The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database

Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

graph

All subjects (including unvalidated):

subject	book bibliographic info
derivation, and homicide, katharos, purity	Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 124, 126, 127, 167, 211
derivation, as argument, katharos, purity	Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 42
derivation, katharos, purity	Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 63, 99
derivation, of humankind from, titans	Seaford (2018), Tragedy, Ritual and Money in Ancient Greece: Selected Essays, 191
derivation, of law	Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 2, 9, 12, 90, 91, 102, 111, 120, 123, 128
derivation, of rabbinic purity system from, biblical purity laws	Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 3, 30, 32, 34, 53, 54, 57, 78, 79, 83, 84, 86, 100, 104, 113, 116, 126, 182
derivation, of the name, itonia	Lalone (2019), Athena Itonia: Geography and Meaning of an Ancient Greek War Goddess, 16, 17, 18
derivation, of widely-held notion, ancient synagogue, pharisees/rabbis as leaders of	Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 280
derivation, purification, katharos, purity	Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 110, 126, 286
derivativeness, and innovation in late antiquity	Ayres Champion and Crawford (2023), The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions. 705, 726
derivativeness, in late antiquity, epistemology in late antique world, innovation and	Ayres Champion and Crawford (2023), The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions. 705, 726
derivativeness, in late antiquity, innovation and	Ayres Champion and Crawford (2023), The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions. 705, 726
derivativeness, issues of creation and the created world, innovation and	Ayres Champion and Crawford (2023), The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions. 705, 726
derivatives, ainigma and ainittesthai	Johnston and Struck (2005), Mantikê: Studies in Ancient Divination, 150, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 176, 185
derivatives, and byproducts of consecration, protections for	Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
derivatives, of agricultural consecrations, paul, and protecting	Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 229
derivatives, of agricultural consecrations, rabbis, and the protection of	Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
derived, by rabbis from greeks, logic, principles of allegedly	Feldman (2006), Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, 23
derived, from analytical reasoning, aggadah, as knowledge	Kanarek (2014), Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law, 6, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
derived, from apuleius, medical knowledge plato, timaeus	Hoenig (2018), Plato's Timaeus and the Latin Tradition, 114
derived, from aristotle, aristoxenus, account of procreation not	Huffman (2019), A History of Pythagoreanism, 383, 384
derived, from deuteronomy, habarei	Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 126, 127, 128, 142
derived, from greek, copper scroll, dead sea scroll, has only four words	Feldman (2006), Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, 31
derived, from month names, onomastics, personal names	Hallmannsecker (2022), Roman Ionia: Constructions of Cultural Identity in Western Asia Minor, 171, 172, 212
derived, from narrative biblical units, aggadic passages on legal biblical units, halakha	Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 490, 556, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608
derived, from plato, aristoxenus, account of procreation not	Huffman (2019), A History of Pythagoreanism, 382
derived, from regula fidei, orthodoxy	Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 221
derived, from roman law, delegation of adjudication, procedures	Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 168, 169
derived, from shema, grace after meals, not	Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 221
derived, from synoptic gospels, parabolē παραβολή, “parable” as concept	Strong (2021), The Fables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke: A New Foundation for the Study of Parables 63, 64
derived, from traditions of roman law, papal authority	Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 211
derived, from, intellect, premises of action	Marmodoro and Prince (2015), Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity, 151
derived, from, livestock, funds	Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 28, 33, 37, 39, 48, 50, 52, 53, 57
derived, from, vedii, honors	Kalinowski (2021), Memory, Family, and Community in Roman Ephesos, 246, 247
derived, independently of rule, shofar, originally	Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 39, 40
derived, independently of rule, sukkah, originally	Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 39, 40
deriving, benefit/pleasure, intention	Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 65, 86, 143, 145
deriving, from oral tradition, sources	Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 6, 52, 90, 91, 93, 142, 146, 147, 154
deriving, from, aphrodite, eros	Pucci (2016), Euripides' Revolution Under Cover: An Essay, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46

List of validated texts:

3 validated results for "derivation"

1. New Testament, Mark, 7.9-7.13 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Paul, and protecting derivatives of agricultural consecrations • biblical purity laws, derivation of rabbinic purity system from

Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 57; Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 229

sup>
7.9 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε· ^7.10 Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· ^7.11 ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, ^7.12 οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, ^7.13 ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.'' None

sup>
7.9 He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. ' "^7.10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' " '^7.11 But you say, \'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"\ '^7.12 then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, ^7.13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this."'' None

2. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 56.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning • aggadic passages on legal biblical units, halakha derived from narrative biblical units

Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 605, 606; Kanarek (2014), Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

sup>
56.6 וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת (בראשית כב, י), רַב בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּדָבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל, מִן הָכָא, וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין מִן הַהַגָּדָה אֲמַר לָךְ, חָזַר הוּא בֵּיהּ, וְאִין מִן אוּלְפָּן אֲמַר לָךְ, לֵית הוּא חָזַר בֵּיהּ, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי הָיוּ נְעוּצִים מִתְּחִלָּתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִים, תְּלוּשִׁין וּנְעָצָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים, דִּתְנַן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּמַגַּל יָד בְּמַגַּל קָצִיר וּבְצֹר וּבְקָנֶה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּקְרוּמִיּוֹת שֶׁל קָנֶה, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין מוֹהֲלִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֵין מְקַנְחִין בָּהּ אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְלֹא מְחַצִּין בָּהּ אֶת הַשִּׁנַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוּחַ רָעָה שׁוֹכֶנֶת עָלָיו.'' None

sup>
56.6 "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife (Gen. 22:10). Rav asked R. Hiyya the Elder: How do we know that ritual slaughtering must be with a movable object? From here: \\"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife\\" — he said: if he told you this from a Haggadah, he might retract; and if he stated it as a tradition, he cannot not retract from it, since Levi taught: If they sharp flints were attached to the ground or rocks from the very beginning, they are unfit; but if they had been originally detached but subsequently fixed in the ground, they are fit, since we learned: \\"If one slaughters with a hand-sickle, a harvest sickle, a flint, or a reed, the slaughtering is fit.\\" Said Rabbi Yosei: Five things were said of a reed stalk: You may not slaughter, circumcise, cut meat, wipe your hands, nor pick your teeth with it, because an evil spirit rests upon it.", '' None

3. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning • aggadic passages on legal biblical units, halakha derived from narrative biblical units

Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 606, 607; Kanarek (2014), Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law, 44

^16a קשיין אהדדי אלא לאו ש"מ שאני בין מחובר מעיקרו לתלוש ולבסוף חברו ש"מ,אמר מר השוחט במוכני שחיטתו כשרה והתניא שחיטתו פסולה ל"ק הא בסרנא דפחרא הא בסרנא דמיא,ואיבעית אימא הא והא בסרנא דמיא ולא קשיא הא בכח ראשון הא בכח שני,וכי הא דאמר רב פפא האי מאן דכפתיה לחבריה ואשקיל עליה בידקא דמיא ומית חייב מ"ט גירי דידיה הוא דאהני ביה וה"מ בכח ראשון אבל בכח שני גרמא בעלמא הוא,יתיב רב אחוריה דרבי חייא ורבי חייא קמיה דרבי ויתיב רבי וקאמר מנין לשחיטה שהוא בתלוש שנאמר (בראשית כב, י) ויקח את המאכלת לשחוט א"ל רב לרבי חייא מאי קאמר א"ל וי"ו דכתיב אאופתא קאמר והא קרא קאמר קרא זריזותיה דאברהם קמ"ל,אמר רבא פשיטא לי תלוש ולבסוף חברו לענין עבודת כוכבים הוי תלוש דאמר מר המשתחוה לבית שלו אסרו ואי ס"ד הוי מחובר (דברים יב, ב) אלהיהם על ההרים ולא ההרים אלהיהם,לענין הכשר זרעים תנאי היא דתנן הכופה קערה על הכותל בשביל שתודח הרי זה בכי יותן בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן,הא גופא קשיא אמרת בשביל שתודח הרי זה בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל אין זה בכי יותן,והדר תני בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל ה"ז בכי יותן,א"ר אלעזר תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו רב פפא אמר כולה חד תנא הוא הא בכותל מערה הא בכותל בנין,וה"ק הכופה קערה על הכותל בשביל שתודח ה"ז בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל אין זה בכי יותן,בד"א בכותל מערה אבל בכותל בנין בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל הוא דאינו בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל ה"ז בכי יותן,בעי רבא'' None

