Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

^13.5 He will afflict us for our iniquities;and again he will show mercy,and will gather us from all the nations among whom you have been scattered.

^40.19 בְּעוֹד שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים יִשָּׂא פַרְעֹה אֶת־רֹאשְׁךָ מֵעָלֶיךָ וְתָלָה אוֹתְךָ עַל־עֵץ וְאָכַל הָעוֹף אֶת־בְּשָׂרְךָ מֵעָלֶיךָ׃

^40.19 within yet three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.’

^95.7 כִּי הוּא אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַאֲנַחְנוּ עַם מַרְעִיתוֹ וְצֹאן יָדוֹ הַיּוֹם אִם־בְּקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ׃

^95.7 For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, and the flock of His hand. To-day, if ye would but hearken to His voice!

^12.1 יִתְבָּרֲרוּ וְיִתְלַבְּנוּ וְיִצָּרְפוּ רַבִּים וְהִרְשִׁיעוּ רְשָׁעִים וְלֹא יָבִינוּ כָּל־רְשָׁעִים וְהַמַּשְׂכִּלִים יָבִינוּ׃

^12.1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

" ^6.10 For example, two women were brought in for having circumcised their children. These women they publicly paraded about the city, with their babies hung at their breasts, then hurled them down headlong from the wall."

^3.2 Only pray that I may have power within and without, so that I may not only say it but also desire it; that I may not only be called a Christian, but also be found one. For if I shall be found so, then can I also be called one, and be faithful then, when I am no more visible to the world.

^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:

⁴ Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry of the witnesses, as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases are decided by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either from conviction to acquittal or from acquittal to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict from conviction to acquittal but not from acquittal to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint another as a judge they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, saying, “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him that is wrongfully condemned and the blood of his descendants that should have been born to him to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again but a single person was created for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, but a single person was created against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again but a single person was created to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you witnesses would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you witnesses would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man? was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness the judges declare their opinion beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from them that sit at the side. All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give their daughters in marriage to priests.The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction.
^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.

^4.16 εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός, μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ.

^4.16 But if one of you suffers for being a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this matter.

Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς·ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα.

NA>

^7.53 οἵτινες ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων, καὶ οὐκ ἐφυλάξατε.

^7.53 You received the law as it was ordained by angels, and didnt keep it!"

^16.2 During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: alimit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

³⁶ He abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia. Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

" ^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 Libos suicide, should rank as a festival. This union of sounding names and sycophancy Ihave recorded as showing how long that evil has been rooted in the State.âx80x94 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 âx80x94 Publius Marcius âx80x94 was executed by the consuls outside the Esquiline Gate according to ancient usage and at sound of trumpet.", "
^15.44 So far, the precautions taken were suggested by human prudence: now means were sought for appeasing deity, and application was made to the Sibylline books; at the injunction of which public prayers were offered to Vulcan, Ceres, and Proserpine, while Juno was propitiated by the matrons, first in the Capitol, then at the nearest point of the sea-shore, where water was drawn for sprinkling the temple and image of the goddess. Ritual banquets and all-night vigils were celebrated by women in the married state. But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man."

" ^10.34 Once the judgment of Paris had been delivered, Juno and Minerva, in sorrow and in anger, left the stage, miming their indignation at their defeat. But Venus declared her happiness by dancing joyfully in her delight, accompanied by her chorus of attendants. Then, from a pipe concealed on the very top of the mountain, wine mixed with saffron spurted into the air and rained down in a perfumed shower, sprinkling the goats grazing all around until, dyed to a richer beauty, their naturally white coats were stained deep yellow. The amphitheatre having filled with the lovely fragrance, a chasm yawned and swallowed the wooden mountain. Now, at the audiences clamour, a soldier ran from the theatre to fetch the murderess from prison, condemned as I said to the wild beasts for her multiple crimes and doomed to a notorious union with me. To that end, a couch gleaming with Indian tortoiseshell, to serve as our nuptial bed, was being readied, with a high feather mattress and a flowery coverlet of silk."

^5.30.3 It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (EUANQAS) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (LATEINOS) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable solution, this being the name of the last kingdom of the four seen by Daniel. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this coincidence. Teitan too, (TEITAN, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels e and i), among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and the word itself is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed "Titan" by those who do now possess the rule. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name "Titan" has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many names suggested, we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called "Titan." We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians reign.

