b Walking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or b one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is i konam /i for me, /b if he violates the vow b he is in /b violation of the prohibition b “He shall not profane his word” /b (Numbers 30:3)., strong GEMARA: /strong b It was stated /b that with regard to one who says: b Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes today if I will sleep tomorrow, Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: He may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow /b and thereby cause the vow to have been violated today, retroactively. b And Rav Naḥman said: He may sleep today, /b as there is currently no prohibition, b and we are not concerned that he will perhaps sleep tomorrow, /b as he will be careful not to sleep. b And Rav Yehuda concedes /b that b in /b a case where b he says: Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today, he may sleep today. /b |
|
116. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147| 50a. כאיסורו מה איסורו בכזית אף חזרתו בכזית,תניא ר' נתן אומר זה וזה כשתי ביצים ולא הודו לו חכמים,(זכריה יד, ו) והיה ביום ההוא לא יהיה אור יקרות וקפאון מאי יקרות וקפאון,א"ר אלעזר זה אור שיקר בעולם הזה וקפוי לעולם הבא,ר' יוחנן אמר אלו נגעים ואהלות שיקרין הן בעוה"ז וקפויין הן לעולם הבא,ור' יהושע בן לוי אמר אלו בני אדם שיקרין הן בעולם הזה וקפויין הן לעוה"ב כי הא דרב יוסף בריה דר' יהושע בן לוי חלש ואיתנגיד כי הדר אמר ליה אבוה מאי חזית אמר ליה עולם הפוך ראיתי עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה אמר לו בני עולם ברור ראית ואנן היכי התם כי היכי דאיתו אנן הכא הכי איתינן התם,ושמעתי שהיו אומרים אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו ושמעתי שהיו אומרים הרוגי מלכות אין אדם יכול לעמוד במחיצתן,(ומאן) נינהו אילימא ר"ע וחביריו משום הרוגי מלכות ותו לא אלא הרוגי לוד,(זכריה יד, כ) ביום ההוא יהיה על מצלות הסוס קדש לה' מאי מצלות הסוס,א"ר יהושע בן לוי עתיד הקב"ה להוסיף על ירושלים עד שהסוס רץ ומציל,ר' אלעזר אמר כל מצילות שתולין לסוס בין עיניו יהיה קדש לה',ור' יוחנן אמר כל ביזה שבוזזין ישראל עד שעה שהסוס רץ ומציל יהיה קדש לה',בשלמא למאן דאמר כל ביזה שבזזו ישראל היינו דכתיב (זכריה יד, כ) והיה הסירות בבית ה' כמזרקים לפני המזבח אלא למ"ד בהנך תרתי מאי והיה הסירות בבית ה' מילתא אחריתי קאמר דמתעתרי ישראל ומתנדבי ומייתי,בשלמא למ"ד ביזה היינו דכתיב (זכריה יד, כא) ולא יהיה כנעני עוד בבית ה' צבאות אלא למ"ד הנך תרתי מאי ולא יהיה כנעני א"ר ירמיה אין כאן עני,וכנעני מנלן דאיקרי תגר דכתיב (בראשית לח, ב) וירא שם יהודה בת איש כנעני מאי כנעני אילימא כנעני ממש אפשר בא אברהם והזהיר את יצחק בא יצחק והזהיר את יעקב ויהודה אזיל ונסיב אלא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש בת גברא תגרא דכתיב (הושע יב, ח) כנען בידו מאזני מרמה ואיבעית אימא מהכא (ישעיהו כג, ח) אשר סוחריה שרים כנעניה נכבדי ארץ:,(זכריה יד, ט) והיה ה' למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד אטו האידנא לאו אחד הוא,אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה על בשורות טובות אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב ועל בשורות רעות אומר ברוך דיין האמת לעולם הבא כולו הטוב והמטיב,ושמו אחד מאי אחד אטו האידנא לאו שמו אחד הוא,א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה נכתב ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ף דל"ת אבל לעולם הבא כולו אחד נקרא ביו"ד ה"י ונכתב ביו"ד ה"י,סבר רבא למדרשה בפירקא א"ל ההוא סבא לעלם כתיב,ר' אבינא רמי כתיב (שמות ג, טו) זה שמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדור דור אמר הקב"ה לא כשאני נכתב אני נקרא נכתב אני ביו"ד ה"א ונקרא אני באל"ף דל"ת:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אלו עוברין /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongמקום /strong /big שנהגו לעשות מלאכה בערבי פסחים עד חצות עושין מקום שנהגו שלא לעשות אין עושין ההולך ממקום שעושין למקום שאין עושין או ממקום שאין עושין למקום שעושין נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם וחומרי מקום שהלך לשם | 50a. b is analogous to its prohibition. Just as its prohibition is /b only when it is the size of an b olive-bulk, so too, /b the requirement to b return it is /b only when it is the size of an b olive-bulk. /b ,Another opinion on this issue b was taught /b in a i baraita /i . b Rabbi Natan says: /b The minimum measure for both b this and that, /b leaven and sacrificial meat, is b two egg-bulks /b of prohibited material, b but the Rabbis did not agree with him. /b ,Incidental to the discussion of leaving Jerusalem and its surrounding area, the Gemara cites expositions of a prophetic passage, including a statement that God will eventually expand the boundaries of Jerusalem. The verse states: b “And it shall come to pass on that day that there shall not be light, /b but b heavy clouds [ i yekarot /i ] and thickness [ i vekippaon /i ]” /b (Zechariah 14:6). The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of the expression b “ i yekarot vekippaon /i ”? /b , b Rabbi Elazar said: This is /b the b light /b currently provided by the sun, b which is significant /b [ b i yakar /i ] in this world and insignificant /b [ b i kafuy /i ] in the World-to-Come, /b when the moon will shine as brightly as the sun does now and the sun will be seven times brighter than it is currently., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: This /b expression refers to the tractates of b i Nega’im /i and i Oholot /i , which are weighty [ i yekarim /i ] /b owing to their difficulty b in this world, /b as they are among the most complex subjects, b but /b will be b easy [ i kefuyin /i ] in the World-to-Come, /b when people will be much wiser., b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: These are people who are /b considered b important [ i yekarim /i ] in this world and unimportant /b [ b i kefuyim /i ] in the World-to-Come. /b This is b like /b the incident involving b Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b who b became ill and /b was about to b expire. When he returned /b to good health, b his father said to him: What did you see /b when you were about to die? b He said to him: I saw an inverted world. Those above, /b i.e., those who are considered important in this world, were b below, /b insignificant, while b those below, /b i.e., those who are insignificant in this world, were b above. He said to him: My son, you have seen a clear world. /b The world you have seen is the true world, as in that world people’s standings befit them. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: b And where are we, /b the Torah scholars, b there? /b Rav Yosef responded: b Just as we are /b regarded b here, so are we /b regarded b there. /b ,Rav Yosef added: b And I heard that they were saying /b in that world: b Praiseworthy is the one who arrives here with his studies in hand. And I /b also b heard that they were saying: Those executed by the government /b enjoy such an exalted status that b no one can stand in their enclosure. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And who are these /b martyrs that Rav Yosef was referring to? b If you say /b that he was referring to b Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, /b who were martyred, this cannot be: Is their elevated status b due /b only b to /b the fact that b they were martyred by /b the Roman b government and nothing more? /b These men were exceptional in their piety and sanctity during their lives as well. b Rather, /b it is referring to b the martyrs of Lod, /b Pappos and Luliyanos, who gave themselves up to be martyred for the sake of the Jewish people. They falsely admitted to killing the king’s daughter in order to prevent a harsh decree from being issued against the entire community. Although they were not known for exceptional piety before that event, they are considered to be extremely holy due to their martyrdom.,The Gemara continues to expound the section of the book of Zechariah cited above. The verse states: b “On that day there shall be upon the bells of the horses [ i metzillot hasus /i ]: Holy unto the Lord” /b (Zechariah 14:20). The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of the expression b i metzillot hasus /i ? /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the future the Holy One, Blessed be He, will extend Jerusalem /b by b as much as /b the distance that b a horse can run /b the entire time b it casts a shadow [ i metzeil /i ]. /b Jerusalem will be so large that a horse running from one side of the city in the morning will not arrive at the other end of the city until midday, when its shadow will have disappeared., b Rabbi Elazar said: All /b decorative b bells [ i metzillot /i ] that one hangs between the eyes of a horse will be sanctified to God, /b i.e., they will be consecrated for the Temple treasury., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: All spoils that the Jewish people /b will b take /b from gentiles who wage war against them, b up to the time a horse runs and casts a shadow [ i metzeil /i ], /b i.e., half a day, b will be sanctified for God. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who said /b that this expression refers to b all spoils that the Jewish people /b will b take, this is as it is written /b in the continuation of the verse, which mentions additional treasure donated to the Temple: b “And the pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the basins before the altar.” However, according to the ones who said these /b other b two /b explanations, b what /b is the meaning of: b “And the pots in the Lord’s house”? /b The Gemara explains that according to these opinions the verse b is saying something else: /b It is prophesying that in the future b the Jewish people will become wealthy and bring donations /b to the Temple.,The Gemara goes on to ask: b Granted, according to the one who said /b that this expression refers to b spoils, this is as it is written /b in the next verse: b “And /b on that day b there shall no longer be a merchant [ i kena’ani /i ] in the house of the Lord of hosts” /b (Zechariah 14:21), as he will no longer be needed. b However, according to the ones who said these /b other b two /b explanations, b what /b is the meaning of the expression: b “There shall no longer be a merchant”? Rabbi Yirmeya said: /b The word i kena’ani /i is in fact a contraction of the phrase: b There is no poor person here [ i ein kan ani /i ]. /b In other words, there will no longer be poor people, and therefore the Jews themselves will be able to donate whatever is needed in the Temple (Maharsha)., b And from where do we /b derive b that a merchant can be called a i kena’ani /i ? As it is written: “And Judah saw there the daughter of a certain i kena’ani /i … /b and he took her, and went in unto her” (Genesis 38:2). b What is /b the meaning of the word b i kena’ani /i /b in this context? b If you say /b it refers to b an actual Canaanite, is it possible that Abraham warned Isaac /b not to marry a Canaanite woman, and b Isaac warned Jacob /b to the same effect, b and /b nonetheless b Judah went and married /b a Canaanite woman? b Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: /b She was b the daughter of a merchant, as it is written: “As for the merchant [ i kena’an /i ], the balances of deceit are in his hand. He loves /b to oppress” (Hosea 12:8). b And if you wish, say /b instead that this meaning of the word can be understood from the following verse, which describes Tyre: b “Whose traders are princes, whose merchants [ i kieha /i ] are the honorable of the earth” /b (Isaiah 23:8).,The Gemara cites another verse from the prophecy at the end of the book of Zechariah: b “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth, on that day shall the Lord be one and His name one” /b (Zechariah 14:9). The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that now He is not one? /b , b Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: The World-to-Come is not like this world. /b In b this world, upon good tidings one recites: Blessed…Who is good and does good, and over bad tidings one recites: Blessed…the true Judge. In the World-to-Come /b one will b always /b recite: b Blessed…Who is good and does good. /b There will be only one mode of blessing God for tidings.,The verse states: “On that day shall the Lord be one b and His name one.” /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the word b one /b in this context? b Is that to say that now His name is not one? /b , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The World-to-Come is not like this world. In this world, /b God’s name that b is written with /b the letters b i yod /i /b and b i heh /i is read /b as i Adonai /i , which begins with the letters b i alef /i /b and b i dalet /i . /b God’s name is not pronounced in the same way as it is written. b However, in the World-to-Come it will all be one, /b as God’s name will be both b read with /b the letters b i yod /i /b and b i heh /i and written with /b the letters b i yod /i /b and b i heh /i . /b , b Rava thought to expound /b upon the correct punctuation and enunciation of the name of God during his public b lecture /b before one of the Festivals. b A certain old man said to him: /b The word b forever is written /b in the verse: “This is My name forever [ i le’olam /i ]” (Exodus 3:15) without the letter i vav /i , such that it can be read i le’alem /i , to conceal, meaning that the name should be concealed., b Rabbi Avina raised a contradiction: It is written /b in the verse: b “This is My name forever,” /b implying a requirement to conceal the name of God, and in the very next phrase it states: b “And this is My memorial unto all generations” /b (Exodus 3:15), which indicates that the name of God is to be publicized and remembered by all. Rather, b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I, /b i.e., My name, is b not read as I am written. I am written with /b the letters b i yod /i /b and b i heh /i , and I am read with /b the letters b i alef /i /b and b i dalet /i . /b ,, strong MISHNA: /strong In b a place where /b the people were b accustomed to perform labor on Passover eve until midday, one /b may b do /b so on that day. In b a place where /b the people were b accustomed not to perform /b labor, b one /b may b not do /b so. The performance of labor on the eve of Passover is not prohibited by Torah law, but is dependent on local custom. If one b travels from a place where /b people b perform /b labor on Passover eve b to a place where /b people b do not perform /b labor, b or from a place where /b people b do not perform /b labor on Passover eve b to a place where /b people b perform /b labor, the Sages b impose upon him the stringencies of /b both b the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went. /b In both cases, he may not perform labor. |
|
117. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147| 71a. מטהר שבטים שבטו של לוי מטהר תחילה שנא' (מלאכי ג, ג) וישב מצרף ומטהר כסף וטיהר את בני לוי וזיקק אותם כזהב וככסף והיו לי"י מגישי מנחה בצדקה,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כסף מטהר ממזרים שנאמר וישב מצרף ומטהר כסף מאי מגישי מנחה בצדקה א"ר יצחק צדקה עשה הקב"ה עם ישראל שמשפחה שנטמעה נטמעה,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל ארצות עיסה לארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל עיסה לבבל בימי רבי בקשו לעשות בבל עיסה לארץ ישראל אמר להן קוצים אתם משימים לי בין עיני רצונכם יטפל עמכם ר' חנינא בר חמא,נטפל עמהם ר' חנינא בר חמא אמר להם כך מקובלני מר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי שאמר משום אביו כל ארצות עיסה לארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל עיסה לבבל,בימי רבי פנחס בקשו לעשות בבל עיסה לארץ ישראל אמר להם לעבדיו כשאני אומר שני דברים בבית המדרש טלוני בעריסה ורוצו כי עייל אמר להם אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה,אדיתבי וקמעייני בה אמר להו כל ארצות עיסה לארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל עיסה לבבל נטלוהו בעריסה ורצו רצו אחריו ולא הגיעוהו ישבו ובדקו עד שהגיעו לסכנה ופירשו,א"ר יוחנן היכלא בידינו היא אבל מה אעשה שהרי גדולי הדור נטמעו בה סבר לה כר' יצחק דאמר ר' יצחק משפחה שנטמעה נטמעה,אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא משפחת בית הצריפה היתה בעבר הירדן וריחקה בן ציון בזרוע עוד אחרת היתה וקירבה בן ציון בזרוע כגון אלו אליהו בא לטמא ולטהר לרחק ולקרב כגון אלו דידעין אבל משפחה שנטמעה נטמעה,תאנא עוד אחרת היתה ולא רצו חכמים לגלותה אבל חכמים מוסרים אותו לבניהם ולתלמידיהן פעם אחת בשבוע ואמרי לה פעמים בשבוע אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מסתברא כמאן דאמר פעם אחת בשבוע כדתניא הריני נזיר אם לא אגלה משפחות יהיה נזיר ולא יגלה משפחות,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן שם בן ארבע אותיות חכמים מוסרין אותו לתלמידיהן פעם אחת בשבוע ואמרי לה פעמים בשבוע אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מסתברא כמאן דאמר פעם אחת בשבוע דכתיב (שמות ג, טו) זה שמי לעולם לעלם כתיב רבא סבר למידרשיה בפירקא א"ל ההוא סבא לעלם כתיב,רבי אבינא רמי כתיב (שמות ג, טו) זה שמי וכתיב (שמות ג, טו) זה זכרי אמר הקב"ה לא כשאני נכתב אני נקרא נכתב אני ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ף דל"ת,ת"ר בראשונה שם בן שתים עשרה אותיות היו מוסרין אותו לכל אדם משרבו הפריצים היו מוסרים אותו לצנועים שבכהונה והצנועים שבכהונה מבליעים אותו בנעימת אחיהם הכהנים תניא אמר רבי טרפון פעם אחת עליתי אחר אחי אמי לדוכן והטיתי אזני אצל כהן גדול ושמעתי שהבליע שם בנעימת אחיו הכהנים,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שם בן ארבעים ושתים אותיות אין מוסרין אותו אלא למי שצנוע ועניו ועומד בחצי ימיו ואינו כועס ואינו משתכר ואינו מעמיד על מדותיו וכל היודעו והזהיר בו והמשמרו בטהרה אהוב למעלה ונחמד למטה ואימתו מוטלת על הבריות ונוחל שני עולמים העולם הזה והעולם הבא,אמר שמואל משמיה דסבא בבל בחזקת כשרה עומדת עד שיודע לך במה נפסלה שאר ארצות בחזקת פסול הן עומדות עד שיודע לך במה נכשרה ארץ ישראל מוחזק לפסול פסול מוחזק לכשר כשר,הא גופא קשיא אמרת מוחזק לפסול פסול הא סתמא כשר והדר תני מוחזק לכשר כשר הא סתמא פסול אמר רב הונא בר תחליפא משמיה דרב לא קשיא | 71a. b purifies /b the b tribes, /b i.e., clarifies their lineage, He will b purify /b that of b the tribe of Levi first, as it is stated /b with regard to the angel sent forth by God: b “And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver; and there shall be they that shall offer to the Lord offerings in righteousness” /b (Malachi 3:3)., b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Money purifies i mamzerim /i . /b Money causes rich i mamzerim /i to become assimilated with Jews of unflawed lineage, since other families marry them despite their flawed lineage. In the future, God will not single them out as i mamzerim /i , b as it is stated: “And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver,” /b which teaches that money, i.e., silver, purifies them. b What, /b then, is the connection to the next part of the verse: b “They that shall offer to the Lord offerings in righteousness”? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed /b an act of b righteousness with the Jewish people /b by establishing b that a family that has become assimilated /b with Jews of unflawed lineage remains b assimilated. /b They are not removed from their tribe despite their flawed lineage.,§ With regard to b the /b matter b itself /b that was discussed earlier, the lineage of the Jews in various lands, b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: /b The lineage of residents of b all lands is muddled /b compared b to /b that of the residents of b Eretz Yisrael, and /b the lineage of residents of b Eretz Yisrael is muddled /b compared b to /b that of b Babylonia. /b The Gemara relates: b In the days of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b they sought to establish /b the lineage of the Jews in b Babylonia /b as b muddled /b relative b to /b that of b Eretz Yisrael. /b In other words, the people of Eretz Yisrael wanted their lineage to be considered superior to that of the residents of Babylonia, so that if people from Eretz Yisrael would wish to marry Babylonians, they would have to investigate the lineage of the Babylonians. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Hillel, a Babylonian, so b he said to /b those who put forth this suggestion: b Are you placing thorns between my eyes? /b Do you wish to insult me? b If you wish, Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama will join you /b and explain it to you., b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama joined them /b and b said to them: This /b is the tradition that b I received from Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who says in the name of his father, /b who was from Eretz Yisrael: The lineage of residents of b all lands is muddled /b compared b to /b that of b Eretz Yisrael, and /b the lineage of residents of b Eretz Yisrael is muddled /b compared b to /b that of b Babylonia. /b ,The Gemara further relates with regard to the same issue: b In the days of Rabbi Pineḥas, they sought to establish /b the lineage of b Babylonia /b as b muddled /b relative b to /b that of b Eretz Yisrael. He said to his servants: When I have said two statements in the house of study, pick me up on a stretcher and run, /b so that I will not be attacked for my statements. b When he entered /b the house of study b he said to /b those studying there: b Slaughter of a bird is not /b obligatory b by Torah law. /b , b While they were sitting and scrutinizing this /b novel i halakha /i , b he said to them: /b The lineage of residents of b all lands is muddled /b compared b to /b that of b Eretz Yisrael, and /b the lineage of residents of b Eretz Yisrael is muddled /b compared b to /b that of b Babylonia. /b His servants b picked him up on a stretcher and ran. /b Those that were in the house of study b pursued him but could not catch him. /b Nevertheless, b they sat and examined /b the lineage of various families in order to determine whether in fact the lineage of the residents of Eretz Yisrael was problematic, b until they reached /b powerful families. It was b dangerous /b to accuse them of flaws due to their power, b and they withdrew /b from their inspections., b Rabbi Yoḥa says /b as an oath: By the b Sanctuary! It is in our power /b to reveal the identity of a family that has a flawed lineage, b but what can I do, as the greatest of the generation are assimilated into it? /b Consequently, I will not reveal its name. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yoḥa b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A family that has become assimilated /b remains b assimilated, /b and one should not reveal their flawed status., b Abaye said: We too learn /b in the mishna ( i Eduyyot /i 8:7): b There was a family /b known as b Beit HaTzerifa in Transjordan, and /b a person called b ben Tziyyon forcefully distanced it /b and proclaimed that its lineage was flawed, although its lineage was unflawed. b There was another /b one b that ben Tzion forcefully drew near, /b although its lineage was flawed. The mishna adds: Known families b such as these, Elijah comes to /b declare b impure and to /b declare b pure, to distance and to draw near. /b Abaye continues: When the mishna states: b Such as these, /b it means those b whose /b status b we know. But a family that has become assimilated, /b whose flawed lineage is unknown to the public, b has /b already b become assimilated, /b and not even Elijah will publicize its flaw.,The Sage b taught /b ( i Tosefta /i , i Eduyyot /i 3:4): b There was another /b family with flawed lineage, b but the Sages did not want to reveal its /b identity to all. b But the Sages transmit its /b name b to their children and to their students once every seven years, and some say twice every seven years, /b to prevent them from marrying into their family. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It stands to reason in accordance with the one who says /b that they transmit it b once every seven years, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Nazir /i 1:2): One who says: b I am hereby a nazirite if I do not reveal /b the names of b families /b of flawed lineage among the Jewish people, b he should be a nazirite and not reveal /b the identity of such b families. /b This shows that such information should be kept secret as much as possible.,§ The above statement, concerning a matter that the Sages transmitted privately and infrequently, leads the Gemara to teach a similar i halakha /i : b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: The Sages transmit /b the correct pronunciation of b the four-letter name /b of God b to their students once every seven years, and some say twice every seven years. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It stands to reason in accordance with the one who says /b that they transmit it b once every seven years, as it is written: “This is My name forever [ i le’olam /i ]” /b (Exodus 3:15), which is b written /b so that it can be read b i le’alem /i , /b to hide. This indicates that the Divine Name must remain hidden. The Gemara relates: b Rava planned to expound /b and explain the proper way to say the name b in /b a public b discourse. A certain elder said to him: It is written /b so that it can be read b i le’alem /i , /b indicating that it must stay hidden., b Rabbi Avina raised a contradiction: It is written: “This is My name,” /b indicating that the name as written is that of God; b and it is written: “This is My remembrance” /b (Exodus 3:15), which indicates that it is not God’s actual name but merely a way of remembering His name. The explanation is as follows: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Not as I am written am I pronounced. I am written with /b the letters b i yod /i , i heh /i , /b i vav /i , i heh /i , b while /b My name is b pronounced with /b the letters b i alef /i , i dalet /i , /b i nun /i , i yod /i ., b The Sages taught: Initially, /b the Sages b would transmit the twelve-letter name /b of God b to any person. When the uninhibited ones /b who used the name disrespectfully b increased, they would transmit it /b only b to discreet /b members b of the priesthood, and the discreet /b members b of the priesthood /b would pronounce the name during the Priestly Benediction. They would b conceal it /b by saying it b during the sweet /b melody b of their priestly brothers, /b so that it would not become publicly known. b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Tarfon, /b who was himself a priest, b said: /b On b one occasion I ascended after my mother’s brother to the platform /b to give the Priestly Benediction, b and I inclined my ear near the High Priest, and I heard him conceal the name during the sweet /b melody b of his priestly brothers. /b , b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: The forty-two-letter name /b of God b may be transmitted only to one who is discreet, and humble, and stands at /b at least b half his life, and does not get angry, and does not get drunk, and does not insist upon his rights /b but is willing to yield. There is no concern that such a person might reveal the name in a fit of anger or drunkenness. b And anyone who knows /b this name b and is careful with it and guards it in purity is beloved above and treasured below; and fear of him is cast upon the creatures; and he inherits two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come. /b ,§ The Gemara returns to the issue of lineage: b Shmuel says in the name of /b a certain b elder: /b A family in b Babylonia has a presumptive status of unflawed /b lineage b until it becomes known to you in what way it was /b rendered of b flawed /b lineage. Conversely, a family from b other lands has a presumptive status of flawed /b lineage b until it becomes known to you in what way it was /b rendered b unflawed. /b As for families in b Eretz Yisrael, /b one who b has a presumptive status of flawed /b lineage is of b flawed /b lineage, whereas one who b has presumptive status of unflawed /b lineage is of b unflawed /b lineage.,The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: b This matter itself is difficult: /b First, b you said /b that a family that b has a presumptive status of flawed /b lineage is of b flawed /b lineage, indicating that a family with b unspecified /b status is of b unflawed /b lineage. b And then /b you b teach: /b A family that b has a presumptive status of unflawed /b lineage is of b unflawed /b lineage, indicating that a family with b unspecified /b status is of b flawed /b lineage. b Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rav: /b This is b not difficult. /b |