^16a Ostensibly, the two clauses of the baraita are difficult, as they contradict each other, since the first clause states that slaughter with a blade that is attached is valid and the latter clause states that slaughter is not valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that there is a difference between a case where the blade was attached from the outset and a case where the blade was detached and ultimately he reattached it? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it.,§ The Master said: In the case of one who slaughters with a mechanism of a wheel with a knife attached to it, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that his slaughter is not valid? The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a potter’s wheel, whose movement is generated by the potter pressing on a pedal. Since the slaughter was performed by the force of the person’s actions, the slaughter is valid. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel. Since the slaughter was not performed by the force of the person’s actions, the slaughter is not valid.,And if you wish, say instead: The rulings of both this baraita and that baraita are in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel, and the contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the movement of the slaughter was generated by primary force, as the person releases the water that turns the wheel, and on that initial turn of the wheel the knife slaughters the animal. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the slaughter was generated by secondary force, as the knife slaughters the animal on the second turn of the wheel.,And this is like that which Rav Pappa says: In the case of a certain person who bound another and diverted a flow bidka of water upon him and he died, the one who diverted the water is liable for his murder. What is the reason? It is because those were his arrows that were effective in his murder. And this matter applies in a case where he killed the other person by primary force, as the person was proximate to him and was directly drowned by the water. But if the person was further away and was killed by secondary force after the water flowed on its own, it is not by his direct action; rather, it is merely an indirect action, and he is exempt.,§ Rav sat behind Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya sat before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed specifically with a blade that is detached? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10). Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: What is he saying? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: He is saying an incorrect reason, comparable to the letter vav that is written on the rough surface of a tree trunk a’ufta. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say a verse as proof for his statement? The Gemara answers: The verse teaches us the diligence of Abraham, who had a knife prepared to slaughter Isaac. It does not teach any halakha concerning ritual slaughter.,§ Apropos the issue of slaughter with a detached blade, Rava said: It is obvious to me that concerning an item that was detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to the matter of idol worship its halakhic status is that of a detached item, as the Master says: One who bows to his house has rendered it forbidden as an object of idol worship. And if it enters your mind to say that its halakhic status is that of an attached item, it is written with regard to idolatry: “Their gods, upon the high mountains” (Deuteronomy 12:2), from which it is derived: But the mountains are not their gods, as items attached to the ground are never rendered forbidden as objects of idol worship. The halakhic status of a house built from stones that were detached is that of a detached item.,With regard to the matter of rendering seeds susceptible to ritual impurity, there is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:3): In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall while it is raining so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, if the water from the bowl then falls onto produce, that is under the rubric of the verse: “But when water is placed upon the seed” (Leviticus 11:38). The water has the halakhic status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds. Consequently, it renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. But if he placed the bowl there so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.” Since he had no intent to use the water, it is not considered to have entered the bowl of his own volition, and it does not render produce susceptible to impurity.,This mishna itself is difficult, as the inferences from the first clause and the latter clause are contradictory. In the first clause you said: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed,” and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.” That water would not render produce susceptible to impurity, because the intent was for the water to rinse the wall, which is an item attached to the ground.,And then the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If he placed the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: “But when water is placed upon the seed.” By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse: “But when water is placed upon the seed,” as a wall has the status of a detached item, since it was built from stones that were detached.,Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed; the tanna who taught this first clause did not teach that second clause. There is a tannaitic dispute whether the status of a wall that is built from detached stones is that of an attached item or a detached item. Rav Pappa said: The entire mishna is the opinion of one tanna: This first clause is in the case of the wall of a cave, which is attached from the outset; that latter clause is in the case of the wall of a building, which is built from stones that were detached from the ground.,And this is what the mishna is saying: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed,” and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.”,In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of the wall of a cave, which was always attached to the ground. But in the case of the wall of a building, whose stones were detached and subsequently reattached, if he places the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, that is when it is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.” But if he places the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.”,Rava raises a dilemma:'' None

Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database