^52b למה תלמיד חכם דומה לפני עם הארץ בתחלה דומה לקיתון של זהב סיפר הימנו דומה לקיתון של כסף נהנה ממנו דומה לקיתון של חרש כיון שנשבר שוב אין לו תקנה,אימרתא בת טלי בת כהן שזינתה הואי אקפה רב חמא בר טוביה חבילי זמורות ושרפה,אמר רב יוסף טעה בתרתי טעה בדרב מתנה וטעה בדתניא (דברים יז, ט) ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם בזמן שיש כהן יש משפט בזמן שאין כהן אין משפט:אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק מעשה בבת כהן שזינתה וכו\: אמר רב יוסף בית דין של צדוקים הוה,הכי אמר להו והכי אהדרו ליה והתניא אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק זכורני כשהייתי תינוק ומורכב על כתיפו של אבא והביאו בת כהן שזינתה והקיפוה חבילי זמורות ושרפוה אמרו לו קטן היית ואין מביאין ראיה מן הקטן שני מעשים הוו,הי אמר להו ברישא אילימא הא קמייתא אמר להו ברישא א"ל כשהוא גדול ולא אשגחו ביה אמר להו כשהוא קטן ואשגחו ביה,אלא הא אמר להו ברישא ואמרו ליה קטן היית ואמר להו כשהוא גדול ואמרו ליה מפני שלא היה בית דין של אותה שעה בקי:מתני׳ מצות הנהרגין היו מתיזין את ראשו בסייף כדרך שהמלכות עושה רבי יהודה אומר ניוול הוא לו אלא מניחין את ראשו על הסדן וקוצץ בקופיץ אמרו לו אין מיתה מנוולת מזו:גמ׳ תניא אמר להן רבי יהודה לחכמים אף אני יודע שמיתה מנוולת היא אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרה תורה (ויקרא יח, ג) ובחקותיהם לא תלכו,ורבנן כיון דכתיב סייף באורייתא לא מינייהו קא גמרינן,דאי לא תימא הכי הא דתניא שורפין על המלכים ולא מדרכי האמורי היכי שרפינן והכתיב ובחקותיהם לא תלכו אלא כיון דכתיב שריפה באורייתא דכתיב (ירמיהו לד, ה) ובמשרפות אבותיך וגו\ לאו מינייהו קא גמרינן והכא נמי כיון דכתיב סייף באורייתא לאו מינייהו קא גמרינן,והא דתנן באידך פירקין אלו הן הנהרגין הרוצח ואנשי עיר הנדחת בשלמא עיר הנדחת כתיב בהו (דברים יג, טז) לפי חרב אלא רוצח מנלן,דתניא (שמות כא, כ) נקם ינקם נקימה זו איני יודע מה הוא כשהוא אומר (ויקרא כו, כה) והבאתי עליכם חרב נוקמת נקם ברית הוי אומר נקימה זו סייף,ואימא דבריז ליה מיברז לפי חרב כתיב,ואימא דעביד ליה גיסטרא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה,אשכחן דקטל עבדא בר חורין מנא לן,ולאו קל וחומר הוא קטל עבדא בסייף בר חורין בחנק,הניחא למאן דאמר חנק קל אלא למ"ד חנק חמור מאי איכא למימר,נפקא ליה מדתניא (דברים כא, ט) ואתה תבער הדם הנקי מקרבך הוקשו כל שופכי דמים לעגלה ערופה מה להלן בסייף ומן הצואר אף כאן בסייף ומן הצואר,אי מה להלן בקופיץ וממול עורף אף כאן בקופיץ וממול עורף אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה:מתני׳ מצות הנחנקין היו משקעין אותו בזבל עד ארכובותיו ונותן סודר קשה לתוך הרכה וכורך על צוארו זה מושך אצלו וזה מושך אצלו עד שנפשו יוצאת:גמ׳ תנו רבנן (ויקרא כ, י) איש פרט לקטן (ויקרא כ, י) אשר ינאף את אשת איש פרט לאשת קטן (ויקרא כ, י) אשת רעהו פרט לאשת אחרים,(ויקרא כ, ב) מות יומת בחנק אתה אומר בחנק או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה אמרת כל מקום שנאמר מיתה בתורה סתם אין אתה רשאי למושכה להחמיר עליה אלא להקל עליה דברי רבי יאשיה,רבי יונתן אומר לא מפני שהיא קלה אלא כל מיתה האמורה בתורה סתם אינה אלא חנק,רבי אומר נאמר מיתה בידי שמים ונאמר מיתה בידי אדם מה מיתה האמורה בידי שמים מיתה שאין בה רושם אף מיתה האמורה בידי אדם מיתה שאין בה רושם,ואימא שריפה מדאמר רחמנא בת כהן בשריפה מכלל דהא לאו בת שריפה היא ^71a חייב:אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיאכל בשר וישתה יין: תנו רבנן אכל כל מאכל ולא אכל בשר שתה כל משקה ולא שתה יין אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיאכל בשר וישתה יין שנאמר זולל וסובא,ואע"פ שאין ראייה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (משלי כג, כ) אל תהי בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו ואומר (משלי כג, כא) כי סובא וזולל יורש וקרעים תלביש נומה אמר ר\ זירא כל הישן בבית המדרש תורתו נעשית לו קרעים קרעים שנאמר וקרעים תלביש נומה:מתני׳ גנב משל אביו ואכל ברשות אביו משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אחרים משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אביו אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיגנוב משל אביו ויאכל ברשות אחרים רבי יוסי בר\ יהודה אומר עד שיגנוב משל אביו ומשל אמו:גמ׳ גנב משל אביו ואכל ברשות אביו אע"ג דשכיח ליה בעית,משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אחרים אע"ג דלא בעית לא שכיח ליה וכל שכן משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אביו דלא שכיח ליה ובעית,עד שיגנוב משל אביו ויאכל ברשות אחרים דשכיח ליה ולא בעית:רבי יוסי בר\ יהודה אומר עד שיגנוב משל אביו ומשל אמו: אמו מנא לה מה שקנתה אשה קנה בעלה אמר רבי יוסי בר\ חנינא מסעודה המוכנת לאביו ולאמו,והאמר רבי חנן בר מולדה אמר רב הונא אינו חייב עד שיקנה בשר בזול ויאכל יין בזול וישתה אלא אימא מדמי סעודה המוכנת לאביו ולאמו,איבעית אימא דאקני לה אחר ואמר לה על מנת שאין לבעליך רשות בהן:מתני׳ היה אביו רוצה ואמו אינה רוצה אביו אינו רוצה ואמו רוצה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיהו שניהם רוצין רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו ראויה לאביו אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה:גמ׳ מאי אינה ראויה אילימא חייבי כריתות וחייבי מיתות ב"ד סוף סוף אבוה אבוה נינהו ואמיה אמיה נינהו,אלא בשוה לאביו קאמר תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו שוה לאביו בקול ובמראה ובקומה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה מאי טעמא דאמר קרא איננו שומע בקלנו מדקול בעינן שוין מראה וקומה נמי בעינן שוין,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כרבי יהודה,איבעית אימא ר\ שמעון היא דתניא אמר רבי שמעון וכי מפני שאכל זה תרטימר בשר ושתה חצי לוג יין האיטלקי אביו ואמו מוציאין אותו לסקלו אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר אמר ר\ יונתן אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא עיר הנדחת לא היתה ולא עתידה להיות ולמה נכתבה דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כר\ אליעזר דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר כל עיר שיש בה אפילו מזוזה אחת אינה נעשית עיר הנדחת,מאי טעמא אמר קרא (דברים יג, יז) ואת כל שללה תקבוץ אל תוך רחבה ושרפת באש וכיון דאי איכא מזוזה לא אפשר דכתיב (דברים יב, ד) לא תעשון כן לה\ אלהיכם אמר רבי יונתן אני ראיתיה וישבתי על תילה,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא בית המנוגע לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כר\ אלעזר בר\ שמעון דתנן ר\ אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר לעולם אין הבית טמא עד שיראה כשתי גריסין על שתי אבנים בשתי כתלים בקרן זוית ארכו כשני גריסין ורחבו כגריס,מאי טעמא דר\ אלעזר ברבי שמעון כתיב קיר וכתיב קירות איזהו קיר שהוא כקירות הוי אומר זה קרן זוית,תניא אמר רבי אליעזר בר\ צדוק מקום היה בתחום עזה והיו קורין אותו חורבתא סגירתא אמר רבי שמעון איש כפר עכו פעם אחת הלכתי לגליל וראיתי מקום שמציינין אותו ואמרו אבנים מנוגעות פינו לשם:מתני׳ היה אחד מהם גידם או חיגר או אלם או סומא או חרש אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה שנאמר (דברים כא, יט) ותפשו בו אביו ואמו ולא גדמין והוציאו אותו ולא חגרין ואמרו ולא אלמין בננו זה ולא סומין איננו שומע בקולנו ולא חרשין,מתרין בו בפני שלשה ומלקין אותו חזר וקלקל נדון בעשרים ושלשה ואינו נסקל עד שיהו שם שלשה הראשונים שנאמר בננו זה זהו שלקה בפניכם:גמ׳ שמעת מינה בעינן קרא כדכתיב שאני הכא,