|
118. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 47| 25b. ואומר (תהלים צט, ו) משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקוראי שמו שקל הכתוב שלשה קלי עולם כשלשה חמורי עולם,לומר לך ירובעל בדורו כמשה בדורו בדן בדורו כאהרן בדורו יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו ללמדך שאפילו קל שבקלין ונתמנה פרנס על הצבור הרי הוא כאביר שבאבירים,ואומר (דברים יז, ט) ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם וכי תעלה על דעתך שאדם הולך אצל הדיין שלא היה בימיו הא אין לך לילך אלא אצל שופט שבימיו ואומר (קהלת ז, י) אל תאמר מה היה שהימים הראשונים היו טובים מאלה:,נטל מקלו ומעותיו בידו: תנו רבנן כיון שראה אותו עמד מכסאו ונשקו על ראשו אמר לו שלום עליך רבי ותלמידי רבי שלמדתני תורה ברבים ותלמידי שאני גוזר עליך גזירה ואתה מקיימה כתלמיד אשרי הדור שהגדולים נשמעים לקטנים קל וחומר קטנים לגדולים,קל וחומר חיובא הוא אלא מתוך שהגדולים נשמעים לקטנים נושאין קטנים קל וחומר בעצמן:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אם אינן מכירין /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongראוהו /strong /big בית דין וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר,ראוהו ב"ד בלבד יעמדו שנים ויעידו בפניהם ויאמרו מקודש מקודש ראוהו שלשה והן בית דין יעמדו השנים ויושיבו מחביריהם אצל היחיד ויעידו בפניהם ויאמרו מקודש מקודש שאין היחיד נאמן על ידי עצמו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big למה לי למיתנא ראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איצטריך סד"א הואיל וראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איפרסמא לה ולא ליעברוה קמ"ל,וכיון דתנא ליה ראוהו ב"ד וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים למה לי ה"ק א"נ נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר,וכיון דתנא עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר למה לי למיתנייה חקירת העדים כלל,איצטריך סד"א תיהוי חקירת עדים כתחילת דין ומקודש מקודש כגמר דין ולקדשי בליליא מידי דהוה אדיני ממונות דתנן דיני ממונות דנין ביום וגומרין בלילה הכא נמי מקדשין בליליא קמ"ל,ואימא הכי נמי אמר קרא (תהלים פא, ה) כי חק לישראל הוא משפט לאלהי יעקב אימת הוי חק בגמר דין וקא קרי ליה רחמנא משפט מה משפט ביום אף הכא נמי ביום:,ראוהו בית דין יעמדו שנים ויעידו בפניהם ואמאי לא תהא שמיעה גדולה מראייה,א"ר זירא כגון שראוהו בלילה:,ראוהו שלשה והן בית דין יעמדו שנים ויושיבו מחביריהם אצל היחיד אמאי הכא נמי נימא לא תהא שמיעה גדולה מראייה וכי תימא ה"נ כגון שראוהו בלילה היינו הך,סיפא איצטריכא ליה דאין היחיד נאמן על ידי עצמו דסלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל (ותנן) דיני ממונות בשלשה ואם היה מומחה לרבים דן אפילו ביחיד הכא נמי ניקדשיה ביחידי קמ"ל,ואימא הכא נמי אין לך מומחה לרבים בישראל יותר ממשה רבינו וקאמר ליה הקב"ה עד דאיכא אהרן בהדך דכתיב (שמות יב, א) ויאמר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים לאמר החדש הזה לכם,למימרא דעד נעשה דיין לימא מתני' דלא כר"ע דתניא סנהדרין שראו אחד שהרג את הנפש | 25b. b And it says /b in another verse: b “Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call His name; /b they called upon the Lord, and He answered them” (Psalms 99:6). This verse equates Samuel to Moses and Aaron. In this manner, b the verse weighed three light ones of the world, /b i.e., it considered the three less distinguished figures of Gideon, Samson, and Jephthah b as /b equal to b three significant ones of the world, /b Moses, Aaron, and Samuel, three of the greatest leaders of the Jewish people.,This comes b to tell you /b that b Jerubaal in his generation /b is worthy of being treated b like Moses in his generation; Bedan in his generation /b is b like Aaron in his generation; /b and b Jephthah in his generation /b is b like Samuel in his generation. /b This serves b to teach you /b that b even the lightest of the light, /b i.e., the least distinguished individual, once b he has been appointed /b as b a leader over the community, he /b must be treated b like the greatest of the great, /b and all are required to heed him and obey his rulings., b And it /b further b says: “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days” /b (Deuteronomy 17:9). b But /b can it b enter your mind that a person /b can b go to a judge that is not /b alive b in his days? /b What, then, is the meaning of the phrase “in those days”? It teaches that b you /b need b to go only to the judge in one’s days, /b i.e., he is authorized to judge and decide matters. b And it /b also b says: “Do not say: How was it that the former days were better than these? /b For it is not out of wisdom that you inquire concerning this” (Ecclesiastes 7:10). Instead, one must accept the rulings of the leaders of his generation.,§ The mishna taught: Rabbi Yehoshua b took his staff and his money in his hand, /b and appeared before Rabban Gamliel on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred according to his calculation, as Rabban Gamliel had ordered him to do. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b When /b Rabban Gamliel b saw /b Rabbi Yehoshua, b he rose from his chair and kissed him on his head /b and b said to him: Peace be on you, my teacher and my student. My teacher, as you have taught me Torah in public, and my student, as I issue a decree against you and you fulfill it like a student /b of mine. b Fortunate is the generation in which the greater heed the lesser, and /b it is b an i a fortiori /i /b inference that the generation in which b the lesser /b heed b the greater /b is certainly fortunate as well.,The Gemara questions this last point: Is this derived by b an i a fortiori /i /b inference? This is incorrect, as b it is an obligation /b for the lesser to heed those who are greater than them. b Rather, /b Rabbi Gamliel meant the following: b Since the greater heed the lesser, the lesser apply an i a fortiori /i /b inference b to themselves /b and heed the leaders of the generation.,, strong MISHNA: /strong If b the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon, and b the witnesses were interrogated, but /b the court b did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, /b so that the thirtieth day already passed, the previous month b is /b rendered b a full, /b thirty-day month, and the following day is observed as the New Moon.,If b the court alone saw /b the new moon, b two /b members of the court b should stand and testify before the others, and /b the court b should say: Sanctified, sanctified. /b If b three /b people b saw /b the new moon, b and they are /b themselves members of b a court /b for this purpose, b two /b of them b should stand and seat /b two b of their colleagues next to the individual /b who remains of the three, thereby forming a new court of three. The two standing judges b should /b then b testify before /b the three seated judges that they saw the new moon and the seated judges b say: Sanctified, sanctified. /b This procedure is necessary b because an individual is not authorized /b to declare the month sanctified b by himself. /b Rather, a court of three is required., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the mishna b to teach: /b If b the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon? Merely stating that the court saw the moon would have sufficed, since its sanctification depends on them. The Gemara answers: b It was necessary /b for the mishna to teach that even in that case, the month is intercalated. As b it might enter your mind to say /b that b since the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon, b it was publicized /b that it was the New Moon that day, b and let them /b no longer b intercalate /b the month. Therefore, the i tanna /i of the mishna b teaches us /b that even in the case where all the Jewish people saw the new moon, the New Moon must be declared by the court.,The Gemara asks further: b But once /b the mishna b states: /b If b the court and all of /b the b Jewish people saw /b the new moon, b why do I /b need it to say: And b the witnesses were interrogated? /b Why are witnesses necessary if the new moon was already seen by the court? The Gemara answers that b this is what /b the i tanna /i b is saying: Alternatively, /b if b the witnesses were interrogated, but /b the court b had no time to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, /b the previous month is b intercalated /b and rendered a full month of thirty days.,The Gemara raises another difficulty. b But once /b the mishna b taught: /b But the court did not manage to say: Sanctified, b before nightfall, /b the previous month is rendered a full, thirty-day month, b why do I /b need the mishna b to teach /b about b the interrogation of the witnesses? /b This i halakha /i was already stated with regard to a case where the court itself saw the new moon.,The Gemara explains: It b was necessary, /b as it might b enter your mind to say: Let the interrogation of the witnesses be /b regarded b as the beginning of the judicial /b process, b and /b let the declaration: b Sanctified, sanctified, /b be regarded b as the conclusion of the judicial /b process, b and let them sanctify /b the month b at night, /b because the process began during the day. This process would then be b just as it is in /b cases of b monetary law, as we learned /b in a mishna: In cases of b monetary law, /b although they must be adjudicated during the day, the court may b judge /b the majority of a case b during the day, /b and b complete /b the trial and issue the ruling b at night. Here too, /b one might assume that the court may b sanctify /b the month b at night, /b as the process began during the day. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that the court may not do so.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b Why not say /b that, b indeed, /b the sanctification of the month should be treated like monetary cases? The Gemara answers: b The verse states /b with regard to Rosh HaShana: b “For this is a statute for Israel, a judgment [ i mishpat /i ] of the God of Jacob” /b (Psalms 81:5). b When does /b the sanctification of the month b become a statute? At the end of the judicial process, and the Merciful One calls it a judgment /b as well, thereby teaching that b just as /b the primary time of b a judgment is during the day, here too, /b with regard to the sanctification of the New Moon, the process must take place b during the day, /b and not at night.,§ The mishna continues: If b the court /b alone b saw /b the new moon, b two /b members of the court b should stand and testify before the others. /b The Gemara ponders: If the court saw the new moon, b why /b is it necessary for two of its members to testify before the others? b Hearing /b their testimony b should not be greater than /b actually b seeing /b the new moon.,The Gemara responds that b Rabbi Zeira said: /b The mishna is addressing a case b where /b the court b saw /b the new moon b at night. /b Because they saw it at night, their testimony is inadmissible at that time, as testimonies are admissible only during the day. They must therefore wait until the following day and testify as any ordinary person would.,The mishna continues: If b three /b people b saw /b the new moon, b and they are /b themselves members of b a court /b for this purpose, b two /b of them b should stand and seat /b two b of their colleagues next to the individual /b who remains of the three. The Gemara asks: b Why /b is this necessary? b Here too, let us say: Hearing /b their testimony b should not be greater than /b actually b seeing /b the new moon. b And if you say /b that b here too, /b the mishna is addressing a case b where they saw /b the new moon b at night, this /b case b is /b identical to b that /b previous one, and there would be no need for two separate rulings.,The Gemara answers: b It was necessary /b to teach b the last clause, /b which states: b Because an individual is not deemed credible /b and authorized to declare the month sanctified b by himself. For /b it might b enter your mind to say /b that b since we learned /b in a i baraita /i : Cases of b monetary law /b are adjudicated b by /b a court of b three /b judges, b but if /b a person b was a publicly recognized expert, he may judge /b monetary matters b even individually, then here too, /b one judge b should /b be authorized to b sanctify /b the month b individually /b if he is a recognized expert. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that this is not so, and that three judges are required for the sanctification of the month.,The Gemara asks: b But why not say that here too, /b a recognized expert can sanctify the month individually? The Gemara rejects this possibility: But certainly b there was no publicly recognized expert among /b the b Jewish people greater than our teacher Moses, /b and nevertheless b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: /b You may not sanctify the new month b until Aaron is with you, as it is written: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, this month shall be for you /b the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:1–2), where the word “you” is in the plural form. And since, to avoid deadlock, a court cannot be composed of an even number of judges, another judge must be added. It is therefore apparent that three judges are required for the sanctification of the month by Torah law.,The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that a witness becomes a judge, /b i.e., that one who witnessed an event can himself serve as a judge concerning the matter? b Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, for it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b the Sanhedrin saw someone kill /b another b person, /b |
|
119. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 181; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151| 56a. בכל יום דנין את העדים בכינוי יכה יוסי את יוסי,נגמר הדין לא הורגין בכינוי אלא מוציאין כל אדם לחוץ שואלין את הגדול שביניהן ואומר לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינין עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין,והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא עד שיברך שם בשם,מנהני מילי אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם וגו' בנקבו שם יומת,ממאי דהאי נוקב לישנא דברוכי הוא דכתיב (במדבר כג, ח) מה אקב לא קבה אל ואזהרתיה מהכא (שמות כב, כז) אלהים לא תקלל,ואימא מיברז הוא דכתיב (מלכים ב יב, י) ויקב חור בדלתו ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם,בעינא שם בשם וליכא,ואימא דמנח שני שמות אהדדי ובזע להו ההוא נוקב וחוזר ונוקב הוא ואימא דחייק שם אפומא דסכינא ובזע בה ההוא חורפא דסכינא הוא דקא בזע,אימא פרושי שמיה הוא דכתיב (במדבר א, יז) ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים האלה אשר נקבו בשמות ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים ו, יג) את ה' אלהיך תירא,חדא דבעינא שם בשם וליכא ועוד הויא ליה אזהרת עשה ואזהרת עשה לא שמה אזהרה,ואיבעית אימא אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, יא) ויקב ויקלל למימרא דנוקב קללה הוא,ודילמא עד דעבד תרוייהו לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (ויקרא כד, יד) הוצא את המקלל ולא כתיב הוצא את הנוקב והמקלל שמע מינה חדא היא,תנו רבנן איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף,והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה' זו ברכת השם,אמר ר' יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר,דתניא (ויקרא כד, טו) איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת לפי שנאמר ונוקב שם מות יומת יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד מניין לרבות כל הכינויין תלמוד לומר איש כי יקלל אלהיו מכל מקום דברי רבי מאיר,וחכמים אומרים על שם המיוחד במיתה ועל הכינויין באזהרה,ופליגא דרבי מיישא דאמר רבי מיישא בן נח שבירך את השם בכינויים לרבנן חייב,מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) כגר כאזרח גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן בנקבו שם אבל עובד כוכבים אפילו בכינוי,ורבי מאיר האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח בסקילה אבל עובד כוכבים בסייף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קמ"ל,ורבי יצחק נפחא אליבא דרבנן האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן שם בשם אבל עובד כוכבים לא בעינן שם בשם,איש איש למה לי דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם,תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם ע"ז גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וגזל ואבר מן החי | 56a. b On every day /b of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges b judge the witnesses, /b i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use b an appellation /b for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: b Let Yosei smite Yosei, /b as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton.,When b the judgment is over, /b and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, b they do not sentence /b him b to death based on /b the testimony of the witnesses in which they used b an appellation /b for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. b Rather, they remove all /b the b people /b who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges b interrogate the eldest of /b the witnesses, b and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says /b exactly what he heard. b And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear /b in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. b And they do not /b ever fully b stitch /b it back together again., b And the second /b witness b says: I too /b heard b as he /b did, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. b And the third /b witness, in the event that there is one, b says: I too /b heard b as he /b did. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary., strong GEMARA: /strong The Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : A blasphemer is not liable b unless he blesses, /b a euphemism for curses, the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, e.g., by saying: Let such and such a name strike such and such a name.,The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter /b derived? b Shmuel says: /b It is derived from that b which the verse states: “And he who blasphemes [ i venokev /i ] the name /b of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, b when he blasphemes [ i benokvo /i ] the name, he shall be put to death” /b (Leviticus 24:16). It is derived from the repetition of the phrase “blasphemes the name” that the reference is to cursing the name of God with the name of God.,The Gemara asks: b From where /b is it derived b that this /b word b i nokev /i is a term for blessing, /b i.e., cursing? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the statement of Balaam, who was sent by Balak to curse the Jewish people: b “How shall I curse [ i ekkov /i ] whom God has not cursed?” /b (Numbers 23:8). b And /b the b prohibition /b against cursing God is derived b from here: “You shall not curse God” /b (Exodus 22:27).,The Gemara asks: b But say /b that perhaps the meaning of i nokev /i b is /b not cursing, but rather b making a hole, as it is written: “And made a hole [ i vayyikkov /i ] in its lid” /b (II Kings 12:10). According to this, the word i nokev /i is referring to one who makes a hole and damages the written name of God. b And /b the b prohibition /b against doing so is derived b from here: “And you shall destroy their name /b out of that place. b You shall not do so to the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).,The Gemara answers: It is derived from the repetition of i nokev /i that for one to be liable, it is b necessary /b that his transgression involve the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, b and /b such a transgression is b not /b possible if the reference is to making a hole.,The Gemara challenges: b But say that /b such a transgression is possible, as one can b place two /b written b names /b of God, b one on top of the other, and tear /b through b them /b at once. The Gemara explains: b That /b would be defined as b making a hole and again making a hole, /b not making a hole in one name by means of another name. The Gemara asks: b But say that /b one can b etch /b the b name /b of God b on the point of a knife and cut /b through another name b with it. /b The Gemara answers: In b that /b case, b it is the point of the knife that is cutting, /b not the name of God.,The Gemara asks: b Say /b that i nokev /i means the b utterance of the /b ineffable b name of /b God. b As it is written: “And Moses and Aaron took these men that are pointed out [ i nikkevu /i ] by name” /b (Numbers 1:17). b And /b the b prohibition /b to do so is derived b from here: “You shall fear the Lord, your God” /b (Deuteronomy 6:13).,The Gemara answers: b One /b answer is b that /b for one to be liable, it is b necessary /b that his transgression involve the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, b and /b such a transgression is b not /b possible if the reference is to uttering the ineffable name of God. b Furthermore, /b the prohibition derived from the verse “You shall fear the Lord, your God” b is a prohibition /b stated as b a positive mitzva, and a prohibition /b stated as b a positive mitzva is not considered a prohibition. /b ,The Gemara presents an alternative proof that i nokev /i is referring to cursing: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the verse states: “And /b the son of the Israelite woman b blasphemed [ i vayyikkov /i ] /b the name b and cursed” /b (Leviticus 24:11). b That is to say that /b the meaning of b i nokev /i is /b to b curse. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b this verse does not prove that the meaning of i nokev /i is to curse; rather, it indicates that one is not liable to be executed b unless he does both, /b i.e., both i nokev /i and cursing God? The Gemara answers: This shall b not enter your mind, as it is written: “Bring forth the one who cursed… /b and stone him” (Leviticus 24:14), b and it is not written: Bring forth the i nokev /i and one who cursed. Conclude from it /b that b it is one /b act and not two.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), that the verse could have stated: b One [ i ish /i ] /b who curses his God. b Why /b must b the verse state: “Anyone [ i ish ish /i ]”? /b It is b to include the gentiles, who are prohibited from blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b the name /b of God, just b like Jews /b are. b And they are executed /b for this transgression b by the sword alone, as all death /b penalties b stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are by the sword alone. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But is this /b i halakha /i b derived from here? /b Rather, b it is derived from there: /b “And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16), as is stated in a i baraita /i that will soon be quoted at length: b “The Lord,” this /b is referring to b the blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b of the name /b of God. This verse concerns Adam, the first man, and is therefore binding on all of humanity., b Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: /b The verse “anyone who curses his God” b is necessary only to include /b gentiles who curse God using b the appellations /b for the name of God, rather than mentioning the ineffable name, b and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Meir. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Why /b must b the verse state: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin”? But isn’t it already stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death” /b (Leviticus 24:16)? Rather, b since it is stated: “And he who blasphemes the name /b of the Lord b shall be put to death,” /b one b might /b have thought that one b will be liable only for /b cursing b the ineffable name /b of God. b From where /b is it derived that the verse b includes /b one who curses b any of the appellations /b as well? b The verse states: “Anyone who curses his God,” /b to indicate that one is liable to be executed b in any case. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b And the Rabbis say: For /b cursing b the ineffable name /b of God, one is punished b by death, and for /b cursing b the appellations, /b one is liable to receive lashes b for /b violating b a prohibition. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Rabbis, gentiles are not liable for cursing appellations for the name of God, b disagrees with /b the opinion of b Rav Meyasha. As Rav Meyasha says: A descendant of Noah who blessed God by /b one of the b appellations is liable /b to be executed even b according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b , b What is the reason? /b It is b because the verse states: “The convert as well as the homeborn, /b when he blasphemes the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16), from which it is derived that b it is /b only in the case of b a convert or a homeborn /b Jew b that we require /b the condition: b “When he blasphemes the name,” /b i.e., he is liable to be executed only if he curses the ineffable name. b But a gentile /b is liable to be executed b even due to /b merely cursing b an appellation. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what does Rabbi Meir do with this /b part of the verse: b “The convert as well as the homeborn”? /b What does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir derives that b a convert or a homeborn /b Jew is liable to be executed b by stoning /b for this transgression, b but a gentile /b is executed b by the sword. /b This exclusion is necessary as otherwise it might b enter your mind to say /b that b since /b gentiles b are included /b in the i halakhot /i of this verse, b they are included /b in all the i halakhot /i of blasphemy. Therefore the verse b teaches us /b that they are not stoned.,The Gemara asks: b And what does Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa do with this /b part of the verse: b “The convert as well as the homeborn,” according to /b the opinion b of the Rabbis, /b since Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa holds that the Rabbis do not deem either a Jew or a gentile liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: He derives that b it is /b specifically with regard to b a convert and a homeborn /b Jew b that we require /b the condition that he curse b a name /b of God b by a name /b of God; b but /b with regard to b a gentile, we do not require /b that he curse b a name /b of God b by a name /b of God in order for him to be liable.,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the inclusive term b “anyone /b who curses his God,” according to the opinions that do not derive from it that a gentile is liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: No i halakha /i is derived from it; it is not a superfluous term, as b the Torah spoke in the language of people. /b ,§ Since the i halakhot /i of the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Noahide mitzvot is presented. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The descendants of Noah, /b i.e., all of humanity, b were commanded /b to observe b seven mitzvot: /b The mitzva of establishing courts of b judgment; and /b the prohibition against b blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b the name /b of God; and the prohibition of b idol worship; /b and the prohibition against b forbidden sexual relations; and /b the prohibition of b bloodshed; and /b the prohibition of b robbery; and /b the prohibition against eating b a limb from a living /b animal. |
