1. Hebrew Bible, Song of Songs, 4.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, immature exempted from portions of Found in books: Ashbrook Harvey et al. (2015), A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer, 235| 4.12. "גַּן נָעוּל אֲחֹתִי כַלָּה גַּל נָעוּל מַעְיָן חָתוּם׃", | 4.12. A garden shut up is my sister, my bride; A spring shut up, a fountain sealed. |
|
| 2. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 2, 1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 82 |
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 13.1, 13.9-13.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 13, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 108, 219| 13.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 13.1. "וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת־הַחֻקָּה הַזֹּאת לְמוֹעֲדָהּ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה׃", 13.9. "וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל־יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה בְּפִיךָ כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהֹוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם׃", | 13.1. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 13.9. "And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.", 13.10. "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordice in its season from year to year.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 17.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, women’s exemption from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 187| 17.13. "הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם לִבְרִית עוֹלָם׃", | 17.13. "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covet shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covet.", |
|
| 5. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 2-3, 1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Ashbrook Harvey et al. (2015), A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer, 235 |
6. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 25.41 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159| 25.41. "וְיָצָא מֵעִמָּךְ הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ וְשָׁב אֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֶל־אֲחֻזַּת אֲבֹתָיו יָשׁוּב׃", | 25.41. "Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.37-15.38 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •shimon, r., on women’s exemption from tzitzit •scripture, roots of women’s exemption from timebound positive commandments in Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 39, 220| 15.37. "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 15.38. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל־כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם וְנָתְנוּ עַל־צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת׃", | 15.37. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 15.38. "’Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.", |
|
| 8. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 43 |
9. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 54.6 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, immature exempted from portions of Found in books: Ashbrook Harvey et al. (2015), A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer, 235| 54.6. "כִּי־כְאִשָּׁה עֲזוּבָה וַעֲצוּבַת רוּחַ קְרָאָךְ יְהוָה וְאֵשֶׁת נְעוּרִים כִּי תִמָּאֵס אָמַר אֱלֹהָיִךְ׃", | 54.6. "For the LORD hath called thee As a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit; And a wife of youth, can she be rejected? Saith thy God.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 23.20 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 165 | 23.20. "And she doted upon concubinage with them, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.", |
|
| 11. Simonides, Fragments, None (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 162 |
| 12. Xenophon, Hellenica, 4.3.11 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 192 |
13. Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus, 8.6.17-8.6.18 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hyrcanus ii, asking for exemption from military service •jewish state, exempted from military service Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 82| 8.6.17. κατεμάθομεν δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄλλο μηχάνημα πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἐξ οὗ ταχέως ᾐσθάνετο καὶ τὰ πάμπολυ ἀπέχοντα ὅπως ἔχοι. σκεψάμενος γὰρ πόσην ἂν ὁδὸν ἵππος καθανύτοι τῆς ἡμέρας ἐλαυνόμενος ὥστε διαρκεῖν, ἐποιήσατο ἱππῶνας τοσοῦτον διαλείποντας καὶ ἵππους ἐν αὐτοῖς κατέστησε καὶ τοὺς ἐπιμελομένους τούτων, καὶ ἄνδρα ἐφʼ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τόπων ἔταξε τὸν ἐπιτήδειον παραδέχεσθαι τὰ φερόμενα γράμματα καὶ παραδιδόναι καὶ παραλαμβάνειν τοὺς ἀπειρηκότας ἵππους καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἄλλους πέμπειν νεαλεῖς· 8.6.18. ἔστι δʼ ὅτε οὐδὲ τὰς νύκτας φασὶν ἵστασθαι ταύτην τὴν πορείαν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἡμερινῷ ἀγγέλῳ τὸν νυκτερινὸν διαδέχεσθαι. τούτων δὲ οὕτω γιγνομένων φασί τινες θᾶττον τῶν γεράνων ταύτην τὴν πορείαν ἁνύτειν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ψεύδονται, ἀλλʼ ὅτι γε τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πεζῇ πορειῶν αὕτη ταχίστη, τοῦτο εὔδηλον. ἀγαθὸν δὲ ὡς τάχιστα ἕκαστον αἰσθανόμενον ὡς τάχιστα ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. | 8.6.17. We have observed still another device of Cyrus inaugurates a postal system Cyrus to cope with the magnitude of his empire; by means of this institution he would speedily discover the condition of affairs, no matter how far distant they might be from him: he experimented to find out how great a distance a horse could cover in a day when ridden hard but so as not to break down, and then he erected post-stations at just such distances and equipped them with horses and men to take care of them; at each one of the stations he had the proper official appointed to receive the letters that were delivered and to forward them on, to take in the exhausted horses and riders and send on fresh ones. 8.6.18. |
|
14. Thucydides, The History of The Peloponnesian War, 1.73.1-1.73.2, 2.63.2, 5.89, 6.56, 6.82.1, 6.83.1 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •taxes, exemption from •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 162; Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 76| 1.73.1. ‘ἡ μὲν πρέσβευσις ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐς ἀντιλογίαν τοῖς ὑμετέροις ξυμμάχοις ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν ἡ πόλις ἔπεμψεν: αἰσθανόμενοι δὲ καταβοὴν οὐκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν ἡμῶν παρήλθομεν οὐ τοῖς ἐγκλήμασι τῶν πόλεων ἀντεροῦντες ʽοὐ γὰρ παρὰ δικασταῖς ὑμῖν οὔτε ἡμῶν οὔτε τούτων οἱ λόγοι ἂν γίγνοιντὀ, ἀλλ’ ὅπως μὴ ῥᾳδίως περὶ μεγάλων πραγμάτων τοῖς ξυμμάχοις πειθόμενοι χεῖρον βουλεύσησθε, καὶ ἅμα βουλόμενοι περὶ τοῦ παντὸς λόγου τοῦ ἐς ἡμᾶς καθεστῶτος δηλῶσαι ὡς οὔτε ἀπεικότως ἔχομεν ἃ κεκτήμεθα, ἥ τε πόλις ἡμῶν ἀξία λόγου ἐστίν. 1.73.2. ‘καὶ τὰ μὲν πάνυ παλαιὰ τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὧν ἀκοαὶ μᾶλλον λόγων μάρτυρες ἢ ὄψις τῶν ἀκουσομένων; τὰ δὲ Μηδικὰ καὶ ὅσα αὐτοὶ ξύνιστε, εἰ καὶ δι’ ὄχλου μᾶλλον ἔσται αἰεὶ προβαλλομένοις, ἀνάγκη λέγειν: καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἐδρῶμεν, ἐπ’ ὠφελίᾳ ἐκινδυνεύετο, ἧς τοῦ μὲν ἔργου μέρος μετέσχετε, τοῦ δὲ λόγου μὴ παντός, εἴ τι ὠφελεῖ, στερισκώμεθα. 2.63.2. ἧς οὐδ’ ἐκστῆναι ἔτι ὑμῖν ἔστιν, εἴ τις καὶ τόδε ἐν τῷ παρόντι δεδιὼς ἀπραγμοσύνῃ ἀνδραγαθίζεται: ὡς τυραννίδα γὰρ ἤδη ἔχετε αὐτήν, ἣν λαβεῖν μὲν ἄδικον δοκεῖ εἶναι, ἀφεῖναι δὲ ἐπικίνδυνον. 6.82.1. ‘ἀφικόμεθα μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς πρότερον οὔσης ξυμμαχίας ἀνανεώσει, τοῦ δὲ Συρακοσίου καθαψαμένου ἀνάγκη καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς εἰπεῖν ὡς εἰκότως ἔχομεν. 6.83.1. ἀνθ’ ὧν ἄξιοί τε ὄντες ἅμα ἄρχομεν, ὅτι τε ναυτικὸν πλεῖστόν τε καὶ προθυμίαν ἀπροφάσιστον παρεσχόμεθα ἐς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, καὶ διότι καὶ τῷ Μήδῳ ἑτοίμως τοῦτο δρῶντες οὗτοι ἡμᾶς ἔβλαπτον, ἅμα δὲ τῆς πρὸς Πελοποννησίους ἰσχύος ὀρεγόμενοι. | 1.73.1. The object of our mission here was not to argue with your allies, but to attend to the matters on which our State despatched us. However, the vehemence of the outcry that we hear against us has prevailed on us to come forward. It is not to combat the accusations of the cities (indeed you are not the judges before whom either we or they can plead), but to prevent your taking the wrong course on matters of great importance by yielding too readily to the persuasions of your allies. We also wish to show on a review of the whole indictment that we have a fair title to our possessions, and that our country has claims to consideration. 1.73.2. We need not refer to remote antiquity: there we could appeal to the voice of tradition, but not to the experience of our audience. But to the Median war and contemporary history we must refer, although we are rather tired of continually bringing this subject forward. In our action during that war we ran great risk to obtain certain advantages: you had your share in the solid results, do not try to rob us of all share in the good that the glory may do us. 2.63.2. Besides, to recede is no longer possible, if indeed any of you in the alarm of the moment has become enamored of the honesty of such an unambitious part. For what you hold is, to speak somewhat plainly, a tyranny; to take it perhaps was wrong, but to let it go is unsafe. 6.82.1. ‘Although we came here only to renew the former alliance, the attack of the Syracusans compels us to speak of our empire and of the good right we have to it. 6.83.1. We, therefore, deserve to rule because we placed the largest fleet and an unflinching patriotism at the service of the Hellenes, and because these, our subjects, did us mischief by their ready subservience to the Medes; and, desert apart, we seek to strengthen ourselves against the Peloponnesians. |
|
15. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 4.6 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hyrcanus ii, asking for exemption from military service •jewish state, exempted from military service Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 82| 4.6. "וּבְמַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ בִּתְחִלַּת מַלְכוּתוֹ כָּתְבוּ שִׂטְנָה עַל־יֹשְׁבֵי יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם׃", | 4.6. "And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.", |
|
16. Herodotus, Histories, 1.54, 3.126, 5.55, 7.139, 8.98, 8.136, 8.143 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •custom duties, exemption from •liturgies, exemption from •hyrcanus ii, asking for exemption from military service •jewish state, exempted from military service •taxes, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 44, 162; Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 76; Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 82 | 1.54. When the divine answers had been brought back and Croesus learned of them, he was very pleased with the oracles. So, altogether expecting that he would destroy the kingdom of Cyrus, he sent once again to Pytho and endowed the Delphians, whose number he had learned, with two gold staters apiece. ,The Delphians, in return, gave Croesus and all Lydians the right of first consulting the oracle, exemption from all charges, the chief seats at festivals, and perpetual right of Delphian citizenship to whoever should wish it. 3.126. This was the end of Polycrates' string of successes [as Amasis king of Egypt had forewarned him]. But not long after, atonement for Polycrates overtook Oroetes. After the death of Cambyses and the rule of the Magi, Oroetes stayed in Sardis , where he did not help the Persians in any way to regain the power taken from them by the Medes, ,but, to the contrary, in this confusion killed two prominent Persians, Mitrobates, the governor from Dascyleium, who had taunted him about Polycrates, and Mitrobates' son Cranaspes; and on top of many other violent acts, he set an ambush down the road after a messenger from Darius came with a message which displeased him and killed that messenger on his homeward journey, and concealed the man's body and horse. 5.55. When he was forced to leave Sparta, Aristagoras went to Athens, which had been freed from its ruling tyrants in the manner that I will show. First Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus and brother of the tyrant Hippias, had been slain by Aristogiton and Harmodius, men of Gephyraean descent. This was in fact an evil of which he had received a premonition in a dream. After this the Athenians were subject for four years to a tyranny not less but even more absolute than before. 7.139. Here I am forced to declare an opinion which will be displeasing to most, but I will not refrain from saying what seems to me to be true. ,Had the Athenians been panic-struck by the threatened peril and left their own country, or had they not indeed left it but remained and surrendered themselves to Xerxes, none would have attempted to withstand the king by sea. What would have happened on land if no one had resisted the king by sea is easy enough to determine. ,Although the Peloponnesians had built not one but many walls across the Isthmus for their defense, they would nevertheless have been deserted by their allies (these having no choice or free will in the matter, but seeing their cities taken one by one by the foreign fleet), until at last they would have stood alone. They would then have put up quite a fight and perished nobly. ,Such would have been their fate. Perhaps, however, when they saw the rest of Hellas siding with the enemy, they would have made terms with Xerxes. In either case Hellas would have been subdued by the Persians, for I cannot see what advantage could accrue from the walls built across the isthmus, while the king was master of the seas. ,As it is, to say that the Athenians were the saviors of Hellas is to hit the truth. It was the Athenians who held the balance; whichever side they joined was sure to prevail. choosing that Greece should preserve her freedom, the Athenians roused to battle the other Greek states which had not yet gone over to the Persians and, after the gods, were responsible for driving the king off. ,Nor were they moved to desert Hellas by the threatening oracles which came from Delphi and sorely dismayed them, but they stood firm and had the courage to meet the invader of their country. 8.98. While Xerxes did thus, he sent a messenger to Persia with news of his present misfortune. Now there is nothing mortal that accomplishes a course more swiftly than do these messengers, by the Persians' skillful contrivance. It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day's journey. These are stopped neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed. ,The first rider delivers his charge to the second, the second to the third, and thence it passes on from hand to hand, even as in the Greek torch-bearers' race in honor of Hephaestus. This riding-post is called in Persia, angareion. 8.136. Mardonius read whatever was said in the oracles, and presently he sent a messenger to Athens, Alexander, a Macedonian, son of Amyntas. Him he sent, partly because the Persians were akin to him; Bubares, a Persian, had taken to wife Gygaea Alexander's sister and Amyntas' daughter, who had borne to him that Amyntas of Asia who was called by the name of his mother's father, and to whom the king gave Alabanda a great city in Phrygia for his dwelling. Partly too he sent him because he learned that Alexander was a protector and benefactor to the Athenians. ,It was thus that he supposed he could best gain the Athenians for his allies, of whom he heard that they were a numerous and valiant people, and knew that they had been the chief authors of the calamities which had befallen the Persians at sea. ,If he gained their friendship he thought he would easily become master of the seas, as truly he would have been. On land he supposed himself to be by much the stronger, and he accordingly reckoned that thus he would have the upper hand of the Greeks. This chanced to be the prediction of the oracles which counseled him to make the Athenians his ally. It was in obedience to this that he sent his messenger. 8.143. But to Alexander the Athenians replied as follows: “We know of ourselves that the power of the Mede is many times greater than ours. There is no need to taunt us with that. Nevertheless in our zeal for freedom we will defend ourselves to the best of our ability. But as regards agreements with the barbarian, do not attempt to persuade us to enter into them, nor will we consent. ,Now carry this answer back to Mardonius from the Athenians, that as long as the sun holds the course by which he now goes, we will make no agreement with Xerxes. We will fight against him without ceasing, trusting in the aid of the gods and the heroes whom he has disregarded and burnt their houses and their adornments. ,Come no more to Athenians with such a plea, nor under the semblance of rendering us a service, counsel us to act wickedly. For we do not want those who are our friends and protectors to suffer any harm at Athenian hands.” |
|
| 17. Isocrates, Orations, 4.67, 9.57, 18.65 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •taxes, exemption from •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 192; Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 76 |
| 18. Isaeus, Orations, 5.47 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 162 |
| 19. Theophrastus, Characters, 21 (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •taxes, exemption from Found in books: Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 102 |
| 20. Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, 27.4 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •taxes, exemption from Found in books: Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 76 |
| 21. Astydamas Tragicus, Fragments, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 229 |
| 22. Hyperides, Fragments, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 229 |
| 23. Cicero, In Pisonem, 50, 86, 91, 90 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77, 78 |
| 24. Cicero, Letters, 5.10.2, 5.16.3, 5.21.5, 6.2.4, 9.3, 11.20.1, 21.6-21.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •asia, exemption of, from billeting •jewish state, exempted from billeting •asia, exemption of, from military service •dionysiac artists, granted exemption from war contributions and military service •dolabella (p. cornelius), jews exempted from conscription by •jewish state, exempted from military service •lucius lentulus, exemption from conscription granted by, to jews who were roman citizens •antipater father of herod, and caesar, antipater exempted from taxes by caesar •julius caesar, and jews, caesar exempting antipater from taxation Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 34, 77, 78, 80 |
| 25. Cicero, On His Consulship, 4.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77 |
| 26. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 10.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of rule, women and slaves both exempt from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 13 |
27. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 2.29-2.41, 10.33, 10.35 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •asia, exemption of, from military service •dionysiac artists, granted exemption from war contributions and military service •dolabella (p. cornelius), jews exempted from conscription by •hyrcanus ii, asking for exemption from military service •jewish state, exempted from military service •lucius lentulus, exemption from conscription granted by, to jews who were roman citizens •angareia (requisitioned transport), jews exempted from by caesar Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 81, 87 | 2.29. Then many who were seeking righteousness and justice went down to the wilderness to dwell there, 2.30. they, their sons, their wives, and their cattle, because evils pressed heavily upon them. 2.31. And it was reported to the kings officers, and to the troops in Jerusalem the city of David, that men who had rejected the kings command had gone down to the hiding places in the wilderness. 2.32. Many pursued them, and overtook them; they encamped opposite them and prepared for battle against them on the sabbath day. 2.33. And they said to them, "Enough of this! Come out and do what the king commands, and you will live." 2.34. But they said, "We will not come out, nor will we do what the king commands and so profane the sabbath day." 2.35. Then the enemy hastened to attack them. 2.36. But they did not answer them or hurl a stone at them or block up their hiding places, 2.37. for they said, "Let us all die in our innocence; heaven and earth testify for us that you are killing us unjustly." 2.38. So they attacked them on the sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. 2.39. When Mattathias and his friends learned of it, they mourned for them deeply. 2.40. And each said to his neighbor: "If we all do as our brethren have done and refuse to fight with the Gentiles for our lives and for our ordices, they will quickly destroy us from the earth." 2.41. So they made this decision that day: "Let us fight against every man who comes to attack us on the sabbath day; let us not all die as our brethren died in their hiding places." 10.33. And every one of the Jews taken as a captive from the land of Judah into any part of my kingdom, I set free without payment; and let all officials cancel also the taxes on their cattle. 10.35. No one shall have authority to exact anything from them or annoy any of them about any matter. |
|
| 28. Cicero, Pro Lege Manilia, 13.38-13.39 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77 |
29. Cicero, Pro Flacco, 27 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77| 27. etenim iam universa istorum cognita cupiditate accedam ad singulas querelas criminationesque Graecorum. classis nomine pecuniam civitatibus imperatam queruntur. quod nos factum, iudices, confitemur. sed si hoc crimen est, aut in eo est quod non licuerit imperare, aut in eo quod non opus fuerit navibus, aut in eo quod nulla hoc praetore classis navigarit. licuisse ut intellegas, cognosce quid me consule senatus decreverit, cum quidem nihil a superioribus continuorum annorum decretis discesserit. Senatvs consvltvm. proximum est ergo ut opus fuerit classe necne quaeramus. Vtrum igitur hoc Graeci statuent aut ullae exterae nationes, an nostri praetores, nostri duces, nostri imperatores? equidem existimo in eius modi regione atque provincia quae mari cincta, portibus distincta, insulis circumdata esset, non solum praesidi sed etiam ordi imperi causa navigandum fuisse. | |
|
30. Septuagint, Judith, 8.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 98 | 8.6. She fasted all the days of her widowhood, except the day before the sabbath and the sabbath itself, the day before the new moon and the day of the new moon, and the feasts and days of rejoicing of the house of Israel. |
|
| 31. Hirtius, De Bello Gallico Liber Viii, 33.6, 65.4, 66.1-66.2 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 34 |
| 32. Livy, History, 42.1.7-42.1.12 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting •senatus consulta, exempting joppa, exemption from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 76 |
| 33. Julius Caesar, De Bello Civli, 2.18, 3.3-3.4, 3.31, 3.103 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting •senatus consulta, exempting joppa, exemption from billeting •antipater father of herod, and caesar, antipater exempted from taxes by caesar •julius caesar, and jews, caesar exempting antipater from taxation •asia, exemption of, from military service •dionysiac artists, granted exemption from war contributions and military service •dolabella (p. cornelius), jews exempted from conscription by •jewish state, exempted from military service •lucius lentulus, exemption from conscription granted by, to jews who were roman citizens Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 56, 76, 80 |
| 34. Catullus, Poems, 10.9-10.13 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77 |
35. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 14.83.5-14.83.7 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 192 | 14.83.5. When they learned that the enemy's naval forces were at Cnidus, they made preparations for battle. Peisander, the Lacedaemonian admiral, set out from Cnidus with eighty-five triremes and put in at Physcus of the Chersonesus. 14.83.6. On sailing from there he fell in with the King's fleet, and engaging the leading ships, he won the advantage over them; but when the Persians came to give aid with their triremes in close formation, all his allies fled to the land. But Peisander turned his own ship against them, believing ignoble flight to be disgraceful and unworthy of Sparta. 14.83.7. After fighting brilliantly and slaying many of the enemy, in the end he was overcome, battling in a manner worthy of his native land. Conon pursued the Lacedaemonians as far as the land and captured fifty of their triremes. As for the crews, most of them leaped overboard and escaped by land, but about five hundred were captured. The rest of the triremes found safety at Cnidus. |
|
36. Mishnah, Tamid, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from •priest, priests, exemption from liturgies Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 43| 5.3. "מְסָרוּם לַחַזָּנִים, הָיוּ מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתָם אֶת בִּגְדֵיהֶם, וְלֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶלָּא מִכְנָסַיִם בִּלְבָד. וְחַלּוֹנוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי הַכֵּלִים: \n", | 5.3. "He then handed them over to the attendants, who stripped them of their garments, and they would leave on them only the pants. There were windows there on which was inscribed the name of the garment to which each was assigned.", |
|
37. Mishnah, Yevamot, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, women’s exemption from •commandment from which, women are exempt Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 17| 6.6. "לֹא יִבָּטֵל אָדָם מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֶשׁ לוֹ בָנִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, (בראשית ה) זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה, וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, וְלֹא יָלְדָה, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִבָּטֵל. גֵּרְשָׁהּ, מֻתֶּרֶת לִנָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר. וְרַשַּׁאי הַשֵּׁנִי לִשְׁהוֹת עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. וְאִם הִפִּילָה, מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהִפִּילָה. הָאִישׁ מְצֻוֶּה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, אֲבָל לֹא הָאִשָּׁה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר, עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (בראשית א), וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ: \n", | 6.6. "A man shall not abstain from procreation unless he already has children. Beth Shammai says: two males, And Beth Hillel says: male and a female, for it says, “Male and female created he them” (Genesis 5:2). If a man married a woman and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he may not abstain [any longer from the duty of propagation]. If he divorced her she is permitted to marry another, and the second husband may also live with her for ten years. If she miscarried [the period of ten years] is counted from the time of her miscarriage. A man is commanded concerning the duty of propagation but not a woman. Rabbi Yoha ben Beroka says: Concerning both of them it is said, “And God blessed them; and said to them… “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).", |
|
38. Mishnah, Yoma, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from •priest, priests, exemption from liturgies Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 43| 7.1. "בָּא לוֹ כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל לִקְרוֹת. אִם רָצָה לִקְרוֹת בְּבִגְדֵי בוּץ, קוֹרֵא. וְאִם לֹא, קוֹרֵא בְאִצְטְלִית לָבָן מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹטֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹתְנוֹ לַסְּגָן, וְהַסְּגָן נוֹתְנוֹ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמְקַבֵּל וְקוֹרֵא עוֹמֵד, וְקוֹרֵא אַחֲרֵי מוֹת וְאַךְ בֶּעָשׂוֹר. וְגוֹלֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וּמַנִּיחוֹ בְחֵיקוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר, יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁקָּרָאתִי לִפְנֵיכֶם כָּתוּב כָּאן, וּבֶעָשׂוֹר שֶׁבְּחֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים קוֹרֵא עַל פֶּה, וּמְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ שְׁמֹנֶה בְרָכוֹת, עַל הַתּוֹרָה, וְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה, וְעַל הַהוֹדָאָה, וְעַל מְחִילַת הֶעָוֹן, וְעַל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְעַל הַכֹּהֲנִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעַל שְׁאָר הַתְּפִלָּה: \n", | 7.1. "The high priest [then] came to read. If he wished to read in linen garments, he reads, and if not he reads in his own white cloak. The synagogue attendant would take a Torah scroll and give it to the head of the synagogue, and the head of the synagogue gives it to deputy high priest, and the deputy high priest gives it to the high priest, and the high priest stands and receives it, and reads, [section] beginning] “After the death …” (Leviticus 16:1-34) and “But on the tenth…” (Leviticus 23:26-32). Then he would roll up the Torah scroll and put it in his bosom and say, “More than what I have read out before you is written here.” And “On the tenth …” (Numbers 29:7-11) which is in the Book of Numbers he recites by heart. And he recites on it eight benedictions: “For the law”, “For the Temple service,” “For thanksgiving,” “For the forgiveness of sins” and “For the Temple” on its own, and “For Israel” on its own and “For Jerusalem” on its own, “For the priests” on their own and “For the rest of the prayer.”", |
|
