Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



746
Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 190


nan(Devarim 19:17) "Then the two men shall stand": It is a mitzvah for the litigants to stand.,"the two men": This tells me only of men (as being required to stand). Whence do I derive (the same for) a man (contending with) a woman; a woman with a man; two women with each other? From "who have the contention" — in any event. If so, why is it written "men"?,Because it is written (


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

14 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.9, 17.12, 19.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

17.9. וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט׃ 17.12. וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אוֹ אֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵט וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃ 19.17. וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי־הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־לָהֶם הָרִיב לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַשֹּׁפְטִים אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם׃ 17.9. And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment." 17.12. And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel." 19.17. then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days."
2. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 30.27 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

30.27. וַיָּקֻמוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וַיְבָרֲכוּ אֶת־הָעָם וַיִּשָּׁמַע בְּקוֹלָם וַתָּבוֹא תְפִלָּתָם לִמְעוֹן קָדְשׁוֹ לַשָּׁמָיִם׃ 30.27. Then the priests the Levites arose and blessed the people; and their voice was heard [of the LORD], and their prayer came up to His holy habitation, even unto heaven."
3. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.10 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

7.10. Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ for it is not out of wisdom that thou inquirest concerning this."
4. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 10.4-10.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

5. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 10.4-10.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

6. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 5.1-5.3, 8.1, 9.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Orda, 3-4, 2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

8. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 56.1, 56.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

9. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 4.191-4.192 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

4.191. For the genuine, sincere worshippers of God are by care and diligence rendered acute in their intellects, inasmuch as they are not indifferent even to slight errors, because of the exceeding excellence of the Monarch whom they serve in every point. On which account it is commanded that the priests shall go Soberly{42}{#le 10:9.} to offer sacrifice, in order that no medicine such as causes men to err, or to speak and act foolishly may enter into the mind and obscure its vision 4.192. and perhaps because the real genuine priest is at once also a prophet, having attained to the honour of being allowed to see the only true and living God, not more by reason of his birth than by reason of his virtue. And to a prophet there is nothing unknown, since he has within himself the sun of intelligence, and rays which are never overshadowed, in order to a most accurate comprehension of those things which are invisible to the outward senses, but intelligible to the intellect.XXXVII.
10. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 4.218 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

4.218. But if these judges be unable to give a just sentence about the causes that come before them, (which case is not unfrequent in human affairs,) let them send the cause undetermined to the holy city, and there let the high priest, the prophet, and the sanhedrim, determine as it shall seem good to them.
11. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.6. Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial."
12. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

13. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 153 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

14. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין 16b. bThe firstmembers of each pair bserved as iNasi /i, and their counterpartsserved as bdeputy iNasi /i. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as iNasi /i, and their counterpartsserved as bdeputy iNasi /i;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis saythe opposite: bYehuda ben Tabbaiwas bdeputy iNasiand Shimon ben Shataḥwas the iNasi /i. /b,The Gemara asks: bWho is the itanna /iwho taught bthat which the Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said:I swear that bI willnot bsee the consolationof Israel bif I did not kill a conspiring witness.This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order bto counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed.Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., bShimon ben Shataḥ said to him:I swear that bI willnot bsee the consolationof Israel bif you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators;if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. bAnd they are not floggedif they are liable to such a penalty, bunless they are both found to be conspirators. Andif they testified falsely that someone owed money, bthey do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b,Hearing this, bYehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to ruleon any matter of blaw unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ,as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The ibaraitafurther relates: bAll of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executedindividual, to request forgiveness, band his voice was heardweeping. bThe people thought that it was the voice of that executedperson, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai bsaid to them: It is my voice,and byoushall bknowthat it is so, bfor tomorrow,i.e., sometime in the future, bhe will die, and his voice will nolonger bbe heard.Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., bRav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as bperhapsben Tabbai bappeasedthe executed individual in the World-to-Come. bOr,alternatively, the latter may have bprosecuted him by the lawof Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: bWhoseopinion does bthis ibaraitafollow? bGranted, if you sayit is in accordance bwiththat of bRabbi Meir,who bsaidthat bShimon ben Shataḥ was deputy iNasi /iwhile bRabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was iNasi /i, thatexplains why bhehad previously bissued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥto execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. bBut if you saythat the ibaraitais in accordance with bthe Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbaiwas bdeputy iNasi /iand bShimon ben Shataḥthe iNasi /i,why did he need to make such a commitment? bMaythe bdeputy iNasiissue a halakhic ruling in the presence ofthe iNasi /i? /b,The Gemara refutes this: bNo; whatdid he mean by baccepting upon himselfnot to rule on his own? bHe spokewith regard bto joiningthe ruling of others: bEvenwith regard to bjoiningthe ruling of others, bI will also not joinuntil I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: bMenaḥem departed and Shammai entered.The Gemara asks: bTo where didMenaḥem bdepart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray.Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. bRava said: He departed for the king’s service.He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bMenaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with himto work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ bRav Shemen bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ ishevut /i] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing handson the head of an offering on a Festival bis prohibited only as a rabbinic decreebecause it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet bthe greatestscholars bof each generation disputed it. /b,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This bis obvious.Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was bnecessary for himto state it because it is ba rabbinic decree related to a mitzva.In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: bThis too is obvious.In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes bto excludethe opinion bof the one who saidthat bthey disagree with regard to the actualobligation of bplacing hands,i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. bHetherefore bteaches usthat bit is a rabbinic decreethat is the subject bof their dispute,not the requirement itself., bRami bar Ḥama said:You can blearn from here,from this dispute, that the mitzva of bplacing handsrequires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but bwe also requirethat one places his hands bwith all his strength. For if it enters your mindthat bwe do not require all his strength, whatprohibition bdoes one violateby placing his hands? bLet him placethem on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., bThe Gemara raises an objectionto this from a ibaraita /i: b“Speak to the children of [ ibenei /i] Israel”(Leviticus 1:2). The word ibeneiliterally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b“And he shall placehis hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that bthe sons of Israel placetheir hands, bbut the daughters of Israel do not placethem. bRabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to placetheir hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., bRabbi Yosei said:The Sage bAbba Elazar related to methe following incident: bOn one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placedtheir hands bon it.We did this bnot because thereis an obligation of bplacing hands inthe case of bwomen, but in order to please the women,by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, bif it enters your mindthat bwe requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength,would bwe perform work with consecratedofferings bin order to pleasethe bwomen?Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. bRather, isn’t itcorrect to bconclude from thisthat bwe do not requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength? /b,The Gemara rejects this: bActually, Icould bsay to youthat bwe do requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength,but here they allowed women to place their hands bby saying to them: Ease your handsand do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: bIf so,then the reason formulated as: bNot because thereis an obligation to bplace hands inthe case of bwomen,is irrelevant to this law. bLet him derivethe permission for women to do so from the reason that bit is notconsidered bplacing hands at all.If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., bRabbi Ami said: He stated onereason band another. Onereason is bthat it is notconsidered bplacing hands at all,as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; band anotherreason is that they allowed it bin order to please the women. /b, bRav Pappa said: Learn from thisthat anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its bsides arelikewise bprohibited, for if it enters your mindto say that the bsides are permitted,they could have told the women bto placetheir hands bon the sides,i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. bRather,must one bnot conclude from thisthat the bsides are prohibited? /b


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
accusation Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
benjamin of nahawend Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
boethusians Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
decalogue, court, rabbinic Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
elders/council of elders Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
execution Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
interpretation—see also midrash Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
jerusalem Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
josephus Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
judah ben tabbai Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
judges Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
law, apodictic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
law, biblical/rabbinic—see also, halakhah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
pharisees Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
polity Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
prayer Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
priests/priesthood Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
reproof Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
saduccees Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
sages, the Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
sectarian settlements, archaeology of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
shimon ben sheá¹\xadah Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
torah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224
witnesses, conspiring Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
witnesses, single (one) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 104
yavneh' Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 224