|
120. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 306| 132a. שכן אם עבר זמנה בטלה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ג) וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו ואפילו בשבת,וליכתוב רחמנא במילה וליתו הנך וליגמור מיניה משום דאיכא למיפרך מה למילה שכן נכרתו עליה שלש עשרה בריתות:,ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא במכשירי מילה אבל מילה גופה דברי הכל דוחה שבת מנלן אמר עולא הלכה וכן אמר רבי יצחק הלכה,מיתיבי מניין לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מה מילה שהיא אחת מאיבריו של אדם דוחה את השבת קל וחומר לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת,ואי סלקא דעתך הלכה קל וחומר מהלכה מי אתי והתניא אמר לו רבי אלעזר (בן עזריה) עקיבא עצם כשעורה מטמא הלכה ורביעית דם קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה,אלא אמר רבי אלעזר אתיא אות אות,אלא מעתה תפילין דכתיב בהן אות לידחי שבת,אלא אתיא ברית ברית,גדול דכתיב ביה ברית לידחי שבת,אלא אתיא דורות דורות,ציצית דכתיב ביה דורות לידחי שבת,אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דנין אות ברית ודורות מאות ברית ודורות לאפוקי הנך דחד חד הוא דכתיב בהן,ור' יוחנן אמר אמר קרא ביום ביום אפילו בשבת,אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן אלא מעתה מחוסרי כפרה דכתיב בהו ביום הכי נמי דדחו שבת ההוא מיבעי ליה ביום ולא בלילה,האי נמי מיבעי ליה ביום ולא בלילה ההוא מבן שמנת ימים נפקא,האי נמי מביום צוותו נפקא,אע"ג דנפקא מביום צוותו אצטריכא סד"א הואיל וחס רחמנא עליה לאתויי בדלות בלילה נמי ליתי קמ"ל,מתקיף לה רבינא אלא מעתה יהא זר כשר בהן ויהא אונן כשר בהן הא אהדריה קרא,רב אחא בר יעקב אמר אמר קרא שמיני שמיני אפילו בשבת,האי שמיני מיבעי ליה למעוטי שביעי שביעי מבן שמנת ימים נפקא,ואכתי מיבעי ליה חד למעוטי שביעי וחד למעוטי תשיעי דאי מחד הוה אמינא שביעי הוא דלא מטא זמניה אבל משמיני ואילך זמניה הוא אלא מחוורתא כדרבי יוחנן,תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן ודלא כרב אחא בר יעקב שמיני ימול אפילו בשבת ומה אני מקיים (שמות לא, יד) מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכות חוץ ממילה או אינו אלא אפי' מילה ומה אני מקיים שמיני ימול חוץ משבת ת"ל ביום אפילו בשבת,אמר רבא האי תנא מעיקרא מאי קא ניחא ליה ולבסוף מאי קא קשיא ליה,הכי קאמר שמיני ימול אפילו בשבת ומה אני מקיים מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכו' חוץ ממילה אבל מילה דחיא,מ"ט ק"ו הוא ומה צרע' שדוחה את העבודה | 132a. in each, b as if its time passed, it is void, /b unlike the mitzva of circumcision, which can be fulfilled at a later date if the child is not circumcised on the eighth day. b Rather, this is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Eliezer, as the verse says: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” /b (Leviticus 12:3), indicating that he is circumcised on the eighth day b even /b if it falls b on Shabbat. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And let the Torah write /b this principle only b with regard to /b the mitzva of b circumcision, and let these /b other mitzvot b come and derive /b their i halakhot /i b from it. /b The Gemara answers: b Because /b this suggestion b can be refuted: What /b is unique about the mitzva of b circumcision? That thirteen covets were established over it, /b as the word covet is mentioned thirteen times in the passage dealing with the circumcision of Abraham (Genesis 17). Owing to its great significance, other mitzvot cannot be derived from it.,The Gemara departs from the facilitators of circumcision to the i halakha /i of circumcision itself and asks: b The Rabbis only disagree with /b Rabbi Eliezer b with regard to actions that facilitate circumcision, /b which, in their view, do not override Shabbat; b however, /b with regard to b circumcision itself, everyone agrees /b that it b overrides Shabbat. From where do we /b derive this i halakha /i ? b Ulla said: /b This is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai, but there is no biblical basis for it. b And so too, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: /b It is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from that which was taught in the i Tosefta /i : b From where /b is it derived b that saving a life overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says /b it is derived from the mitzva of circumcision: b Just as circumcision, which /b pertains to only b one of a person’s limbs, overrides Shabbat, /b all the more so it is an b i a fortiori /i inference /b that b saving a life, /b which is a mitzva that pertains to the entire person, b overrides Shabbat. /b , b And if it should enter your mind /b to say that circumcision may be performed on Shabbat based on a b i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai, b is an i a fortiori /i inference derived from a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai? b Wasn’t it taught /b explicitly in a i baraita /i that an i a fortiori /i inference cannot be derived from a i halakha /i transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Rabbi Akiva sought to derive that a nazirite who comes into contact with a quarter i log /i of blood from a corpse becomes ritually impure and is required to shave his hair. He sought to do this based on an i a fortiori /i inference from the i halakha /i of the bone from a dead person the size of a grain of barley, as he had a received tradition that a nazirite is required to shave his hair due to that contact. b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, /b the i halakha /i that b a bone the size of a /b grain of b barley transmits ritual impurity is a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai, b and /b you would derive from it that b a quarter /b of a i log /i b of blood /b transmits ritual impurity based upon b an i a fortiori /i inference, and one does not derive an i a fortiori /i inference from a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The i Tosefta /i explicitly states that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya himself derived an i a fortiori /i inference from the i halakha /i of circumcision on Shabbat. Clearly, then, it is derived from the Torah itself and not from a i halakha /i transmitted to Moses from Sinai., b Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: /b This i halakha /i is b derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the word b sign /b that appears with regard to circumcision: “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:11), and b sign /b that appears with regard to Shabbat: “However, you shall keep My i Shabbatot /i , for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations” (Exodus 31:13). From this verbal analogy, it is derived that circumcision, which is a sign, may be performed even on Shabbat, which is itself a sign.,The Gemara asks: b But if /b what you say is b so, phylacteries, with regard to which /b the term b sign is /b also b written: /b “And it shall be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), b should /b also b override Shabbat, /b and they should be donned on that day., b Rather, /b this principle is b derived /b by means of a different verbal analogy from the word b covet /b that appears with regard to circumcision: “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:11), and the word b covet /b that appears with regard to Shabbat: “The children of Israel shall keep the Shabbat, to observe the Shabbat throughout their generations for a perpetual covet” (Exodus 31:16).,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If this is so, then the circumcision of b an adult /b should also be permitted on Shabbat and it should not be limited to a child on the eighth day, b as /b the term b covet is written with regard to him /b as well, as it applies to any Jewish male not yet circumcised. Therefore, b let /b his circumcision b override Shabbat. /b The i halakha /i , however, is that only circumcision at its proper time on the eighth day overrides Shabbat., b Rather, /b this i halakha /i b is derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the word b generations /b that appears with regard to Shabbat: “Throughout their generations for a perpetual covet” (Exodus 31:16), and the word b generations /b that appears with regard to circumcision: “And I shall establish My covet between Me and you, and between your seed after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covet” (Genesis 17:7).,The Gemara asks: If so, b let ritual fringes /b too, b with regard to which /b the term b generations is /b also b written, override Shabbat, /b and it should be permitted to affix ritual fringes to a garment on Shabbat., b Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b This i halakha /i is derived not from one common word alone, but b one derives /b it based upon the three words b sign, covet, and generations /b that appear with regard to circumcision, b from sign, covet, and generations /b that appear with regard to Shabbat, b to the exclusion of these, /b i.e., ritual fringes and phylacteries, b that with regard to each of them, one /b of these b is written /b but not all three words together., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: The verse says: /b “And b on the /b eighth day…shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), which means that the child is circumcised b on the /b eighth b day /b whenever it occurs, b even on Shabbat. /b , b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But if /b what you say is b so, /b then, with regard to b those lacking atonement, /b such as a i zav /i or a healed leper, who must after their immersion still bring an atonement offering in order to complete their purification process, b with regard to whom /b the term b on the day is /b also b written, /b as in the verse: “And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish” (Leviticus 14:10), sacrificing their atonement offerings b should also override Shabbat. /b Rabbi Yoḥa responded: b That /b verse b is necessary /b to teach that the sacrifice must be brought b during the day and not at night. /b ,Reish Lakish asked: b This /b verse with regard to the mitzva of circumcision b is also necessary /b to teach that circumcision must be performed b during the day and not at night. /b Rabbi Yoḥa replied: b That /b is derived b from /b a different verse, which states: “And b he that is eight days old /b shall be circumcised among you throughout your generations” (Genesis 17:12). That circumcision must take place during the day is derived from that verse.,Reish Lakish says: b That /b matter, that the atonement offering must be sacrificed during the day, can b also /b be derived b from /b a different verse, as it is stated: “This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai b on the day He commanded /b the children of Israel to present their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai” (Leviticus 7:37–38), and from here b it is derived /b that all offerings are sacrificed by day and not at night.,The Gemara answers: b Although /b this i halakha /i b is derived from: “On the day He commanded,” /b an additional source b is necessary /b for those lacking atonement. b It might have entered your mind to say /b that b since the Torah shows him mercy /b by allowing him b to bring /b an offering b of poverty, /b as if one cannot afford to sacrifice the regular atonement offering, the Torah enables him to sacrifice a less costly one, b let him also bring it at night, /b as perhaps the Torah shows him mercy and allows him to hasten his atonement. Therefore, b it teaches us /b that he too must bring his offering only by day and not at night., b Ravina strongly objects to this /b reasoning: b But if /b what you say is b so, /b that the Torah has compassion on a person lacking atonement and is lenient with regard to the i halakhot /i of the atonement offering, b a non-priest should be fit /b to sacrifice b them, and /b similarly, a priest who is b an acute mourner, /b i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, b should be fit to /b sacrifice b them. /b The Gemara answers: b The verse has restored this. /b The additional verse that teaches that even one lacking atonement must sacrifice during the day, also teaches that the Torah was lenient with regard to this offering only in the ways explicitly stated in the Torah., b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b There is a different proof from the Torah that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat, for b the verse said: /b “On the b eighth /b day,” underscoring that circumcision is performed specifically on the b eighth /b day and indicating that it is performed b even on Shabbat. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b This /b usage of the term b eighth is necessary to exclude /b the b seventh /b day, i.e., a child may not be circumcised before the eighth day. The Gemara answers: The fact that one may not circumcise on the b seventh /b day b is derived /b from a different verse, as it is stated: “And b he that is eight days old /b shall be circumcised among you throughout your generations” (Genesis 17:12).,The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Both verses are b still necessary, one to exclude /b the b seventh /b day b and one to exclude /b the b ninth /b day. b As if /b it were derived b from one /b verse alone, b I would have said: It is /b on the b seventh /b day that one may not circumcise, since b the time /b to circumcise this child b has not /b yet b arrived /b and the obligation of circumcision is not yet in effect; b however, from /b the b eighth /b day b and onward is its time, /b and therefore it is permissible to postpone a circumcision until the ninth day. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara concludes: b Rather, /b the derivation b is clear according to Rabbi Yoḥa. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa and not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, /b as the i tanna /i interprets the phrase: “On the b eighth /b day b he shall be circumcised” /b to mean that the circumcision must be performed b even on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill /b the prohibition against performing prohibited labor explicit in the Torah in the verse: “And you shall guard the Shabbat, for it is holy to you; b he who desecrates it shall surely die” /b (Exodus 31:14)? That is referring b to other prohibited labors besides circumcision. /b The i tanna /i questions his previous statement: b Or perhaps that is not /b the case, and the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat includes b even circumcision, and, /b on the contrary, b how do I fulfill /b the verse: “On the b eighth /b day b he shall be circumcised”? /b It applies when the eighth day is any day b other than Shabbat. The verse states: “On the day,” /b meaning on that very day when he turns eight days old, b even on Shabbat. /b The i tanna /i of this i baraita /i rejects Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s proof and accepts Rabbi Yoḥa’s assertion that the phrase “On the day” conclusively establishes that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat.,With regard to this i baraita /i , b Rava said: Initially, what /b did b this i tanna /i /b find b acceptable, and ultimately, what /b did b he /b find b difficult? /b Initially he suggested that: “On the eighth day he shall be circumcised” is a valid source for the fact that circumcision overrides Shabbat, but ultimately, he deemed that difficult and turned to an alternative source, yet provided no reason, neither for his initial statement nor for his second statement.,Rather, we can explain that b this is what he is saying: /b “On the b eighth /b day b he shall be circumcised” /b applies b even on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill: “He who desecrates it shall surely die”? /b That is referring to the b other prohibited labors besides circumcision; however, circumcision overrides /b Shabbat., b What is the reason /b for this? b It is /b derived by means of b an i a fortiori /i inference: Just as leprosy, which overrides the /b Temple b service, /b as a priest who is a leper may not serve in the Temple and it is prohibited to cut off the symptoms of leprosy, |
|
121. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151| 35b. במי שהוא רחום קאמר,א"ל רבא אי הכי בשמים ובארץ נמי במי שהשמים והארץ שלו קאמר,הכי השתא התם כיון דליכא מידי אחרינא דאיקרי רחום וחנון ודאי במי שהוא חנון ודאי במי שהוא רחום קאמר הכא כיון דאיכא שמים וארץ בשמים ובארץ קאמר,ת"ר כתב אלף למד מאלהים יה מיי' ה"ז אינו נמחק שין דלת משדי אלף דלת מאדני צדי בית מצבאות ה"ז נמחק,רבי יוסי אומר צבאות כולו נמחק שלא נקרא צבאות אלא על שם ישראל שנאמר (שמות ז, ד) והוצאתי את צבאותי את עמי בני ישראל מארץ מצרים אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יוסי,ת"ר כל הטפל לשם בין מלפניו ובין מלאחריו ה"ז נמחק לפניו כיצד ליי' ל' נמחק ביי' ב' נמחק ויי' ו' נמחק מיי' מ' נמחק (תהלים קמד, טו) שיי' ש' נמחק היי' ה' נמחק כיי' כ' נמחק,לאחריו כיצד אלהינו נ"ו נמחק אלהיהם ה"ם נמחק אלהיכם כ"ם נמחק אחרים אומרים לאחריו אינו נמחק שכבר קדשו השם אמר רב הונא הלכה כאחרים,(אברהם דלטיא לנבות בגבעת בנימן שלמה דניאל סימן),כל שמות האמורים בתורה באברהם קדש חוץ מזה שהוא חול שנאמר (בראשית יח, ג) ויאמר יי' אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך,חנינא בן אחי רבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה משום רבי אלעזר המודעי אמרו אף זה קדש כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב גדולה הכנסת אורחין יותר מהקבלת פני שכינה כמאן כאותו הזוג,כל שמות האמורים בלוט חול חוץ מזה שהוא קדש שנאמר (בראשית יט, יח) ויאמר לוט אליהם אל נא אדני הנה נא מצא עבדך חן בעיניך וגו' מי שיש בידו להמית ולהחיות זה הקדוש ברוך הוא,כל שמות האמורים בנבות קדש במיכה חול ר"א אומר בנבות קדש במיכה יש מהן חול ויש מהן קדש אלף למד חול יוד הי קדש חוץ מזה שאלף למד והוא קדש (שופטים יח, לא) כל ימי היות בית האלהים בשילה,כל שמות האמורים בגבעת בנימין ר"א אומר חול רבי יהושע אומר קדש,אמר לו ר"א וכי מבטיח ואינו עושה,אמר לו ר' יהושע מה שהבטיח עשה והם לא ביחנו אם לנצוח אם לנצח באחרונה שביחנו הסכימו על ידן שנאמר (שופטים כ, כח) ופנחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן (הכהן) עומד לפניו בימים ההם לאמר האוסיף עוד לצאת למלחמה עם [בני] בנימין אחי אם אחדל וגו',כל שלמה האמורין בשה"ש קדש שיר למי שהשלום שלו חוץ מזה (שיר השירים ח, יב) כרמי שלי לפני האלף לך שלמה שלמה לדידיה ומאתים לנוטרים את פריו רבנן וי"א אף זה חול (שיר השירים ג, ז) הנה מטתו שלשלמה ששים,אף זה ולא מיבעי האיך אלא הא דאמר שמואל מלכותא דקטלא חד משיתא בעלמא לא מיענשא שנאמר כרמי שלי לפני האלף לך שלמה למלכותא דרקיעא ומאתים לנוטרים את פריו למלכותא דארעא שמואל לא כת"ק ולא כי"א,אלא ה"ק וי"א זה קדש וזה הוא חול דמטתו ושמואל דאמר כי"א,כל מלכיא האמורים בדניאל חול חוץ מזה שהוא קדש (דניאל ב, לז) אנת מלכא [מלך] מלכיא די אלה שמיא מלכותא חסנא ותקפא ויקרא יהב לך,וי"א אף זה קדש שנאמר (דניאל ד, טז) מרי חלמא לשנאך ופשרה לערך למאן קאמר אי סלקא דעתך לנבוכדנצר קאמר ליה שנאותיה מאי נינהו ישראל מילט קא לייט להו לישראל,ות"ק סבר שונאי ישראל איכא שונאי עובדי כוכבים ליכא:,ובכל כנויין הרי אלו חייבין כו':,ורמינהי (במדבר ה, כא) יתן ה' אותך לאלה ולשבועה מה ת"ל והלא כבר נאמר והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה לפי שנא' (ויקרא ה, א) ושמעה קול אלה נאמר כאן אלה ונאמר להלן אלה מה להלן שבועה אף כאן שבועה מה להלן בשם אף כאן בשם,אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבי חנינא בר אידי הא רבנן דתניא רבי חנינא בר אידי אומר הואיל ואמרה תורה השבע ואל תשבע קלל ואל תקלל מה השבע בשם אף לא תשבע בשם מה קלל בשם אף לא תקלל בשם,ורבנן אי גמירי גזירה שוה ניבעי שם המיוחד אי לא גמירי גזירה שוה אלה דשבועה היא מנא להו,נפקא להו מדתניא אלה אין אלה אלא לשון שבועה וכן הוא אומר (במדבר ה, כא) והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה,התם שבועת האלה כתיב הכי קאמר אלה אין אלה אלא בשבועה וכן הוא אומר והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה | 35b. or b in /b the name of b He Who is compassionate, /b that the i tanna /i b is stating /b the i halakha /i . Although gracious and compassionate are not names of God, the reference in the mishna is to an oath in the name of God., b Rava said to /b Abaye: b If so, /b in the case of one who administered the oath to the witnesses b in the /b name of b heaven and in the /b name of b earth as well, /b say that it is with regard to an oath b in /b the name of b He for Whom the heaven and the earth are His /b that the i tanna /i b is stating /b the i halakha /i . Why, then, does the mishna say that for an oath in the name of heaven and in the name of earth, these witnesses are exempt from liability?,The Gemara rejects this: b How can /b these cases b be compared? There, since there is no other entity that is called gracious and compassionate, certainly /b it is b in /b the name of b He Who is gracious, /b and b certainly /b it is b in /b the name of b He Who is compassionate /b that the i tanna /i b is speaking. /b By contrast, b here, since there are heaven and earth /b that exist as independent entities, perhaps when he administers an oath in the name of heaven and in the name of earth, it is b in the /b name of the actual b heaven and in the /b name of the actual b earth /b that b he is speaking, /b and not in the name of He for Whom the heaven and the earth are His.,§ Apropos the names of God that may be erased and those that may not be erased, the Gemara discusses the details of the matter. b The Sages taught: /b If b one wrote /b the letters b i alef lamed /i from /b the name b i Elohim /i , /b or b i yod heh /i from the Tetragrammaton, this /b pair of letters and that pair of letters b may not be erased. /b But if one wrote the letters b i shin dalet /i from i Shaddai /i , /b or b i alef dalet /i from i Adonai /i , /b or b i tzadi beit /i from i Tzevaot /i , this may be erased. /b , b Rabbi Yosei says: /b The word b i tzevaot /i may be erased /b in b its entirety, as /b God b is called i Tzevaot /i only in the context of /b the children of b Israel, /b and it is not an independent name of God, b as it is stated: “And I shall bring forth My hosts [ i tzivotai /i ], My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt” /b (Exodus 7:4). b Shmuel says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. /b , b The Sages taught: Any /b letters b ancillary to the name /b of God, b whether /b as a prefix b preceding /b the name b or /b as a suffix b succeeding /b the name, b this /b addition b may be erased. Preceding it, how so? /b If one wrote the b Tetragrammaton /b with the prefix b i lamed /i , /b meaning: To the Lord, the b i lamed /i may be erased; /b the b Tetragrammaton /b with the prefix b i beit /i , /b meaning: By the Lord, the b i beit /i may be erased; /b the b Tetragrammaton /b with the prefix b i vav /i , /b meaning: And the Lord, the b i vav /i may be erased; /b the b Tetragrammaton /b with the prefix b i mem /i , /b meaning: From the Lord, the b i mem /i may be erased; /b the b Tetragrammaton /b with the prefix b i shin /i , /b meaning: That the Lord, the b i shin /i may be erased; /b the b Tetragrammaton /b with the prefix b i heh /i , /b meaning: Is the Lord, the b i heh /i may be erased; /b the b Tetragrammaton /b with the prefix b i kaf /i , /b meaning: Like the Lord, the b i kaf /i may be erased. /b , b Succeeding it, how so? /b If one wrote b i Eloheinu /i , /b meaning: Our God, the b i nun vav /i /b suffix b may be erased; i Eloheihem /i , /b meaning: Their God, the b i heh mem /i /b suffix b may be erased; i Eloheikhem /i , /b meaning: Your God, second person plural, the b i kaf mem /i /b suffix b may be erased. i Aḥerim /i say: /b The suffix b succeeding /b the name of God b may not be erased as the name /b of God to which it is appended b already sanctified it /b and it is considered as though it is part of the name. b Rav Huna says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b i Aḥerim /i . /b ,§ b Abraham; who cursed Naboth; in Gibeah of Benjamin; Solomon; Daniel; /b this is b a mnemonic /b for the i halakhot /i that follow., b All names /b that could be understood as the name of God b that are stated in the Torah with regard to Abraham /b are b sacred /b and are referring to God, b except for this /b name, b which is non-sacred, as it is stated: “My lords, if I have found favor in your eyes” /b (Genesis 18:3). In that passage, Abraham is addressing the angels who appeared to him in the guise of men, not God., b Ḥanina, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, say: This too /b is b sacred. /b The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which Rabbi Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Hospitality /b accorded to b guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence? In accordance with whose /b opinion is that statement? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b that pair /b of i tanna’im /i , Ḥanina, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who understood that Abraham was speaking to God., b All names /b that could be understood as the name of God b that are stated /b in the Torah b with regard to Lot /b are b non-sacred /b and are referring to angels, b except for this /b one, b which is sacred, as it is stated: “And Lot said to them: Please, not so i Adonai /i . Behold your servant has found favor in your eyes, /b and you have magnified Your mercy that You have performed for me by saving my life” (Genesis 19:18–19). It is apparent from the context that Lot is addressing b He Who has the capacity to kill and to vivify; that is the Holy One, Blessed be He. /b , b All names that are stated with regard to Naboth /b are b sacred, /b e.g., in the verse: “Naboth blasphemed i Elohim /i and the king” (I Kings 21:13), and those stated b with regard to Micah /b are b non-sacred /b and are referring to the graven image that he fashioned (see Judges, chapters 17–18). b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b Indeed, all names that are stated b with regard to Naboth /b are b sacred; /b but those stated b with regard to Micah, some of them are non-sacred and some of them are sacred. /b The names beginning with the letters b i alef lamed /i , /b i.e., i Elohim /i , are b non-sacred, /b as the reference is to the idol that he crafted, and all the names beginning with the letters b i yod heh /i , /b i.e., the Tetragrammaton, are b sacred, except for this /b name that begins with the letters b i alef lamed /i and it is sacred: “All the time that the house of i Elohim /i was in Shiloh” /b (Judges 18:31)., b All names that are stated in /b the passage concerning b Gibeah of Benjamin, /b where the rest of the tribes consulted God to determine whether they should go to war against the tribe of Benjamin (see Judges, chapter 20), b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b They are b non-sacred, /b as they were consulting an idol, not God. b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b They are b sacred. /b , b Rabbi Eliezer said to /b Rabbi Yehoshua: How can you say that those names are sacred? b Does /b God b promise and not fulfill /b the promise? Twice the tribes received the response to go to war against Benjamin, and twice they were vanquished., b Rabbi Yehoshua said to /b Rabbi Eliezer: b That which /b God b promised, He fulfilled. /b In each case, He responded to their question. The first time they consulted God through the i Urim VeTummim /i , b but they did not seek to ascertain if /b they are b to triumph /b in the war or b if /b they are b to be defeated. In the last /b time that they consulted God through the i Urim VeTummim /i , b where they sought to ascertain /b whether they would emerge triumphant, b they consented /b in Heaven b to their /b endeavor, b as it is stated: “And Pinehas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron was standing before it in those days, saying: Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? /b And the Lord said: Go up, as tomorrow I will deliver them into your hand” (Judges 20:28)., b All /b mentions of the name b Shlomo that are stated in the Song of Songs, /b such as: “The song of songs that is Shlomo’s” (Song of Songs 1:1), are not references to King Solomon; rather, they are b sacred, /b meaning b a song to /b the b One for Whom peace [ i shehashalom /i ] is His, except for this /b mention: b “My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; you, Solomon shall have the one thousand,” /b i.e., one thousand are b for Solomon himself; “and two hundred for those who guard its fruit” /b (Song of Songs 8:12), which is a reference to b the Sages. And some say: This /b verse b too is non-sacred: “Behold, the bed of Solomon; sixty /b mighty men are around it” (Song of Songs 3:7).,The Gemara asks: Does this mean: b This /b verse b too /b is non-sacred, b and it is not necessary /b to say that the verse cited earlier is non-sacred? b But that which Shmuel says: A monarchy that kills one of /b every b six /b individuals b in the world is not punished /b for doing so, as that is the prerogative of a monarch, b as it is stated: “My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; you, Shlomo shall have the one thousand,” /b this is a reference b to the monarchy of Heaven; “and two hundred for those who guard its fruit,” /b this is a reference b to the monarchy of earth. /b of the 1,200 mentioned in the two parts of the verse, two hundred, or one-sixth, are the prerogative of the earthly monarch. b Shmuel, /b who interprets the mention of Shlomo in this verse as referring to God, holds b neither in accordance with /b the opinion of b the first i tanna /i nor in accordance with /b the opinion introduced with the term: b Some say. /b Both i tanna’im /i agree that the reference in the verse is to Solomon and not to the Holy One, Blessed be He., b Rather, /b Shmuel cites a different version of the opinion introduced with the term: Some say, according to which b this /b is what b it is saying. And some say: This /b Shlomo that appears in the verse with regard to the one thousand is b sacred, and that /b Shlomo that appears in the verse b with regard to the bed of /b Solomon b is non-sacred, and /b it is b Shmuel who states /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion introduced with the term: b Some say. /b , b All kings that are stated with regard to Daniel /b are b non-sacred, except for this /b one, b which is sacred: “You, O king, king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven has given you the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory” /b (Daniel 2:37)., b And some say: This too /b is b sacred, as it is stated: “My Lord, the dream shall be for your enemy and its interpretation for your foe” /b (Daniel 4:16). b To whom is /b Daniel b saying /b this? b If it enters your mind /b that when Daniel says: “My lord,” it is b to Nebuchadnezzar /b that b he is saying it, his enemy, who are they? /b They are the b Jewish people. Would /b Daniel b curse the Jewish people? /b , b And the first i tanna /i , /b who understands that Daniel is referring to Nebuchadnezzar, b holds: Are there Jewish enemies /b for Nebuchadnezzar and b there are no gentile enemies /b for him? Daniel was cursing the gentile enemies, not the Jewish enemies.,§ The mishna teaches: b Or /b if one administered the oath to the witnesses b in /b the name of b any of the appellations /b of God, even though he did not mention the ineffable name of God, b these /b witnesses are b liable /b for taking a false oath of testimony., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i that cites the verse: b “The Lord shall render you as a curse and as an oath” /b (Numbers 5:21). b Why /b must b the verse state /b this? b Isn’t it already stated /b at the beginning of the verse: b “And the priest shall administer to the woman with the oath of cursing”? Due to /b the fact b that it is stated /b with regard to an oath of testimony: b “And he heard the voice of an i ala /i ” /b (Leviticus 5:1), one may infer: b i Ala /i is stated here /b with regard to an oath of testimony b and i ala /i is stated there /b with regard to a i sota /i ; b just as there, /b with regard to a i sota /i , the reference is to b an oath, so too here, /b with regard to an oath of testimony, the reference is to b an oath. /b And b just as there, /b the oath is administered b in /b the b name /b of God, b so too here, /b the oath is administered b in /b the b name /b of God. This is contrary to the mishna, where the ruling is that an oath of testimony may be administered even in the name of appellations of God., b Abaye said: /b This is b not difficult. This /b i baraita /i is the opinion of b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi, /b and b that /b mishna is the opinion of b the Rabbis, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi says: Since the Torah says /b in some cases: b Take an oath, and /b in some cases: b Do not take an oath; /b and it says in some cases: b Curse, and /b in some cases: b Do not curse, just as /b when the Torah says: b Take an oath, /b it is b in /b the b name /b of God, b so too, /b when the Torah states: b Do not take an oath, /b it is b in the name /b of God. And b just as /b when the Torah states: b Curse, /b it is b in /b the b name /b of God, b so too, /b when the Torah says: b Do not curse, /b it is b in /b the b name /b of God.,The Gemara asks: b And the Rabbis /b say: b If they derive /b an oath of testimony from i sota /i by means of b a verbal analogy, let us require /b that both an oath of testimony and the curse will be specifically in b the ineffable name /b of God. b If they do not derive /b an oath of testimony from i sota /i by means of b a verbal analogy, from where do they /b derive b that /b the instance of the word b i ala /i that /b is written with regard to an oath of testimony b is an oath? /b ,The Gemara answers: b They derive it from that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written with regard to an oath of testimony: “And he hears the voice of b an i ala /i ” /b (Leviticus 5:1); b i ala /i is nothing other than an expression /b meaning b oath. And likewise it says: “And the priest shall administer to the woman with the oath of cursing [ i ha’ala /i ]” /b (Numbers 5:21).,The Gemara asks: It is not merely i ala /i that is written there; b the oath of an i ala /i is written there. /b Apparently, i ala /i alone does not mean oath. The Gemara explains that b this /b is what the i tanna /i b is saying: /b “And he hears the voice of b an i ala /i ”; i ala /i is /b used b only /b when accompanied b by an oath. And likewise it says: “And the priest shall administer to the woman with the oath of cursing.” /b |
|
122. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147| 38a. ככתבו ובמדינה בכינויו במדינה כהנים נושאים את ידיהן כנגד כתפיהן ובמקדש על גבי ראשיהן חוץ מכהן גדול שאינו מגביה את ידיו למעלה מן הציץ ר' יהודה אומר אף כהן גדול מגביה ידיו למעלה מן הציץ שנאמר (ויקרא ט, כב) וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן (במדבר ו, כג) כה תברכו בלשון הקודש אתה אומר בלשון הקודש או אינו אלא בכל לשון נאמר כאן כה תברכו ונאמר להלן (דברים כז, יב) אלה יעמדו לברך את העם מה להלן בלשון הקודש אף כאן בלשון הקודש,רבי יהודה אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר כה עד שיאמרו בלשון הזה,תניא אידך כה תברכו בעמידה אתה אומר בעמידה או אינו אלא אפי' בישיבה נאמר כאן כה תברכו ונאמר להלן אלה יעמדו לברך מה להלן בעמידה אף כאן בעמידה,ר' נתן אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (דברים י, ח) לשרתו ולברך בשמו מה משרת בעמידה אף מברך בעמידה ומשרת גופיה מנלן דכתיב (דברים יח, ה) לעמוד לשרת,תניא אידך כה תברכו בנשיאות כפים אתה אומר בנשיאות כפים או אינו אלא שלא בנשיאות כפים נאמר כאן כה תברכו ונאמר להלן (ויקרא ט, כב) וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם מה להלן בנשיאות כפים אף כאן בנשיאות כפים,קשיא ליה לר' יונתן אי מה להלן כהן גדול וראש חודש ועבודת צבור אף כאן כהן גדול וראש חודש ועבודת ציבור,ר' נתן אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (דברים יח, ה) הוא ובניו כל הימים מקיש בניו לו מה הוא בנשיאות כפים אף בניו בנשיאות כפים וכתיב כל הימים ואיתקש ברכה לשירות,ותניא אידך כה תברכו את בני ישראל בשם המפורש אתה אומר בשם המפורש או אינו אלא בכינוי ת"ל (במדבר ו, כז) ושמו את שמי שמי המיוחד לי,יכול אף בגבולין כן נאמר כאן ושמו את שמי ונאמר להלן (דברים יב, ה) לשום את שמו שם מה להלן בית הבחירה אף כאן בבית הבחירה,רבי יאשיה אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (שמות כ, כא) בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך בכל מקום ס"ד אלא מקרא זה מסורס הוא בכל מקום אשר אבוא אליך וברכתיך שם אזכיר את שמי והיכן אבוא אליך וברכתיך בבית הבחירה שם אזכיר את שמי בבית הבחירה,תניא אידך כה תברכו את בני ישראל אין לי אלא בני ישראל גרים נשים ועבדים משוחררים מנין ת"ל (במדבר ו, כג) אמור להם לכולהו,תניא אידך כה תברכו פנים כנגד פנים אתה אומר פנים כנגד פנים או אינו אלא פנים כנגד עורף ת"ל אמור להם כאדם האומר לחבירו,תניא אידך כה תברכו בקול רם או אינו אלא בלחש ת"ל אמור להם כאדם שאומר לחבירו,אמר אביי נקטינן לשנים קורא כהנים ולא' אינו קורא כהן שנא' אמור להם לשנים ואמר רב חסדא נקטינן כהן קורא כהנים ואין ישראל קורא כהנים שנאמר אמור להם אמירה | 38a. b as it is written /b in the Torah, i.e., the Tetragrammaton, b and in the country /b they use b its substitute name /b of Lordship. b In the country, the priests lift their hands /b so they are b aligned with their shoulders /b during the benediction. b And in the Temple /b they lift them b above their heads, except for the High Priest, who does not lift his hands above the frontplate. /b Since the Tetragrammaton is inscribed on it, it is inappropriate for him to lift his hands above it. b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the High Priest lifts his hands above the frontplate, as it is stated: “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” /b (Leviticus 9:22)., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: /b The mitzva given to the priests: b “So you shall bless /b the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:23), is that they bless them b in the sacred tongue, /b Hebrew. Do b you say /b that the benediction must be recited b in the sacred tongue, or /b perhaps it may be recited b in any language? /b The i baraita /i answers: b It is stated here, /b with regard to the Priestly Benediction: b “So you shall bless,” and it is stated there, /b with regard to the blessings and curses: b “These shall stand /b on Mount Gerizim b to bless the people” /b (Deuteronomy 27:12). There is a verbal analogy between these two usages of the word “bless”: b Just as there, /b the blessings and curses were recited b in the sacred tongue, /b as stated above (33a), b so too here, /b the Priestly Benediction is recited b in the sacred tongue. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not necessary /b to derive this from a verbal analogy, as b it says /b with regard to the Priestly Benediction: b “Thus,” /b which means that it is not recited correctly b unless they recite it in this /b exact b language, /b as it is written in the Torah., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b “So you shall bless,” /b means b while standing. /b Do b you say /b that the benediction must be recited b while standing, or /b perhaps it may b even /b be recited b while sitting? It is stated here: “So you shall bless,” and it is stated there, /b with regard to the blessings and curses: b “These shall stand /b on Mount Gerizim b to bless.” Just as there, /b the blessing was recited b while standing, so too here, /b the priests must recite the Priestly Benediction b while standing. /b , b Rabbi Natan says: It is not necessary /b to derive this from a verbal analogy, as b it says /b in the verse: “At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covet of the Lord, to stand before the Lord b to minister to Him and to bless in His name” /b (Deuteronomy 10:8). b Just as /b a priest b performs the /b Temple b service while standing, so too, he blesses while standing. /b The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive that b he performs the service itself /b while standing? b As it is written: “To stand to minister /b in the name of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:5)., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b “So you shall bless” /b means b with lifted hands. /b Do b you say /b that the priests must recite the benediction b with lifted hands, or /b perhaps they may recite it b without lifted hands? It is stated here: “So you shall bless,” and it is stated there, /b with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle: b “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” /b (Leviticus 9:22). b Just as there, /b Aaron blessed the nation b with lifted hands, so too here, /b the Priestly Benediction is recited b with lifted hands. /b ,This i halakha /i was b difficult for Rabbi Yonatan to understand: If /b this i halakha /i is derived from the dedication of the Tabernacle, then why not also say: b Just as there, /b the b High Priest /b was the one who recited the blessing, b and /b it was the b New Moon, and /b the offerings that were brought were b a communal service, so too here, /b the Priestly Benediction must be recited only by the b High Priest, and /b on the b New Moon, and /b when performing b a communal service? /b , b Rabbi Natan says: It is not necessary /b to derive from a verbal analogy that the Priestly Benediction is recited with lifted hands, as b it says /b with regard to Aaron: “To stand to minister in the name of the Lord, b him and his sons forever” /b (Deuteronomy 18:5). In this verse, b his sons are juxtaposed with him. Just as /b Aaron recited the Priestly Benediction b with lifted hands, so too, his sons /b recite the benediction b with lifted hands. And /b furthermore, b it is written “forever,” /b which indicates that it is referring not only to special occasions. b And /b although the verse is not referring to the Priestly Benediction, the b benediction is juxtaposed to /b the Temple b service /b in another verse: “To minister to Him and to bless in His name” (Deuteronomy 10:8)., b And it is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b “So you shall bless the children of Israel” /b means the blessing should be recited b with the ineffable name. /b Do b you say /b that the Priestly Benediction must be recited b with the ineffable name, or /b perhaps b it is /b recited b with only the substitute name, /b i Adonai /i ? b The verse states: “So shall they put My name” /b (Numbers 6:27), which means b My name that is unique to Me. /b ,One b might /b have thought that b even in the outlying areas, /b outside the Temple, b this /b ineffable name is used. b It is stated here, /b with regard to the Priestly Benediction: b “So shall they put My name,” and it is stated there, /b with regard to the place one must sacrifice offerings: “The place that the Lord your God has chosen out of all your tribes b to put His name there” /b (Deuteronomy 12:5). The verbal analogy teaches that b just as there, /b the expression “to put His name there” is referring to b the Temple, so too here, /b the mitzva of “so shall they put My name” applies b in the Temple /b and not anywhere else., b Rabbi Yoshiya says: It is not necessary /b to derive this i halakha /i from the verbal analogy, as it can be derived from a verse. b It says /b in the verse: b “In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you /b and bless you” (Exodus 20:20). Does it b enter your mind /b that this verse literally means that the Divine Presence will be revealed b everywhere? Rather, this verse /b must be interpreted by b transposition. /b It must be reordered and read as follows: b In every place where I will come to you and bless you, there I will cause My name to be mentioned. /b Rabbi Yoshiya explains that God is stating: b And where will I come to you and bless you? In the Temple. /b Therefore, he derives: b There, in the Temple, I will cause My name to be mentioned, /b but the ineffable name is not mentioned elsewhere., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b “So you shall bless the sons of Israel” /b (Numbers 6:23). b I have /b derived b only /b the i halakha /i to bless b the sons of Israel. From where /b do I derive the i halakha /i of blessing b converts, women, and emancipated slaves? The verse states /b immediately afterward: b “You shall say to them,” /b meaning b to all of /b the Jewish people., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b “So you shall bless,” /b means that the priests must recite the Priestly Benediction b face-to-face /b with the congregation. Do b you say /b that the Benediction must be recited b face-to-face, or /b perhaps b it is only /b recited with the b faces /b of the priests b facing the back of the necks /b of the congregation? b The verse states: “You shall say to them,” /b face-to-face, b like a person who is talking to another. /b , b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b “So you shall bless” /b means that the benediction must be recited b out loud. Or, /b perhaps, b is it /b recited b only in a whisper? The verse states: “You shall say to them,” like a person who is talking to another. /b , b Abaye said: We have a tradition /b with regard to the prayer leader calling the priests to recite the Priestly Benediction: When there are b two /b priests, b he calls: Priests, but /b when there is b one /b priest b he does not call: Priest, as it is stated: “You shall say to them,” /b in plural, meaning b to /b a minimum of b two /b priests. b And Rav Ḥisda said: We have a tradition /b that b a priest calls: Priests, but an Israelite does not call: Priests, as it is stated: “You shall say to them,” /b which means that the b saying /b |
|
123. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84| 47a. אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין תלמוד לומר אתך בכל מקום שאתך אם כן מה ת"ל בארץ בארץ צריך להביא ראיה בח"ל אין צריך להביא ראיה דברי ר' יהודה וחכמים אומרים בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ צריך להביא ראיה,בא הוא ועדיו עמו קרא למה לי אמר רב ששת דאמרי שמענו שנתגייר בב"ד של פלוני סד"א לא ליהמנייהו קמ"ל,בארץ אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין ת"ל אתך בכל מקום שאתך והא אפיקתיה חדא מאתך וחדא מעמך,וחכ"א בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה ואלא הא כתיב בארץ,ההוא מיבעי ליה דאפילו בארץ מקבלים גרים דסד"א משום טיבותא דארץ ישראל קמגיירי והשתא נמי דליכא טיבותא איכא לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני קמ"ל,א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים מהו דתימא מסתבר טעמא דרבי יהודה דקמסייעי ליה קראי קמ"ל,ת"ר (דברים א, טז) ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו מכאן א"ר יהודה גר שנתגייר בב"ד הרי זה גר בינו לבין עצמו אינו גר,מעשה באחד שבא לפני רבי יהודה ואמר לו נתגיירתי ביני לבין עצמי א"ל רבי יהודה יש לך עדים אמר ליה לאו יש לך בנים א"ל הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול את עצמך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול את בניך,[ומי] א"ר יהודה אבנים לא מהימן והתניא (דברים כא, יז) יכיר יכירנו לאחרים מכאן א"ר יהודה נאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור וכשם שנאמן לומר זה בני בכור כך נאמן לומר בני זה בן גרושה הוא או בן חלוצה הוא וחכ"א אינו נאמן,א"ר נחמן בר יצחק ה"ק ליה לדבריך עובד כוכבים אתה ואין עדות לעובד כוכבים רבינא אמר הכי קאמר ליה יש לך בנים הן יש לך בני בנים הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול בניך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול בני בניך,תניא נמי הכי ר' יהודה אומר נאמן אדם לומר על בנו קטן ואין נאמן על בנו גדול ואמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לא קטן קטן ממש ולא גדול גדול ממש אלא קטן ויש לו בנים זהו גדול גדול ואין לו בנים זהו קטן,והלכתא כוותיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק והתניא כוותיה דרבינא ההוא לענין יכיר איתמר,תנו רבנן גר שבא להתגייר בזמן הזה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים דחופים סחופים ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהם אם אומר יודע אני ואיני כדאי מקבלין אותו מיד,ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ומודיעין אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני ומודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות אומרים לו הוי יודע שעד שלא באת למדה זו אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת חללת שבת אי אתה ענוש סקילה ועכשיו אכלת חלב ענוש כרת חללת שבת ענוש סקילה,וכשם שמודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות כך מודיעין אותו מתן שכרן אומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו עשוי אלא לצדיקים וישראל בזמן הזה אינם יכולים לקבל | 47a. b I have /b derived b only /b that a convert is accepted b in Eretz /b Yisrael; b from where /b do I derive that also b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael he is to be accepted? b The verse states “with you,” /b which indicates that b in any place that he is with you, /b you should accept him. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: In the land? /b This indicates that b in Eretz /b Yisrael b he needs to bring evidence /b that he is a convert, b but outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael b he does not need to bring evidence /b that he is a convert; rather, his claim is accepted. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether /b he is b in Eretz /b Yisrael b or whether /b he is b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael, b he needs to bring evidence. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i : In the case when b he came and /b brought b witnesses /b to his conversion b with him, why do I /b need b a verse /b to teach that he is accepted? In all cases, the testimony of witnesses is fully relied upon. b Rav Sheshet said: /b The case is b where they say: We heard that he converted in /b the b court /b of b so-and-so, /b but they did not witness the actual conversion. And it is necessary to teach this because it could b enter your mind to say /b that b they should not be relied upon; /b therefore, the verse b teaches us /b that they are relied upon.,As cited above, the latter clause of the i baraita /i states: “With you b in /b your b land” /b (Leviticus 19:33). b I have /b derived b only /b that a convert is accepted b in Eretz /b Yisrael; b from where /b do I derive that also b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael he is to be accepted? b The verse states: “With you,” /b which indicates that b in any place that he is with you, /b you should accept him. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t you /b already b expound that /b phrase in the first clause of the i baraita /i to teach that one doesn’t accept the claims of an individual that he is a valid convert? The Gemara explains: b One /b of these i halakhot /i is derived from the phrase b “with you” /b in the verse cited, b and /b the other b one /b is derived from the phrase b “with you” /b in a subsequent verse (Leviticus 25:35).,The i baraita /i states: b And the Rabbis say: Whether /b he is b in Eretz /b Yisrael b or whether /b he is b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael, b he needs to bring evidence. /b The Gemara asks: b But isn’t “in /b your b land” written /b in the verse? How can the Rabbis deny any distinction between the i halakha /i inside and outside of Eretz Yisrael?,The Gemara explains: b That /b phrase b is necessary /b to teach b that even in Eretz /b Yisrael, the Jewish people should b accept converts, as it could enter your mind to say /b that it is only b for the sake of /b benefiting from b the goodness of Eretz Yisrael, /b and not for the sake of Heaven, that b they are converting, /b and therefore they should not be accepted. b And /b it could also enter your mind to say that even b nowadays, when /b God’s blessing has ceased and b there is no /b longer b the /b original b goodness /b from which to benefit, one should still suspect their purity of motives because b there are /b the b gleanings, /b the b forgotten sheaves, and /b the b corners /b of fields, b and the poor man’s tithe /b from which they would benefit by converting. Therefore, the verse b teaches us /b that they are accepted even in Eretz Yisrael., b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The b i halakha /i /b is that b whether /b a convert is b in Eretz /b Yisrael b or whether /b he is b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b he needs to bring evidence. /b The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b this b obvious; /b in all disputes between b an individual /b Sage b and many /b Sages the b i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of the b many /b Sages. The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this b lest you say /b that b Rabbi Yehuda’s reason /b is more b logical, being that the verse supports him /b when it states: “In your land.” Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Yoḥa to b teach us /b that the i halakha /i is not in accordance with his opinion., b The Sages taught: /b The verse states that Moses charged the judges of a court: b “And judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the convert with him” /b (Deuteronomy 1:16). b From here, /b based on the mention of a convert in the context of judgment in a court, b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b A potential b convert who converts in a court is a /b valid b convert. /b However, if he converts b in private, he is not a convert. /b ,The Gemara relates: There was b an incident involving one /b who was presumed to be Jewish b who came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: I converted in private, /b and therefore I am not actually Jewish. b Rabbi Yehuda said to him: /b Do b you have witnesses /b to support your claim? b He said to him: No. /b Rabbi Yehuda asked: Do b you have children? He said to him: Yes. /b Rabbi Yehuda b said to him: You are deemed credible /b in order b to render yourself unfit /b to marry a Jewish woman by claiming that you are a gentile, b but you are not deemed credible /b in order b to render your children unfit. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But did Rabbi Yehuda /b actually b say /b that b with regard to /b his b children he is not deemed credible? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “He shall acknowledge [ i yakir /i ] /b the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17). The phrase “he shall acknowledge” is apparently superfluous. It is therefore expounded to teach that the father is deemed credible so that b he can identify him [ i yakirenu /i ] to others. From here Rabbi Yehuda said: A man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, and just as he is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so /b too, a priest b is deemed credible to say: This son of mine is a son of a divorced woman /b and myself, b or /b to say: He is b a son of a i ḥalutza /i /b and myself, and therefore he is disqualified due to flawed lineage [ i ḥalal /i ]. b And the Rabbis say: He is not deemed credible. /b If Rabbi Yehuda holds that a father is deemed credible to render his children unfit, why did he rule otherwise in the case of the convert?, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said /b that b this is what /b Rabbi Yehuda b said to him: According to your statement you are a gentile, and there is no testimony for a gentile, /b as a gentile is a disqualified witness. Consequently, you cannot testify about the status of your children and render them unfit. b Ravina said /b that b this is what /b Rabbi Yehuda b said to him: /b Do b you have children? He said: Yes. He said to him: /b Do b you have grandchildren? /b He said: b Yes. He said to him: You are deemed credible /b in order b to render your children unfit, /b based on the phrase “he shall acknowledge,” b but you are not deemed credible /b in order b to render your grandchildren unfit, /b as the verse affords a father credibility only with respect to his children., b This /b opinion of Ravina b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says: A man is deemed credible to say about his minor son /b that he is unfit, b but he is not deemed credible to say about his adult son /b that he is unfit. b And /b in explanation of the i baraita /i , b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The reference to b a minor /b son does b not /b mean one who is b literally a minor, /b who has not yet reached majority, b and /b the reference to b an adult /b son does b not /b mean one who is b literally an adult, /b who has reached majority; b rather, a minor who has children, this is /b what the i baraita /i is referring to as b an adult, /b and b an adult who does not have children, this is /b what the i baraita /i is referring to as b a minor. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. /b The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in the i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Ravina? /b If there is a i baraita /i that supports his opinion, the i halakha /i should be in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara explains: b That /b i baraita /i b was stated concerning the matter of “he shall acknowledge,” /b that a father is deemed credible to render his son unfit; however, if one claims he is a gentile, he is not deemed credible to say the same about his son.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to a potential b convert who comes to /b a court in order to b convert, at the present time, /b when the Jews are in exile, the judges of the court b say to him: What did you see that /b motivated b you /b to b come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are /b frequently b visited upon them? If he says: I know, and /b although b I am unworthy /b of joining the Jewish people and sharing in their sorrow, I nevertheless desire to do so, then the court b accepts him immediately /b to begin the conversion process., b And /b the judges of the court b inform him /b of b some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot, and they inform him /b of b the sin /b of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take b gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and /b produce in the b corner /b of one’s field, b and /b about the b poor man’s tithe. And they inform him /b of b the punishment for /b transgressing b the mitzvot, /b as follows: b They say to him: Be aware that before you came to this status /b and converted, b had you eaten forbidden fat, you would not be punished by i karet /i , /b and b had you profaned Shabbat, you would not be punished by stoning, /b since these prohibitions do not apply to gentiles. b But now, /b once converted, if b you have eaten forbidden fat you are punished by i karet /i , /b and if b you have profaned Shabbat, you are punished by stoning. /b , b And just as they inform him /b about the b punishment for /b transgressing the b mitzvot, so /b too, b they inform him /b about the b reward granted for /b fulfilling b them. They say to him: Be aware that the World-to-Come is made only for the righteous, /b and if you observe the mitzvot you will merit it, b and /b be aware that b the Jewish people, at the present time, are unable to receive /b their full reward in this world; |
|
124. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84| 10b. ומאי שנא התם איתילידא בה ריעותא בבהמה הכא סכין איתרעאי בהמה לא איתרעאי,והילכתא כוותיה דרב הונא כשלא שיבר בה עצם והילכתא כוותיה דרב חסדא כששיבר בה עצם מכלל דרב חסדא אע"ג דלא שיבר בה עצם אלא במאי איפגים אימא בעצם דמפרקת איפגים,הוה עובדא וטרף רב יוסף עד תליסר חיותא כמאן כרב הונא ואפילו בקמייתא לא כרב חסדא ולבר מקמייתא,ואיבעית אימא לעולם כרב הונא דאי כרב חסדא מכדי מתלא תלינן ממאי דבעצם דמפרקת דקמייתא איפגים דלמא בעצם דמפרקת דבתרייתא איפגים,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי רב כהנא מצריך בדיקותא בין כל חדא וחדא כמאן כרב הונא ולמיפסל קמייתא לא כרב חסדא ולאכשורי בתרייתא,אי הכי תיבעי נמי בדיקת חכם עד אחד נאמן באיסורין אי הכי מעיקרא נמי לא האמר רבי יוחנן לא אמרו להראות סכין לחכם אלא מפני כבודו של חכם,מנא הא מלתא דאמור רבנן אוקי מילתא אחזקיה,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, לח) ויצא הכהן מן הבית אל פתח הבית והסגיר את הבית שבעת ימים דלמא אדנפיק ואתא בצר ליה שיעורא אלא לאו משום דאמרינן אוקי אחזקיה,מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב ודילמא כגון שיצא דרך אחוריו דקא חזי ליה כי נפק,אמר ליה אביי שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דיציאה דרך אחוריו לא שמה יציאה ועוד אחורי הדלת מאי איכא למימר וכי תימא דפתח ביה כוותא והתנן בית אפל אין פותחין בו חלונות לראות את נגעו,א"ל רבא דקאמרת יציאה דרך אחוריו לא שמה יציאה כהן גדול ביום הכפורים יוכיח דכתיב ביה יציאה ותנן יצא ובא לו דרך כניסתו ודקאמרת בית אפל אין פותחין בו חלונות לראות את נגעו הני מילי היכא דלא איתחזק אבל היכא דאיתחזק איתחזק,תניא דלא כרב אחא בר יעקב ויצא הכהן מן הבית יכול ילך לתוך ביתו ויסגיר תלמוד לומר אל פתח הבית,אי פתח הבית יכול יעמוד תחת המשקוף ויסגיר תלמוד לומר מן הבית עד שיצא מן הבית כולו הא כיצד עומד בצד המשקוף ומסגיר,ומנין שאם הלך לתוך ביתו והסגיר או שעמד בתוך הבית והסגיר שהסגרו מוסגר תלמוד לומר והסגיר את הבית מכל מקום,ורב אחא בר יעקב | 10b. The Gemara asks: b And /b in b what /b way is uncertainty whether he interrupted the slaughter or pressed the knife b different /b from uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: b There, /b in the case of uncertainty with regard to interruption or pressing, b the flaw developed in the animal, /b and the slaughter is not valid. b Here, /b in the case of uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter, b a flaw developed in the knife /b but b a flaw did not develop in the animal, /b and the slaughter is valid., b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Huna /b that the slaughter is not valid in a case b where he did not break a bone with /b the knife. b And the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Ḥisda /b that the slaughter is valid in a case b where he broke a bone with /b the knife. Learn b by inference that Rav Ḥisda /b rules that the slaughter is valid b even if he did not break a bone with /b the knife. The Gemara asks: b But /b if he did not break bones, b on what was /b the knife b notched? /b It must have been on the hide. Why, then, is the slaughter valid? The Gemara answers: b Say /b that b it was notched on the neck bone /b after he competed slaughtering the animal.,The Gemara relates: b There was an incident, and Rav Yosef deemed as many as thirteen animals i tereifot /i /b when he discovered the knife was notched after slaughtering the final animal. The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion did Rav Yosef issue his ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Huna, /b who holds that the concern is that the knife was notched by the animal’s hide, b and /b he ruled that b even the first /b animal is forbidden? The Gemara answers: b No, /b perhaps it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥisda, /b who holds that the notch is attributed to the neck bone, b and /b they are all forbidden b except for the first /b animal., b And if you wish, say /b instead: b Actually, /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Huna, as, if /b it were b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥisda, since we attribute /b the notch to the neck bone as a leniency, b from where /b is it ascertained b that /b it is b on the neck bone of the first /b animal that b it was notched? Perhaps /b it is b on the neck bone of the last /b animal that b it was notched, /b and all of the animals are permitted., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rav Kahana requires an examination /b of the knife b between each and every /b act of slaughter. The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion did Rav Kahana issue his ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Huna, and /b he stated the i halakha /i b to invalidate /b the slaughter of b the first /b animal that he slaughtered if he discovers a notch in the knife? The Gemara answers: b No, /b perhaps it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥisda, /b according to the first of the two explanations of the ruling of Rav Yosef, who holds that if a notch is found it is attributed to the neck bone, b and /b examination of the knife is required b to validate /b the slaughter of b the next /b animal.,The Gemara raises an objection: b If so, /b and the reference is to the examination before slaughter, the knife b should require the examination of a /b Torah b scholar /b that was required by the Sages. The Gemara explains: There is no need for a Sage to examine the knife, based on the principle: The testimony of b one witness, /b in this case the slaughterer, b is deemed credible with regard to ritual matters. /b The Gemara challenges: b If so, even from the outset, /b examination of the knife by a Torah scholar should b also not /b be required. The Gemara explains: b Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say /b that the Sages b said to show /b the b knife to a /b Torah b scholar only due to /b the requirement to show b deference to the Sage? /b Once deference was shown before the initial slaughter, it is no longer necessary to do so.,§ Apropos the statement of Rav Huna that an animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, and therefore in cases of uncertainty whether the animal was properly slaughtered, one rules stringently and it is prohibited to eat its flesh, the Gemara asks: b From where is this matter that the Sages said: Establish /b the status of b the matter on /b the basis of b its presumptive status, /b derived?, b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said /b that b the verse states /b with regard to leprosy of houses that after a priest views a leprous mark: b “And the priest shall emerge from the house to the entrance of the house, and quarantine the house seven days” /b (Leviticus 14:38). The Gemara asks: How can the priest quarantine the house based on his viewing the leprous mark? b Perhaps as he was emerging and coming /b out of the house, the size of the leprous mark diminished and b it lacks /b the requisite b measure /b for leprosy. b Rather, is it not due to /b the fact b that we say: Establish /b the status of b the matter on /b the basis of b its presumptive status? /b , b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to /b that proof: b And perhaps /b the verse is referring to a case b where /b the priest b emerged backward, as /b in that case, the priest b sees /b the leprous mark b as he emerges. /b , b Abaye said to him /b that there are b two refutations of /b that b statement. One /b is b that emerging backward is not called emerging, /b and the priest would not fulfill the verse “And the priest shall emerge from the house” by doing so. b And furthermore, /b in a case where the leprous mark is b behind the door, what is there to say? /b Even walking backward would not enable the priest to see it. b And if you would say that /b the priest can b open a window in /b the wall to enable him to see the leprous mark, b but didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Nega’im /i 2:3): b In a dark house one may not open windows /b to enable him b to see his leprous mark? /b , b Rava said to /b Abaye: With regard to b that which you say: Emerging backward is not called emerging, /b the case of the b High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove /b that this is not so, b as emerging is written in his /b regard (see Leviticus 16:18), b and we learned /b in a mishna ( i Yoma /i 52b): The High Priest b emerged and came /b out backward in the b manner of his entry, /b facing the Ark in the Holy of Holies. b And /b with regard to b that which you say: In a dark house, one may not open windows /b to enable him b to see his leprous mark, this statement /b applies only in a case b where /b the existence of a leprous mark in the house b was not /b yet b established; /b but in a case b where /b the existence of a leprous mark in the house b was /b already b established, it was established, /b and the priest may open a window to view it., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, /b who suggested that the verse is referring to a case where the priest emerged from the house backward and therefore there is no proof that one lets the matter remain in its presumptive status. It is written: b “And the priest shall emerge from the house /b to the entrance of the house and quarantine the house.” One b might /b have thought that b he may go into his /b own b house and quarantine /b the house from there; therefore, b the verse states: “To the entrance of the house,” /b referring to the house that is being quarantined., b If /b he must emerge to b the entrance of the house, /b one b might /b have thought that b he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine /b the house; therefore, b the verse states: “From the house,” /b indicating that he does not quarantine the house b until he emerges from the house in its entirety. How so? He stands alongside the lintel and quarantines /b the house.,The i baraita /i concludes: b And from where /b is it derived b that if he went inside his /b own b house and quarantined /b the leprous house, b or that /b if b he stood inside the /b leprous b house and quarantined /b it, b that his quarantine is /b a valid b quarantine? /b It is derived from that which b the verse states: “And quarantine the house,” /b meaning b in any case. /b Apparently, the quarantine is valid even if he is unable to see the leprous mark, as the mark remains in its previous presumptive status., b And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov /b interprets the i baraita /i in accordance with his opinion |
|
125. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 57| 23a. ורבא דמצלי אצלויי:,ביו"ט חמשה ביוה"כ ששה כו': מתני' מני לא ר' ישמעאל ולא רבי עקיבא דתניא ביו"ט חמשה וביוה"כ ששה ובשבת שבעה אין פוחתין מהן ואין מוסיפין עליהן דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר ביו"ט חמשה וביום הכפורים שבעה ובשבת ששה אין פוחתין מהן אבל מוסיפין עליהן,מני אי ר' ישמעאל קשיא תוספת אי ר"ע קשיא ששה ושבעה,אמר רבא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל היא דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל ביום טוב חמשה ביוה"כ ששה בשבת שבעה אין פוחתין מהן אבל מוסיפין עליהן דברי ר' ישמעאל,קשיא דר' ישמעאל אדר' ישמעאל תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי ישמעאל,מאן תנא להא דתניא ביו"ט מאחרין לבוא וממהרין לצאת ביום הכפורים ממהרין לבוא ומאחרין לצאת ובשבת ממהרין לבוא וממהרין לצאת לימא ר"ע דאית ליה גברא יתירא אפילו תימא רבי ישמעאל דנפיש סידורא דיומא,הני שלשה חמשה ושבעה כנגד מי פליגי בה רבי יצחק בר נחמני וחד דעמיה ומנו רבי שמעון בן פזי ואמרי לה ר' שמעון בן פזי וחד דעמיה ומנו רבי יצחק בר נחמני ואמרי לה ר' שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר כנגד ברכת כהנים וחד אמר כנגד שלשה שומרי הסף חמשה מרואי פני המלך שבעה רואי פני המלך,תני רב יוסף ג' חמשה ושבעה שלשה שומרי הסף חמשה מרואי פני המלך שבעה רואי פני המלך אמר ליה אביי עד האידנא מאי טעמא לא פריש לן מר אמר ליה לא הוה ידענא דצריכתו ליה ומי בעיתו מינאי מילתא ולא אמרי לכו,אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרב יהודה הני ששה דיוה"כ כנגד מי אמר ליה כנגד ששה שעמדו מימינו של עזרא וששה משמאלו שנאמר (נחמיה ח, ד) ויעמוד עזרא הסופר על מגדל עץ אשר עשו לדבר ויעמוד אצלו מתתיה ושמע ועניה ואוריה וחלקיה ומעשיה על ימינו ומשמאלו פדיה ומישאל ומלכיה וחשום וחשבדנה זכריה משלם,הני שבעה הוו היינו זכריה היינו משלם ואמאי קראו משלם דמישלם בעובדיה,ת"ר הכל עולין למנין שבעה ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה אבל אמרו חכמים אשה לא תקרא בתורה מפני כבוד צבור,איבעיא להו מפטיר מהו שיעלה למנין שבעה רב הונא ור' ירמיה בר אבא חד אמר עולה וחד אמר אינו עולה מ"ד עולה דהא קרי,ומ"ד אינו עולה כדעולא דאמר עולא מפני מה המפטיר בנביא צריך שיקרא בתורה תחלה מפני כבוד תורה וכיון דמשום כבוד תורה הוא למנינא לא סליק,מיתיבי המפטיר בנביא לא יפחות מעשרים ואחד פסוקין כנגד שבעה שקראו בתורה ואם איתא עשרים וארבעה הויין כיון דמשום כבוד תורה הוא | 23a. b and Rava, who would bend /b their heads and not actually prostrate themselves on the ground.,We learned in the mishna: b On a Festival, five /b people read; b on Yom Kippur, six /b people read; and on Shabbat, seven people read. One may not decrease the number of readers, but one may add to them. The Gemara asks: b Who is /b the i tanna /i of b the mishna? /b It is b not Rabbi Yishmael and not Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b On a Festival, five /b people read from the Torah; b and on Yom Kippur, six /b people read; b and on Shabbat, seven /b people read. b One may not decrease or add to /b the required number of readers. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva /b disagrees and b says: On a Festival, five /b people read from the Torah; b and on Yom Kippur, seven /b people read; b and on Shabbat, six /b people read. b One may not decrease /b these numbers, b but one may add to them. /b , b Who is /b the i tanna /i of the mishna? b If /b you say it is b Rabbi Yishmael, /b it is b difficult /b due to the ruling with regard to b adding, /b as the mishna states that one may add additional readers but Rabbi Yishmael holds that one may not do so. b If /b you say it is b Rabbi Akiva, /b it is b difficult /b due to the ruling concerning the days on which there are b six and seven /b readers., b Rava said: /b It is b the i tanna /i of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: On a Festival, five /b people read from the Torah; b on Yom Kippur, six /b people read; b on Shabbat, seven /b people read. b One may not decrease these /b numbers b but one may add to them. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. /b ,The Gemara comments: If so, b there is a contradiction /b between the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, /b as expressed in the mishna, and the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael /b himself, as recorded in the i baraita /i . The Gemara responds: b Two i tanna’im /i , /b students of Rabbi Yishmael, expressed different opinions b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b On a Festival, one is slow to arrive /b at the synagogue because one is busy preparing for the festive meal, b and one is quick to leave /b in order to eat; b on Yom Kippur, one is quick to arrive /b at the synagogue b and slow to leave; and on Shabbat, one is quick to arrive, /b as the meal has been prepared before Shabbat, b and quick to leave /b in order to eat the Shabbat meal? b Let us say /b it is b Rabbi Akiva, who holds /b that b an additional man /b reads from the Torah on Yom Kippur, which prolongs the service on that day. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Even /b if b you say /b it is b Rabbi Yishmael, /b one leaves the synagogue late because b the order of the day, /b i.e., the prayer service, b is /b very b long, /b as it includes many supplications and confessions.,A question is raised with regard to the number of readers on different days. b Corresponding to what /b were b these three, five, and seven, /b readers instituted? b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one /b other Sage b who was with him disagree about this. And who was /b that other scholar? b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. And some say /b that this was a matter of dispute between b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one /b other scholar b who was with him. And who was /b that other scholar? b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani. One said: /b These numbers b correspond /b to the number of Hebrew words in the three verses of b the Priestly Benediction. And one said: /b These numbers b correspond to the three guards of the door /b (II Kings 25:18), b five of /b the officers b who saw the king’s face /b (II Kings 25:19), b and the seven /b officers b who saw the king’s face /b (Esther 1:14).,Similarly, b Rav Yosef taught /b a i baraita /i : The b three, five, and seven /b people who read from the Torah correspond to the b three guards of the door, five of /b the officers b who saw the king’s face, /b and b the seven /b officers b who saw the king’s face. /b When Rav Yosef taught this, b Abaye said to him: What is the reason that until now the Master did not explain /b the matter b to us /b in this way? Rav Yosef b said to him: I did not know that you needed this /b information, as I thought that you were already familiar with the i baraita /i . b Have you /b ever b asked me something and I did not tell you? /b , b Ya’akov of Mina said to Rav Yehuda: Corresponding to whom were these six /b readers b on Yom Kippur /b instituted? Rav Yehuda b said to him: /b The number six b corresponds to the six /b people b who stood to Ezra’s right and the six /b people b who stood to his left, as it is stated: “And Ezra the Scribe stood upon a platform of wood, which they had made for the purpose, and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand, and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadanah, Zechariah, Meshullam” /b (Nehemiah 8:4).,The Gemara challenges this answer: b Those /b that stood to his left b were seven /b and not six. The Gemara responds: b Zechariah is /b the same as b Meshullam, /b that is to say, they are not two separate people, but rather one person with two names. b And why was he called Meshullam? Because he was perfect [ i mishlam /i ] in his actions. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i Tosefta /i ( i Megilla /i 3:11): b All /b people b count toward the quorum of seven /b readers, b even a minor and even a woman. However, the Sages said /b that b a woman should not read the Torah, out of respect for the congregation. /b , b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to the reader who b concludes [ i maftir /i ] /b the Torah reading and reads from the Prophets [ i haftara /i ], b what is /b the i halakha /i ; does he b count toward the quorum of seven /b readers? b Rav Huna and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba /b disagreed about this matter. b One said: He counts, and one said: He does not count. The one who said /b that b he counts /b toward the seven readers holds that opinion b because he reads /b from the Torah., b And the one who said /b that b he does not count /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Ulla, as Ulla said: For what /b reason b must /b the one b who concludes /b with a reading from b the Prophets read from the Torah first? /b It is b due to respect for the Torah, /b so that those present should not conclude that he was called up only to read from the Prophets because the honor due the Torah and the honor due the Prophets are equal. b And since /b he reads only b out of respect for the Torah, he is not included in the quorum /b of seven readers.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based upon the following i baraita /i : b The one who concludes with /b a reading from b the Prophets may not /b read b fewer than twenty-one verses, corresponding to the seven who read from the Torah. /b Each one who reads from the Torah must read at least three verses, for a total of at least twenty-one verses. b And if it is so, /b that the one who reads the i haftara /i does not count toward the quorum of seven readers, and he is an eighth reader, the minimum number of verses that must be read from the Torah b is twenty-four /b and not twenty-one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the one who reads the i haftara /i reads from the Torah first only b due to respect for the Torah, /b |
|
| 126. Libanius, Orations, 1.158-1.159 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 69 |
| 127. Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 9.15, 11.5 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 68, 76 |
| 128. John Chrysostom, De Virginitate, 1.2 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, christian writers •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, stoning Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 177 |
| 129. Aphrahat, Demonstrations, 8, 6 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 124 |
| 130. Prudentius, Contra Symmachum, 1.8, 2.743 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 76 |
| 131. Ephrem, Sermons, 1 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, execution •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 193 |
| 132. Ephrem, Hymns On Nativity, 9.9, 14.15 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 175 |
| 133. Ephrem, Hymns On Virginity, 3.13 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, stoning Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 186 |
| 134. Ephrem, Commentary On Genesis, 16.10, 16.11.2, 34.5 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •fornication, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 122, 175, 182 |
| 135. Ephrem, Hymns Against The Heresies, 34.13 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 175 |
| 136. Ephrem, Hymns On The Church, 45.16 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 175 |