39. New Testament, Mark, 15.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •dionysiac artists, granted exemption from war contributions and military service •jewish state, exempted from billeting •jewish state, exempted from military service Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 79| 15.16. Οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστιν πραιτώριον, καὶ συνκαλοῦσιν ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν. | 15.16. The soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they called together the whole cohort. |
|
| 40. Anon., The Shepherd, 4.29 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
41. Plutarch, Lucullus, 33.3-33.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77| 33.3. ταῦτα γὰρ ὑπάρξαι Λουκούλλῳ κακὰ λέγουσιν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀγαθοῖς· καὶ γὰρ μέγας καὶ καλὸς καὶ δεινὸς εἰπεῖν καὶ φρόνιμος ὁμαλῶς ἐν ἀγορᾷ καὶ στρατοπέδῳ δοκεῖ γενέσθαι. Σαλούστιος μὲν οὖν φησι χαλεπῶς διατεθῆναι τοὺς στρατιώτας πρὸς αὑτὸν εὐθὺς ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Κυζίκῳ καὶ πάλιν πρὸς Ἀμισῷ, δύο χειμῶνας ἑξῆς ἐν χάρακι διαγαγεῖν ἀναγκασθέντας. 33.4. ἠνίων δʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ χειμῶνες, ἢ γὰρ ἐν τῇ πολεμίᾳ διεχείμαζον ἢ παρὰ τοῖς συμμάχοις ὕπαιθροι σκηνοῦντες, εἰς δὲ πόλιν Ἑλληνίδα καὶ φίλην οὐδʼ ἅπαξ εἰσῆλθε μετὰ στρατοπέδου Λούκουλλος, οὕτω δὲ διακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τὰς μεγίστας ἐνέδωκαν ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥώμης οἱ δημαγωγοὶ προφάσεις, φθόνῳ τοῦ Λουκούλλου κατηγοροῦντες ὡς ὑπὸ φιλαρχίας καὶ φιλοπλουτίας ἕλκοντος τὸν πόλεμον καὶ μονονοὺ κατέχοντος ἐν ταὐτῷ Κιλικίαν, Ἀσίαν, Βιθυνίαν, Παφλαγονίαν, Γαλατίαν, Πόντον, Ἀρμενίαν, τὰ μέχρι Φάσιδος, νυνὶ δὲ καὶ τὰ Τιγράνου βασίλεια πεπορθηκότος, ὥσπερ ἐκδῦσαι τοὺς βασιλεῖς, οὐ καταπολεμῆσαι πεμφθέντος. | 33.3. 33.4. |
|
42. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scripture, roots of women’s exemption from timebound positive commandments in •tefillin, women and slaves both exempt from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 37| 3.3. "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וְהַמַּלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּתְחִלָּה הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָן אוֹסְפֵי שְׁבִיעִית, מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִין, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתָן סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אֻמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הִיא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן אֻמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הִיא, כְּשֵׁרִין: \n", | 3.3. "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]:A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.”", |
|
43. Plutarch, Pericles, 12.3-12.4, 14.1-14.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •taxes, exemption from Found in books: Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 76| 12.3. ἐδίδασκεν οὖν ὁ Περικλῆς τὸν δῆμον ὅτι χρημάτων μὲν οὐκ ὀφείλουσι τοῖς συμμάχοις λόγον προπολεμοῦντες αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἀνείργοντες, οὐχ ἵππον, οὐ ναῦν, οὐχ ὁπλίτην, ἀλλὰ χρήματα μόνον τελούντων, ἃ τῶν διδόντων οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ τῶν λαμβανόντων, ἂν παρέχωσιν ἀνθʼ οὗ λαμβάνουσι· 12.4. δεῖ δὲ τῆς πόλεως κατεσκευασμένης ἱκανῶς τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον, εἰς ταῦτα τὴν εὐπορίαν τρέπειν αὐτῆς ἀφʼ ὧν δόξα μὲν γενομένων ἀΐδιος, εὐπορία δὲ γινομένων ἑτοίμη παρέσται, παντοδαπῆς ἐργασίας φανείσης καὶ ποικίλων χρειῶν, αἳ πᾶσαν μὲν τέχνην ἐγείρουσαι, πᾶσαν δὲ χεῖρα κινοῦσαι, σχεδὸν ὅλην ποιοῦσιν ἔμμισθον τὴν πόλιν, ἐξ αὑτῆς ἅμα κοσμουμένην καὶ τρεφομένην. 14.1. τῶν δὲ περὶ τὸν Θουκυδίδην ῥητόρων καταβοώντων τοῦ Περικλέους ὡς σπαθῶντος τὰ χρήματα καὶ τὰς προσόδους ἀπολλύντος, ἠρώτησεν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ τὸν δῆμον εἰ πολλὰ δοκεῖ δεδαπανῆσθαι· φησάντων δὲ πάμπολλα· μὴ τοίνυν, εἶπεν, ὑμῖν, ἀλλʼ ἐμοὶ δεδαπανήσθω, καὶ τῶν ἀναθημάτων ἰδίαν ἐμαυτοῦ ποιήσομαι τὴν ἐπιγραφήν. 14.2. εἰπόντος οὖν ταῦτα τοῦ Περικλέους, εἴτε τὴν μεγαλοφροσύνην αὐτοῦ θαυμάσαντες εἴτε πρὸς τὴν δόξαν ἀντιφιλοτιμούμενοι τῶν ἔργων, ἀνέκραγον κελεύοντες ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων ἀναλίσκειν καὶ χορηγεῖν μηδενὸς φειδόμενον. τέλος δὲ πρὸς τὸν Θουκυδίδην εἰς ἀγῶνα περὶ τοῦ ὀστράκου καταστὰς καὶ διακινδυνεύσας ἐκεῖνον μὲν ἐξέβαλε, κατέλυσε δὲ τὴν ἀντιτεταγμένην ἑταιρείαν. | 12.3. For his part, Pericles would instruct the people that it owed no account of their moneys to the allies provided it carried on the war for them and kept off the Barbarians; not a horse do they furnish, said he, not a ship, not a hoplite, but money simply; and this belongs, not to those who give it, but to those who take it, if only they furnish that for which they take it in pay. 12.4. And it is but meet that the city, when once she is sufficiently equipped with all that is necessary for prosecuting the war, should apply her abundance to such works as, by their completion, will bring her everlasting glory, and while in process of completion will bring that abundance into actual service, in that all sorts of activity and diversified demands arise, which rouse every art and stir every hand, and bring, as it were, the whole city under pay, so that she not only adorns, but supports herself as well from her own resources. 14.1. Thucydides and his party kept denouncing Pericles for playing fast and loose with the public moneys and annihilating the revenues. Pericles therefore asked the people in assembly whether they thought he had expended too much, and on their declaring that it was altogether too much, Well then, said he, let it not have been spent on your account, but mine, and I will make the inscriptions of dedication in my own name. 14.2. When Pericles had said this, whether it was that they admired his magimity or vied with his ambition to get the glory of his works, they cried out with a loud voice and bade him take freely from the public funds for his outlays, and to spare naught whatsoever. And finally he ventured to undergo with Thucydides the contest of the ostracism, wherein he secured his rival’s banishment, 442. B.C. and the dissolution of the faction which had been arrayed against him. |
|
44. Mishnah, Sukkah, 2.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of rule, women and slaves both exempt from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 61| 2.8. "נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים, פְּטוּרִים מִן הַסֻּכָּה. קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ, חַיָּב בַּסֻּכָּה. מַעֲשֶׂה וְיָלְדָה כַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן וּפִחֵת אֶת הַמַּעֲזִיבָה וְסִכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּטָּה בִּשְׁבִיל הַקָּטָן: \n", | 2.8. "Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.", |
|
45. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.93-1.200, 1.216-1.217, 1.225, 1.244, 1.302, 1.321-1.322, 2.408, 2.438-2.440, 2.484-2.486, 4.297-4.302, 4.308, 5.238-5.247 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antipater father of herod, and caesar, antipater exempted from taxes by caesar •julius caesar, and jews, caesar exempting antipater from taxation •asia, exemption of, from military service •dionysiac artists, granted exemption from war contributions and military service •dolabella (p. cornelius), jews exempted from conscription by •hyrcanus ii, asking for exemption from military service •jewish state, exempted from military service •lucius lentulus, exemption from conscription granted by, to jews who were roman citizens •josephus, domains of, exempted from taxation by domitian •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 34, 56, 57, 77, 79, 80, 81, 150 | 1.93. 5. Yet did Alexander meet both these forces with one thousand horsemen, and eight thousand mercenaries that were on foot. He had also with him that part of the Jews which favored him, to the number of ten thousand; while the adverse party had three thousand horsemen, and fourteen thousand footmen. Now, before they joined battle, the kings made proclamation, and endeavored to draw off each other’s soldiers, and make them revolt; while Demetrius hoped to induce Alexander’s mercenaries to leave him,—and Alexander hoped to induce the Jews that were with Demetrius to leave him. 1.94. But since neither the Jews would leave off their rage, nor the Greeks prove unfaithful, they came to an engagement, and to a close fight with their weapons. 1.95. In which battle Demetrius was the conqueror, although Alexander’s mercenaries showed the greatest exploits, both in soul and body. Yet did the upshot of this battle prove different from what was expected, as to both of them; for neither did those that invited Demetrius to come to them continue firm to him, though he was conqueror; and six thousand Jews, out of pity to the change of Alexander’s condition, when he was fled to the mountains, came over to him. Yet could not Demetrius bear this turn of affairs; but supposing that Alexander was already become a match for him again, and that all the nation would [at length] run to him, he left the country, and went his way. 1.96. 6. However, the rest of the [Jewish] multitude did not lay aside their quarrels with him, when the [foreign] auxiliaries were gone; but they had a perpetual war with Alexander, until he had slain the greatest part of them, and driven the rest into the city Bemeselis; and when he had demolished that city, he carried the captives to Jerusalem. 1.97. Nay, his rage was grown so extravagant, that his barbarity proceeded to the degree of impiety; for when he had ordered eight hundred to be hung upon crosses in the midst of the city, he had the throats of their wives and children cut before their eyes; and these executions he saw as he was drinking and lying down with his concubines. 1.98. Upon which so deep a surprise seized on the people, that eight thousand of his opposers fled away the very next night, out of all Judea, whose flight was only terminated by Alexander’s death; so at last, though not till late, and with great difficulty, he, by such actions, procured quiet to his kingdom, and left off fighting any more. 1.99. 7. Yet did that Antiochus, who was also called Dionysius, become an origin of troubles again. This man was the brother of Demetrius, and the last of the race of the Seleucidae. Alexander was afraid of him, when he was marching against the Arabians; so he cut a deep trench between Antipatris, which was near the mountains, and the shores of Joppa; he also erected a high wall before the trench, and built wooden towers, in order to hinder any sudden approaches. 1.100. But still he was not able to exclude Antiochus, for he burnt the towers, and filled up the trenches, and marched on with his army. And as he looked upon taking his revenge on Alexander, for endeavoring to stop him, as a thing of less consequence, he marched directly against the Arabians, 1.101. whose king retired into such parts of the country as were fittest for engaging the enemy, and then on the sudden made his horse turn back, which were in number ten thousand, and fell upon Antiochus’s army while they were in disorder, and a terrible battle ensued. Antiochus’s troops, so long as he was alive, fought it out, although a mighty slaughter was made among them by the Arabians; 1.102. but when he fell, for he was in the forefront, in the utmost danger, in rallying his troops, they all gave ground, and the greatest part of his army were destroyed, either in the action or the flight; and for the rest, who fled to the village of Cana, it happened that they were all consumed by want of necessaries, a few only excepted. 1.103. 8. About this time it was that the people of Damascus, out of their hatred to Ptolemy, the son of Menneus, invited Aretas [to take the government], and made him king of Celesyria. This man also made an expedition against Judea, and beat Alexander in battle; but afterwards retired by mutual agreement. 1.104. But Alexander, when he had taken Pella, marched to Gerasa again, out of the covetous desire he had of Theodorus’s possessions; and when he had built a triple wall about the garrison, he took the place by force. 1.105. He also demolished Golan, and Seleucia, and what was called the Valley of Antiochus; besides which, he took the strong fortress of Gamala, and stripped Demetrius, who was governor therein, of what he had, on account of the many crimes laid to his charge, and then returned into Judea, after he had been three whole years in this expedition. And now he was kindly received of the nation, because of the good success he had. So when he was at rest from war, he fell into a distemper; 1.106. for he was afflicted with a quartan ague, and supposed that, by exercising himself again in martial affairs, he should get rid of this distemper; but by making such expeditions at unseasonable times, and forcing his body to undergo greater hardships than it was able to bear, he brought himself to his end. He died, therefore, in the midst of his troubles, after he had reigned seven and twenty years. 1.107. 1. Now Alexander left the kingdom to Alexandra his wife, and depended upon it that the Jews would now very readily submit to her, because she had been very averse to such cruelty as he had treated them with, and had opposed his violation of their laws, and had thereby got the goodwill of the people. 1.108. Nor was he mistaken as to his expectations; for this woman kept the dominion, by the opinion that the people had of her piety; for she chiefly studied the ancient customs of her country, and cast those men out of the government that offended against their holy laws. 1.109. And as she had two sons by Alexander, she made Hyrcanus the elder high priest, on account of his age, as also, besides that, on account of his inactive temper, no way disposing him to disturb the public. But she retained the younger, Aristobulus, with her as a private person, by reason of the warmth of his temper. 1.110. 2. And now the Pharisees joined themselves to her, to assist her in the government. These are a certain sect of the Jews that appear more religious than others, and seem to interpret the laws more accurately. 1.111. Now, Alexandra hearkened to them to an extraordinary degree, as being herself a woman of great piety towards God. But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra. 1.112. She was a sagacious woman in the management of great affairs, and intent always upon gathering soldiers together; so that she increased the army the one half, and procured a great body of foreign troops, till her own nation became not only very powerful at home, but terrible also to foreign potentates, while she governed other people, and the Pharisees governed her. 1.113. 3. Accordingly, they themselves slew Diogenes, a person of figure, and one that had been a friend to Alexander; and accused him as having assisted the king with his advice, for crucifying the eight hundred men [before mentioned]. They also prevailed with Alexandra to put to death the rest of those who had irritated him against them. Now, she was so superstitious as to comply with their desires, and accordingly they slew whom they pleased themselves. 1.114. But the principal of those that were in danger fled to Aristobulus, who persuaded his mother to spare the men on account of their dignity, but to expel them out of the city, unless she took them to be innocent; so they were suffered to go unpunished, and were dispersed all over the country. 1.115. But when Alexandra sent out her army to Damascus, under pretense that Ptolemy was always oppressing that city, she got possession of it; nor did it make any considerable resistance. 1.116. She also prevailed with Tigranes, king of Armenia, who lay with his troops about Ptolemais, and besieged Cleopatra, by agreements and presents, to go away. Accordingly, Tigranes soon arose from the siege, by reason of those domestic tumults which happened upon Lucullus’s expedition into Armenia. 1.117. 4. In the meantime, Alexandra fell sick, and Aristobulus, her younger son, took hold of this opportunity, with his domestics, of which he had a great many, who were all of them his friends, on account of the warmth of their youth, and got possession of all the fortresses. He also used the sums of money he found in them to get together a number of mercenary soldiers, and made himself king; 1.118. and besides this, upon Hyrcanus’s complaint to his mother, she compassionated his case, and put Aristobulus’s wife and sons under restraint in Antonia, which was a fortress that joined to the north part of the temple. It was, as I have already said, of old called the Citadel; but afterwards got the name of Antonia, when Antony was lord [of the East], just as the other cities, Sebaste and Agrippias, had their names changed, and these given them from Sebastus and Agrippa. 1.119. But Alexandra died before she could punish Aristobulus for his disinheriting his brother, after she had reigned nine years. 1.120. 1. Now Hyrcanus was heir to the kingdom, and to him did his mother commit it before she died; but Aristobulus was superior to him in power and magimity; and when there was a battle between them, to decide the dispute about the kingdom, near Jericho, the greatest part deserted Hyrcanus, and went over to Aristobulus; 1.121. but Hyrcanus, with those of his party who staid with him, fled to Antonia, and got into his power the hostages that might be for his preservation (which were Aristobulus’s wife, with her children); but they came to an agreement before things should come to extremities, that Aristobulus should be king, and Hyrcanus should resign that up, but retain all the rest of his dignities, as being the king’s brother. 1.122. Hereupon they were reconciled to each other in the temple, and embraced one another in a very kind manner, while the people stood round about them; they also changed their houses, while Aristobulus went to the royal palace, and Hyrcanus retired to the house of Aristobulus. 1.123. 2. Now, those other people which were at variance with Aristobulus were afraid upon his unexpected obtaining the government; and especially this concerned Antipater whom Aristobulus hated of old. He was by birth an Idumean, and one of the principal of that nation, on account of his ancestors and riches, and other authority to him belonging: 1.124. he also persuaded Hyrcanus to fly to Aretas, the king of Arabia, and to lay claim to the kingdom; as also he persuaded Aretas to receive Hyrcanus, and to bring him back to his kingdom: he also cast great reproaches upon Aristobulus, as to his morals, and gave great commendations to Hyrcanus, and exhorted Aretas to receive him, and told him how becoming a thing it would be for him, who ruled so great a kingdom, to afford his assistance to such as are injured; alleging that Hyrcanus was treated unjustly, by being deprived of that dominion which belonged to him by the prerogative of his birth. 1.125. And when he had predisposed them both to do what he would have them, he took Hyrcanus by night, and ran away from the city, and, continuing his flight with great swiftness, he escaped to the place called Petra, which is the royal seat of the king of Arabia, 1.126. where he put Hyrcanus into Aretas’s hand; and by discoursing much with him, and gaining upon him with many presents, he prevailed with him to give him an army that might restore him to his kingdom. This army consisted of fifty thousand footmen and horsemen, against which Aristobulus was not able to make resistance, but was deserted in his first onset, and was driven to Jerusalem; 1.127. he also had been taken at first by force, if Scaurus, the Roman general, had not come and seasonably interposed himself, and raised the siege. This Scaurus was sent into Syria from Armenia by Pompey the Great, when he fought against Tigranes; so Scaurus came to Damascus, which had been lately taken by Metellus and Lollius, and caused them to leave the place; and, upon his hearing how the affairs of Judea stood, he made haste thither as to a certain booty. 1.128. 3. As soon, therefore, as he was come into the country, there came ambassadors from both the brothers, each of them desiring his assistance; but Aristobulus’s three hundred talents had more weight with him than the justice of the cause; which sum, when Scaurus had received, he sent a herald to Hyrcanus and the Arabians, and threatened them with the resentment of the Romans and of Pompey, unless they would raise the siege. 1.129. So Aretas was terrified, and retired out of Judea to Philadelphia, as did Scaurus return to Damascus again; 1.130. nor was Aristobulus satisfied with escaping [out of his brother’s hands,] but gathered all his forces together, and pursued his enemies, and fought them at a place called Papyron, and slew about six thousand of them, and, together with them Antipater’s brother Phalion. 1.131. 4. When Hyrcanus and Antipater were thus deprived of their hopes from the Arabians, they transferred the same to their adversaries; and because Pompey had passed through Syria, and was come to Damascus, they fled to him for assistance; and, without any bribes, they made the same equitable pleas that they had used to Aretas, and besought him to hate the violent behavior of Aristobulus, and to bestow the kingdom on him to whom it justly belonged, both on account of his good character and on account of his superiority in age. 1.132. However, neither was Aristobulus wanting to himself in this case, as relying on the bribes that Scaurus had received: he was also there himself, and adorned himself after a manner the most agreeable to royalty that he was able. But he soon thought it beneath him to come in such a servile manner, and could not endure to serve his own ends in a way so much more abject than he was used to; so he departed from Diospolis. 1.133. 5. At this his behavior Pompey had great indignation; Hyrcanus also and his friends made great intercessions to Pompey; so he took not only his Roman forces, but many of his Syrian auxiliaries, and marched against Aristobulus. 1.134. But when he had passed by Pella and Scythopolis, and was come to Corea, where you enter into the country of Judea, when you go up to it through the Mediterranean parts, he heard that Aristobulus was fled to Alexandrium, which is a stronghold, fortified with the utmost magnificence and situated upon a high mountain; and he sent to him, and commanded him to come down. 1.135. Now his inclination was to try his fortune in a battle, since he was called in such an imperious manner, rather than to comply with that call. However, he saw the multitude were in great fear, and his friends exhorted him to consider what the power of the Romans was, and how it was irresistible; so he complied with their advice, and came down to Pompey; and when he had made a long apology for himself, and for the justness of his cause in taking the government, he returned to the fortress. 1.136. And when his brother invited him again [to plead his cause], he came down and spake about the justice of it, and then went away without any hinderance from Pompey; so he was between hope and fear. And when he came down, it was to prevail with Pompey to allow him the government entirely; and when he went up to the citadel, it was that he might not appear to debase himself too low. 1.137. However, Pompey commanded him to give up his fortified places, and forced him to write to every one of their governors to yield them up; they having had this charge given them, to obey no letters but what were of his own handwriting. Accordingly he did what he was ordered to do; but had still an indignation at what was done, and retired to Jerusalem, and prepared to fight with Pompey. 1.138. 6. But Pompey did not give him time to make any preparations [for a siege], but followed him at his heels; he was also obliged to make haste in his attempt, by the death of Mithridates, of which he was informed about Jericho. Now here is the most fruitful country of Judea, which bears a vast number of palm trees besides the balsam tree, whose sprouts they cut with sharp stones, and at the incisions they gather the juice, which drops down like tears. 1.139. So Pompey pitched his camp in that place one night, and then hasted away the next morning to Jerusalem; but Aristobulus was so affrighted at his approach, that he came and met him by way of supplication. He also promised him money, and that he would deliver up both himself and the city into his disposal, and thereby mitigated the anger of Pompey. 1.140. Yet did not he perform any of the conditions he had agreed to; for Aristobulus’s party would not so much as admit Gabinius into the city, who was sent to receive the money that he had promised. 1.141. 1. At this treatment Pompey was very angry, and took Aristobulus into custody. And when he was come to the city, he looked about where he might make his attack; for he saw the walls were so firm, that it would be hard to overcome them; and that the valley before the walls was terrible; and that the temple, which was within that valley, was itself encompassed with a very strong wall, insomuch that if the city were taken, the temple would be a second place of refuge for the enemy to retire to. 1.142. 2. Now, as he was long in deliberating about this matter, a sedition arose among the people within the city; Aristobulus’s party being willing to fight, and to set their king at liberty, while the party of Hyrcanus were for opening the gates to Pompey; and the dread people were in occasioned these last to be a very numerous party, when they looked upon the excellent order the Roman soldiers were in. 1.143. So Aristobulus’s party was worsted, and retired into the temple, and cut off the communication between the temple and the city, by breaking down the bridge that joined them together, and prepared to make an opposition to the utmost; but as the others had received the Romans into the city, and had delivered up the palace to him, Pompey sent Piso, one of his great officers, into that palace with an army, 1.144. who distributed a garrison about the city, because he could not persuade anyone of those that had fled to the temple to come to terms of accommodation; he then disposed all things that were round about them so as might favor their attacks, as having Hyrcanus’s party very ready to afford them both counsel and assistance. 1.145. 3. But Pompey himself filled up the ditch that was on the north side of the temple, and the entire valley also, the army itself being obliged to carry the materials for that purpose. And indeed it was a hard thing to fill up that valley, by reason of its immense depth, especially as the Jews used all the means possible to repel them from their superior station; 1.146. nor had the Romans succeeded in their endeavors, had not Pompey taken notice of the seventh days, on which the Jews abstain from all sorts of work on a religious account, and raised his bank, but restrained his soldiers from fighting on those days; for the Jews only acted defensively on Sabbath days. 1.147. But as soon as Pompey had filled up the valley, he erected high towers upon the bank, and brought those engines which they had fetched from Tyre near to the wall, and tried to batter it down; and the slingers of stones beat off those that stood above them, and drove them away; but the towers on this side of the city made very great resistance, and were indeed extraordinary both for largeness and magnificence. 1.148. 4. Now, here it was that, upon the many hardships which the Romans underwent, Pompey could not but admire not only at the other instances of the Jews’ fortitude, but especially that they did not at all intermit their religious services, even when they were encompassed with darts on all sides; for, as if the city were in full peace, their daily sacrifices and purifications, and every branch of their religious worship, was still performed to God with the utmost exactness. Nor indeed when the temple was actually taken, and they were every day slain about the altar, did they leave off the instances of their Divine worship that were appointed by their law; 1.149. for it was in the third month of the siege before the Romans could even with great difficulty overthrow one of the towers, and get into the temple. Now he that first of all ventured to get over the wall, was Faustus Cornelius the son of Sylla; and next after him were two centurions, Furius and Fabius; and every one of these was followed by a cohort of his own, who encompassed the Jews on all sides, and slew them, some of them as they were running for shelter to the temple, and others as they, for a while, fought in their own defense. 1.150. 5. And now did many of the priests, even when they saw their enemies assailing them with swords in their hands, without any disturbance, go on with their Divine worship, and were slain while they were offering their drink-offerings, and burning their incense, as preferring the duties about their worship to God before their own preservation. The greatest part of them were slain by their own countrymen, of the adverse faction, and an innumerable multitude threw themselves down precipices; nay, some there were who were so distracted among the insuperable difficulties they were under, that they set fire to the buildings that were near to the wall, and were burnt together with them. 1.151. Now of the Jews were slain twelve thousand; but of the Romans very few were slain, but a greater number was wounded. 1.152. 6. But there was nothing that affected the nation so much, in the calamities they were then under, as that their holy place, which had been hitherto seen by none, should be laid open to strangers; for Pompey, and those that were about him, went into the temple itself whither it was not lawful for any to enter but the high priest, and saw what was reposited therein, the candlestick with its lamps, and the table, and the pouring vessels, and the censers, all made entirely of gold, as also a great quantity of spices heaped together, with two thousand talents of sacred money. 