^52b To what is a Torah scholar compared when he is standing before an ignoramus? At first, when he does not know him, the ignoramus considers him to be like a goblet lekiton of gold. Once he has conversed with him concerning mundane matters, he considers him to be like a goblet of silver, i.e. the stature of the Torah scholar is downgraded in the eyes of the ignoramus. Once the scholar has received benefit from the ignoramus, he considers him to be like an earthenware goblet, which once broken cannot be fixed.,The Gemara relates: Imrata bat Talei was a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. Rav Ḥama bar Toviyya surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her.,Rav Yosef says: Rav Ḥama bar Toviyya erred with regard to two halakhot. He erred with regard to the ruling of Rav Mattana, i.e. that burning is performed using a wick of lead, and he erred with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge that will be in those days” (Deuteronomy 17:9), that at a time when there is a priest serving in the Temple, i.e. when the Temple is built, there is judgment of capital cases. By inference, at a time when there is no priest, there is no judgment of capital cases.§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: An incident occurred with regard to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, and she was executed by actual burn-ing, and the Sages said to him that the court at that time was not proficient in halakha. Rav Yosef says: It was a court of the Sadducees, who interpreted the verse according to its straightforward meaning.The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok say that to the Sages, and did the Sages answer him in that manner? But isn’t a different version of the exchange taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: I remember when I was a child, and was riding on my father’s shoulders. And they brought a priest’s daughter who had committed adultery, and surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her. The Sages said to him: You were a minor at that time and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor, as perhaps you did not understand the proceedings properly. The two versions of this exchange do not accord with each other. The Gemara answers: There were two separate incidents, and Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok testified with regard to both.The Gemara asks: Which incident did he tell the Sages about first? If we say that first he told them about this first incident, i.e. the one that is recounted in the mishna, this is unreasonable; if he first told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they paid no attention to him, but rejected his statement by responding that the court was not proficient in halakha, would he tell them afterward about the incident that occurred when he was a small child and think that they would pay attention to him?,Rather, it is clear that he first told them about that incident, i.e. the one recounted in the baraita, and they said to him: You were a minor, and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor. And then he told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they said to him: The court did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.The mitzva of those who are killed, i.e. the process of execution by decapitation, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners cut off his head with a sword, the way that the monarchy does when a king sentences a person to death. Rabbi Yehuda says: This manner of execution is improper, as it degrades him. Rather, they place the head of the condemned on the block, and chop it off with a cleaver bekofitz. The Rabbis said to him: If you are concerned about his degradation, there is no death penalty more degrading than that. It is better for him to be executed in the manner described first.It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:3): Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: I too, know that it is a degrading death, but what shall I do, as the Torah states: “And you shall not follow their statutes” (Leviticus 18:3), i.e. it is prohibited to adopt the practices of the gentiles.The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. This is Torah law, and the custom of the gentiles is not taken into consideration. It is of no import that they have a corresponding type of execution.As, if you do not say so, that a Jewish custom is not forbidden even if the gentiles have the same custom, then that which is taught in a baraita poses a difficulty. The baraita teaches: One burns vessels and clothes over the deaths of kings as an expression of grief, and this is not forbidden for being of the ways of the Amorites. How can we perform this burning? But isn’t it written: “And you shall not follow their statutes”? Rather, since burning items over the death of a king is written in the Torah, as it is written: “And with the burnings of your fathers, the first kings who came before you, so shall they make a burning for you” (Jeremiah 34:5), it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. And here too, since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from them that we learn it.§ The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna in another chapter of this tractate (76b): These transgressors are those who are killed by decapitation: The murderer and the people of an idolatrous city, there is a difficulty. Granted, the people of an idolatrous city are executed in this manner, as it is written concerning them: “You shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16). But with regard to a murderer, from where do we derive that he is executed by decapitation?The Gemara answers that it is derived as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated in the verse: “And if a man smites his slave or his maidservant by the staff and he dies under his hand, he shall be avenged” (Exodus 21:20). Prima facie, I do not know what this vengeance is referring to. When it says: “And I will bring upon you the sword avenging the vengeance of the covet” (Leviticus 26:25), you must say that vengeance is decapitation by the sword.,The Gemara asks: But why not say that the executioner should stab him with a sword, rather than decapitate him? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to the people of an idolatrous city: “With the edge of the sword,” indicating that the execution should be administered with the edge of the sword and not its point.The Gemara asks: But say that the executioner should cut him in half gistera, down the middle of his body. The Gemara answers that Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e. a compassionate, death for him. Cutting his body in half is not a compassionate manner of execution.The Gemara asks: We have found proof that one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by decapitation. But from where do we derive that one who kills a freeman is executed in the same manner?The Gemara answers: But is it not inferred a fortiori? If one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by the sword, should one who killed a freeman be executed merely by strangulation?,This Gemara rejects this answer: This works out well according to the one who says that strangulation is a more lenient type of capital punishment than decapitation. But according to the one who says that strangulation is more severe than decapitation, what can be said? It is possible that one who murdered a freeman is in fact executed by strangulation.The Gemara answers: The mishna derives it from that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: “And so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst” (Deuteronomy 21:9), that all spillers of blood are compared to the heifer whose neck is broken as atonement for an unresolved murder. Just as there, the heifer is killed by the sword and at the neck, so too here, murderers are executed by the sword and at the neck.,The Gemara challenges: If so, perhaps it should be derived that just as there, the heifer is decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck, so too here, murderers should be decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. The Gemara answers that Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e. a compassionate, death for him. Although the type of capital punishment is derived from the heifer whose neck is broken, the most compassionate method of decapitation is selected.The mitzva of those who are strangled is carried out in the following manner: The agents of the court submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and one of them places a rough scarf within a soft one, and wraps it around his neck. This one, i.e. one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward him, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward him, until the soul of the condemned one departs.,The Sages taught: The verse states: “And a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). The term: “A man,” is interpreted as excluding a minor boy who committed adultery before he came of age. The phrase: “Who commits adultery with another man’s wife,” is interpreted as excluding the wife of a minor boy; marriage to a minor is not considered halakhic marriage. “His neighbor’s wife” excludes the wife of another, i.e. a gentile, who is not referred to as “his neighbor.”,“Shall be put to death” means death by strangulation. Do you say that his execution is by strangulation, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty stated in the Torah? You must say that it is by strangulation, as everywhere that the death penalty is stated in the Torah without specification you may not take it to be more stringent with regard to it, i.e. to mean that the sinner should be sentenced to a severe type of execution; rather, you must take it to be more lenient with regard to it, i.e. that a lenient type of execution should be applied. Consequently, the sinner is sentenced to be executed by strangulation, which is the least severe type of capital punishment. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.,The baraita continues: Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not because strangulation is the most lenient type of capital punishment; rather, there is a principle that every death penalty stated in the Torah without specification is nothing other than strangulation, whereas the other types of capital punishment must be stated explicitly in the verse.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan: Death at the hand of Heaven is stated in the Torah, and death at the hands of a person, i.e. court-imposed capital punishment, is stated in the Torah. Just as the death at the hand of Heaven that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, so too, the death at the hands of a person that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, i.e. strangulation.The Gemara asks: But why not say that perhaps it is referring to execution by burning, which also leaves no external mark? The Gemara answers: From the fact that the Merciful One states explicitly that a priest’s daughter who committed adultery is executed by burning one can learn by inference that this other woman who committed adultery is not liable to be executed by burning, but rather by a different type of execution that does not leave a mark, i.e. strangulation.
^71a he is liable for entering the Temple while intoxicated.§ The mishna teaches that the boy does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine. The Sages taught in a baraita: If he ate any other food but did not eat meat, or if he drank any other beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine, as it is stated: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard.”,And although there is no explicit proof to the matter, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Proverbs 23:20). And the verse states: “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. Rabbi Zeira expounds the same verse and says: With regard to anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: “And drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.”,he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother.,halakhot taught in the mishna: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, even though this is accessible to him and it is easy for him to steal, he is afraid that his father will see him eating what he had stolen, and therefore he will not be drawn after his action to further evil.If he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, even though he is not afraid of them, as they neither know him nor watch over him, this theft is not easily accessible to him, as it is performed on someone else’s property, and therefore he will not be drawn to additional sin. And all the more so if he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, in which case it is not accessible to him, and he is also afraid of his father.Therefore, he is not liable unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others, in which case it is easily accessible to him, and he is not afraid, and there is concern that he will be drawn after his action to additional sin.The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother. The Gemara asks: With regard to his mother, from where does she have independently owned property that her son can steal? The basis for this question is the halakha that anything that a woman acquires is acquired by her husband. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says in answer to this question: The mishna is referring to a case where the boy stole food from a meal that had been prepared for his father and for his mother. In such a case the husband grants his wife ownership of the food that she will eat over the course of her meal.The Gemara raises a difficulty. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥa bar Molada say that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive meat and eats it, and he purchases inexpensive wine and drinks it, which indicates that he becomes liable only if he steals money, not if he steals the actual meat and wine? Rather, say that the boy stole from money set aside for a meal that was to be prepared for his father and for his mother.,The Gemara presents another answer to the question posed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If you wish, say instead that another person gave property to the mother and said to her: This shall be yours on the condition that your husband shall have no right to it. In such a case, the woman acquires the property for herself and her husband does not acquire it. Therefore, it is possible for the son to steal from his mother’s property.his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.,What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being not suited for the father? If we say that due to their union they are among those who are liable to receive karet, in which case the marriage does not take effect, and certainly if the union puts them in the category of those who are liable to receive one of the types of court-imposed death penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? Ultimately, his father is still his father and his mother is still his mother, and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled.Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy’s mother must be identical to his father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices kolenu” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.,The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the halakha.If you wish, say instead that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat on his grave after he was executed.The Gemara raises a similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be one in the future, as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to an idolatrous city written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city that has even one mezuza or any other sacred scroll cannot become an idolatrous city. It is difficult to imagine an entire city without even one mezuza.The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a city that has even one mezuza cannot become an idolatrous city? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open space of the city, and shall burn with fire both the city and the entire plunder taken in it” (Deuteronomy 13:17). And since if there is a mezuza there it is impossible to burn all the contents of the city, as it is written: “And you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire…This you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). It is derived from this verse that it is prohibited to destroy a sacred item such as a mezuza. Therefore, in a city that has even one mezuza, it is impossible to fulfill the halakhot of an idolatrous city, as not all of its contents may be burned. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I once saw an idolatrous city that was condemned to destruction, and I even sat on its ruins.,The Gemara asks another similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a house afflicted with leprosy of the house and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to leprosy of the house written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 12:3) that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house never becomes impure with leprosy until a mark about the size of two split beans is seen on two stones in two walls that form a corner between them, the mark being about two split beans in length and about one split bean in width. It is difficult to imagine that such a precise situation will ever occur.The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that a house does not become impure unless it has a mark precisely in the corner? The verse states: “And he shall look at the leprous mark, and, behold, if the leprous mark be in the walls of the house, in greenish or reddish depressions, which in sight are lower than the wall” (Leviticus 14:37). In one part of the verse it is written “wall,” and in another part of the verse it is written “walls.” Which wall is like two walls? You must say this is a corner.,It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin; that is to say, it was the ruin of a house that had been afflicted with leprosy. Apparently, then, leprosy of the house has existed. Rabbi Shimon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee and I saw a place that was being marked off as an impure place, and they said that stones afflicted with leprosy were cast there. This too indicates that a house afflicted with leprosy has existed.If one of the parents was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, their son does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:19–20). The Sages derive: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,” but not people without hands, who cannot do this. “And bring him out,” but not lame people, who cannot walk. “And they shall say,” but not mutes. “This son of ours,” but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say “this.” “He will not obey our voices,” but not deaf people, who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them.After he is brought before the elders of the city, he is admonished before three people and then they flog him for having stolen. If he sins again, he is judged by a court of twenty-three judges, but he is not stoned unless the first three judges before whom he had been flogged are present there, as it is stated: “This son of ours,” this is the son who was already flogged before you.,You can learn from the mishna that we require that a verse be fulfilled precisely as it is written, in strict conformity with its literal sense, and not in looser or more expansive fashion. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There is no proof from here. Here it is different,,

^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.