137. Ammianus Marcellinus, History, 19.12.14, 28.1.19-28.1.20, 28.1.26, 29.1.5, 29.2.1-29.2.4, 29.2.23-29.2.28 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 64, 66, 67, 69 | 19.12.14. For if anyone wore on his neck an amulet against the quartan ague or any other complaint, or was accused by the testimony of the evil-disposed of passing by a grave in the evening, on the ground that he was a dealer in poisons, or a gatherer of the horrors of tombs and the vain illusions of the ghosts that walk there, he was condemned to capital punishment and so perished. 28.1.19. To add to his calamity, this also had happened at that same time, which was not less fatal. The soothsayer Amantius, at that time especially notorious, was betrayed on secret evidence of having been employed by the said Hymetius, for the purpose of committing certain criminal acts, to perform a sacrifice; but when brought to trial, although he stood bent double upon the rack, Tortured until he was permanently disfigured. For sub eculeo see xxvi. 10, 13, note. he denied it with obstinate insistence. 28.1.20. Upon his denial, his secret papers were brought from his house and a memorandum in the handwriting of Hymetius was found, begging him that by carrying out a solemn sacrifice he should prevail upon the deity to make the emperors Valentinian and Gratian. milder towards him; and at the end of the document were read some reproaches of Valentinian as avaricious and cruel. 28.1.26. At about that same time Lollianus, a youth just growing his first beard, son of the ex-prefect Lampadius, Cf. xxvii. 3, 5. as the result of a strict examination by Maximinus, was convicted of having written a book on destructive magic arts, when adult age had not yet endowed him with sound judgment. And when it was feared that he would be exiled, by his father’s advice he appealed to the emperor and was ordered to be taken to his court; but he went from the smoke (as the saying is) Cf. from the frying-pan into the fire and xiv. 11, 12. into the fire; for he was handed over to Phalangius, consular governor of Baetica, and died at the hand of the dread executioner. 29.1.5. A certain Procopius, a turbulent man, always 371–2 A.D. given over to a lust for disturbances, had charged two courtiers named Anatolias and Spudasius, about whom orders had been given that money of which they had defrauded the treasury be exacted of them, with having attempted the life of Count Fortunatianus, notorious as being a tiresome dunner. He, being hot-tempered, was immediately aroused to a mad degree of wrath, and by the authority of the office which he held, He was comes rei privatae in charge of the privy-purse. handed over a certain Palladius, a man of low birth, as one who had been hired as a poisoner by the afore-mentioned courtiers, and an interpreter of the fates by horoscope, Heliodorus by name, to the court of the praetorian prefecture, in order that they might be forced to tell what they knew about the matter. 29.2.1. During all this time, the notorious Palladius, the fomenter Or curdler. Literally the rennet. of all these troubles, who, as we said at first, 1, 5. was taken in custody by Fortunatianus, being by the very lowness of his condition ready to plunge into anything, by heaping disaster on disaster, had drenched the whole empire with grief and tears. 29.2.2. For having gained leave to name all whom he desired, without distinction of fortune, as dabbling in forbidden practices, like a hunter skilled in observing the secret tracks of wild beasts, he entangled many persons in his lamentable nets, some of them on the ground of having stained themselves with the knowledge of magic, others as accomplices of those who were aiming at treason. 29.2.3. And in order that even wives should have no time to weep over the misfortunes of their husbands, men were immediately sent to put the seal Until the owner should be acquitted or condemned; in the latter case his house and property went to the fiscus. on the houses, and during the examination of the furniture of the householder who had been condemned, to introduce privily old-wives’ incantations or unbecoming love-potions, contrived for the ruin of innocent people. And when these were read in a court where there was no law or scruple or justice to distinguish truth from falsehood, without opportunity for defence young and old without discrimination were robbed of their goods and, although they were found stained by no fault, after being maimed in all their limbs were carried off in litters to execution. 29.2.4. As a result, throughout the oriental provinces owners of books, through fear of a like fate, burned their entire libraries; so great was the terror that had seized upon all. Cf. also Zos. iv. 14. In this way Valens greatly diminished our knowledge of the ancient writers, in particular of the philosophers. Indeed, to speak briefly, at that time we all crept about as if in Cimmerian darkness, See xxviii. 4, 18, note. feeling the same fears as the guests of the Sicilian Dionysius, who, while filled to repletion with banquets more terrible than any possible hunger, saw with a shudder the swords hanging over their heads from the ceilings of the rooms in which they reclined and held only by single horsehairs. Cf. Cic., Tusc. Disp. v. 21, 61 f. 29.2.23. But hearing that Maximinus planned to wipe out all decent men, from that time on he decried his actions as dangerous and shameful. But when he learned that Maximinus, merely through the recommendation of the deaths of those whom he had impiously slain, had attained the honour of prefect contrary to his deserts, he was aroused to similar deeds and hopes. Like an actor, suddenly changing his mask, he conceived the desire of doing harm and stalked about with intent and cruel eyes, imagining that the prefecture would soon be his if he also should have stained himself with the punishment of the innocent. 29.2.24. And although many of the various acts which he committed were very harsh, to express it mildly, yet it will suffice to mention a few which are familiar and generally known, and done in emulation of those which had taken place in Rome. For the principle of good or bad deeds is the same everywhere, even if the greatness of the situation is not the same. That is, whether the place, the circumstances, and even the deeds themselves are unlike. 29.2.25. He executed a philosopher called Coeranius, a man of no slight merit, after he had resisted tortures of savage cruelty, because in a letter to his wife of a personal nature he had added in Greek: But do you take note and crown the house door, which is a common proverbial expression, used in order that the hearer may know that something of greater importance than usual is to be done. 29.2.26. There was a simple-minded old woman who was in the habit of curing intermittent fevers with a harmless charm. He caused her to be put to death as a criminal, after she had been called in with his own knowledge and had treated his daughter. 29.2.27. Among the papers of a distinguished townsman, of which an examination had been ordered for some business reason, the horoscope of a certain Valens was found; when the person concerned was asked why he had cast the nativity of the emperor, he defended himself against the false charge by saying that he had had a brother named Valens, and that he had died long ago. He promised to show this by proofs of full credibility, but they did not wait for the truth to be discovered, and he was tortured and butchered. 29.2.28. In the bath a young man was seen to touch alternately with the fingers of either hand first the marble of the wall or perhaps the floor of the bath. and then his breast, and to count the seven vowels, of the Greek alphabet. thinking it a helpful remedy for a stomach trouble. He was haled into court, tortured and beheaded. |
|
| 138. Ambrose, Homilies On Luke, 3 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 149 |
| 139. Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 217.67 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning in a sack •incest, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 183 |
| 140. Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 217.67 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning in a sack •incest, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 183 |
141. Augustine, The City of God, 2.8-2.9, 2.11, 2.13, 5.26, 6.5-6.8, 7.26, 10.9 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 25, 225 | 2.8. But, some one will interpose, these are the fables of poets, not the deliverances of the gods themselves. Well, I have no mind to arbitrate between the lewdness of theatrical entertainments and of mystic rites; only this I say, and history bears me out in making the assertion, that those same entertainments, in which the fictions of poets are the main attraction, were not introduced in the festivals of the gods by the ignorant devotion of the Romans, but that the gods themselves gave the most urgent commands to this effect, and indeed extorted from the Romans these solemnities and celebrations in their honor. I touched on this in the preceding book, and mentioned that dramatic entertainments were first inaugurated at Rome on occasion of a pestilence, and by authority of the pontiff. And what man is there who is not more likely to adopt, for the regulation of his own life, the examples that are represented in plays which have a divine sanction, rather than the precepts written and promulgated with no more than human authority? If the poets gave a false representation of Jove in describing him as adulterous, then it were to be expected that the chaste gods should in anger avenge so wicked a fiction, in place of encouraging the games which circulated it. of these plays, the most inoffensive are comedies and tragedies, that is to say, the dramas which poets write for the stage, and which, though they often handle impure subjects, yet do so without the filthiness of language which characterizes many other performances; and it is these dramas which boys are obliged by their seniors to read and learn as a part of what is called a liberal and gentlemanly education. 2.9. The opinion of the ancient Romans on this matter is attested by Cicero in his work De Republica, in which Scipio, one of the interlocutors, says, The lewdness of comedy could never have been suffered by audiences, unless the customs of society had previously sanctioned the same lewdness. And in the earlier days the Greeks preserved a certain reasonableness in their license, and made it a law, that whatever comedy wished to say of any one, it must say it of him by name. And so in the same work of Cicero's, Scipio says, Whom has it not aspersed? Nay, whom has it not worried? Whom has it spared? Allow that it may assail demagogues and factions, men injurious to the commonwealth - a Cleon, a Cleophon, a Hyperbolus. That is tolerable, though it had been more seemly for the public censor to brand such men, than for a poet to lampoon them; but to blacken the fame of Pericles with scurrilous verse, after he had with the utmost dignity presided over their state alike in war and in peace, was as unworthy of a poet, as if our own Plautus or N vius were to bring Publius and Cneius Scipio on the comic stage, or as if C cilius were to caricature Cato. And then a little after he goes on: Though our Twelve Tables attached the penalty of death only to a very few offenses, yet among these few this was one: if any man should have sung a pasquinade, or have composed a satire calculated to bring infamy or disgrace on another person. Wisely decreed. For it is by the decisions of magistrates, and by a well-informed justice, that our lives ought to be judged, and not by the flighty fancies of poets; neither ought we to be exposed to hear calumnies, save where we have the liberty of replying, and defending ourselves before an adequate tribunal. This much I have judged it advisable to quote from the fourth book of Cicero's De Republica; and I have made the quotation word for word, with the exception of some words omitted, and some slightly transposed, for the sake of giving the sense more readily. And certainly the extract is pertinent to the matter I am endeavoring to explain. Cicero makes some further remarks, and concludes the passage by showing that the ancient Romans did not permit any living man to be either praised or blamed on the stage. But the Greeks, as I said, though not so moral, were more logical in allowing this license which the Romans forbade; for they saw that their gods approved and enjoyed the scurrilous language of low comedy when directed not only against men, but even against themselves; and this, whether the infamous actions imputed to them were the fictions of poets, or were their actual iniquities commemorated and acted in the theatres. And would that the spectators had judged them worthy only of laughter, and not of imitation! Manifestly it had been a stretch of pride to spare the good name of the leading men and the common citizens, when the very deities did not grudge that their own reputation should be blemished. 2.11. It was a part of this same reasonableness of the Greeks which induced them to bestow upon the actors of these same plays no inconsiderable civic honors. In the above-mentioned book of the De Republica, it is mentioned that Aeschines, a very eloquent Athenian, who had been a tragic actor in his youth, became a statesman, and that the Athenians again and again sent another tragedian, Aristodemus, as their plenipotentiary to Philip. For they judged it unbecoming to condemn and treat as infamous persons those who were the chief actors in the scenic entertainments which they saw to be so pleasing to the gods. No doubt this was immoral of the Greeks, but there can be as little doubt they acted in conformity with the character of their gods; for how could they have presumed to protect the conduct of the citizens from being cut to pieces by the tongues of poets and players, who were allowed, and even enjoined by the gods, to tear their divine reputation to tatters? And how could they hold in contempt the men who acted in the theatres those dramas which, as they had ascertained, gave pleasure to the gods whom they worshipped? Nay, how could they but grant to them the highest civic honors? On what plea could they honor the priests who offered for them acceptable sacrifices to the gods, if they branded with infamy the actors who in behalf of the people gave to the gods that pleasure or honour which they demanded, and which, according to the account of the priests, they were angry at not receiving. Labeo, whose learning makes him an authority on such points, is of opinion that the distinction between good and evil deities should find expression in a difference of worship; that the evil should be propitiated by bloody sacrifices and doleful rites, but the good with a joyful and pleasant observance, as, e.g. (as he says himself), with plays, festivals, and banquets. All this we shall, with God's help, hereafter discuss. At present, and speaking to the subject on hand, whether all kinds of offerings are made indiscriminately to all the gods, as if all were good (and it is an unseemly thing to conceive that there are evil gods; but these gods of the pagans are all evil, because they are not gods, but evil spirits), or whether, as Labeo thinks, a distinction is made between the offerings presented to the different gods the Greeks are equally justified in honoring alike the priests by whom the sacrifices are offered, and the players by whom the dramas are acted, that they may not be open to the charge of doing an injury to all their gods, if the plays are pleasing to all of them, or (which were still worse) to their good gods, if the plays are relished only by them. 2.13. But Scipio, were he alive, would possibly reply: How could we attach a penalty to that which the gods themselves have consecrated? For the theatrical entertainments in which such things are said, and acted, and performed, were introduced into Roman society by the gods, who ordered that they should be dedicated and exhibited in their honor. But was not this, then, the plainest proof that they were no true gods, nor in any respect worthy of receiving divine honours from the republic? Suppose they had required that in their honor the citizens of Rome should be held up to ridicule, every Roman would have resented the hateful proposal. How then, I would ask, can they be esteemed worthy of worship, when they propose that their own crimes be used as material for celebrating their praises? Does not this artifice expose them, and prove that they are detestable devils? Thus the Romans, though they were superstitious enough to serve as gods those who made no secret of their desire to be worshipped in licentious plays, yet had sufficient regard to their hereditary dignity and virtue, to prompt them to refuse to players any such rewards as the Greeks accorded them. On this point we have this testimony of Scipio, recorded in Cicero: They [the Romans] considered comedy and all theatrical performances as disgraceful, and therefore not only debarred players from offices and honors open to ordinary citizens, but also decreed that their names should be branded by the censor, and erased from the roll of their tribe. An excellent decree, and another testimony to the sagacity of Rome; but I could wish their prudence had been more thorough-going and consistent. For when I hear that if any Roman citizen chose the stage as his profession, he not only closed to himself every laudable career, but even became an outcast from his own tribe, I cannot but exclaim: This is the true Roman spirit, this is worthy of a state jealous of its reputation. But then some one interrupts my rapture, by inquiring with what consistency players are debarred from all honors, while plays are counted among the honors due to the gods? For a long while the virtue of Rome was uncontaminated by theatrical exhibitions; and if they had been adopted for the sake of gratifying the taste of the citizens, they would have been introduced hand in hand with the relaxation of manners. But the fact is, that it was the gods who demanded that they should be exhibited to gratify them. With what justice, then, is the player excommunicated by whom God is worshipped? On what pretext can you at once adore him who exacts, and brand him who acts these plays? This, then, is the controversy in which the Greeks and Romans are engaged. The Greeks think they justly honor players, because they worship the gods who demand plays; the Romans, on the other hand, do not suffer an actor to disgrace by his name his own plebeian tribe, far less the senatorial order. And the whole of this discussion may be summed up in the following syllogism. The Greeks give us the major premise: If such gods are to be worshipped, then certainly such men may be honored. The Romans add the minor: But such men must by no means be honoured. The Christians draw the conclusion: Therefore such gods must by no means be worshipped. 5.26. And on this account, Theodosius not only preserved during the lifetime of Gratian that fidelity which was due to him, but also, after his death, he, like a true Christian, took his little brother Valentinian under his protection, as joint emperor, after he had been expelled by Maximus, the murderer of his father. He guarded him with paternal affection, though he might without any difficulty have got rid of him, being entirely destitute of all resources, had he been animated with the desire of extensive empire, and not with the ambition of being a benefactor. It was therefore a far greater pleasure to him, when he had adopted the boy, and preserved to him his imperial dignity, to console him by his very humanity and kindness. Afterwards, when that success was rendering Maximus terrible, Theodosius, in the midst of his perplexing anxieties, was not drawn away to follow the suggestions of a sacrilegious and unlawful curiosity, but sent to John, whose abode was in the desert of Egypt - for he had learned that this servant of God (whose fame was spreading abroad) was endowed with the gift of prophecy - and from him he received assurance of victory. Immediately the slayer of the tyrant Maximus, with the deepest feelings of compassion and respect, restored the boy Valentinianus to his share in the empire from which he had been driven. Valentinianus being soon after slain by secret assassination, or by some other plot or accident, Theodosius, having again received a response from the prophet, and placing entire confidence in it, marched against the tyrant Eugenius, who had been unlawfully elected to succeed that emperor, and defeated his very powerful army, more by prayer than by the sword. Some soldiers who were at the battle reported to me that all the missiles they were throwing were snatched from their hands by a vehement wind, which blew from the direction of Theodosius' army upon the enemy; nor did it only drive with greater velocity the darts which were hurled against them, but also turned back upon their own bodies the darts which they themselves were throwing. And therefore the poet Claudian, although an alien from the name of Christ, nevertheless says in his praises of him, O prince, too much beloved by God, for you Æolus pours armed tempests from their caves; for you the air fights, and the winds with one accord obey your bugles. But the victor, as he had believed and predicted, overthrew the statues of Jupiter, which had been, as it were, consecrated by I know not what kind of rites against him, and set up in the Alps. And the thunderbolts of these statues, which were made of gold, he mirthfully and graciously presented to his couriers who (as the joy of the occasion permitted) were jocularly saying that they would be most happy to be struck by such thunderbolts. The sons of his own enemies, whose fathers had been slain not so much by his orders as by the vehemence of war, having fled for refuge to a church, though they were not yet Christians, he was anxious, taking advantage of the occasion, to bring over to Christianity, and treated them with Christian love. Nor did he deprive them of their property, but, besides allowing them to retain it, bestowed on them additional honors. He did not permit private animosities to affect the treatment of any man after the war. He was not like Cinna, and Marius, and Sylla, and other such men, who wished not to finish civil wars even when they were finished, but rather grieved that they had arisen at all, than wished that when they were finished they should harm any one. Amid all these events, from the very commencement of his reign, he did not cease to help the troubled church against the impious by most just and merciful laws, which the heretical Valens, favoring the Arians, had vehemently afflicted. Indeed, he rejoiced more to be a member of this church than he did to be a king upon the earth. The idols of the Gentiles he everywhere ordered to be overthrown, understanding well that not even terrestrial gifts are placed in the power of demons, but in that of the true God. And what could be more admirable than his religious humility, when, compelled by the urgency of certain of his intimates, he avenged the grievous crime of the Thessalonians, which at the prayer of the bishops he had promised to pardon, and, being laid hold of by the discipline of the church, did pece in such a way that the sight of his imperial loftiness prostrated made the people who were interceding for him weep more than the consciousness of offense had made them fear it when enraged? These and other similar good works, which it would be long to tell, he carried with him from this world of time, where the greatest human nobility and loftiness are but vapor. of these works the reward is eternal happiness, of which God is the giver, though only to those who are sincerely pious. But all other blessings and privileges of this life, as the world itself, light, air, earth, water, fruits, and the soul of man himself, his body, senses, mind, life, He lavishes on good and bad alike. And among these blessings is also to be reckoned the possession of an empire, whose extent He regulates according to the requirements of His providential government at various times. Whence, I see, we must now answer those who, being confuted and convicted by the most manifest proofs, by which it is shown that for obtaining these terrestrial things, which are all the foolish desire to have, that multitude of false gods is of no use, attempt to assert that the gods are to be worshipped with a view to the interest, not of the present life, but of that which is to come after death. For as to those who, for the sake of the friendship of this world, are willing to worship vanities, and do not grieve that they are left to their puerile understandings, I think they have been sufficiently answered in these five books; of which books, when I had published the first three, and they had begun to come into the hands of many, I heard that certain persons were preparing against them an answer of some kind or other in writing. Then it was told me that they had already written their answer, but were waiting a time when they could publish it without danger. Such persons I would advise not to desire what cannot be of any advantage to them; for it is very easy for a man to seem to himself to have answered arguments, when he has only been unwilling to be silent. For what is more loquacious than vanity? And though it be able, if it like, to shout more loudly than the truth, it is not, for all that, more powerful than the truth. But let men consider diligently all the things that we have said, and if, perchance, judging without party spirit, they shall clearly perceive that they are such things as may rather be shaken than torn up by their most impudent garrulity, and, as it were, satirical and mimic levity, let them restrain their absurdities, and let them choose rather to be corrected by the wise than to be lauded by the foolish. For if they are waiting an opportunity, not for liberty to speak the truth, but for license to revile, may not that befall them which Tully says concerning some one, Oh, wretched man! Who was at liberty to sin? Wherefore, whoever he be who deems himself happy because of license to revile, he would be far happier if that were not allowed him at all; for he might all the while, laying aside empty boast, be contradicting those to whose views he is opposed by way of free consultation with them, and be listening, as it becomes him, honorably, gravely, candidly, to all that can be adduced by those whom he consults by friendly disputation. 