1.153. Yet did not he touch that money, nor any thing else that was there reposited; but he commanded the ministers about the temple, the very next day after he had taken it, to cleanse it, and to perform their accustomed sacrifices. Moreover, he made Hyrcanus high priest, as one that not only in other respects had showed great alacrity, on his side, during the siege, but as he had been the means of hindering the multitude that was in the country from fighting for Aristobulus, which they were otherwise very ready to have done; by which means he acted the part of a good general, and reconciled the people to him more by benevolence than by terror. 1.154. Now, among the captives, Aristobulus’s father-in-law was taken, who was also his uncle: so those that were the most guilty he punished with decollation; but rewarded Faustus, and those with him that had fought so bravely, with glorious presents, and laid a tribute upon the country, and upon Jerusalem itself. 1.155. 7. He also took away from the nation all those cities that they had formerly taken, and that belonged to Celesyria, and made them subject to him that was at that time appointed to be the Roman president there; and reduced Judea within its proper bounds. He also rebuilt Gadara, that had been demolished by the Jews, in order to gratify one Demetrius, who was of Gadara, 1.156. and was one of his own freedmen. He also made other cities free from their dominion, that lay in the midst of the country,—such, I mean, as they had not demolished before that time; Hippos, and Scythopolis, as also Pella, and Samaria, and Marissa; and besides these Ashdod, and Jamnia, and Arethusa; and in like manner dealt he with the maritime cities, Gaza, and Joppa, and Dora, and that which was anciently called Strato’s Tower, but was afterward rebuilt with the most magnificent edifices, and had its name changed to Caesarea, by king Herod. 1.157. All which he restored to their own citizens, and put them under the province of Syria; which province, together with Judea, and the countries as far as Egypt and Euphrates, he committed to Scaurus as their governor, and gave him two legions to support him; while he made all the haste he could himself to go through Cilicia, in his way to Rome, having Aristobulus and his children along with him as his captives. 1.158. They were two daughters and two sons; the one of which sons, Alexander, ran away as he was going; but the younger, Antigonus, with his sisters, were carried to Rome. 1.159. 1. In the meantime, Scaurus made an expedition into Arabia, but was stopped by the difficulty of the places about Petra. However, he laid waste the country about Pella, though even there he was under great hardship; for his army was afflicted with famine. In order to supply which want, Hyrcanus afforded him some assistance, and sent him provisions by the means of Antipater; whom also Scaurus sent to Aretas, as one well acquainted with him, to induce him to pay him money to buy his peace. The king of Arabia complied with the proposal, and gave him three hundred talents; upon which Scaurus drew his army out of Arabia. 1.160. 2. But as for Alexander, that son of Aristobulus who ran away from Pompey, in some time he got a considerable band of men together, and lay heavy upon Hyrcanus, and overran Judea, and was likely to overturn him quickly; and indeed he had come to Jerusalem, and had ventured to rebuild its wall that was thrown down by Pompey, had not Gabinius, who was sent as successor to Scaurus into Syria, showed his bravery, as in many other points, so in making an expedition against Alexander; 1.161. who, as he was afraid that he would attack him, so he got together a large army, composed of ten thousand armed footmen, and fifteen hundred horsemen. He also built walls about proper places; Alexandrium, and Hyrcanium, and Macherus, that lay upon the mountains of Arabia. 1.162. 3. However, Gabinius sent before him Marcus Antonius, and followed himself with his whole army; but for the select body of soldiers that were about Antipater, and another body of Jews under the command of Malichus and Pitholaus, these joined themselves to those captains that were about Marcus Antonius, and met Alexander; to which body came Gabinius with his main army soon afterward; 1.163. and as Alexander was not able to sustain the charge of the enemies’ forces, now they were joined, he retired. But when he was come near to Jerusalem, he was forced to fight, and lost six thousand men in the battle; three thousand of whom fell down dead, and three thousand were taken alive; so he fled with the remainder to Alexandrium. 1.164. 4. Now, when Gabinius was come to Alexandrium, because he found a great many there encamped, he tried, by promising them pardon for their former offenses, to induce them to come over to him before it came to a fight; but when they would hearken to no terms of accommodation, he slew a great number of them, and shut up a great number of them in the citadel. 1.165. Now Marcus Antonius, their leader, signalized himself in this battle, who, as he always showed great courage, so did he never show it so much as now; but Gabinius, leaving forces to take the citadel, went away himself, and settled the cities that had not been demolished, and rebuilt those that had been destroyed. 1.166. Accordingly, upon his injunction, the following cities were restored;—Scythopolis, Samaria, Anthedon, Apollonia, Jamnia, Raphia, Marissa, Adoreus, Gamala, Ashdod, and many others; while a great number of men readily ran to each of them, and became their inhabitants. 1.167. 5. When Gabinius had taken care of these cities, he returned to Alexandrium, and pressed on the siege. So when Alexander despaired of ever obtaining the government, he sent ambassadors to him, and prayed him to forgive what he had offended him in, and gave up to him the remaining fortresses, Hyrcanium and Macherus, as he put Alexandrium into his hands afterwards: 1.168. all which Gabinius demolished, at the persuasion of Alexander’s mother, that they might not be receptacles of men in a second war. She was now there in order to mollify Gabinius, out of her concern for her relations that were captives at Rome, which were her husband and her other children. 1.169. After this Gabinius brought Hyrcanus to Jerusalem, and committed the care of the temple to him; but ordained the other political government to be by an aristocracy. 1.170. He also parted the whole nation into five conventions, assigning one portion to Jerusalem, another to Gadara, that another should belong to Amathus, a fourth to Jericho, and to the fifth division was allotted Sepphoris, a city of Galilee. So the people were glad to be thus freed from monarchical government, and were governed for the future by an aristocracy. 1.171. 6. Yet did Aristobulus afford another foundation for new disturbances. He fled away from Rome, and got together again many of the Jews that were desirous of a change, such as had borne an affection to him of old; and when he had taken Alexandrium in the first place, he attempted to build a wall about it; but as soon as Gabinius had sent an army against him under Sisenna, Antonius, and Servilius, he was aware of it, and retreated to Macherus. 1.172. And as for the unprofitable multitude, he dismissed them, and only marched on with those that were armed, being to the number of eight thousand, among whom was Pitholaus, who had been the lieutet at Jerusalem, but deserted to Aristobulus with a thousand of his men; so the Romans followed him, and when it came to a battle, Aristobulus’s party for a long time fought courageously; but at length they were overborne by the Romans, and of them five thousand fell dead, and about two thousand fled to a certain little hill, but the thousand that remained with Aristobulus broke through the Roman army, and marched together to Macherus; 1.173. and when the king had lodged the first night upon its ruins, he was in hopes of raising another army, if the war would but cease a while; accordingly, he fortified that stronghold, though it was done after a poor manner. But the Romans falling upon him, he resisted, even beyond his abilities, for two days, and then was taken, and brought a prisoner to Gabinius, with Antigonus his son, who had fled away together with him from Rome; and from Gabinius he was carried to Rome again. 1.174. Wherefore the senate put him under confinement, but returned his children back to Judea, because Gabinius informed them by letters that he had promised Aristobulus’s mother to do so, for her delivering the fortresses up to him. 1.175. 7. But now as Gabinius was marching to the war against the Parthians, he was hindered by Ptolemy, whom, upon his return from Euphrates, he brought back into Egypt, making use of Hyrcanus and Antipater to provide everything that was necessary for this expedition; for Antipater furnished him with money, and weapons, and corn, and auxiliaries; he also prevailed with the Jews that were there, and guarded the avenues at Pelusium, to let them pass. 1.176. But now, upon Gabinius’s absence, the other part of Syria was in motion, and Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, brought the Jews to revolt again. Accordingly, he got together a very great army, and set about killing all the Romans that were in the country; 1.177. hereupon Gabinius was afraid (for he was come back already out of Egypt, and obliged to come back quickly by these tumults), and sent Antipater, who prevailed with some of the revolters to be quiet. However, thirty thousand still continued with Alexander, who was himself eager to fight also; accordingly, Gabinius went out to fight, when the Jews met him; and as the battle was fought near Mount Tabor, ten thousand of them were slain, and the rest of the multitude dispersed themselves, and fled away. 1.178. So Gabinius came to Jerusalem, and settled the government as Antipater would have it; thence he marched, and fought and beat the Nabateans: as for Mithridates and Orsanes, who fled out of Parthia, he sent them away privately, but gave it out among the soldiers that they had run away. 1.179. 8. In the meantime, Crassus came as successor to Gabinius in Syria. He took away all the rest of the gold belonging to the temple of Jerusalem, in order to furnish himself for his expedition against the Parthians. He also took away the two thousand talents which Pompey had not touched; but when he had passed over Euphrates, he perished himself, and his army with him; concerning which affairs this is not a proper time to speak [more largely]. 1.180. 9. But now Cassius, after Crassus, put a stop to the Parthians, who were marching in order to enter Syria. Cassius had fled into that province, and when he had taken possession of the same, he made a hasty march into Judea; and, upon his taking Taricheae, he carried thirty thousand Jews into slavery. He also slew Pitholaus, who had supported the seditious followers of Aristobulus; and it was Antipater who advised him so to do. 1.181. Now this Antipater married a wife of an eminent family among the Arabians, whose name was Cypros, and had four sons born to him by her, Phasaelus and Herod, who was afterwards king, and, besides these, Joseph and Pheroras; and he had a daughter whose name was Salome. Now, as he made himself friends among the men of power everywhere, by the kind offices he did them, and the hospitable manner that he treated them; so did he contract the greatest friendship with the king of Arabia, by marrying his relation; insomuch that when he made war with Aristobulus, he sent and intrusted his children with him. 1.182. So when Cassius had forced Alexander to come to terms and to be quiet, he returned to Euphrates, in order to prevent the Parthians from repassing it; concerning which matter we shall speak elsewhere. 1.183. 1. Now, upon the flight of Pompey and of the senate beyond the Ionian Sea, Caesar got Rome and the empire under his power, and released Aristobulus from his bonds. He also committed two legions to him, and sent him in haste into Syria, as hoping that by his means he should easily conquer that country, and the parts adjoining to Judea. 1.184. But envy prevented any effect of Aristobulus’s alacrity, and the hopes of Caesar; for he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey’s party; and, for a long while, he had not so much as a burial vouchsafed him in his own country; but his dead body lay [above ground], preserved in honey, until it was sent to the Jews by Antony, in order to be buried in the royal sepulchres. 1.185. 2. His son Alexander also was beheaded by Scipio at Antioch, and that by the command of Pompey, and upon an accusation laid against him before his tribunal, for the mischiefs he had done to the Romans. But Ptolemy, the son of Menneus, who was then ruler of Chalcis, under Libanus, took his brethren to him by sending his son Philippio for them to Ascalon, 1.186. who took Antigonus, as well as his sisters, away from Aristobulus’s wife, and brought them to his father; and falling in love with the younger daughter, he married her, and was afterwards slain by his father on her account; for Ptolemy himself, after he had slain his son, married her, whose name was Alexandra; on the account of which marriage he took the greater care of her brother and sister. 1.187. 3. Now, after Pompey was dead, Antipater changed sides, and cultivated a friendship with Caesar. And since Mithridates of Pergamus, with the forces he led against Egypt, was excluded from the avenues about Pelusium, and was forced to stay at Ascalon, he persuaded the Arabians, among whom he had lived, to assist him, and came himself to him, at the head of three thousand armed men. 1.188. He also encouraged the men of power in Syria to come to his assistance, as also of the inhabitants of Libanus, Ptolemy, and Jamblicus, and another Ptolemy; by which means the cities of that country came readily into this war; 1.189. insomuch that Mithridates ventured now, in dependence upon the additional strength that he had gotten by Antipater, to march forward to Pelusium; and when they refused him a passage through it, he besieged the city; in the attack of which place Antipater principally signalized himself, for he brought down that part of the wall which was over against him, and leaped first of all into the city, with the men that were about him. 1.190. 4. Thus was Pelusium taken. But still, as they were marching on, those Egyptian Jews that inhabited the country called the country of Onias stopped them. Then did Antipater not only persuade them not to stop them, but to afford provisions for their army; on which account even the people about Memphis would not fight against them, but of their own accord joined Mithridates. 1.191. Whereupon he went round about Delta, and fought the rest of the Egyptians at a place called the Jews’ Camp; nay, when he was in danger in the battle with all his right wing, Antipater wheeled about, and came along the bank of the river to him; 1.192. for he had beaten those that opposed him as he led the left wing. After which success he fell upon those that pursued Mithridates, and slew a great many of them, and pursued the remainder so far that he took their camp, while he lost no more than fourscore of his own men; as Mithridates lost, during the pursuit that was made after him, about eight hundred. He was also himself saved unexpectedly, and became an unreproachable witness to Caesar of the great actions of Antipater. 1.193. 5. Whereupon Caesar encouraged Antipater to undertake other hazardous enterprises for him, and that by giving him great commendations and hopes of reward. In all which enterprises he readily exposed himself to many dangers, and became a most courageous warrior; and had many wounds almost all over his body, as demonstrations of his valor. 1.194. And when Caesar had settled the affairs of Egypt, and was returning into Syria again, he gave him the privilege of a Roman citizen, and freedom from taxes, and rendered him an object of admiration by the honors and marks of friendship he bestowed upon him. On this account it was that he also confirmed Hyrcanus in the high priesthood. 1.195. 1. About this time it was that Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, came to Caesar, and became, in a surprising manner, the occasion of Antipater’s further advancement; for whereas he ought to have lamented that his father appeared to have been poisoned on account of his quarrels with Pompey, and to have complained of Scipio’s barbarity towards his brother, and not to mix any invidious passion when he was suing for mercy; besides those things, he came before Caesar, and accused Hyrcanus and Antipater, 1.196. how they had driven him and his brethren entirely out of their native country, and had acted in a great many instances unjustly and extravagantly with regard to their nation; and that as to the assistance they had sent him into Egypt, it was not done out of goodwill to him, but out of the fear they were in from former quarrels, and in order to gain pardon for their friendship to [his enemy] Pompey. 1.197. 2. Hereupon Antipater threw away his garments, and showed the multitude of the wounds he had, and said, that as to his goodwill to Caesar, he had no occasion to say a word, because his body cried aloud, though he said nothing himself; 1.198. that he wondered at Antigonus’s boldness, while he was himself no other than the son of an enemy to the Romans, and of a fugitive, and had it by inheritance from his father to be fond of innovations and seditions, that he should undertake to accuse other men before the Roman governor, and endeavor to gain some advantages to himself, when he ought to be contented that he was suffered to live; for that the reason of his desire of governing public affairs was not so much because he was in want of it, but because, if he could once obtain the same, he might stir up a sedition among the Jews, and use what he should gain from the Romans to the disservice of those that gave it to him. 1.199. 3. When Caesar heard this, he declared Hyrcanus to be the most worthy of the high priesthood, and gave leave to Antipater to choose what authority he pleased; but he left the determination of such dignity to him that bestowed the dignity upon him; so he was constituted procurator of all Judea, and obtained leave, moreover, to rebuild those walls of his country that had been thrown down. 1.200. These honorary grants Caesar sent orders to have engraved in the Capitol, that they might stand there as indications of his own justice, and of the virtue of Antipater. 1.216. 10. In the meantime, there was a disturbance among the Romans about Apamia, and a civil war occasioned by the treacherous slaughter of Sextus Caesar, by Cecilius Bassus, which he perpetrated out of his goodwill to Pompey; he also took the authority over his forces; but as the rest of Caesar’s commanders attacked Bassus with their whole army, in order to punish him for the murder of Caesar, 1.217. Antipater also sent them assistance by his sons, both on account of him that was murdered, and on account of that Caesar who was still alive, both of which were their friends; and as this war grew to be of a considerable length, Marcus came out of Italy as successor to Sextus. 1.225. 4. Upon the war between Cassius and Brutus on one side, against the younger Caesar [Augustus] and Antony on the other, Cassius and Marcus got together an army out of Syria; and because Herod was likely to have a great share in providing necessaries, they then made him procurator of all Syria, and gave him an army of foot and horse. Cassius promised him also, that after the war was over, he would make him king of Judea. 1.244. When Antony had heard both sides, he asked Hyrcanus which party was the fittest to govern, who replied that Herod and his party were the fittest. Antony was glad of that answer, for he had been formerly treated in an hospitable and obliging manner by his father Antipater, when he marched into Judea with Gabinius; so he constituted the brethren tetrarchs, and committed to them the government of Judea. 1.302. while the Romans fell upon the rest of the city, and plundered it, having found the houses full of all sorts of good things. So the king left a garrison at Jericho, and came back, and sent the Roman army into those cities which were come over to him, to take their winter quarters there, viz., into Judea [or Idumea], and Galilee, and Samaria. Antigonus also, by bribes, obtained of Silo to let a part of his army be received at Lydda, as a compliment to Antonius. 1.321. However, Herod did not desist from his resolution of going to Antony; but when he heard that he was besieging Samosata with a great army, which is a strong city near to Euphrates, he made the greater haste; as observing that this was a proper opportunity for showing at once his courage, and for doing what would greatly oblige Antony. 1.322. Indeed, when he came, he soon made an end of that siege, and slew a great number of the barbarians, and took from them a large prey; insomuch that Antony, who admired his courage formerly, did now admire it still more. Accordingly, he heaped many more honors upon him, and gave him more assured hopes that he should gain his kingdom; and now king Antiochus was forced to deliver up Samosata. 2.408. 2. And at this time it was that some of those that principally excited the people to go to war made an assault upon a certain fortress called Masada. They took it by treachery, and slew the Romans that were there, and put others of their own party to keep it. 2.438. but the Romans that were left alone were greatly dejected, for they were not able to force their way through such a multitude; and to desire them to give them their right hand for their security, they thought it would be a reproach to them; and besides, if they should give it them, they durst not depend upon it; 2.439. o they deserted their camp, as easily taken, and ran away to the royal towers,—that called Hippicus, that called Phasaelus, and that called Mariamne. 2.440. But Manahem and his party fell upon the place whence the soldiers were fled, and slew as many of them as they could catch, before they got up to the towers, and plundered what they left behind them, and set fire to their camp. This was executed on the sixth day of the month Gorpieus [Elul]. 2.484. But as to the seditious, they took the citadel which was called Cypros, and was above Jericho, and cut the throats of the garrison, and utterly demolished the fortifications. 2.485. This was about the same time that the multitude of the Jews that were at Macherus persuaded the Romans who were in garrison to leave the place, and deliver it up to them. 2.486. These Romans being in great fear, lest the place should be taken by force, made an agreement with them to depart upon certain conditions; and when they had obtained the security they desired, they delivered up the citadel, into which the people of Macherus put a garrison for their own security, and held it in their own power. 4.297. which indeed was done upon other nights, but was omitted that night, not by reason of any slothfulness of Aus, but by the overbearing appointment of fate, that so both he might himself perish, and the multitude of the guards might perish with him; 4.298. for truly, as the night was far gone, and the storm very terrible, Aus gave the guards in the cloisters leave to go to sleep; while it came into the heads of the zealots to make use of the saws belonging to the temple, and to cut the bars of the gates to pieces. 4.299. The noise of the wind, and that not inferior sound of the thunder, did here also conspire with their designs, that the noise of the saws was not heard by the others. 4.300. 7. So they secretly went out of the temple to the wall of the city, and made use of their saws, and opened that gate which was over against the Idumeans. 4.301. Now at first there came a fear upon the Idumeans themselves, which disturbed them, as imagining that Aus and his party were coming to attack them, so that every one of them had his right hand upon his sword, in order to defend himself; but they soon came to know who they were that came to them, and were entered the city. 4.302. And had the Idumeans then fallen upon the city, nothing could have hindered them from destroying the people, every man of them, such was the rage they were in at that time; but as they first of all made haste to get the zealots out of custody, which those that brought them in earnestly desired them to do, and not to overlook those for whose sake they were come, in the midst of their distresses, nor to bring them into a still greater danger; 4.308. and the greatest part of them laid aside their arms, together with their courage, and betook themselves to lamentations. But some few of the younger sort covered themselves with their armor, and valiantly received the Idumeans, and for a while protected the multitude of old men. 5.238. 8. Now, as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magimity. 5.239. In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that anyone who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be able to hold his feet upon it. 5.240. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height of forty cubits. 5.241. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. 5.242. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; 5.243. but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard 5.244. (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; 5.245. for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three. There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod’s palace; 5.246. but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower of Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the temple on the north. 5.247. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere. |
|
| 46. Josephus Flavius, Life, 429, 423 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 150 |
47. Mishnah, Eruvin, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •shimon, r., on women’s exemption from tzitzit •scripture, roots of women’s exemption from timebound positive commandments in Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 40| 10.1. "הַמּוֹצֵא תְפִלִּין, מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שְׁנַיִם שְׁנָיִם. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּישָׁנוֹת, אֲבָל בַּחֲדָשׁוֹת, פָּטוּר. מְצָאָן צְבָתִים אוֹ כְרִיכוֹת, מַחְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וּמְבִיאָן. וּבַסַּכָּנָה, מְכַסָּן וְהוֹלֵךְ לוֹ: \n", | 10.1. "One who finds tefillin should bring them in one pair at a time. Rabban Gamaliel says: two pairs at a time. To what does this apply? To old ones but in the case of new ones he is exempt. If he found them arranged in a set or in bundles he shall wait by them until it is dark and then bring them in. In a time of danger, he should cover them and walk away.", |
|
48. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •transmission of rule, women and slaves both exempt from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 61| 1.1. "הַכֹּל חַיָּבִין בָּרְאִיָּה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְטֻמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, וְנָשִׁים, וַעֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵינָם מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, הַחִגֵּר, וְהַסּוּמָא, וְהַחוֹלֶה, וְהַזָּקֵן, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת בְּרַגְלָיו. אֵיזֶהוּ קָטָן, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִרְכּוֹב עַל כְּתֵפָיו שֶׁל אָבִיו וְלַעֲלוֹת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֶאֱחֹז בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו וְלַעֲלוֹת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים: \n", | 1.1. "All are obligated to appear [at the Temple], except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor, a person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women, unfreed slaves, a lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot. Who is a minor? Whoever is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel say: whoever is unable to hold his father’s hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said: “Three regalim” (Exodus 23:14).", |
|
49. Mishnah, Keritot, 6.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, women’s exemption from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 185| 6.9. "רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כְּבָשִׂים קוֹדְמִין לָעִזִּים בְּכָל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מֻבְחָרִין מֵהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (ויקרא ד), וְאִם כֶּבֶשׂ יָבִיא קָרְבָּנוֹ לְחַטָּאת, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִין. תּוֹרִין קוֹדְמִין לִבְנֵי יוֹנָה בְכָל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מֻבְחָרִים מֵהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם יב), וּבֶן יוֹנָה אוֹ תֹר לְחַטָּאת, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן שְׁקוּלִין. הָאָב קוֹדֵם לָאֵם בְּכָל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל שֶׁכְּבוֹד הָאָב עוֹדֵף עַל כְּבוֹד הָאֵם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם יט), אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִים. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, הָאָב קוֹדֵם לָאֵם בְּכָל מָקוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּבִין בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיו. וְכֵן בְּתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, אִם זָכָה הַבֵּן לִפְנֵי הָרַב, קוֹדֵם אֶת הָאָב בְּכָל מָקוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא וְאָבִיו חַיָּבִין בִּכְבוֹד רַבּוֹ: \n", | 6.9. "Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.", |
|
50. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 1.7-1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •shimon, r., on women’s exemption from tzitzit •torah study, women’s exemption from •scripture, roots of women’s exemption from timebound positive commandments in •tefillin, women and slaves both exempt from •transmission of rule, women and slaves both exempt from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 37, 60, 109, 110, 187, 215, 216| 1.7. "כָּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין, חוּץ מִבַּל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תִּטַּמָּא לְמֵתִים: \n", 1.8. "הַסְּמִיכוֹת, וְהַתְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַהַגָּשׁוֹת, וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת, וְהַהַקְטָרוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת, וְהַהַזָּאוֹת, וְהַקַּבָּלוֹת, נוֹהֲגִין בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְנָשִׁים, חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת סוֹטָה וּנְזִירָה, שֶׁהֵן מְנִיפוֹת: \n", | 1.7. "All obligations of the son upon the father, men are obligated, but women are exempt. But all obligations of the father upon the son, both men and women are obligated. All positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt. But all positive non-time-bound commandments both men and women are obligated. And all negative commandments, whether time-bound or not time-bound, both men and women are obligated, except for, the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head], and the prohibition against marring [the corner of the beard], and the prohibition [for a priest] to become impure through contact with the dead.", 1.8. "The [rites of] laying hands, waving, presenting [the meal-offering], taking the handful, burning [the fat], cutting [the neck of bird sacrifices], sprinkling and receiving [the blood] are performed by men but not by women, except the meal-offering of a sotah and a female nazirite, where they [themselves] wave the offering.", |
|
51. Mishnah, Nedarim, 4.2-4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, women’s exemption from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 180| 4.2. "הַמֻּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, שׁוֹקֵל אֶת שִׁקְלוֹ, וּפוֹרֵעַ אֶת חוֹבוֹ, וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת אֲבֵדָתוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר, תִּפֹּל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ: \n", 4.3. "וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעַשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ. וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִנֵּי זָבִין, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ, הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא. אֲבָל מְלַמֵּד הוּא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו מִקְרָא, וְזָן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם. וְלֹא יָזוּן אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, זָן אֶת הַטְּמֵאָה, וְאֵינוֹ זָן אֶת הַטְּהוֹרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַה בֵּין טְמֵאָה לִטְהוֹרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן, שֶׁהַטְּהוֹרָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וּטְמֵאָה נַפְשָׁהּ וְגוּפָהּ לַשָּׁמָיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף הַטְּמֵאָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה, הֲרֵי הוּא מוֹכְרָהּ לְגוֹיִם אוֹ מַאֲכִילָהּ לִכְלָבִים: \n", | 4.2. "If one is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbor, [his neighbor] may pay his shekel, pay off his debts, and return a lost article to him. Where payment is taken for this, the benefit should become sacred property.", 4.3. "He may donate his terumah and his tithes with his consent. He may offer up for him the bird sacrifices of zavim and zavoth and the bird sacrifices of women after childbirth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. He may teach him midrash, halakhoth and aggadoth, but not Scripture, yet he may teach his sons and daughters Scripture And he may support his wife and children, even though he is liable for their maintece. But he may not feed his beasts, whether clean or unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may feed an unclean beast of his, but not a clean one. They said to him: what is the difference between an unclean and a clean beast? He replied to them, a clean beast, its life belongs to heaven, but its body is his own; but an unclean animal its body and life belongs to heaven. They said to him: The life of an unclean beast too belongs to heaven and the body is his own for if he wishes, he can sell it to a non-Jew or feed dogs with it.", |
|
52. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scripture, roots of women’s exemption from timebound positive commandments in •tefillin, women and slaves both exempt from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 37| 1.8. "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וּמַלְוֵי בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וַעֲבָדִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְשֵׁרָה לָהּ, אַף הֵן אֵינָן כְּשֵׁרִים לָהּ: \n", | 1.8. "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.", |
|
53. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4, 3.8, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 60, 180, 181, 183; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 43| 3.4. "אֵינָהּ מַסְפֶּקֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עַד שֶׁפָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת וְעֵינֶיהָ בּוֹלְטוֹת וְהִיא מִתְמַלֵּאת גִּידִין, וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים הוֹצִיאוּהָ הוֹצִיאוּהָ, שֶׁלֹּא תְטַמֵּא הָעֲזָרָה. אִם יֶשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת, הָיְתָה תוֹלָה לָהּ. יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁנָה אַחַת, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים. מִכָּאן אוֹמֵר בֶּן עַזַּאי, חַיָּב אָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, שֶׁאִם תִּשְׁתֶּה, תֵּדַע שֶׁהַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה לָהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ מְלַמְּדָהּ תִּפְלוּת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה בְקַב וְתִפְלוּת מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּפְרִישׁוּת. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה, וְרָשָׁע עָרוּם, וְאִשָּׁה פְרוּשָׁה, וּמַכּוֹת פְּרוּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְכַלֵּי עוֹלָם: \n", 3.8. "מַה בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה. הָאִישׁ פּוֹרֵעַ וּפוֹרֵם, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה פוֹרַעַת וּפוֹרֶמֶת. הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ. הָאִישׁ מוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מוֹכֶרֶת אֶת בִּתָּהּ. הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְקַדֶּשֶׁת אֶת בִּתָּהּ. הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרֹם, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרֻמָּה. הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. הָאִישׁ נִמְכָּר בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִמְכֶּרֶת בִּגְנֵבָתָהּ: \n", 7.8. "פָּרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ כֵּיצַד. מוֹצָאֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג, בַּשְּׁמִינִי בְּמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, עוֹשִׂין לוֹ בִימָה שֶׁל עֵץ בָּעֲזָרָה, וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב עָלֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לא) מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בְּמֹעֵד וְגוֹ'. חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹטֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹתְנָהּ לַסְּגָן, וְהַסְּגָן נוֹתְנָהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל נוֹתְנָהּ לַמֶּלֶךְ, וְהַמֶּלֶךְ עוֹמֵד וּמְקַבֵּל וְקוֹרֵא יוֹשֵׁב. אַגְרִיפָּס הַמֶּלֶךְ עָמַד וְקִבֵּל וְקָרָא עוֹמֵד, וְשִׁבְּחוּהוּ חֲכָמִים. וּכְשֶׁהִגִּיעַ (שם יז) לְלֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַל תִּתְיָרֵא אַגְרִיפָּס, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה. וְקוֹרֵא מִתְּחִלַּת אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים (דברים א׳:א׳) עַד שְׁמַע, וּשְׁמַע (שם ו), וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ (שם יא), עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר (שם יד), כִּי תְכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר (שם כו), וּפָרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ (שם יז), וּבְרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת (שם כח), עַד שֶׁגּוֹמֵר כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה. בְּרָכוֹת שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָן, הַמֶּלֶךְ מְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָן, אֶלָּא שֶׁנּוֹתֵן שֶׁל רְגָלִים תַּחַת מְחִילַת הֶעָוֹן: \n", | 3.4. "She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world.", 3.8. "What [differences are there in law] between a man and a woman?A man [who has leprosy] rends his clothes and loosens his hair, but a woman does not rend her clothes and loosen her hair. A man may vow that his son will become a nazirite, but a woman may not vow that her son will become a nazirite. A man can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship but a woman cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] her father’s naziriteship. A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter. A man may give his daughter in betrothal, but a woman may not give her daughter in betrothal. A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. A man is hanged [after being put to death], but a woman is not hanged. A man is sold for [to make restitution for] his theft, but a woman is not sold [to make restitution] for her theft.", 7.8. "How was the procedure in connection with the portion read by the king?At the conclusion of the first day of the festival (Sukkot) in the eighth [year], at the end of the seventh year, they erect a wooden platform in the Temple court, and he sits upon it, as it is said, “At the end of seven years, in the set time” etc (Deuteronomy 31:10). The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the head of the synagogue, the head of the synagogue hands it to the deputy and he hands it to the high priest, and the high priest hands it to the king and the king stands and receives it, but reads it while sitting. King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him. When he reached, “You shall not place a foreigner over you” (ibid 17:15) his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, “Fear not, Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother!” [The king] reads from the beginning of “These are the words” (ibid 1:1) until the Shema ((ibid 6:4-9), and the Shema, and “It will come to pass if you hear” (ibid 11:13-21 the second part of the Shema), and “You shall surely tithe” (ibid 14:22-29), and “When you have finished tithing” (ibid 26:12-15) and the portion of the king (ibid 17:14-20) and the blessings and curses (ibid, until he finishes all the section. The blessings that the high priest recites, the king recites, except that he substitutes one for the festivals instead of one for the pardon of sin.", |
|
54. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 11.203, 12.274, 12.275, 12.276, 12.277, 13.52, 13.53, 13.251, 13.252, 14.60, 14.61, 14.62, 14.63, 14.64, 14.65, 14.84, 14.85, 14.98, 14.99, 14.127, 14.128, 14.129, 14.130, 14.131, 14.132, 14.133, 14.134, 14.135, 14.136, 14.137, 14.138, 14.139, 14.140, 14.141, 14.142, 14.143, 14.144, 14.145, 14.146, 14.147, 14.148, 14.166, 14.193, 14.194, 14.195, 14.199, 14.203, 14.204, 14.208, 14.217, 14.218, 14.219, 14.220, 14.221, 14.222, 14.223, 14.224, 14.225, 14.226, 14.227, 14.228, 14.229, 14.230, 14.231, 14.232, 14.234, 14.236, 14.237, 14.268, 14.269, 14.280, 14.313, 14.406, 14.407, 14.408, 14.409, 14.410, 14.411, 14.412, 14.417, 14.418, 14.439, 14.440, 14.441, 14.442, 14.443, 14.444, 14.445, 14.446, 14.447, 14.23719-240, 15.72, 16.28, 16.45, 16.168, 16.170, 18.55, 18.318, 18.319, 18.320, 18.321, 18.322, 18.323, 18.324, 18.325, 18.353, 18.354, 18.355, 18.356 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 34, 56, 150 | 14.137. 3. However, when Caesar, after some time, had finished that war, and was sailed away for Syria, he honored Antipater greatly, and confirmed Hyrcanus in the high priesthood; and bestowed on Antipater the privilege of a citizen of Rome, and a freedom from taxes every where; |
|
| 55. Plutarch, Sulla, 25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77 |
| 56. Appian, Roman History, 2.21, 2.150 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •asia, exemption of, from military service •dionysiac artists, granted exemption from war contributions and military service •dolabella (p. cornelius), jews exempted from conscription by •jewish state, exempted from military service •lucius lentulus, exemption from conscription granted by, to jews who were roman citizens Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 80 |
57. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •patriarch, patriarchate, exemption from liturgies •liturgies, exemption from •priest, priests, exemption from liturgies Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 43, 433| 3.21. "כתב הנכתב ליחיד מכנין אותה לרבים לרבים אין מכנין אותה ליחיד רבי יהודה אומר המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדאי והמוסיף הרי זה מגדף. תורגמן העומד לפני חכם אינו רשאי לא לפחות ולא להוסיף ולא לשנות אלא אם כן יהיה אביו או רבו. ", | |
|
58. Tosefta, Sotah, 2.2-2.8, 7.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •shimon, r., on women’s exemption from tzitzit •transmission of rule, women and slaves both exempt from •torah study, women’s exemption from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 61, 180, 216| 2.2. "עד שלא נמחקה [מגילה] אמרה איני שותה או שאמרה טמאה אני או שבאו עדים שהיא טמאה המים נשפכין ואין בהן משום קדושה ומגילתה נגנזת תחת צירו של היכל ומנחתה מתפזרת נמחקה המגילה ואמרה אני טמאה המים נשפכין ואין בהן משום קדושה ומגילתה נגנזת תחת צירו של היכל ומנחתה מתפזרת בבית הדשן ואין מגילתה כשרה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת.", 2.3. "נמחקה המגילה ואמרה איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בע\"כ ר' יהודה אומר בצבת של ברזל פותחין פיה של זו ומערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בע\"כ אמר לו ר\"ע [וכי] למה משקין [את זו] לא לבדקה הרי [היא] בדוקה ומנוולת אלא לעולם יכולה היא שתחזור עד שתקרב מנחתה קרבה מנחתה ואמרה איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה.", 2.4. "ר' אלעזר אומר שתי קנאות האמורות בפרשה קנאה קנאה [אחת] שמקנא לבעל ואחת שמקנא למקום ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר [משם] ר' מאיר מה ת\"ל (במדבר ה׳:כ״ב) ואמרה האשה אמן אמן ראויה היתה זו לבא עליה פורעניות גדולות מאלו שהביאה עצמה לידי ספק זה אלא שניקל ניוולה שנאמר (שם) ונקתה נקתה מכל פורעניות [הראויות לבא עליה] ר' יהודה ב\"ב אמר [משם] ר\"א בן תימא מה ת\"ל (שם) ואם לא נטמאה האשה שאם היתה יולדת בצער יולדת בריוח נקבות יולדות זכרים מכוערין יולדת נאים שחורים יולדת לבנים קצרים יולדת ארוכים אחד אחד יולדת שנים שנים.", 2.5. "תינוק [העולה לחדשיו] הרי זה מכלה עולם על כל ביאה וביאה [שבעלה בא עליה] הרי הוא חייב עליה.", 2.6. "נטמאה מנחתה עד שלא קדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות תפדה ותאכל משקדשה בכלי תעובר צורתה ותצא לבית השרפה. קרבה מנחתה ולא הספיק לקרב הקומץ עד שמת הבעל או שמתה היא שיריים אסורים שעל הספק באת [מתחלה] כיפרה ספיקה והלכה לה קרב הקומץ ואח\"כ מתה היא או שמת הבעל שיריים מותרין שעל הספק באתה מתחלה כיפרה ספקה והלכה לה באו לה עדים שהיא טמאה בין כך ובין כך מנחה אסורה נמצאו עדים זוממין בין כך ובין כך מנחתה חולין.", 2.7. "כל הנשואות לכהן בין כהנת בין לויה בין ישראלית אין מנחתה נאכלת מפני שיש לו בה שותפות ואין עולה כולה כליל לאישים מפני שיש לו בה שותפות כיצד הוא עושה הקומץ קרב [בעצמו] ושיריים קרבין בעצמן ר\"א ברבי שמעון אומר קומץ קרב בעצמו ושיריים מתפזרין.", 2.8. "כהן עומד ומקריב ע\"ג המזבח משא\"כ בכהנת האיש זכאי בבתו בקדושיה בכסף [בשטר] ובביאה וזכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה משא\"כ באשה האיש עובר על מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא משא\"כ באשה האיש עובר על בל תקיף ועל בל תשחית ועל בל תטמא למתים משא\"כ באשה האיש נידון [בן] סורר ומורה ואין האשה נדונית בן סורר ומורה האיש מעטף ומספר [והאשה מעטפת ואין מספרת] האיש נמכר ונשנה ואין האשה נמכרת ונשנית האיש נמכר עבד עברי ואין האשה נמכרת [עבד עברי] האיש נרצע ואין האשה נרצעת האיש קונה עבד עברי ואין האשה קונה עבד עברי. ", 7.9. "קורא מתחלה (דברים א׳:א׳) אלה הדברים עד שמע והיה אם שמוע תשמעו עשר תעשר וכי תכלה לעשר רבי אומר לא היה צריך להתחיל מראש הספר אלא שמע והיה אם שמוע [תשמעו] עשר תעשר וכי תכלה לעשר ופרשת המלך עד שגומר את כולה ודרשיות נדרשות בה וגו' עד סוף (דברים כ׳:ד׳) כי ה' אלהיכם ההולך עמכם זה השם שנתון בארון שנאמר (במדבר ל״א:ו׳) וישלח אותם משה אלף למטה לצבא אותם ואת פינחס מגיד שפינחס משוח מלחמה וכלי הקדש זה הארון שנאמר (במדבר ד׳:כ׳) ולא יבאו לראות כבלע וגו' וי\"א אלו בגדי כהונה שנאמר (שמות כ״ט:כ״ט) ובגדי הקדש וגו' ר' יהודה בן לקיש אומר שני ארונות היו אחד שיוצא עמהן למלחמה ואחד ששרוי עמהן במחנה זה שיוצא עמהן למלחמה היה בו ס\"ת שנאמר (במדבר י׳:ל״ג) וארון ברית ה' נוסע לפניהם וגו' וזה ששרוי [עמהן] במחנה זה שהיה בו שברי לוחות שנא' (במדבר י״ד:מ״ד) וארון ברית ה' ומשה לא משו מן המחנה.", | |
|
59. Tosefta, Sukkah, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •patriarch, patriarchate, exemption from liturgies •liturgies, exemption from •priest, priests, exemption from liturgies Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 43, 433| 4.6. "[כיצד] ג' להבטיל את העם מן המלאכה חזן הכנסת נוטל חצוצרת ועולה לראש הגג גבוה שבעיר [נטל לקרות] הסמוכין לעיר בטלין הסמוכין לתחום מתכנסין ובאין לתוך התחום ולא היו נכנסין מיד אלא ממתינין עד שיבואו כולן ויתכנסו כולן בבת אחת [מאימתי הוא נכנס משימלא לו חבית ויצלה לו דגה וידליק לו את הנר].", | 4.6. "Why did they blow three blasts? To make the people cease from work. The sexton took the trumpets, and went to the top of the highest roof in the city to summon those near the city to cease from work. Those near the limits of the city assembled themselves together and came to the schoolhouse. They did not come immediately the trumpets blew, but waited till all were gathered together, and then all came at once. When did they assemble? After one could fill a bottle of water, or fry a fish, or light his lamp. ", |
|
60. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 158, 159, 165| 11.2. "סריס חמה ואנדרוגינוס ואח מאם וגר ועבד משוחרר לא חולצין ולא מיבמין כיצד מתו והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו אחים ועשו מאמר נתנו גט וחלצו לא עשו כלום בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן מתו אחים והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו הם ועשו מאמר נתנו גט או חלצו לא עשו כלום ואם בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן.", | |
|
| 61. Tertullian, Exhortation To Chastity, 9 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
| 62. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 42.6.3 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antipater father of herod, and caesar, antipater exempted from taxes by caesar •julius caesar, and jews, caesar exempting antipater from taxation Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 56 |
| 63. Tertullian, On Modesty, 16.17 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
| 64. Tertullian, On Monogamy, 9.5, 10.4, 11.14 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
65. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.3.2, 1.21.1-1.21.2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 192, 229| 1.3.2. πλησίον δὲ τῆς στοᾶς Κόνων ἕστηκε καὶ Τιμόθεος υἱὸς Κόνωνος καὶ βασιλεὺς Κυπρίων Εὐαγόρας, ὃς καὶ τὰς τριήρεις τὰς Φοινίσσας ἔπραξε παρὰ βασιλέως Ἀρταξέρξου δοθῆναι Κόνωνι· ἔπραξε δὲ ὡς Ἀθηναῖος καὶ τὸ ἀνέκαθεν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος, ἐπεὶ καὶ γενεαλογῶν ἐς προγόνους ἀνέβαινε Τεῦκρον καὶ Κινύρου θυγατέρα. ἐνταῦθα ἕστηκε Ζεὺς ὀνομαζόμενος Ἐλευθέριος καὶ βασιλεὺς Ἀδριανός, ἐς ἄλλους τε ὧν ἦρχεν εὐεργεσίας καὶ ἐς τὴν πόλιν μάλιστα ἀποδειξάμενος τὴν Ἀθηναίων. 1.21.1. εἰσὶ δὲ Ἀθηναίοις εἰκόνες ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ καὶ τραγῳδίας καὶ κωμῳδίας ποιητῶν, αἱ πολλαὶ τῶν ἀφανεστέρων· ὅτι μὴ γὰρ Μένανδρος, οὐδεὶς ἦν ποιητὴς κωμῳδίας τῶν ἐς δόξαν ἡκόντων. τραγῳδίας δὲ κεῖνται τῶν φανερῶν Εὐριπίδης καὶ Σοφοκλῆς. λέγεται δὲ Σοφοκλέους τελευτήσαντος ἐσβαλεῖν ἐς τὴν Ἀττικὴν Λακεδαιμονίους, καὶ σφῶν τὸν ἡγούμενον ἰδεῖν ἐπιστάντα οἱ Διόνυσον κελεύειν τιμαῖς, ὅσαι καθεστήκασιν ἐπὶ τοῖς τεθνεῶσι, τὴν Σειρῆνα τὴν νέαν τιμᾶν· καί οἱ τὸ ὄναρ ἐς Σοφοκλέα καὶ τὴν Σοφοκλέους ποίησιν ἐφαίνετο ἔχειν, εἰώθασι δὲ καὶ νῦν ἔτι ποιημάτων καὶ λόγων τὸ ἐπαγωγὸν Σειρῆνι εἰκάζειν. 1.21.2. τὴν δὲ εἰκόνα τὴν Αἰσχύλου πολλῷ τε ὕστερον τῆς τελευτῆς δοκῶ ποιηθῆναι καὶ τῆς γραφῆς ἣ τὸ ἔργον ἔχει τὸ Μαραθῶνι. ἔφη δὲ Αἰσχύλος μειράκιον ὢν καθεύδειν ἐν ἀγρῷ φυλάσσων σταφυλάς, καί οἱ Διόνυσον ἐπιστάντα κελεῦσαι τραγῳδίαν ποιεῖν· ὡς δὲ ἦν ἡμέρα— πείθεσθαι γὰρ ἐθέλειν—ῥᾷστα ἤδη πειρώμενος ποιεῖν. | 1.3.2. Near the portico stand Conon , Timotheus his son and Evagoras Evagoras was a king of Salamis in Cyprus , who reigned from about 410 to 374 B.C. He favoured the Athenians, and helped Conon to defeat the Spartan fleet off Cnidus in 394 B.C. King of Cyprus, who caused the Phoenician men-of-war to be given to Conon by King Artaxerxes. This he did as an Athenian whose ancestry connected him with Salamis , for he traced his pedigree back to Teucer and the daughter of Cinyras. Here stands Zeus, called Zeus of Freedom, and the Emperor Hadrian, a benefactor to all his subjects and especially to the city of the Athenians. 1.21.1. In the theater the Athenians have portrait statues of poets, both tragic and comic, but they are mostly of undistinguished persons. With the exception of Meder no poet of comedy represented here won a reputation, but tragedy has two illustrious representatives, Euripides and Sophocles. There is a legend that after the death of Sophocles the Lacedaemonians invaded Attica , and their commander saw in a vision Dionysus, who bade him honor, with all the customary honors of the dead, the new Siren. He interpreted the dream as referring to Sophocles and his poetry, and down to the present day men are wont to liken to a Siren whatever is charming in both poetry and prose. 1.21.2. The likeness of Aeschylus is, I think, much later than his death and than the painting which depicts the action at Marathon Aeschylus himself said that when a youth he slept while watching grapes in a field, and that Dionysus appeared and bade him write tragedy. When day came, in obedience to the vision, he made an attempt and hereafter found composing quite easy. |
|
66. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.34 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 | 4.34. But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, Whosoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery; and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband, also commits adultery. Luke 16:18 In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: When a man has taken a wife, and has lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he has found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house. Deuteronomy 24:1 You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel - between Moses and Christ? To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ. There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: Moses, says He, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so Matthew 19:8 - for this reason, indeed, because He who had made them male and female had likewise said, They two shall become one flesh; what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:4, 6 Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated than abolished the enactment of Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them. I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. His words are: Whosoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery; and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband, also commits adultery, Luke 16:18 - put away, that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, while matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot. 1 Corinthians 6:15 Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. Matthew 5:32 He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: You shall not forsake the wife of your youth. Malachi 2:15 Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have now to show whence the Lord derived this decision of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordice by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless, when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife, seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband), Deuteronomy 25:5-6 and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother's wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled thereto by his lust, not by the prescription of the (Levirate) law - for, as his brother had left a daughter, the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account; and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death. The remarks I have advanced on this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of the rich man tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's bosom. Luke 16:19-31 For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage. It sets forth in bold outline the end of both of them, the torments of Herod and the comfort of John, that even now Herod might hear that warning: They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. Luke 16:29 Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; while he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham's bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment. Hell (I take it) means one thing, and Abraham's bosom another. A great gulf is said to separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other. Besides, the rich man could not have lifted up his eyes, Luke 16:23 and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth. It must therefore be evident to every man of intelligence who has ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some determinate place called Abraham's bosom, and that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham's children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is the father of many nations, which must be classed among his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham's bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the full recompense of their reward. This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them. Amos, however, tells us of those stories towards heaven which Christ builds- of course for His people. There also is that everlasting abode of which Isaiah asks, Who shall declare unto you the eternal place, but He (that is, of course, Christ) who walks in righteousness, speaks of the straight path, hates injustice and iniquity? Now, although this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps) to heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of Abraham shall be even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not be possible, without any injury to that promise, that by Abraham's bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory of both judgments? If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the prophets declare one only God, the Creator, and His only Christ, and how that both awards of everlasting punishment and eternal salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills and who makes alive. Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the command. This is true enough. For the apostles had by that time sufficiently heard Moses and the prophets, for they had followed Christ, being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. For even Peter would not have been able to say, You are the Christ, Luke 9:20 unless he had beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been hitherto announced. Their faith, indeed, had deserved this confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear Him, whom they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven. Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!- even those who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely believe that after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raises up the poor from dunghills. Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods, but only a difference in the actual matters before us. |
|
| 67. Pliny The Younger, Letters, 4.9.6-4.9.7 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •asia, exemption of, from billeting •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 78 |
| 68. Pliny The Younger, Letters, 4.9.6-4.9.7 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •asia, exemption of, from billeting •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 78 |
69. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •shimon, r., on women’s exemption from tzitzit •tzitzit, women’s exemption from Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 214| 11a. ובית נמי אע"פ שאין גבוה עשרה כיון דקביע אוהלא הוא דלא גרע מקינופות,ל"א אמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מותר לישן בכילת חתנים בסוכה לפי שאין לה גג אע"פ שגבוהה עשרה,מיתיבי הישן בכילה בסוכה לא יצא ידי חובתו הכא במאי עסקינן בשיש לה גג,ת"ש נקליטין שנים וקינופות ארבעה פירס על גבי קינופות פסולה על גבי נקליטין כשרה ובלבד שלא יהו נקליטין גבוהין מן המטה עשרה טפחים הא גבוהין מן המטה עשרה פסולה אע"פ שאין לה גג,שאני נקליטין דקביעי אי קביעי ליהוי כקינופות לגבי קינופות לא קביעי לגבי כילה קביעי,דרש רבה בר רב הונא מותר לישן בכילה אע"פ שיש לה גג אע"פ שגבוהה עשרה כמאן כר' יהודה דאמר לא אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע דתנן א"ר יהודה נוהגין היינו לישן תחת המטה בפני הזקנים,ולימא הלכה כרבי יהודה,אי אמר הלכה כרבי יהודה הוה אמינא הני מילי מטה דלגבה עשויה אבל כילה דלתוכה עשויה אימא לא קמ"ל טעמא דרבי יהודה דלא אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע לא שנא מטה ולא שנא כילה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הדלה עליה את הגפן ואת הדלעת ואת הקיסוס וסיכך על גבה פסולה ואם היה סיכוך הרבה מהן או שקצצן כשרה,זה הכלל כל שהוא מקבל טומאה ואין גידולו מן הארץ אין מסככין בו וכל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה וגידולו מן הארץ מסככין בו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big יתיב רב יוסף קמיה דרב הונא ויתיב וקאמר או שקצצן כשרה ואמר רב צריך לנענע,אמר ליה רב הונא הא שמואל אמרה אהדרינהו רב יוסף לאפיה ואמר ליה אטו מי קאמינא לך דלא אמרה שמואל אמרה רב ואמרה שמואל אמר ליה רב הונא הכי קאמינא לך דשמואל אמרה ולא רב דרב אכשורי מכשר כי הא דרב עמרם חסידא רמא תכלתא לפרזומא דאינשי ביתיה תלאן ולא פסק ראשי חוטין שלהן,אתא לקמיה דרב חייא בר אשי אמר ליה הכי אמר רב מפסקן והן כשרין אלמא פסיקתן זו היא עשייתן הכא נמי קציצתן זו היא עשייתן,וסבר שמואל לא אמרינן פסיקתן זו היא עשייתן והא תני שמואל משום ר' חייא הטיל לשני קרנות בבת אחת ואחר כך פסק ראשי חוטין שלהן כשרין מאי לאו שקושר ואח"כ פוסק לא שפוסק ואח"כ קושר,פוסק ואחר כך קושר מאי למימרא מהו דתימא | 11a. b And /b this i halakha /i that it is not sufficient to place his head out the window applies b also /b to b a house even if it is not ten /b handbreadths b high. Since it is a fixed /b structure b it is /b considered b a tent /b in and of itself, b as it is no less /b permanent b than /b a bed with b four posts, /b which is considered a tent even though the netting is less than ten handbreadths higher than the bed., b Some say another version /b of the previous discussion: b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep inside /b a netted b bridal canopy in the i sukka /i since it /b is inclined and b does not have a roof, even though it is ten /b handbreadths b high. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b One who sleeps in /b a bed with b netting inside the i sukka /i did not fulfill his obligation. /b The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here /b in the i baraita /i ? It is b with /b a bed with netting b in /b a case where, unlike a bridal canopy, b it has a roof. /b , b Come /b and b hear /b another question from what we learned: b i Naklitin /i are two /b posts b and i kinofot /i are four /b posts. If b one spread /b a sheet b over four posts, /b the i sukka /i is b unfit; /b if he spread a sheet b over two posts /b the i sukka /i is b fit, provided the two posts are not ten /b handbreadths b higher than the bed. /b It can be inferred from here: b But /b if they b are higher than ten /b handbreadths the i sukka /i b is unfit even though it has no roof, /b contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.,The Gemara answers: b Two posts are different /b from the bridal canopy b because they are fixed /b in the bed, and therefore the sheet over them is considered a tent even with an inclined roof. The Gemara asks: b If they are fixed /b then b let them be /b considered b like four posts /b and let them render the i sukka /i unfit even when they are less than ten handbreadths high. The Gemara answers: b Vis-à-vis four posts, /b two posts are b not /b considered b fixed /b and therefore, they render the i sukka /i unfit only when they are ten handbreadths higher than the bed. However, b vis-à-vis /b a bed with b netting, /b two posts b are /b considered b fixed /b and consequently, they render the i sukka /i unfit even though they lack a roof., b Rabba bar Rav Huna taught: It is permitted to sleep in /b a bed with b netting even though it has a roof /b and b even though it is higher than ten /b handbreadths. b In accordance with whose /b opinion did Rabba bar Rav Huna teach this i halakha /i ? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda who said /b that in principle, b a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, as we learned /b in a mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda said: We were accustomed to sleep beneath the bed before the Elders. /b Since a bed is a temporary tent relative to the more permanent i sukka /i , even one sleeping beneath a bed is considered to be sleeping in the i sukka /i and he fulfills his obligation in that manner.,The Gemara asks: b And /b if the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, b let him say /b simply that the b i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. /b ,The Gemara answers: b If he said the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said that this applies only to a bed, which is made for /b use b atop it /b and not beneath it. Perhaps the reason a bed is not considered a tent in and of itself is that its primary purpose is to lie on top of it, not in the space beneath it. b However, /b with regard to a bed with b netting, which is made for /b use of the space b within it, say /b that b no, /b it is indeed considered a tent in and of itself and one who sleeps in it does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba bar Rav Huna b teaches us /b that b the rationale for /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda is that a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, /b and b there is no difference /b whether the temporary tent is b a bed /b or whether it is the b netting /b over a bed., strong MISHNA: /strong If b one trellised /b climbing plants such as b a grapevine, or gourd /b plant, b or ivy [ i kissos /i ], over /b a i sukka /i while they were still attached to the ground, b and /b then added b roofing atop them, /b the i sukka /i is b unfit. If /b the amount of fit b roofing was greater /b than the plants attached to the ground, b or if he cut /b the climbing plants so that they were no longer attached to the ground, b it is fit. /b , b This is the principle /b with regard to the roofing of a i sukka /i : b Anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity, /b e.g., vessels, b or its growth is not from the ground, /b e.g., animal hides, b one may not roof /b his i sukka /i b with it. And anything that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground, one may roof /b his i sukka /i b with it. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said, /b citing the mishna: b Or if he cut them, it is fit. /b He added: b And Rav said /b that it is not enough merely to cut the climbing plants; one b is obligated /b to b move /b the branches, thereby performing an action with the branches in order to render the roofing fit. When he placed the climbing plants atop the i sukka /i , they were attached and therefore unfit roofing. When he ultimately cut them, it was as if the i sukka /i were roofed by itself. In that case, the i sukka /i is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, derived from the verse: “You shall prepare for you the festival of i Sukkot /i ” (Deuteronomy 16:13)., b Rav Huna said to /b Rav Yosef: b Shmuel stated this /b i halakha /i . b Rav Yosef turned his face away /b in anger b and said to him: Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it, and Shmuel said it /b as well. What is your point? b Rav Huna said to him: This is what I am saying to you, that Shmuel said it and not Rav, as Rav deems /b the roofing b fit /b merely by cutting them, without moving them, b as /b in b that /b incident b where Rav Amram the Pious cast the sky-blue dye, /b i.e., ritual fringes, b upon the garment /b [ b i pirzuma /i /b ] b of the people of his household. /b However, b he attached them, but did not cut the ends of their strands /b prior to tying them, i.e., he took a single string, folded it a number of times, and inserted it into the hole in the garment. Since the fringes were uncut when he tied them, he was uncertain whether they were fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva, due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.,Rav Amram b came before Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi /b and asked him about the halakhic status of the ritual fringes. b He said to him /b that b this /b is what b Rav said: One cuts them /b into separate strands b and they are fit. /b There is no need to remove them, cut them, and reattach them to the garment as separate strands. b Apparently, /b according to Rav, b their cutting is their preparation. /b Cutting them qualifies as active preparation of the fringes. b Here too, /b in the case of the roofing of a i sukka /i , Rav holds: b Their cutting is their preparation, /b and no further action is required.,The Gemara asks: b And does Shmuel hold /b that b we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation? But didn’t Shmuel teach in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: If one cast /b fringes b upon two corners /b of a garment b simultaneously /b by repeatedly inserting one strand into holes in both corners b and afterward cut the ends of their strands /b resulting in two full-fledged fringes, the fringes are b fit. What, is it not /b referring to a case b where one ties /b the fringes as required b and afterward cuts them? /b The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is referring to a case where b he cuts /b the strands b and afterward ties /b them.,The Gemara asks: If the reference is to a case where b he cuts /b the strands b and afterward ties /b them, b what /b need was there b to state /b that the ritual fringes are fit? That is the prescribed manner of preparing ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that in addition to tying the fringes separately |
|
| 70. Origen, Commentary On The Song of Songs, None (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, immature exempted from portions of Found in books: Ashbrook Harvey et al. (2015), A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer, 235 |
| 71. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 165 |
72. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, women’s exemption from •commandment from which, women are exempt Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 17| 23a. עששית שהיתה דולקת והולכת כל היום כלו למוצ"ש מכבה ומדליקה אי אמרת בשלמא הדלקה עושה מצוה שפיר אלא אי אמרת הנחה עושה מצוה האי מכבה ומדליקה מכבה ומגביהה ומניחה ומדליקה מיבעי ליה ועוד מדקא מברכינן אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להדליק נר של חנוכה ש"מ הדלקה עושה מצוה ש"מ,והשתא דאמרינן הדלקה עושה מצוה הדליקה חרש שוטה וקטן לא עשה ולא כלום אשה ודאי מדליקה דא"ר יהושע בן לוי נשים חייבות בנר חנוכה שאף הן היו באותו הנס:,אמר רב ששת אכסנאי חייב בנר חנוכה א"ר זירא מריש כי הוינא בי רב משתתפנא בפריטי בהדי אושפיזא בתר דנסיבי איתתא אמינא השתא ודאי לא צריכנא דקא מדליקי עלי בגו ביתאי:,א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל השמנים כולן יפין לנר ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר אביי מריש הוה מהדר מר אמשחא דשומשמי אמר האי משך נהורי טפי כיון דשמע לה להא דרבי יהושע בן לוי מהדר אמשחא דזיתא אמר האי צליל נהוריה טפי,ואריב"ל כל השמנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר איבעיא להו לגבל או לעשן ת"ש דתני רב שמואל בר זוטרי כל השמנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר בין לגבל בין לעשן רב שמואל בר זוטרא מתני הכי כל העשנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר רב הונא כל השרפין יפין לדיו ושרף קטף יפה מכולם:,א"ר חייא בר אשי אמר רב המדליק נר של חנוכה צריך לברך ורב ירמיה אמר הרואה נר של חנוכה צריך לברך אמר רב יהודה יום ראשון הרואה מברך ב' ומדליק מברך ג' מכאן ואילך מדליק מברך שתים ורואה מברך אחת מאי ממעט ממעט זמן ונימעוט נס נס כל יומי איתיה,מאי מברך מברך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להדליק נר של חנוכה והיכן צונו רב אויא אמר (דברים יז, יא) מלא תסור רב נחמיה אמר (דברים לב, ז) שאל אביך ויגדך זקניך ויאמרו לך,מתיב רב עמרם הדמאי מערבין בו ומשתתפין בו ומברכין עליו ומזמנין עליו ומפרישין אותו ערום ובין השמשות ואי אמרת כל מדרבנן בעי ברכה הכא כי קאי ערום היכי מברך והא בעינן (דברים כג, טו) והיה מחניך קדוש וליכא אמר אביי ודאי דדבריהם בעי ברכה ספק דדבריהם לא בעי ברכה,והא יו"ט שני דספק דבריהם הוא ובעי ברכה התם כי היכי דלא לזילזולי בה רבא אמר רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הן:,אמר רב הונא חצר שיש לה ב' פתחים צריכה שתי נרות (ואמר) רבא לא אמרן אלא משתי רוחות אבל מרוח אחת לא צריך מ"ט אילימא משום חשדא חשדא דמאן אילימא חשדא דעלמא אפילו ברוח אחת נמי ליבעי אי חשדא דבני מתא אפי' משני רוחות נמי לא ליבעי לעולם משום חשדא דבני מתא וזימנין דמחלפי בהאי ולא חלפי בהאי ואמרי כי היכי דבהאי פיתחא לא אדליק בהך פיתחא נמי לא אדליק,ומנא תימרא דחיישינן לחשד דתניא אמר רבי שמעון בשביל ארבעה דברים אמרה תורה להניח פיאה בסוף שדהו מפני גזל עניים ומפני ביטול עניים ומפני החשד ומשום (ויקרא יט, ט) בל תכלה מפני גזל עניים שלא יראה בעל הבית שעה פנוייה ויאמר לקרובו עני הרי זו פאה | 23a. b A lantern that continued to burn the entire day /b of Shabbat, b at the conclusion of Shabbat one extinguishes it and lights it /b again as a Hanukkah light. b Granted, if you say /b that b lighting accomplishes /b the b mitzva, /b the requirement to extinguish the lantern and relight it in order to fulfill the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light b works out well. However, if you say /b that b placing accomplishes /b the b mitzva, this /b statement, which stated that one b extinguishes it and lights it, /b is imprecise. According to this opinion, b it needed /b to say: b One extinguishes it and lifts it /b from its place b and sets it down and lights it, /b as only by placing the lamp in an appropriate place could one fulfill the mitzva of the Hanukkah light. b Furthermore, /b there is additional proof that lighting accomplishes the mitzva. b From /b the fact b that we recite /b the following blessing over the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light: b Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light, /b the Gemara suggests: b Conclude from this /b that b lighting accomplishes /b the b mitzva, /b as it is over lighting that one recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b conclude from this. /b , b And, /b the Gemara remarks, b now that we say /b that b lighting accomplishes /b the b mitzva, /b there are practical ramifications. If b a deaf /b - b mute, an imbecile, /b or b a minor, /b all of whom are of limited intellectual capacity and not obligated in mitzvot, b kindled /b the Hanukkah light, b he did nothing /b in terms of fulfilling the mitzva, even if an adult obligated in mitzvot subsequently set it down in its appropriate place. That is because placing a lit lamp does not constitute fulfillment of the mitzva. The lighting must be performed by a person with full intellectual capacity, obligated in mitzvot. However, b a woman certainly may light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in /b lighting b the Hanukkah light, as they too were included in that miracle /b of being saved from the decree of persecution., b Rav Sheshet said: A guest is obligated in /b lighting b the Hanukkah light /b in the place where he is being hosted. The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Zeira said: At first, when I was /b studying b in the yeshiva, I would participate with i perutot /i , /b copper coins, b together with the host [ i ushpiza /i ], /b so that I would be a partner in the light that he kindled. b After I married /b my b wife, I said: Now I certainly need not /b do so because b they light on my behalf in my house. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for the /b Hanukkah b lamp, and olive oil is the most select /b of the oils. b Abaye said: At first, my Master, /b Rabba, b would seek sesame oil, /b as he said: b The light of /b sesame oil b lasts longer /b and does not burn as quickly as olive oil. b Once he heard that /b statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he sought olive oil /b because b he said: Its light is clearer. /b ,On a similar note, b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for /b making b ink, and olive oil is the most select. A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: What was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s intention: Did he mean that olive oil is the most select in terms of being the best for use b to /b mix and b knead /b with the soot produced from a fire in manufacturing ink; b or /b did he mean for use b to smoke, /b i.e., burning olive oil to produce smoke is the most select method of producing the soot used in manufacturing ink? b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this from that which b Rav Shmuel bar Zutrei taught: All oils are suitable for ink, and olive oil is the most select, both to knead and to smoke. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught it this way: All types of smoke are good for ink, and olive oil is the most select. /b Similarly, b Rav Huna said: All saps are good for /b strengthening the b ink /b compound, b and balsam sap is the best of all. /b , b Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said /b that b Rav said: One who lights a Hanukkah light must recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: One who sees a burning Hanukkah light must recite a blessing /b because the mitzva is not only to kindle the light but to see the light as well. Therefore, there is room to recite a blessing even when seeing them. b Rav Yehuda said: /b On b the first day /b of Hanukkah, the b one who sees /b burning lights b recites two /b blessings, b and the /b one b who lights recites three /b blessings. b From there on, /b from the second day of Hanukkah, b the /b one b who lights recites two /b blessings, b and the /b one b who sees recites one /b blessing. The Gemara asks: b What /b blessing does he b omit /b on the other days? The Gemara answers: He b omits /b the blessing of b time: /b Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The Gemara asks: b And let us omit /b the blessing of the b miracle: /b Who has performed miracles. The Gemara answers: The b miracle is /b relevant on b all /b of the b days, /b whereas the blessing: Who has given us life, is only pertinent to the first time he performs the mitzva each year.,And b what blessing /b does one b recite? He recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light. /b The Gemara asks: b And where did He command us? /b The mitzva of Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, so how is it possible to say that it was commanded to us by God? The Gemara answers that b Rav Avya said: /b The obligation to recite this blessing is derived b from /b the verse: “ b You shall not turn aside /b from the sentence which they shall declare unto you, to the right, nor to the left” (Deuteronomy 17:11). From this verse, the mitzva incumbent upon all of Israel to heed the statements and decrees of the Sages is derived. Therefore, one who fulfills their directives fulfills a divine commandment. b Rav Neḥemya said /b that the mitzva to heed the voice of the Elders of Israel is derived from the verse: b “Ask your father, and he will declare unto you, your Elders, and they will tell you” /b (Deuteronomy 32:7)., b Rav Amram raised an objection /b from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to b doubtfully tithed produce [ i demai /i ], /b i.e., grain that was acquired from an i am ha /i ’ i aretz /i about which there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed it; b one may /b use it b to establish an i eiruv /i , /b i.e., joining of courtyards and joining of borders, b and to establish the merging of alleys, and one recites a blessing /b before and after eating b it, and one invites a quorum /b for recitation of Grace after Meals after eating b it. /b Although the Sages said that one is required to separate tithes from i demai /i , they allowed it to be used for specific purposes and in exigent circumstances. b And /b they said that b one may separate /b the tithe from i demai /i when he is b naked and at dusk /b Shabbat eve, a time when separating tithes from actual untithed produce [ i tevel /i ] is prohibited. b And if you say /b that b every /b action instituted by b rabbinic ordice requires a blessing, /b as fulfillment of rabbinic ordices is based on the mitzva: You shall not turn aside, b here, when /b he b stands naked, how /b can he b recite a blessing? Don’t we require /b fulfillment of the mitzva: b “Therefore shall your camp be holy; /b that He see no unseemly thing in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15)? b And /b the camp b is not /b holy when one recites a blessing in a state of nakedness. b Abaye said: /b There is room to distinguish between the cases: In b a case /b where there is a b definite /b mitzva b by rabbinic law, a blessing is required. /b In a case where there is a b rabbinic /b ordice instituted due to b uncertainty /b with regard to the circumstances, as in the case of i demai /i , which may or may not have been tithed already, b a blessing is not required. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Isn’t the second day of a Festival /b in the Diaspora a b rabbinic /b ordice instituted due to b uncertainty /b whether the first day or the second is the actual Festival, b and /b nevertheless b a blessing is required? /b On the second day of the Festival one recites the same blessings as he does on the first. The Gemara answers: b There, /b in the case of the second day of the Festival, the reason that blessings are required is b so that people will not treat it with contempt. /b If Festival blessings were not required on the second day of the Festival, people would take its sanctity lightly. b Rava said /b another reason: i Demai /i is not considered to be an ordice instituted by the Sages due to uncertainty. In fact, in b most /b cases, an b i am ha /i ’ i aretz /i tithes. /b The concern lest they do not tithe is not a full-fledged case of uncertainty. It is merely a case of suspicion for which the Sages did not institute a blessing. That is not the case with regard to the second day of a Festival. Even though it was instituted due to uncertainty, one must recite the Festival blessings. Since it was instituted by the Sages, one is obligated to recite a blessing just as he recites blessings for other rabbinic ordices., b Rav Huna said: A courtyard that has two entrances requires two lamps, /b one lamp at each entrance, so that it will be obvious that the residents of this courtyard light properly. b And Rava said: We only said this /b in a case where the two entrances face b two /b different b directions. However, /b if they both face in b the same direction one need not /b light at more than one entrance. The Gemara clarifies Rava’s statement: b What is the reason /b for this? b If you say /b that it is b because /b those who see the entrance without a lamp burning will harbor b suspicion /b lest he does not kindle the Hanukkah light, b whose suspicion /b concerns us? b If you say /b that the concern is with regard to b the suspicion /b of b people /b who do not live in the city and are unfamiliar with the courtyard’s tets, b even /b when both entrances face b the same direction let them be required /b to light at both entrances because visitors are unaware that there are two entrances to that courtyard. b And if /b the concern is with regard to the b suspicion of the residents of /b that b city, even /b when the two entrances face b two /b different b directions let them not be required /b to light at both entrances. The local residents know that only one person lives in the courtyard and will assume that if he did not light at one entrance he surely lit at the other. The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b say that it is b because of the suspicion of the residents of /b that b city, and sometimes /b they b pass this /b entrance b and do not pass that /b one, b and they say: Just as he did not light in this entrance, in that /b second b entrance he also did not light. /b In order to avoid suspicion, it is preferable to light at both entrances., b And from where do you say that we are concerned about suspicion? As it was taught /b in a i Tosefta /i that b Rabbi Shimon said: On account of four things the Torah said /b that one should b leave i pe /i ’ i a /i , /b crops for the poor in the corner of his field, specifically b at the end of his field. /b Only after one has cut virtually the entire field should he leave an uncut corner for the poor. He should not designate an area for i pe /i ’ i a /i in the middle of the field in the course of cutting the field. The reasons for this ruling are: b Due to robbing the poor, and due to causing the poor to be idle, and due to suspicion, and due to /b the verse: b “You shall not wholly reap /b the corner of your field” (Leviticus 23:22). The Gemara explains: b Due to robbing the poor; /b so b that the owner of the house will not see a time /b when the field is b unoccupied /b and there are no poor people in the area. If he could designate i pe /i ’ i a /i as he wished, there is room to suspect that b he /b might b say to his poor relative: This is i pe /i ’ i a /i , /b in the place and at the time that he chooses. He would thereby conceal the fact that there is i pe /i ’ i a /i in his field from other poor people. The result would be that, for all intents and purposes, he robbed i pe /i ’ i a /i from those with whom he did not share the information. |
|
73. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 158| 58b. אביו דומיא דאמו ואמו דומיא דאביו לא משכחת לה אלא באחווה,ורבי עקיבא מוטב לאוקמיה באשת אביו דאיקרי ערות אביו לאפוקי אחות אביו דשאר אביו איקרי ערות אביו לא איקרי,ת"ש (שמות ו, כ) ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו מאי לאו דודתו מן האם,לא דודתו מן האב,ת"ש (בראשית כ, יב) וגם אמנה אחותי בת אבי היא אך לא בת אמי מכלל דבת האם אסורה,ותסברא אחותו הואי בת אחיו הואי וכיון דהכי הוא לא שנא מן האב ולא שנא מן האם שריא אלא התם הכי קאמר ליה קורבא דאחות אית לי בהדה מאבא ולא מאמא,ת"ש מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו כדי שישא קין את אחותו שנאמר (תהלים פט, ג) כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה הא לאו הכי אסירא,כיון דאשתרי אשתרי,אמר רב הונא כותי מותר בבתו וא"ת מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו כדי שישא קין את אחותו משום עולם חסד יבנה,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא כותי אסור בבתו תדע שלא נשא אדם את בתו ולא היא התם היינו טעמא כדי שישא קין את אחותו משום דעולם חסד יבנה,אמר רב חסדא עבד מותר באמו ומותר בבתו יצא מכלל כותי ולכלל ישראל לא בא,כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' חנינא בן נח שייחד שפחה לעבדו ובא עליה נהרג עליה,מאימת אמר רב נחמן מדקראו לה רביתא דפלניא מאימת התרתה אמר רב הונא משפרעה ראשה בשוק,א"ר אלעזר א"ר חנינא בן נח שבא על אשתו שלא כדרכה חייב שנאמר (בראשית ב, כד) ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה,אמר רבא מי איכא מידי דישראל לא מיחייב וכותי מיחייב,אלא אמר רבא בן נח שבא על אשת חבירו שלא כדרכה פטור מאי טעמא באשתו ולא באשת חבירו ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה,א"ר חנינא עובד כוכבים שהכה את ישראל חייב מיתה שנאמר (שמות ב, יב) ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש [ויך את המצרי] וגו',וא"ר חנינא הסוטר לועו של ישראל כאילו סוטר לועו של שכינה שנאמר (משלי כ, כה) מוקש אדם ילע קודש:,מגביה עבדו שבת סימן: אמר ריש לקיש המגביה ידו על חבירו אע"פ שלא הכהו נקרא רשע שנאמר (שמות ב, יג) ויאמר לרשע למה תכה רעך למה הכית לא נאמר אלא למה תכה אף על פי שלא הכהו נקרא רשע,(אמר) זעירי א"ר חנינא נקרא חוטא שנאמר (שמואל א ב, טז) ואם לא לקחתי בחזקה וכתיב (שמואל א ב, יז) ותהי חטאת הנערים גדולה מאד,רב הונא אמר תיקצץ ידו שנאמר (איוב לח, טו) וזרוע רמה תשבר רב הונא קץ ידא,ר"א אומר אין לו תקנה אלא קבורה: שנאמר (איוב כב, ח) ואיש זרוע לו הארץ,וא"ר אלעזר לא נתנה קרקע אלא לבעלי זרועות שנאמר ואיש זרוע לו הארץ,ואר"ל מאי דכתיב (משלי יב, יא) עובד אדמתו ישבע לחם אם עושה אדם עצמו כעבד לאדמה ישבע לחם ואם לאו לא ישבע לחם,ואר"ל עובד כוכבים ששבת חייב מיתה שנא' (בראשית ח, כב) ויום ולילה לא ישבותו ואמר מר אזהרה שלהן זו היא מיתתן אמר רבינא אפי' שני בשבת,וליחשבה גבי ז' מצות כי קא חשיב שב ואל תעשה קום עשה לא קא חשיב | 58b. that the term b “his father” /b should be interpreted in a way that is b similar to /b the term b “his mother,” and “his mother” /b should be interpreted in a way that is b similar to “his father.” You find /b such an interpretation b only with regard to sisterhood, /b i.e., “his father” is referring to his father’s sister, and “his mother” is referring to his mother’s sister., b And Rabbi Akiva /b holds that b it is preferable to interpret /b the term “his father” as referring b to his father’s wife, who is referred to as his father’s nakedness /b in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8), b to the exclusion of his father’s sister, who is referred to as his father’s kin /b in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s kin” (Leviticus 18:12), and who b is not referred to as his father’s nakedness. /b , b Come /b and b hear /b a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva from the verse: b “And Amram took Jochebed his aunt /b as a wife” (Exodus 6:20). b What, /b was she b not his maternal aunt? /b Presumably, Jochebed was the sister of Kohath, Amram’s father, from both of Kohath’s parents, and not from his father alone. Evidently, a descendant of Noah may marry his father’s sister.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b No, /b she was b his paternal aunt, /b Kohath’s half sister. Since she was not Kohath’s sister from his mother’s side, she was not forbidden to Amram., b Come /b and b hear /b a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer from what Abraham said to Abimelech with regard to Sarah: b “And moreover, she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; /b and so she became my wife” (Genesis 20:12). b By inference, the daughter of the mother /b of a descendant of Noah b is forbidden /b to him.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But /b how can b you understand /b that Sarah b was /b Abraham’s b sister? She was his brother’s daughter. /b By tradition, it is known that Sarah was Haran’s daughter Iscah. b And since that was so, /b there b is no difference /b whether they were b paternal /b relatives, b and /b there b is no difference /b whether they were b maternal /b relatives; in any event she was b permitted /b to him, even according to the i halakha /i of Jews. b Rather, this /b is what Abraham b was saying to /b Abimelech b there: She is related to me like a sister, /b as the daughter of my brother is like a sister, and our relationship is b from /b the side of my b father but not from /b the side of my b mother. /b , b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : b For what /b reason b did Adam not marry his daughter? So that Cain would marry his sister /b and they would procreate immediately, b as it is stated: “For I have said: The world shall be built on kindness [ i ḥesed /i ]” /b (Psalms 89:3). This verse alludes to the fact that at the beginning of the world’s existence it was permitted for men to marry their sisters, which was later forbidden in the verse: “And if a man shall take his sister…it is a shameful thing [ i ḥesed /i ]” (Leviticus 20:17). The Gemara infers: If it had b not /b been b so, /b if God had not specially permitted Cain to marry his sister, she would have been b forbidden /b to him. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who deems it permitted for a gentile to marry his sister.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b Once it was permitted /b for Cain to marry his sister, b it was permitted /b for all descendants of Noah to do so, and it was forbidden only to Jews., b Rav Huna says: A gentile is permitted to /b marry b his daughter. And if you say, for what /b reason b did Adam not marry his daughter? /b It was b so that Cain would marry his sister, because /b it is stated: b “The world shall be built on kindness.” /b , b And there are /b those b who say /b that Rav Huna did not say this; rather, b Rav Huna says: A gentile is prohibited from /b marrying b his daughter. Know /b that this is the i halakha /i , b as Adam did not marry his daughter. /b The Gemara rejects this statement: b But /b that b is not so, as there, this is the reason /b Adam did not marry his daughter: b So that Cain would marry his sister, because /b it is stated: b “The world shall be built on kindness.” /b ,§ b Rav Ḥisda says: /b A Canaanite b slave /b is b permitted to /b marry b his mother, and /b he is b permitted to /b marry b his daughter. /b This is because he has b left the category of a gentile /b by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to i halakha /i ; b but he has not entered the category of a Jew, /b as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him., b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that b Rabbi Elazar says /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b In the case of a b descendant of Noah who designated a maidservant /b as a mate b for his slave, and /b then he himself b engaged in intercourse with her, he is executed /b for adultery b on her account. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From when /b is she considered the slave’s mate? b Rav Naḥman says: From /b the time b that she is called so-and-so’s girl. /b The Gemara asks: b From when is she released /b from her relationship with the slave? b Rav Huna says: From /b the time b that she exposes her head in the marketplace. /b Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him., b Rabbi Elazar says /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina says: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with his wife in an atypical manner, /b i.e., anal intercourse, b is liable /b for engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, b as it is stated: “And shall cleave /b to his wife” (Genesis 2:24), an expression that indicates natural intercourse, b but not /b intercourse b in an atypical manner. /b , b Rava says: Is there any /b action b for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a gentile is deemed liable /b for performing it? A Jew is not liable for engaging in anal intercourse with his wife., b Rather, Rava says /b that the verse is to be understood as follows: A b descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with the wife of another /b man b in an atypical manner is exempt. What is the reason? /b The verse states: “And shall cleave b to his wife,” but not to the wife of another. /b With regard to this prohibition, the verse states: b “And shall cleave,” /b indicating vaginal intercourse, b and not /b intercourse b in an atypical manner. /b , b Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable /b to receive the b death /b penalty, b as it is stated /b when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: b “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian /b and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12)., b And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew /b is considered b as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [ i mokesh /i ] for a man to rashly say [ i yala /i ]: Holy” /b (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [ i nokesh /i ] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [ i lo’a /i ] of the Holy One.,The Gemara states b a mnemonic /b for the upcoming statements of Reish Lakish: b Raises, his slave, Shabbat. Reish Lakish says: One who raises his hand to /b strike b another, even if he /b ultimately b does not strike him, is called wicked, as it is stated: /b “And two men of the Hebrews were struggling with each other, b and he said to the wicked one: Why should you strike your friend?” /b (Exodus 2:13). The phrase: b Why did you strike, is not stated, /b but b rather: “Why should you strike,” /b indicating that one who raised his hand to strike another, b even if he /b ultimately b did not strike him, is called wicked. /b , b Ze’eiri says /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b One who raises his hand to strike another b is called a sinner; as it is stated: /b “And the priest’s lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, b and if not, I will take by force” /b (I Samuel 2:15–16), b and it is written /b with regard to this behavior: b “And the sin of the youths was very great” /b (I Samuel 2:17)., b Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: “And the high arm shall be broken” /b (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that b Rav Huna cut off the hand /b of a person who would habitually hit others., b Rabbi Elazar says: /b Such a violent person b has no remedy but burial, as it is stated: “And as a mighty man [ i ve’ish zero’a /i ], who has the earth” /b (Job 22:8). The expression i ish zero’a /i literally means: A man of the arm, and the verse is interpreted homiletically to mean that one who habitually strikes others deserves to be buried., b And Rabbi Elazar states /b a different interpretation of that verse: b The land is given only to mighty men /b who can protect themselves from all enemies; b as it is stated: “And as a mighty man, who has the earth.” /b , b And /b in connection with that statement, the Gemara notes that b Reish Lakish says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “One who works [ i oved /i ] his land shall have plenty of bread” /b (Proverbs 12:11)? b If a person makes himself like a slave [ i ke’eved /i ] to the land, /b devoting his efforts to it, b he will have plenty of bread, but if not, he will not have plenty of bread. /b , b And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable /b to receive the b death /b penalty, b as it is stated: “And day and night shall not cease” /b (Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. b And the Master said /b (57a) that b their prohibition is their death /b penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. b Ravina says: /b If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, b even /b one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., b on a Monday, /b he is liable.,The Gemara challenges this: b But let /b the i tanna /i b count /b this prohibition b among /b the b seven /b Noahide b mitzvot. /b The Gemara explains: b When /b the i tanna /i b counts /b the seven mitzvot, he counts only those that require one to b sit and refrain from action, /b i.e., those that include a prohibition against performing a certain action. b He does not count /b mitzvot that require one to b arise and take action. /b |
|
74. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 164| 17b. למר למעוטי כספים למר למעוטי פרדות,ת"ר (דברים טו, יד) אשר ברכך ה' אלהיך יכול נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו ת"ל (דברים טו, יד) הענק תעניק מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל אשר ברכך הכל לפי ברכה תן לו,ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר דברים ככתבן נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו א"כ מה ת"ל הענק תעניק דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם :,תנו רבנן עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת אמה עבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אמר מר עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת מנהני מילי,דתנו רבנן (דברים טו, יב) ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש אתה אומר לך ולא ליורש או אינו אלא לך ולא לבן כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבד הרי לבן אמור הא מה אני מקיים ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש,מה ראית לרבות את הבן ולהוציא את האח מרבה אני את הבן שכן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה,אדרבה מרבה אני את האח שכן קם תחת אחיו ליבום כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום,אלא טעמא דאיכא הא פירכא הא לאו הכי אח עדיף ותיפוק לי דהכא תרתי והכא חדא,שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא הוא דקא נפקא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן :,אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת : מנהני מילי אמר רבי פדא דאמר קרא (דברים טו, יז) ואף לאמתך תעשה כן הקישה הכתוב לנרצע מה נרצע אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אף אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת והאי לאמתך תעשה כן להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק,אתה אומר להעניק או אינו אלא לרציעה כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ה) ואם אמר יאמר העבד ולא אמה העבריה הרי רציעה אמור,הא מה אני מקיים ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק א"כ נכתוב קרא לאמתך כן מאי תעשה שמעת מינה תרתי,: הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת : נרצע דכתיב (שמות כא, ו) ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע ועבדו לעולם ולא את הבן ואת הבת נמכר לעובד כוכבים מנין אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, נ) וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו,אמר רבא דבר תורה עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו שנאמר וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו מכלל דאית ליה יורשים גר את העובד כוכבים אינו מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים,דתנן גר ועובד כוכבים שירשו את אביהם עובד כוכבים גר יכול לומר לעובד כוכבים טול אתה עבודת כוכבים ואני מעות טול אתה יין נסך ואני פירות משבאו לרשות גר אסור,ואי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא כי לא באו לרשותו נמי כי שקיל חילופי עבודת כוכבים הוא דקא שקיל,אלא מדרבנן גזירה הוא דעבוד רבנן שמא יחזור לסורו תניא נמי הכי במה דברים אמורים כשירשו אבל כשנשתתפו אסור,עובד כוכבים את הגר וגר את הגר אינו לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים דתנן לוה מעות מן הגר שנתגיירו בניו עמו לא יחזיר לבניו ואם החזיר אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו,והתניא רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו לא קשיא כאן שהורתו ולידתו שלא בקדושה | 17b. The Gemara answers: According b to /b one b Master, /b Rabbi Shimon, this term serves b to exclude money. /b According b to /b the other b Master, /b Rabbi Eliezer, it serves b to exclude mules. /b , b The Sages taught /b with regard to the verse: “And you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress, b of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you” /b (Deuteronomy 15:14). One b might /b have thought that if the b house is blessed due to him, /b then the master b grants him a severance gift, /b and if the b house is not blessed due to him, /b he b does not grant him a severance gift. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “You shall grant severance [ i ha’anek ta’anik /i ],” /b with the doubled form of the verb used for emphasis, to indicate that you must grant him a severance gift b in any case. If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “of that with which /b the Lord your God b has blessed you”? /b This teaches that b all /b that one b gives him /b as a severance gift should be b in accordance with the blessing /b one possesses., b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: /b The meaning of the b statements /b of the Torah is b as they are written, /b i.e., as indicated by a straightforward reading of the verse. Therefore, if b the house was blessed due to him, /b the master b grants him a severance gift, /b and if b the house was not blessed due to him, /b he b does not grant him a severance gift /b at all. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “You shall grant severance [ i ha’anek ta’anik /i ],” /b with the doubled form of the verb? b The Torah spoke in the language of people, /b i.e., the emphasis of the doubled verb is merely stylistic, but does not serve to teach a novel i halakha /i .,§ b The Sages taught: A Hebrew slave serves the son /b of his deceased master b but does not serve the daughter. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter, /b but only the master. b A pierced /b slave b and /b a Hebrew slave b sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Master said /b above: b A Hebrew slave serves the son but does not serve the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter /b derived?, b As the Sages taught, /b with regard to a verse that deals with a Hebrew slave: b “And he shall serve you six years” /b (Deuteronomy 15:12). This indicates that he serves b you and not an heir, /b i.e., if the master dies his slave does not serve one who inherits his estate. Do b you say: You and not an heir, or /b perhaps b is it even: You and not a son? /b The Gemara answers: b When it says: “Six years he shall labor” /b (Exodus 21:2), which does not indicate any exclusion, the inclusion of b a son is /b thereby b stated. How /b then b do I uphold /b the other verse: b “And he shall serve you six years”? /b The expression “serve you” emphasizes that he serves only b you but /b he does b not /b serve b an heir /b other than a son.,The Gemara asks: b What did you see /b that led you b to include the son /b who inherits a Hebrew slave b and to exclude the brother /b from inheriting his brother’s slave? The Gemara answers: b I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate her. /b Just as a father can designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, so too can he betroth her on behalf of his son. b And /b similarly, he replaces his father with regard b to an ancestral field /b (see Leviticus 27:16–21). If one redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself had redeemed it, which means that the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. If someone else redeems the field, including a brother, it does not return to the family.,The Gemara asks: b On the contrary, I /b should b include the brother, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage. /b The Gemara responds: This is insufficient proof, as b is there levirate marriage other /b than b in a case when there is no son? /b If b there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. /b This indicates that a son replaces the deceased before a brother, even with regard to levirate marriage.,The Gemara asks: b Rather, the reason for /b this i halakha /i is specifically that b there is this refutation /b that a levirate marriage applies only when there is no son. Does that not indicate that b without this /b consideration I would say that b a brother is preferable /b to a son? b But let me derive /b that a son has a greater claim of standing in place of his father than a brother b from /b the fact that b here, /b with regard to the preference of a son, there are b two /b cases: Designation of a Hebrew maidservant and an ancestral field, b and here, /b in the case of a brother, there is only b one: /b Levirate marriage.,The Gemara answers: With regard to b an ancestral field too, the i tanna /i derives /b the i halakha /i b from this /b same b refutation. /b The i tanna /i learns from the case of levirate marriage that only the son, not the brother, takes the place of his father for the redemption of the field, employing the same reasoning mentioned above: b Is there levirate marriage other /b than b in a case when there is no son? /b Therefore, without this consideration there is only one supporting example for each claim.,§ The i baraita /i taught that b a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the brother nor the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter /b derived? b Rabbi Padda said: As the verse states /b with regard to a pierced Hebrew slave: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise” /b (Deuteronomy 15:17). b The verse juxtaposes /b a Hebrew maidservant b to a pierced /b slave: b Just as a pierced /b slave b serves neither the son nor the daughter, so too a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b does b this /b verse: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,” come /b to teach b this /b matter? The i tanna /i b requires it for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i , that the verse: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,” /b is a command b to grant /b her b a severance gift. /b ,Do b you say /b that this comparison obligates one b to grant a severance gift /b to a Hebrew maidservant, b or is it /b teaching b only /b that the i halakha /i of b piercing /b a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl, which is stated immediately beforehand, applies to a Hebrew maidservant as well? The Gemara explains: b When it says /b with regard to piercing: b “But if the slave shall say” /b (Exodus 21:5), which indicates that a Hebrew slave can issue this declaration b but a Hebrew maidservant cannot, /b the i halakha /i of b piercing is /b thereby b stated /b and accounted for., b How do I realize /b the meaning of the verse: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise”? /b This obligates a master b to grant a severance gift /b to a freed Hebrew maidservant. If so, one cannot derive from this verse that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara answers: b If so, /b that it comes only to compare her to a pierced Hebrew slave, b let the verse write /b merely: b To your maidservant likewise. What /b is the meaning of the additional phrase: b “You shall do”? Draw two conclusions from /b this: A Hebrew maidservant does not serve the son, and she is granted severance gifts.,§ The i baraita /i further teaches that b a pierced /b Hebrew slave b and one sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. /b The Gemara explains: The i halakha /i of b a pierced /b slave is b as it is written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever” /b (Exodus 21:6), which indicates that he serves this master, b but not the son or the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b From where /b is it derived that the same applies to a Hebrew slave b sold to a gentile? Ḥizkiyya says /b that b the verse states /b with regard to the emancipating of a slave who was sold to a gentile: b “And he shall reckon with his purchaser” /b (Leviticus 25:50), which teaches that this applies only to his purchaser b but not to the heirs of his purchaser. /b , b Rava says: By Torah law a gentile inherits /b the property of b his father, as it is stated /b with regard to one sold to a gentile: b “And he shall reckon with his purchaser,” but not with his purchaser’s heirs. /b One can derive from here b by inference /b that ordinarily a gentile b has heirs. /b By contrast, b by Torah law a convert does not /b inherit the property of his father or any other b gentile, /b as once he converts he is considered a new person with no ties to his previous family. b Rather, /b a convert inherits the property of his father b by rabbinic law. /b , b As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Demai /i 6:10): With regard to b a convert and a gentile who inherited /b property b from their gentile father, the convert can say to the gentile: You take /b the objects of b idol worship and I /b will take b money; you take wine /b used for b a libation /b to idolatry b and I /b will take b produce. /b Provided that these objects have not entered the domain of the convert, he may divide everything with his brother so that his brother takes as an inheritance the items that the convert is prohibited from using as a Jew. But b once they have come into the convert’s possession, /b it is b prohibited /b for him to exchange these objects with his brother, as he would thereby be benefiting from idolatry., b And if it would enter your mind /b that a convert inherits property from his father b by Torah law, it /b should be prohibited b when /b these objects b have not /b yet b come into his possession as well, /b as b when he takes /b money or produce and gives the idols to the gentile, b he takes /b an item that has been b exchanged for /b objects of b idol worship. /b Since he receives half the inheritance at the moment when his father dies, he has a share in these items as well., b Rather, /b a convert inherits property from his father b by rabbinic law, /b as this is b a decree that the Sages instituted lest he return to his /b previous b wayward path [ i suro /i ]. /b The Sages were concerned that due to his concern over losing his inheritance, a convert might return to his gentile lifestyle. In any event, as he does not inherit his father’s property by Torah law, the idols are not considered his property. b This /b i halakha /i b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what /b case b is this statement said? /b He may do this b when they inherited. But when /b the convert and the gentile b formed a partnership, it is prohibited /b for him to divide the property so that the gentile takes the idols, as the convert benefits from them indirectly.,With regard to the same issue it is taught: b By Torah law and by rabbinic law a gentile does not /b inherit property b from /b his father who is b a convert, nor /b does b a convert /b inherit property b from /b his father who is b a convert. As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Shevi’it /i 10:9): If one b borrowed money from a convert whose sons converted with him, /b and therefore when they converted there were no longer any legal ties between the sons and the father, b he does not return /b it b to /b the creditor’s b sons, /b as they are not considered his heirs. b And if he /b does b return /b it, b the Sages are not pleased with him. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b the Sages are pleased with him? /b The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here, /b it is referring to a convert b whose conception and birth were not in sanctity /b of the Jewish people, i.e., his father was a gentile when he was born and afterward the son converted. In this case there are no legal ties between the father and the son, and therefore one who owes money to the father is not required to pay the son. |
|
75. Origen, Against Celsus, 1.28 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 | 1.28. And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God. Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God. |
|
76. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159| 71a. בכדי חייו,רבינא אמר הכא בתלמידי חכמים עסקינן טעמא מאי גזור רבנן שמא ילמוד ממעשיו וכיון דתלמיד חכם הוא לא ילמוד ממעשיו,איכא דמתני לה להא דרב הונא אהא דתני רב יוסף (שמות כב, כד) אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך עמי ונכרי עמי קודם עני ועשיר עני קודם ענייך ועניי עירך ענייך קודמין עניי עירך ועניי עיר אחרת עניי עירך קודמין,אמר מר עמי ונכרי עמי קודם פשיטא אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא לא נצרכא דאפילו לנכרי ברבית ולישראל בחנם,תניא אמר ר' יוסי בא וראה סמיות עיניהם של מלוי ברבית אדם קורא לחבירו רשע יורד עמו לחייו והם מביאין עדים ולבלר וקולמוס ודיו וכותבין וחותמין פלוני זה כפר באלהי ישראל,תניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר כל מי שיש לו מעות ומלוה אותם שלא ברבית עליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים טו, ה) כספו לא נתן בנשך ושוחד על נקי לא לקח עושה אלה לא ימוט לעולם הא למדת שכל המלוה ברבית נכסיו מתמוטטין והא קא חזינן דלא מוזפי ברבית וקא מתמוטטין אמר רבי אלעזר הללו מתמוטטין ועולין והללו מתמוטטין ואינן עולין,(חבקוק א, יג) למה תביט בוגדים תחריש כבלע רשע צדיק ממנו אמר רב הונא צדיק ממנו בולע צדיק גמור אינו בולע,תניא רבי אומר גר צדק האמור לענין מכירה וגר תושב האמור לענין רבית איני יודע מה הוא,גר צדק האמור לענין מכירה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, לט) וכי ימוך אחיך עמך ונמכר לך ולא לך אלא לגר שנא' (ויקרא כה, מז) לגר,ולא לגר צדק אלא לגר תושב שנא' (ויקרא כה, מז) לגר תושב משפחת גר זה הנכרי כשהוא אומר או לעקר זה הנמכר לעבודת כוכבים עצמה,אמר מר ולא לך אלא לגר שנא' לגר למימרא דגר קני עבד עברי ורמינהי אין הגר נקנה בעבד עברי ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי,גר לא נקנה בעבד עברי (ויקרא כה, מא) ושב אל משפחתו בעינן והא ליכא ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי אשה לאו אורח ארעא גר נמי גמירי דמקני קני דלא מקני לא קני,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אינו קונה ודינו כישראל אבל קונה ודינו כנכרי,דתניא הנרצע והנמכר לנכרי אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת,אמר מר ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי נימא דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתניא אשה קונה את השפחות ואינה קונה את העבדים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף קונה את העבדים אפילו תימא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולא קשיא כאן בעבד עברי כאן בעבד כנעני,עבד עברי צניע לה עבד כנעני פריץ לה,אלא הא דתני רב יוסף ארמלתא לא תרבי כלבא ולא תשרי בר בי רב באושפיזא בשלמא בר בי רב צניע לה אלא כלבא כיון דמסריך בה מירתתא אמרי כיון דכי שדיא ליה אומצא מסריך בתרה אמרי אינשי משום אומצא דשדיא ליה הוא דמסריך,גר תושב האמור לענין רבית מאי היא דכתיב (ויקרא כה, לה) וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלהיך וחי אחיך עמך ורמינהי לוין מהן ומלוין אותן ברבית וכן בגר תושב,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מי כתיב אל תקח מאתם מאתו כתיב מישראל,תנו רבנן אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית אבל אתה נעשה לו ערב | 71a. to teach that one may lend money with interest to a i ger toshav /i only b to the extent /b required to provide b a livelihood to /b the lender, but not to do so as a regular business., b Ravina said: Here /b in the mishna b we are dealing with Torah scholars, /b for whom it is permitted to lend money to a gentile with interest. The Gemara explains: b What is the reason the Sages decreed /b that one should not lend money to a gentile with interest? The reason is that b perhaps /b the Jew b will learn from /b the gentile’s b actions. /b Continuous interactions with gentiles for the sake of ficial dealings may have a negative influence on a Jew. b And since /b in this case the lender b is a Torah scholar, he will not learn from /b the gentile’s b actions. /b , b There are /b those b who teach that which Rav Huna /b said in connection with b that which Rav Yosef taught: /b The verse states: b “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” /b (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of b My people, /b i.e., a Jew, b and a gentile /b both come to borrow money from you, b My people take precedence. /b The term “the poor person” teaches that if b a poor person and a rich person /b come to borrow money, b the poor person takes precedence. /b And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If b your poor person, /b meaning one of your relatives, b and /b one of b the poor of your city /b come to borrow money, b your poor person takes precedence. /b If it is between one of b the poor of your city and /b one of b the poor of another city, the /b one of b the poor of your city takes precedence. /b , b The Master said /b above: If one of b My people and a gentile /b come to you for a loan, b My people take precedence. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t this b obvious? /b Is there any reason to think that a gentile would take precedence over a Jew? b Rav Naḥman said /b that Rav b Huna said to me: It is necessary only /b to teach b that even /b if the choice is to lend money b to a gentile with interest or to a Jew for free, /b without interest, one must still give preference to the Jew and lend the money to him, even though this will entail a lack of profit., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei says: Come and see the blindness in the eyes of those who lend /b money b with interest. /b If b a person calls another a wicked person /b in public, the other becomes insulted and b he harasses him in /b all aspects of b his life /b because he called him by this disgraceful name. b But they /b who lend with interest b bring witnesses and a scribe [ i velavlar /i ] and a pen [ i vekulmos /i ] and ink and write and sign /b a document that testifies: b So-and-so denies the /b existence of the b God of Israel, /b as the very fact that he lent with interest in defiance of the Torah is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: /b Concerning b anyone who has money and lends it without interest, the verse says about him: “He who has not given his money with interest and who has not taken a bribe against the innocent, he who does these shall never collapse” /b (Psalms 15:5). From this statement, the opposite can also be inferred: b You learn /b from this b that /b concerning b anyone who lends /b his money to others b with interest, his property, /b i.e., his ficial standing, b collapses. /b The Gemara asks: b But we see /b people b who do not lend /b money b with interest and /b nevertheless their property b collapses. Rabbi Elazar says: /b There is still a difference: b Those /b who do not lend money with interest b collapse but /b then ultimately b rise, but these, /b who lend with interest, b collapse and do not rise /b again.,Referring to the subject of honest people who collapse temporarily, it is said: b “Why do You observe the treacherous, and remain silent while the wicked swallows the one who is more righteous than he?” /b (Habakkuk 1:13). b Rav Huna says /b about this verse: b One who is more righteous than he, he swallows /b for the moment, but b he does not swallow a completely righteous person /b at all.,§ The Gemara returns to the clarification of the mishna, which mentioned the subject of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ i ger toshav /i ]. b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b With regard to the b convert that is mentioned concerning the sale /b of a Hebrew slave b and /b the b i ger toshav /i that is mentioned concerning interest, I do not know what /b the meaning of each of these references b is. /b ,The Gemara explains: b The convert that is mentioned concerning the sale /b of a Hebrew slave is referring to the following, b as it is written: “If your brother waxes poor with you and is sold unto you” /b (Leviticus 25:39), and it was expounded in a i baraita /i : b And not /b only will he be sold b to you, /b a born Jew, b but /b he will be sold even b to a convert, as it is stated: /b “And sells himself b to a stranger [ i leger /i ]” /b (Leviticus 25:47)., b And /b this sale to a i ger /i is referring to a sale b not /b only b to a righteous convert [ i leger tzedek /i ], but /b even b to a i ger toshav /i , as it is stated: /b “And sells himself b to a stranger who is a settler [ i leger toshav /i ]” /b (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse: “Or to an offshoot of b a stranger’s family,” this is /b referring to b a gentile, /b i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. b When it states: “Or to an offshoot /b of a stranger’s family,” b this is /b referring to b one sold for idol worship itself, /b i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship.,The Gemara clarifies the i baraita /i . b The Master said: And not /b only will he be sold b to you, /b a born Jew, b but /b he will be sold even b to a convert, as it is stated: /b “And sells himself b to a stranger.” /b Is this b to say that a convert may acquire a Hebrew slave? /b The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i : b A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, and a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. /b ,The Gemara explains the i baraita /i . b A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, /b as b we require /b the fulfillment of the verse: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, b and shall return to his own family” /b (Leviticus 25:41), b and /b a convert b is not /b able to do this, since upon conversion the convert severs his relationship with his gentile family, and he therefore has no family. The i baraita /i teaches: b And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. /b With regard to b a woman, /b the reason is that it is b not proper conduct, /b since people may say that she is purchasing him to engage in sexual intercourse with him. With regard to b a convert as well, /b it b is learned /b as a tradition: Only one b who can be acquired /b as a Hebrew slave b can acquire /b a Hebrew slave, and one b who cannot be acquired /b as a Hebrew slave b cannot acquire /b a Hebrew slave. Since a convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, he also cannot acquire one.