6.5. Now what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely, that there are three kinds of theology, that is, of the account which is given of the gods; and of these, the one is called mythical, the other physical, and the third civil? Did the Latin usage permit, we should call the kind which he has placed first in order fabular, but let us call it fabulous, for mythical is derived from the Greek μῦθος, a fable; but that the second should be called natural, the usage of speech now admits; the third he himself has designated in Latin, call ing it civil. Then he says, they call that kind mythical which the poets chiefly use; physical, that which the philosophers use; civil, that which the people use. As to the first I have mentioned, says he, in it are many fictions, which are contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For we find in it that one god has been born from the head, another from the thigh, another from drops of blood; also, in this we find that gods have stolen, committed adultery, served men; in a word, in this all manner of things are attributed to the gods, such as may befall, not merely any man, but even the most contemptible man. He certainly, where he could, where he dared, where he thought he could do it with impunity, has manifested, without any of the haziness of ambiguity, how great injury was done to the nature of the gods by lying fables; for he was speaking, not concerning natural theology, not concerning civil, but concerning fabulous theology, which he thought he could freely find fault with. Let us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind. The second kind which I have explained, he says, is that concerning which philosophers have left many books, in which they treat such questions as these: what gods there are, where they are, of what kind and character they are, since what time they have existed, or if they have existed from eternity; whether they are of fire, as Heraclitus believes; or of number, as Pythagoras; or of atoms, as Epicurus says; and other such things, which men's ears can more easily hear inside the walls of a school than outside in the Forum. He finds fault with nothing in this kind of theology which they call physical, and which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their controversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in schools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and among them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what the philosophers dispute concerning the gods! But when the poets sing and stage-players act such things as are derogatory to the dignity and the nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a man merely, but the most contemptible man, they not only bear, but willingly listen to. Nor is this all, but they even consider that these things please the gods, and that they are propitiated by them. But some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kinds of theology, the mythical and the physical - that is, the fabulous and the natural - from this civil kind about which we are now speaking. Anticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see now how he explains the civil theology itself. I see, indeed, why it should be distinguished as fabulous, even because it is false, because it is base, because it is unworthy. But to wish to distinguish the natural from the civil, what else is that but to confess that the civil itself is false? For if that be natural, what fault has it that it should be excluded? And if this which is called civil be not natural, what merit has it that it should be admitted? This, in truth, is the cause why he wrote first concerning human things, and afterwards concerning divine things; since in divine things he did not follow nature, but the institution of men. Let us look at this civil theology of his. The third kind, says he, is that which citizens in cities, and especially the priests, ought to know and to administer. From it is to be known what god each one may suitably worship, what sacred rites and sacrifices each one may suitably perform. Let us still attend to what follows. The first theology, he says, is especially adapted to the theatre, the second to the world, the third to the city. Who does not see to which he gives the palm? Certainly to the second, which he said above is that of the philosophers. For he testifies that this pertains to the world, than which they think there is nothing better. But those two theologies, the first and the third - to wit, those of the theatre and of the city - has he distinguished them or united them? For although we see that the city is in the world, we do not see that it follows that any things belonging to the city pertain to the world. For it is possible that such things may be worshipped and believed in the city, according to false opinions, as have no existence either in the world or out of it. But where is the theatre but in the city? Who instituted the theatre but the state? For what purpose did it constitute it but for scenic plays? And to what class of things do scenic plays belong but to those divine things concerning which these books of Varro's are written with so much ability? 6.6. O Marcus Varro! You are the most acute, and without doubt the most learned, but still a man, not God - now lifted up by the Spirit of God to see and to announce divine things, you see, indeed, that divine things are to be separated from human trifles and lies, but you fear to offend those most corrupt opinions of the populace, and their customs in public superstitions, which you yourself, when you consider them on all sides, perceive, and all your literature loudly pronounces to be abhorrent from the nature of the gods, even of such gods as the frailty of the human mind supposes to exist in the elements of this world. What can the most excellent human talent do here? What can human learning, though manifold, avail you in this perplexity? You desire to worship the natural gods; you are compelled to worship the civil. You have found some of the gods to be fabulous, on whom you vomit forth very freely what you think, and, whether you will or not, you wet therewith even the civil gods. You say, forsooth, that the fabulous are adapted to the theatre, the natural to the world, and the civil to the city; though the world is a divine work, but cities and theatres are the works of men, and though the gods who are laughed at in the theatre are not other than those who are adored in the temples; and you do not exhibit games in honor of other gods than those to whom you immolate victims. How much more freely and more subtly would you have decided these had you said that some gods are natural, others established by men; and concerning those who have been so established, the literature of the poets gives one account, and that of the priests another - both of which are, nevertheless, so friendly the one to the other, through fellowship in falsehood, that they are both pleasing to the demons, to whom the doctrine of the truth is hostile. That theology, therefore, which they call natural, being put aside for a moment, as it is afterwards to be discussed, we ask if any one is really content to seek a hope for eternal life from poetical, theatrical, scenic gods? Perish the thought! The true God avert so wild and sacrilegious a madness! What, is eternal life to be asked from those gods whom these things pleased, and whom these things propitiate, in which their own crimes are represented? No one, as I think, has arrived at such a pitch of headlong and furious impiety. So then, neither by the fabulous nor by the civil theology does any one obtain eternal life. For the one sows base things concerning the gods by feigning them, the other reaps by cherishing them; the one scatters lies, the other gathers them together; the one pursues divine things with false crimes, the other incorporates among divine things the plays which are made up of these crimes; the one sounds abroad in human songs impious fictions concerning the gods, the other consecrates these for the festivities of the gods themselves; the one sings the misdeeds and crimes of the gods, the other loves them; the one gives forth or feigns, the other either attests the true or delights in the false. Both are base; both are damnable. But the one which is theatrical teaches public abomination, and that one which is of the city adorns itself with that abomination. Shall eternal life be hoped for from these, by which this short and temporal life is polluted? Does the society of wicked men pollute our life if they insinuate themselves into our affections, and win our assent? And does not the society of demons pollute the life, who are worshipped with their own crimes?- if with true crimes, how wicked the demons! If with false, how wicked the worship! When we say these things, it may perchance seem to some one who is very ignorant of these matters that only those things concerning the gods which are sung in the songs of the poets and acted on the stage are unworthy of the divine majesty, and ridiculous, and too detestable to be celebrated, while those sacred things which not stage-players but priests perform are pure and free from all unseemliness. Had this been so, never would any one have thought that these theatrical abominations should be celebrated in their honor, never would the gods themselves have ordered them to be performed to them. But men are in nowise ashamed to perform these things in the theatres, because similar things are carried on in the temples. In short, when the fore-mentioned author attempted to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous and natural, as a sort of third and distinct kind, he wished it to be understood to be rather tempered by both than separated from either. For he says that those things which the poets write are less than the people ought to follow, while what the philosophers say is more than it is expedient for the people to pry into. Which, says he, differ in such a way, that nevertheless not a few things from both of them have been taken to the account of the civil theology; wherefore we will indicate what the civil theology has in common with that of the poet, though it ought to be more closely connected with the theology of philosophers. Civil theology is therefore not quite disconnected from that of the poets. Nevertheless, in another place, concerning the generations of the gods, he says that the people are more inclined toward the poets than toward the physical theologists. For in this place he said what ought to be done; in that other place, what was really done. He said that the latter had written for the sake of utility, but the poets for the sake of amusement. And hence the things from the poets' writings, which the people ought not to follow, are the crimes of the gods; which, nevertheless, amuse both the people and the gods. For, for amusement's sake, he says, the poets write, and not for that of utility; nevertheless they write such things as the gods will desire, and the people perform. 6.7. That theology, therefore, which is fabulous, theatrical, scenic, and full of all baseness and unseemliness, is taken up into the civil theology; and part of that theology, which in its totality is deservedly judged to be worthy of reprobation and rejection, is pronounced worthy to be cultivated and observed - not at all an incongruous part, as I have undertaken to show, and one which, being alien to the whole body, was unsuitably attached to and suspended from it, but a part entirely congruous with, and most harmoniously fitted to the rest, as a member of the same body. For what else do those images, forms, ages, sexes, characteristics of the gods show? If the poets have Jupiter with a beard and Mercury beardless, have not the priests the same? Is the Priapus of the priests less obscene than the Priapus of the players? Does he receive the adoration of worshippers in a different form from that in which he moves about the stage for the amusement of spectators? Is not Saturn old and Apollo young in the shrines where their images stand as well as when represented by actors' masks? Why are Forculus, who presides over doors, and Limentinus, who presides over thresholds and lintels, male gods, and Cardea between them feminine, who presides over hinges? Are not those things found in books on divine things, which grave poets have deemed unworthy of their verses? Does the Diana of the theatre carry arms, while the Diana of the city is simply a virgin? Is the stage Apollo a lyrist, but the Delphic Apollo ignorant of this art? But these things are decent compared with the more shameful things. What was thought of Jupiter himself by those who placed his wet nurse in the Capitol? Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus, who, not with the garrulity of a fable-teller, but with the gravity of an historian who had diligently investigated the matter, wrote that all such gods had been men and mortals? And they who appointed the Epulones as parasites at the table of Jupiter, what else did they wish for but mimic sacred rites. For if any mimic had said that parasites of Jupiter were made use of at his table, he would assuredly have appeared to be seeking to call forth laughter. Varro said it - not when he was mocking, but when he was commending the gods did he say it. His books on divine, not on human, things testify that he wrote this - not where he set forth the scenic games, but where he explained the Capitoline laws. In a word, he is conquered, and confesses that, as they made the gods with a human form, so they believed that they are delighted with human pleasures. For also malign spirits were not so wanting to their own business as not to confirm noxious opinions in the minds of men by converting them into sport. Whence also is that story about the sacristan of Hercules, which says that, having nothing to do, he took to playing at dice as a pastime, throwing them alternately with the one hand for Hercules, with the other for himself, with this understanding, that if he should win, he should from the funds of the temple prepare himself a supper, and hire a mistress; but if Hercules should win the game, he himself should, at his own expense, provide the same for the pleasure of Hercules. Then, when he had been beaten by himself, as though by Hercules, he gave to the god Hercules the supper he owed him, and also the most noble harlot Larentina. But she, having fallen asleep in the temple, dreamed that Hercules had had intercourse with her, and had said to her that she would find her payment with the youth whom she should first meet on leaving the temple, and that she was to believe this to be paid to her by Hercules. And so the first youth that met her on going out was the wealthy Tarutius, who kept her a long time, and when he died left her his heir. She, having obtained a most ample fortune, that she should not seem ungrateful for the divine hire, in her turn made the Roman people her heir, which she thought to be most acceptable to the deities; and, having disappeared, the will was found. By which meritorious conduct they say that she gained divine honors. Now had these things been feigned by the poets and acted by the mimics, they would without any doubt have been said to pertain to the fabulous theology, and would have been judged worthy to be separated from the dignity of the civil theology. But when these shameful things - not of the poets, but of the people; not of the mimics, but of the sacred things; not of the theatres, but of the temples, that is, not of the fabulous, but of the civil theology, - are reported by so great an author, not in vain do the actors represent with theatrical art the baseness of the gods, which is so great; but surely in vain do the priests attempt, by rites called sacred, to represent their nobleness of character, which has no existence. There are sacred rites of Juno; and these are celebrated in her beloved island, Samos, where she was given in marriage to Jupiter. There are sacred rites of Ceres, in which Proserpine is sought for, having been carried off by Pluto. There are sacred rites of Venus, in which, her beloved Adonis being slain by a boar's tooth, the lovely youth is lamented. There are sacred rites of the mother of the gods, in which the beautiful youth Atys, loved by her, and castrated by her through a woman's jealousy, is deplored by men who have suffered the like calamity, whom they call Galli. Since, then, these things are more unseemly than all scenic abomination, why is it that they strive to separate, as it were, the fabulous fictions of the poet concerning the gods, as, forsooth, pertaining to the theatre, from the civil theology which they wish to belong to the city, as though they were separating from noble and worthy things, things unworthy and base? Wherefore there is more reason to thank the stage-actors, who have spared the eyes of men and have not laid bare by theatrical exhibition all the things which are hid by the walls of the temples. What good is to be thought of their sacred rites which are concealed in darkness, when those which are brought forth into the light are so detestable? And certainly they themselves have seen what they transact in secret through the agency of mutilated and effeminate men. Yet they have not been able to conceal those same men miserably and vile enervated and corrupted. Let them persuade whom they can that they transact anything holy through such men, who, they cannot deny, are numbered, and live among their sacred things. We know not what they transact, but we know through whom they transact; for we know what things are transacted on the stage, where never, even in a chorus of harlots, has one who is mutilated or an effeminate appeared. And, nevertheless, even these things are acted by vile and infamous characters; for, indeed, they ought not to be acted by men of good character. What, then, are those sacred rites, for the performance of which holiness has chosen such men as not even the obscenity of the stage has admitted? 6.8. But all these things, they say, have certain physical, that is, natural interpretations, showing their natural meaning; as though in this disputation we were seeking physics and not theology, which is the account, not of nature, but of God. For although He who is the true God is God, not by opinion, but by nature, nevertheless all nature is not God; for there is certainly a nature of man, of a beast, of a tree, of a stone, - none of which is God. For if, when the question is concerning the mother of the gods, that from which the whole system of interpretation starts certainly is, that the mother of the gods is the earth, why do we make further inquiry? Why do we carry our investigation through all the rest of it? What can more manifestly favor them who say that all those gods were men? For they are earth-born in the sense that the earth is their mother. But in the true theology the earth is the work, not the mother, of God. But in whatever way their sacred rites may be interpreted, and whatever reference they may have to the nature of things, it is not according to nature, but contrary to nature, that men should be effeminates. This disease, this crime, this abomination, has a recognized place among those sacred things, though even depraved men will scarcely be compelled by torments to confess they are guilty of it. Again, if these sacred rites, which are proved to be fouler than scenic abominations, are excused and justified on the ground that they have their own interpretations, by which they are shown to symbolize the nature of things, why are not the poetical things in like manner excused and justified? For many have interpreted even these in like fashion, to such a degree that even that which they say is the most monstrous and most horrible - namely, that Saturn devoured his own children - has been interpreted by some of them to mean that length of time, which is signified by the name of Saturn, consumes whatever it begets; or that, as the same Varro thinks, Saturn belongs to seeds which fall back again into the earth from whence they spring. And so one interprets it in one way, and one in another. And the same is to be said of all the rest of this theology. And, nevertheless, it is called the fabulous theology, and is censured, cast off, rejected, together with all such interpretations belonging to it. And not only by the natural theology, which is that of the philosophers, but also by this civil theology, concerning which we are speaking, which is asserted to pertain to cities and peoples, it is judged worthy of repudiation, because it has invented unworthy things concerning the gods. of which, I know, this is the secret: that those most acute and learned men, by whom those things were written, understood that both theologies ought to be rejected - to wit, both that fabulous and this civil one - but the former they dared to reject, the latter they dared not; the former they set forth to be censured, the latter they showed to be very like it; not that it might be chosen to be held in preference to the other, but that it might be understood to be worthy of being rejected together with it. And thus, without danger to those who feared to censure the civil theology, both of them being brought into contempt, that theology which they call natural might find a place in better disposed minds; for the civil and the fabulous are both fabulous and both civil. He who shall wisely inspect the vanities and obscenities of both will find that they are both fabulous; and he who shall direct his attention to the scenic plays pertaining to the fabulous theology in the festivals of the civil gods, and in the divine rites of the cities, will find they are both civil. How, then, can the power of giving eternal life be attributed to any of those gods whose own images and sacred rites convict them of being most like to the fabulous gods, which are most openly reprobated, in forms, ages, sex, characteristics, marriages, generations, rites; in all which things they are understood either to have been men, and to have had their sacred rites and solemnities instituted in their honor according to the life or death of each of them, the demons suggesting and confirming this error, or certainly most foul spirits, who, taking advantage of some occasion or other, have stolen into the minds of men to deceive them? 7.26. Concerning the effeminates consecrated to the same Great Mother, in defiance of all the modesty which belongs to men and women, Varro has not wished to say anything, nor do I remember to have read anywhere anything concerning them. These effeminates, no later than yesterday, were going through the streets and places of Carthage with anointed hair, whitened faces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from the people the means of maintaining their ignominious lives. Nothing has been said concerning them. Interpretation failed, reason blushed, speech was silent. The Great Mother has surpassed all her sons, not in greatness of deity, but of crime. To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus is to be compared. His deformity was only in his image; hers was the deformity of cruelty in her sacred rites. He has a redundancy of members in stone images; she inflicts the loss of members on men. This abomination is not surpassed by the licentious deeds of Jupiter, so many and so great. He, with all his seductions of women, only disgraced heaven with one Ganymede; she, with so many avowed and public effeminates, has both defiled the earth and outraged heaven. Perhaps we may either compare Saturn to this Magna Mater, or even set him before her in this kind of abominable cruelty, for he mutilated his father. But at the festivals of Saturn, men could rather be slain by the hands of others than mutilated by their own. He devoured his sons, as the poets say, and the natural theologists interpret this as they list. History says he slew them. But the Romans never received, like the Carthaginians, the custom of sacrificing their sons to him. This Great Mother of the gods, however, has brought mutilated men into Roman temples, and has preserved that cruel custom, being believed to promote the strength of the Romans by emasculating their men. Compared with this evil, what are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, and the base and flagitious deeds of the rest of them, which we might bring forward from books, were it not that they are daily sung and danced in the theatres? But what are these things to so great an evil - an evil whose magnitude was only proportioned to the greatness of the Great Mother, - especially as these are said to have been invented by the poets? As if the poets had also invented this that they are acceptable to the gods. Let it be imputed, then, to the audacity and impudence of the poets that these things have been sung and written of. But that they have been incorporated into the body of divine rites and honors, the deities themselves demanding and extorting that incorporation, what is that but the crime of the gods? Nay more, the confession of demons and the deception of wretched men? But as to this that the Great Mother is considered to be worshipped in the appropriate form when she is worshipped by the consecration of mutilated men, this is not an invention of the poets, nay, they have rather shrunk from it with horror than sung of it. Ought any one, then, to be consecrated to these select gods, that he may live blessedly after death, consecrated to whom he could not live decently before death, being subjected to such foul superstitions, and bound over to unclean demons? But all these things, says Varro, are to be referred to the world. Let him consider if it be not rather to the unclean. But why not refer that to the world which is demonstrated to be in the world? We, however, seek for a mind which, trusting to true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but for the sake of God praises the world as a work of God, and, purified from mundane defilements, comes pure to God Himself who founded the world. 10.9. These miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it were tedious to mention, were wrought for the purpose of commending the worship of the one true God, and prohibiting the worship of a multitude of false gods. Moreover, they were wrought by simple faith and godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed under the influence of a criminal tampering with the unseen world, of an art which they call either magic, or by the more abominable title necromancy, or the more honorable designation theurgy; for they wish to discriminate between those whom the people call magicians, who practise necromancy, and are addicted to illicit arts and condemned, and those others who seem to them to be worthy of praise for their practice of theurgy - the truth, however, being that both classes are the slaves of the deceitful rites of the demons whom they invoke under the names of angels. For even Porphyry promises some kind of purgation of the soul by the help of theurgy, though he does so with some hesitation and shame, and denies that this art can secure to any one a return to God; so that you can detect his opinion vacillating between the profession of philosophy and an art which he feels to be presumptuous and sacrilegious. For at one time he warns us to avoid it as deceitful, and prohibited by law, and dangerous to those who practise it; then again, as if in deference to its advocates, he declares it useful for cleansing one part of the soul, not, indeed, the intellectual part, by which the truth of things intelligible, which have no sensible images, is recognized, but the spiritual part, which takes cognizance of the images of things material. This part, he says, is prepared and fitted for intercourse with spirits and angels, and for the vision of the gods, by the help of certain theurgic consecrations, or, as they call them, mysteries. He acknowledges, however, that these theurgic mysteries impart to the intellectual soul no such purity as fits it to see its God, and recognize the things that truly exist. And from this acknowledgment we may infer what kind of gods these are, and what kind of vision of them is imparted by theurgic consecrations, if by it one cannot see the things which truly exist. He says, further, that the rational, or, as he prefers calling it, the intellectual soul, can pass into the heavens without the spiritual part being cleansed by theurgic art, and that this art cannot so purify the spiritual part as to give it entrance to immortality and eternity. And therefore, although he distinguishes angels from demons, asserting that the habitation of the latter is in the air, while the former dwell in the ether and empyrean, and although he advises us to cultivate the friendship of some demon, who may be able after our death to assist us, and elevate us at least a little above the earth - for he owns that it is by another way we must reach the heavenly society of the angels - he at the same time distinctly warns us to avoid the society of demons, saying that the soul, expiating its sin after death, execrates the worship of demons by whom it was entangled. And of theurgy itself, though he recommends it as reconciling angels and demons, he cannot deny that it treats with powers which either themselves envy the soul its purity, or serve the arts of those who do envy it. He complains of this through the mouth of some Chald an or other: A good man in Chald a complains, he says, that his most strenuous efforts to cleanse his soul were frustrated, because another man, who had influence in these matters, and who envied him purity, had prayed to the powers, and bound them by his conjuring not to listen to his request. Therefore, adds Porphyry, what the one man bound, the other could not loose. And from this he concludes that theurgy is a craft which accomplishes not only good but evil among gods and men; and that the gods also have passions, and are perturbed and agitated by the emotions which Apuleius attributed to demons and men, but from which he preserved the gods by that sublimity of residence, which, in common with Plato, he accorded to them. |