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s question was that since it has been established that a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave, why was he mentioned in the verse? b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He cannot acquire /b a Hebrew slave b and /b have b his i halakha /i /b be like that b of a Jew /b who owns a Hebrew slave, b but he can acquire /b a Hebrew slave b and /b have b his i halakha /i /b be like that b of a gentile /b who owns a Hebrew slave.,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : A Hebrew slave who b had his ear pierced /b by his own request in order to remain a slave after his six-year period of servitude was over, and therefore is emancipated only during the Jubilee Year, b and /b also a Hebrew slave b who was sold to a gentile, does not serve /b his master’s b son and /b does b not /b serve his master’s b daughter /b after his master’s death, but rather is emancipated. The same i halakha /i would apply to a Hebrew slave sold to a convert, whose status in this respect is similar to that of a gentile., b The Master said /b above: b And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. /b The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that /b this i baraita /i is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A woman may acquire maidservants but may not acquire /b male b slaves, /b in order to preserve standards of modesty. b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She may also acquire /b male b slaves. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Even /b if b you say /b that this i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, /b it is b not difficult. Here, /b where it is prohibited, the ruling is stated b with regard to a Hebrew slave, /b and b there, /b where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel renders it permitted, the ruling is stated b with regard to a Canaanite slave. /b ,The Gemara explains the difference: b A Hebrew slave /b is regarded as b discreet in her /b eyes, and since she trusts that a Hebrew slave will not reveal their actions to others if they engage in sexual intercourse, it is prohibited for her to acquire a male Hebrew slave. By contrast, b a Canaanite slave /b is regarded as b indiscreet in her /b eyes, so she will be deterred from transgressing with him.,The Gemara asks: b But /b this seems to contradict the i baraita /i b that Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog, /b due to suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, b and she may not allow a student /b of Torah to dwell b as a lodger /b in her home. b Granted, /b it makes sense that it is prohibited for her to have b a student /b of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as b discreet in her /b eyes. b But /b concerning b a dog, since it would follow her /b around afterward if she would engage in bestiality with it, b she is afraid /b to sin with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise it. The Sages b say /b in response: b Since it will /b also b follow her /b around b if she throws it a piece of meat [ i umtza /i ], people will say: It is following her due to the meat she threw to it, /b and they will not suspect her of sinning. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.,The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s second difficulty: b The i ger toshav /i that was mentioned concerning interest, what is it? /b What was Rabbi Yehuda’s difficulty? b As it is written: “And if your brother waxes poor, and his means fail with you, then you shall strengthen him, as a stranger and a resident [ i ger vetoshav /i ] shall he live with you. You may not take interest or increase from him, but fear your God, and your brother should live with you” /b (Leviticus 25:35–36). This indicates that interest may not be taken from a i ger toshav /i . b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from the mishna: b One may borrow /b money b from them, /b i.e., from gentiles, b and lend /b money b to them with interest, and similarly, /b one may borrow money from and lend money to b a i ger toshav /i /b with interest., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Is it written: Do not take from them? /b No, b it is written: /b “Do not take b from him,” /b in the singular, and it means: Do not take interest b from a Jew. /b ,With regard to this verse b the Sages taught: “You may not take interest or increase from him,” but you may become a guarantor for him /b for a transaction involving interest. |
|
77. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159| 109b. אמר רבי זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ומותר והא אנן תנן אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא,בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו התם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו,לימא מסייע ליה הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה,דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה,ואיכא דאמרי א"ר זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ואסור לימא מסייע ליה אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא,בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו דהתם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו,ת"ש הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה,דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה,תניא כלישנא קמא דרב כחל שבשלו בחלבו מותר קבה שבשלה בחלבה אסור,ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זה כנוס במעיו וזה אין כנוס במעיו,כיצד קורעו אמר רב יהודה קורעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל א"ל ר' אלעזר לשמעיה קרע לי ואנא איכול מאי קמ"ל מתניתין היא הא קמ"ל דלא בעינן שתי וערב וטחו בכותל,אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה אסר לן דמא שרא לן כבדא נדה דם טוהר,חלב בהמה חלב חיה חזיר מוחא דשיבוטא גירותא לישנא דכורא,אשת איש גרושה בחיי בעלה אשת אח יבמה כותית יפת תאר בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא,אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי זויקו לה כחלי והאנן תנן קורעו ההוא לקדרה,והא קתני שבשלו דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא ה"ה דאפי' לכתחלה ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא קבה | 109b. strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that if one did not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it he does not violate the biblical prohibition against eating meat and milk. b Rabbi Zeira says /b that b Rav says: He does not violate /b the prohibition, b and /b it is altogether b permitted /b to eat the cooked product i ab initio /i . The Gemara objects: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b He does not violate /b the prohibition, i.e., he is not held liable after the fact. One can infer from here as follows: b He does not violate /b a prohibition by Torah law, b but there is /b nevertheless b a prohibition /b i ab initio /i by rabbinic law.,The Gemara explains: b By right /b the mishna b should have /b taught b that there is no prohibition /b here by rabbinic law b either. But /b the i tanna /i of the mishna uses this language b since he wants to teach /b in b the latter clause: /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood, /b but if b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition. b There /b it is true that although b he does not violate /b a prohibition by Torah law b there is a prohibition /b by rabbinic law. To preserve linguistic symmetry, b he teaches the first clause /b in this manner b as well, /b stating: b He does not violate /b the prohibition.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the following i baraita /i b supports /b this opinion: One who wants to eat b the udder /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its milk. /b If b he did not tear /b the udder before cooking it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes b for it. /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood. /b If b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. /b One can infer from the i baraita /i that b it is /b only the b heart that requires tearing /b after cooking if it was not torn beforehand. b But /b the b udder does not require tearing /b after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.,The Gemara rejects this: b Perhaps /b one should infer the opposite, that b tearing /b after cooking b is sufficient /b only b to /b render the b heart /b permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. b But tearing /b after cooking b is not sufficient to /b render the b udder /b permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk., b And some say /b a different version of the above exchange, based on a different version of Rav’s statement: b Rabbi Zeira says /b that b Rav says: /b If one does not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it, b he does not violate /b the Torah prohibition, b but /b it is b prohibited /b to eat the cooked product by rabbinic law. The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the mishna b supports /b this opinion, as it states: b He does not violate /b the prohibition, indicating that although b he does not violate /b a Torah prohibition and is not flogged, b there is /b nevertheless b a prohibition /b by rabbinic law.,The Gemara responds: b By right /b the mishna b should have /b taught b that there is not even a prohibition /b by rabbinic law. b But /b the i tanna /i of the mishna uses this language b since he wants to teach the latter clause: /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood, /b but if b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition b for it. There, /b it is true that although b he does not violate /b a Torah prohibition b there is a prohibition /b by rabbinic law. b He /b therefore b teaches /b in b the first clause /b in this manner b as well, /b stating: b He does not violate /b the prohibition b for it. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : One who wants to eat b the udder /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its milk. /b If b he did not tear /b the udder before cooking it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition b for it. /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood. /b If b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. /b One can infer from the i baraita /i that b it is /b only the b heart that requires tearing /b after cooking if it was not torn beforehand, b but /b the b udder does not require tearing /b after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.,The Gemara rejects this: b Perhaps /b one should infer the opposite, that b tearing /b after cooking b is sufficient /b only b to /b render the b heart /b permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. b But tearing /b it after cooking b is not sufficient to /b render the b udder /b permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk. This concludes the second version of the Gemara’s discussion.,The Gemara comments: b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with the first version of Rav’s /b statement: b An udder that one cooked, /b i.e., roasted, b in its milk is permitted. /b By contrast, the b stomach /b of a suckling lamb or calf b that one cooked, /b i.e., roasted, together b with /b the b milk /b it contains is b prohibited /b for consumption.,The i baraita /i explains: b And what /b is the b distinction between this /b stomach b and that /b udder? The milk b this /b calf suckled was considered milk the moment it left the mother’s teat, and it was merely b collected in /b the calf’s b innards. But that /b milk in the udder is not defined as milk, since it was b never collected in /b the animal’s b innards /b from outside but is found in the flesh. Consequently, this meat of the udder is not prohibited if it is roasted with the milk it contains, although one should still tear it by rabbinic law i ab initio /i .,§ The Gemara inquires: b How must one tear /b an udder before cooking it? b Rav Yehuda says: One tears it lengthwise and widthwise [ i sheti va’erev /i ] and smears it against a wall /b to remove all the milk. The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant: Tear /b an udder b for me /b before you roast it, b and I will eat /b it. The Gemara asks: b What is /b this episode b teaching us? It is /b explicitly stated in b the mishna /b that one must do this. The Gemara answers: b This /b story b teaches us that /b according to Rabbi Elazar b we do not require /b one to tear it b lengthwise and widthwise and smear it against a wall. /b Rather, it is enough simply to tear it once, either lengthwise or widthwise.,§ b Yalta said to /b her husband b Rav Naḥman: Now /b as a rule, for b any /b item b that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar /b item. He b prohibited to us /b the consumption of b blood, /b yet b He permitted to us /b the consumption of b liver, /b which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited sexual intercourse with b a menstruating woman, /b but permitted sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges b the blood of purity. /b During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law.,Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden b fat of a domesticated animal, /b but permitted the b fat of an undomesticated animal, /b which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat b pork, /b but one may eat b the brain of a i shibuta /i /b fish, which has a similar taste. One may not eat b i giruta /i , /b a non-kosher fish, but one may eat the b tongue of a fish, /b which tastes similar.,Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with b the wife of /b another b man /b but permitted one to marry b a divorced woman in her /b previous b husband’s lifetime. /b The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with one’s b brother’s wife, /b and yet it permits one to marry his b i yevama /i , /b i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with b a gentile woman /b but permitted one to marry b a beautiful woman /b who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; b I wish to eat /b a dish that tastes like b meat /b cooked b in milk. /b ,Upon hearing this, b Rav Naḥman said to /b his b cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her. /b The Gemara asks: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna that one must b tear /b the udder first? Rav Naḥman did not tell his cooks to tear the udders. The Gemara answers: b That /b requirement was stated only b with regard to /b cooking in b a pot, /b not roasting.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in the i baraita /i cited above: An udder b that one cooked /b in its milk is permitted? This indicates that b after the fact, yes, /b it is permitted, but one may b not /b roast it b i ab initio /i /b without tearing it. The Gemara answers: b The same is true even /b of roasting b i ab initio /i , /b i.e., it is permitted, b and /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i uses this language b since he wants to teach /b in b the latter clause: A stomach /b |
|
78. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •torah study, women’s exemption from •commandment from which, women are exempt Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 17, 185| 20b. ומן התפלין וחייבין בתפלה ובמזוזה ובברכת המזון:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ק"ש פשיטא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות,מהו דתימא הואיל ואית בה מלכות שמים קמ"ל:,ומן התפלין: פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואתקש למזוזה קמ"ל:,וחייבין בתפלה: דרחמי נינהו מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב בה (תהלים נה, יח) ערב ובקר וצהרים כמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא דמי קמ"ל:,ובמזוזה: פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואתקש לתלמוד תורה קמשמע לן:,ובברכת המזון: פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב (שמות טז, ח) בתת ה' לכם בערב בשר לאכל ולחם בבקר לשבע כמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא דמי קמ"ל:,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה נשים חייבות בקדוש היום דבר תורה אמאי מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות אמר אביי מדרבנן,א"ל רבא והא דבר תורה קאמר ועוד כל מצות עשה נחייבינהו מדרבנן,אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמות כ, ז) זכור (דברים ה, יא) ושמור כל שישנו בשמירה ישנו בזכירה והני נשי הואיל ואיתנהו בשמירה איתנהו בזכירה,א"ל רבינא לרבא נשים בברכת המזון דאורייתא או דרבנן למאי נפקא מינה לאפוקי רבים ידי חובתן אי אמרת (בשלמא) דאורייתא אתי דאורייתא ומפיק דאורייתא (אלא אי) אמרת דרבנן הוי שאינו מחוייב בדבר וכל שאינו מחוייב בדבר אינו מוציא את הרבים ידי חובתן מאי,ת"ש באמת אמרו בן מברך לאביו ועבד מברך לרבו ואשה מברכת לבעלה אבל אמרו חכמים תבא מארה לאדם שאשתו ובניו מברכין לו,אי אמרת בשלמא דאורייתא אתי דאורייתא ומפיק דאורייתא אלא אי אמרת דרבנן אתי דרבנן ומפיק דאורייתא,ולטעמיך קטן בר חיובא הוא אלא הכי במאי עסקינן כגון שאכל שיעורא דרבנן דאתי דרבנן ומפיק דרבנן:,דרש רב עוירא זמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אמי וזמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אסי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע כתוב בתורתך (דברים י, יז) אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שחד והלא אתה נושא פנים לישראל דכתיב (במדבר ו, כו) ישא ה' פניו אליך אמר להם וכי לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם בתורה (דברים ח, י) ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה' אלהיך והם מדקדקים [על] עצמם עד כזית ועד כביצה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בעל קרי מהרהר בלבו ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ועל המזון מברך לאחריו ואינו מברך לפניו רבי יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבינא זאת אומרת הרהור כדבור דמי דאי סלקא דעתך לאו כדבור דמי למה מהרהר,אלא מאי הרהור כדבור דמי יוציא בשפתיו,כדאשכחן בסיני,ורב חסדא אמר הרהור לאו כדבור דמי דאי סלקא דעתך הרהור כדבור דמי יוציא בשפתיו,אלא מאי הרהור לאו כדבור דמי למה מהרהר אמר רבי אלעזר כדי שלא יהו כל העולם עוסקין בו והוא יושב ובטל,ונגרוס בפרקא אחרינא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה בדבר שהצבור עוסקין בו | 20b. b and from phylacteries, but /b they b are obligated in /b the mitzvot of b prayer, i mezuza /i , and Grace after Meals. /b The Gemara explains the rationale for these exemptions and obligations.,GEMARA With regard to the mishna’s statement that women are exempt from b the recitation of i Shema /i , /b the Gemara asks: That is b obvious, /b as i Shema /i is a b time-bound, positive mitzva, and /b the halakhic principle is: b Women are exempt from any time-bound, positive mitzva, /b i.e., any mitzva whose performance is only in effect at a particular time. i Shema /i falls into that category as its recitation is restricted to the morning and the evening. Why then did the mishna need to mention it specifically?,The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since /b i Shema /i b includes /b the acceptance of the yoke of b the kingdom of Heaven, /b perhaps women are obligated in its recitation despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that, nevertheless, women are exempt.,We also learned in the mishna that women are exempt b from phylacteries. /b The Gemara asks: That is b obvious /b as well. The donning of phylacteries is only in effect at particular times; during the day but not at night, on weekdays but not on Shabbat or Festivals. The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since /b the mitzva of phylacteries b is juxtaposed /b in the Torah b to /b the mitzva of b i mezuza /i , /b as it is written: “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hands and they shall be frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), followed by: “And you shall write them upon the door posts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9), just as women are obligated in the mitzva of i mezuza /i , so too they are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that nevertheless, women are exempt.,We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and children are b obligated in prayer. /b The Gemara explains that, although the mitzva of prayer is only in effect at particular times, which would lead to the conclusion that women are exempt, nevertheless, since prayer b is /b supplication for b mercy /b and women also require divine mercy, they are obligated. However, b lest you say: Since /b regarding prayer it is b written: “Evening and morning and afternoon /b I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18), perhaps prayer should be b considered a time-bound, positive mitzva /b and women would be exempt, the mishna b teaches us /b that, fundamentally, the mitzva of prayer is not time-bound and, therefore, everyone is obligated.,We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated in the mitzva of b i mezuza /i . /b The Gemara asks: That too is b obvious. /b Why would they be exempt from fulfilling this obligation, it is a positive mitzva that is not time-bound? The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since /b the mitzva of i mezuza /i b is juxtaposed /b in the Torah to the mitzva of b Torah study /b (Deuteronomy 11:19–20), just as women are exempt from Torah study, so too they are exempt from the mitzva of i mezuza /i . Therefore, the mishna explicitly b teaches us /b that they are obligated.,We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated to recite the b Grace after Meals. /b The Gemara asks: That too is b obvious. /b The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since it is written: “When the Lord shall give you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to the full” /b (Exodus 16:8), one might conclude that the Torah established fixed times for the meals and, consequently, for the mitzva of Grace after Meals and, therefore, it b is considered a time-bound, positive mitzva, /b exempting women from its recitation. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that women are obligated., b Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Women are obligated to /b recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day [ b i kiddush /i ]by Torah law. /b The Gemara asks: b Why? /b i Kiddush /i is a b time-bound, positive mitzva, and women are exempt /b from b all time-bound, positive mitzvot. Abaye said: /b Indeed, women are obligated to recite i kiddush /i by b rabbinic, /b but not by Torah b law. /b , b Rava said to /b Abaye: There are two refutations to your explanation. First, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that women are obligated to recite i kiddush /i b by Torah law, and, furthermore, /b the very explanation is difficult to understand. If the Sages do indeed institute ordices in these circumstances, b let us obligate them /b to fulfill b all /b time-bound, b positive mitzvot by rabbinic law, /b even though they are exempt by Torah law., b Rather, Rava said: /b This has a unique explanation. In the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus, b the verse said: “Remember /b Shabbat and sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8), while in the book of Deuteronomy it is said: b “Observe /b Shabbat and sanctify it” (Deuteronomy 5:12). From these two variants we can deduce that b anyone included in /b the obligation to b observe /b Shabbat by avoiding its desecration, b is /b also b included in /b the mitzva to b remember /b Shabbat by reciting i kiddush /i . b Since these women are included in /b the mitzva b to observe /b Shabbat, as there is no distinction between men and women in the obligation to observe prohibitions in general and to refrain from the desecration of Shabbat in particular, so too b are they included in /b the mitzva of b remembering /b Shabbat., b Ravina said to Rava: /b We learned in the mishna that b women /b are obligated in the mitzva of b Grace after Meals. /b However, are they obligated b by Torah law /b or merely b by rabbinic law? What difference does it make /b whether it is by Torah or rabbinic law? The difference is regarding her ability b to fulfill the obligation of others /b when reciting the blessing on their behalf. b Granted, if you say that /b their obligation b is by Torah law, /b one whose obligation b is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation /b of others who are obligated b by Torah law. However, if you say /b that their obligation is b by rabbinic law, /b then from the perspective of Torah law, women b are /b considered to be b one who is not obligated, and /b the general principle is that b one who is not obligated /b to fulfill a particular mitzva b cannot fulfill the obligations of the many /b in that mitzva. Therefore, it is important to know b what /b is the resolution of this dilemma., b Come /b and b hear /b from what was taught in a i baraita /i : b Actually they said /b that b a son may recite a blessing /b on behalf of b his father, and a slave may recite a blessing /b on behalf of b his master, and a woman may recite a blessing /b on behalf of b her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man /b who, due to his ignorance, requires b his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf. /b ,From here we may infer: b Granted, if you say that /b their obligation b is by Torah law, /b one whose obligation b is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation /b of others who are obligated b by Torah law. However, if you say /b that their obligation is b by rabbinic law, /b can one who is obligated b by rabbinic law, come and fulfill the obligation /b of one whose obligation is b by Torah law? /b ,The Gemara challenges this proof: b And according to your reasoning, /b is b a minor obligated /b by Torah law to perform mitzvot? Everyone agrees that a minor is exempt by Torah law, yet here the i baraita /i said that he may recite a blessing on behalf of his father. There must be another way to explain the i baraita /i . b With what we are dealing here? With a case where /b his father b ate /b a quantity of food that did not satisfy his hunger, a b measure /b for which one is only obligated b by rabbinic law /b to recite Grace after Meals. In that case, one whose obligation b is by rabbinic law can come and fulfill the obligation /b of another whose obligation b is by rabbinic law. /b ,After citing the i halakha /i that one who eats a quantity of food that does not satisfy his hunger is obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals, the Gemara cites a related homiletic interpretation. b Rav Avira taught, sometimes he said it in the name /b of b Rabbi Ami, and sometimes he said it in the name /b of b Rabbi Asi: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, in Your Torah it is written: /b “The great, mighty and awesome God b who favors no one and takes no bribe” /b (Deuteronomy 10:17), b yet You, /b nevertheless, b show favor to Israel, as it is written: “The Lord shall show favor to you /b and give you peace” (Numbers 6:26). b He replied to them: And how can I not show favor to Israel, as I wrote for them in the Torah: “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 8:10), meaning that there is no obligation to bless the Lord until one is satiated; b yet they are exacting with themselves /b to recite Grace after Meals even if they have eaten b as much as an olive-bulk or an egg-bulk. /b Since they go beyond the requirements of the law, they are worthy of favor., strong MISHNA: /strong Ezra the Scribe decreed that one who is ritually impure because of a seminal emission may not engage in matters of Torah until he has immersed in a ritual bath and purified himself. This i halakha /i was accepted over the course of many generations; however, many disputes arose with regard to the Torah matters to which it applies. Regarding this, the mishna says: If the time for the recitation of i Shema /i arrived and b one /b is impure due to a b seminal emission, /b he may b contemplate /b i Shema /i b in his heart, but neither recites the blessings preceding /b i Shema /i , b nor the blessings following it. Over food /b which, after partaking, one is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing, b one recites a blessing afterward, but one does not recite a blessing beforehand, /b because the blessing recited prior to eating is a requirement by rabbinic law. b And /b in all of these instances b Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing beforehand and thereafter /b in both the case of i Shema /i and in the case of food., strong GEMARA: /strong b Ravina said: That is to say, /b from the mishna that b contemplation is tantamount to speech. As if it would enter your mind /b that b it is not tantamount to speech, /b then b why /b does one who is impure because of a seminal emission b contemplate? /b It must be that it is tantamount to speech.,The Gemara rejects this: b But what /b are you saying, that b contemplation is tantamount to speech? /b Then, if one who is impure because of a seminal emission is permitted to contemplate, why does he not b utter /b the words b with his lips? /b ,The Gemara answers: b As we found at /b Mount b Sinai. /b There one who had sexual relations with a woman was required to immerse himself before receiving the Torah, which was spoken and not merely contemplated. Here, too, it was decreed that one who was impure due to a seminal emission may not recite matters of Torah out loud until he immerses himself., b And Rav Ḥisda said /b that the opposite conclusion should be drawn from the mishna: b Contemplation is not tantamount to speech, as if it would enter your mind /b that b contemplation is tantamount to speech, /b then one who is impure because of a seminal emission should i ab initio /i , b utter /b i Shema /i b with his lips. /b ,The Gemara challenges this argument: b But what /b are you saying, that b contemplation is not tantamount to speech? /b If so, b why does he contemplate? Rabbi Elazar said: So that /b a situation b will not /b arise b where everyone is engaged in /b reciting i Shema /i b and he sits idly /b by.,The Gemara asks: If that is the only purpose, b let him study another chapter /b and not specifically i Shema /i or one of the blessings. b Rav Adda bar Ahava said: /b It is fitting that one engage b in a matter in which the community is engaged. /b |