|
142. Augustine, Confessions, 1.14 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 225 | 1.14. 23. But why, then, did I dislike Greek learning which was full of like tales? For Homer also was skilled in inventing similar stories, and is most sweetly vain, yet was he disagreeable to me as a boy. I believe Virgil, indeed, would be the same to Grecian children, if compelled to learn him, as I was Homer. The difficulty, in truth, the difficulty of learning a foreign language mingled as it were with gall all the sweetness of those fabulous Grecian stories. For not a single word of it did I understand, and to make me do so, they vehemently urged me with cruel threatenings and punishments. There was a time also when (as an infant) I knew no Latin; but this I acquired without any fear or tormenting, by merely taking notice, amid the blandishments of my nurses, the jests of those who smiled on me, and the sportiveness of those who toyed with me. I learned all this, indeed, without being urged by any pressure of punishment, for my own heart urged me to bring forth its own conceptions, which I could not do unless by learning words, not of those who taught me, but of those who talked to me; into whose ears, also, I brought forth whatever I discerned. From this it is sufficiently clear that a free curiosity has more influence in our learning these things than a necessity full of fear. But this last restrains the overflowings of that freedom, through Your laws, O God - Your laws, from the ferule of the schoolmaster to the trials of the martyr, being effective to mingle for us a salutary bitter, calling us back to Yourself from the pernicious delights which allure us from You. |
|
| 143. John Chrysostom, Homilies On Genesis, 62.1-62.2 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 175 |
| 144. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, 4.19 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 68 |
| 145. Eunapius, Lives of The Philosophers, 480-481 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 69 |
| 146. Justinian, Digest, None (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 183 |
| 147. Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.36.1-2.36.2 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 35 |
| 148. Justinian, Codex Justinianus, 9.18.2 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 26 |
| 149. Jerome, Commentaria In Matthaeum (Commentaria In Evangelium S. Matthaei), 1.18 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, christian writers •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, stoning Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 177 |
| 150. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Theodosian Code, None (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 70 |
| 151. Isidore of Seville, Sententiae, 3.13.1 (6th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 284 |
| 152. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, 8.3.7, 8.6.15-8.6.16, 8.7.1-8.7.2, 8.7.9, 8.11.2, 8.11.11, 18.45, 18.51 (6th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 284 |
| 153. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 21 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 345 |
| 154. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 11 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 345 |
| 155. Procopius, Historia Arcana (Anecdota), 11.31, 11.37, 18.34 (6th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 107 |
| 156. Augustine, Letters, 101, 120, 119 (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 225 |
| 157. Sozomenus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.21.4, 6.35.1-6.35.2, 7.15.2-7.15.6 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 35, 68, 247 |
| 159. Digesta, Digesta, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Williams (2023), Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement. 47, 185 |
| 160. Severus of Minorca, Letters, 38, 45, 40 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 134 |
| 161. John Malalas, History, 14.16, 18.42-18.43, 18.54, 18.119, 18.136 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 94, 107, 108 |
| 163. Anon., Yalqut Shimoni, None Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147 |
| 164. Anon., Megillat Taanit (Lichtenstein), None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 57 |
| 165. Suidas Thessalius, Fragments, None Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 94 |
| 169. Anon., History of Joseph The Carpenter, 5 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, execution •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 193 |
170. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 175| 8b. כל תלתין יומין בין א"ל מחמת הלולא ובין לא א"ל מחמת הלולא אסור מכאן ואילך אי א"ל מחמת הלולא אסור ואי לא אמר ליה מחמת הלולא שרי,וכי א"ל מחמת הלולא עד אימת אמר רב פפא עד תריסר ירחי שתא ומעיקרא מאימת אסור אמר רב פפא משמיה דרבא מכי רמו שערי באסינתי,ולבתר תריסר ירחי שתא שרי והא רב יצחק בריה דרב משרשיא איקלע לבי ההוא עובד כוכבים לבתר תריסר ירחי שתא ושמעיה דאודי ופירש ולא אכל שאני רב יצחק בריה דרב משרשיא דאדם חשוב הוא:,וקרטסים וכו': מאי קרטסים אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל יום שתפסה בו רומי מלכות והתניא קרטסים ויום שתפסה בו רומי מלכות אמר רב יוסף שתי תפיסות תפסה רומי אחת בימי קלפטרא מלכתא ואחת שתפסה בימי יונים,דכי אתא רב דימי אמר תלתין ותרין קרבי עבדו רומאי בהדי יונאי ולא יכלו להו עד דשתפינהו לישראל בהדייהו והכי אתנו בהדייהו אי מינן מלכי מנייכו הפרכי אי מנייכו מלכי מינן הפרכי,ושלחו להו רומאי ליונאי עד האידנא עבידנא בקרבא השתא נעביד בדינא מרגלית ואבן טובה איזו מהן יעשה בסיס לחבירו שלחו להו מרגלית לאבן טובה,אבן טובה (ואינך) איזו מהן יעשה בסיס לחבירו אבן טובה לאינך אינך וספר תורה איזו מהן יעשה בסיס לחבירו אינך לספר תורה,שלחו להו [א"כ] אנן ספר תורה גבן וישראל בהדן כפו להו עשרין ושית שנין קמו להו בהימנותייהו בהדי ישראל מכאן ואילך אישתעבדו בהו,מעיקרא מאי דרוש ולבסוף מאי דרוש מעיקרא דרוש (בראשית לג, יב) נסעה ונלכה ואלכה לנגדך ולבסוף דרוש (בראשית לג, יד) יעבר נא אדני לפני עבדו,עשרין ושית שנין דקמו בהימנותייהו בהדי ישראל מנא לן דאמר רב כהנא כשחלה רבי ישמעאל בר יוסי שלחו ליה רבי אמור לנו שנים וג' דברים שאמרת לנו משום אביך,אמר להו מאה ושמנים שנה קודם שנחרב הבית פשטה מלכות הרשעה על ישראל פ' שנה עד לא חרב הבית גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית מ' שנה עד לא חרב הבית גלתה סנהדרין וישבה לה בחנות,למאי הלכתא א"ר יצחק בר אבדימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות סלקא דעתך והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ברם זכור אותו האיש לטוב ורבי יהודה בן בבא שמו שאלמלא הוא נשתכחו דיני קנסות מישראל נשתכחו לגרסינהו,אלא בטלו דיני קנסות מישראל שגזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה כל הסומך יהרג וכל הנסמך יהרג ועיר שסומכין בה תחרב ותחום שסומכין בו יעקר,מה עשה רבי יהודה בן בבא הלך וישב בין שני הרים גדולים ובין שתי עיירות גדולות בין ב' תחומי שבת בין אושא לשפרעם וסמך שם חמשה זקנים ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' יוסי ור"ש ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע ורב אויא מוסיף אף רבי נחמיה,כיון שהכירו בהם אויבים אמר להם בני רוצו אמרו לו רבי ואתה מה תהא עליך אמר להם הריני מוטל לפניהם כאבן שאין לה הופכין אמרו לא זזו משם עד שנעצו לגופו ג' מאות לולניאות של ברזל ועשאוהו לגופו ככברה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לא תימא דיני קנסות אלא שלא דנו דיני נפשות,מ"ט כיון דחזו דנפישי להו רוצחין ולא יכלי למידן אמרו מוטב נגלי ממקום למקום כי היכי דלא ליחייבו,דכתיב (דברים יז, י) ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא מלמד שהמקום גורם:,מאה ושמנים ותו לא והתני רבי יוסי ברבי | 8b. during b all /b the b thirty days /b that follow the wedding celebration, if the gentile invites a Jew to a feast, b whether he said /b to the Jew that the feast is b due to the wedding celebration or whether he did not say to him /b that the feast is b due to the wedding celebration, /b it is b prohibited /b to attend, as it is assumed the festivity is part of the wedding celebration. b From this /b point b forward, if he said to him /b that the feast is b due to the wedding celebration, /b it is b prohibited /b to participate, b but if he did not say to him /b that the feast is b due to the wedding celebration, /b it is b permitted /b to do so.,The Gemara asks: b And /b in a case b where he said to him /b that the feast is b due to the wedding celebration, until when /b is the feast assumed to be connected to idol worship? b Rav Pappa said: Until twelve months of the year /b have passed since the wedding. The Gemara asks: b And initially, /b before the wedding, b from when is it prohibited? Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: From /b the time b when they cast barley into the mortars [ i ba’asintei /i ] /b to prepare beer for the wedding.,The Gemara asks: b And after the twelve months of the year /b have passed since the wedding, is it always b permitted /b to participate in a feast? b But Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened /b to come b to the house of a certain gentile after twelve months of the year /b had passed since his son’s wedding, b and he heard /b the gentile b giving thanks /b to his idol for the marriage of his son, b and he withdrew /b from the feast b and did not eat /b there. The Gemara answers: b Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, is different, as he is an important person /b and therefore his presence caused the gentile to rejoice.,§ The mishna teaches: b And Kratesis, /b and the day of the festival of their kings. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the festival of b Kratesis? Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: /b It commemorates b the day when Rome seized /b control of b an empire. /b The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : Two festivals are b Kratesis and the day when Rome seized /b control of b an empire? /b This indi-cates that Kratesis and the day when Rome seized control of an empire are two separate festivals. b Rav Yosef said: /b On b two /b separate occasions b Rome seized /b control of b an empire. One /b occurred b in the days of Queen Cleopatra, /b when they conquered Egypt, b and one /b happened much earlier, b when /b Rome b seized /b control b in the days of the Greeks. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b As when Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael b he said: The Romans waged thirty-two battles with the Greeks but were unable to /b defeat b them, until they formed a partnership with the Jewish people /b and finally vanquished the Greeks. b And this is the condition that they stipulated with /b the Jewish people: b If the kings /b come b from among us, the governors [ i hiparkhei /i ] /b will come b from among you; /b and b if the kings /b come b from among you, the governors /b will come b from among us. /b , b And the Romans sent /b the following message b to the Greeks: Until now, we /b attempted to resolve our conflict b through /b fighting b battles; now, let us /b settle the matter b by /b means of b judgment. /b In the case of b a pearl and a precious stone, which /b one b of them should serve as a base for the other? /b The Greeks b sent them /b in response: The b pearl /b should serve as the base b for /b the b precious stone, /b which has a greater value.,The Romans further inquired: If there was b a precious stone and an onyx [ i innakh /i ], /b a particularly valuable precious stone, b which /b one b of them should serve as a base for the other? /b The Greeks answered: The b precious stone /b should serve as the base b for /b the b onyx. /b Once again, the Romans asked: In the case of b an onyx and a Torah scroll, which /b one b of them should be serve as a base for the other? /b The Greeks responded: The b onyx /b should serve as the base b for the Torah scroll. /b ,The Romans b sent /b this response b to them: If /b that is b so, /b then you should submit to us, as b we have /b the b Torah scroll with us, and the Jewish people /b are b with us. /b The Romans are akin to the precious stone, and they are allied with the Jewish people who are akin to the onyx, and they possess the Torah scroll. The Romans therefore b forced /b the Greeks to surrender and took over their world domice. For b twenty-six years /b the Romans b stood faithfully with the Jewish people; from that /b point b forward, they subjugated them. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Initially, /b when the Romans acted faithfully, b what /b verse b did they interpret, and ultimately, /b when they subjugated the Jews, b what /b verse b did they interpret? Initially, they interpreted /b the verse where Esau said to Jacob upon their meeting: b “Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before you” /b (Genesis 33:12). In this verse, Esau equates himself to Jacob, prefiguring the initial Roman treatment of the Jews. b And ultimately, they interpreted /b the verse that recites Jacob’s response to Esau: b “Let my lord, I pray you, pass over before his servant” /b (Genesis 33:14), demonstrating Jacob’s subjugation to Esau, and by extension that of the Jews to Rome.,The Gemara asks: With regard to the b twenty-six years during which /b the Romans b stood faithfully with the Jewish people, from where do we /b know that this was the case? The Gemara cites a proof. b As Rav Kahana says: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, /b the Sages b sent /b the following message b to him: /b Our b teacher, tell us two or three statements that you /b once b told us in the name of your father, /b Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, as we do not remember the statements precisely.,Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b said to them /b the following statements that were passed down to him by his father: b One hundred and eighty years before the /b Second b Temple was destroyed, the evil /b Roman b Empire stretched forth over Israel /b and ruled over them. b Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, /b the Sages b decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled /b from the Chamber of Hewn Stone b and sat in the store /b near the Temple Mount.,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what i halakha /i /b is it necessary to know where the Sanhedrin would convene? b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: /b It is necessary in order b to say that they no /b longer b judged cases of fines. /b The Gemara asks: b Does it enter your mind /b that at this point the Sanhedrin no longer judged b cases of fines? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav says: Indeed [ i beram /i ], that man will be remembered favorably, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava is his name, as had it not been for him the laws of fines would have been forgotten from /b among b the Jewish people. /b The Gemara challenges that assertion: b Would /b the laws of fines actually b have been forgotten? Let /b the scholars b study them, /b so they will not be forgotten., b Rather, /b his intention was to say that b the laws of fines would have ceased /b to be implemented b from /b among b the Jewish people, /b as they would not have been able to adjudicate cases involving these i halakhot /i due to a lack of ordained judges. This is b because /b at one time b the wicked kingdom /b of Rome b issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people /b with the aim of abolishing the chain of ordination and the authority of the Sages. They said that b anyone who ordains /b judges b will be killed, and anyone who is ordained will be killed, and the city in which they ordain /b the judges b will be destroyed, and /b the areas around b the boundary /b of the city b in which they ordain /b judges b will be uprooted. /b These measures were intended to discourage the Sages from performing or receiving ordination due to fear for the welfare of the local population., b What did /b Rabbi b Yehuda ben Bava do? He went and sat between two large mountains, and between two large cities, /b and b between two Shabbat boundaries: Between Usha and Shefaram, /b i.e., in a desolate place that was not associated with any particular city so that he would not endanger anyone not directly involved, b and there he ordained five Elders, /b namely: b Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. And Rav Avya adds /b that b Rabbi Neḥemya /b was b also /b among those ordained., b When /b their b enemies discovered them, /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava b said to /b the newly ordained rabbis: b My sons, run /b for your lives. b They said to him: /b Our b teacher, and what will be with you? /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was elderly and unable to run. He b said to them: /b In any case, b I am cast before them like a stone that cannot be overturned; /b even if you attempt to assist me I will not be able to escape due to my frailty, but if you do not escape without me you will also be killed. People b said /b about this incident: The Roman soldiers b did not move from there until they had inserted three hundred iron spears [ i lulniot /i ] into his body, making his body /b appear b like a sieve /b pierced with many holes. It can be inferred from this episode that there were ordained judges who could hear cases of fines for many years after the destruction of the Temple, in contrast to Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi’s statement., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says /b in explanation: b Do not say /b that after the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone they no longer judged cases of b fines; rather, /b emend the statement to say b that they no /b longer b judged /b cases of b capital law, /b as a court does not have the authority to hear capital cases when the Sanhedrin is not sitting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.,The Gemara explains: b What is the reason /b that the members of the Sanhedrin ceased to meet in their proper place and thereby ended the adjudication of capital cases? b Once they saw that the murderers were so numerous and they were not able to judge /b them and punish them with death, b they said: /b It is b better that we should be exiled /b from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and move b from place to place, so that /b offenders b will not be /b deemed b liable /b to receive the death penalty in a time period when the court does not carry out their sentences.,The Gemara explains why a court may not adjudicate capital cases once the Sanhedrin has left the Chamber of Hewn Stone. b As it is written: “And you shall do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare to you from that place” /b (Deuteronomy 17:10). This verse b teaches that /b it is b the place /b where the Sanhedrin resides that b causes /b the judgment to take place. In other words, if the Sanhedrin has abandoned its proper place, the Chamber of Hewn Stone, all courts must cease judging capital cases.,The Gemara returns to the earlier comment of Rabbi Yishmael in the name of his father Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, that the Roman Empire ruled over Israel one hundred and eighty years before the second Temple was destroyed. The Gemara asks: Did Rome rule over Israel for b one hundred and eighty /b years before the destruction of the Temple b and no more? But didn’t Rabbi Yosei the Great, /b i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta himself, b teach: /b |
|
| 171. Zacharias of Mytilene, Life of Severus, 69, 73, 70 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 129 |
| 172. Cedrenus, Synopsis Historion, 1.621-1.622, 1.675 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 94, 107 |
| 173. Jesubocht, Code, 3.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.12 Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, christian writers •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, stoning •abduction marriage, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 134, 177 |
| 174. Anon., Syro-Roman Lawbook, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 183 |
| 175. Various, Anthologia Latina, 9.171, 10.82, 10.90 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 247 |
| 179. Paulus Julius, Digesta, 5.4, 5.4.6, 5.4.15, 5.23.17-5.23.18 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 25, 26, 32 |
| 181. Gregorius of Nazianzus, Orationes, 4.3, 4.31, 4.43, 4.55, 4.70, 4.72, 4.100-4.109, 4.116-4.124, 5.5, 5.31-5.32, 5.38, 5.41 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 58 |
| 182. Lactantius, Nativity of Mary, 10 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, execution •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 193 |
| 183. Anon., Passio Firmi, 9 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 53 |
| 184. Anon., Passio Facundi Et Primitivi, 14, 13 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 53 |
| 185. Anon., Passio Alexandri, 14 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 53 |
| 186. Anon., Martyrium Victoris, 4 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 53 |
| 187. Johannes of Ephesus, Historiae Beatorum Orientalium, 43, 51, 40 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 108 |
| 189. John Chrysostom, In Inarnationem Domini, 4 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 189 |
| 190. Johannes of Ephesus, Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.482, 3.2.44, 3.36-3.37 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 108 |
| 191. Anon., Passio Gordii Caesariensis Cappadoc., 2 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 53 |
| 192. Pseudo-Dionysianum, Chronicon, 2.128 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 107 |
| 193. Johannes Malalas, Fr., 48 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 107 |
| 194. Anon., Vita Symeonis Stylitae Iunioris, 157-158, 160-161, 164 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 106 |
| 196. Zosimus, Epitome Historiarum, 4.14.2-15.3 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 69 |
| 200. Theophanes, Theophanes, 5983, 6022, 6048, 5982 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 94 |
| 201. Michael Syrus, Chronicon, 9.24, 9.31, 9.33 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 107, 108 |
| 202. Eusebius of Caesarea, Syriac Questions, 9.1 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, execution •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 193 |
| 203. Anon., Passio S. Victoris Mauri, 6 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 53 |
| 206. Jesubarnun, Code, 5, 79 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 177 |
| 207. Dead Sea Scrolls, '4Q221, None Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty, strangulation Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 178 |
| 208. Targum, Tanhuma Numbers, 7 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty, strangulation Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 178 |
| 209. Council of Chalcedon, Canons, 27 Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 134 |
| 210. Synod of Ezekiel, Canons, 8 Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 134 |
| 211. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 35.19, 35.22 Tagged with subjects: •adultery, death penalty •death penalty, beheading •death penalty, burning •death penalty, stoning •death penalty,dead sea scrolls Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 175, 194 |
| 212. Anon., Sifre Zuta, None Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147 |
| 213. Anon., Passio Paphnutii Et Sociorum, 17 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 53 |
| 214. Synod of Mar Aba, Canons, 12, 15 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 134 |
| 215. Anon., Life of Moses, 2.206 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 151 |
| 216. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 44 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 88 |
| 217. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, None Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 147 |
| 218. Hebrew Bible, Qoh, 5.2.6 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty Found in books: Roskovec and Hušek (2021), Interactions in Interpretation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts, 14 |
| 220. Anon., Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani, 2.389-2.391 Tagged with subjects: •execution, capital punishment, death penalty Found in books: Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 32 |
| 223. Diodorus Sicilus, History, 1.82.3 Tagged with subjects: •death, as penalty Found in books: Jouanna (2012), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen, 12 |
| 224. Ps. Matthew, Sermons, 10 Tagged with subjects: •death penalty, execution •fornication, death penalty Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 193 |