|
79. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 165| 47a. יכיר לחוד והכרת פנים לחוד,איתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר רבי יוחנן אומר אין לו בכור לנחלה ור"ש בן לקיש אומר יש לו בכור לנחלה רבי יוחנן אומר אין לו בכור לנחלה דהא הוה ליה ראשית אונו ור"ש בן לקיש אומר יש לו בכור לנחלה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר ר' יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה ור"ש בן לקיש אמר לא קיים ר' יוחנן אמר קיים (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה ור"ש בן לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,וצריכא דאי איתמר בהא קמייתא בהא קאמר רשב"ל משום דבהיותו עובד כוכבים לאו בני נחלה נינהו אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לרבי יוחנן דלא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה והא עבד ליה שבת,ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לר"ש בן לקיש צריכא,תנן מי שלא היו לו בנים ונשא אשה שכבר ילדה עודה שפחה ונשתחררה עודה עובדת כוכבים ונתגיירה ומשבאתה לישראל ילדה ולדה בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן,ילדה ממאן אילימא מישראל שלא היו לו בנים מאי איריא גיורת ושפחה אפילו בת ישראל נמי,אלא לאו מגר שהיו לו בנים ונתגייר וקתני בכור לנחלה,לא לעולם מישראל שלא היו לו בנים ואינו בכור לכהן איצטריכא ליה,לאפוקי מדרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר בכור לנחלה ולכהן שנאמר (שמות יג, יב) פטר רחם בישראל עד שיפטרו רחם מישראל קמ"ל דלא,ת"ש היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר יש לו בכור לנחלה אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב אחא הא ודאי רבי יוסי הגלילי הוא דאמר פטר רחם בישראל עד שיפטרו רחם מישראל ויליף איהו מינה דידה,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה לוייה שילדה בנה פטור מה' סלעים דאיעבר ממאן אילימא דאיעבר מכהן ומלוי מאי איריא לוייה אפילו ישראלית נמי,אלא דאיעבר מישראל (במדבר א, ב) למשפחותם לבית אבותם כתיב,אמר רב פפא דאיעבר מעובד כוכבים ולא תימא אליבא דמאן דאמר אין מזהמין את הולד אלא אפילו למאן דאמר מזהמין את הולד לוי פסול מיקרי,מר בריה דרב יוסף אמר משמיה דרבא לעולם דאיעבר מישראל ושאני התם דאמר קרא פטר רחם בפטר רחם תלא רחמנא,תנן מי שהיו לו בנים ונשא אשה שלא ילדה נתגיירה מעוברת נשתחררה מעוברת,וילדה היא וכהנת היא ולויה היא ואשה שכבר ילדה וכן מי שלא שהתה אחרי בעלה ג' חדשים ונשאת וילדה ואין ידוע אם בן ט' לראשון אם בן ז' לאחרון בכור לכהן ואינו בכור לנחלה,מכלל דכהונה ולויה פטורין דאיעבר ממאן אילימא דאיעבר מכהן ולוי אי הכי מאי איריא כהנת ולויה אפי' בת ישראל נמי,אלא דאיעבר מעובד כוכבים כהנת פטורה והאמר רב פפא בדיק לן רבה כהנת שנתעברה מעובד כוכבים מהו ואמינא ליה לאו היינו דרב אדא בר אהבה דאמר לויה שילדה בנה פטור מחמש סלעים,ואמר לי הכי השתא בשלמא לויה בקדושתה קיימא דתניא לויה שנשבית או שנבעלה בעילת זנות נותנין לה מן המעשר ואוכלת,אלא כהנת כיון דאי בעיל לה הויא זרה,הניחא למר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא דאמר דאיעבר מישראל מוקי לה בדאיעבר מישראל אלא לרב פפא במאי מוקי לה,לעולם דאיעבר מכהן והיא בת ישראל ואמאי קרי לה כהנת דבנה כהן | 47a. The requirement of b “He shall recognize” /b with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, b and the recognition of /b a husband’s b face, /b are b discrete /b matters.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i engaged in a dispute concerning the case of a man who b had children when he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted: Rabbi Yoḥa says he does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b i.e., a son who is his firstborn after his conversion does not inherit a double portion; b and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance. /b The Gemara elaborates: b Rabbi Yoḥa says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as /b this man already b had “the first of his strength” /b (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. b And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b as the halakhic status of b a convert who /b just b converted /b is b like /b that of b a child /b just b born. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b these i amora’im /i b follow their /b regular line of b reasoning, as it was stated: /b If a man b had children when he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted, Rabbi Yoḥa says: He has /b already b fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: /b He has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara clarifies: b Rabbi Yoḥa says he has fulfilled /b the aspect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply expressed in the command: b “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18), i.e., to increase the inhabitation of the world. b And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says he has not fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, /b as the halakhic status of b a convert who /b just b converted /b is b like /b that of b a child /b just b born, /b and it is considered as though he did not have children.,The Gemara adds: b And /b it is b necessary /b to state their opinions in both cases. b As, if it were stated /b only b in that first /b case with regard to inheritance, perhaps it is only b in that /b case that b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says /b his opinion that the first son born after conversion inherits a double portion, b because in their gentile state they are not subject to /b the i halakhot /i of b inheritance. But with regard to that /b case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, b say he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥa that /b since the verse states: b “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited,” and he has /b indeed b performed /b an action that enables the world to be further b inhabited, /b he has therefore fulfilled the mitzva., b And /b conversely, b if /b their dispute b were stated /b only b with regard to this /b mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, perhaps it is only b in this /b case that b Rabbi Yoḥa says /b his opinion, due to the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited.” b But with regard to that /b case of inheritance, b say he concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish /b that sons born when one was a gentile are disregarded. Consequently, it is b necessary /b to teach their opinions in both disputes.,The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa: b We learned /b in the mishna: b One who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; /b or if he married a woman who gave birth when b she was still /b a Canaanite b maidservant and she was /b then b emancipated; /b or one who gave birth when b she was still a gentile and she /b then b converted, and when /b the maidservant or the gentile b came to /b join b the Jewish people she gave birth /b to a male, that b offspring is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to /b redemption from b a priest. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This maidservant or convert, whose child that was born when she came to join the Jewish people is a firstborn for inheritance, b from whom, /b i.e., from what type of father, b did she bear /b him? b If we say /b she bore him b from a Jew who did not /b previously b have sons, /b the initial subject of this clause of the mishna, b why /b does it make reference b specifically /b to b a gentile or a maidservant, /b indicating that this son is a firstborn for inheritance because the ones born when she was not Jewish are disregarded? The i halakha /i would be the same b even /b with regard to b a Jewish woman /b who had already given birth., b Rather, is /b the mishna b not /b referring to two distinct cases? The first concerns a man who already had children before converting, and then marries a Jew who has already given birth to children, while the second involves a woman who had children when she was a maidservant or a gentile, and when she became Jewish she bore a child b from /b one like her, b a convert who had sons /b when he was a gentile b and /b then b converted. And /b the mishna b teaches /b that this son b is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b which apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa.,The Gemara answers: b No; actually, /b her child was born b from a Jew who did not have sons, and /b the reason the mishna makes reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant is not due to the case of inheritance. Rather, it b was necessary for /b the clause: But b is not a firstborn with regard to /b redemption from b a priest. /b ,This statement serves b to exclude /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: /b That son b is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to /b redemption from b a priest, as it is stated: /b “Whatever b opens the womb among /b the children of b Israel” /b (Exodus 13:2), i.e., one is not considered a firstborn b unless he opens the womb /b of a woman b from the Jewish people, /b and therefore the children that she bore before she converted are not considered to have opened her womb. Therefore, the first i tanna /i of the mishna b teaches us that /b he is b not /b a firstborn with regard to redemption, as his mother’s womb was already opened when she was a gentile.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof against Rabbi Yoḥa from a i baraita /i : b If /b a man b had sons when he was a gentile and he converted, /b and then fathered more sons, b he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Ravina says, and some say /b it is b Rav Aḥa /b who says: b This /b ruling b is certainly /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says /b that the phrase in the verse “whatever b opens the womb among /b the children of b Israel” /b means it is not a firstborn b unless it opens the womb /b of a woman b from the Jewish people. And /b he b derives his /b i halakha /i , that of a gentile who converted, b from her /b i halakha /i , that of a female convert, that one does not take into account the children born before they converted. Rabbi Yoḥa may hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.,§ b Rav Adda bar Ahava says: /b With regard to the daughter of b a Levite who gave birth /b to a firstborn boy, b her son is exempt from /b the obligation to give b five i sela /i /b coins to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered to be the son of a Levite and Levites are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara asks: b From whom did she become pregt? If we say that she became pregt from a priest or a Levite, why /b does Rav Adda bar Ahava refer b specifically /b to the daughter of b a Levite? /b The i halakha /i would be the same b even /b for b an Israelite woman /b who became pregt from a priest or a Levite., b Rather, /b Rav Adda bar Ahava must be referring to a case b where /b the daughter of a Levite b became pregt from an Israelite. /b But if so, why is the son’s status determined by his mother’s status in this instance? After all, b it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” /b (Numbers 1:2), which indicates that the lineage of a Jewish family follows the father rather than the mother., b Rav Pappa says: /b This is referring to the daughter of a Levite b who became pregt from a gentile. /b In such a case, the son’s status is determined by that of the mother, and therefore the son is exempt from the redemption of the firstborn. b And do not say /b this is the i halakha /i only b according to the one who says /b that in such a situation b one does not disqualify the child /b at all due to his gentile father, and he is of fit lineage. b Rather, even according to the one who says /b that b one does disqualify the child /b due to the gentile father, nevertheless, one also follows the mother b and he is /b therefore b called a Levite /b of b flawed /b lineage, and is exempt from redemption., b Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says /b a different explanation, b in the name of Rava: Actually, /b Rav Adda bar Ahava is referring to a case b where /b the daughter of a Levite b became pregt from an Israelite. And /b although the son’s status is usually determined by that of the father, b there, /b with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, b it is different, as the verse states: /b “Whatever b opens the womb /b among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2). This teaches that b the Merciful One renders /b the obligation b dependent upon the opening of the womb, /b and since this firstborn came from the womb of a daughter of a Levite, and not a Levite, the obligation of redemption does not apply.,The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rav Pappa: b We learned /b in the mishna: b One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; /b or a woman who b converted while /b she was b pregt, /b or a Canaanite maidservant who b was emancipated while /b she was b pregt /b and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance., b And /b likewise, if an Israelite woman b and /b the daughter or wife of b a priest, /b neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman b and /b the daughter or wife of b a Levite, /b or an Israelite woman b and a woman who had already given birth, gave birth, /b and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; b and likewise /b a woman b who did not wait three months after /b the death of b her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether /b the child was born after b nine months /b and is b the son of the first /b husband, or b whether /b he was born after b seven months /b and is b the son of the latter /b husband, in all these cases the child is b a firstborn with regard to /b redemption from b a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance. /b ,The Gemara explains the difficulty: From the ruling in the case of one whose child became confused with that of a daughter of a priest or a Levite, b by inference /b one can derive b that /b the daughter of b a priest and /b the daughter of b a Levite /b are b exempt /b from redemption.Now, b from whom did she become pregt? If we say that she became pregt from a priest or a Levite, if so, why specifically /b mention the daughter of b a priest and /b the daughter of b a Levite? /b The same i halakha /i would apply b even /b in the case of b an Israelite woman /b who became pregt from a priest or a Levite, as the son is exempt from redemption because he is also a priest or a Levite., b Rather, /b if the case is b where /b the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite b became pregt from a gentile, /b then is the son of b the daughter of a priest exempt? But didn’t Rav Pappa say: Rabba tested us /b on the following matter: With regard to the daughter of b a priest who became pregt from a gentile, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b And we said to him: Isn’t this /b the case discussed b by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who says: /b With regard to the daughter of b a Levite who gave birth /b to a firstborn boy, b her son is exempt from /b the obligation to give b five i sela /i /b coins? This ruling was interpreted as referring to one who became pregt from a gentile.,Rav Pappa continues: b And /b Rabba b said to me: How can /b these cases b be compared? Granted, /b if the daughter of b a Levite /b has a child from a gentile, he is considered a Levite with regard to redemption since his mother b retains her sanctity. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a Levite woman who was captured, /b leading to a concern that one of her captors might have engaged in sexual intercourse with her, b or /b even b if /b a Levite woman definitely b engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, /b one nevertheless b gives her /b first b tithe and she may eat /b it., b But /b with regard to the daughter of b a priest, since if /b a gentile b engages in intercourse with her she becomes /b like b a non-priest /b and may no longer partake of i teruma /i , her son from a gentile should be considered like an Israelite and be obligated in the redemption of a firstborn. If so, in what case does the mishna exempt the son of a daughter of a priest or a daughter of a Levite from redemption?,The Gemara notes: b This works out well according to /b the opinion of b Mar, son of Rav Yosef, /b citing b in the name of Rava, who says /b that Rav Adda bar Ahava, who deems the son of a Levite woman exempt from the obligation of redemption, was referring to a case b where /b she b became pregt from an Israelite. /b This is because he can b interpret /b the mishna b as /b referring b to /b the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite b who became pregt from an Israelite. But according to /b the opinion of b Rav Pappa, /b who maintains that the son of a priest’s or Levite’s daughter who became pregt from an Israelite is subject to the obligation of redemption from a priest, b with regard to what /b case does he b interpret /b the mishna?,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b the mishna is not referring to the daughter of a priest but to a woman b who became pregt from a priest. /b Therefore, her son is exempt from redemption, b and /b yet b she /b herself is b an Israelite woman. And why does /b the mishna b call her /b the daughter of b a priest [ i kohenet /i ]? Because her son is a priest. /b |
|
80. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of The Philosophers, 2.43 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 229 | 2.43. So he was taken from among men; and not long afterwards the Athenians felt such remorse that they shut up the training grounds and gymnasia. They banished the other accusers but put Meletus to death; they honoured Socrates with a bronze statue, the work of Lysippus, which they placed in the hall of processions. And no sooner did Anytus visit Heraclea than the people of that town expelled him on that very day. Not only in the case of Socrates but in very many others the Athenians repented in this way. For they fined Homer (so says Heraclides ) 50 drachmae for a madman, and said Tyrtaeus was beside himself, and they honoured Astydamas before Aeschylus and his brother poets with a bronze statue. |
|
| 81. John Chrysostom, Against The Jews, 2.3.5 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •constantine i, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service affirmed by Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 88 |
| 82. Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 188.9, 199.21, 199.46 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
| 83. Ambrose, Letters, 72.10 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •gratian, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service rescinded by •decurions, decurionate, exemptions from requirements to serve as Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 118 |
| 84. Ambrose, Letters, 72.10 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •gratian, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service rescinded by •decurions, decurionate, exemptions from requirements to serve as Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 118 |
| 85. Ambrose, Letters, 72.10 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •gratian, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service rescinded by •decurions, decurionate, exemptions from requirements to serve as Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 118 |
| 86. Ambrose, Letters, 72.10 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •gratian, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service rescinded by •decurions, decurionate, exemptions from requirements to serve as Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 118 |
| 87. Ambrose, Letters, 72.10 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •gratian, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service rescinded by •decurions, decurionate, exemptions from requirements to serve as Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 118 |
| 88. Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.11.1-30.11.4 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •patriarch, patriarchate, exemption from liturgies Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 461 |
| 89. Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 188.9, 199.21, 199.46 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
| 90. Symmachus, Relationes, 3 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •gratian, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service rescinded by •decurions, decurionate, exemptions from requirements to serve as Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 118 |
| 91. Justinian, Novellae, 37 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service affirmed by Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 86 |
| 92. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Theodosian Code, 1.1.2, 2.1.10, 3.1.5, 12.1, 12.1.59, 12.1.99, 12.1.115, 12.1.119, 12.1.121, 12.1.157-12.1.158, 12.1.163-12.1.165, 12.5.2, 15.5.5, 16.2.5, 16.5.30, 16.5.44, 16.5.48, 16.7.2-16.7.3, 16.8.1-16.8.5, 16.8.8, 16.8.13-16.8.14, 16.8.19, 16.8.22, 16.9.1, 16.9.4, 16.10.14, 16.10.17-16.10.18, 16.11.1 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •constantine i, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •gratian, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of christian clerics from decurial service affirmed by •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service affirmed by •decurions, decurionate, exemptions from requirements to serve as •arkadios, laws exempting clerics from decurial service and •honorius, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service rescinded by •patriarch, patriarchate, exemption from liturgies •liturgies, exemption from •priest, priests, exemption from liturgies Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 118, 119, 166, 169, 170, 172, 173, 179; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 423, 433 |
| 93. Justinian, Novellae, 37 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service affirmed by Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 86 |
| 94. Justinian, Codex Justinianus, 1.5.3 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arkadios, laws exempting clerics from decurial service and Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 173 |
| 96. Epigraphy, Ig Ii3, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 44, 49 |
| 98. Council of Elvira, Can., 69 Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
| 99. Epigraphy, Inscr. De Delos, 1519-1521 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 51 |
| 102. Epigraphy, I. Aeg. Thrace, None Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 47 |
| 104. Papyri, P.Tebt., 1.118, 3.2.2894 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 47, 50 |
| 105. Papyri, P.Ryl., 4.580, 4.590 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 47 |
| 106. Papyri, P.Lond., 7.2193 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 48 |
| 107. Papyri, P.Enteux., 20 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 47 |
| 108. Ostraka, O.Theb., 142 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 54 |
| 116. Epigraphy, Rhodes & Osborne Ghi, 4 Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 192 |
| 122. Papyri, De Cenival, 208, 207 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 50 |
| 123. Epigraphy, Bousquet 1986, 22-24 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 47 |
| 125. Demosthenes, Orations, 13.21-13.23, 20.6, 20.18, 20.21, 20.26-20.28, 20.35, 20.39, 20.54, 20.57, 20.68-20.79, 20.81-20.82, 20.112-20.117, 20.119-20.120, 20.127-20.130, 20.142, 20.159, 22.72, 23.196-23.203, 24.180 Tagged with subjects: •custom duties, exemption from •liturgies, exemption from •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 51; Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 40, 44, 162, 192, 229, 241 |
| 126. Epigraphy, Ae, 1955.175, 1955.177, 1971.71 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 203, 207 |
| 127. Epigraphy, Cil, 14.10, 14.168-14.169, 14.246-14.253, 14.409, 14.2112 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 54, 203, 207 |
| 128. Epigraphy, Demos Rhamnountos Ii, 167 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 48 |
| 129. Origen, Homilies On Matthew, 14.24 Tagged with subjects: •rape, exemption from divorce Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 168 |
| 130. Epigraphy, Syll. , 206, 4 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 44; Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 102 |
| 131. Epigraphy, Seg, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 54 |
| 132. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159 |
| 133. Epigraphy, Ogis, 222-223, 227, 10 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 49 |
| 134. Epigraphy, Ik Rhod. Peraia, 12 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 46 |
| 135. Epigraphy, Ik Kyme, 37 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 66 |
| 136. Epigraphy, Ig Xii Suppl., 330 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 46 |
| 137. Epigraphy, Ig Vii, 2808 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 53 |
| 138. Epigraphy, Ig Ii2, 10, 1140, 1147, 1252, 1277, 1292, 1298, 1323, 1327, 1339, 1361, 1368-1369, 1297 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 43 |
| 139. Epigraphy, Ig I , 131, 49 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 76 |
| 140. Epigraphy, I.Ephesos, 5, 1453 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 49 |
| 141. Epigraphy, I.Cret., 4.64 Tagged with subjects: •custom duties, exemption from •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 44 |
| 142. Epigraphy, Knidos, 39, 23 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 50 |
| 143. Epigraphy, Wörrle 1977, 44 Tagged with subjects: •taxes, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 49 |
| 144. Philostorgios, Ecclesiastical History, 11.7 Tagged with subjects: •arkadios, laws exempting clerics from decurial service and Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 173 |
| 145. Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion, 30 Tagged with subjects: •constantine i, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service affirmed by Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 91 |
| 146. Epigraphy, Nomima, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 44 |
| 147. Anon., Scholia On D., 21.62 Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 192 |
| 148. Plutarch And Ps.-Plutarch, Mor., 841 Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 229 |
| 149. Nepos, History, 13.2.3 Tagged with subjects: •liturgies, exemption from Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 192 |
| 150. Aristotle And Ps.-Aristotle, Ath., 57-58, 56 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 162 |
| 151. Epigraphy, Rc, 15, 22 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 47 |
| 152. Epigraphy, Marinucci 2012, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 207 |
| 153. Epigraphy, Ig 12.7, 241 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 46 |
| 154. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Sirmondian Constitutions, 4 Tagged with subjects: •constantine i, legislation exempting clerics from decurial service and •law, late roman, exemptions of jewish clerics from decurial service affirmed by Found in books: Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 88 |
| 155. Epigraphy, Erythrai, 30, 504, 31 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gygax (2016), Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, 47 |
| 156. Papyri, P.Mich. Ii, 243 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 54 |
| 157. Epigraphykloppenborg And Ascough 2011 , Kloppenborg And Ascough 2011 , 49-51, 60 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 54 |
| 158. Epigraphy, Petrovic And Petrovic 2018, 0 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 136, 203, 207, 243, 244, 254 |
| 159. Epigraphy, Ig 12.9, 1151 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 47 |
| 160. Epigraphypugliese Carratelli 1939/40, Pugliese Carratelli 1939/40, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 48 |
| 161. Epigraphy, Maiuri 1925, 46 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 48 |
| 162. Epigraphy, Ig 12.4.1, 125, 348 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 43 |
| 163. Epigraphy, Ig 12.1, 867, 937, 155 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 43, 48 |
| 164. Papyri, Sb Iii, 7182 Tagged with subjects: •exemption from, Found in books: Gabrielsen and Paganini (2021), Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, 50 |
| 165. Plutarch, Plutarch, 6.4 Tagged with subjects: •jewish state, exempted from billeting Found in books: Udoh (2006), To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine 63 B.C.E to 70 B.C.E, 77 |
